The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No smoking hot spot > Comments

No smoking hot spot : Comments

By David Evans, published 22/7/2008

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming: most are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Bowed but unbloodied OLO continues the fight.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 9:07:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah Taswegian. Having backed itself into its denialist corner, OLO continues to publish this kind of rubbish. Every climate change denialist should read Lambert's refutation of Evans' twaddle.

Such a shame, really.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 9:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have forwarded this article to the Hon. Bruce Scott MP who represents my electorate. This is a region with huge energy reserves of coal, gas and underground water - all with the potential to give us much less expensive fuels if allowed to reach their potential.
On a totally different point, our district in Queensland had frost and snow in November, a spring like summer and an early frost on 30th March. The reality here is that we are not experiencing higher temperatures.
Posted by Country girl, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:08:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your area is certainly experiencing some pretty heavy climate change though, Country girl. Better leave that coal in the ground.
Posted by Shadyoasis, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:22:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country girl: << our district in Queensland had frost and snow in November, a spring like summer and an early frost on 30th March. The reality here is that we are not experiencing higher temperatures >>

I live in the same district as you do, and I note that the irises are starting to bloom, the fruit trees are budding early and the birds are all doing their spring mating thing in the middle of July. Also, I've had to mow my lawn and slash my paddocks for the first time ever in winter.

Forward Evans' denialist article to Bruce the Goose by all means - he's thick enough to swallow it, I'm sure. I'd suggest you direct him to Tim Lambert's demolition of Evans' excuse for an argument too, but there's too many stats and facts there for the poor old fellow.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:58:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There we are then!

“The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.”

The Government knows that we are not convinced. They are going to spend more of our money on TV commercials - something Rudd damned Howard for doing – to try to convince us of the consequences of not spending more of our money, and charging us more just to live, to cut carbon emissions.

But still the first two posts condemn a man who: “was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005”.

With that qualification, the alarmists would have been all over him like a rash if he had said what they wanted to hear.

Last night, after seeing a couple of examples of the propaganda TV commercials soon to be aired, l switched to ‘4 Corners’ and the great hoax of the petrol consumption tablet and the perpetrator of that hoax, who conned governments, movie stars and Austrade out of millions.

It’s not just little old ladies who can be conned; and it’s beginning to look more and more that a lot of ‘smart’, ‘intelligent’ and influential people have been well and truly duped by the carbon emissions tricksters.

Unfortunately, the rest of us are also going to have to pay dearly for their stupidity.
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 11:06:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Evans isn't a "rocket scientist", he isn't even a "scientist". He is an electrical engineer that wrong some computer code for the AGO.

BTW, After this recent string of denier articles, OLO is not looking very impartial any more.
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 11:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't normally reply to comments about my comments, but since it appears that CJMorgan is unaware of the vindictiveness of our particular climate I would point out that my grandfather was born in this region in 1876 and I have a long historical knowledge of the climate. This region has experienced volatility in its climate for more than a century of record keeping. It has experienced frost in every month of the year. It has experienced a flood in every month of the year. True, June and July this year are not as cold as they were in 2007 when we measured -10Celcius, but in 2003 the weather was similar until August, when the cold weather hit with a vengeance. One has to go back to 1993 to find another winter as mild as the winter of 2008.
Posted by Country girl, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 11:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadyoasis. Why now Climate Change and not Global Warming? Surely CO@ emissions cannot produce both cooling and warming ... at the same time.

Sams. Are the denialists deniers of Climate Change or Global Warming?

CJ Morgan: Evans is a denialist of Global Warming and not of Climate Change.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 12:15:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every man and woman, and their dogs, have experienced ups and downs in their local weather. And I am not exempt. I remember long icicles from leaking taps at my old pad on the Atherton Tableland seventy years ago; in 1962, a water bag hanging on the front of the land rover frozen at camp outside Clermont (QLD); during 1984 frosts down to minus 12 on a temperature inversion-persecuted patch twenty kilometers west of Mount Bartle Frere, and a similar vintage snow-fall on the hill behind MacKay. There were both hot and cold times there and then, as there will be now.

Weather oddities do not a climate make; but the aggregate of wide-ranging weather situations over an extended period does. Plants and animals have close experience of the totality of it all, and their adjustment to overall prevailing conditions is an interesting report on fluctuations. They, at least, will honestly follow trends as they occur, unable to filter data according to their predilections. That is vastly different from those with a campaign to discredit the honesty of the scientific community
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 1:15:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some refute by Lambert.

First of all he pulls out a couple of flashy graphs which the predominant feature was, from my initial glance, a clear hot spot covering approximately 25% to 40% of the plot area, but the feature he choses to suggest is the critical signature is the tiny blue line across the top of the plot, maybe at most 5% of the area.

The next fascinating point was that the graphs were not actual data, but modelled data. I am not sure what this technique is called, but refuting an arguement about the lack of actual hot spots (which in none of his following charts appeared, the ones proving cooling), by using modelled plots which clearly show one is breathtaking in audacity.

Then the greatest point of all.

"If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models."

Having pointed out a major potential flaw in the model (when it does not suit his arguement) in which he has so much faith, he then uses the same model results to prove one and for all that global warming is definitely caused by CO2 (when it does suit his arguement).

I wouldn't mind if the end result of all this was some rabid debate in academia and/or blogland, but we are talking about destroying hundreds of billions of dollars in real world infrastructure, with absolutely no gaurantee that we will change anything.

The manner in which any questions to the orthodoxy are dealt with is stunning. Any challenges that the real world observations dont match the model predictions are treated as acceptable margins of error, then we are told with certainty that in 100 years time the impact will be X, with no range of possible results.

MOre to come
Posted by miner, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 1:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And then there is another round of model changes, back testing, and in a few more degrees of freedom so the model reproduces actual observations, but it still cannot predict the future.

Then we are told even if the model is wrong, it is good insurance, as the potential damage is huge, even if it is low risk. Well apply that brilliant logic to the following scenarios.

We should spend 50% of our GDP developing a comet shield, as if one hits earth there will be mass extinctions. Huge impact, low probability. Insurance anyone?

We should spend the remaining 50% of our GDP developing an earthquake stopping technology by stopping continental drift, as the known result of this, major earthquakes, causes huge impacts. Huge impact, low probability. In this case we KNOW the causality. Insurance anyone?

Stunning, I am getting close to the point where I will move to another country that is not so hellbent on destroying itself on the alter of feelgood environmentalism on far from proven science.

Where was all the CO2 that ended the ice age??
Posted by miner, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 1:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No-one seems to mention global dimming these days. If stopping aircraft over the US for 3 days post 9/11 could produce a 1 degree increase in temperature over the US, and given the huge increase in air traffic around the world in the last ten years, it seems logical that not only could GD could be masking a significant temperature increase, but it may also account for the apparent recent 'cooling'. It would neatly explain our cooler summers (reduced sunlight) and warmer winters (heat can't escape so readily) in the last few years.
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 2:06:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is a good point Candide. There is a theory that man made dust particles in the atmosphere have limited global warming, by reflecting off or diffusing sunlight. However it is still pollution, and does not reduce CO2 acidification of the oceans.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 2:50:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Captain of Titanic to ship's navigator. "There's no evidence of icebergs this far south this year, so no need to alter course".
Posted by thylacine, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 3:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to Evans' point, which seemed to me unduly restrained:

Al Gore, hedge fund manager and inheritor of vast riches from ruthless mining and other ventures, but supposed “darling of the left”. Al never had to work for a living and, it seems, never had to study for it either. By sloppy reference to ice core samples, Al Gore's “Inconvenient Truth” bases its claim about AGW on one of the most outlandish pseudo-scientific fallacies I have seen, depicting carbon dioxide as PRECEDING global temperature rises during past millenia. In fact, the actual evidence depicts carbon dioxide increases AFTER global temperature rises, which is a concept even the lay observer grasps in the comparison with say the human body's processes in summer or during physical exercise. Al Gore's ignorance in that case is astonishing; such basic, major error would seriously discredit any undergraduate. To grasp just how silly Al Gore really is, think of the South Park episodes about “Manbearpig”. Many commoners understand the flaws of such sloppy, but very influential, AGW pseudo-science. However, his film is lauded to the skies, while he himself is continually feted by a multitide of other ambitious, rich and well-connected people.

AGW alarmists should really check out the above-described anomalies. Like Evans I used to be a believer: now I know it is a massive con.
Posted by mil-observer, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 3:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on miner.

Evans was referring to what had been measured in the troposhere ie no warming hot spot ..nuffink.

Lambert is referring to what the models show..a hot spot.

Ergo, the models are B/S.

Now thats not hard to work out.

But wait, the models cant be wrong, so it must be the measuring tools and techniques that are up the creek.
Now where have I heard that refrain before.
Posted by bigmal, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 3:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'It’s not just little old ladies who can be conned; and it’s beginning to look more and more that a lot of ‘smart’, ‘intelligent’ and influential people have been well and truly duped by the carbon emissions tricksters.'

It certainly isn't just old ladies who can be conned. Any person believing that one day they won't have to face judgement has been sucked into the biggest con. Thank God that Christ paid the price for those willing to humble themselves.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 3:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a pity that David Evans' comments won't be read by the politicians. The Coalition has a golden opportunity to distance itself from the Labor party on the issue of climate change. Unfortunately it hasn't got the guts to take the step to repudiate climate change alarmism.
Posted by hotair, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 4:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the world has cooled since 2001 has it? Do people expect some sort of linear progression of temperature increase? It doesn't happen that way, which is why it is misleading and irresponsible to take six years of data and try to make sweeping judgements from it. Take a hundred years and you might get closer to the mark.

Check out this article and you'll see that 2007 was one of the warmest years on record.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm

Also, carbon is only one of the gases that contributes to climate change. Methane and water vapour are also signficant. Just focusing on one aspect of a system that comprises numerous factors just doesn't wash. Check out the ice-coverage of the arctic (and no it isn't reducing because of undersea volcanoes, they don't produce anywhere near enough heat), the collapse of the Wilkins ice-shelf in Antarctica, the trend in severe weather around the world, and the potential for huge methane releases in the arctic ocean due to very small rises in sea temperature. A holistic view is needed rather than concentrating on one factor here and there.

Finally, I wouldn't necessarily put my trust in an engineer who has done some carbon accounting, I'd rather listen to someone who has a broad experience of the science invovled. All those people who want to know more should check out www.realclimate.org for some science and rationale debate.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 4:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting call to discredit "an engineer who has done some carbon accounting", Phil.

Instead you would recognize the scientific meta-authority of such uber-monetarists as Stern, Garnaut and Sachs - all World Bank men - who have proven track records not in actual relevant science, but in propping up imperialist funny-money bubbles.

Buying "carbon credits", paying fart taxes or other fictitious notions is probably worse than buying indulgences from a Borgia Vatican hierarchy; at least the Renaissance popes let the people know that it was all based on faith - not "science".
Posted by mil-observer, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 6:30:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a refreshing article.

It is unfashionable to tell the truth about the global warming scam, but fortunately, David does not mind being unfashionable.

In clear language, he sets out why we should not allow ourselves to be led into severe error, by the warmists.

Remember that all life on earth is carbon based, and carbon dioxide is a life enhancing gas, a most valuable part of our atmosphere, despite the tiny proportion it comprises.

There is no proof that CO2 causes warming, but plenty of proof that it enhances plant growth, including trees and food crops. It is despicable to attempt to demonise it.

Its detractors are the likes of Gore and the IPCC, Flannery, Garnaut, Hansen, and the host of others who have proven that they cannot be trusted or believed, but are aware that a lie repeated often enough, to enough people, will eventually be believed by many of them.

I look forward to more people, like David, repeating the truth often enough, to enough people, to prove that it works for those in the right as well as those on the left.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 7:35:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indigo Jones rip, would be proud of you David Evans. Considering Kevin Rudd lived on a farm just up the road from this talented long range weather forecaster who succeeded in providing our rural community with a reliable service which we could plan our future with some certainty.
Posted by Dallas, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 8:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country girl, I am going to side with CJ and Shadyoasis. This, without a doubt, is the warmest winter I can remember in Brisbane. Last year was the warmest until now.

I ride my pushy to work, and I take a deep interest in whether my fingers will turn blue in the morning. They have in the past, and some years I have worn wear ski gloves to try and combat it. Today, smack bang in what should be the coldest part of the year, it was a toss up as to whether a jumper was needed. This is a first. It wasn't really needed for the morning, but I thought it might be a bit cooler for the ride home and that turned out to be the case.

Last summer was wet and was proceeded by a warm winter. Maybe the warm winter again signals a return of the La Nina for next summer. Here's hoping. Given the last 10 years we are due for a few. Global warming isn't supposed to effect our rainfall too much here in Queensland.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 8:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There does not seem to be many references in the public arena to the notion that reducing pollution is a good thing in itself regardless of this actual debate as to whether the science of global warming stands up. There will be benefits to Australia through cleaning up its own backyard.
Posted by Croweater, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 5:27:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Every climate change denialist should read Lambert's refutation"
Yep everyone heed the computer geek! In Lambert's own words about his blog..."I then do a little bit of research and before you know it I have a blog post"....oooh high powered stuff.

"Also, carbon is only one of the gases that contributes to climate change. Methane and water vapour are also signficant."
Here here...methane is decreasing for unknown reasons.

"All those people who want to know more should check out www.realclimate.org for some science and rationale debate"
Another fundamentalist blog. Next service at 3pm.

"reducing pollution is a good thing"
Aye but CO2 isn't pollution, ask a plant..they love it.

"There will be benefits to Australia through cleaning up its own backyard."
Not with CO2....its a globally well mixed gas. If China doesn't slow its emissions then we won't be cleaning our "backyard". Pure tosh.

The Sunday program had a good piece on GW the other day. Well worth a watch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tRhYjUAAzA4&feature=PlayList&p=E5B528AEF40106BF&index=0&playnext=1
Posted by alzo, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 9:02:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
alzo,

Methane gas is transient, unlike carbon dioxide, and is released in bursts. So levels of methane are not necessarily going to consistently increase,they will vary over time - we're not talking about a linear progression here. The amount of methane that is contained in thawing peat in the Russian tundra is huge, but even more worrying is the greater amount contained on the sea floor on the north Russian coastal shelf. Small increases in temperature of the ocean can release this gas relatively quickly.

Interesting that you consider Real Climate a fundamentalist website, when they make a habit of using science (something you may have heard of...but I'm not sure) to debunk both denialists who use selected data to prove erroneous points, and doomsayers who also use selective data to predict unlikley catastrophic changes in climate. The point here is that the site is critical of any claims from either side that are patently unsupported by the science. The fact that there are plenty more denialists who are out there using selective facts, or not understanding the science, is reflected in the website responses and articles.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Methane gas is transient, unlike carbon dioxide"
Depends on your timescale as well. CO2 doesn't last forever in the atmosphere either so is also transient. Given, CO2 lasts longer than methane in the atmosphere but methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is vastly overstated by the IPCC. There is also some debate on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. These issues are not as well understood as the IPCC would have us believe.

"Small increases in temperature of the ocean can release this gas relatively quickly."
Again same goes for CO2, sea temperatures rise so does CO2 released into the atmosphere.

"that you consider Real Climate a fundamentalist website, when they make a habit of using science"
More like faith than science.
Debunk doomsayers?...they are the doomsayers.

"The point here is that the site is critical of any claims from either side that are patently unsupported by the science."
This site was set up by Michael Mann producer of the now debunked and discredited Hockey Stick (patently unsupported by the science...except for magical tree rings). Hardly a site worthy of being called scientific. It is critical/abusive of anyone who strays from the Global Warming dogma. Science is about competing theories not a popular vote. Perhaps you could broaden your readings to something other than a religious blog.
Posted by alzo, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:36:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There still seems to be a lot of people out there who cannot separate the change in climate from the change in CO2 emmissions.

These people, who have been influenced by ridiculous twaddle like Al Gores film, are entirely unaware that climate change is not new or even unusual on this planet.

This isn't to say that the two cannot be linked. But all the evidence seems to be lacking.

CJ,

This article, or one highly similar was printed in the Australian last week or the week before. They obviously believe it meets the standards required of an opinion piece in the national broadsheet. I don't see why OLO shouldn't be printing it. Especially given its concise and well argued nature.

If you could direct me to this demolition of Evans' argument I would be interested to read it. Evans' points seem to me to be very easily verified and as such I would be surprised if they didn't stand up.

BTW, you are, I'm sure, aware that mowing your grass more often doesn't actually provide any evidence that C02 is changing our environment. Climate change without man made influence is as likely as , perhaps more likely than, the Alarmist favoured version of the cause of your extra mowing.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 1:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before anyone buys into the scam that IS Anthropogenic Global Warming (now being called "Climate Change" since it isn't warming any longer), this question MUST receive a satisfactory answer:

"If it's so-called 'greenhouse gasses,' including CO2, that're the cause of AGW, please explain why the polar caps on Mars are ALSO shrinking--apparently because Mars is heating up too. Did someone park an SUV 'up there' and leave it running?" So far, not a single "climatologist" has come up with an even remotely believable answer to that question. Until they do, don't believe a single assertion being made about AGW. When I was a science student, for a cause and effect relationship to exist, the effect MUST follow the putative "cause." All the data now available says that rises in CO2 levels have consistently FOLLOWED rises in worldwide average temperatures. It seem MUCH more likely that rises in CO2 are caused by global warming...not the reverse. If that's true, the eco-freaks will please stop trying to get us all to change our lifestyles to suit THEIR idea of living "responsibly."
Posted by Pappadave, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 2:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As we have seen, there are some people that are very good at snipping and sniping from their pseudo-scientific armchairs ... they are smug, flippant and generally engage in snarky and often fallacious remarks.

In reality, these people show little understanding of the science, although to the untrained these people give the impression that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they do not. This in despite them being given links and references to answer their questions and misunderstandings.

Other people are afraid of what the future has in store (for whatever reasons) so prefer to maintain the status-quo, regardless of the consequences.

It is also apparent that many people, knowingly or unknowingly, adopt a position on ‘climate change’ based on their political or ideological leaning – this is fallacy. And for those that didn't know - it was a George W Bush advisor, Frank Luntz, who coined the term "climate change" in his now infamous memo to the White House.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

David Evans says “the Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions.” These are very strong assertions from the author, I would like to see more evidence than his say-so – or is this another ‘deny and delay’ tactic as we are consistently bombarded with?

David Evans also asks:

“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise?”

There are a number of issues that disturb me about this unqualified assertion, not least the false premise or his apparent ignorance of statistical analysis. Notwithstanding, maybe we could in turn ask of him:

What is going to happen over the next decade if global temperatures continue to rise?
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 4:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a completely different perspective, which examines the geological record and processes of the earth and dismisses the IPCC approach, see the work of O.G. Sorokhtin, George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk. Their work is reviewed in a serious journal at http://www.sepm.org/jsr/book_revs/2008_revs/br_sorokhtin.pdf, and much of the book can be sampled online at Elsevier's site (sorry, I've lost the link, but got it through a google search of the authors).

If anyone has seen a refutation of this work, please advise! If not, join the sceptics!
Posted by Faustino, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 6:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS here's the link to the referred book which allows you to read much of it.

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=FbvNhOUVMBkC&dq=George+Chilingar+and+Leonid+Khilyuk&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=bCpl4TU34Y&sig=nul-4VnEFrrPi1zBXBsxujOs3eg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
Posted by Faustino, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 6:13:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If anyone has seen a refutation of this work, please advise! If not, join the sceptics!" (Faustino)

Refutation as requested Faustino. It appears that the authors have not taken the brief time scale of A/CO2 into consideration.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/fulltext.pdf

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html

In the meantime, I shall decline your offer to "join the sceptics." Thanks, but no thanks.

Cheers
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 24 July 2008 2:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This quote seems to be most closely related to dickie's purported refutation: "Both theory and climate models indicate that warming will reduce the decrease of temperature with height, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that weakens the greenhouse effect."

The above quote is from wikipedia's compilation on GW as referred in the Nexus 6 reference.

Unless I read that mistakenly, it would mean that dickie ultimately bases his refutation on faith in certain AGW-touted theory and models - along with faith in the status and institution attached to the theory and model writers' names.

So back to a fundamental question for dickie et al: what do you really think of Al Gore's (and others') grand claims about CO2 causing GW?

One funny aspect I noticed from dickie's Nexus 6 source: those who question and dispute AGW are labelled "right wing", "reactionary" and presumed to work for big-money energy interests.

IPCC's leadership and sponsorship are World Bank trusties, Al Gore's a hedge fund manager, and the west's energy producers are all locked into the scam as another way of squeezing bigger prices out of the people. Then emissions trading will open up a whole new casino of speculation - apparently the great hope of monetarist bubble-blowers.

Such then are the leading elements of what is meant to be a non-right wing / non-reactionary push in the west's strategic direction? Hmmm, must have come from some special theory and modeling on ideological trends.
Posted by mil-observer, Thursday, 24 July 2008 5:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For a completely different perspective, which examines the geological record and processes of the earth and dismisses the IPCC approach, see the work of O.G. Sorokhtin, George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk. Their work is reviewed in a serious journal" ..

Um, the "review" you link to is actually the Forword from the book - not surprisingly is supports the book's findings :-)

From the blurb: "The theory of the Earth's climate evolution based on universal chemical-physical laws of matter-energy transformation is presented in the book."

Pseudo-scientific goobledygook.
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 24 July 2008 5:36:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looks like a few folks commented on Brisbane's weather a couple of days too early. How are the fingers, rstuart? And Brisbane's coldest ever minimum was recorded around this time last year. Personal perceptions are funny old things aren't they. I keep thinking of The Goodies shaking and shivering until they realise the thermostat needle is just stuck.
Posted by Richard Castles, Thursday, 24 July 2008 9:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams _ "From the blurb: "The theory of the Earth's climate evolution based on universal chemical-physical laws of matter-energy transformation is presented in the book."

Pseudo-scientific goobledygook [sic]."

While the output of the IPCC is merely "scientific gobledegook"?
Posted by viking13, Thursday, 24 July 2008 10:07:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mil-observer

You have incorrectly accredited me with a refutation when I merely provided links as requested.

And thanks for commenting on the blog I threw in on a whim. It's titled: "Nexus 6 More humour than not."

Now perhaps I've missed your comments on Aeschbach-Hertig's rebuttal therefore, may I have them again please:?

"Rebuttal of ‘‘On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s
climate. Are humans involved?’’ by L. F. Khilyuk
and G. V. Chilingar" (W. Aeschbach-Hertig)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/fulltext.pdf

Cheers
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 24 July 2008 10:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
viking13: "While the output of the IPCC is merely 'scientific gobledegook' [sic]?

To some perhaps? It is an unfortunate statistic that a large proportion of the population doesn't have the necessary cognitive skills to grasp the contents of such documents:

"But despite better qualifications, almost half of all Australians aged 15 to 74 had literacy skills below the minimum level required to 'meet the complex demands of a knowledge society', the report said."
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/money/story/0,26860,24066415-5015795,00.html [original source: Australian Bureau of Statistics]

In terms of understanding of how science works, the stats are probably much worse. Many of the statements I've seen in these forums (such as mindless over-simplification of "carbon dioxide is a benevolent gas") support this.

Richard Castles: "Personal perceptions are funny old things aren't they."

Indeed they are, that's why we have the scientific method, and these things called 'statistics'.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 25 July 2008 8:17:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castles: "How are the fingers, rstuart?"

Very good, Richard, but not because of the temperature. I try to avoid riding in the rain in winter so there hasn't been much riding this week. If the current temperatures continue this will be warmest week we have had in Brisbane this July, which I guess just re-enforces your comment about "Personal perceptions are funny old things":

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW4003.latest.shtml

Your comment "Brisbane's coldest ever minimum" caused me to go looking on the BOM site. Those of you who think it isn't getting warming here is Queensland should look at this:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmin&region=qld&season=0112

As for your comment about last year being cold here in Brisbane - your sort of right. The average of the lows in July is 7.4, last year it was cooler at 5.8. However the average of the highs is 21.1, last year it slightly warmer at 21.3. My personal perceptions are more related to frosts. Frosts near my home = hurty fingers. We had one last year, which was an all time low. This year so far - none.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_040211.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/200707/html/IDCJDW4003.200707.shtml
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 25 July 2008 9:32:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Many of the statements I've seen in these forums (such as mindless over-simplification of "carbon dioxide is a benevolent gas") support this."

or "carbon dioxide is a malevolent gas" ;)
Posted by alzo, Friday, 25 July 2008 9:39:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams:
The skill needed to grasp understanding of the real situation and our future, is honesty.

As for honesty in science, look at the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that is situated between Fraser Island and the Swains Reef. The position of this boundary prevents GBRMPA science from studying and understanding the very food source that fed and made the Swains Reef the biggest and most dense area of coral on the whole GBR.

The southern GBRMPA boundary is presently obstructing scientific knowledge of northerly flowing longshore current transporting east coast city nutrient pollution that empirical evidence indicates is proliferating algal blooms that are smothering and killing coral on the GBR. Vital seagrass food web nursery in bays and estuaries is also being destroyed by the same, transported nutrient pollution. CSIRO has no information about the biology of the relevant eastern Australia longshore current.

Science is being stifled and gagged by jurisdiction and that is not science. In this case, consequences involve collapse of world ocean fishery food supply and resulting social and economic impact worldwide. Collapse of traditional staple food resources and associated barter trade and subsistence living in the Pacific Islands is already causing unrest and loss of peace in the region, all ignored because of no so-called scientific evidence.

In contrast, PM Rudd is about to drain five billion dollars from Treasury to deal with CO2 problems that do not exist.
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 25 July 2008 10:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Evans has had a good run for his money over the past week, however most of his assertions and assumptions were denounced and debunked in an "in reply" interview with Philip Clarke on 2GB 23/07 by UNSW Professor Andy Pitman, a director of the unis' Climate Change Reasearch Centre. Just as the GGWS was debunked and discredited by its primary climatologist Carl Wursch and latterly by the CSIRO, we need to concentrate on fact and not fiction. Just as gravity exists and we all fall, so global warming is real, and human induced emissions are the unnatural cause of deviation from the historical climate record. The only remaining theory is the extent of its impact.
Posted by sillyfilly, Friday, 25 July 2008 2:20:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams, thanks for reminding me about something that used to be called the scientific method, sightings of which are slim on the ground round here. The ideal essence of the scientific method is indifference, and the attacks witnessed here on those who question 'climate science' show it for the 'noble cause' it has become. I've never seen people so interested in "The Science"!
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 25 July 2008 4:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sillyfilly, that a good name. A silly filly can spook and suddenly jump sideways, throwing the rider upwards and momentarily in mid air before gravity takes hold. Concerning gravity, I consider what goes up must come down is not correct. Numerous space craft have gone up and are not coming back.

Is it fact human induced emissions are the only unnatural cause of deviation from the historical climate record?
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 25 July 2008 5:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From sillyf:

"...most of [David Evans'] assertions and assumptions were denounced and debunked in an "in reply" interview with Philip Clarke on 2GB 23/07 by UNSW Professor Andy Pitman, a director of the unis' Climate Change Reasearch Centre."

Stop press! Climate Change apparatchik challenges an unbeliever! Do you think Pitman might instead have said: "Yeah, CC is a pile of old bo||0X pushed by imperialist banking scammers keen to make another fake money bubble and thwart rival rising states from developing and gaining independence from the west's manipulative fiscal controls and strategic dominance"?

Funny how the most vocal and publicized of CC/GW prophets are big-money economists. No wonder so many people in the developing world spit ever more contempt at the west.
Posted by mil-observer, Saturday, 26 July 2008 6:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sillyfilly, don't get despondent about being one of the few arguing for AGW here. The points you are responding to here have all been answered. Yet on each climate article they are raised anew by the same people who raised them before.

And so we have Country girl saying it isn't really getting warmer here in Queensland. Yet there is this graph from the BOM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean&region=qld&season=0112

Others say warming stopped in 1998. This is because 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, arguably none since have been hotter. But look at any temperature graph, like the one above and clearly the trend continues. This one is in someways better, the spike in 1998 is huge:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

You will find some arguing some data set disproves GW. For example, the Argo buoys show the oceans are cooling. True, they did. And then it was discovered some had faulty pressure switches. When those bad samples were eliminated the data agreed again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

As an aside, some Argo buoys suffer ignominious fates. One was destined to become a Brisbane fisherman's letter box:

http://www.fishraider.com.au/Invision/index.php?showtopic=29738

You will find some arguing a significant proportion of climate scientists disagree with AGW, but offer no proof. There is proof to the contrary:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7639#118769

They say the IPCC report is biased. The IPCC report is meant to summarise the consensus of position of climate science. They attack the process it uses, the behaviour of the people behind it - and sometimes they have a point. But never do they even try to show it doesn't reflect the consensus.

They noisily announce every new climate model that doesn't support AGW, but expect us to take their word for it that this new, untested model is right, rather than waiting the couple of years it takes the peer review process to deliver its verdict.

Its like arguing with religious nutters. They never concede a point. And when someone blows up in exasperation, they are accused of being part of a conspiracy to "silence dissent". Fortunately they have something else in common with religious nutters. They are a vocal but small minority.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 26 July 2008 12:05:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart, sams, dickie and others.

I don’t want to believe humanity has caused this latest round of ‘global warming’ ... I want some real scientist to debunk it; they would be famous and could probably put a Nobel on their coffee table if they do.

There is much research on ‘climate sensitivity’, ‘feedbacks’ and ‘attribution’ – we should not rule out the possibility that Lindzen, Spencer or the small number of other ‘contrarian’ scientists are on to something. Personally, I am particularly interested in coupled ocean/atmosphere systems and think this has a more fundamental role in ‘climate change’ than many people realise. So, research like the above should be encouraged, supported and peer reviewed – not be dismissed out of hand.

However, the predominance of robust and vigorous science suggests that AGW is real, and it is significant. It would be wise to tread carefully, humanity is conducting an experiment that the planet has never experienced before ... and the consequences of getting it wrong would affect biodiversity of life as we know it.

Every country and government (and their oppositions) around the world know this; similarly do captains of industry. Make no mistake; the real debate is not about the science (as many would have us believe) – it’s about politics and economics, social and ideological power and control.

Corollary; ‘climate change’ is but a symptom of the human condition, it is not the cause.

In the past, major decision and policy makers around the world have been plundering the planet’s natural and finite resources in terms of ‘economic growth’, this is nonsense. The world’s leaders are now in a bun-fight on how to tackle sustainable development, not ‘climate change’.

Propagandists and alarmists (from both sides of the fence) distort and misrepresent the science for the reasons given above ... the ‘deny and delay brigade’ (see my previous post) are but a tiresome and weary distraction that must be challenged.

On a personal note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opKBF5q7mks&feature=related

The artwork is stunning, especially in real life ... but listen to the words, it’s not hard to empathise with them or the man.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 26 July 2008 5:04:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, let’s try this,

Barrack Obama’s comments on ‘climate change’.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Obama-on-climate-change--US-needs-to-set-example/340796/

John McCain’s comments on ‘climate change’.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00049&segmentID=3

China’s comments on ‘climate change’.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts

etc

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) comments on ‘climate change’.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/climate_change/climate_change.htm

Have you looked ... can you understand?
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 26 July 2008 6:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, you're dreaming if you think the Nobel system works that way. Non-conforming scientists, as with others in economics, politics and the arts, have next to no chance of getting the Nobel with its big cheque. May as well be talking about Rhodes scholarships, Churchill fellowships, or even Rotary exchange programs where family income and origin are specific prerequisites. Imperialism does not brook dissent, even at lower levels.

Like the reference to the argo buoy-letter box though: slick!

It is astounding to behold the amount of high-profile, expensive propaganda related to natural resources - and therefore natural events - these last few years. Just on local Australian issues of water and electricity supply we can see the brutal imperatives at work: privatized industries make hardly any upgrade to infrastructure, because it would deplete profits. Yet the populations have increased by as much as a million people in major cities!

CC/AGW works to much the same effect. Any apparent "consensus" or "predominance" of scientific evaluation is just that: apparent phenomena, or contrivance of preception via media.

And yes, I can understand Q&A. Especially the Guardian article relaying China's official blurbs over CC/AGW and China's softly-softly approach to rejecting imperialist emissions targets. China's leadership knows that the global propaganda has long ago infiltrated its people's minds, so they're approaching the challenge as would any spin doctor, but making sure it does not undermine its own efforts at meeting its responsibilities for its people.

The misanthropic nature of this AGW push is the nastiest aspect: notice how the anti-China and anti-India sleaze, in particular, manipulate many westerners into a vicious, nihilistic instinctive conclusion about presumed "over population". We've seen similar local nastiness before when applied to Catholic and Muslim families within the broader society under its imperialistic atheist/secular free market and hypocrite-WASP dominance. Notice too how the Guardian article confuses the matter of clear industrial pollution (dead fish from sudden toxic spill) with the long-term hocus pocus. Can you understand?
Posted by mil-observer, Saturday, 26 July 2008 7:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes rstuart there is the graph from BOM - note that the temp variation of the past century is 1 degree C.

Here's an interesting article on NASA's temps over a similar time span and how it contradicts the other 3 measurement systems. They say there has been cooling, down .6C in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/27/do2708.xml
Posted by Janama, Sunday, 27 July 2008 12:08:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rather than BOM that are full of tricks look at the Southern Hemisphere .. where we live ….. has been trendless for thirty years.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3231
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 27 July 2008 1:58:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest people read the 2007 IPCC report No 1 if looking for evidence that CO2 drives warming as the evidence is overwhelming. As for the point that the palaeoclimate record where warming precedes CO2 shows that CO2 does not cause warming, this is a bad blunder for an Electrical Engineer to make and the order of temp. and CO2 in the palaeoclimate record is actually strong evidence for CO2 warming.
In the first place, the temp. oscillations are a standard response to any system like the earth where energy is exchanged between different storage systems.(EEs study or used to study this). A change in the suns output, for example, would cause earth temperatures to oscillate and CO2 follows this in lock step(phase lock to EE). If there had been no event to pour lots of CO2 back into the atmosphere prior to say 1850, then of course there is no CO2 driving temp record and this appears to be the case for at least 600,000 years.
Since 1850, there have been increasing and now quite massive amounts of CO2 poured into the atmosphere and we are seeing the precise response expected from the record with temp. and CO2 tracking in phase lock but this time with CO2 leading rather than lagging.
All standard EE theory for systems subject to an impulse.
If the CO2 induced impulse is too large phase lock will be broken and temp. will most likely continue on its merry way irrespective pf what CO2 levels do.
Where can one place this bet with David Evans that he talks about?
Posted by John B., Sunday, 27 July 2008 4:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John B
I’m afraid you have lobbed into a site where the ‘deny and delay brigade’ treat the IPCC and its reports with contempt and the science presented therein even more so. A few of us have tried to point them in the right direction but like they say, you can bring an ass to water but you can’t make it drink.

They trot out guff from the denialist blogosphere and jump on anything media shock-jocks or the ‘Green House Mafia’ spruik. They don’t survive in real science forums because they are shown up to be, well ... somewhat lacking.

I must say, it’s quite amusing sometimes ... we have people from accountants to religious zealots (including the rocket scientist author of this article) telling people like atmospheric physicists, oceanographers and palaeogeochemists, etc, etc they don’t know how to do their job and have got it all wrong.

mil-observer
Thanks, I understand very well.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 27 July 2008 6:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yup. And Big Al Gore got a Nobel, which speaks volumes. Now there's a guru with nought but money and ego. Go back and look at Al's inconvenient nonsense with its graphs from the ice cores. Consider his emotive silliness around polar bears. It got him a Nobel.

Again notice the misanthropic tendency of AGW, compelling inevitably a claim that the earth is overpopulated due to development in China and India especially. There is a logical direction for compatible policy responses to such mixture of AGW's loose theory with basic fact: genocide.

And "all standard EE theory for systems subject to an impulse". That is to mutate and then theoretize such simple and limited context onto an entirely different one with enormously different parameters and variables.

Q&A may abuse all you like with personal taunts, mockery and smugness, but it just demonstrates further that you've dicarded your critical faculties on this issue.
Posted by mil-observer, Sunday, 27 July 2008 8:00:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Notice too how the Guardian article confuses the matter of clear industrial pollution (dead fish from sudden toxic spill) with the long-term hocus pocus. Can you understand?"

I can understand - I can.

Can you?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 28 July 2008 1:05:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A wrote: "I’m afraid you have lobbed into a site where the ‘deny and delay brigade’ treat the IPCC and its reports with contempt and the science presented therein even more so. A few of us have tried to point them in the right direction but like they say, you can bring an ass to water but you can’t make it drink."

I have to agree. You can point these guys to the peer-reviewed climate science journals, but you can't make them acknowledge what is is black & white: almost every single active climate scientist has accepted that humans are causing the current regime of climate change, and has moved on to study the impact and what we can do about it.

If you can get them to read the abstracts in legitimate science journals (which is nigh impossible in the first place), suddenly their explanation is:

(1) some tin-foil hat rant about a global conspiracy amongst climate scientists or government bodies trying to ensure their income; or

(2) some incoherent rambling about how science is a failure and should be replaced by their own mystical pseudo-scientific or metaphysical explanation of the world; or

(3) they point to one or three of the handful of climate scientists who dissent - invariably these particular scientists have links to fossil fuel industry funding.

The entire forum seems to have been reduced to the intellectual level of the Church of Scientology: there are a few intelligent people, unscrupulous, with vested interests, whipping up a frenzy amongst amongst a bunch of people that have little understanding of science, or do not want to understand, and who prefer to weave complicated conspiracy theories or repeat pseudo-scientific dogma.

PS: once again, I point out the the cooling claim is "nonsense" (in NASA's words):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
"there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."
Posted by Sams, Monday, 28 July 2008 9:02:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams: << The entire forum seems to have been reduced to the intellectual level of the Church of Scientology: there are a few intelligent people, unscrupulous, with vested interests, whipping up a frenzy amongst amongst a bunch of people that have little understanding of science, or do not want to understand, and who prefer to weave complicated conspiracy theories or repeat pseudo-scientific dogma. >>

Yup - certainly with respect to global warming anyway. That's why I mostly don't bother with OLO discussions about the subject, but it's heartening to see a few intelligent stalwarts showing up the denialists for what they are.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 28 July 2008 9:16:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams, Q&A and CJ Morgan just look at the Southern Hemisphere temps .. where we live ….. just present your opinions as to why it has been trendless for thirty years. Go on ..... just tell me what i'm supposed to be seeing here with these temperature graphs that should make me feel alarmed. While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3231
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 28 July 2008 10:46:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A pity again that personal sleights and mockery have taken over the pro-AGW orthodoxy responses: it only strengthens impressions of some over-compensation for something personal. I suppose my comments about Al Gore appear in much the same vein, but I trust that Big Al is not slumming it out on our forum. Indeed, I was hoping some of the pro-AGW orthodoxy could offer some defence for Al, but none has been coming!

Instead, could some pro-AGW folk offer a counter to the "open letter" by some 100 leading scientists to Ban Ki Moon during the Bali Climate Conference? See: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

Note that their letter vehemently opposes AGW as a counter-productive, indeed destructive, interpretation of data, with all the widespread suffering and regressive effects that could be expected if both human activity and humans themselves are deemed inherently harmful.

And before finger-pointing over "conspiracy theories", do the AGW folk believe that all - or even most - of these above concerned scientists draw from fossil fuel industry payrolls?
Posted by mil-observer, Monday, 28 July 2008 10:56:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran: "Rather than BOM that are full of tricks" ... "just look at the Southern Hemisphere temps" ... "While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests."

BOM is full of tricks? Get a grip. Let have some science references instead of links to amateur blogs. Which bit of the NASA GISS page that I posted didn't you understand?

Was it this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig3_irradiance.gif

Or this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif

Or this:

"Effect of the current La Niña on global surface temperature is likely to continue for at least the first several months of 2008. Based on sequences of Pacific Ocean surface temperature patterns in Plate 9, a next El Niño in 2009 or 2010 is perhaps the most likely timing. But whatever year it occurs, it is a pretty safe bet that the next El Niño will help carry global temperature to a significantly higher level."

or this:

"The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a)."
Posted by Sams, Monday, 28 July 2008 11:03:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mil-observer, your posts here are better than most of the anti-AGW we see, but alluding to a Nobel conspiracy to support AGW borders on outright paranoia.

And as for John B's comments on oscillations - it is a gross simplification on one level. On day to day weather there is thousands of inputs. But on the level he is talking about - energy exchange between the oceans and atmosphere he is right, there will be oscillations, and because of the size of the systems involved their frequency will be measured in years. The peak in 1998 and the levelling off we are seeing now are to be expected in such a system. Really, there nothing in the slightest bit controversial about what he said - even for the bit about David Evans being aware of it.

The implication that David Evans not taking account of it is drawing a long bow, but whatever. Compared to "Nobel is a conspiracy to support AGW" its almost not worth mentioning.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 28 July 2008 11:42:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sams, yes BOM are full of tricks and this is not just my experience. Your BOM couldn't predict the current La Niña but even more incompetently wouldn't even acknowledge it for some months. It doesn't get any more stooopid than that. We can also put the CSIRO into the tricky dicky basket as well.

You make me laugh when you call Steve McIntyre an amateur. That is absolutely ridiculous stuff and you must know it. The UAH data for the temperature charts that i asked you to comment on is hardly some amateur effort either, so once again don't avoid the question. i.e. Just tell me what i'm supposed to be seeing here with these temperature graphs that should make me and any Australian feel alarmed. This is very much your responsibility or are you just a hocus-pocus nuisance?

While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests. This is very much your reality and i'd definitely like to know the extent of your carbon sin you naughty little boy.
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 28 July 2008 4:12:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No rstuart, I did not at any point allege a Nobel “conspiracy” as you claim I did. I referred to the Nobel Prize silliness, particularly as it glorifies the seriously compromised Al “manbearpig” Gore, in order to highlight the bizarre predicament we now face in a prevailing AGW orthodoxy. The situation appears to derive from the following inter-related factors:

1. Greed from the artificial monetarist mechanisms that have encouraged unsustainable financial bubbles these past decades, especially obvious in the surreal derivatives bubbles post-1990s. Notice that proposals for an emissions/carbon trading scheme depend on claims that such devices offer opportunities for more artificial wealth, or money for nothing, as demonstrated in the market's recent binges on funny-money credit and speculation (see today's OLO spiel in that direction at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7686).

2. Consolidation of oligarchical wealth to the point of feudal absolutism. This promises even less critical, intellectual ability among the rich, whose opinions and wishes are by contrast heard everywhere at greater volume. The less powerful must ape such views just to be acknowledged (hegemony).

3. Irrational fear, in some cases exacerbated by traditional racism, within western elites' regard for development in China, India and elsewhere in the “developing world”. This impulse would better suit the “paranoia” term rstuart conjures, as recent colonialist exploiters and parasitic tourists dread the increasing potential for role reversal as the continued rise of poor countries promises to seal the fate of a degenerate, aged, migrant-dependent west. Claims about “over-population” are especially repugnant in this regard, contrasting as they do with greater distortions between the west's birth rates and life expectancy. Such implicit racism within AGW orthodoxy smacks of an instinctive, not intellectual, response.

Identifying the above motives does not mean some shrill alarm about a “conspiracy”. Powerful proponents of AGW, like those pushing the Iraq War, have been quite public and open. Their distortions, exaggerations and emotive deceptions have all appeared before us in plain view, not in some secret, backroom meeting we would expect of more furtive, discreet criminals (as the “conspiracy” definition would demand).
Posted by mil-observer, Monday, 28 July 2008 8:11:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Your BOM couldn't predict the current La Niña but even more incompetently wouldn't even acknowledge it for some months".

There isn't a "current La Niña". We are in neutral conditions, which is neither La Niña nor El Niño. It was predicted, too. Who's incompetent, again?
Posted by viking13, Monday, 28 July 2008 8:48:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran: "BOM are full of tricks and this is not just my experience" ... "We can also put the CSIRO into the tricky dicky basket as well."

Keiran: "While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests. This is very much your reality and i'd definitely like to know the extent of your carbon sin you naughty little boy."

On that note, it sounds like an excellent time to wrap this thread up.
Posted by Sams, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 9:39:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Sams. Keiran's puerile denialism exemplifies nicely why I rarely engage in OLO threads about climate change and global warming.

However, I reiterate my appreciation to those who patiently counter denialist bluster with real data from authoritative sources. Certainly, I've learned much from the many web sources you guys have provided.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 9:49:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking, it still looks current if you follow sea surface temps as i tend to do .... also Indian ocean very interesting .... see here and why no comment from you on the UAH temperature charts? ...
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo&hot.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3231

Sams says he's chilled out and feels compelled to an arrogant pulling down the shutters on this thread. This speaks volumes for his Algorian science and his profound CO2 sin.

Meanwhile we have the Ruddy mob out and about with their wong propaganda. Just see how these tax payer funded adverts show back lit cooling towers emitting clean water vapour looking so ominously dark and dirty. lol Won't be long before the penny drops. Oz is also waking up to the once Green Party that has mutated into the now Red party, exporting once viable businesses overseas and all based on superstitions. Cripes what an unbelievable scam this worship mindset creates.
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 11:15:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, we go over it time and time again. Just because you don’t understand the science does not mean it is wrong.

I remember well how just a few months ago you were saying cosmic rays were causing the GW we are experiencing and your then guru, Nir Shaviv, had nailed the coffin so to speak. I also remember well Marohassy’s thread (about Roy Spencer) and ‘deniers’ tripping over themselves believing they had found a new Messiah.

In that thread and in response to your query about temperatures in the Indian Ocean - I was about to explain the role of ocean/atmosphere coupled systems on cloud formation, SST and feedback loops – have you conveniently forgotten the Walker Circulation cells that Graham Young vehemently denied involving the Indian and Atlantic oceans? Perhaps, but your silence was deafening.

I also alluded to the Argo system – but the thread died because of the recalcitrance of a ‘denier’ ... this thread seems headed the same way.

Now you ask about the temperature trends of the Southern Hemisphere and what you are seeing, linked to in what appears to be your new found guru’s blog site, Climate Audit.

Ok, you are seeing not as much warming as in the Northern Hemisphere.

This from HadCrut3 puts it into perspective.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

What you don’t see is the differences between the hemispheres in terms of:

albedo, land/ocean surface areas, sulphate aerosols, black soot pollution, ozone, tropical/polar gradients, polar amplification, Walker Circulation, Hadley cells, PDO, ENSO, EQUINOO, NAO, Antarctic influence, precipitation rates, etc, etc.

What you don’t see are more intense and extreme weather events, loss of biodiversity and change in habitats. You certainly don’t see regional differences. Actually, when do you think Australia experienced its hottest year on record?

What you don’t understand (although it is continually presented to you) is the science that lies behind the data sets and graphs you lift from NOAA, GISS or HadCrut.

What you certainly don’t see in your graph is the threat to international security due to increased pressures on natural resources (like water and energy) or population.

Cont’d
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 2:35:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

What chance does anyone have of turning on your light bulb when you think ocean acidification means going from pH 8.2 to less than pH 7 ... ergo, no matter what we say, you will always find a way to argue 1 + 1 = 3

mil-observer

Gore (Dem) a politician turned actor, Swartzeneiger (Rep) an actor turned politician – neither have a monopoly on reducing GHG pollution.
Gore got a “Peace” prize for obvious reasons ... ‘climate change’ is threatening world peace and stability.

“Powerful proponents of AGW, like those pushing the Iraq War ...”

Please explain further because a lot of people think George W Bush pushed (even instigated) the Iraq war, he certainly was not a powerful proponent of AGW. Quite the opposite in fact ... going so far as to censor government departments and scientists from even mentioning AGW. If anyone was distorting, exaggerating or using emotive deceptions, I would have said it was Dubya himself.

Oh, that letter to Ban Ki Moon – and the names on the list. Do you really want me to explain to you why it was, umm ... ignored?

Sams

Steve McIntyre is no amateur; he aided NASA in adjusting the temperature record ... leading to AGW deniers thinking 1934 was the hottest year on record.

What many people don’t understand is that McIntyre’s efforts lead to an insignificant adjustment of, wait for it ... 0.015 degrees Celsius. It might have been the hottest in the contiguous USA, but if you include Alaska (or the adjoining Canada) ... well you can see how it was distorted given that the USA covers an area of only 2% of the planet.

Let’s be frank, McIntyre has backed himself into a corner (much like Bob Carter) whose sole aim is to discredit NASA in general and Jim Hansen in particular ... hardly very scientific, especially when there is a wealth of evidence from other sources confirming ‘climate change’.

Btw, what do you make of those people who criticise NOAA, NASA or HadCrut data sets then use them in their arguments?
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 2:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Keiran, we go over it time and time again. Just because you don’t understand the science does not mean it is wrong."
Love the schoolmarmish tone.

"I was about to explain the role of ocean/atmosphere coupled systems on cloud formation, SST and feedback loops"
Forgive us for not bowing to you omnipresent one...

"I also alluded to the Argo system.."
I thought you farted.

"What you don’t see are more intense and extreme weather events, loss of biodiversity and change in habitats. "
No

"What you don’t understand (although it is continually presented to you) is the science that lies behind the data sets and graphs you lift from NOAA, GISS or HadCrut."
You must need special glasses.

"Do you really want me to explain to you why it was, umm ... ignored?"
Please don't....in case you take silence as an invitation.

"Let’s be frank"
Why not Jim?

"McIntyre has backed himself into a corner (much like Bob Carter) whose sole aim is to discredit NASA in general and Jim Hansen in particular"
Hasn't been very hard. He's a nut.
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 3:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Q&A)> "Oh, that letter to Ban Ki Moon – and the names on the list. Do you really want me to explain to you why it was, umm ... ignored?"

Yes, go for it Q&A, don't hold back! You haven't been shy dishing out the contempt elsewhere, why the restraint over that letter? [see http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004] It's rare that I get to see around 100 science PhD-academics from a dozen or so countries collectively lambasted in stark contrast to your lionization of non-scientist/non-academic, inheritor-oligarch and hedge fund spiv Al Gore.

I don't see much point dwelling further on celebrities, or superficial binary oppositions between Al Gore (Dem)/ Steroid-Governator (Rep), etc. But consider this line from one Rupert Murdoch, infamous GW-backer and promoter of the Iraq War:

"climate change poses clear catastrophic threats" (as quoted in the Stern Review which you will praise, and in a parliamentary report which you will diss)
Posted by mil-observer, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 4:03:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, i'm sure the penny will drop some time soon but i must commend you on your wonderful penny arcade of funny stuff that you found in temperatures and what with the use of some mannesque techniques why not make up your own climate history, too. Cripes, if i put on your looking glasses i can see a Wudd , a Wong, a paddle pop, a thong, a Sonny Bill, a daffodil, a reclining chair, a drowning polar bear, a chunk of styrofoam breaking off splash or a subprime mishmash. Gawwwd it's no wonder you see these sinful CO2 emissions in everything except yourself.

Now just go back to these temp charts and tell me why the Southern Hemisphere for example has been trendless for thirty years and why we should be so alarmed because as i say there is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to a warming trend or to your "'extreme' extremes" wild nonsense. This opportunistic cherry picking of bits and pieces using some regional variations to deviously slot in human CO2 emissions as the culprit can only be interpreted as dodgy pseudo-science chasing funding. This is nothing more than selecting data that suits the cause and rejected data that doesn't. lol

There is also the issue of why current temperatures are not reflecting your IPCC's dodgy 30% increase in CO2 since the pre industrial period. It's becoming very apparent to many people that the Al-AGW advocates are pushing their agenda through emotion, ridicule, propaganda and rhetoric. They have NO proof which certainly explains their refusal to debate the issue.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 12:00:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meanwhile, snow falls in...Sydney. ?
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 1:53:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some Questions:
What is it about the physics of CO2 induced warming that you don't like or understand>
Is it Planck's equation for radiation as a function of temperature?
Is it the frequency dependent absorption and reflection of electromagnetic energy through materials such as gases?
Is it the time dependent response of an isolated system with internal energy storages to an energy impulse or step?

What is it about the data you don't like or accept?
Is it the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Is it the inexorable rise in mean global temperature especially over the last 50 years(Try a 5 year rolling average if you want to smooth out yearly fluctuations)
Is it the rise in ocean heights and average temperatures especially over the last 50 years?
Is it the much increased melting rates of glaciers, artic ice, and parts of the Antarctic ice shelf especially over the last 10 years?
Is it the shift towards the poles of flora and fauna of about 400km on land and about 1000km for plankton in the oceans?
Is it the change in characteristics of plants(eg earlier flowering) and animals(eg earlier breeding of birds)
Is it that all models have to include human induced CO2 to make the results fit the measurements?

What is is about the whole process you don't like?
Is it the climatatologists and various Universtities and agencies that have establised the case for CO2 warming?
Is it the people such as Al Gore who have popularised it?
Is it the environmental groups who argue for it?

What is it about the implications you don't like?
Is it that we will have to change our way of life?
Is it that the basis of economics has been exposed as faulty?
It it that your god has deserted you or the world or failed to make special provision for you?

What is it that makes it so hard to accept what is so obvious, well explained and is the best fit to all the measurements, and getting better, as time and more data are accumulated?
Posted by John B., Wednesday, 30 July 2008 2:50:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran
Take off your tinfoil hat and repeat 100 times: 1 + 1 does NOT = 3

Alzo
Typical of your contribution.

mil-observer
Look deeper grass-hopper.
(Hint: it's not about climate change, it's about sustainability)

Richard Castles
Do you know the difference between weather and climate?

John B.
Good questions for climate science 101. Unfortunately, some people can't even add up and have difficulty in comprehension.

The real debate is about how we (humanity) are going to address adaptation and mitigation. It's unfortunate that some people can't constructively contribute to these discussions on OLO, and no wonder some eminent people and forward thinkers are engaging elsewhere.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 7:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, it's about sustainability - of an argument. Q&A cannot sustain his case, or his own presumption in faint ridicule and/or dismissal of some 100 scientist-academics from 17 countries.

The scientists who volunteered for the petition are variously qualified in climatology, hydroclimatology, paleoclimatology, physics, geophysics, planetology, meteorology, geology, atmospheric science, oceanography, and various branches of engineering. In case readers missed it (as our media did), see: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

The challenge is still there Q&A: you offered it yourself. C'mon, give it a go.
Posted by mil-observer, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 8:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How strange the times. Everybody wants to do something about the weather; nobody wants to talk about it.
Posted by Richard Castles, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How strange the times. Everybody wants to do something about the weather; nobody wants to talk about it."

OK Richard. You go first.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mil-observer,

It is not about me sustaining my case.

Whether you like it or not, all countries of the world are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ... because all the countries of the world (regardless of their economic structure or political sway) consider climate change a serious threat to sustainability.

This 'open letter' that you continually refer to was ignored because it ran counter to the findings of the 1000’s of other equally eminent and acclaimed scientists.

There are more professional and appropriate processes and channels to address these concerns other than an ‘open letter’ produced by ideologues (and presented with fanfare at Bali) that use the blogosphere and neo-con media outlets to garner support by fallacious means.

I was wrong to assume you would have seen through this method of propagandising.

Anyway, I would prefer to engage with people who can help focus us on meeting the challenges that we are confronted with, from whatever walks of life they stem from – I am sorry that you are not one of them.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 31 July 2008 11:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, I think you just dug yourself an ideological hole. I'll try to fill it in.

Surely you know that Tony Blair was instrumental in creating the "evidence" that led the US Congress and Oz Parliament to vote for the Iraq War, despite David Kelly exposing the evidence as a fraud (then ending up dead)? The same Tony Blair appointed Gore as "climate advisor" to Britain. Then there is Rupert Murdoch's support – especially via Sky TV - for Gore's "Current TV" to promote his CO2/AGW/polar bear stuff via the internet. The cooperation between Gore and Murdoch goes back to a discussion at Murdoch's home in 2006, where the two became close associates in the global media campaign on climate change. Murdoch directly funds the climate project run jointly by Al Gore and Prince Charles (last time I checked he hadn't worked for a living either).

So what possessed you to make such bold, sweeping statements about “neo-con media outlets”, “propagandizing”, and “ideologues”?

One bizarre characteristic I find most striking about the CC/AGW push is its fake depictions of some kind of “leftist” green radicalism. On a certain level this is not surprising, because the oligarchs' media and political networks only allow avowedly “right wing” versions of scepticism (a la J. W. Howard) and opposition (Iraq War apologist Andrew Bolt, for example). It seems a heady recipe, drawing many middle class kids into the vortex, perhaps keen to have some kind of badge of cliched 1968-style “student credibility” to flash at their baby boomer parents.

Consider your own approach to dissent here Q&A. You claim that the petitioning scientists did not use the “more professional and appropriate channels” befitting their protest. But just what channels are they? If the scientists find that anointed oligarchs and bureaucrats reject all contradiction of the AGW dogma, then they have no choice but to go public, like Luther at Wittenberg Cathedral. Note that several petitioners were on the IPCC, from which executive summaries drew not from thousands of other scientists at all. Like so many, you've been had.
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 1 August 2008 7:40:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You still don't get it mil-observer,

I am not talking about executive summaries, I'm talking about the 1000's of authors of all the peer reviewed scientific papers, which far outweigh those by the 100 you rely on.

They spit the dummy because they don't like how the game is played. Just like Dubya et al and the war on the weapons of mass destruction, they play the same on the 'weather' of mass destruction.

An this rant about Blair, Howard, Bush, Gore and Murdoch ... ergo, it just proves my point ... it is not about the science. It seems you agree after all - you just did not want to admit it.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 1 August 2008 8:36:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a proper magic show for you isn't it Q&A?

You get drawn into some debate where the dubious nature of AGW motives, data and analysis becomes increasingly apparent, along with the serious precedent of public scientific dissent embarassing apparatchiks' pretences at "science", leadership, and concern for humanity's welfare. You offer some vague hyperbole about a supposedly overwhelming consensus, before (finally) deciding to apply unsubstantiated smears against a hard international core of committed dissident scientists ("ideologues", and the classic tactic of alleging disgruntlement "they spit the dummy...").

But then, hey presto! You say it's not about the science after all! Well, I've already approached the AGW campaigners' political and economic motives at length here. I identified the corrupt motives clear from oligarchs' manipulation of AGW mythology/propaganda, while exposing your own irrelevant binary "dem/rep, lib/lab" view against what is actually the most meaningful and undisputable "consensus on AGW" i.e., the oligarchs' consensus.

Oh, but that just proves your point, you say; extraordinary gymnastics.

If you reflect on the inadequacy of your agile evasions, dismissals and hyperbolic assertions, maybe you'll find that it's not really about "the politics, control, etc." either. Next time it could turn out to be about Mayan archaeological digs, or Bradman's 1948 Ashes tour, or Szechuan cooking.
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 1 August 2008 10:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A is now switching to a different issue altogether .... sustainability rather than alarmist global warming. This is where he gets his 1 + 1 + propaganda tricks = 3 i.e. delusion or is it really a degenerate return to a pre-Copernican belief in belief control system based on an ignorance of the natural world, superstitions, myths, folklores, fables, and any number of confused historical and geological events.

One question then, Q&A .... Have you been told from on high, your CO2 quota? If not then why not?
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 1 August 2008 3:48:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R . I . P .
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 1 August 2008 11:18:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read with great interest above posts .. clearly I am tiptoeing into a minefield with two opposing parties. I can't help but think you are all so focused on the minutae - measurements, hotspots etc., that you are missing the bigger, and somewhat more obvious, picture. The issue is not so much what we are putting back into the environment, but rather what we are taking out. We cannot continue to denude and rape our earth and not expect at least a murmur of protest. Obviously, I am not a scientist nor am I a tree hugging greenie. But I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. A chef knows that it is the juices of the meat that is the foundation for a great gravy. A teacher recognises the implications of early education on developing aptitude. A builder .. well, hopefully you get the point. No, Mr Rudd, it is not Australia's mandate to develop a "clean coal" program .. rather it is OUR mandate, every individual, to work towards developing and embracing a clean, efficient energy alternative that neither depletes nor poisons our environment.
Posted by el starr, Monday, 18 August 2008 8:47:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy