Like the ancient Chinese curse, it seems we are destined to live in “interesting times”, and for some, more interesting than others perhaps. The heat seems to be being turned up on Professor David Karoly, a well known Australian alarmist. (And implicitly on many other AGW supporters)

In the recent letter to Professor Karoly from Malcolm Roberts, all the claims related to AGW are challenged and as yet, remain unsubstantiated.

Where are the Kings Clothes?

What is interesting is that having failed to justify his claims, Professor Karoly is again being asked to do so, this time the request for justification has been widely circulated.

Copied to:

University of Melbourne Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor.
Professor Andy Pitman, computer modeller and UN IPCC Lead Author
Professors Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Tim Flannery
Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO Chief Executive
Dr Andrew Johnson, CSIRO Group Executive—Environment
All members of federal parliament
Various scientists
Chairman of the ABC Board
ABC's Managing Director
ABC's Chris Uhlmann.

Whilst this offers little opportunity for comment by AGW supporters on OLO, primarily because if the highest Authorities for AGW can’t substantiate their claims, what chance is there for the rest of us?

It is however, reassuring for skeptics because all the questions we have previously tabled here on OLO are being put to these authorities in a very public fashion. If these authorities fail to address these questions for the politicians, it will be very hard for policy makers to support them as the circulation of this letter, publicly puts the whole warming movement on notice. The “dog ate my homework” defense went out of the window with the distribution list.

The “warmertariat” defense seems to be left with shoot the messenger?

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=716&Itemid=1

Yawn!......The capitalist dollar at work again.

BLUE

ok spindoctor, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition posted that letter online on 25/1/11

A week later, the Australian Climate Science Coalition still hasn't published Malcolm Robert's letter. Do you know why?

Anyway, you seem to think the "warmertariat" will shoot the messenger.

Nope, no need to:

>> In recent years, as well as learning more about climate I have been learning more about true forgiveness.

Associated with the power of forgiveness, the work of Marshall Rosenberg and my own personal experience shows that knowing one's needs and identifying another person's needs enables both to find ways to fulfill their real needs.

After understanding your needs I'm confident I will be able to assist you in meeting your needs. <<

While sounding like something you would write, do you really expect Malcolm Roberts to receive a response?

Btw, did you make up "warmertariat"? I haven't seen it before.

bonmot, << A week later, the Australian Climate Science Coalition still hasn't published Malcolm Robert's letter. Do you know why?>>

Nothing to do with the "Australain Climate Science Coalition", try nzclimatescience. Do you ever "see" what is printed or do you just feel the emotion?

bonmot, for goodness sake, at least check your facts before operating mouth, also, my MP has already seen the letter.

To answer your question about coining the phrase "warmertariat", it was coinded by President Vaclav Klaus in his inaugural address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, October 19, 2010.

If that's your best intellectual effort, why not do as Deep-Blue does, just Yawn.

Or you could address some of the points submitted in the letter, which you can't so you won't.

Actually spindoc, Malcolm Roberts is an Australian writing an 'open' letter to an Australian.

It might seem strange to you, but it is not so unusual for the Australian Climate Science Coalition to bat for one of their own. Indeed, Malcolm Roberts is a very vocal anti-AGW over here, particularly in the mining sector - you would know that, right?

Quite frankly, I don't give a hoot if you do frequent sites like the NZCSC - it just seems odd that the Australian counterpart hasn't posted the 'open' letter - it is a doozy, after all.

I'm not doubting that these letters have gone out spindoctor (despite your insinuation), even to your MP. You also seem to think I am doubting the sincerity of the author, and yourself. I am not.

Vaclav Klaus - thanks, very presidential that "warmertariat" word.

>> If that's your best intellectual effort, why not do as Deep-Blue does, just Yawn. <<

Ok spindoctor, you are questioning my intellect now. Tell me, why should I bother with any of your posts? At least I had the decency to read and reply.

As to your last condescending put down:

>> Or you could address some of the points submitted in the letter, which you can't so you won't. <<

Yes spindoc, I could.
But seeing my intellect doesn't come up to your expectations, I doubt very much that whatever I did say would make any sense to you, whatsoever.

Ah, bonmot, what a terrible affliction is ego.

Skeptics don’t need one because they have not bought into AGW one way or the other, we are not the victims. The ‘warmertariat” on the other hand have taken the bait, lock stock and barrel, thus it requires you to defend it.

I think you miss the point about the letter from Malcolm Roberts. It has been copied to all the recipients listed, which means they have all been challenged and each knows what challenge has been tabled to everyone, which means that no one can ever again operate independently of this “shared” challenge. If the challenge remains unanswered then the challenge remains valid.

You go round and round and bl**dy round without challenging any part of the assertions made by Malcolm Roberts. It is totally irrelevant as to who has published it on their blogs; it’s about who the recipients are and what they can possibly do about it. If they cannot respond they are finished, just like you.

When are you going to defend yourself and challenge what has been asserted by Malcolm Roberts?

Drop the ducking and weaving, read the letter and if you can, respond to it. If you can’t, accept the fact that AGW is finished. You are a victim, you are not culpable, you will not be the subject of a class action and you must now ask yourself what you can do to save face, a minor issue.

Many of the recipients of this letter are indeed culpable. The only issue that remains for discussion is who “they” will blame.

It is telling that I predicted you would shoot the messenger. Your second paragraph did just that. Like I said, is that your best effort?

If they don't respond, why exactly are they 'finished'?

Just who exactly is Malcolm Roberts representing? Himself? Like minded individuals?

What do the French peasants of 1789 and the Russian peasants of 1917 have in common, they are smarter than us, they knew they were being dudded.

Have a look at the link below. Corbett lays out the blueprint for how the “money” spun their way out of paying for implemental environmental technology and has got the pleb to pay for the cost of running the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXAuu_HcKOw

The following post is from the Carbon Trade Watch Organization on the New Zealand Carbon experience. I chose a few paragraphs to paint the picture.

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/articles/new-zealands-new-carbon-market-a-taxpayer-subsidy-for-plantations-and-energy-comp.html

>>” Tuesday, 20 July 2010
New Zealand has a new carbon market, the first national scheme to be launched outside Europe. It looks set to award profits to forest plantation owners, help power companies avoid emissions reductions, and pass the costs of tackling climate change from big business to individual consumers.

Initial estimates suggest that around a third of the permits, called New Zealand Units (NZUs), are expected to be sold to oil companies, with the remainder bought by electricity producers and manufacturers of cement, steel and aluminium.

In response to heavy industrial lobbying, however, the New Zealand government has introduced a “buy one get one free” offer for manufacturers and the energy sector. Until 2012, companies are only expected to buy one “tonne of carbon” for every two they produce. The other half of the permits will be paid for by taxpayers.

Roughly 11.7 million NZUs will be issued free to manufacturing, accounting for most of the permits required by aluminium smelters, and up to 90 per cent of permits in industrial sectors such as steel and cement.

Even with the high level of assistance and free allocations, energy companies have notified customers of imminent price hikes.

This mirrors the experience of the EU's Emissions Trading System, in which energy companies passed on increases to consumers way in excess of what emissions permits actually cost them. The result has been a financial bonanza for energy companies.

The New Zealand Sustainability Council estimates that households will bear half the cost of the ETS during its first five years, despite accounting for just 19 per cent of all emissions.

In a recent report, it concluded that the scheme imposes a “regressive quasi-tax burden on households and firms that are not major emitters, while largely exempting high-emitting vested interests with political strength.”

What is clear, however, is that the practice of creating plantations to generate offsets to displace emissions reductions from fossil fuels will only serve to delay tackling climate change.”<<

These guys have an agenda by the tone of the script, but on the whole they are correct.

In the media I noticed the pendulum has swung a bit. When Bob Brown talked about climate change being responsible for the startling weather patterns of late he was virtually told to shut up.

In the early days of AGW the 'sceptics' were told to shut up.

We cannot get past using terms like "deniers" and "alarmists" and thus until irrefutable evidence (to everyone's satisfaction) is provided, we seem destined to continue shooting messengers on both sides.

good to see that some 'science is settled' hardliners are actually softening a bit. The blind faith of the 'true believers' is totally irrational. Only the deceitful now claim the science is settled.

If that's your best intellectual effort, why not do as Deep-Blue does, just Yawn.

Or you could address some of the points submitted in the letter, which you can't so you won't.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 2 February 2011 3:04:34 PM

Whats the point, when no-one has a clue, other than the fact, you all enjoy marbleizing at your word brilliance's! Come on! You know the world you live in, and round and around we go:) The only fact that is....that humans are making themselves known by the effects, that all with an ounce sence can see.

Like I said to Leo lane....the human impact will come faster, than most anticipated.......so while they make you enjoy your ride of no conclusion, clear facts are shown, that we have in-deed
sped up the process......and not and all's fine.......it all comes back to the amount we are consuming..........and that in its self.........is our own death sentence.

BLU

Is’nt it funny that most courses run at tertiary institutions have now an Academic Literacies Unit within them. These, in the very early part of the Bachelors degrees (in whatever disciple you are studying) allude to: manipulation of figures, statistics, and fiddling of data, facts whatever to achieve your thesis statement.

Amusing more so to read the hyperlinked articles on Google, Yahoo etc, when you Cut & Paste a sentence from any of the posts here.

Get yourself a scholarship funded by an axe grinding entity, put up your thesis/rant/hypothesis, voila a BA ! Dictu mirabilis! so…surely our astute OLO audience could not be fooled by such transparently implausible garbage as what we are all fed from government & quasi government agencies?

Plenty of raw data around - take for instance the quoted :
(see link below)

http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data

Quote: "Ken found that the “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” was far hotter in the 1920&#8242;s and 30&#8242;s but GISS “disappeared” this data. However, if we add the warming period back in we find that the warming trend almost disappears to become less then 0.2 degrees per 100 years!" Unquote.

If NASA can do it how much more of this stuff gets through as Gospel?

The CFC vs HCFC Wankfest…it was only due to DuPont De Nemours losing their 100 yr old patents on CFC production that the “Hole in the Ozone Layer” came to the fore.

Thank God for the collected data like that from Mackay Sugar Station. How long before it too….’disappears’?

As predictions of

Severe events are confirmed

Deniers get shrill

Frankly I think the whole AGW debate should be put on hold until the
IPCC runs their computer models against the Upsalla Uni Global Energy
groups available fossil fuel figures.

The IPCC projections, I understand are based on three possible
projections of available quantities of fossil fuels.
The Upsalla group has produced significantly lower values than any of
the IPCC figures.

As far as I have heard the IPCC has not published any new projection
using the Upsalla figures. Until they do so I can see no point in
discussing AGW.
I would have thought to do a new run with the new data would not
take six months or more. Perhaps they have and don't know what to do
with the result,

It does not take much imagination to forsee the uproar that would
occur if it meant that temperature rise would be significantly less
than preciously expected.

Re: “severe events” and AGW.

Samurai beware,

do not confuse bushido

with pure bullshito.

bonmot, Deep-Blue,

In addressing the invitation to support your faith in the AGW phenomena, you have an outstanding opportunity to nail skepticism once and for all.

bonmot says <<I doubt very much that whatever I did say would make any sense to you, whatsoever.>>

Deep-Blue says <<What’s the point, when no-one has a clue >>

The point is that here on OLO we have constantly asked two questions of AGW, they are; what makes some people skeptical and what makes some people advocates?

All the questions, and more, that are documented in the letter by Malcolm Roberts to David Karoly, are clear, concise and detailed reasons for skepticism by some. These questions will not just disappear as they are the core of skepticism.

All that is needed now is for the advocates to provide clear, concise and detailed reasons for their advocacy.

I beg to differ to both of you, OLO’ers will definitely “understand”, we do “have a clue” and we are perfectly capable of “making sense” of responses to these questions regardless of whether they provided by David Karoly or yourselves. All you have to do is give us something, anything, in response to the questions.

If you cannot or will not offer responses, we must draw our own conclusions.

We've had spindoc's spin

This is why he's getting shrill

Expect more of same:

http://tiny.cc/y6ati

Shintaro,
Your response to spindoc was a bit weak.
Have you heard the saying "One swallow does not make a summer" ?

Anyway we are arguing here over amounts of CO2 that won't be achieved.
Until the IPCC rerun their models with real world data of fossil fuel
quantities no one will know what they are arguing about.

Really that is the crux of the matter, all previous calculations,
legislation, expenditure on global warming has been undertaken on
quantities of fossil fuel that do not exist. Well at least that is
what the Upsalla University Energy group maintains.

It should theoretically only mean that expenditure etc should be put
on hold for as long as it takes to do the computer modelling with
a fourth set of data.

How many swallows make a summer then?

Rhetorical nonsensical dribble. Swallows....WTF has that got to do with anything? I'll wait for the rerun of the climate model, but while we all waiting for that, human impact, over-population, pollution, will still have to be addressed, hence for the taxes that will in turn, pay for the damages our human foot-prints, is overly obvious and abundant.... with evidences plied higher than the hemisphere its self.

:"The point is that here on OLO we have constantly asked two questions of AGW, they are; what makes some people skeptical and what makes some people advocates?"

Simple global observation.

NEXT.

BLUE

Spindoc, you accuse me of having an ego, of being emotive, and of shooting the messenger.

1. Yes, I have an ego – just like you.

2. Actually, Malcolm Roberts is the emotive one >> In recent years, as well as learning more about climate I have been learning more about true forgiveness ... Associated with the power of forgiveness, the work of Marshall Rosenberg and my own personal experience shows that knowing one's needs and identifying another person's needs enables both to find ways to fulfill their real needs ... After understanding your needs I'm confident I will be able to assist you in meeting your needs. <<

3. Malcolm Roberts is quite capable of shooting himself, methinks.

Most people (seeking irrefutable evidence, pelican) understand that:

. The more energy you put into a system, the more the system will heat up.

. The more the system heats up, the more water is evaporated.

. The more water vapour, the more rain and snow.

Where do you think this extra energy has been coming from?

Spindoc, it seems you have trouble understanding this simplified concept.

No worries, you assure me you have a clue, are perfectly capable of making sense, and will definitely understand. Ok, try this more complex explanation of why and how the Earth is warming:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

The radiative transfer budget of the Earth is well accounted for spindoc – we know how much energy is coming in, we know how much energy is going out, and we know how much energy we are producing and consuming.

Bazz, good point. But this must be seen in the context of total hydrocarbons, from all sources, current and future technologies.

Blue said,
Rhetorical nonsensical dribble. Swallows....WTF has that got to do with anything?

It is just a way of pointing out that one or two cyclones and a seven
year drought are not something to do more with than put them into the
whole mix of evidence. On their own they are not evidence and should
not be used as such.

Bonmot said;
Bazz, good point. But this must be seen in the context of total
hydrocarbons, from all sources, current and future technologies.

Well from my reading of their paper that is what they did. They took
into account matters such as the declining energy content of coal.
From what they said, the IPCC has used the business as usual figures
of production based on demand, not actual possible production.

This is a similar error to that made by the International Energy
Authority in their yearly projections for 2007, 2008 & 2009.
That trend was abandoned in the 2010 projection when they acknowledged
that peak crude oil occurred in 2006.

I am no scientist but their reasoning and figures look pretty sound to me.
I have just tried to find the article again on their web site
but there are so many titles with what could be similar words that it
is hard to locate it.
This is Prof Aleklett's blog url. The link to the paper is somewhere there.
aleklett.wordpress.com/

Bazz
I could not see where they factored oil derived from shale, or tar sands, or wherever else they can get oil when 'cheap oil' is not so cheap. From what I can understand, AR5 will take into account the discrepancies from the SRES. A report is given at the IPCC website.

Bazz, total hydrocarbons in the atmosphere must include the increase in methane from melting perma-frost and release by ocean clathrates - a much more potent and shorter-lived GHG.

Tundra is melting now, ocean clathrates not yet, afaik. Aleklett cannot factor these GHG's from these sources into his scenarios. Fwiw, the IPCC can only say "what if", and there are many scenarios they consider.

Thanks Bazz for clearing that up. I thought you were going to re-sight niche or something:)

(In my humble opinion, the niche philosophy within Buddhism is to experience each moment in life without judging it. Buddha never forced his philosophy on anyone because he knew that the world is perfect as it is but it is just our mind that judges it to be not so, and thus we suffer. When we are able to achieve a state of no-mind, we would be able to see the truth that is not clouded by our own intellectual discourse, ending our suffering as a result. The world is perfect as it is because it is so well balanced no matter what we think. Even if the human race were to be wiped out and the Earth destroyed, the universe would be able to balance itself again perfectly.)

Sorry about the off topic readings, its just something I find irresistible and quite possibly reliant:) Anyway, What you said might not be quite true.....If date serves, this cyclones intensities hasbeen recorded has the largest yet this century and to add what Bonmot said, i can only conclude the findings.

The cyclone in-question could have only got its energy severity from the only logical conclusion......."water vapor" plus warmer seas equals...... However, If the data changes I will gladly rebut my claims. I believe change is clearly on its way, and this century "will" tell the tale.

Its only a matter of time, before we find the truth.

BLUE