Well done, Graham, another climate change sceptic given the podium while time for action ticks away.

Are we going to see a detailed rebuttal of this blog by a scientist qualified and specializing in the field? In the interest of balance, I sincerely hope so.

The author makes several snide references to the supposed pecuniary gains made by prominent AGW proponents. Again, in the interests of fairness and balance, we need to see exactly who is paying this little piper. And what pecuniary benefits he's deriving from playing the tune that provides such welcome music to the ears of big business.

Bronwyn,
Come on! There have been heaps of articles by 'global warmerists' for years and yet no real evidence has shown humans are responsible, only supposition.

Now you are whinging because a few articles now are coming forward questioning the 'religion' of AGW.

Bronwyn,
This article was posted as one of the Best Blogs of 2008 as judged by a panel. Graham was not on the panel that judged this particular piece. It was posted at Club Troppo to enable commenters to engage in a civilised debate on the topic. If you follow the links to the original Club Troppo post you can follow the debate there.
Susan Prior - ed

There’s nothing new in this piece, all of these have been addressed time and time again. In the end there will always be people who refuse to except the obvious. For those interested a quick search on the internet will find the other side of the argument... oh but then again they are just part of the big.....
Mr Evens if you want to know why sane people get abusive towards you very quickly go talk to a creationist, and try a talk about the over whelming evidence for evolution.

It's much more than a few articles, Banjo. The sceptics have consistently been given free reign on OLO, at least for the three or so years I've been posting anyway. At one stage when this issue was being debated I did a count and the articles by climate change sceptics and deniers definitely outnumbered those by proponents of the science.

This issue of balance has surfaced several times now that I'm aware of and Graham has been involved in the debate each time. I know he's busy, but he could easily end the speculation on the part of myself and others, once and for all, by revealing the numbers of articles he's published on OLO from the two sides. He hasn't done this. Why hasn't he? Because he knows the results will prove that this site is a haven for climate change sceptics.

Even if he were to publish the count, how reliable would it be? Graham is after all a sceptic himself. What he might view as a balanced article on the side of human induced climate change, others would possibly view differently.

Susan

I understand the article was a Best Blog and all. That doesn't negate the need for a balanced rebuttal. I do understand also that the editing decisions don't rest solely with Graham, so I know in fairness the comments I'm directing at him should in fact be directed at you and anyone else making editorial decisions as well.

Would somebody please tell me who these 'vested interests' are? Sceptics repeatedly talk about vested interests and how they want to change the world but no-one actually names them, or how they might benefit from promoting global energy efficiency and a close look at how we use finite resources.

How about it? Who are these people? Who intends turning the planet into a socialist nirvana using - of all things - climate change theory? Is this simply an echo of the republican meme whereby oil producers get tax breaks and consumerism is promoted as a panacea to depression? Is it a vehicle to have a dig at 'science' overall?
After all, 45% or thereabouts of Americans believe in creationism; scientists and their evil empiricism just can't be tolerated, y'know.

This is just Evans previous article on OLO recycled. I suppose we should be glad that OLO is into recycling. Evans is just repeating his falsehoods about the AGW signature yet again. The hot spot is not the signature of greenhouse warming, since you get a hot spot, no matter what the cause. The signature is stratospheric cooling combined with tropospheric warming and that has been detected. Evans' first cite Chapter 9 of the IPCC report tells you this quite clearly, but Evans pretends that it says the opposite.

All this stuff has been gone over before, in detail, again and again. See:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesnt_know_what_t.php

No prizes for guessing which judge picked this thing as one of the best blog posts of 2008.

I think Evans must present his missing hotspot theory to an audience of the scientifically trained and draw attention to their oversight. With luck he might get Colonel Pickering's response in My Fair Lady 'by jove I think he's got it'. Having demolished the case against .05% atmospheric CO2 perhaps he could then move on to why people with .05% blood alcohol should be encouraged to drive cars.

Here's a simple argument if we accept that CO2 increases solar heat retention. Australians on average cause around 30 tonnes of CO2 to be emitted into the air each year. The world has perhaps another two billion middle class like us. Most of that carbon was under the ground for millions of years. Greenhouses help tomatoes grow in the off-season by increasing solar retention. Therefore parts of the world must be undergoing an enhanced greenhouse effect. Now explain why that isn't a problem.

I should point out that this article/thread at Troppo was nominated largely because of the commentary, not because of the ill-informed and badly written original article. It is a pity there isn't an easy way to reproduce them, not just because that's where the best bits are, but because THEY are what made it one of the best posts of 2008. As it stands, it looks like David Evans has garnered the award, when that's not the case.

I suggest that next year, if a similar nomination is made and the commentary can't be copied across, that such nominees be discarded, as a matter of fairness.

Taswegian wrote;
Here's a simple argument if we accept that CO2 increases solar heat retention.

But this is surely the point. With the present CO2 level does
doubling the amount of CO2 give twice the temperature effect ?
As it is non linear each increase has a smaller effect.
The real question is at what point on the curve are we ?

David Evans, the lefts hocus-pocus "I'll put a spell on you, rants" will continue to rage until their high priests freeze over and fall into their porridge.

Hotspots have been addressed. Nothing to see here, move along. Next argument please.

As for this popycock about Alarmists and sceptics. An Alarmist is anyone who makes an alarming claim. Such as if we take action our economy will fall into ruin. Popycock and an alarmist statement.

What a short memory David has. "The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW". I remember non too fondly the period from 2001 until 2006 where anti AGW rubbish would get a full page spread and scientists trying to make a correction were ignored.

The media is the media, they like sensational and will quote out of context.

A scientifically scoped, out highly unlikely to happen, worst case scenario with lots of qualifying factors such as "If carbon emisions increase AND Solar activity increases AND land clearing rates stay the same AND gacial melt continues as is AND warming seas don't turn out to sequester more CO2 THEN the seas might rise a fair bit". Gets reported as. "The seas will rise a fair bit, this means the opera house will be under water"

David Evans - Alarmist.

Im definitely biased but I much prefer the arguments given in Climate Code Red, a book which was launched here in Oz by that well known extremist the Governor of Victoria.

http://www.climatecodered.net

Meanwhile the key to understanding Evans article is in the first paragraph in his assertion that the humankind induced global-warming advocates are promoting an anti-science medieval world-view.

Which is of course Utter Crapp, as the Black Adder told us.

And that these anti-scientists are thus intent upon a collective exercise in global social-engineering to suit their own "interests"---what interests?

If what they say is true then we are all going to go down the tubes, or suffer dreadfully.

It seems to me that the vast majority of these scientists are doing science in the best tradition of promoting the public interest.

The corollary being that only Evans and his fellow "sceptics", that is true believers, see "reality true" free of any ideological or institutional bias, theories, and social engineering agendas.

One should read Global Spin by Sharon Beder to find out what/whose interests Evans et al really serve.

Which are certainly not my interests or the interests of the billions of breathing-feeling beings on this planet.

White coated scientists have been used by the "authorities" to tell us that smoking was good for us, that nuclear radiation was harmless, and that altogether Toxic Sludge is Good For Us.

The tropical hotspot is a signature of GW? Why? Because Dr Evans says it is.

Personally it sounds like a good place to go next winter holidays.

Hi peeps
was directed to this article by David Evans from a google search, and I have to say it was one of the best articles I have read on AGW. Given that you can only evidence so many arguments within the AGW debate, I thought it referenced and nodded in all the right directions thoroughly, throughout the piece.
Well said. And I am glad there is a platform here to be heard - thanks.
Would recommend any aspiring skeptic to purchase these fine sources of information:
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner
Vaklav Klaus's "Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?
And Lord Lawson's An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming...
...as excellent expose's of the politcal and ideological [mis]use of the science...the history of the supra-national UN, the Club of Rome and more general Communitarian concepts along with a very interesting exploration of the "media" bias associated with AGW.
As David Evans suggests "a medieval outlook", I would in turn suggest a much more recent political analogy: Lysenkoism. A quick google search of Lysenko AGW heralds a few very apt criticisms of the "science" debate...one of which is here:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/parallels-between-lysenkoism-and-agw/

Anyway, it's fun being in a skeptic minority - especially when it starts to turn out you are correct!

Justin Ert

I guess the folks here complaining about the imbalance of articles on AGW are also in contact with The Age, SMH and ABC complaining just as bitterly about the total bias found there and that NO articles balancing the debate can be found - in fact I have seen only one article in 3 years that even mentioned there was another side to AGW in the Age - so why should OLO have to become like those biased outlets? Unless it's a complain just to suppress debate?

Well said Justin .. totally agree.

Dr Evans is proved correct, he gets attacked personally as soon as he documents his point of view, science should be passonless and in pursuit of cold hard facts - not this emotional blackmail about how little time we have left and we're leaving a problem for our children, hysterical rubbish, it has no place in science.

kulu - BTW, there is little research into AGW not happening, as there is little research into the sky falling, it's up to proponents of AGW to prove it, not everyone else to disprove it. There is research into climate, if that helps, but then you have to be wary of the motives of people's conclusions. What do AGW advocates get out of it, well scientists can get funding if they link research grant requests to AGW. Everyone in the MSM love disasters, bad news sells - so be wary of all the bad news, it's just people doing their jobs, that's all.

Quite simply, most scientist can guess what might happen if Carbon level increases, but noone actually know what will happen. There are so many effect of a high carbon level, it changes sunlight, wind, sea level, plant life etc, that it is impossible to know what will happen. The fact that almost all of immediate predictions had not come true, makes it very difficult for people to believe in their predictions.

As for the interesting parties
Scientist get paid $150k to $500k a year to do this research, if their research does not support global warming, they stop receiving funding.
Countries that imports Coal/petroleum etc
Countries that support nuclear power and has the expertise in nuclear reactor

Whooa - that should have been "there is little research into AGW not happening, as there is little research into the sky NOT falling", similar to arguments of why is there no research to prove there are no elephants in antarctica - it does not need to be proved, the AGW believers have to prove there is a link between CO2 and Global Warming, it's "supposed" to be a direct correlation and all the models are "supposed" to prove it - but outside the laboratory, there is a cool 2008 - so what happened? (there is no proof is there, it's all supposition?)

Clearly the variables picked for the models are wrong, the initial hypothesis is wrong - so it appears, by observation, that AGW is not happening, or each year would get successively warmer, which it is not. There may be long term climate changes, there allways have been there allways will be, so what - we adapt, we allways have.

You need to keep questioning, that's science, not adopting a belief system, that's religion.

If the facts change, e.g. every year gets hotter and hotter, and I'll continue to review it, then I might change my mind - but so far, the facts don't line up with the hysterical shouting of AGW believers, there seems to be very little reason out there in that camp, a lot of name calling and demands for control, bullies in other words.

On November 11 in this forum, Q&A accused former Australian Statistician Ian Castles of having had a few "seniors moments" lately. Behind what may appear to be an innocent, "politically correct" remark - and this is characteristic of Q&A's style - is a highly defamatory insinuation. To the best of my knowledge, despite repeated requests, Q&A has yet to substantiate this statement, or even point out the "moments" to which he was referring. A good scientist would substantiate or retract, a decent person might even consider apologizing.

I draw readers' attention to this, as it may help them assess the worth of his recent - and again unsubstantiated - statement regarding Richard Lindzen* and others having "issues". It may also help them to assess the merit of what Q&A generally contributes here.

* Note that Q&A - whoever he is - refers to Professor Lindzen, Chair of Meteorology at MIT, as "Dick", in the way a minor film extra who once handed Hitchcock a donut might subsequently feel entitled to refer to him as "Alfie".

Bennie, Richard Lindzen will tell you "who these 'vested interests' are" at http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf

Bronwyn, "balance" doesn't mean equal time for all. If OLO gives "warmists" plenty of time to state their case but finds it gets a greater number of convincing articles from sceptics, then the number of articles should reflect this.

rpg

Global warming does not mean “each year would get successively warmer” or “every year gets hotter and hotter”.

You have said you are a good engineer. If so, the comments above show a lack of understanding of trend analysis and time series statistics, let alone science.

Sorry folks - all off topic.

fungochumley (I don't care who you are) ... it seems you are harassing me on a thread before I had even posted to it.

You don’t like my comments on OLO and therefore throw tantrums.

If you don’t agree with OLO’s privacy policy I suggest you take it up with Graham Young.

By the way you are behaving, if I did tell you who I was then I would have to take out a restraining order as well – seriously.

As to your off-topic remark, just because you don’t understand my reference to ‘senior moments’ (memories of the Appeals Court Xtrata judgement wrt Bob Carter and statistics doesn’t mean others don’t.

Most people who are at all familiar with the scientific community understand that while some of us disagree about the minutiae, we more than often agree about the bigger picture.

It doesn’t mean we go all ‘huffy-puffy’ and adopt a formal salutatory position (we are still from the same fraternity, so to speak) unless we are communicating in the professional sphere and parlance.

I have always called Richard ‘Dick’ – he doesn’t object, why should you?

You will never understand the science fungo.

Dick Lindzen’s work on IRIS is commendable ... but it does have serious issues that need to be addressed – and good luck to him.

My apologies for clearly posting my last comment to the wrong thread – this was unintentional - although it hardly matters, as the debate generally gravitates to the same issues regardless of the article.

Q&A, I see no evidence of throwing a tantrum. As for you, well…

“The way you are behaving...”?

What? Asking in a public online forum that you substantiate defamatory swipes? Heavens! So threatened is Q&A that he interprets such a request as evidence of harassment and possibly physical assault. This in itself is baseless, pathetic, hostile and a manipulative attempt to “create” an enemy, which appears to be your whole MO. You can fantasise about a ‘restraining order’ to protect yourself from inquiring scrutiny if you wish Q&A, but it says a lot about your mentality, and the insular “fraternity” to which you say you belong. I wonder if Socrates ever considered such an option.

You say you don’t care who I am, and that I’m not a major player, but for someone presumably on the public purse, you seem to spend a lot of time arguing with a nobody like me. If I wasn’t, of course, I’d be put in the ‘vested interests’ category, such is the AGW game. Damned if you are, damned if you aren’t.

Thank you for at least shedding some - not much - light on what you believe were IanC’s “seniors moments”. I see no evidence that others know what you were referring to but I keep forgetting you’re omniscient. Perhaps you could have written those thorough nine words in the first place and avoided some of what you perceive as harassment.

Alas, it is still insubstantial and inappropriate. From what I read, YOU referred to the Xtrata judgment AFTER the accusation of seniors moments. In your world, it thus appears that anyone who doesn’t know, well, everything, including every judge’s ruling, every statement ever made on climate, and every episode of Seinfeld, is guilty by omission of having “seniors moments”. This is not my understanding of the expression and is a deceitful and defamatory use of it.

Cont...

...Or is it just exemplary of your grasp of logic? IanC goes on to say succinctly that he has not read the judge’s assessment and that it’s not on his reading list. So how should he have memories of it? But no acknowledgement or apology has been forthcoming.

Q&A: “You will never understand the science, fungo.”

A characteristically grandiose statement, but in this case probably true, mainly because I don’t believe there is such a thing as “the science”, which is essentially used by fundamentalist AGWers as a substitute for “the Truth”, and which if you so much as question makes you a heathen or in denial. I certainly won’t ever fully understand all of it, (your enlightened guru Al Gore says it could never all fit in a single human brain!) and would be saddened to lose the curiosity that would come with such omniscience. Are you suggesting you do? In which case we can disband the IPCC and just get you to run the show. (Paging Dr Stalin…) Moreover, I believe “the science” can only help us so far. There is more to it than “the science”.

If by Lindzen’s “issues”, you mean that he continues to work in his field, still has question marks, why not just say so. I have no problem - that is science - but as usual your language insinuated something else, and your comment remains unclarified. Could you elaborate on what those issues are? Enlighten us with your science in the name of public interest.

No, it seems you think you understand “the science”, but don’t seem to understand science itself, which is about humble enquiry, or have lost sight of it in your pursuit of something else. If you are endeavouring to convince me of anything other than your insecurity and lax academic standards, you are doing very poorly. And if this makes you feel entitled to be protected and left alone to make unsubstantiated defamatory statements, then I suggest you make them somewhere other than a democratic public forum.

I find it strange that the only bit of climate science that Dr Evans believes is the bit about the tropical hotspot being an indicator of global warming trends. Whether or not the hotspot was absent or not may or may not be subject to legitimate debate (I haven't done the research on it so I don't know) but whatever the case he seems to believe in it - so long of course as he regards it as having been absent.

If you have any doubt about where this Emmision Trading is about
to take us, read this from our very own ASX.

http://tinyurl.com/6scwpy

http://www.asx.com.au/resources/newsletters/investor_update/20090113_march_of_the_etfs.htm

The Russian Oligarchs funded themselves on the European ETFs and
others are now going to repeat their example with all sorts of
"Financial Instruments".
I would have though that we would have had enough of this immaginative
financing.

The ETFs are nothing more than a modern day indulgences.
Where oh where are you Martin Luther ?

If David Evans and his cohorts from the Australian Climate Science Coalition have any credibility at all, they should at least provide empirical evidence for their theories. But they can't,won't and haven't. Considering climate scientists appear to have no qualms with the co2 and temperature models from tree rings, ice cores and geological carbon isotope concentration, why is it that Evans et al don't understand?: continuously refusing to countenance the mass of current evidence for AGW. Climate science does not ignore the underlying natural cycles affecting our weather and climate. You know the four seasons etc. We now MEASURE increasing global co2 concentrations and increasing temperature trends that are not part of the normal climate cycle. And remembering the famous old summer science school Prof. "why is it so?". The IPCC has explained it, while Evans and rest the ICSC "Scientific Advsiory Panel" have not.