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 > The climate giant awakes. Have we turned a corner? > Comments

The climate giant awakes. Have we turned a corner? : Comments

By Paul Gilding, published 22/10/2009

The world is turning our way and while the climate change crisis is still coming, the crisis response may not be far behind.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Paul, I admire your confidence that, at last, things might be heading politically in the right direction but I haven't seen any science which shows that we can reach the kind of targets suggested to stabilise at 350 ppm without a massive change to our economical environment.

If you accept that such massive changes are needed then you are indeed brave to suggest that politicians of all the key countries will find this acceptable. I very seriously doubt it and such action by our world leaders will not deliver 350 ppm.

If you believe that we can decarbonise our energy sufficiently quickly to stabilise at 350 ppm without such changes to our economic wealth then please point me to the reputable science that shows this is so.
Posted by Martin N, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:35:15 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
Pardon me for being so ignorant but why is carbon dioxide being vilified?
Back in the 20th Century I was taught that CO2 is a plant food and is exhaled every time I breath. Its availability is influential on plant growth and if we are successful in reducing it there is a level below which plants will not grow. With a burgeoning world population and fewer plants being grown we will have conflicts as nations fight for the last calorie.
If we are, indeed, suffering from abnormal climate change, we should perhaps read the work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge. (per Google)
Of interest is the huge financial profit that will be made by Al Gore as he manipulates the world financiers to engage in carbon credit trading and all of its slimy derivatives. I refer to the October 22nd 2008 meeting (one year ago)in London UK where world financiers met to work out how to make the best profits out of the situation.
Of note is the recent global financial crisis where the USA financial barons caused the world financial crash.
Trading in CO2 credits or, buying and selling thin air, is leaving us all open to another great crash. Why not Google NIPCC and see what they say about the IPCC?
Posted by phoenix94, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:46:45 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
Good to see such optimism even if it is not supported by action at government level. Scientists worldwide have called for rapid and significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 in order to avoid global temperatures increasing by more than 2C. That is not going to happen.

China has announced its intention of continuing to increase greenhouse gas emissions for at least the next 20 years and the USA, Russia and India have committed themselves, irrevocably, to precisely nothing. And with unmatched perfidy, Rudd has committed Australia to a farcically inadequate 5 percent reduction by 2020 while actively supporting the coal industry and major emitters with massive subsidies.

The 20 highest emitting countries are responsible for over 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. They are fully aware of the consequences of not reducing their emissions. None of them has committed to the 2020 target of achieving 25-40 percent reduction below 1990 emission levels. Chances of their agreeing to do so at Copenhagen seem at best remote.

True, some major international companies are taking measures to reduce their emissions but none of them fall into the category of major emitters. It is good to see some commercial lending agencies giving preference to lending for low emission producers. Their example, albeit driven by mercenary considerations, may even persuade international agencies such as the Asian Development Bank, the UNDP, the IBRD and others to do the same?

However, until governments take heed of the warnings of scientist and act accordingly, it becomes increasingly likely that by 2050 global temperatures will have risen by 5C and that except for remnants of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps, the world will be ice-free, sea levels will have risen by at least 3 metres and coastal flooding will have done massive, irreparable damage.
Posted by JonJay, Thursday, 22 October 2009 11:13:52 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
Well I suppose the 'prophets' have been proved totally wrong when it comes to gw so now the debate will change to the oceans. Unfortunatly the prophets won't be stoned or even pay back a cent for the lies they have told to the gullible. About the truest thing Paul writes is 'The goal posts are also shifting in the science.'
Posted by runner, Thursday, 22 October 2009 11:41:24 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
My God...What a load of extremist nonsense.

And he is a Special Adviser to an accountancy firm called KPMG...about what and to whom would be interesting to know.

Remind me not to pay any attention to anything KPMG produces...they have already made a pigs ear out of a planning study for Greater Adelaide peddling much of the same contradictory extremist twaddle.

Multiple contextual uses of the word sustainability but no where do they define it. Extrapolations and assumptions about climate change and the future costs of electricity and the savings likely to be made, all flawed to hell—just pulling figures and assumptions out of their collective backsides.

Referring to sources that are not available for anyone to sight. Errors galore.

Just like this effort really. At least with this type work holding sway, the “Tim Flannery in Canada effect” will no doubt ensue; the more he and Flannery open their mouths the more people will be, and are being, turned off by it.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:35:28 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
Another non climate scientist blithering on .. as usual

Where's the outrage from the crowd that castigated Mark /Curmudgeon?

Bit selective are we all about authors?

AGW good, scepticism bad ..?
Posted by odo, Thursday, 22 October 2009 1:49:53 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
Phoenix94, its the level of carbon dioxide that is the problem - and its increase above a certain level has huge implications, which do not augur well for the comfort of humankind. One example: increased atmospheric CO2 is already increasing the acidity of the oceans, which adversely affects the formation of corals and the shells on crustaceans - which is an attack on the beginning of the ocean food chain. We have already depleted/destroyed many fisheries, and the acidification of the ocean makes it that much harder (?impossible)for them to recover. You are right about CO2 and plant growth - trials have shown increased growth with extra CO2 but the benefit there may not outweigh other detrimental effects. I don't think anyone is advocating a reduction in CO2 below the goldilocks level, just a retreat to back to it, if we can.
Posted by Candide, Thursday, 22 October 2009 2:17:07 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 see the usual ostriches putting their heads in the sand and making noises out of the other end.

It is good to see that some people are raising the problems of continuous economic growth. I suspect that will not happen until some time after the world's population starts to diminish more than a tad and I will not be around to see it.

While it is true that China is looking at alternative energy sources, particularly wind and solar, they are also building large numbers of coal fired power stations because it is necessary to have power when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. They still have an expanding population/economy, the latter increasing at an annual rate of a claimed eight percent. I can't see them reaching any reduction in CO2 emission any time soon.

Our own mob doesn't seem to have any useful policy on either side of the political fence so the conference in Copenhagen is not going to get any real leadership there.

All I can say is, I don't share your optimism, but keep plugging away and it might just happen. Just don't go buying a seaside house for your retirement.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 22 October 2009 3:27:42 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
One phrase in particular caught my eye.

>>China has accepted that the growth model followed by Western capitalism cannot work for them<<

Would it be possible to get a reference for this?

So far, they seem to be following the model almost to the letter. What indicators are they have "accepted" that it cannot work?

Given the opacity and complexity of the decision-making process of the Chinese government, it would have to be a very clear signal indeed, and I haven't spotted it yet.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 22 October 2009 3:42:13 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 Climate giant? Its a good story but just doesn't add up.

Seems that he is trying to make us believe we are on the eve of the arising of some great force which will change the world for the better and that he and his climate warriors are finally succeeding.

Guess he has realised that beating the old guilt drum has alienated a lot of people. Now he is trying another approach.

The truth is now that people are sick of being harangued and are turning off in droves. Guess the softly, softly, approach is seen as a way of bringing them back- but its too late- people aren't interested anymore because the Climate Warriors just didn't know how to sell the message properly. You just can't get support from Joe Average by blaming Joe Average for the worlds ills.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:03:37 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
Atman, you have hit upon the problem. It actually is Joe Average who is responsible and unfortunately for Joe Average, he is the one who is going to foot the bill for getting us out of the mess that we are heading in to.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 22 October 2009 6:17:09 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 those who do not rely on the media for a feed to sustain their existence, changes in climate can be measured in cycles where proper planning can produce viable crops.
Posted by Dallas, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:34:56 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
I am not so pessimistic.

It seems to me that people are becoming aware of the AGW myth, and are likely to turn on the politicians when the important tipping point is reached; the one where more than 50% become aware of the scam.

At the moment there are 56% fooled by the nonsense fed to them by Gore and the IPCC, but this is diminishing as more people become aware that CO2 continues to rise, while the global temperature drops.

There has been no warming since 1998, and the world has been cooling since 2002. There has been no global warming since 1978. Satellite recording of temperature since that date shows that there has been no warming in the Southern Hemisphere, since that time.

So the warming was half global, Northern Hemisphere only, until 1998, and then, truly global cooling.

There is one world leader who tells the truth about global warming; Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic. In his country, only 11% believe the AGW myth. If our citizens were told the truth, then instead of an uneasy, slight majority of believers, we would have a strong majority of enlightened disbelievers.

More people are becoming aware that there are no scientists that say that AGW is established, and about 5 of the 2,500 scientists who have done reports for the IPCC are prepared to say it is "likely" that human activity causes global warming.

There is growing hope for truth and realism to prevail.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:59:44 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
More cheap shucksters lining up to stuff their pockets with the easy money that'll come rolling in from Emissions Trading.

If these guys were shilling for less politically-correct moneymakers like oil companies, they'd rightly be howled down in an instant.

Sorry, but when someone who stands to make a fat profit is sternly wagging the finger at me, I tend to raise a finger back.
Posted by Clownfish, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:58:47 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
Clownfish, have you been avoiding the media recently? The non-politically correct greenhouse gas emitters, like the coal industry, are the only ones which are going to profit under the compensate-the-polluters ETS model proposed by Rudd & Wong.
Posted by Candide, Friday, 23 October 2009 7:20:57 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
Leo Lane, I am surprised by this. Do you have any references for these figures you've provided?
Posted by whitmus, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:40:11 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
I am sure you are surprised, if you rely on the usual media outlets to inform you, Whitmus.

The 56% I specified, should have been 57%. The article is here:
http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/oct/23/public-opinion-rapidly-cooling-global-warming/

Three years ago, the figure was 77%, so I believe 20% reduction in 3 years is hopeful, particularly as there are a lot of books disclosing the true science, selling very well. People seem to be making the effort to educate themselves on the topic.

Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" is a best seller, here and in the US, and it is about to launch in the UK. This is a thorough presentation of the science in a historical format, by a highly regarded geologist.

As to the misrepresentations by IPCC about scientific backing, see "UN Numbers Hoax", here:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:52:56 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
"The science clearly lays out what a stable climate looks like", what utter rubbish - I have never seen anyone claim they know what the climate should be like, are you seriously saying that there is a set of worldwide conditions that is perfect? Says who?

When has the climate been stable? How will "science" achieve this stability? By reducing CO2, I don't think anyone has said it will produce stability, just a return to conditions where the planet is not going to what .. catch fire?

Hysteric nonsense, people who scream fire in movie theaters are no different to this sort of article. This is designed to alarm people and makes BS claims like this - stable climate, in your dreams mate.

BTW - If any one would like to sell their seaside property, let me know - I'm happy to pay peanuts for it since it will obviously be inundated in a year or two - similarly for any property on Sydney harbor.

Isn't it interesting that all the fearmongering is not producing the required result to get donations and membership to the doom cults.

If it looks like a sect, acts like a sect ..

(and not even a climate scientist is he? .. good point made earlier about this sort of article)
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 24 October 2009 2:20:14 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 think the tipping point where we'll see bipartisan action truly intended to reduce emissions - rather than give a coat of greenwash to business as usual - is still a long way off. From the content of those posting comments, denial that there is even a serious problem is alive and well. From the policy positions of Labor and Coalition there isn't real will to tackle this; certainly not at the fundamental level of amounts of coal being dug up and burned or the amount of emissions being released. Labor betting everything on CCS is indicative of the lack of seriousness - just an excuse to keep selling and burning coal.
Given that governments are getting consistent scientific advice that this is serious and urgent and, despite the protests, alternative explanations that mean we can continue dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere without cost or consequence are little more than hot air, betting our future our scientist are all completely wrong is dangerous.
No-one is making it up, no-one is engaged in a conspiracy to put us back into the stone age and ignoring the leading experts because facing this head on will be painful is not nearly as ill-advised as letting the worst case unfold without any effort to reduce the impacts.
Whoever is in government, the simple fact is that the scientific advice isn't going to change, not without some kind of politically motivated purge of government sponsored science demanding the "correct" results. And the prospects of damaging consequences are increased -not reduced - as a result.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 25 October 2009 11:51:33 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
Wrong, Ken, the IPCC is making it up. The scientific backing for the AGW scam is not there.

In 2007, the UN flew 12,500 delegates and media personnel to Bali. They were wined dined, lied to, and given prepackaged press releases

Ban Ki Moon based his ridiculous rant, not on the then current science, but on 2003 predictions which had already been proved wrong by 2007.

Scientists, concerned to present real science, who requested a clearance to address the gathering were refused entry. The information released by the UN, was political, not scientific, and was not current, because global cooling commenced in 2002. Warming finished in 1998.

Lord Monckton was refused entry as a journalist, without explanation, but gained entry attached to one of the many ngo's at the gabfest. His attempt to address a Press gathering was terminated by security.

The impetus of this scurrilous function has carried the media to this day. Monckton, who wrote an article listing the 35 lies in Gore's movie, wrote an article listing the 50 lies in Gore's speech at Bali. He is one of the few voices always raised to expose the truth about Gore and the IPCC.

The UN backing for AGW is political, not scientific. If it succeeds, its parasitic existence will receive a great boost. It will spend freely to buy the media, as it did with the proceeds of its last big swindle, the Oil for Food scam.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 25 October 2009 8:26:21 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
VK3AUU, You say I have hit upon the problem but if you look closely at the climate change issue you will see Joe Average is NOT the problem. Why? Because Joe Average can only buy what is for sale and what is for sale is directly related to what is economical,viable and allowed by Govt regulation. This is out of Joe Average's hands because no matter how much he wants to drive a for example, hydrogen car, they are not currently viable so he cannot. No matter how much Joe Average thinks of alternatives he has to drive 20 km to work in a combustion engine car and that is that.

If Joe Average wants something done about the environment because big changes are out of his control he elects a new Government. The new Government then accuses Joe Average of being the problem and uses this as an excuse for their unwillingness or inability to change anything.

The truth is 1. We don't have the viable technology as yet to make massive overnight changes to emissions 2.There's too many people 3. Its no-ones fault.
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:46:34 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
Atman, it isn't just the motor car that Joe average drives, although judging by the number of big four wheel drives that I see picking up kids after school, they are playing a big part. Joe average is also being seduced into buying all the latest gadgets that all have a limited life span and which all cost in terms of energy.

Leo Lane. If the earth is cooling again, how come the north polar ice is still melting to the extent that it is expected to virtually ice free during the next northern summer? Why are the glaciers in the Himalayas still melting at an alarming rate? Get real.

Clownfish "More cheap shucksters lining up to stuff their pockets with the easy money that'll come rolling in from Emissions Trading"
You and I are at last in agreement about something. No good will come of it whatsoever and the mug punters are the ones who will have to pay.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 26 October 2009 6:42:39 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
VK3AUU. You need to learn to distinguish fact from fiction
Nonsensical articles about Arctic Ice appear year after year. Apart from slightly increasing, the ice remains the same. It melts in summer and comes back in winter.

http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/02/04/google-earth-shows-arctic-ice-not-receding/?referer=sphere_related_content/

There are thousands of glaciers on the Himalayas. Some advance, some retreat, as is normal for glaciers. Insufficient study has been done to ascertain whether there is an imbalance in the volume of advance against retreat.

When you say “cooling again”, you seem unaware that the Earth has been cooling since the Medieval Warm Period, when it was much hotter than it is now.

Satellite readings since 1978 show that there has been no warming in the Southern Hemisphere since 1978, so we have not had global warming since that time, just Northern Hemisphere warming.

The hottest year in the US was not 1998, but 1934, as Gore’s mate Hansen was forced to admit, so that is a substantial part of the Northern Hemisphere cooling since 1934.

The contribution by Australia to CO2 in the atmosphere is about one millionth. I wonder, if we are subjected to the nonsensical rigours of an ETS, what part of the millionth would be affected. I suspect very little, but of course, the aim of the exercise is to channel money and power to the UN and to the fat fraud. It would achieve that.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 26 October 2009 10:56:31 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
Ken

Leo Lane (a.k.a. Nick Lanelaw) is an archival spruiker for the Lavoisier Group, the Australian right-wing think tank well known in the ‘Howard’ years as inculcated in the ‘greenhouse mafia’.

Guy Pearce accurately portrays the Lavoisier Group and its role in the ‘deny’n’delay’ brigade in his book High & Dry – well worth a read if only to get a picture on where Leo/Nick and his cohorts are coming from.

Leo/Nick also likes linking to Tom Harris and John McClean (‘snowman’ on OLO) – the latter who claims to be a “climate data analyst” here in Oz ... I guess you could even be described as one yourself :)

Leo Lane/Nick Lanelaw is just regurgitating long held chants and rants;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6745#102059

Of course, you could just browse the history of both ... nothing new, really.
_______

Atman,

You say;

1. "We don't have the viable technology as yet to make massive overnight changes to emissions

2. There's too many people

3. Its no-ones fault."

So, what is society going to do about it? That is the bun-fight that the UNFCCC are trying to sort out.

_________

VK3AUU

<<the north polar ice is still melting to the extent that it is expected to virtually ice free during the next northern summer>>

This is not right. It is expected that Arctic sea-ice will only be a winter event in about 40-50 years.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 26 October 2009 10:57:05 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 wish I could make up my mind one way or the other on this AGW matter.
Every time I see cogent articles about it being true something comes up
to place more doubt in my mind.
The latest is this tree rings affair. It seems that the tree ring
measurments used by the IPCC are in fact, to put it delicately, inaccurate.
A small number of trees were included in part of the statistical count.
When all the available number of tree counts were included the
medieval temperatures were significantly higher.

Despite Q&A's best endeavours I am still concerned that the
temperature curve of CO2 may still have rolled over so far that more
CO2 will have negligible effect.
In any case I think we are all worrying about the wrong problem.
Much sooner we will be worrying about how to keep our economy
running a constant low level. The latest thinking is suggesting that
every time oil costs at or above 4% of an economies GDP we will have
a recession. In our economy I believe that is US$70 a barrel.
I am not sure of that as I have not been able to find the relevant figures.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 26 October 2009 1:33:22 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 an anti-climax! I thought Paul was going to announce that at last someone had found irrefutable evidence that climate change is man-induced. Instead we find that he quotes such eminent alarmists as Sir Nicholas Stern and the IPCC, and reports that alleged scientists arbitrarily are changing their view by replacing the arbitrary CO2 target of 450ppm with the arbitrary target of 350ppm. This is indeed alarming, as they are ignoring the fact that decreasing CO2 levels will produce slower plant growth, thereby de-greening the planet in the process. Shame!
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 26 October 2009 10:47:09 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
Now OLO's server is back up.

I did see a response from Leo but it seems to have disappeared into cyberspace.

If your still there Leo, the Tribunal's decision was set aside on appeal to the Supreme Court ... for very good reasons. I suggest you read the link again (it may help to put your rose coloured biases aside though).

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

It is particularly pertinent to read Justice Mackenzie's reasons from clause 59 to 68.

You might also note the Supreme Court judge (not being a statistician himself) doubts the expert witness (Bob Carter) for being somewhat loose with time series statistical analysis - aka the "cooling since 1998" canard.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 29 October 2009 1:33:45 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
Bazz,

If you have been following the saga, you may (or may not) agree with who said this;

"Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’.

There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong.

What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct.

Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review?

He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast (in the blogosphere and mainstream media), apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered.

If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results.

You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does ..."

Steve McIntyre hasn't published his findings for peer review, why not you may well ask?
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 29 October 2009 1:53:05 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, Q & A my post has disappeared.

From recollection I pointed out that the decision in Xstrata was set aside on technical grounds. Certain opportunities for preparation and response were said to be denied to the greenies and the matter was referred back for rehearing. The decision did not relate to the merits or otherwise of the QCC case.

The Queensland government wisely legislated against the greenies going back to waste more of the Tribunal’s time. They no doubt read about Ian Lowe’s evidence. The judge did not say he was lying, just that his figure was “15 times too high”. Lowe admitted to this in the witness box.

Your reference to adverse comments by a Judge on Carter seems to be something you dreamt. It is not in the judgement.

Your attack on Steve McIntyre is baseless. McIntyre is always careful to be restrained and factual. Do you wish his chronicle of efforts to obtain withheld data from people like Hansen and Briffa to be peer reviewed?

Your factless attack on McIntyre is a waste of space, and of my time commenting on it.

Your broad statement that peer review is nothing sinister, overlooks the way it is practiced by the IPCC.

Do you have no answer, to McIntyre’ careful exposition of it?

McIntyre’s painstaking, factual assertion is here, in case you missed it:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 29 October 2009 5:39:30 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
Nick/Leo.

McIntyre has NOT had his "factual assertion" (your words) published in any real Journal.

At least not in these:

Journal of Paleoclimatology
Journal of Statistical Modelling
Journal of Paleontology
Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics
Journal of Climatology
Journal of Physical Statistics
Journal of Statistics
etc

But, wow! Steve McIntyre has had his "factual assertions" published on a right-wing-think-tank's blog site ... whoopee-doo! You really can't help it, Nick/Leo.

Yes, the SPPI - home away from home for Bob Carter, Soon, Kininmonth, Idso, D'Aleo and the Lord Chris himself. I'm surprised you didn't include the Heartland Institute's or Tech Central Station's or the Cato Institute's blog sites as well (or Anthony Watts', or Jennifer Marohassy's, or Joanna Nova's et al) - you know, the 'denialoblogosphere'.

So, you ask if I have an "answer to McIntyre’s careful exposition of it?"

Why not go straight to the source Nick/Leo, that's what most genuine and rational people do? (Hint: Ask Keith Briffa himself)

But no, you won't do that. So let me point you in the right direction.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Oh, and for your information, the IPCC collects, correlates and diseminates 1000's of all ready peer reviewed and published papers from reputable journals - NOT from ideological biased blog sites.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 30 October 2009 4:22:20 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
Nick/Leo

As to the Xstrata Supreme Court judgement, Justice Mackenzie had this to say;

"There was also reference to the period 1998-2006 which the Tribunal’s reasons (based on the submission of the 'expert' witness of Bob Carter) describe as another example of a period of cooling. The year 1998, selected as the starting point for the period of cooling, was, according to the graph, significantly warmer than any of the years preceding it and any which had followed it up to 2006. Had either of the following two years been selected as the starting point, and the result for 1998 been treated as an aberrant spike, the period to 2006 would have demonstrated an increase over that period larger than the alleged cooling relied on by the President."

The last sentence again, Nick:

"Had either of the following two years been selected as the starting point, and the result for 1998 been treated as an aberrant spike, the period to 2006 would have demonstrated an increase over that period larger than the alleged cooling relied on by the President (as submitted by Bob Carter)."

In other words, Carter (self proclaimed 'expert' witness) doesn't have a clue about time series statistical analysis (unlikely) or he deliberately distorts and misrepresents the science for his own (and others) agenda (vis-a-vis Lavoisier Group, Heartland Institute and the mob you link to) - take your pick, Nick.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 30 October 2009 4:28:12 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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