At sometime in the future, the hypothesis of global warming being man made, will either be proven fact or a dream of absolute fiction.

My money is on the fiction.

So in the mean time, some people will become very wealthy because of this fiction. In other words a scam.

yep..god made the world in 7 seven days last week and he made it flat and the sun circles it and we just don't hear enough of the other side of the arguement and there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists who stand to make just zillions of dollars out of poor people.

I find it amazing that the religion of environmentalism (as is also true of every other type of religion) can completly block out or over ride the brain's logic center.

Or is it the case that those that subscribe to religion never had a well developed sense of logic.

We can't continue to hype up our lifestyle with every type of luxury and aspire to live in 60 square homes without some kind of fraud to pay for it all . Global warming is that fraud that will enable the continuation of this lifestyle and the only plus for us 'less than 80G' is that AGW will pay off the Debt eg; the money the top end of town spent that never existed.

Rudd can't exist without AGW Tax , he will reduce welfare somewhat and Health but other tax avenues will lead to revolt in his party ; it's a no go zone .

The education "Revolution" will be a fizzer without AGW Tax how will armies of "Tin Shed" educated Uni Grads find employment in a bankrupt Oz .

CO2 is a very small component of our atmosphere , trees cannot grow without it and neither can we , can you really accept that CO2 given our planets history has not been higher than current levels before .

If CO2 is a Bear then why don't we get aggressive with it ; given CO2's affinity with water we could go Nuke Power Generation in WA and SA to pump sea water to Spray Irrigation systems over salt lakes and desert areas (that drain immediately seaward). The evaporation levels from agric. spray irrigation are surprisingly high , as this air rises because it expands and looses density relative to the surrounding air the saturated adiabatic lapse of this parcel of air is about 4.5 degrees F per thousand ft. eventually this parcel of saturated air meets a speck of dust or pollen and an ice Crystal forms the nucleus of a rain drop and as it grows heavier if falls all the while it is gaining CO2

Sorry I can't cope with the conservative mind. most still think the world is only 6,000 years old, so there now way for them to see reason about anything else.

No the far right will need to sit a the kids table for a bit longer. they can throw food and the far left sitting at the same table.
I wounder if the author is an anti HIV=AIDS too?

Kenny - 'most still think the world is only 6,000 years old '.. like many attempts at criticism those sort of comments say much more about the beliefs of the critic than they say about the article under review. In fact, reality is almost exactly the opposite way around..

For criticising global warming mythology is somewhat similar to analysis of the bible as history or a document.. It does not matter what you come up with there is always someone (or a lot) who insist it must all be completely true. Why? Becuase the priests (a few scientists who have flipped) have said so, and it is not the job of believers to question them. Anyone who disagrees is evil.

Best to leave the religious imagery to others.

Interesting "review". It leaves the topic pretty early to go on an Al Gore-bashing bender, which is the real purpose of the article.

The author is correct that the "hockey stick" has been dropped, leaving only a huge pile of other evidence for AGW. But here's a quiz for the deniers: what is the glaring omission in this article, regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

Anyone?

Curmudgeon?

Well, if you said "the NASA graph that forms the basis for Swindle has since been withdrawn, and the producer, Martin Durkin, has publicly apologised for manipulating it to represent the opposite of what it actually indicates, but that didn't stop Ian Plimer using it in his book Heaven & Earth", you're right!

Congratulations. You're better informed and less dogmatic than the average anti-science crusader.

Having taken the author to task for "Gore bashing" sancho then, in a complete non-sequitur, proceeds to bash Ian Plimer - who isn't even mentioned in the article.

One good turn deserves another, Clownfish. The article purports to be review of a doco about DDT, but is actually an excuse to attack Gore. I started with Durkin, whose film is mentioned, and moved on to Plimer.

You're conspicuously talking around the point though: the hockey stick graph was found to be inaccurate and is therefore no longer used by the IPCC.

Durkin retracted his graph and publicly announced that not only was it misrepresentative, but he had doctored it to make it so. Ian Plimer, knowing this, included it in his book anyway.

It's another signpost reminding us that denialists lie and have no regard for truth or facts.

Could say that most of the viewpoints on the above thread seem to be from city slickers, as we call them in the bush.

Though Global Warming may not happen as quckly as certain commentators may want it to, could say that Global Warming has been a possibility ever since the beginning of the Industrial Age, or when man replaced both work animals and axe-handles with mechanical monsters and the monstrous human greed that has gone along with it.

It is so interesting though there is still not much love between them, most old cockies going on 90 like myself, have to admit that the Greenies do have the right focus on the danger of mankind buggerin' up the globe.

Maybe Adam Smith foresaw it all when he warned not to let human greed over-run need, when he warned about his laissez-faire needing to be also related to care.

Cheers-BB, WA.

Mark, I think the filmmakers (and your) use of DDT as an example of environmental hysteria to be exceptionally poor. This is the wrong hammer to use on this particular nail. DDT is an exceptionally stable neurotoxin that does not break down in the environment very easily, i.e. it is highly residual, and is fat soluble and so bioaccumulates. Indeed, they are still finding residues of it in Antarctic penguins more than 30 years after it was banned for use in most countries. At the time Rachel Carson wrote her famous book, DDT was not restricted for use only on African houses. Oh no. It was sprayed profligately throughout the environment, on lakes, swamps and food crops. Insecticide resistance in pest species was becoming a serious issue, ever increasing the amount that had to be sprayed and DDT was becoming an economic liability. It is effective in Africa today because it hasn’t been sprayed in the environment for more than 30 years. Ironically, why it has been recommended for structural treatments, given that there are a number of alternatives, is what caused it to be banned in the first place- it is highly residual. This means treatments don’t have to be applied as often and become effectively cheaper.

“Immense damage” was what we were starting to cause by the profligate use of DDT, to both humans and environment and there are alternatives, they just aren’t as cheap because they aren’t as residual. I am sure that most people have not met anyone who has had DDT poisoning, but I have and it came from a structural treatment to their house. But I’m sure it’s safe for Africans if you only spray the bits they don’t touch much. Did the filmmakers tell you that serious environmental scientists as well are concerned about runoff and spills of these chemicals? My guess is probably not, why let a balanced and valid concern get in the way of a good portrayal of environmental hysteria and hypocrisy.

This film sounds like the kind of hatchet job that Ben Stein might try. Not evil, just wrong.

Bruce talks about Global Warming as a religion.

Does Bruce know that...

"with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[72]"

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

A *few* are neutral, none dissent.

On the other hand, these are just *some* of the consenting scientific organisations that agree with global warming, and you’ll find it’s all the world's most prestigious scientific organisations.

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)

The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Sancho,

Can you please provide a link to the actual terms of the apology that you claim was made by Martin Durkin, including his “public announcement that not only was [the graph] misrepresentative but [that] he had doctored it to make it so”? I'd also be interested to know the evidence for your conclusions that the graph in question formed “the basis for Swindle”, and that it “represent[ed] the opposite of what it actually indicate[d]”?

I ask these questions because, as I understand it, the offending graphic was used only once - in the Swindle documentary as shown on Channel 4 on 8 March 2007. According to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, the unamended graph appeared “to have dilated the x-axis on the right”. McIntyre emailed Durkin to inform him of this error and to urge that he correct it. Durkin “said that [the error] occurred during the graphic preparation and amended it promptly”, and McIntyre responded that “In most walks of life, if someone corrects something willingly, no complaint remains...” (see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519 , post #122).

I acknowledge that the use of the word 'swindle' in the title of Durkin's documentary was regrettable, but I'd like to see you back your strident criticisms of the film with some evidence

Hi Ian,
there were a number of problems with graphs apparently.

Try this:

"On July 5, 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks — namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years.[29]"

The assertion of the movie that climate scientists had ignored studying the sun was just absurd, a really unbelievable "What the heck?" moment of denialist propaganda. But if you're going to lie, make it a big one.

Then there's the date range of many of the graphs.

"In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like."

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

Bugsy - sorry but you missed the point on DDT. As is clear from my own article its not being sprayed generally its being used as vector control (on bedroom walls), so the problem of adaption does not apply. As I understand it, its very effective in that role. The activists are too far gone to see this.

As for the evidence against the Great Global Warming Swindle, fellas that a different program that isn't in the review.

References to the supposed pile of evidence for global warming being caused by humans is interesting in that the last piece of evidence that the warming in the late 20th century (there has been hardly any in the 21st) was in any way unusual took a huge hit recently. I'll have to send you that link from home but in the meantime here is an admission from the BBC that the world is cooling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

You beat me to it, IanC, and you've missed the point Eclipse Now, so I'll just have to second the motion:

Sancho, could you please provide a reference to where Durkin "retracted his graph and publicly announced that not only was it misrepresentative, but he had doctored it to make it so".

BTB, Sancho says the hockey stick was found to be inaccurate (not a good choice of word), while Eclipse says it remains. Where supposed to believe in consensus when you guys can't even get your stories straight.

Correction: "We're supposed..."

Eclipse Now, on the use of data, you have not commented on my question to you under Mark's previous article. Why? But Mark is right, off topic, and quickly too. Why?

Anyone see the "Brown Shirts" AKA environmental lawyers jostle the producer of Not Evil Just Wrong at the Al Gore Question and Answer session? A real insight into the character of those leading the AGW charge.

Absolutely, unbelievable. How any American let alone a high profile pollie like Al can countenance such offensive behaviour is a mystery on its own. Free speech ha.

When will the media stop manipulating public opinion and allow the public to make up its mind with balanced and objective reporting. I have more respect for a mafia hit man than the average journalist. At least he is competent at what he does.

The Science is in, what a crock. Al Gore is a contemptuous pseudo-intellectual.

Once again the Green/left have shown what tolerance is about when a paradigm they have created is rattled.

Apparently Al thinks a question session is limited to soft questions, overt displays of fawning admiration and flower throwing.

One more thing to consider. Imagine the rampant price inflation due to ETSs and Financial Stimulus Packages that will devastate the superannuation funds of everyone over 45.

Go CO2 -- more plant food, yeah.

The instigator of the infamous 'hockey-stick' had to have his records and methods dragged from him via the courts. If it wasn't for the stickablility of two Canadians, the IPCC would still be using the hockey stick lie along with all the other lies they are still putting about.

Yup,

So, when the climate change sceptics can just get around to putting forward their own hypothesis, based on hundreds of thousands of PhD hours, as to why the exact amount of pollution that is *just right* for the planet (which was doing fine before human population became significant) *just happens* to be whatever we *just happen* to make, I might have the slightest time for them.

Come on, where are the models saying that pollution is good?
How much pollution? Justified by what Hundred-year-old theory?

Any reason why we couldn't move to cleaner technology and *if required* generate some greenhouse gases later?

No? Didn't think so.

I didn't like living with messy slobs in a share house, even though they had any number of cheap exceuses to not clean up.

See the similarity?

Rusty.

< and there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists who stand to make just zillions of dollars out of poor people.>
Posted by E.Sykes, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 9:32:55 AM

Scam artist don't make money from poor people, because poor people don't have any, they make money from those who are guilible enough to give them money in the belief that it will help the poor.

Basically the great swindle is going make yours and my life much more expensive, for very little, if any gain. It will the blue and white collar workers who wil be the ones who are hit the hardest.

I didn't miss any point you were making Mark, I understand everything you are saying. Calling the environmental problem with DDT a "cancer scare" is to trivialise what serious problem it was and could have been.

The fact is the activists in Africa have a serious concern over the return of use of such a chemical. This concern is backed by science and history and is held by many environmental scientists. It is valid and serious.

It is very easy to point at shrill activists from any cause or position and say, "oh those poor deluded souls, don't they see the risk-reward trade-off?" and then proceed to tarnish the whole opposition to your position as being similar in scope. You can pretend that these people are the ones in the drivers seat, but the fact is they aren't. Decisions are made by politicians and other people who like to put on their serious hats. Real data is generated and analysed by people with serious and thoughtful demeanours who take painstaking attention to detail. These are the real people you have to deal with Mark, not the bloggers or persons who express an extreme and unthoughtful view on what's happening or activists in Africa. They may be deluded in the extremity of their position, but that doesn't negate the seriousness of their concern.

So when did you do your study on insecticide resistance evolution Mark?..."so the problem of adaption does not apply". Any time there is a selection pressure the 'problem of adaption' applies, the fact that it is a targeted and limited use only delays the development of resistance, not reduce it to irrelevance.

To Cowboy Joe: I share your views on the average journalist, and Mark's about the most average I've read in a while.

Bugsy - come now do try to be polite. That adaption doesn't apply is obvious. What explanation is required? DDT is not being used on the general population of insects, just in the houses, ergo there is no chance for the general population to adapt. The problem of insect adaption to insecticides, as you know, is well studied. You speak of risks. There are some but there is risk-reward trade off. In those cases the rewards are well worth the risks. DDT's reputation, as you know, was wildly over-blown but the activists cannot adapt to the new order.

Everyone - I promised the link to the enormous problem now facing AGWers and here it is.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx#ixzz0TBswVcBW

Basically key scientists have been caught supresses data which blows the AGW case away. Biffra, the main scientists involved, has responded but I'll leave you to find his response. Basically I don't see how he can justify his actions. Why supress the data? But anyway its an issue that will bubble along for a while yet..

Al Gore is a fascist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwo0f6hGEY

Al Gore seems to think that any opposing views on his fiction must be silenced. Adolph Hitler would be proud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOLT8ECko6g
This story broke on FoxNews this morning:
(certainly no other media outlet will air it)

Watch Al Gore silence environmental journalist Phelim McAleer and have him removed from the conference after McAleer..asks a question that contradicts Gore's brainwashing!

"Society of Environmental Journalists Annual Conference"

Al Gore wants to shut down factories,..destroy American jobs and end development in third world countries..(which would kill millions). Gore says the time for debate is over!

Well it seems Gore has indeed decided to shutdown all debate and decent concerning the Global Warming religion!

Man Made Global Warming is a complete LIE, being preached to us and school children in pursuit of raising American's taxes and destroying America's global competitiveness.

Point to consider:..They say they love trees and plants..(more than they love people it would seem)..but they work to lower the level of Co2...which plants and trees breath!..Does that make sense to you? Not very "Green" of them is it?

Get educated!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rPlTbalgfM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpqe_7V-AbU
corrupt data
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ow8gtr8HDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6seNLYqXhI

I don't really believe in global warming, but I do believe in our climate constantly changing, as it has since the beginning of time.

No, I don't understand all the scientific data that apparently points to global warming, however I really can't imagine that us mere humans could have any real impact on such a huge, natural event as climate change.

Oneundergod, you must live on youtube online? Why anyone would take the evidence of such a website that any moron could write on or send in videos etc, is beyond me!

Do you have a huge page of website addresses in front of you while you answer these posts or what?

Good luck to you anyway.

"So, when the climate change sceptics can just get around to putting forward their own hypothesis, based on hundreds of thousands of PhD hours, as to why the exact amount of pollution that is *just right* for the planet (which was doing fine before human population became significant) *just happens* to be whatever we *just happen* to make, I might have the slightest time for them."

Rusty, when you can explain why carbon dioxide -- which is necessary for all plants to survive, which makes up only about three ten-thousandths of the atmosphere. which is produced by virtually every living thing on the planet, and which stimulates plant growth when administered in larger-than-atmospheric proportions -- is 'pollution', then people may take you seriously.

Or not.

Just a few little snippets here: particularly for IanC and Curmudgeon.

Firstly, from Carl Wunsch,Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the chief consultant scientist for the GGWS:
"Mr. Steven Green
10 March 2007

I am writing ..about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled... Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. ..a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation. ... This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4."

And this little gem from Steve McIntyre, courtesy of Deltoid:

McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith

In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.

He had it all along , despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal"

Cheers

Sancho, as the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore has a starring role in "Not evil, just wrong". Ian Plimer does not. But as every scoundrel knows, the best form of defense is attack, hey?

bushbred, in my experience, it is those living closest to the inner-city - in other words, the most removed from the natural environment - who are the most eager proselytizers of AGW, while those who live in rural areas like I do - the people closer to the natural environment - are more likely to be skeptics regarding AGW. They are also most especially opposed to the Rudd Government's "CPRS", because they know full well that they'll be the ones paying for this latest scientific fad.

Does Sancho or any other reader have a reference to back up his allegation that Durkin "retracted his graph and publicly announced that not only was it misrepresentative, but he had doctored it to make it so"? In the absence of such a reference it seems that Sancho must have made the story up.

Sillyfilly, you need not have bothered posting an extended extract from Carl Wunsch’s letter to the chief consulting scientist for TGGWS on my account. Of course I’ve read that letter, and much of the voluminous documentation relating to a series of complaints about TGGWS to the British Office of Communications (Ofcom). In my opinion, the best summary account of the affair is Steve McIntyre’s at “Ofcom: The IPCC Complaint” (www.climateaudit.org/?p=3335) .

It is revealing that Ofcom described ‘the IPCC’ as a complainant – the complaint in question had come from four present or former officeholders of the IPCC, who offered an inaccurate account of IPCC processes. I don’t think the intergovernmental panel knew anything about it.

Sillyfilly also thinks that I should be interested in a ‘gem’ by Deltoid in which he (Tim Lambert) argues that Steve McIntyre made a big fuss about securing data that he had had ‘all the time.’ Well I’m not. I’ve read McIntyre’s side of that story in his post “Core Counts and Reverse Engineering” (9 October), available at www.climateaudit.org/?p=7328#more-7328 , and I’ll be interested to read any comments that may come from dendrochronologists, including those whose work must now be reviewed in the light of data that had previously been withheld by Keith Briffa.

Oh dear Mark, I guess someone forgot to send the memo to the entomologists. An interesting and factual article from May Berenbaum, Professor and Head of Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html

Compare and contrast these two statements:

Mark: "That adaption doesn't apply is obvious. What explanation is required? DDT is not being used on the general population of insects, just in the houses, ergo there is no chance for the general population to adapt. The problem of insect adaption to insecticides, as you know, is well studied."

May: "Genes for DDT resistance can persist in populations for decades. Spraying DDT on the interior walls of houses -- the form of chemical use advocated as the solution to Africa's malaria problem -- led to the evolution of resistance 40 years ago and will almost certainly lead to it again in many places unless resistance monitoring and management strategies are put into place"

There seems to be some conflict, who to believe? The professor of entomology or the journalist? I just don't know.

Something else interesting:

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/july/ddtinsects.htm

DDTs reputation overblown? No, I don't think so. But it appears to me that you are not so much concerned about malaria as this being a vehicle to be able to point and laugh at environmentalists. Which it isn't. Not evil, just wrong.

Mark says it all in his biography.
If my memory serves me right DDT was used EXCESSIVELY in the 1950/60. It was billed as the miracle of the age. It then turned out to be carcinogenic, harmful. This was the era of overreaction. I seem to remember this was the time that gave us the giant corporations, 'reds under the bed' and creative (manipulative) advertising. All of which are fine in moderation.
Now with testing techniques and a different public awareness DDT in controlled circumstances is acceptable what a surprise!
EVEN Mark should know that hindsight is always 20/20.

One is inclined to wonder at the point of his meandering article? Only slimy polluting capitalists are allowed to make money?
All environmentalists should weave their own clothes walk and confine their activities to a grove of sacred trees? Get real, we want almost the same as you. By your reasoning all those in vocations not jobs should work for what?
With regard to AWG, its a pity he doesn't understand physics perhaps he should read up on second law phase transmissions and ponder the probable application (AKA tipping point physics.).
As usual, poorly thought out article.

**Leigh**
evidence re hockey stick & courts?

**Cowboy Joe** said:
"Go CO2 -- more plant food, yeah."
No, excess Co2 can actually hurt plants. Sorry. Also, can you please explain the physics of sunlight hitting the earth, bouncing off as heat, and what Co2 does with this heat? How do they actually test the refracting properties of Co2 and methane and other Co2 gases? If you chase that up for us, and demonstrate why the majority opinion on the Radiative Forcing Equation is wrong, that would be great thanks.

**Mark**
You mention the "global cooling" scare of the 1970's. Can you please outline for us how many climatologist institutes and science academies concurred with this theory, or was it a few lone voices in the wilderness? Or even more likely, was it a huge media beat-up of just a few opinions?

To answer these questions, try here.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

"Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."

Hey Mark, isn't that a bit of an "Oops" moment for ya old pal?

*AND* I'll add that it is over 40 years since some of these papers and the science HAS evolved since then. Climate change has been vigorously studied by countless thousands of papers. The Denialist can only really be trying to make the insulting argument that "ALL climatologists must be morons, because look what they ALL said back in the 1970's". What a crock!

But hey, it's a movie review, so you're not responsible for peddling this rubbish are you? You can spread THEIR misinformation around without being accountable for it yourself... is that how your conscience deals with spreading outright denialist propaganda and lies

Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday

Scientists once predict that man couldn't fly, because it would be impossible to breathe once he left the ground, the same was said about travelling in motor vechiles that if they travelled too fast man would not be able to breathe. I think the speed was set at around 40 miles per hour.

The point is that scientific hypothesis is not all that reliable or accurate.

>> The point is that scientific hypothesis is not all that reliable or accurate.

i agree. enough of this bowing to authority! let's all try bowing to journalist blowhards, see how that works out.

Just to put a toe into radiative forcing.

"The change is computed based on "unperturbed" values, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the measured difference relative to a base period. For radiative forcings for the industrial era, it is customary to take the year 1750 as the defined starting point." Source Wikipedi

So the IPCC defined the changes in radiative forcing based upon a value that they defined. Could this be significant? Defining the parameters so that the outcome is as one hopes for? Similar to different researchers creating 13 computer models (not one of which agrees with the other)and running 'what if' scenarios until the output agrees with ones hypothesis, paranoia or hate for capitalism. Could even be more than one I suppose.

"Customary to start at 1750." Yep just as it was customary to start at date that would create the hockey stick effect.

Because if they went back 10,000 years or more there would be CO2 levels higher than the inherent levels that are supposed to be creating the rising temperatures.

I would imagine a sudden increase in CO2 could damage plant life. But as has been noted Chicken Little has been on the warming campaign since the 70s. A gradual increase in CO2 over 40 years would stimulate plant growth which would increase the amount of CO2 stored in plant cells dead or alive.

Cowboy Joe, they chose the year 1750 because prior to that we hadn't *really* begun releasing masses of Co2 into the atmopshere, and the climate was *relatively* natural, get it? That is the *normal* concentration of Co2. Today's is the *anthropogenic* concentration of Co2. The Radiative Forcing Equation measures the difference, and calculates how much extra energy has been trapped. It's nice, clean physics and mathematics. Nothing sinister in it at all!

"Yep just as it was customary to start at date that would create the hockey stick effect. "
That's a bit rich coming from a Denialist who probably thinks global warming stopped in 1998. Talk about cherry-picking the data! So yeah, if you want to narrow in on a 6 year period after 1998 (ignoring 2005) you can make the argument that "global cooling" began in 1998, but if you *really* want to track climate trends, I suggest at least measuring in 15 to 20 year data sets, or why not over centuries?

"Because if they went back 10,000 years or more there would be CO2 levels higher than the inherent levels that are supposed to be creating the rising temperatures."
Absolute RUBBISH! Please quote a reputable, peer-reviewed source for this? Just today Scientific American reviews some papers that completely refute this argument.

""Modern-day levels of carbon dioxide were last reached about 15 million years ago," Tripati says, when sea levels were at least 25 meters higher and temperatures were at least 3 degrees C warmer on average. "During the middle Miocene, an [epoch] in Earth's history when carbon dioxide levels were sustained at values similar to what they are today [330 to 500 ppm], the planet was much warmer, sea level was higher, there was substantially less ice at the poles, and the distribution of rainfall was very different.""

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sensitive-is-climate-to-carbon-dioxide&sc=CAT_ENGYSUS_20091015

And now, an Ooops moment for… Eclipse Now

First his preamble –remember this:
“Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
Hey Mark, isn't that a bit of an "Oops" moment for ya old pal?”

Now follow this link to see the egg land in his face

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327254.000-world-will-cool-for-the-next-decade.html

I don’t know about CO2 –but there will probably be a lot of H2S emanating from him about this!

My recollection is that ice core samples that have been taken have shown higher levels of CO2 than we presently have.

Now this may not be believed, but I am extremely busy at the moment and will have to have a look at my references early next week if I can.

The hockey stick reply is bewildering. 20 year, or 100 year time frames? I had just suggested a 10,000 year frame and was ridiculed for it - I do not get the point you are making.

Horus,
I must have missed something, but are you really tying to suggest that Mojib said we were entering an ice age? (Ha ha, good one mate, you're *really* trying it on now aren't you?) Why on earth are you trying to connect the Denialist myth of ""They predicted an ice-age disaster in the 1970's" with what Mojib said? Did you get a bit confused when you saw the word "cooling" a few times? Can you please show me where Mojib mentioned an ice-age, because this is *really* entertaining and says a lot about the basic comprehension skills of Denialists.

Mojib's talk is actually about how retarded the Denialist media can be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8&feature=sdig&et=1255382545.77

Emails with him also clarify his position.

"[DC],

what I said is that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offsset global warming for a decade so that there may be not much of an additional warming. I showed a prediction that was published last year in the science magazine “nature”. I also pointed out that the British group issued a competing forecast for the next decade. They predict that global warming will continue at the rate of the last decades. Thus, and I made this very clear, there is quite some uncertainty about the short-term evolution. Yet we all agree that in the long run, say by 2050 and thereafter, the earth will considerably warm, if we do not considerably reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Mojib."

Oh, and this one is particularly good.

"[DC],
we showed the graph more than a decade ahead to see how long the effect of the initial conditions lasts. It is a forecast, but as I pointed out, we do not have much skill at longer lead times. It may well be that the warming will be even stronger.
Mojib."

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/an-email-exchange-with-mojib-latif/

Horus, ummmmm, how to say this, OOOOPS!

i recall a volcano released a 'burp of co2' about ten years ago...where the co2 gas filled in a hollow...and suffocated many hundreds

i also seen kids/science show blowing bubbles of our breath...onto pure co2...dry ice...in a bowl...and the bubbles float ON TOP of the co2 mist

then i recall horror movies...that use dry ice fog..hugging the ground...lol

co2 is also a poroblem in mines...it being heavier than air...it collects co2 at the base

now my suggestion is that co2...being heavier than air...HOW DOES IT GET ABOVE the atmo-spere...oxigen cant even reach a mountain top..how co2 get into our atmosphere?..simply speaking its too heavey to float your theories on

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)



Carbon Dioxide is a natural component of air at approximately 0.03 %...It is also a key component of Black Damp, caused by biological oxidation such as rotting mine timbers.

Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide replace the oxygen content of the mine air thus producing a toxic atmosphere.



Properties:

· Colorless

· Odorless

· Heavier than air

then we get to those selling the scam...mainly eco-no-mists...seeking business cetainty...are they getting free carbon credits to sell of or not

then there is the balancing that means heat is TAKEN-IN or given out with change of state...see melting ice takes heat in...less heat means its coling...the planet balances itself

ditto the oceans...co2 makes it acid...acidity melts lime..de acidifying it..neutralising the co2...then there is the oval orbit of the earth arround the sun...when we are further from the sun we get global/earthly cooling..closer we get warming...

but the earth radiates heat away...as well...recall only recebntly..the hradon collider has gotten cooler than space...we sit in a freezer

..we are being decieved/spun a new global/business securitised/tax...that changes nothing..except giving the derivitives car-bon-credit-traders.traiters...a new limited/capped security to trade in..

a 'cap'..that reduces,,,creating scare-city..and scarcity increases its price...its a dream/.nightmare-way..for the same/insane ursury/money changers...to bleed us dry

big/business..collecting MANDATED..tax..from everyone...DIRECT

Under One God forgot to take his tablets today.

You get a 3 word reply:

Rambling incoherent madness.

When all the Co2 fanatics soak up all the Co2 and theirs no froth on beer and champers wont go pop , trees wont grow and Oaks won't get leaves bloody bread won't rise Tra La La Dar deda and all the darn worlds covered with ice and your tongue sticks to your ice scream and you drop a darkie in the dunny and it bounces off the frozen water trap and stabs you right in the nuts oh my gawd Bad bad Vibes Mahn !!

Graham, what goes on here on OLO, now we have someone whose entire post is an intolerant flame. We get it that this person has anger control issues, do we need to see constant displays of it?

Under One God forgot to take his tablets today.

You get a 3 word reply:

Rambling incoherent madness.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 19 October 2009 10:23:53 AM

This person may not like or understand the post by OUG, but that's no reason to post insults.

(Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice - Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Not Evil Just Irish http://blog.noelohare.com/

ODO,

I did not mean to alienate everyone on the list by my behaviour and am sorry.

I thought I'd communicate how utterly incomprehensible that last post by UOG was.

I may be over-reacting because I wish UOG didn't try to claim he represented the Christian view of Global Warming. There are far more carefully considered, science appreciating senior Anglican figures out there that have a less knee-jerk reaction to this information.

I hope UOG has a sense of humour re my nasty post, and if not, a thick skin.

I'll try to calm it down from here on in... but I honestly couldn't understand what UOG was on about.

Regards