Yes John J, you ARE supposed to watch the Youtube “Climate Crock of the week” because it contains footage from a documentary “The Carbon Wars” and shows a repeatable, demonstrable lab experiment that SHOWS what carbon does. You can’t disprove it, so you move on to ridicule (because it’s on youtube) and, well, if that’s your strategy I may as well ridicule all your links because they’re to website “on that there internet thing.... you can’t believe everything you read on the internet!”


But by all means, ridicule a lab experiment and then divert the conversation away to a bunch of whacko nut jobs that can’t publish their “theories” in the peer review process because they don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny!

You want us to read a paper by the “Science and Public Policy Institute” which reads as a who’s who of climate retards that can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that ALL of their arguments have been debunked by the real, peer reviewed science that keeps evolving and changing with new data, while the “skeptics” are stuck in their catechisms of denialist arguments, old recycled myths and outdated papers. Theirs is a religion of denial stuck in a philosophical stance that refuses to acknowledge certain BASIC data. REAL science evolves and changes with new data, dogma doesn’t.

They trot out the same old trite one liners, old disproved papers, old misleading graphs and absolute LIES to the gullible public that belong to the “church of everything’s gonna be all right and nothing has to change”.

In the meantime we are busy watching the north pole melt, a fairly major phase-change. (Google phase change if you want to know the basic physics behind how ice melting can remain at a fairly similar temperature yet is soaking up lots of energy, but once that ice is gone, the REAL warming starts!)

These guys just “can’t handle the truth” of new data, and are stuck pushing their old beliefs. Science adapts and handles new material, these guys don’t, and can’t explain basic data.

Like that candle.

Here we go again Jon J.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Christopher Monkton's (wait, the Lord Viscount of Benchley's) 'think-site'.

The SPPI is allied to the Heartland Institute's neo-conservative right-wing 'think tank' which twice this year, held an "international" symposium on climate change - the first of which was held 'coincidentally' at the same time as the International Science Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

Heartland's second of the year's 'international' conferences was attended by; our very own Senator Fielding (at his own expense of course - but that's another story) and the inimitable David Evans (ex-Howard pin-up boy and author of your linked 'peer reviewed' paper) and the irascible Bob Carter (who along with Ian Plimer) enjoys star status with Australia's own right-wing neo-con 'think tank, the Lavoisier Group.

Anthony Watts (a TV weatherman in a previous life) is another of your links. He also has attained star status with Heartland. Watts is a regular guest speaker to their 'international' conferences no doubt because most AGW "deniers" gravitate to his blog-site and is so 'popular'.

Roger Pielke (both senior and junior) are also stars with Heartland and were instrumental in the writings and musings of the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 'report' (guess who published it) in contradiction to the real IPCC's AR4.

You want someone to respond to these "papers"? You must be joking. I only respond (review or critique) those that are submitted or published by reputable scientific journals - not right-wing think tanks or by people who are pushing their own ideological agenda.

Yeah, there's no financial motive to lie about it is there?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/03/2615551.htm?section=justin

The world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that continue to question the cause and effects of global warming.

The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) claims ExxonMobil has reneged on a promise to end financial support to the groups.

It also claims a conference of climate change sceptics in Washington, recently attended by Australian Family First Senator Stephen Fielding, was sponsored by one of the groups that received funding from the oil giant.

A policy director at the LSE, Bob Ward, first wrote to ExxonMobil in 2006, concerned about the financial support the company provided to climate change sceptics.

Last year the world's biggest oil company told the LSE's climate change institute it would discontinue funding several public policy groups whose position on climate change could "divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner".

<snip>
"Now the reason I single them out is that they have been sponsors of a recent conference of so-called sceptics which took place in Washington, and that is mostly a gathering of lobbyists and other people who reject the evidence on climate change.

"Of course it was also the conference which Senator Fielding recently attended.
<snip>

........

Mr Ward says those organisations are not informing the public about climate change.

"They are trying to mislead people and frankly we have seen these sorts of tactics before, for instance in the case of the tobacco industry, who for many, many years, funded campaigns and misinformation about the adverse effects of their products," he said.

"This seems to be a similar situation in which a commercial company is funding misinformation campaigns because there is abundant evidence that their products are having an adverse effect."

eclipse now (who sounds a lot like kulu?) who funds Grantham Research Institute. That's the obvious question the ABC always forgets to ask in their breathless pursuit of anyone with a contrary view. How will they benefit from smearing someone? How squeaky clean is their funding, is it any less scurrilous, is it objective?

Aren't they funded by some multibillionaire? Who wants to donate to green causes? So that's like asking what tobacco company finding will turn up, it's predictable.

Of course Grantham Institute has a problem with anyone questioning what they have been funded to uphold.

Look at their site and then decide for yourself, don't be fooled by the waving of arms and pointing "over there!"

Eclipse Now,

The world has been warmer than it is now; the people were healthier, populations increased, and everything was fine. You need to catch up on your reading.

There has been more CO2 in the air, too – when there was no industrialisation!

I watched a scientist the other day preaching about how those of us who have not been fooled by the human-cause hysteria should take into account new scientific advancement. Suddenly, after everything - including the weather – has failed to show what they have been calling truth, there is new scientific advancement!

I know that scientific knowledge is supposed to double approximately every 7 years, but in the last 12 months or so?

Come on!

I thought about the CO2 bogey the other night when I was reading an article about the failed attempt to clone a thylacine. We were ASSURED by scientist that it could be done. It never was, of course, and scientists at the time were very sceptical.
Harry Griffin, who cloned Dolly the sheep said: “There’s a snowball’s chance in hell of this project being successful. But as a PR stunt (the National Museum got about half a million dollars for the project), it seems irresistible.”

The man-made theory of climate-change is in the same category as the cloning of the thylacine – it’s a stunt to get money for scientists and the rent-seekers who are manufacturing wind and solar power.

It’s going to cost us big time after Rudd has finished. The gullibility of people like you is amazing.

Leigh,
Yes Co2 levels have periodically been higher in the past, but what is your point?

Do you think climatologists don’t study earth’s ancient climate history? Do you think it is not covered in dozens of peer-reviewed climate texts? Do you think greenies are not all briefed on this stuff in basic introductory books like Tim Flannery’s “Weather Makers”?

You arrogantly assume you’ve discovered some secret. But you don’t have the big picture with which to frame that tid-bit of information. You don’t know that these matters are ALL comprehensively addressed by climatologists repeatedly. Your half-assed Denialist heroes go on their crusades presenting their tired old data in their tired old regurgitation of myths on behalf of Exxon masters, and just “forget” to tell their audiences the Inconvenient Truth that climatologists ALREADY know everything they are presenting and have addressed it in the peer reviewed sources time and again. I’m so sick of responding to the same old myths.

“The gullibility of people like you is amazing.” While busy propagating idiotic disinformation and prattling on about cloning, did you happen to prove that the “Moon Landing was faked” and they really do have “Aliens at Roswell?” Such is the scale of the Climate Conspiracy you’d have us believe in. Just check the list of organizations that agree! They’re all “manipulated” into it? ALL OF THEM?

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

Meanwhile, the rest of us are just getting on with the job in the real world of physics, and chemistry, and Co2’s Radiative Forcing Equation. (Which can be demonstrated in any spectrometry lab).

If you care to share which particular bit of climate history confuses you, I’d be happy to respond. But if you’re just going to slander every scientist in the whole climate community as “in it for grant money”, then grow up! Don’t you realize that science is a competitive business, and any young scientist would love to publish *the* paper that actually disproves climate change? However, the peer-review process keeps confirming from multiple fields of investigation that this is actually happening.