It has come to my attention that many climate Deniers are rejoicing in some rather trite diatribes by Dr Evans. However, I'm left wondering whether these fans bothered to google him before placing their anti-science faith in him?

Dr Evans is not a climatologist and has never published in a peer-reviewed climate journal. He belongs to right-wing think tanks and is mainly published and promoted by Denialist think tanks like the Lavoisier Group. He's not even a 'rocket scientist' as he has claimed to be, but instead has a Phd in electrical engineering. And he was not even responsible for climate modelling!
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

His claims are full of factual errors, such as the supposed lack of a tropospheric hot spot. Dr Barry Brook — Professor of the climate change department of Adelaide University and pro-nuclear advocate — says:

<<
(1) the hotspot was not a signature of the greenhouse effect – it is a signature of warming from any source, and
(2) that the hotspot is not actually missing…
>>
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

Once again, Oooops! But that’s what you get when you place your anti-science faith in non-climatologists.

How does Professor Brook sum up Dr Evan’s behaviour?

<<
Despite this revelation and other careful countering of his claims, Dr Evans chose to simply ignore these corrections and repeat himself on ABC 891 radio in Adelaide. This led me to a point-by-point explanation, on the same radio show, the next week, describing where Dr Evans was in error. Both interviews are podcast here for audio download.

Surely then, Dr Evans must now, in his words, once again “be an alarmist again instead of a skeptic” (apparently there is no middle ground). No? Unsurprisingly, he deploys the standard non-greenhouse theorist approach of yet again blithely ignoring any refutation and simply repeating the exactly the same arguments again in a third forum. So, yet again, a climate scientist had to patiently refute this.

Perhaps Dr Evans doesn’t understand that whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts.
>>
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

Eclipse Now, You doth protest too much.You like others make references within a clack of paid so called scientists sucking on the public purse.How credible are your links?Is this just another lie like all the BS we have been fed about the evils of CO2? The grand lie has now been revealed.The earth has not warmed since 1998 and I'm about to light my wood fire.Perhaps you could send you carbon fascist cops around to arrest me.

Wood is carbon neutral Arjay because the trees did their Co2-absorbing thing before the wood was cut.

But there you go again — pretending to love science while calling thousands of climatologists and every National Science Academy on the planet self-interested liars 'sucking on the public purse'. Good one! ;-) I just love how quickly you become a caricature of yourself.

Myth: Global warming stopped in 1998
You've just repeated one of my FAVOURITE pieces of Denialist propaganda. It's my favourite because even other Denialists are starting to warn against using it, see below.

1. Here's New Scientist responding to this myth in 2007. It's getting a bit old now.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

2. Why does NASA show 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

3. The MET dataset shows 1998 as the super-spike that it was as their measurement of 2005 *just* misses beating 1998. But they still accept global warming. El Nino & La Nina are waves in the bath, but Co2 added to global warming is the tap left on. They can see the long term trends.

I could make ANY story I want from the temperature record by choosing short enough trends. When are you going to look at the 20 year trends instead of cherrypicking those *few* years that show the conclusions you want?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

4. Fellow Denialists are worried about pushing this myth.

At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels explained that El Nino and La Nina cycles can, in the short term at least, disguise the longer term trends and concluded:

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

NASA also admits that past planetary warmings were caused by the sun.Just google "past warming by the sun NASA" and you will get many articles saying that NASA in 2009 reported a study done by them that past warmings were caused by the sun.NASA has since taken that study off its site.Why?

Eclipse Now,

You seem to have done an enormous amount of research, at least into the science behind your personal beliefs. I am always curious as to how so much information can result in maintaining the status quo? How can you possibly have access to so much information and not spot that you have been had?

What will you do when the house of carbon collapses? Will you blame the scientists in whom you place so much faith, the media that led you down the garden path, the politicians, the IPCC, celebrity advocates or commercial opportunists? What will you write when it all goes belly up?

You need to replace those who you consider “plausible” with some original thought of your own otherwise you are left with “abandon ship now”, “have a bob each way” or say to your self “please God let me be right”.

It is sad that so many are putting so much effort into this scam. You have reached rock bottom, don’t keep on digging. Like so many other warmers, you are looking increasingly desperate.

want to see how insane the carbon cops are?

""Wood is carbon neutral Arjay
because the trees did their Co2-absorbing thing
before the wood was cut.""

the same rule applies to coal
and petro chemical?

mate if your lot is right
the problem is putting c02..into the air....NOW*
REGARDLES OF WHERE IT NOW COMES FROM..its into the air now

so where it came from dont count

this is the same selective ignorance
that ignores the 'other' greenhouse gasses
like nitrous oxide from farmers speading nitrogen
or methane from home composting bins and mining..[both far worse greenhouse type gasses]

your being spun lies
noting tax on petrol is comming ibn a few years
its only 'out'..now to make tony lok bad

[him saying 1000 when its NOW only 500..
when the 1000 came FROM GOVT..

but..by clever spin and modeling
obnly 1000 paying..became 500]

but ignore your own lies/spin
go on name calling...

BUT NOTE*
only one third of the people are decieved

money corrupts
carbon tax will corrupt absolutly

@ Arjay can't respond to the opening post OR the subsequent post. So — right on script — he follows the Denialist Spam Swarm 10 Commandments and moves onto the next topic.

I've renamed it a PIG attack for simplicity.

1. Present (factually erroneous anti-climate rubbish)
2. Ignore (the peer reviewed feedback)
3. Go-over it all again (just repeat the same lies after being quiet for a while).

The PIG (Present — Ignore — Go-over) attack is a common device used by Denialists afraid of engaging the science honestly.

@ Spindoc.
If I wake up tomorrow and find all the world's National Science Academies HAVE finally discovered some new climate safety valve that protects us all from the *KNOWN* dangers of the REPEATABLE, DEMONSTRABLE properties of Co2's heat absorption spectra, then I will be grateful. I will *not* shout in triumphal joy "See, told you all the time it was a farce!" as if I knew better than this civilisations'entire scientific enterprise. Instead, I will say "Phew, that was close, because we certainly weren't doing anything about the warnings when we thought it was real".

But then my focus would probably shift to the fact that ALL fossil fuels will peak and decline this century. Forever. Even coal is predicted to peak sometime between now and around 2050.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal

So while someone will probably still be digging up coal in 200 years, it will have ceased to be the major power supply long before then. And so it should! Coal poisons us to death. Burning coal has given the beautiful Hunter Valley a lung cancer rate that is 3 times that of Sydney! The health costs of burning coal put the price of coal fired electricity WAY above nuclear power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98frSed0F5s&feature=player_embedded

@ Under One God: As always, I've got no idea what you're talking about.

The Warming Planets myth claims that Mars is warming therefore it's all the sun but
<<Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming. >>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

More:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Great video at “Climate crock of the week” where he makes the GREAT point:
<<Isn’t it interesting that deniers swear up and down that climate science is too undeveloped and puny to prove a warming on THIS planet, but they maintain a mystical, metaphysical certainty that all the other far off planets … are warming>>.

They’ll believe NASA when it comes to warming somewhere else, but not here on Earth where it REALLY counts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM&feature=view_all&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=41

Or it's the other planets, but
<<Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.>>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Or they point to Neptune, but
<<Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response. Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.>>

Then there's the Mars and Pluto combination,
<<But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans).>>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

In other words, Denialists create Cherry-Picking Straw-Man (CPSM) attacks out of completely irrelevant data.

So what’s your next myth going to be Arjay? I’ll quote a few to save you the effort. Here are your next few myths in all their fairytale glory.

<<Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England>>

@ Under One God
<<mate if your lot is right
the problem is putting c02..into the air....NOW*
REGARDLES OF WHERE IT NOW COMES FROM..its into the air now>>

Yes, that is a good point so I guess I was referring to the acceptable fuel sources going forward. In the first world wood for burning tends to come from less damaging sources like old telegraph poles, forestry waste, etc. In the 3rd world wood burning and forest clearing is a *real* problem both for maintaining habitat for biodiversity, local erosion, desertification, etc. So wood there is a REAL problem. Once again, it's all about context, the bigger picture. So there's a move towards solar cookers and little biogas and sewerage gas cooking methods, which is Co2 neutral but also processes sewerage into safe fertilizer. Watch this awesome video.
http://sp.green.tv/dung-busters-nepal

<<this is the same selective ignorance
that ignores the 'other' greenhouse gasses
like nitrous oxide from farmers speading nitrogen
or methane from home composting bins and mining..[both far worse greenhouse type gasses]>>
Do you have any evidence of this 'selective ignorance'? It's another Straw-Man attack mate. The IPCC and world's climate institutes examine ALL the greenhouse gases, especially nitrous oxides which are 300 times more powerful than Co2! This is a figment of your imagination.

EG: This episode of Catalyst looks at one of my favourite solutions, biochar. Look what turns up?
<<Narration: Adding up to 10 tonnes of agrichar per hectare reduces the amount of carbon dioxide given off while tripling the weight of the crop or its biomass.

As well as that they measure another gas that’s important for global warming, nitrous oxide.

Dr Lukas van Zwieten: Certainly nitrous oxide is a very serious greenhouse gas, it’s 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One of the things that really was quite surprising – we didn’t expect it – was that the emissions of nitrous oxide from soil were significantly reduced.

Dr Lukas van Zwieten: By adding char, we’ve shown that we can reduce nitrous oxide emission five-fold>>
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm

Dear Eclipse Now,

Excellent Thread. However, as you'll probably realise
(if you haven't already) a public forum such as this
one will show you what stunning ignorance there is on
the Internet. So I commend you for at least trying to
put this subject up for discussion.

The problem with climate change in 2011 in large part is -
because of politicians like Tony Abbott - the issue has
become so thoroughly politicised that many conservative
voters really don't believe Australia's top scientists.
They really do see a sincere attempt by the Government
to embark on a moderate reduction in Australia's Greenhouse
Gas emissions as a kind of conspiracy to withdraw liberties
and increase taxation. In short they are irrationally angry.
And one of the key stokers of the conservative rage has
been the utter political expediency of conservative
politicians like the leader of the Oposition and his
cheerleaders in the media. Driven by ruthless ambition for
the top job, Mr Abbott in recent times has entertained few
qualms in his pursuit of the Government to the degree
where he's been willing to attack the Government with
virtually any weapon available.

It's a shame that the Liberal Party has forgotten its
more noble traditions of reason and prudence, the value of
conserving and preserving social institutions and the common
wealth of the nation, Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser, John
Hewson, even Malcolm Turnbull, would/do not support the
current Liberal rhetoric.

In recent weeks Mr Abbott has attacked both scientists and
economists for not supporting his "Direct Action" plan on
climate change. They disagreed with his analysis. Therefore
he's talked down the economy in an effort to exaggerate the
impact of the Government's carbon tax, even arguing recently
it will cause house prices to fall. No wonder it's people
like Dr Evans who support Mr Abbott - when none of Australia's
top scientists do.

Hi Lexi,
nice post. Yes, I do wish they'd bring back Turnbull. At least he respected the science. Tony Abbott was at an Australian VIP dinner a while back, and sat very near a climatologist. I can't remember the details of this event, but I know that he didn't talk with him. Tony had all these questions about climate science that he wanted 'real' input on. So he flew out of the country to go and get advice from some Heartland institute member.

Nice one Tony. ;-) (Do you remember this incident? I wish I'd bookmarked it).

Dear Eclipse Now,

Thanks for the thread and thanks for the information. It is more than the usual "the top climate scientists say". I intend to stash the information away and go through it if I get a chance. I don't know enough about the climate change debate to have a confident opinion but my current lean is toward skeptic based on experience with other issues that I have researched more thoroughly and what I have seen of this. Therefore I welcome something from your side that gives me the opportunity to investigate further and check if my leaning is wrong.

You can get a fair idea in my next email of many of things that I have been exposed to so far.

Dear Lexi,

Are you Foxy (long story)? If so, why change? You weren't exactly unpopular as Foxy.

"The problem with climate change ... so thoroughly politicised ... conservative voters don't believe Australia's top scientists."

Anytime a top scientist says anything coherent it opposes climate science. Some buffoon arrogantly dismissing objections by saying temperature is changing (on a planet that has fluctuated from hot to ice ages) doesn't exactly help. Could you please give people some leeway.

"They really do see a sincere attempt by the Government ...conspiracy to withdraw liberties and increase taxation."

Does this require any input from conservative leadership? Rudd didn't accept Monkton's challenge to debate the issue. That gave the obvious appearance that he wasn't confident to. Yet his government had a climate change department and they are determined to introduce a climate change related tax. Reputable scientists keep saying it is bunk. Plimer keeps saying that the geological evidence is that current carbon levels are comparatively low. Life on earth is carbon based. Carbon dioxide is released from just about anything. It is hard to reframe thinking to consider it a villain. Climate change enthusiasts keep making empty comments about how it is accepted by the government's scientists (in other words those on the gravy train). Conservative parties have traditionally marketted to the better educated groups who have some general knowledge. ALP traditionally markets to the working class. Yale did a study finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was correlated with climate science skepticism. The researchers tried to dismiss the findings by guessing that "people who are conservative in nature use their intellect to support their “conservativeness”, and those who liked “communitarian” values did the same".

"Mr Abbott ... few qualms ..."

The proposed carbon tax is almost universally condemned by voters. He is the leader of the opposition. Wouldn't taking the opportunity to ride the issue be almost part of the job description rather than something involving qualms (unless he was a climate change enthusiast which he has never appeared to be)?

"none of Australia's top scientists do."
None?

PS.

The other thing conservative voters see are the predictions and the climategate. As regards predictions Bolty did an item on it that supports rather than hinders skepticism:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

"Tim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew Bolt.

TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can't think of a better man for the job.
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission.
...

This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.

He's had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.

...we're now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.

And we're also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.

...In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."
Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent...

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains... "

...
In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster...

"In ... Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."
One premier, Queensland 's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant...

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned."

You get the idea.

Dear Eclipse Now,

You said:

"Dr Evans is not a climatologist and has never published in a peer-reviewed climate journal. He belongs to right-wing think tanks and is mainly published and promoted by Denialist think tanks like the Lavoisier Group."

The story put out in support of him is that he consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Is that correct or incorrect?

"He's not even a 'rocket scientist' as he has claimed to be"

The term is often used broadly.

"but instead has a Phd in electrical engineering."

You seem to be suggesting that he lacks relevant qualification. What are the required qualifications?

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

"Electrical engineers typically possess an academic degree with a major in electrical engineering. The length of study for such a degree is usually four or five years and the completed degree may be designated as a Bachelor of Engineering, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Technology or Bachelor of Applied Science depending upon the university. The degree generally includes units covering physics, mathematics, computer science, project management and specific topics in electrical engineering."

What skills are needed for climate science?

"Electronic engineering involves the design and testing of electronic circuits that use the properties of components such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes and transistors to achieve a particular functionality."

Does training in dealing with testing the feedbacks in a system and analysing complex systems relate to understanding the climate system? Is the climate system about feedbacks? Is it complex?

"And he was not even responsible for climate modelling!"

I'll be interested in your answer to my question above as this seems to relate to it.

You seem to be on top of this issue and willing to discuss it so you are uniquely placed to address the appearances that undermine the points you are trying to make. That can only assist your attempt to explain things.

Dear mjpb,

Thanks for such a detailed response to my post.
You've raised some very valid points and it
made me realise that I was not presenting the full
picture. - Thank You for providing the balance.
It's appreciated. I'm sure not only by me but
by many others. We may not agree but presenting
another side of the coin and doing so intelligently
and without any personal abuse - is quite refreshing.

Lexi,

Thanks for the response. Are you or aren't you?

I'm hanging out for Eclipse Now to answer my burning questions. I fully admit that most things I have seen have been one sided. The media haven't overly sided with the skeptics. It is just that the support has been arrogant and insubstantial.

Eclipse Now,

Here is an item where Evans is claiming the modelling credentials publically.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

What do you think about the photos that Evans puts forward?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf

Obviously the public seeing them wonder why the climate scientists take measurements at such locations if they believe in climate change themselves.

On the credentials of Evans that you questioned I note that following your links points to Professor Barry Brooks. He is the Director of the Director of Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability (and thus has a living dependent on Climate Change being accepted). He has an undergraduate science degree in biology and geology with a PhD in computer science. Is that the appropriate qualification to become a Director of official bodies but Evans' qualification not suitable? Can you give a detailed explanation of the relevance or irrelevance of the qualifications?

Dear mjpb,
I'm Lexi - simple as that!

One by one they cometh forth and release the truth!

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/2011/THE_SYDNEY_INSTITUTE_MURRY_SALBY_2_AUGUST_2011.mp3

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

Nuff Said!

Well said mjpb.Eclipse now,let's get something straight.I'm not a deniar.I'm a disbeliever a heretic, a person beyond scepticism.Someone whom the catholic church would have hung drawn and quartered centuries ago for saying the planet was almost a sphere.

You still have not answered my question.Why has NASA taken down their study in 2009 which shows that past warmings were caused by the sun?

@ MJPB

<<Life on earth is carbon based. Carbon dioxide is released from just about anything.>>
Life on earth is water based, and water is released from just about anything. Therefore Tsunami's and floods and hail and snowstorms and hurricanes and snow avalanches cannot kill people! ;-)

1. Co2, just like water, is all about context.
At one time SUPER-excessive levels of Co2 may have actually SAVED life on earth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth
But this was back when the sun was 4% cooler! So just as a rainstorm is welcome during a drought but causes despair and disaster during a flood, Co2 is welcome during a long ice-age but causes despair and disaster during an interglacial period.

If you truly doubt what Co2 does and want to SEE the absorption spectra of Co2 with your own eyes then watch this, 90 seconds in. The whole 10 minutes are worth watching, but go to about 1:30 if you're in hurry. If you can make *this* just go away I'd be impressed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

2. Tim Flannery & Rains have returned?
Yes, you noticed? Tell me, does your Denial of science include the El Nino and La Nina cycles as well as the fundamental forces of physics like absorption spectra? Have you heard the story of the bath? Weather and El Nino are like waves in the bath, but extra Co2 is the tap left on. As the 'water' rises we get closer to disaster.

3. Dr Evans?
He worked on the computers "building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office" but as far as I can tell is NOT a climate modeller. My wife designs beautiful website LOOKS, but doesn't code them up. That's the backend work we pay a coder for. As far as I can tell real climate modellers told Evans how the software should work, then he coded it up or ran the math. That's about all he is qualified for. Unless you've found a secret climate Phd somewhere? ;-)

Dear RM,

The link you've given us is from the Sydney Institute,
a privately funded - conservative think tank.
It receives support from the Australian Business Community.
The Executive Director is Gerard Henderson. His wife -
Anne Henderson - is Deputy Director. They aren't
climatologists so I'd be a tiny bit sceptical as to
"their truth." As you rightly said - "Nuff said!"

Get it straight Eclipse Now.We are not holocaust deniars or climate deniars.We just don't believe the BS climate warming twaddle.

To be a deniar you have to deny something that is a scientific law,absolute truth or real by observation.The theory of AGW is none of these.

@ MJPB
You mentioned of my friend Barry Brook that:
<<and thus has a living dependent on Climate Change being accepted>>
Tell me, does your scepticism of scientists paid by the public purse also include those terrible drains on the public purse like doctors, health specialists, cancer researchers, immunisation programs, ... and then if we include normal public servants can we trust ANYTHING primary teachers, high school teachers, garbage collectors, sewerage plumbers and contagion specialists might tell us? Where do we stop?

Boy, you must have SUCH a high regard for science that you can just character attack thousands of climatologists and every National Science Academy on the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
In my experience conspiracies just don't last long. The truth would have come out by now. Humans just aren't that smart.

Next post, UHI (Urban Heat Island effect).

@ Arjay: You don't like being called a Denier? Fine, we'll make a deal. You find me ONE reputable Scientific organisation, like a National Academy of Science, that actively disagrees with the AGW hypothesis, and I'll drop the charge of Denier. OK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

But if you DO in fact DENY the empirically tested and measured FACTS of our heating world that EVERY SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION ON THE PLANET has independently verified, then aren't you out there with "Aliens at Area51" Fox Mulder conspiracies? Who can possibly account for such a world-wide scam?

I honestly think your political conspiracy theory is more frightening than the geophysical warming realities as documented by every National Science Academy of this civilization.

"""
The link you've given us is from the Sydney Institute,
a privately funded - conservative think tank.
"""

I don't care who "they" are, I'm only interested in what the scientist they had talking had to say and whether he's legit; which he does indeed seem to be. More so than the current crop of snake oil peddlers, Flannery, Garnaut, Plibersek or Gillard and her best mate Blair are!

You can either listen to Professor Murry Salby's talk and learn something or live in denial over the fact that the science is NOT settled!

The Urban Heat Island Effect has not distorted climate science simply because the climatologists KNOW about it, and know how to correct for it in their measurements.

Rather than reading all of the following links just watch this 10 minute youtube. It's quality stuff — truly awesome, and quotes a great NASA temperature graph. It's by a graphic designer so is usually well produced. He hangs out with climatologists and is aware of the latest papers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw&feature=view_all&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=54

<<Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. >>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

But this next link is really interesting. Peer-reviewed papers reveal that rather than increasing temperatures, some UHI effects have had a COOLING bias on the instruments. That means the warming could be worse than recorded!
http://www.desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-myth-dead

Your argument relies on:
<<
Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….

Mistaken Assumption No. 2: … and thinks that all station data are perfect....

Mistaken Assumption No. 3: CRU and GISS have something to do with the collection of data by the National Weather Services (NWSs)

Mistaken Assumption No. 4: Global mean trends are simple averages of all weather stations

Mistaken Assumption No. 5: Finding problems with individual station data somehow affects climate model projections.

Mistaken Assumption No. 6: If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away
>>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

Also, they KNOW about the UHI.

<<More importantly, station logs allow sites in question to be filtered easily from data sets. Doing so, the presence of heat islands is visible, but overall trends change in magnitude, not direction. The effects of the urban heat island may be overstated. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Heat_Island_Effect#Global_warming

Politicians like Gillard lie to us constantly for money and power.Why would not a few so called scientists do likewise when they have a honey pot that never existed before? After all it is a noble cause to save the planet,even if they are wrong,it is better to err on the side of caution.This is the logic which has brought us to the lies and deception.

It is never a noble cause to lie to the people and try to use environmentalism to subjugate the population.

Dr Evans was selected by the Govt to do climate modelling.He was a believer until the evidence no longer supported the theory.Many more will jump ship as they realise we are wising up.

Why does Wall St and our own CEO of the NAB want the CO2 tax and the ETS? It is about making money from another derivative scam.This ETS will make it far easier to rort than the Sub prime mortagage scam.Only those who can afford to but carbon credits will be allowed to produce.It will mean more power will be in the hands of the few.More industry will move off shore.Emitions Trading Scam is exactly what it is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-03/turnbull-decries-war-on-climate-science/2823216
While Turnbull reminds us Liberals still live within the Liberal party.
That for some truth matters.
In the very same paper Hockey threatens to close the climate change department,for?
He says telling lies.
In this debate, if ever we get to know who is behind the campaign to hide the truth arjay will at last have a conspiracy theory others can share.
Currently, in my view he assists the plotters not truth.

Belly;Be rest assured,we are going to vote your precious Labor party back to the stone age.The only seat they will have ,will be found in the dunny.Their epitaph will be found in the bowl.Damn lies and traitors to their own people.

As for the 911 conspiracy,you are incapable of debating the scientific facts and far less able to debate climate science.Talk to Kevin Bracken,he is one of the few Unionists who has the courage and integrity to hold his position in the Union movement.

Everyone else please note that when Arjay is presented with links that reveal dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles, this is his response.

"Why would not a few so called scientists do likewise when they have a honey pot that never existed before? After all it is a noble cause to save the planet,even if they are wrong,it is better to err on the side of caution.This is the logic which has brought us to the lies and deception."

Doesn't he just love the scientific method, empirical evidence, and all that jazz? Did he even read the links? No.

Speaking of evidence, do you have any evidence of climatologists lying? Because I thought I just provided HEAPS of evidence that the Denialist's are the foaming at the mouth Cherry-Picking Strawman idiots that stand up in public and tell bald faced lies about the UHI, about the 'lack' of a Tropospheric Hot Spot, about 1998, about the temperature over the last 10 years, do I need to go on?

"Dr Evans was selected by the Govt to do climate modelling.He was a believer until the evidence no longer supported the theory.Many more will jump ship as they realise we are wising up."

No, he was selected by the Government to ASSIST with the technology that the climate modellers needed. Think of him as a maths and IT geek, NOT a climatologist. Because he isn't.

"Why does Wall St and our own CEO of the NAB want the CO2 tax and the ETS? It is about making money from another derivative scam.This ETS will make it far easier to rort than the Sub prime mortagage scam.Only those who can afford to but carbon credits will be allowed to produce.It will mean more power will be in the hands of the few.More industry will move off shore.Emitions Trading Scam is exactly what it is."

Maybe. But DO try to separate out policy from science? Just because you might not like what people and governments DO about global warming doesn't mean you have any evidence that the science itself is false.

"""
That for some truth matters.
"""

And what truth would that be?

By how much will Australia's Carbon Tax reduce the worlds temperature?

Particularly considering China is going to increase its coal fired power by 600 gigawatts by 2030. Double what America's total capacity is now! These new power stations will be burning """our""" coal!

I suppose you clean up your backyard by throwing the trash over your neighbours fence do you belly? And then feel good that you keep a clean house!

Gillard and all the other warmists are a paragon of scammers and you know it!

RawMustard, just wanted to say thanks for that link to the podcast by Murry Salby. Someone else had told me about the talk earlier in the day, but didn't have the link. I've done a blog post here http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/08/03/note-to-gillard-stop-talking-crap/.

I might also note that EclipseNow is not a climatologist and links to Wikipedia do not constitute rebuttal.

And I also think the knee-jerk reaction by another poster above to try to dismiss Salby as being politically motivated because he spoke at the Sydney Institute is disgraceful. He is a professor of climatology and has written one of the text books on atmospheric physics.

No wonder scientists are a bit bashful in putting information out in public when they are likely to be villified by the anonymous mob because it disagrees with their prejudice as to what should be happening.

Dear Graham,

I assume that your reference to the "disgraceful" -
comments made by - "another poster,"
is referring to my earlier post to Raw Mustard.
I wish to politely point out to you that nowhere did
I mention Professor Murry Salby - or attempt to
demean him in any way. I am familiar with his work
and his books. I merely pointed out that
the Sydney Institute is a conservative think tank,
which is privately funded by business interests
and therefore they will naturally present speakers
who will put forward what suits their interests.
You owe me an apology Sir.

This debate has fallen into the 'my science is better than your science' position.

Even if the position is accepted that humans are contributing more to climate change than the natural cycle of change (the extent is still in debate), the question should be about the efficacy of a Carbon Tax.

It is hypocritical to argue Australia reduce it's emissions while we export tonnes of fossil fuel overseas and support projects that will affect the evironment and do long term damge to the water table (eg.fraccing in the Liverpool Plain). It is a pointless exercise unless the rest of the world commits to reducing pollution. While our individual 'footprint' might be larger (mainly due to long distances between inhabited areas), from a global perspective our smaller population is a sparrow's fart in terms of contribution to global warming.

I consider myself to be keen environmentalist as much as the connotation is usually used in a negative context, but it is one of the few areas I am in disagreement with the Greens. And climate change is not the only environmental issue. Climate change has in some ways reduced the Green's attention from other pressing issues.

Other issues are being completely ignored in the climate change debate including the effect of:

- population growth (resource pressure)
- lack of governance (particularly developing world)
- corruption
- impact of growth economics and consumerism
- deforestation

The former Minister for Agriculture allowed old growth and native forests to be encroached by logging and mining interests thus reducing the importance of forests in the climate change debate. While it is rare for governments to choose saving a forest over other interests, the decision makes the government's stance on climate change somewhat shaky.

Is the Carbon Tax just another of what Lindsay Tanner writes as "look like you are doing something".

Until the problems of pollution, food and fuel security, growthism, population and environmental protection are treated whollistically (as all contributing) rather than a ragged piecemeal approach the rhetoric is just spin and will have little effect on the global environment.

Pelican,
well said. I agree with all those concerns as well. There are answers, but it's going to be a close call!

GrahamY,
It's not about me, it's about how anyone with a basic grasp of English comprehension can see that Dr David Evans and his Denialist friends are simply not being honest. They're experts in the Cherry-Picking Straw-Man attack. They pluck what they want, when they want, and don't respond to the peer-review process. Did Dr Evan's respond to Professor Brook? No. Why not? Because empirical data was getting in the way and he was caught out.

And I'm sick and tired of the money accusation when people like Ian Plimer don't get their books approved by due process but instead sell to a gullible public. There's a BIG market for climate Denialism. People are afraid of global warming or government responses to it.

Not only that, but:

<<The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[4][37]>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

<<EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity. And neither figure takes much of a bite out of the company’s net earnings—$25.3 billion last year. Nevertheless, “ideas lobbying” can have a powerful public policy effect.>>
http://motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/some-it-hot

Thanks forever to our threads starter.
And may I clearly say this, it is my view firmly honestly held, this thread highlights a very real problem.
I am no scientist, unlike arjay, I claim no special understanding.
I believe in man made climate change.
For some, arjay for a start[ what has my union back ground got to do with my right to an opinion?] beleiving this makes me subject to hate/much more.
Watch this space! Europe is trying to reduce Labor will be removed from power because of it and other things.
Deniers slander us, being conservative is no reason, nore LABOR, FOR VERBAL WARFARE ON SUCH AN ISSUE.
I think we in this generation are dividing our own country's Australia and America on lines of politics, on issues too important not to look at
Lexi, I see no wrong in your post, have seen here in OLO thoughts much worse pure hate, from conservative contributors who say we should be deported/imprisoned and even shamed, for voting Labor.
IF ONE side mine or the other is purely using this matter for political gain, if it is about that not a threat to humanity.
We are not currently evolving as human beings but going back wards.
Is this subject one we are free to debate all sides of?
Arjay, please consider your growing anger because your views are not mine it shows.

Lexi,

Sorry about that. Someone made the suggestion and you do share a fondness for a particular author and an identity as a Catholic in conjunction with a hostility toward Catholic belief so I thought he might be on to something. Thanks for responding.

Eclipse Now,

“If you truly doubt what Co2 does and want to SEE the absorption spectra of Co2 with your own eyes then watch this, 90 seconds in. The whole 10 minutes are worth watching, but go to about 1:30 if you're in hurry. If you can make *this* just go away I'd be impressed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

The good thing about these types of things is that you can listen to them in the background and then flick over if something is going to be visual. I watched/listened to it all. Typing this response will be much more of an incursion into my time then watching/listening to that video. You might like to know how the video looks/sounds to someone who doesn’t share your passion and wants to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps you can pull me up on some of this stuff from your knowledge.

It stated that “Making predictions is hard especially about the future.”

I don’t know when else predictions would be made for but I’m sure I don’t express everything perfectly either so I won’t be too critical of that. The argument he leads into is that we just do our best to predict. This would sound objective but unfortunately he uses rhetorical terminology like “climate deniers” and plays a movie where someone says “I think all you scientists are crackpots. Nothing is going to happen.” Immediately followed by something happening. This creates the unfortunate appearance that the video is not an objective look at things.

CONT

Then a heat camera on one end of a tube films a flame. Carbon dioxide is introduced to the tube and the heat camera no longer picks up the flame. What is the temperature of the CO2 being introduced? My expectation is that gases stored in containers at room temperature then expanding rapidly due to release will cool. Any gas that was very cool (and didn’t ignite from the flame) would surely interfere with the heat of the flame reaching the camera if a layer of cold gas was briefly inserted. Nothing is said about that. No attempt is made to measure the temperature of the CO2 or to ensure that it reaches room temperature. That doesn’t mean that CO2 doesn’t absorb heat. It just means that it is a particularly poor illustration.

The video then shows some predictions that were correct. Whether they support a greenhouse effect or just a good understanding of what happens to arctic areas (perhaps from the historical record) based on an already observed trend of increased temperature it is hard to tell.

It gives a graph of Hansen from 1988 and compares it with the GISS Station Temperatures. The fit between 1960 and 2005(?) looks good. But considering he obviously could have accessed the data between 1960 and 1988 a substantial portion of that graph obviously would fit well. In 1988 he gave three scenarios ranging from high to low emissions (Graphs A, B and C). The narrator indicates that the B graph is considered the most likely. Given the rhetorical approach generally and that we had just looked at Hansen’s 1981 paper where he also had 3 graphs I couldn’t help wondering about the basis for the graphs in the 1988 presentation. This was explicit in the 1981 paper that was shown. Graph A was based on business as usual. Graph B was based on Coal being phased out from 2020. Graph C was based on Coal being phased out from 2000.
CONT

I can’t really tell whether the actual temperature graph is heading toward the B or C. Can you? Anyway I don’t believe that massive actions have been taken like a global phasing out of Coal in 2000. (Correct me if I’m wrong). Therefore if the current temperatures are indistinguishable from his predictions for that scenario (?) wouldn’t that be good grounds for a wait and see if the planet is heading for doom before taking a risk with people's livelihood by introducing a new tax?

It argues that Hansen’s model is good with volcanoes and assumes that confirms all his greenhouse assumptions. More particularly it states that there is an almost perfect fit with Hansen’s predicted dip in temperature based on a hypothetical mid 1990s volcano and the temperatures after the 1991 volcano. This is described as a “resounding affirmation”. For some reason they don’t superimpose the two dips – the obvious way to enable a comparison. However visually it looks like the magnitude of Hansen’s dip is at least twice that of the volcano and looks to be about three times the size. Doubling an effect to my way of thinking has pluses and minuses. It adds weight to being able to predict an effect if the direction concurs but there would be real consequences if predictions exceed magnitude twofold (or threefold).

It cites 3 sets of predictions (1990, 1995 and 2001)(As the predictions come later the graphs are less steep as if there is a bias toward too steep graphs that has to keep being addressed). The top of the 1990 graph for 1995 is 0.7(degrees Celsius? Degrees Farenheit?) It then compares this with actual data and notes a similarity. The actual graph hits 4.5 in 2005. This is close to the 1995 and 2001 predictions. It appears to be either fluctuating downward or trending downward at that time. It is not apparent which. The video was uploaded on June 26, 2009 so it would be nice if the producer took it forward a few years so we could see how that eventuated.
CONT

Dear Pelly,

Well said.

Dear Eclipse,

You too.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for that.

Dear mjpb,

Correction: I am not hostile to Catholic belief.
I am a Catholic. What I disapprove of is the
misuse of power by ambitious, powerful, and
ruthless men in the church who are the antithesis
to Christ's teachings. Big difference.

Dear Eclipse,

The following website may be of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/08/04/finally-climate-policies-explained

The candle illustration is a simplified way of showing what spectrometers and light prisms do when they measure Co2. Science has known how Co2 absorbs different spectra of energy for a hundred years.

<<But considering he obviously could have accessed the data between 1960 and 1988 a substantial portion of that graph obviously would fit well.>>
They develop a climate model with all the variables, and then test them against past history to see how accurately they are running. They take the model back to 1960 with given pollution, fossil fuel consumption, etc from historical records, and much like a computer game in fast forward let the model run forward for a half century or so. This picks up variables and errors and so the models have become increasingly sophisticated.

Graph C is interesting. The Association for Peak oil and GAS geologists I read are like a new consensus of old-timer geologists counting how much oil, coal, and gas is left. They keep raising the fact that the WORST case IPCC scenarios just might not be possible — there might not be enough coal for the WORST cases! That doesn't mean global warming goes away, it's still real science and still a real problem. But it does mean that there's a race on between needing to replace our energy systems because they're dirty and replacing them because there's not enough!

<<wait and see if the planet is heading for doom before taking a risk with people's livelihood by introducing a new tax?>>
Fair point, but what about documented health costs to your wallet? They burn coal and it causes lung and throat cancer and other respiratory problems.

Not only that, energy infrastructure takes *decades* to replace. NSW will run out of coal in 30 years if we increase consumption 3% p.a.
Sydney Morning Herald article
http://tinyurl.com/3ye9ax

There's a summary of models here with some different examples to just temperatures.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

There's some VERY technical stuff here. This is their "Models Category" tag so you can just keep browsing this back as far as you like and read everything they say about models. Realclimate is by real climatologists, but I sometimes find it unreadable with my humanities background.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/climate-modelling/

(This has, after all, always been about what I can *read*. I never pretended I was a climatologist and that his was always about what I can comprehend from the papers, not from my own technical working. I'm an easy target myself, but this is about what I perceive to be the Cherry-Picking Straw-Man attacks of people like Dr Evans who don't even respond to the empirical data submitted by Professor Brooks in reply).

Then there's the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_modelling

Hopefully these will give you more information. The SkepticalScience link at the top looks like it addresses some of your questions.

PS: I really *want* global warming to disappear as a concern. Then we could liquefy all that coal to help us deal with peak oil and give us a bit more time to rebuild everything.

have you ever felt the heat drop
when a cloud passes infront of the sun
[or when the moon does its eclypse..of the sun]

thing is the models are fraud
...""They develop a climate model..with all the variables,
and then test them against past history..""

thing is we have had model/bling...for ages now
so we can ACTUALLY conpare the predictions
WITH THE ACTUAL DATA

to continue testing with the past
clearly suits the model..cause the predixctions are way off base

""to see how accurately they are running.""
is as easy as seing if the predictiion...WAS true
[without added inputs...as they continually update the bling]

compare peredictions
[make sure the 'prediction' wasnt 'adapted'
as errors began to compound

""They take the model back to 1960
with given pollution,..fossil fuel consumption, etc
from historical records,..and much like a computer game in fast forward let the model run forward for a half century or so.""

so seal the predictions up tight
then compare the predictions with that they THEN predicted

""This picks up variables and errors""
from going back to the past
with THE LATEST model[bling]

""and so the models have become increasingly sophisticated.""
as the new models include factors
the orgional models didnt have..!

thus they were constructive lies
next latest 'model'..again going back to what was
when the model they used THEN...neds comparing to its prediction WITH the facts of today..

[and if its wrong..they simply tweak..
or make a new bit of bling..modelular bling]

modeling is highly flawed
live with the lies past..!

Hi Lexi, I don't owe you an apology - you owe it to Salby and the Hendersons. It is not a rebuttal to say you disagree with their politics therefore anything they present is wrong. And by using their politics as the excuse you implicitly criticise Salby for the same reason.

The problem with this whole debate is that people like you and Eclipse aren't interested in the science, you're only interested in whether your side or the other side is saying it, and as a result you're politicising a debate that ought to be mostly about facts.

Eclipse, unless you show how much money is spent on boosting climate catastrophe your figures on how much was given to the skeptical side are meaningless. From what I know most of them don't get funding of any sort for their work and do it in a voluntary capacity, because they think facts matter.

Not that sources of funding change facts anyway.

BTW, when it comes to misrepresenting things you take the cake. For example 1998 was the hottest year. According to a couple of terrestrial datasets it may have tied with 2010, and according to another it was hotter than 2010. But according to satellites, which are the most reliable, 1998 was definitely the hottest.

If you want examples of climate scientists lying then you only have to look at the Mann Hockey stick where they spliced together incompatible datasets and didn't bother to tell anyone that the reason they did that was because the first dataset didn't show warming in the second half of this century.

For the tropospheric hotspot anyone interested can check the temperature out on this page http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global temperature trends (you'll have to scroll down). Minimal warming, if at all.

Or one can go to direct sources such as NASA (explains climate as opposed to weather):

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (info about extreme weather events):

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/special-statements.shtml

CSIRO (explains climate change)

http://www.csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html

As opposed to a cobbled together list designed to confuse rather than inform.

@ UOG,
utterly incomprehensible gobbledygook as always. You didn't read ONE of the links I provided that show the peer reviewed temperature.

@ GrahamY — Do you really follow the logic of what you are suggesting? Seriously?

1. According to your paranoia about government funding, we should abandon ALL public health studies and cancer research and dietary information and nano-technology and computer science and EVERYTHING the government has ever subsidised because of that horrifying spectre of a government gravy train.

2. Both government and PRIVATE funding goes to climate science and National Academies of Science that all verify the AGW hypothesis. How do you explain EVERY National Academy of Science on the PLANET agreeing with AGW? You know that they are funded differently right — some from corporations and some from the government sector? But they all agree. Why?

3. Which leads us to ... what a *terrifying* world you live in. I genuinely think that if I believed what you believe that I would be far more anxious. Because if I were you, I would apparently believe that there was a worldwide plot to pervert most public and private study into AGW for nefarious political ends. It is "The End of Days" stuff, signs of the Apocalypse. What motivates you to think this way? What a mind job you've done on yourself!

As for temperatures:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

And "The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

El Nino is the kid making waves in the bathtub, AGW is the tap left on.

I still think it is a great thread.
Do not force my view on others, but still think it is real and indeed believe far more scientists do than do not.
I have no understanding at the level some do but watch with interest.

Eclipse Now, I think you're a long format troll. You said earlier that this issue was about English comprehension. Assuming yours is OK, then there is no way that you could think I said we shouldn't spend government money on research and services. You made all that up. Just as you made a lot of your rebuttal up.

The fact is that far more money is spent by people and organisations trying to prove that global warming is happening, than is spent trying to show that some parts of the IPCC story are wrong. There is no money being spent, that I have ever heard of, trying to prove that global warming isn't happening. Everyone accepts it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

When it comes to the last 13 years, if you look at the data you will see there has been a plateau in temperature since 1998. I don't know whether temperature will resume an upward trend or not, but you only damage your credibility by claiming that temperature has increased over the period. That's the equivalent of Arjay saying on the other side of the argument there's been no global warming(if indeed he said that).

Oooh look at you, all gussied up and pretending to be interested in science.

It's sooo cute!

After the climate 'debate' is over (win or lose) you can go back to your politics, noone will think any less of you.

Gorgeous.

I'm a bit slow, I just worked out how to give direct references to the graphs I was referring to. This first is a bar graph of the trends on temperature for two different satellite records over varying lengths of time, and one of them does show cooling for the last 10 years, but warming generally. http://climate4you.com/images/BarChartsForSattelliteTempTrends.gif.

The other is from three datasets of land-based records, and shows the last 10 years cooling, as well as the last 5. They all show warmings over longer periods. http://climate4you.com/images/BarChartsForSurfaceTempTrends.gif.

This last is a line graph of 100 years of data to which they have fitted a straight line and a polynomial. You can clearly see the decline on the HADCrut series since 1998, reflected in the polynomial. http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif.

So by some measures Arjay is right and by others Eclipsed is too. Which doesn't justify the scorn that Eclipsed has been putting on RJ.

Hi Graham,

So you don't want to apologise?

However I'd like to make a few corrections:

You state - "I am politicising a debate that
ought to be mostly about facts..."

Kindly re-read my earlier post.
All I did was present facts as they were
available on the web. (To all who are
interested from the Sydney Institute's
own home-page). This was done in response
to Raw Mustard's initial post.

BTW: He called our PM (and a few others) using a
derogatory term - which lowered the
standard of this forum.

I thought that Eclipse
has presented his case for discussion rather well
giving appropriate links.

"Science is the pursuit of knowledge
and understanding of the natural and social world
following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
The key words being - systematic methodology, and
evidence." As defined by the British Academy of Science.

This is an emotive subject for many people - especially
for those who don't understand the science or the
evidence being presented.

Eclipse Now also criticises me for making no reference to peer reviewed studies.As Prof Tim Ball notes,we have people within this biased system peer reviewing each others work.IPCC" We have to hide the decline" "Temps have fallen and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it." Is this the communication of scientists with integrity who are seeking out the truth? It appears not.

Climate always changes,but the hub of the argument is the cause.Al Gore said the science was settled and Prof Ball rightfully said that the science is never settled.

I'm just so outraged that we have all be lied to and conned by what were once highly regarded esteemed paragons of truth and virtue ie the scientific method.It has been perverted.

BTW.Let's hope Graham that Tony Abbott rises to the occasion and becomes a leader we can all trust.

Lexi, you completely ignored the science. Perhaps it is not your bag. If so, say so. Here is what you said:

The link you've given us is from the Sydney Institute,
a privately funded - conservative think tank.
It receives support from the Australian Business Community.
The Executive Director is Gerard Henderson. His wife -
Anne Henderson - is Deputy Director. They aren't
climatologists so I'd be a tiny bit sceptical as to
"their truth." As you rightly said - "Nuff said!"

You draw a link between their political point of view and whether a view you assume they approve of is "truth". So you are making an ad hominem judgement. You are not looking at what is argued, but at who argues it.

You say they aren't climatologists, inferring that the opinion on their site is from an unqualified person, when it isn't, it is from someone who is well-respected in the climate science community.

You further infer that they are somehow making the statements - you use the possessive pronoun "their" to qualify "truth", suggesting that Salby is some sort of tool.

Not once do you refer to what he says or present one shred of evidence as to why it is wrong.

Then you have the front to suggest that I apologise for my comment above:

"And I also think the knee-jerk reaction by another poster above to try to dismiss Salby as being politically motivated because he spoke at the Sydney Institute is disgraceful. He is a professor of climatology and has written one of the text books on atmospheric physics."

Your comments bear out my criticism. I have nothing to apologise for.

Mr Young,

Enough said!

"""
BTW: He called our PM (and a few others) using a
derogatory term - which lowered the
standard of this forum.
"""

You think labeling them snake oil peddlers more insulting than being labeled a denier, extremist or that untruth, climate change skeptic? Your very own lying PM's words I might add!

Perhaps you should send her a letter stating your displeasure of her lowering the standards of this country!

And I didn't want to get involved with Graham's defense of Murry Salby, but he's absolutely 100% correct in what he's said. I'm sick and tired of the left slandering good people because they have a differing opinion. Look in your own backyard before you go slandering others!

RM,

A few corrections:

1) I'm actually not a "leftist."
I'm not even sure what that means.

2) Julia Gillard is not "My" Prime
Minister.

3) I have never made any derogatory
comments about you or your political
leanings. And you have no right to make
them about me.

4) Using terms like "snake-oil peddlers,"
and "Nuff said," in reference to
our PM and others, is politicising
this debate and very much lowering the standard of
this discussion.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-dreyfus-files/liberals-carbon-confusion-20110803-1ibbs.html
Raw Mustard good morning.
I enter this link to , well take the heat out of the environment we find our selves in, this thread.
If it in quoting past quotes from your best leader *post* Sir Robert, as opposed to your worse ever Abbott, forgive me.
My regards.

Hi GY,

Your reference to Trolls on this thread was timely. James Delingpole has just published the “Troll spotters Guide” in the UK. Well worth keeping a copy for reference, Informative and absolutely hilarious.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100099194/seven-types-of-troll-a-spotters-guide/

@ GrahamY
<<The fact is that far more money is spent by people and organisations trying to prove that global warming is happening, than is spent trying to show that some parts of the IPCC story are wrong. There is no money being spent, that I have ever heard of, trying to prove that global warming isn't happening. Everyone accepts it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.>>
This sounds just like Creationists demanding that Creationism be taught alongside Evolution in American classrooms! Let's try again.

EVERY government cent spent on global warming research could potentially disprove warming, from those who study how bugs and insects and birds are responding to earlier seasons to those who study spectrometry, atmospheric physics, and clouds. Why? Because this is how the peer-reviewed scientific mechanism works.

If you just turned off all the thermometers and atmospheric models and spectrometers and ignored what we know from the raw physics of climate change, the BIOLOGISTS tell us the planet is warming. There are apparently 29,000 species and reports of species and data sets about biological life ALREADY responding to earlier springs and later winters.
http://tinyurl.com/42vftzz

The empirical evidence is compelling. "The truth will out!" Conspiracies collapse, and you haven't answered why you believe the entire planet's National Academies of Science are all in on the conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Your whining about funding is exactly like the Creationists arguing that long ago, in some dark corner of scientific ignorance, a data entry or meme set itself up and perpetuated throughout all the scientific disciplines. You can't just shrug off every National Academy of Science by whining about 'too much funding.' If anything, excessive funding should put your mind to rest and assure you that the empirical method has been over and over and over all the data, that we KNOW what is happening as best we can.

You are not arguing for science to be funded, but for ignorance, just like the Creationists.

This is a sorry little thread.

Linking to genuine science sites, peopled by real climatologists was a complete waste of time.

Rather, deniers (they are not skeptics in the true sense) seek to prove a single issue (in this case there is no AGW), fossicking among various sites that support their carefully worded Google searches and then claim - "See my 'facts' trump your facts".

Meanwhile, we drain the last of our fossil resources, create new damage and pollution via the desperation of fraccing farmland, the pollution of our water systems continues along with the industrial haze spreading across cities, third world countries continue to be exploited if they have any remaining resource or either thrown enough money to prop up corrupt governments or ignored completely.

However, watching the lengths that people will go to using faux or cherry-picked evidence in order to place the entire mess of our making into the too hard basket is reprehensible.

We are all responsible, some just don't want to admit it and believe that the earth is some kind of magic pudding.

Bazz posted this entertaining Youtube, outlining the whole damn mess we have created, on another thread, it deserves viewing here also. I am aware that it will be ignored by those who cannot even bother reading up on what NASA or the CSIRO have to say (being the source of the science) but I will keep trying. Maybe someone will take time to think rather than bolster their political ideology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=youtu.be

The issues facing us are more than whether you believe the climate is changing or not. Either way we need to take action, sooner rather than when it is too late.

Dear Eclipse and Ammonite,

Fair summations but I doubt whether you'll
get anywhere. This has indeed become a sorry
thread and "people like us," are apparently
the only ones that are politicising this debate.
We apparently don't understand the science or
the facts.

Professor Garnaut a pro climate change
scientist is called - a "snake-oil peddler."
And that's acceptable on this forum. Whereas
pointing out that the Sydney Institute is a
conservative think tank and therefore might
tend to present
speakers from their point of view (not that
there's anything wrong with that), is considered
disgraceful. Has the Sydney Institute had a
pro-climate change scientist as a speaker?
Such is politics - it all depends where
your leanings lie.

Eclipse Now

I think you just eclipsed me by "that much". Your links to valid sources are excellent. But will they make a difference?

Many are claiming that scientists have concocted the entire claim out of greed. I agree it is about money - about who stands to lose the most and in this case it is the mining industry, the energy industry and the mess of smaller entities that either supports or is supported by these above mentioned industries.

A world wide conspiracy of scientists is about as believable as a herd of cats. Scientists by the nature of their talents are the most questioning and independent of creatures.

Not so big corporations - who could've been at the forefront of alternative and sustainable technologies but instead have remained, kicking and screaming, to the very end of their anachronistic industries and politics, dragging vested interests and the scientifically allergic with them.

annnonite quote...""The issues facing us
are more than whether you believe the climate is changing or not.""

quite right
its about replacing a petro carbon based ecomomy
with govt funds

recall your conflict?

""Meanwhile,..we drain the last of our fossil resources""

get the point?
"the LAST of our fossil resources"

andf here we are going into the greatest ever global ressesion
and without the 'green income/industry'..the world economy would long ago have stagnated[and we havnt even reached peak 'oil'..or peak coal [let alone peak frukking gas yet]...but its the same SCARE tactics

how much of the NEW carbon polution is a reasult of BUUILDING all the new solar cells..or wind towers..and the other short term fixes
cause oil coal and gas..*will outlast them

and they arnt as cheap or available
when the wind bags dont blow their spin
and the sun shining from their bottums dont make energy after sunset

heck in spain..the actually focused coal power elect-trick lightsd onto solar cells.just to get the mates rates deal on solar BUY BACK

""Either way we need to take action,""

BUT IT MUST BE RIGHT ACTION
and those who hope to control it or make proffit from it must pay it themselves[not get govt to pay]..having a bob each way

in the global scare..we have those what got
free insulation[even sen them instal over other insulation
but industry made the insulation boom...[we got some got free light bulbs[that some industry lobby had to make..manufacture...]

we spent [wasted money on clean coal...now builb pipelines
lol 'infastructure'..for frukking gas lines to transpoert the gas overseas..all on govt tic

when the frukking gas wells leak methane
still the green lobby begs for more money
to make more industry..

to raise the cost of energy
so in the end,..the short-term imagined fixes..might be cheaper
[as long as they get longterm govt subsidy]..

then the long term reality

absolute power corrupted
absolutly

but now we got real problems

austerity measure's
run down the base infastructure
and govts have broken its people..made us all go broke

for a lie
by spin

then..who to blame?

who will be the new energy szar
the same mob..ge bp

who got big by govt favours

that lasted longer than the ones who gave it to them

the blogers words/..govt laws are still there
but the people who posted them..are long gone

then we have to put up with others calling us ignorant..cause we actually read the info..that they then claim not to read

name calling runs rife
but the worst names are from those needing to blame others
needing their hands in your purse..to sell a solution..that dont fix nothing..dont attack the root cause of polution..industry

then we get the chief liar on lateline last night
saying[not saying much]..about her own..*dirrect action plan
closing down brown coal..lol by tender

""sooner rather than when it is too late.""

but what if we do the wrong thing..too early
and the money people

[who wont do ANYTHING without govt grant
hold all the cash]

we fired off our money into the aether
and they put it into other assets..they then let run down
cause no govt 'grant'..and WE then again..need to fix it

but
next time..
fix the real problem..the right way*

Eclipsed, you raised the issue of money, and when your thesis that there is huge funding of some so-called denial industry is demonstrated to be wrong by actual argument rather than by linking to a site where someone else said something you turn around and accuse me of "whining".

When you look at the links I provide they are to hard data, not someone's interpretation of them. They demonstrate that your claim that it's been getting hotter in the last 13 years or so is wrong. Full stop.

Why do a large number of science associations sign on to the IPCC scenario? Good question, and the answers lies in public choice theory. If you want funding you go with what the bureaucrats want. It's a clear case of bureaucratic capture, demonstrated by the fact that these bodies have a position on it at all. Most of the scientific facts we are taught aren't put into policy by some science organisation, and you ought to ask yourself why this particular issue should be almost unique in that way.

Lexi, I don't comment on every thing that is said on a thread, and I don't expect anyone else to. But there is a difference between saying you shouldn't listen to someone because their general view of the world is wrong (right-wing for example) and you shouldn't listen to someone because their view on a specific issue is wrong (peddling snake oil).

I don't say that one shouldn't listen to you because you come from the left of the political spectrum, but I will criticise you because you haven't advanced an argument, just applauded. So do you think it is unacceptable to call you a cheerleader?

The empirical data absolutely does NOT support a 5 year cooling trend because climate does not measure in 5 year trends! You're looking at ENSO, not climate, when you narrow in on such meaningless data samples. If you're going to selectively zoom in on data you can concoct whatever story you want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

I'll copy and paste from previous posts because we've already been here.

At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels warned against using the 1998 El Nino super-spike as some sort of 'proof' of a cooling trend. Take the advice of the words of a fellow Denialist.

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

Other links showing this was the hottest decade on record:
NASA shows 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

And there's a *wealth* of information in the *footnote links* to peer reviewed studies from the following wiki's. It's quicker if I just link to the wiki's and you can source them all yourself. Together there are *hundreds* of links.

<<Is 1998 actually the hottest year on record?

Of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. For NASA GISS and NCDC, the hottest year on record is 2005. A new independent analysis of the HadCRUT record sheds light on this discrepancy. The analysis is by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) who calculated global temperature, utilizing a range of sources including surface temperature measurements, satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys. They found warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe.>>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#Weather_satellites

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

Yippee, I think we’ve just spotted the first “Cuckoo Trolls” of the season.

Cuckoo troll. (Prunella Moduloudest)
“Like most trolls, cuckoo trolls are tortured by a terrible nagging fear that no one will ever take what they have to say very seriously. This fear is well justified. Cuckoo trolls try to get round this by mimicking the values of their host community. So, for example, they will seek to mislead with comments like “What makes you think I’m a Labor voter?” or “Actually I’m very open-minded on the subject of climate science. I just….”. The purpose is to make them come across like reasonable other people, instead of the hard-left/deep-green activists they in fact are.”

James Delingpole, Troll Spotters Handbook.

The Cuckoo troll is gregarious and often flocks with such species as the Greater Green Galah. Mostly the Cuckoo Troll echoes the call of other troll calls with shrill, ear piercing screeches. Most active during the “policy season”.

Researchers now believe that these species are in severe decline however, they tend to cover this up by being shriller than other species, thus creating the impression that they are representing greater numbers than is the case.

Troll spotting anyone?

Lexi,

GY said:
“…you're politicising a debate that ought to be mostly about facts”

It does have that appearance. It appears that most left wing people don’t buy the climate change thing either. It looks as if you are (no doubt sincerely) promulgating an idea that appears to have originated as an attempt to politicize it so that left wing people will tow the line.

“Correction: I am not hostile to Catholic belief.”
Thank you for the correction. Out of curiosity would you agree that most Catholic beliefs are shared by other Christians? Also, theologically minded Christians of all stripes enjoy arguing pedantic differences but there are few clear substantial distinctions between Catholics and other Christians in belief given the protestant diversity. Only three examples come to mind.
1. A belief in the teaching authority of the Pope/infallibility in certain circumstances.
2. Catholics believe in the real presence. Others consider it symbolic. Even fundamentalists who argue that the Bible should be taken literally don't take that literally.
3. Catholics believe that we are divinely required to be open to being fruitful and multiplying within marriage. Although this belief isn’t uniquely held by Catholics I believe it is the only Church that has it as doctrine.
When I referred to Catholic belief are those 3 what you had in mind?

“I am a Catholic.”
I apologise for saying “an identity as a Catholic in conjunction with a hostility toward Catholic belief”. I meant to express my surprise when two things are surprisingly together rather than to assert you aren’t. If it is me those things wouldn’t be together but you are not and you have corrected me concerning the idea that you reject Catholic beliefs.

Eclipse Now,

I ran out of posts and you have given a lengthy answer to some of what I have written. Therefore merely continuing is awkward in case you have answered something already so I'm vacillating as to whether to continue first or go through your links first or to cherry pick from what I was going to say. I'll play it by ear.

It finishes with a look at how Climate model runs from 14 modelling runs (without quantification of how much is hindcast and how much is forecast) and points out that it fits the data between 1900 and 2000. Again of course it was likely done 1990 or later so that isn’t compelling.

Update: You seem to have some explanation that a model is created and then tested backward. In other words you consider the modellers to be ignoring the past and choosing components for their model then testing them out on the past. But surely if it didn't work they would tweak it until it did. Tweaking the model until it works backward is no substitute for working forwards. Surely it would be too easy and probably necessary to tweak things to fit before releasing the model?

”Yes, you noticed? Tell me, does your Denial of science ...”

I’m not trying to deny science. I just wanted to get to the bottom of this. Either this is something to save the planet or twaddle. I’m not going to accept either view on blind faith.

”He worked on the computers "building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office" but as far as I can tell is NOT a climate modeller. My wife designs beautiful website LOOKS, but doesn't code them up. That's the backend work we pay a coder for. As far as I can tell real climate modellers told Evans how the software should work, then he coded it up or ran the math. That's about all he is qualified for. Unless you've found a secret climate Phd somewhere? ;-)”

The Director of Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability has a PhD in computer science. Evans publically claims he did the models. A PhD in computer science sounds more like something giving skills for coding and a PhD in electronic engineering sounds more something giving skills to tell the IT guys what to do. Evans says he produced the models. Maybe he is an IT geek. I don’t know. But you seem to dismiss him too quickly.

Good Morning Graham,

I am no more of a cheerleader than anyone else.
I do try to see things from more than one
perspective as a general rule - and all this
fuss over my response to Raw Mustard's initial
post is simply a storm in a teacup as I see it.
Your using terms like "People like you and Eclipse,"
didn't help mattters. Of course neither did
my terminology as you pointed out. Perhaps we
all need to re-read our posts and check the language
we use before pressing the send button.

Dear mjpb,

Again Thanks for a well reasoned post.

Dear spindoc,

Trolling is typically unleashing cynical and
sarcastic remarks on another poster, because it's
the Internet, and hey, you can!

Eclipse Now,

“You mentioned of my friend Barry Brook that:
<<and thus has a living dependent on Climate Change being accepted>>
Tell me, does your scepticism of scientists paid by the public purse also include those terrible drains on the public purse like doctors, health specialists, cancer researchers, immunisation programs, ... and then if we include normal public servants can we trust ANYTHING primary teachers, high school teachers, garbage collectors, sewerage plumbers and contagion specialists might tell us? Where do we stop?”

On that basis it only extends as far as groups who are dependent on funding from a government who are committed to a particular view or dependent on earning a living from a group that exists because of a particular view. A good example is working for an “Institute of Climate Change…” How could the group exist if there wasn’t climate change?

”But if you DO in fact DENY the empirically tested and measured FACTS of our heating world that EVERY SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION ON THE PLANET has independently verified…”

And who have scientists who convert to thinking it is bunk while working there and say so publically. Doesn't that get your attention?

” He hangs out with climatologists …”
Sorry but I’m giving that one a miss. Hanging out doesn’t slice it for me.

” The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions.”

The earliest couldn’t have been before the 80s if Hansen is the pioneer as the video seemed to imply and most must have been from 1990. Of course they would.

” If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away”

Don’t you mean that if there are enough holes in the claims it won’t exist in the first place? Many people just want to know if there is anything in this and they get greeted with this type of response.

Hi Eclipsed, you can do trends on climate over whatever period you want, climate doesn't care. There is a five year trend, just as there is a one year, 10 year, 20 year 1,000 year trend, whether it is significant is another issue.

No, I was not referring to ENSO, which is expressed as a pressure differential, so couldn't possibly be compared to temperature. Check the graph out again. The issue is purely about what has happened in the last 13 years. I'll agree it doesn't necessarily mean the trend is broken, but it is a significant departure from the models.

I do not understand however why you want to deny the fact that it exists.

You just keep linking to the only dataset that shows that 2010 might have been warmer (but not statistically warmer) than 1998. The problem with that is that because of errors in measurement no scientist is going to make that claim as there is only so much precision that you can give to a measurement. And as all the other datasets diverge from this one, on the balance of probabilities it was cooler, but certainly no warmer.

BTW, I was wondering. I'd got the impression that you were opposed to nuclear power, but now I understand that I was wrong. Am I reading that right?

Lexi,

<<Trolling is typically unleashing cynical and
sarcastic remarks on another poster,>>

Nope, but since you did not follow the definitions offered by James Delingpole, you made up you own instead, perfect. That makes you a No7 troll.

“I didn’t read what you said but here’s what I think” troll.

“He doesn’t read your piece. He doesn’t need to: he knows what he thinks already and what he knows is, he hates everything you stand for and you’re wrong and he’s going to say so, every column you write, regardless of the fact that the paucity of recommends he gets prove him to be a total Billy No Mates”.

I can do my own assessments now so you don’t actually need to keep jumping into the box provided.

Ammonite,

"Many are claiming that scientists have concocted the entire claim out of greed. I agree it is about money - about who stands to lose the most and in this case it is the mining industry, the energy industry and the mess of smaller entities that either supports or is supported by these above mentioned industries."

You don't reckon that there is much money in taxes?

"A world wide conspiracy of scientists is about as believable as a herd of cats. Scientists by the nature of their talents are the most questioning and independent of creatures."

A desire to get funding or have a job or a desire to fit in with peers are not something that scientists are immune from. These things would not be properly described as conspiracy.

Lets say that I was a traffic engineer with wonderful qualifications and experience in the area of driving speed and safety who had run a very small pilot study that indicated speed cameras are useless. Will I get funding and will it advance my career in the area if I ask the State Transport authority for funding a big study to confirm my findings(assuming I'm not in NSW)?

Are you aware that the first time Crassulacean acid metabolism was discovered it was ignored because it was believed that it might conflict with theories of photosynthesis? In reality there was nothing to fear as different plants approach the issue differently. It later got rediscovered and accepted.

Anyway there certainly isn't total uniformity of scientists on this issue. Almost all that I have seen speak up are arguing against Climate Change and imagine the pressure on those working in places like the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability or in a country where the government has publically committed to a carbon tax and has a Climate Change department federally.

Dear mjpb,

I'd like to clarify something for you.

You state in response to the earlier
comment made about me - "you're
politicising a debate that ought to be mostly
about facts." And you tell me that, "It does
have that appearance."

Well the facts are as follows:

This debate on climate change has been politicised
for quite a few years. As the ABC 4 Corners Report
on February 13, 2006, pointed out where Kevin
Hennessy, co-ordinator of CSIRO's Climate Impact Group
spoke to Janine Cohen and Tor Hundloe - in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability," both
confirmed that - "In Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public
research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the
organisation's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
standout countrties in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of this
mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was
to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into
UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position had changed - yet the Prime
Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter
global warming."

"New ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement of the human lot, were
threats to those who had become comfortable in their ideologies."

The overwhelming evidence that CSIRO, the body assigned to
"independently" research and inform government on climate
change and its impact for government decisions, policies, and
strategy was gagged in speaking independently.

If we're presenting facts - it should be all the facts - and not
simply just a select few - especially in a debate that has been
politicised from the very start.

Dear spindoc,

The definition of trolling is available on the web.
As is the definition of trolls. You should read it.

Arjay,
You are intentionally damning one of modern civilisation's most interesting scientific enterprises because of a few choice words plucked out of context from a few emails. Do you even know what was being discussed? Let's try another question: did you even READ the entire EMAILS?

"Hide the decline" of what? What "nature trick"? "Temps have fallen and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it." — are you sure you even got that quote correct? What a flippant post. You are showing a complete lack of integrity. This SCREAMS a warning to all readers: "Aray posting — handle with care!"

For anyone who wants to understand what was actually being discussed here is a RADICAL new analytical technique we'll use just this once. It's called 'Actually bothering to read the email in question'. We'll summon all the powers of a Year 8 English student and try to comprehend the context of the words in the email, and the email in the context of a scientific discussion.

<<"Temps have fallen and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it.">>
I'm sorry, but even using my weak humanities background I can look up the so called climategate emails and show you that this sentence ACTUALLY reads...

<<The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't>>.

This is addressed in this next video (which I know you won't watch, but that doesn't matter because other people with half a brain and an ounce of integrity might).

An essential 18 minutes =
Part 1: "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" — with a special guest star from Beavis and Butthead;
"We don't need TV to entert-ain us". "Hehehehehe, he said anus!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

Part 2: Threatening emails and a conspiracy to stop a sceptical paper being published?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4

Non-essential
Part 3: Death threats to climatologists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw

More on "climategate"

In summary:
* The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.
* "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.
* The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

"lack of warming - travesty"
Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
http://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

The Economist — "But to take this as evidence that Dr Trenberth questions global warming seems foolish."
http://www.economist.com/node/14960149

“Climate scientists have to accept that they are in a street fight. They should expect a few low blows.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468345a.html

The Science Show podcast. "Do they question our understanding of climate? Fred Pearce investigated for New Scientist magazine."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2758445.htm

Summary of ABC stories: hundreds of links
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/s2775954.htm

Actually, I'm SO sick of Denialist's flipping the Climategate bird at me (without any actual *thought* behind it) that I've composed the following multiple choice test. I'll just copy and paste this each time Arjay PIGS (Presents — IGNORES — Go-over again) this debate.

Do you even know what was being discussed? Let's try another question: did you even READ the entire EMAILS? Play this short multiple-choice test and see how you go.

* "Hide the decline" of what? Tick one to see if you know what we're talking about.
A: Temperatures
B: Sea-shells
C: Tree-rings
D: Denialist lies

* "Mike's nature trick" refers to:
A: Tricking the journal Nature into believing global temperatures were higher than they actually are
B: Phasing out Tree-ring proxies diverging from instrumental recordings of global temperatures due to drought, temperature change, pollution or acid rain?
C: Stalagmites in caves
D: Denialist's foaming at the mouth in screaming therapy! (Oh the humanity!)

* "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." is about ...
A: A lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica?
B: Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean ... well below the surface?
C: Was it because the La Nina ... rearranged the configuration of ocean heat?
D: The importance of tracking all of the above as we approach global warming and how urgent it is that we learn to track the REAL and PRESENT danger of climate change even more accurately!

Part 1 (9 minutes) "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" — with a special guest star from Beavis and Butthead;
"We don't need TV to entert-ain us". "Hehehehehe, he said anus!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

lest we forget climate change was FIRST global cooling
thatcher used to kill big coal unions in uk

libs love it..*a nice new cash/tax grab
now greens/labourites love it too
for the same reason

but now..sold by different bling

how many times have we heard..
'we are the worst emmiters globally'

when in fact we rate 12 th..!
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/qindicators.htm

ie a lie
boldface lies
no good can come from namecalling evil

further we use no nuke power
and little hydro...!

ONCE THESE ARE FACTORED into the model/bling..
we come in lower even than mere 12 th

add in the average cost of 500 EACH
and the euro zone is 96 cents
[that usa has a sceme costing in total less than 6 billion]

and reportedly the nasa satilite datra
telling us the truth...[that the heat is escaping through the sky..out into outerspace]..at a rate that throws any ipcc models out of the window

mate see this is a wealth raising exersize
get it...mr eclypse...[of course you cant]
tell me will nukes power be an option?

you know them radioactive things govts need to dismantle
like the german one being decommisioned since the late eighties
cosing 10 billion so far...and still going..while not having 'generated'..lol c02 free power..for 30 years
but stil chewing up govt funds

recall ge got the whole nuke thing for only one buck?
cause govt couldnt afford decommisioning costs..!

if this topic
is to get nuke power up
mate im telling you your dreaming

ge still is cleaning up
from the nuke scam

and now...cleanming up again
from bulding the green energy scam

its the same same mate
give me your compulsory taxation
and big business will do its thing..with lobby..modeling and bling

and take your taxes..
to add to their bottum line

knowing the media will let people forget
and blog the same ol scam again and a gain

govt money..and your proffits for free..
or fee..

[musnt ignore the paid consultants]
modeling their latest bling

Sonofglion I await my number, as I question almost every thing you say, without doubt I too am a troll what is my number bloke?
Can I ask this? why do you post here, oh I understand you have opinions just as we all do.
But forgive me, it seems you like insulting those who do not agree with you most.
Me? no saint, good LAWD no!loony lefty me, its ok to say that here.
Believe in climate change at least in part made by man, yes ok getting back under my rock.
Stay Lexi, worth the effort.
Us new untouchables, the lefty folk, can take it, in about ten years the McCarthy like Inquisition will be turned around.
By the way, those who know me would giggle at the thought I am from the left, but face it, tea party is driving a wedge in to conservatives in America, we follow them soon Sir Robert Menzies may be considered a lefty.

Dear Belly,

Its spindoc not SOG who's desperately
trying to offend.

Thanks for your kind words.

GrahamY
you're being deliberately sneaky.

<<Hi Eclipsed, you can do trends on climate over whatever period you want, climate doesn't care.>>
Actually it matters a great deal if one is going to pronounce that global warming is over and we are entering a 'cooling' phase all based on a tiny 5 year trend AFTER a massive El Nino.
<<No, I was not referring to ENSO, which is expressed as a pressure differential>>

Oh right, and ENSO doesn't also express itself by radically moving global temperatures around? ;-)

<<It’s long been known that El Niño variability affects the global mean temperature anomalies. 1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997-1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region.>>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

<<An El Niño is associated with warm and very wet weather months April–October ... La Niña is the name for the cold phase of ENSO, during which the cold pool in the eastern Pacific intensifies and the trade winds strengthen.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENSO

<<El Niño involves warming of tropical Pacific surface waters ... and alternate with the opposite phases of below-average temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific (La Niña)>>
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-6-2.html

Other links showing this was the hottest decade on record:
NASA shows 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

Of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#Weather_satellites

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Remember what one of your Denialist friends said:
"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

The Heartland Institute has eagerly latched onto Roy Spencer's research into cloud formation and the impact on global temperature. In keeping with scientific rigour, Spencer's paper was been assessed by Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University and the modeling he used found to be incorrect.

"Spencer's research hinges on the role of clouds in climate change. Mainstream climate researchers agree that climate change happens when carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the atmosphere, much in the same way that a windshield traps solar heat in a car on a sunny afternoon. As the planet warms, a side effect is more water vapor in the atmosphere. This water vapor, known to most of us as clouds, traps more heat, creating a viscous loop. [Earth in Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points]

Spencer sees it differently. He thinks that the whole cycle starts with the clouds. In other words, random increases in cloud cover cause climate warming. The cloud changes are caused by "chaos in the climate system," Spencer told LiveScience."

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear....

...Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research."

...The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."

Cont'd

Cont'd

"...Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation."

Roy Spencer was completely open about his reasons for publishing his paper and "cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment."

http://tinyurl.com/3dkxt7d

When one considers that his remarks merely feed into the climate deniers conspiracy theory of all the world's scientists colluding for more money, we gain further perspective as to the reasons for his paper.

The following provided by NASA displays visual effects of global warming.

http://www.livescience.com/11391-earth-checkup-10-health-status-signs.html

Nope, I'm not being sneaky. I have never said that global warming has stopped. All I've said is that there has been no warming for 13 years. Yet you deny that as a fact. Only one dataset has 2010 warmer and that is not statistically significant. I explained that above. You can argue about starting points, but then I'll point out that there has been cooling over the last 10,000 years. Are you going to argue with a 10,000 year trend?

I can see your tactic. Just fill-up the thread with references that have nothing to do with the issue in the hope that people who don't understand will see all your links and decide that you must be erudite.

Your hide the decline stuff is pathetic. Mann's "trick" is not a legitimate technique. In fact it is the worst cherry picking that I have seen. When his proxy didn't show the temperature increase he wanted he spliced in another measurement that did. If he had stuck with the tree rings they would have shown temperature declining when instruments show the opposite, demonstrating that the tree rings are not a good proxy to reconstruct temperatures.

Anyone who defends this trick is dishonest or just plain doesn't understand science.

Ammonite, the problem with all of your quotes is that air temperature is driven by the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface, particularly the oceans, and this is moderated by cloud cover. CO2 and other greenhouse gases act like a jumper making it more difficult for heat that has got in to get out, but they don't drive the system.

Further, earth's climate has been fairly stable for a long period of time, suggesting negative feedbacks predominate. Spencer is much more likely to be correct than the people you cite.

Eclipsed, I'm posting this separately because you ignored me above, but I am curious to know when you decided that nuclear energy was OK.

Graham Y

I source my information from creditable sites such as NASA, Science Journals and so on.

Roy Spencer's discredited (by climatologists around the world) paper was published in Forbes Magazine, a neo-con magazine promoting Heartland Institute, a think tank whose mission is:

"The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

It is not about science, it is all about outmoded economic rationalism.

In every post I have made to this thread I have emphasised the SOURCE of the information I have presented.

OLO readers may be interested to understand the importance of true skepticism compared to the vested interests of most denialists:

"1) How reliable is the source of the data?

The scientific consensus: Tens of thousands of studies published in the peer-reviewed literature and conducted by thousands of researchers over more than three decades of investigation by scientists at every kind of scientific organization (government, independent, skeptic, NGO, University, industry, etc.) all over the world.

The denialists: Bloggers and skeptic scientists associated with free market lobbying groups.



2) Does the source make similar claims?

The scientific consensus: Science is always open to new ideas. That is how science works. Obviously those new ideas have to pass the test of scrutiny.

The denialists: The phrase used in the video, "heretic for the sake of heresy," comes to mind.



3) Have the claims been verified?

The scientific consensus: All claims must meet the test of scrutiny - peer review, replication, many other experiments looking at the issue from many different angles.

The denialists: Any single "data" point is touted as the truth that upsets the established understanding, even long after the "data" has been shown to be misunderstood, misrepresented, or an outright lie."

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977801876

@ Graham
Yes but you're ignoring El Nino super-spiking 1998 above the norm. Because you want to ignore the overall warming trend, it's as if some Japanese soldiers after the fire-bombing of Tokyo turned to each other and said, "Phew, I'm glad that's over! That must have been the worst bombing we've ever experienced so far — maybe the worst we'll EVER experience! The conflict trend is going to reduce from here."

Check out how Phil Jones puts it.

"The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.

The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Or try this.

"With La Nina in full swing in the tropical Pacific, it is likely that 2011 will be a much colder year globally than 2010. A majority of scientists who believe that Greenhouse gases are heating the earth's atmosphere claim that it's remarkable that 2010 has been so warm, since the El Nino of 2010 has been less intense than 1998. They also point out that this warmth is against the background of continuing weak solar activity."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperatures-a-dea.shtml?postid=103862755

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dear Eclipse,

I've noticed that you haven't posted for a while.
So I assume that this thread has run its course
for you. Anyway, Thanks for an interesting
discussion on a subject that I think many people
know so little about. See you on another thread.

Yes! I see the light:) Humans eating this planet alive.....and I love the thoughts of mankind NOT BEING REASONABLE for the planets demise.

1929 stock.....fall....this is happening because we, "the planet holdings", cant manage/support the number people and the right wing know it. There are only three ways out of this, and you all must choose ONE. 7 billion then 8 billion then 9 billion....lol when with 7 billion, the wheels are falling off. ( the collapses of the north )

The greens support the idea of "THE WORLD AS ONE"...and ( the numbers suggest....the UN generally considers this as the way to go.

We only have one planet, I suggest all to take a very LONG look at our currant position.

LEAP

Lexi, as you might have suspected he hasn't posted for a while as I have suspended him for the comment that I deleted as well as his general behaviour on this thread.

Lexi,

Eclipse Now has overstepped the line and gone so I'll ask you questions as you are apparently so confident about this issue.

How do you feel about the use of the term "denialist" for people who are more scientifically minded (according to the pro-climate change scientists' own research)? Do you think that it is an insult to Jewish people that it gets used rhetorically in that way? How about claiming that people are unresponsive (not an unusual accusation in a debate) and labelling that PIGS (apparently unusual)? Does that look to you as if there is an attempt to lean on rhetoric as if the facts are inadequate? I ask questions rather then accepting climate change on blind faith and it is implied that I am anti-science.

In spite of the appeal to authority it is supposed to be straight forward and easily demonstrated. But when it is demonstrated there is a party trick with cold gas, a flame and a heat camera. When they want to show good predictions of volcanic effect that vindicates Hansen they don't superimpose thus enabling easy comparison. The predictions only seem to work backwards - particularly weather events in Australia.

Temperature measurements are taken in clearly confounding circumstances (but it is said that climate scientists aren't the ones taking measurements but rather National Weather Services). But why are the measurements sites so apparently deliberately and ubiquitously wrong?
http://web.archive.org/web/20090319232403/http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html
Supposedly this is corrected for by recourse to rural weather stations and corrected by the NWS but if such a high proportion don't even meet their guidelines and they look so deliberately sited can we take the word of the measurers that they are making appropriate corrections? And what is the break up between urban and rural? What proportion of the rural ones are incorrectly sited? Even if the CRU and GISS have nothing to do with the collection they use the suspect data.

CONT

Doesn't Wikipedia claim that all peer reviewed articles are in the same direction (or am I misrecollecting) but Energy and Environment holds itself out as peer reviewed.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/Journals/EE.asp
"All Reviews undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure, in the same way as regular research papers."
It has published something that is inconsistent with the dramatic global warming claims:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/M&M.EE2005.pdf

Then there is this claim that someone who reviewed IPCC reports said rather damaging things:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/claims-were-made-for-which-there-was-no-evidence-in-some-cases-the-evidence-was-clearly-manufactured/

What do you make of this? Dissent even within IPCC?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12823

I appreciate that scientific issues can be presented in a way in which an evidence based approach appears to be a defunct argument (in fact the peer review article thing sounded good to me until I discovered that it was fiction) but this looks rather strange. Can climate change be defended without trickery and strong rhetoric?

there are those who comprehend 'the science'
as experts in the 'science'..its they alone..who know the science
to wit a [problem]

then comes the solution [after a real problem is found]
and guess what throwing money at carbon resources trading
dont fix the problem..[only doubles the price of energy]
we cant fix an industrial polution..by gearing up the poluters

try to think how much 'energy'..[and govt cash]
has gone into..solar cells or windmill CREATION
and even by spending the earth on getting 80 %..of the earth onto these energies..means the lights still go OUT..if the sun dont shine..or the wind dont blow

so the proof is in
so we are warming..thus evidence of cooling refutes the theory
[so the spin became climate change]

we got grenhouse GASSES..
from least to worse...c02...nitrous oxide/methane
yet only tax coal based c02...[and in a few years diesal..[but not petrol]

but mate still ONLY 500..
WILL BE LEGISLATED to by carbon 'credit'
[or will it THEN ..be 1000 AGAIN]

mate every level has been having its spin and lies
vote for me and no carbon tax...[yeah right mizz juliar]

add in the name calling
even in this debate..NOW about wether a big new tax will fix 'it'

it stinks
but hey im working lol for big coal
[im not im resiting a lie and a bad new tax]
but look at the spin..if they had proof..that the problem is real

that the big new tax would fix the problem
that we against the lies do get the science ,
and know deciete/spin...distortion..selectivity
when we hear it

know the solution just might have a monetory causation
as at every stage the cry has been fund the science
fund the solar/wind..generators
now pay tax

its about money
its about a big new tax

if your paying for abatement...
yet not reducing that..'energy your using'
its just feel good blather...or taking the bribe

if you THINK
ITS the 'right thing to be doing'
THEN YOU FIND YOUR OWN MONEY..dont try to steal mine with lies/spin

The difference between scepticism and denialism:

1. Sceptics are people who don’t take things at face value; they demand facts, and are ready to change opinions based on the weight of evidence, even if that goes against personal preferences or beliefs.

2. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with their personal beliefs, desires or ideology. People in denial gather reasons and excuses, however flimsy, that allow them to not believe in whatever unwelcome truth they’re trying to avoid.

Examples of 1

Most but not all scientists, doctors, crime investigators and similar people involved in research.

Examples of 2.

People who deny the Holocaust, moon landing, that the sun rises in the east.

Loaded or rhetorical questions are those which contain a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.

Examples include:

"Have you stopped beating your wife."

and OLO's own recent contribution:

"Can climate change be defended without trickery and strong rhetoric?"

Hoping this is of help to the gentle reader.

Dear Graham,

Thank You for that information.

Dear mjpb,

I can't better Ammonite's definitions.
For me this thread has now run its course.
See you on another thread.

Ammonite,

Sorry to be slow but what you seem to be saying with your first two definitions doesn't seem to be what you mean to be arguing so maybe you could clarify.

The indications are that people with a scientific or mathematical bent are more likely to be skeptical about climate change. So are the "deniers" better described as skeptics?

From what I keep seeing people who believe in global warming appear to fit better into your denialist category. I refer to my earlier posts. I don't immediately accept that putting something cold in between a heat source and a heat camera proves that the cold gas has any particular property but that is apparently convincing to died in the wool climate change people.

You lump together loaded and rhetorical questions. What you describe appears to define a loaded question but not necessarily a rhetorical question in my understanding of the terms.

My question might be sound rhetorical or loaded but I am just responding to what I've seen. It is more of a frustrated question. I was hoping for something substantial from the pro-Climate change side. What I have seen prior to coming in here didn't necessarily represent the pick of the litter. There are a number of people who feel quite strongly that there is a human made climate change problem that requires urgent attention at great human cost. There must be some reason for that.

However instead I was pointed to trickery, called anti-science, and read derogatory labels thrown at the only side who seem to present meaningful facts. I would very much like it answered but Lexi has bowed out.

I apologise as I have not yet read all the posts and particularly not your own. An awful lot of links are included in this thread. Perhaps there is more in there than what I described. I'll keep at it.

mjpb

I sorry to see that you are having difficulties with a couple of simple definitions.

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

and

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I have already presented my opinions backed by reliable sources in preceding posts.

Therefore, adieu.

It wasn't so much simple definitions perse. It was just the fit of the facts in one because they seemed to run counter to your opinion as inferred from other posts and I always thought there was a difference between loaded and rhetorical questions.

Your definition only fitted my understanding of a loaded question so I was surprised. Also:

To me this is a loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife."

To me this could sound like a rhetorical question:

"Can climate change be defended without trickery and strong rhetoric?

Since English is my first language I'd better read more on the issue so thanks for the links if they help.

cant let this thread end
without mentioning the sbs last night

some blurb re can we trust science
about global warming in the main,
but this time by some plant biologist[member of some royal acadamy]..no les

well he begins at nasa[of course]
with expensive models floating in front of them
[then its more the questions he didnt ask..than those SETUP"S..he did]

he could have asked re the elyptical orbit arround the sun
that makes times hotter and colder...and ask the temp of outerspace
[from memory near freezing or boiling..dependant of solar flares]

anyhow the next dude WAS actually a climate scintist
who was allowed to make one point..[re staligmites]..proving cycles of cli-MATE change[that he refuted by pointing at an overgrown garden
with a tree in the background]..then saying you gotta look at the big picture[sorry WHOLE picture]..cause he couldnt refute the stalignite proof..!

next he went tre rings...[and the lying emails
that said they tweaked the model-bling..from 60's to today
cause the,THE TREE ring DATA..refuted the theory]..ie collective fraud

if the tree data says what the stalignite data reveales
the point wasnt mentioned

but lets egsamin that point
the modeling oNLY mentions c02..[ie plant food]
in the late 60's there was a reduction of coal c02
[and methane and nitrouse oxides..went up..causing the actual 'warming']

but then mehane and nitrous oxide are getting a free ride
only c02 POLUTERS must pay

the botanist then went into conspiricy theory
with some dude what believes aids/hiv something something
and i went to sleep[which is what the propaganda wanted to happen]

its a shame lexie left

maybe she could have explained why the need for so many lies
and so much spin..and so much ommision..to get up a new tax?

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/who-is-funding-climate-change-sceptics-20110810-1im25.html
OUG as you know one side of this debate is inhabited by lying scientists, news papers, self interested groups fools, and the very worst of the worst.
In this case that is me, because I clearly stand on the opposite side than you.
Strangely my Friend, true, I feel not a bit of that about you.
In the end one side will be more right than wrong.
We will know then,as I think I do now climate change has always taken place.
But in less than 300 years of the industrial revolution, the immense growth in human numbers we are speeding the process up, needlessly.

mr bell quote..""OUG as you know
*one side of this debate is inhabited by lying scientists,""

yes i noticed that
you say its my side
i say its your side

but one thing we agree on
some scientists can be clearly bought

your link says its my side
i say its those on yours

so we both KNOW scientists are for sale
[so follow the money...now who is govt giving huge cash grants to?]

big oil and big petrol..are loosing cash cows
and gas[frukking fracted gas]..solar and wind
owned by ge...mate they got the cash

lets just agree all science is flawed
depending on what side has bought the scientist

""news papers, self interested groups fools,
and the very worst of the worst.""

mate we agree again

""true, I feel not a bit of that about you.""

me either mate
were both following our gut..[our core beliefs]

""In the end one side will be more right than wrong.""

yet both sides have ab-USED science spin

but mate i like direct action
ie waiting till we got a real problem
not just a solution..that dont fix any real problem

""less than 300 years of the industrial revolution,""

thats the key right there belly
it was cheaper power/energy that helped make the revolution

just as its expensive energy cost..
that will end-up..killing the workers/jobs

""the immense growth ..n human numbers""
meant customers consumed product

no consumers..no jobs

""we are speeding the process up,needlessly.""

again..i agree[for different reasons]

making all these billions of solar cells..
and building millions of wind generators..to me
is speeding up energy consumption..speeding up the process..

that will not even make 'peak load'..
or power when the wind dont blow..
or the sun dont shine

its the wrong solutions all round
govt shouldnt be chosing winners..giving ANY subsidies..
to any big business..
be it for fuel
or solar cells on our roofs

ps the modeling in that doco..was fraud too
how can models show the real time cloud...[at night]
and neither model had dark periods..thus the one the biologist claimed to be in 'real time'..was as fake as their other model..[ie bling]

the different models overlap in places..
but got their by different paths...[thats just clever minic spin]

what they should do is SAY..tomorrows cloud will look like this
the day after will look like this
next wek like this

THEN COMPARE THEIR PREDICTIONS*
and they will be more wrong than right
but then the solution [cure is worse than the disease]

flora/fauna has survived much worse
than two thirds of a degree change in 50 years
[thats what nasa said..also that will double in the next 50

so we are talking about
a 2/3 rd OF ONE DEGREE..!..increase
in the next 50 years..!

[maybe..
if their faux models is right]..

and its not
the solar cells/wind power
wont even..last that long

That OUG is not what I was saying.
I was using SATIRE to highlight the WHOLE WORLD WIDE DEBATE.
can you, ever remember one like it?
Every post you ever make on the subject talks of laughing out loud and tells us, believers, we are being fooled.
I am going back in to my cave having put the hand of friendship out you bit every finger off.
enjoy.

@ Under One God
I was intrigued, and so watched your show at the SBS website.
http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/scienceunderattack

This was a good show, and brought the audience up to speed on who some of the authorities are in this discussion.

If you want to learn about the tree rings and other proxies, here's a good start.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

//Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.//
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Climategate
//A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.//
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Other evidence for a warming world
//There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.//
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Cheers.

@ MJPB (2 posts)

I'm not sure that people with a mathematical or scientific bent *are* actually more likely to be sceptics. From my experience it is mainly one's political orientation, not technical ability or lack of it.

Sadly there also seems to be a similar correlation with nuclear power. If you are right-wing you tend to be for nuclear power but against action on climate change; if you are left-wing you tend to be against nuclear power but for action on climate change.

However, both Professor's James Hansen ('grandfather of modern climate science') and Barry Brooks (an environmental scientist and head of the climate department at Adelaide University) have both said that believing in a 100% renewable energy grid is the same as believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. It's not going to happen.

Now, you called the candle demonstration a 'party trick'? If you really are doubting the basic physics of Co2's absorption spectra, I suggest you phone your closest CSIRO or University science department and ask if they have a lab that can demonstrate this. I hardly meet any sceptics that actually attack the basic physics of what we *know* Co2 actually does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

As for attacking the surface temperature records, well, that's just another version of the Urban Heat Island effect which we have already discussed but let's have another look.

"Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small:"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

@ MJPB
You quoted a paper by McIntyre and McKitrick that seemed to be hosted by the University of Guelph, and had no reference to the peer-reviewed Royal Chemistry Society of the UK?

Anyway, this is the old Hockey Stick Controversy kicked up by a mathematician (and well known sceptic) and an accountant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Willie Soon seems to have kicked off this debate, which fuelled some right-wing attacks in the States. But he's owned by Exxon (to about $1million?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#Funding_by_fossil_fuel_business_interests

You quoted the Heartland institute, but they are also funded by Exxon.
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

Then your PDF by Stephen McIntyre — mathematician
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

and.. Ross MKitrick — economist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

"At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result."

"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre

So have a good read of the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Hockey stick controversy special
"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. "
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
&#8232;Good luck on your quest for the truth.

I just wanted to update the list on the temperature record.

Of the top 3 climate monitoring units only Hadley says 1998 was the warmest, the other 2 say 2005 and 2010 were the warmest — by a whisker.

This is despite the fact that 1998 was a frighteningly powerful El Nino year and 2010 had a fair La Nina which *should* have induced cooling! When a *normally* cooler La Nina year beats a *normally* warmer El Nino year, you know something serious is going on.

NOAA says:
// For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record//
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13

NASA GISTEMP confirms the same thing and says:
// Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. //
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

But rather than argue over hundredths of a degree, which is all that seems to separate the temperatures, have a look at the trend *all* 3 agencies report. A brilliant graphic here illustrates how closely all 3 temperature databases track.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring

Eclipsed, you're back doing what you were doing before.

If you look at all of the terrestrial temperature datasets they show no difference between 1998 and now. The comparative figures that you quote are statistically meaningless - the "whisker" you refer to. This appears to be accepted by some of the stalwarts of the IPCC view, as you can see in this paper by Kaufmann et al http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf.

Added to that they diverge from the satellite record, which is the most credible record in this area.

The Hockey Stick was discredited by two US inquiries - Wegman and the one you cite. And also by the facts. If you want to see a comprehensive database of proxy studies on temperature then this page provides it http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php. There is no doubt that temperatures have been hotter in the Medieval period and also the Roman one.

It is also discredited by the use of inappropriate proxies, something only touched on in the Wegman inquiry, probably because Mann's "trick" of deliberately and improperly cherry-picking proxies only when they suited, hadn't been discovered at that stage.

glad you watched the sbs doc
as you havnt refuted the points i will let is stand in disgrace
its sad that they feel the need to play tricks..to trick/up the model/bling

but thats the game
for another egsample your repeated postings of the
'http://www.skepticalscience.com/"
your own side has decried the 'sceptics' as holow/caust deneyers
so the sceptical clearly is a cover chosen FOR believing the spin
ie not truelly...'skeptical'

quite clever really
but TOO CLEVER by half
its just an egsample of grabbing the 'highground'
by stealing the best name..*OPPOSING the 'debait'
but such distortions are all part of the spin

none of you 'lot'..seem to know why only carbon
[and not the FAR WORSE wethane/nitrous oxides..that ISNT 'in' the 'model']

or why overnight 1000 became 500
even if the science proces c02 a FACTOR
its only part of the story..if the 'warming' has truth
[and EVEN THAT is debatable]

let alone THEN..!

a tax on one [c02]
BUT NOT methane/nitrous
[that wernt 'modeled either'

and then that the EXPENSIVE current cure's?
solar/wind..DONT MAKE PEAK LOAD..!

or EVEN IF ALL PREVIOUS is proved true
that DEALING in c02 PERMITS...at inflated market rates
is the 'cheapest thing [the right lol]..thing to be doing

next we get to your bias
in uk its the liberals doing it
in australia its labour partly dioing it
aso your political bias is like all your other blather

GREEDY greenie industry
lobbying non-sense
for govt cash
sub-sidy

leaching out of the public purse
by fear lies and spin
fight or flight

well im fighting
the fright you 'right'..lot deem mankinds plight
try to explain the science/govt/carbon traders link
why is it the 'right thing..for lab left..to be doing?

the green spin is in
sceptical science my buttt

Hi Graham
I'm on pain-killers after some recent surgery, so don't have the energy to really investigate deeply, but that appears to be the peer-reviewed paper that discusses why AGW doesn't show up as even *hotter* than 2005 and 2010. That is, why it hasn't grown in step with the Co2 emissions.

The paper was written in 2008? What temperature database did they use? Because as far as I can tell NASA and NOAA *do* claim 2005 and 2010 to be hotter than 1998. That's 2 of the top 3 temperature databases on the planet.

(And I disagree that Satellites alone are the most accurate method for measuring the temps as there was a whole controversy about them drifting off course.)

Anyone cast any light on what temperature database Mann used in the PDF Graham linked to?

(Back to bed)

Look Eclipse, it is a matter of reading the figures, not of what other people say. I instanced the Kaufmann et al paper not as proof of the fact that temperatures have plateaued, but that others on your side of the argument were being sensible and admitting the unavoidable.

The NOAA and GISS media releases go beyond what their own figures say. The margin of error in measurement is such that all you can say is that there is a plateau. I'm not claiming anymore than that, but I think it does demonstrate the weakness of the IPCC argument that what ought to be a non-issue is so vigorously argued.

In terms of the satellite measurement, there was an issue with Satellite drift, but it has been corrected. Much less of an issue there than with the issues with the terrestrial measurements which include the siting of thermometers, the choice of which thermometers to use, the adjustments made over time to them, and the elimination of some thermometers over time from the measurements, not to mention the fact that some areas of the world are very sparsely covered by thermometers.

But NOAA and NASA interpreted the data and margin of error and still unequivocally state that 2005 and 2010 are the hottest.

The paper only went to 2008 anyway — so with NASA and NOAA both claiming 2010 was as hot as 2005, and hotter than 1998, what we can say is that a super-spiked 1998 has been equalled by a variety of ENSO events in the following decade — the hottest decade on record.

Even though it was the hottest decade on record the drama in that paper is that it wasn't *hotter* — and so they did a round up of the usual suspects. (Sulphur, etc). This is actually quite encouraging as it means the 'sulphur shield' might actually work if we get into a runaway-warming scenario.

And the Urban Heat Island effect is not a problem at all. The climatologists have stated that it was relatively easy to tick off the erroneous sites and have the database correct for them.

Overall, the picture I get is that the science is sticking together. Hottest decade on record yet the climatologists are *honestly* saying that it should have been hotter! That's peer-reviewed science at work. I wouldn't expect to see that if some conspiracy were in play.

So Eclipsed, so we now have an admission from you that it hasn't got any warmer over the last 13 years. I guess that is as good as it is going to get, but it shouldn't have to take all of these posts to get to this point.

What the underlying trend might be is still the issue, but it does your credibility no good to refuse to accept plain facts.

To all interested posters:

The following website is an educational one sponsored by NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS). It is free to join and offers educational programs on understanding both weather and climate. I am sure that people interested in the climate debate will find the articles and programs offered to be of use in continued debate on OLO with scientists, giving greater information and understanding.

https://www.meted.ucar.edu/about.php

The following links to the educational modules from which one can learn about the many events climatologists study. It is not linked to the IPCC nor the Heartland institute. This is climatology pure and (not so) simple.

https://www.meted.ucar.edu/training_detail.php

I am hoping people will access this opportunity for information, and not use the excuse of 'not enough time'. If one doesn't have time to properly inform oneself, then I can only ask why post on climate topics at all?

Many inquiring posters to OLO do make the effort to understand the topic they are discussing. True, not nearly enough. And I don't claim to be an expert only having a degree in Applied Science in Environmental Studies. However, this is 2011 we have the internet literally at our fingertips, no excuse for complete ignorance and relying on organisations that have vested interests in maintaining misinformation about climate - such as those who fund the Heartland Institute.

Cheers

Graham,
How can you say that? We still haven't tracked down which database your *one* peer-reviewed paper used and why they used it. As for a trend, you still haven't admitted 2005 and 2010 as the 2 hottest years on record (according to NASA and NOAA) and the last 15 years being the 15 hottest years on record.

Let's just clarify this: other than the vagaries over which database the Mann PDF used, do you deny both NASA and NOAA's temperature claims? If so, why? And do you deny the last 15 years are the 15 hottest on record, and if so, why?

Ammonite,
you are probably far more qualified to comment on this than anyone here. My argument has been that anyone with basic reading can clearly see when vested interests like the Heartland Institute are producing studies that cherry-pick information out of context. One doesn't even have to be a scientist to detect when someone is deliberately misrepresenting what the other side of the case has argued.

But thank you for your post, I'll keep those links in mind. I'm starting a new career tomorrow and (recent surgery permitting) will hopefully be helter skelter adapting to my new job. So I'm not sure how much time I'll have to respond here to comments like the following.

EG: I would *never* have put it the way GrahamY did:

//So Eclipsed, so we now have an admission from you that it hasn't got any warmer over the last 13 years. I guess that is as good as it is going to get, but it shouldn't have to take all of these posts to get to this point.//

That's just ignoring the plain facts as reported by NOAA and NASA. (But let's not let actual data from enormous temperature databases cloud our *opinion*!)

Eclipse Now

I wish you the best on your working future. I agree that it is not difficult to follow the warming trend over the past 20 or even 150 years in which NASA, NOAA, CSIRO and many other climate monitoring facilities concur.

However, I am frankly appalled that the CEO of OLO finds it necessary to deliberately misspell your moniker as "Eclipsed". So infantile is this behaviour that I know trying to reason with people who indulge in such pettiness, is to fall victim to Einstein's wonderful point regarding insanity:

" Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. "

I applaud you for remaining courteous and calm throughout this thread.

Climate scientists have tested their theories over and over and unfortunately have not had different results. If only we could continue to decimate our bio-systems, plunder all our mineral wealth and belch pollution into the atmosphere with impunity. Such are the beliefs of the wilfully ignorant.

I am emailing this post to some of my fellow OLO posters, in case this post is claimed to be something other than what it is and deleted.

Dear Eclipse and Ammonite,

From the lay person's experience it doesn't take
climate change specialists to convince people
that climate is changing. One just has to look
at one's own life-time to see that changes have
occurred.

In my own lifetime in the city where I live there's
been tremendous changes. I remember in my chilhood
heavy downpours throughout winter, freezing nights,
and occasionally snow in the nearby mountains. The
summers were unbearably hotand extremely humid.

In winter puddles of water were frozen to solid ice
and even outside taps were frozen solid. In summer it
was so hot that construction workers could fry their
eggs on the hot pavement.

Today, all that is only memory. And the climate is far
more pleasant and comfortable. We no longer have the
extremes. Along the coastline some of our favourite
beaches have disappeared. And flooding appears to be
more frequent.

In the Pacific many of the islands that we liked to visit
are now slowly sinking under the waves. And on the mainland
our favourite fishing lakes are now cow pastures.

And if you talk to mother nature - she's certainly getting
very confused - in the middle of winter - the trees think
it's spring and are flowering in full bloom. And in the
mountains the snow line is receding. Which to my way of
thinking - the climate appears to be getting warmer.
Of course there could be another explanation - that
planet earth is slowly being sucked into the sun's
gravitational pull. (I've heard that explanation from
some sources)

You don't have to ask a climate specialists - just ask people
who do look outside their windows and venture into the wide
world - is climate really changing - or is it just a
political ploy?

Come on people - write about your own experiences with the
climatic conditions.

yes lexie
corrrr it aint half hot mate

average temp has gone up half a degree
using the spins own numbers

now is this warming c02
or methane
or nitrouse oxide

or that other greenhouse gas
used to 'clean' solar cells

if you can prove the cause is one case
whats causing it in truth...[yes we know polution is bad]
but this new tax isnt going to fix ANYTHING

sowhy tax c02?
cause were not miners
were NOT farmers

were not the BIG poluters
we just give carbon credits to the rich
to gamble their price UP by market forces

your dreaming girl
there might be hot flushes for you soon
that should warm things up?
even more

Dear Johan (OUG),

Wouldn't it be lovely to have a clean energy future
though?

I know I'm dreaming - but gosh - we need to
dream; soaring imagination is the glue that keeps our
soul from shattering under the impact of a prosaic
world. But dreaming can be a tricky business and, if
we're not careful, can disappear altogether from our
lives.

Can you remember when you were a kid and you'd lie in
the grass on your back and watch the clouds roll by
above you and you'd dream of what you were going to
be when you grew up?

Well, what happened?

lexie quote..."Wouldn't it be lovely
to have a clean energy future""

yes
it would be great
if i could eat meat that didnt have to die
but the sad truth is someone needs to get dirty hands

but there is no excuse for deciete
facts are facts...[and 7 meter sea rises
and 2 degree temp changes are spin..and lets egsamin 'clean energy'

how did that go in japan?
all that 'clean energy'
that wasnt actually that clean

or how about night time solar
or windfree wind power
yea that would be great
BUT*...is it realistic?

""I know I'm dreaming""
no lexie your not dreaming
im having a nightmare..as will we all if youtr current dream comes true

""but gosh -we need to
dream; soaring imagination
is the glue that keeps our
soul from shattering""'

oh lexi i cant argue with facts like that

""under the impact of a prosaic
world...But dreaming can be a tricky business"""

oh good i can see your pretty feet comming back down to earth
[i would love to be one of those 'lovers'..of 'everything'
but..

recall you said this

""Can you remember when you were a kid
and you'd lie in..the grass on your back
and watch the clouds roll by
above you..'

....''and you'd dream..of what you were going to
be when you grew up?""

yeah mu thumb
blocked out the light/heat of the sun

BUT

i grew up
was forced to look at the truth

and stand against spin..[or even poetic turns of phrase]
learned about buzz words and special adgendas...learned that people will say anything...do anything..just to win a word game

or get a govt grant
or make others fel guilty
or steal others cash..to give to 'others'

this place is hell
where the difference betwen words of truth
and words of spin are hard to tell

thus jesus said..
know them by what they do
not by what they say

""and,..if
we're not careful",
[the child in us all]..
"can disappear altogether from our lives.""

and there we are
older/wiser..then some person says
your guilty of destroying the earth...buy a ccarbon polution perrmit

OE ELSE..!
we will call yoiu clever names
hollow cost deneyer...[or how did that mp
put it at the doorstop this morning..[oh..next we
[them]/me..will be deneying we walked on the moon]..

well we didnt
if anything a few might have
but hubble that can see back to the 'end of time'
YET..cant show us the proof..that mankind actually...did

plus..[they lost all their photo's and proofs]..lol

funny bout that..
im not suprised

I guess it was too much to hope that you'd actually stick with your admission Eclipsed. I don't have a problem with the observation that the last decade has been the warmest of the instrumental record. I am not going to "admit it" because I've never denied it. I don't waste my time denying facts as you appear to want to do.

It's not an issue that the Kaufmann paper is one paper - it's an example, I'm not running a poll here. There are bound to be others, and more as time wears on.

In terms of the datasets showing 2005 and 2010 as "warmer" than 1998, two thermometer datasets do and one doesn't, and the satellite record agrees that it wasn't, but they are all so close together that in fact there is no statistical difference, so none of them say they were warmer of colder.

I'm assuming you never studied science or statistics, or you would understand that if two answers are within the margin of error then they are the same.

That is why I say it has plateaued over the last 13 years, which is the most anyone can say in either direction.

BTW, you said that the siting of thermometers didn't make any difference. Well Roger Pielke has just published a refereed paper looking at the US land-based sites using observations from Anthony Watts volunteers. Guess what? We now know empirically that it does, most specifically to diurnal temperatures. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

UOG
you know that at 3% growth, NSW coal RUNS OUT in just 30 years?

Sydney Morning Herald article
http://tinyurl.com/3ye9ax

You know that it takes decades to build out a new energy infrastructure?

You know that most resources DON'T just suddenly 'run out' but peak about half way through their life cycle and then we move from abundant easy to get to cheap coal to decreasing mining production of ever dirtier, hard to get to coal.

You know all this don't you?

If climate change is a hoax, I welcome it because peak coal certainly hasn't set the alarm bells ringing. YET. If we leave it too late and coal prices soar, we may just bankrupt ourselves.

And you're worried about a Carbon Tax? Compared to peak fossil fuels a Carbon Tax will look like a pale ghost, a lame imitation, a Clayton's drink, a decaf espresso, a Lame Duck President, or even an ex-president for that matter. My guess is the moment peak fossil fuels arrives Carbon Taxes will be reversed overnight. Well, they could be.

But on the other hand, by then hopefully we'll have woken up from this paranoid nightmare of Tony Abbott's and be living in the real world where bold new enterprises *are* sometimes kick-started by governments. I mean, would the internet have even started if not for DARPA, and the first $trillion American governments pumped into the net? Yet all you smell is a conspiracy. As Harry Potter might say to a Boggart, "Ridikulus!" and Tony Abbott's nightmares melt like budgie-smugglers on a hot summer's bike seat.

GrahamY

//I guess it was too much to hope that you'd actually stick with your admission Eclipsed. I don't have a problem with the observation that the last decade has been the warmest of the instrumental record. I am not going to "admit it" because I've never denied it. I don't waste my time denying facts as you appear to want to do.//
That's just odd. I know what I said, and I know how you twisted my words. I'm too busy to play childish semantic games.

//In terms of the datasets showing 2005 and 2010 as "warmer" than 1998, two thermometer datasets do and one doesn't, and the satellite record agrees that it wasn't,//
However, which satellite data-set do you refer to?

//but they are all so close together that in fact there is no statistical difference, so none of them say they were warmer of colder.//
Is this what the scientists and agencies actually conclude, or just your opinion? Why do you assert — without any evidence — that NOAA and NASA are just inflating the temps for press releases? (Or however you actually phrased it). I wish *you* would actually stick with your admission, and just leave NASA and NOAA's work alone thank you very much.

//I'm assuming you never studied science or statistics, or you would understand that if two answers are within the margin of error then they are the same.//
And are *you* assuming that *NASA* and *NOAA* never studied science or statistics? Why don't you jump on the phone and explain it all to them then if you have a better reading of their data than they do? ;-)

//BTW, you said that the siting of thermometers didn't make any difference.//
I never said anything of the sort. I explained that there are these things called databases, and when a temperature station is found to be faulty it is easy to delete it and correct the entire database.

I'll stick with the MET and NASA and NOAA, and you can run along and play with Anthony Watt's volunteers.

mr now
thankyou for the 'update'..re coal
going extinct in only 30 years...lol

please inform your buddies
who seem to be decieving themselves re FRAKKING coal gas

the greenies who want an end to coal
thus chose coal gas..are simularilly decieved
how long is the coal gas going to last[as long as coal does?]

so strike one solution..eh?

next realise that AFTER coal gas is extracted..
the coal will still be there[in the 30,000 plus fraked coal gas well deposits

and perhaps your experteaze will find a way
of extracting this coal from the coal seams
eventually..in 30 years i imagine we will mine coal with robots
that pump the coal into the gaslines

[govt is forcing origen
to build for santo's and others
going to clean up big time with selling the frakking [frukked..frukking/gas globally]

its pretty dumb to take scientific advice
as grayham has pointed out to you
from biased sources

logic alone dictates the frakked
free of gas..coal..will be arround long after 30 years
but im getting used to imaginative spin from you alternative energy nutters

with adgendas
im noting you didnt reply grayhams question
re your links to nuke power...so no doudt that has some grains of truth

so your expecting nukes to take over from coal[for baseload]
or are you depending on the frukking coal gas[it gets rather convoluted eh bro..[walking the fine line betwen hope and dispare]

climate 'change' is perfectly real
nz for egsample has snow falling in the coldest winter on record
[lexies snow capped mountains simply is as easy as going to nz]

i never liked the cold
and havnt noticed the half a degree of warming..[over the lasst 50 years],,so look forward to the next half a degree...over the next 50 years your mates predicted would be 3 degrees

i liked it much better
when it WAS global warming
[ie from the hole in the ozone layer]]

before the spin
became cli-mate change

anyhow bro dont get caught in the shadow of the moon
you just might get moonstuck even worse

the sky is falling
quack like a duck

Dear Johan (OUG),

What on earth are you on about?

However, your last couple of lines
made me laugh. They're the
ones about "moonlight."
They reminded me of the old adage:

"Moonlight becomes you.
Total darkness even more!"

Cheers.

only too pleased to ex-plain
dear lexie

mr now...[ecolips]
put up a link saying NSW will run out of coal in 30 years

i pointed out to him that we are spending BILLIONS laying gas lines to over 30,000 frakking gas wells[building their infastructure to gladstone..gateway to trillions of coal gas dollars]

my now...says that all the coal will be gone in 30 years
i remided him about all that coal seam[they are frakking the frukking gas out of[that qwill long be there[till we figure out a way to mine thin coal seams[likerly with robotic mining]

machines im shown..that will run on
the methane their mining releases
that mine the coal and water drags it to the surface

me now keeps bringing up spin verging on lies
[this symptom has ben at every level of the debate]
but as grayham pointed out..the facts are far from being scientificly certain

being based on modeling[model bling]
in lue of fact

the facts revealed...are debatable
thus no consensus egsists[lest we forget this 'concensus as well was built on deception]..ie a email survey...of which less than 100 replied[certainly no where near any consensus]

thus another lie..!

if it was true
if we had the right symptom
if we had the right solution

we wouldnt need lies
lies indicate we have ben lied to

ie conned into a big new tax

yet again!

Dear Eclipse Now and Lexi

Hope to meet with you on other threads. There is no point in attempting to debate climate change with people who source their material from the likes of the Heartland Institute, Monckton. Like Eclipse Now, I prefer reliable sources and valid science from the likes of CSIRO, BOM, NASA, NOAA - actual scientists in other words.

What has been lacking from the AGW debate has been peer reviewed science proving that the current changes to climate that we are experiencing are NOT influenced by human activity. I wish it were otherwise. Even so, and people wish to believe that unlimited pollution will have no effect, we still have to adapt to changes as they occur. Humans have, until recently, been very good at adaptation, the only obstacle is political will, currently harnessed by fossil industries.

Lexi, it is fine to use Wikipedia as a source, provided you check their references at the end of the article. As research is what I do, I have to be sure of the bona fides of my work.

UOG

If you cannot, like GrahamY, make a post without denigrating another poster's moniker, you are wasting your time thinking I will bother to treat your contributions seriously.

//If you cannot, like GrahamY, make a post without denigrating another poster's moniker, you are wasting your time thinking I will bother to treat your contributions seriously.
//

I only respond to UOG when something in particular catches my eye as I rapidly scan through it. I feel like someone's slipped a little Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds into my coffee when I read UOG. I don't recommend consuming UOG posts and then operating heavy machinery! Think of the OH&S implications.



I find
the incredible
incomprehenib-ility

of the sudden-left of field
postings so blah blah blah

Purple prose, the moon, the rose
The rabid laughing of the dogs

Deranged blab blah blah something
Cherry-tree and the tinkling of the rainbow moon
But it's all the government's fault

So the communists blah blah blah
and you've been taken
-in.

blab blah blah dried fish,
and guvern-ment control,
and conspiracies... maaaaan.

No Eclipsed, you don't get away with your snide denigration of others. Tell me what the sample error is on the databases that you are relying on, then show me that the temperatures you are quoting are outside the error bands.

If the temperatures are all within the same error bands, then they are equal. NASA will confirm that if you care to contact them. But make sure it is real scientists and not the public affairs department.

Your response confirms my guess. You never studied science, yet you presume to pontificate on it and tell the rest of us how to read data. Par for the course for someone who links to a non-existent blog site in his profile.

On the issue of siting, what I said was:

"Much less of an issue there than with the issues with the terrestrial measurements which include the siting of thermometers, the choice of which thermometers to use, the adjustments made over time to them, and the elimination of some thermometers over time from the measurements, not to mention the fact that some areas of the world are very sparsely covered by thermometers."

Your response was:

"And the Urban Heat Island effect is not a problem at all. The climatologists have stated that it was relatively easy to tick off the erroneous sites and have the database correct for them."

But they don't "tick off the erroneous sites" they pretend to adjust for the heat island effect, which is a bit difficult to do because you don't know what would have happened without the heat island. And in any event, that is only a fraction of the issues to which I was drawing attention.

Time you did some proper homework.

hi ammonite..[an extinct fossilised marine molusc]
named after the 'horn of ammon'

here i found this clip of your leader

ALl' gore
voicing his true feelings
when he thought the mike was off

http://dailybail.com/home/super-congress-seeks-to-protect-military-buffett-calls-for-t.html

ofr course it isnt 'science'
cause your leaders arnt scientists

they buy and sell them..[really they are a dime a dozen]

so they have found this great cure for c02 warming
alian teqnology...

[yes aint it great..the gulllible
will swallow it up like manna]

i wont put up the links
awa heck here goes
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/fbi-memo-says-roswell-saucers-were-real/story-fn6bqphm-1226036846002

i will let them surprise you
and mr now

[personally i dont believe in alians]
nor that earth warming[cooling]..change stuff

but hey if you lot believe heavy breathing will melt the sky
and raise the sea levels 7 meters..[like all gore said]

well dream on
you pay the full price
stop lobbying govt for ever more manna[govt cash/subsidy]

your going to love the upcomming plans
and why wont 30 $ believe it
thats how many believe c02 is the only real/present danger

its kiddy stuff
but some have the minds of children
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/52138-project-bluebeam-imminent-michio-kaku-hyping-alien-invasion-as-corporate-media-says-alien-threat-would-help-global-governance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html

and as for temp readings
here is a crashed 'weather balloon'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html

at rothwell

that fbi swears was a ufo
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/fbi-memo-says-roswell-saucers-were-real/story-fn6bqphm-1226036846002

dont believe evcerything you read or hear in the media
they are there to serve their advertiser's

did you watch that guff on sbs [global warning spin]
turns out one nuke powerr station equals 9000 windmills
and we need only tripple the nuke stations..to cut one 7 th
off the 'graph'...[you know that one that melded divergent numbers

ie THE LIE..!

mr now write a good bit of guff
but his last post...indicates he read soime of my stuff
YET CANT REFUTE ONE LINE OF IT...!

well played mr now
you read yet cant refute
how weak is that?

>> No Eclipsed, you don't get away with your snide denigration of others. <<

THAT"S RIGHT.

Only certain people can "get away with snide denigration of others". And it isn't people who have any kind of scientific background or training. If you are of a fundamentalist Christian or indeed the boss (do I say not as I do), you can pretty much get away with anything.

As for our esteemed leader's focus on but one aspect of AGW, which has been explained, ad infinitum, he fails to consider the source of his arguments nor the many observations from a wide variety of data collected and compared to pre-industrial to post-industrial Earth.

A diversity of data which consists of:

1. Impacts of an explosive volcanic eruption to aviation, climate, maritime operations and society. The threats, or impacts, from an eruption vary depending on the eruption style, duration and proximity.

2. Basic tsunami science, hazards produced by tsunamis.

3.Sea levels, ocean acidification, sea surface temperatures, ocean heat, and ocean circulation have all been changing in ways unseen for thousands of years. Arctic sea ice melted significantly more during summers in the last 30 years, and storms are intensifying.

4. Flood assessment, duration, frequency and forecasting.

5. Observation and computing technologies upon material basic hydrologic science. Such as computer modelling, ice core sampling, assessing intensity of weather events.

6. Current and forecast trends in sea-ice - predictions made back in the 70's and 80's have been proven correct. Unfortunately. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/BEST/PSW2007/PSW07_modelpredictions.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/BEST/PSW2007/PSW07_icepredictfrontpage.html

7. Changes in vegetation spread, early event flowering, extinction of indigenous vegetation due to warming, animal migration.

There's much more, but head-in-sand is the easier option

dear ammonium nitrate...[thats not
name calling]..thats an aussie-ism
where we call red head guys blue

its an old tradition[taught to us as kids]
just like the rhyme stick and stones

when im called by the title one under dog
or a hollow cause denialist..or science ignorant

i laugh at how clever you lot are
with calling names..and note your playing the man
not the ball..[cause thats all some have got]

dont melt down..and add extra heat...
[the poor earth needs more cool]

so lets stick to explaining[or rebutting
what we are actualy talking about

your coup de grass..quote..""A diversity of data""

oh i thought you had an abundance of consensus
well lets see what you think you got?

""Impacts of an explosive volcanic eruption""

oh yes man made indeed
lol

""aviation, climate, maritime operations and society.""

yes plenty of data there
so your consensus consists of what?

""The threats,or impacts,""

that should read impact of threats
but we will let your simplistic destraction
continue with its reveakl...[lol]

[impacts]""from an eruption
vary depending on the eruption style,
duration and proximity.""

yes i noted that by the name calling stuff
but lets continue

""Basic tsunami science""

yes plates moving over other plates
COULD MAKE heat/friction
but MAN MADE..needs to exclude NON man made data sets
however impressive that spoin might look,

""hazards produced by tsunamis.""

yes nuke meltdowns
half man made
half sunamie caused

ok tell you what
i give you half a point so far

""Sea levels,""
well the data there is mixed
in the main cause we live on..these big plates
if a plate sinks 6 fet..[like in japan recently]
is that proof..the oceans rising..[or the plate sinking?

""ocean acidification,""

mate thats from agriculture run-off
you know running sew-rage into water

please think more clearly
your too emotional
these 'facts' mate its spin

but lets continue eh?

fertilisers and other polutants
like sand/underrwater mining..and dumping poisen into oceans

BUT Mate...we are only taxing c02

so what...?

..are we going to change agriculture
monoculture..stop deforrestation..
tax polutive mining..no we are taxing air

[not water polution]

""sea surface temperatures,..""
i will let grayham refute that data set

""ocean heat,""

a buzzword
we got ice in oceans[recall the drowing polar bears..lol]
recall the ice last year at the poles actually got thicker

""and ocean circulation""

ahhhh now your talking
cold fresh ice melt water sinks
so this proves what?

""have all been changing in ways
unseen for thousands of years.""

well as you know time and tide wait for ono-one
the oceanic current is like a train
WHERE IS YOUR DATA..that indicates its stoped or warmed?

""Arctic sea ice melted significantly more
during summers in the last 30 years,..""

yet last year the ice thickness doubled

go figure eh?

""and storms are intensifying.""

please give some proof
see man funnels storm runoff into water cources
and with deforrestation and such..the peons in flood planes
cop a rush of water..instead of the trickle

we would get if we wernt busy building mono culture..palm oil/soy..or 'carbon traps'..by clearfelling old carbon reserves

""Flood assessment,""

oh good you got an assesment of the data sets
WHERE IS IT?

""duration,..frequency and forecasting.""

forcasting data sets and only presenting spin mate
how is that working out for ya

forcasting aint data

""Observation and computing technologies
upon material basic hydrologic science.""

present data

""Such as computer modelling,""

a model is bling

""assessing intensity of weather events.""

dont tempt me by using big words
ned i spell it out?

""Current
and forecast""

having a bob each way?

""trends in sea-ice
predictions made back in the 70's and 80's
have been proven correct...Unfortunately.

im noting the date stamp says 2007?

""Changes in vegetation spread,""

yes man done that
but not c02

""early event flowering,
extinction of indigenous vegetation""

mate the old people
let the event..ie the flowering
lead them...like wattle flowerrs mean its time to fish for mullet

please verify that flowers allways flower by time
not rain..or temp

you infure..its ""due to warming""

as well due to"",animal migration.""

yes nothing like being on a sure whinner

a bob each way?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Eclipse Now

Hoping you kept a copy of your post.

Back to topic.

BP is one of the few fossil corporations to be actively engaged in alternative fuel sources. Why?

Glad you asked.

Because they accept that 97% of the world's climatologists and related scientists are correct that the releasing of previously contained carbon deposits (oil, coal, gas) adds significant effect of CO2 to the current world atmosphere. If it is difficult to understand just consider that only a small percentage of virus can make you very ill indeed.

"The Context for BP’s Break with the Industry

On May 19, 1997 John Browne, British Petroleum's Group Chief Executive, broke with the oil industry's position on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change with these words.

"There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."

In this speech at Stanford University Browne acknowledged BP's role in contributing to greenhouse gases and announced a strategy for reducing such emissions across the worldwide operations of the company. "

http://indigodev.com/BPclim.html

BP is also a contributor to the documentary aired 16th August in SBS, "Power Surge".

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/fear-greed-real-energy-challenge

For those who missed it, can be watched online at SBS.

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/powersurge

Another fact to consider is the response by the Insurance Industry to climate change:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5949991.ece

Am emailing copy of this post to other OLO posters.

Ammonite:"Am emailing copy of this post to other OLO posters."

Translation: "please suspend me, I want to be a victim too"

LOL

amholdingontight quoted john brown
lets read between the lines

"""There's a lot of noise in the data.""

we as multi-billionairs
have requested the best scientists
to egsamin the data..the SAY...'there is a lot of noise"

which is science speak..for the numbers are all over the place
and only someone ignorant of the meaning of concensus..would dare conclude anything based on them

BECAUSE..""It is hard to isolate cause and effect.""

of course that gets compounded by special intrests...lobbying for a new tax SUBSIDY..[the waters are too muddy to call it one way or the other

we can measure temp
we can measure if its getting hotter todaty than it was yesterday
but basiclly to blame one grenhouse gas as its ONLY cause would be insane

never the less our many shareholders..have swallowed the coolaid

so depite the data beibng gibberish
[scientificly speaking]outside lobby and inside lobby
tell us

""..BUT*"..""there is now an effective consensus""

consensus is not based on science
[because science is about testing..retesting..allways doudting]
first we must STATE a faulsifyable[that if refuted refutes the hypothesis]

but no hypothesis jumps out of the numbers
"""There's a lot of noise..*in the data.

It is hard to isolate cause
and effect."".!*!

'"But there is now
an *effective consensus""

not an absolute consensus

""among the world's leading scientists""
in the new art of climate changing..and accounting and spin

IE..""and serious and well informed people
..outside the scientific community"""

to wit the mass of biologists getting in on the copn
and the economists..pushing the case of DO IT NOW
cause addopting early means we get heaps of work
figguring out FORMULAS to bill people

WHERE ARE YOUR Formulas..that say your CREATING this much c02
to create this much c02...[its known poor combustion cycles dont burn as hot..so this makes MORE or LESS c02]

thing is
its a guessti/mate..!

you laugh at tony saying its a weightless gas
yet we got lighter than air gas...[like hydrogen]
that when compressed in bottle has weight..yet when NOT COMPRESSED/..floats...how much floating gas weighs a ton?

but back to your victim...[john brown]
..who cant afford any more BAD press
yet dares say

""that there is a discernible human influence
on the climate,""

our scientists cant definitivlty say whats causing it
[ie wether its methane..or ntitrous oxide or c02
cause the data is fuzzy

""and a link between the concentration
of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.""

remains speculative at best
cause there are SO MANY GRENHOUSE GASSES
[and we make many of them..too many to make much noise about FINALLY being taxed on just one of them..!

""The time to consider the policy dimensions
of climate change is not..when the link between greenhouse gases* and climate change is conclusively proven""...

lol

""but when the possibility
cannot be discounted""

ie it may be a contributing cause

""and is taken seriously
by the society of which we are part.""

and its them who will be paying it

""We in BP have reached that point."

yeah
throwing his hands up
at the collective insanity of it all

lol

you wannna pay it
go for it

just dont be saying its proven
cause its not..!

It seems to me that this thread has now suffered
from a total breakdown in communication.

This is a pity because the subject matter is one
which has considerable significance to the future
of this planet and its on discussion forums that
topics of such importance should be able to be discussed
rationally.

Eclipse Now

I sent an request to OLO for my email to be passed onto you. If course, I'll never know for sure if it has been.

Anyway, some latest news from data I have previously referenced:

"Plants and animals are responding up to three times faster to climate change than previously estimated, as wildlife shifts to cooler altitudes and latitudes, researchers said on Thursday.

Scientists have reported this decade on individual species that moved toward the poles or uphill as their traditional habitats shifted due to global warming, but this study analyzed data on over 2,000 species to get a more comprehensive picture.

In this analysis, researchers found that on average, wildlife moved to higher elevations at the rate of about 40 feet per decade.

They are moving toward the poles at an average rate of 10.31 miles a decade, scientists reported in the journal Science.

The altitude shift is twice what scientists had estimated as recently as 2003, according to Chris Thomas, a professor of conservation biology at the University of York in Britain, and the leader of the project.

The average latitude shift is triple earlier estimates, Thomas said in a telephone interview. But he noted that not all species move toward the poles as quickly as that, some don't move much at all and others actually move slightly toward the Equator, depending on what they need most to survive.

What became clear in this study, Thomas and the other authors said, was that species moved furthest in places where the climate warmed most, an unambiguous link to climate change over the last 40 years...

... "Because each species is affected by different things ... when the climate changes, they will have different availabilities of new habitat that they might be able to move into," he said.

Not every animal or plant shifts to a cooler place when its habitat heats up, because of pressure from other factors like rainfall, human development and habitat loss..."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wildlife-responds-fast-to-clim

at least ammonite allways offers some evidence
and i like that about you

what i dont like is scientists that go minning for data
then relating their selections..into money making topics

take this issue of warming
if you recall only a few years ago it was allways warming
then the data reveals cooling..so to keep the spin going it became climate change..[this might be a small point]..but is the way it is

justy like when maggie thatcher came up with the scam
before john howhard jumped on it..was THEN global cooling
but then we got a hole in the ozone layer..[recall the adverts of the time..of a parched desert..if we didnt convert our hairspray and fridges over to non global warming gas?]

anyhow lets see about temp
its well known..that in the south
we need a north facing room..to catch the heat

so when some science nutter says one degree temp change
will mke races of anuimals extinct..the question arises...what about micro-climates..[ie sun side or shade side]..

or for that matter what about these poor delicate critters..
that will die from a few degrees..when night falls and the temp drops 10 plus degrees at night

or them poor critters that must die as winter comes[or summer]
and the temp goes from minus to 50 degrees in the shade

hopw these poor things survived nuclear winters
or survived at all seems a miracle
top say the least

see the thing is we stopped thinking
we take the piuint that makes our point
then put up the link..and say arnt we clever
stop thinking..and accept the spin as truth..pay your tax and say that tax is saving the poor deklicate critters

SO TELL ME
how much TAX is going TO SAVE THESE POOR CRITTERS?
that are too dumb to find a warmer or colder spot

its just so much twaddle
that semingly will never end
till we get the new commodity to the money traders

pay your tax
and we will stop threatening the poor critters
just like we did with ozone..!