Over the years, Professor Richard Muller, a respected physicist at Berkeley, has been something of a poster boy for the Global Warming denialist folk.

He was on record as criticising the science and the scientists whose research showed that the world is warming, and at an increasing rate in recent decades, (in parallel with the dramatic rise in human induced emissions of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2).

So, Dr Muller put together a team of ten physicists including Dr Saul Perlmutter, a Nobel Prize winner, with a view to re-examining all the available data from all available sources using recently developed and more sophisticated analytical methodologies.

It’s worth noting that in part the project was funded by a 150KUSD grant from Koch Industries. The Koch Brothers, whose inherited fortune comes from oil and mining, have been among the most vocal opponents of Global Warming.

After analysing 1.6 billion measurements, Dr Muller has now released his findings for comment and analysis by others, prior to publication in a scientific journal.

They track closely with the findings of the worlds’ leading climate scientists, with NASA, with Pentagon study groups, with the world's Academies of Science, i.e. that the world is indeed warming. He even confirms the famous Hockey stick trend which aligns increases in warming with increases in human activity.

Dr. Muller now acknowledges that Global Warming is happening and that Anthropogenic Global Warming is “very much in the picture”.
"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller. “This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”
Pretty much that leaves only a handful of ‘Scientists-for-hire’ left who argue against climate change. Many of these are the same scientists who, not many years ago, were still arguing that there was no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer.
The story in the Washington Post may be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
And the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

So what?

Initially they told us that the sea will rise by 300 meters.
That was a cause for panic. Imagine us all crowding on the mountain-tops and howling across to our friends on the other peaks.

Then they revised it to 63 meters.
So my brother built a house 64 meters above sea level, expecting to end up with a private beach.

Now they tell us it's just ONE meter, and even that only by the end of the century when myself and most of us will no longer be around.

Got better things to worry about!

Fair enough!
But I have children, and more relevently, grandchildren.
Right now, they, (my grandkids) are too young to be able to have a say, but with medical science going as it is, there's every chance that they might live healthily to the end of the century.
So for me, there is nothing more important than doing what I can to ensure that they can live out their lives in a world at least as pleasant as the one I've been able to enjoy.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

"So for me, there is nothing more important than doing what I can to ensure that they can live out their lives in a world at least as pleasant as the one I've been able to enjoy."

Fine. In that case, keep doing what you were always doing, only one meter higher.

Our author has found a truth.
OLO is, like every place, no place to talk about this issue.
Not if you value truth, want to measure science against deniers.
We are about a week is it? from the birth of the seventh billion human being living on our planet.
How long did it take for the first billion.
Then how long for the next.
Next two billion come in 39 years.
We have only burnt fossil fuels in this tonnage for what 100 years?
Was it half that before say 1900?
What was it in 1800.
Why would man pollute the atmosphere? or is it why not?
Are we puppets? is some one named self interest muddying the waters.
Are we fighting phantoms?
One side is.
Yes be assured one side is wrong.
I think we need to act, to find clean energy, to reduce then stop using dirty fuels.
I too think we can do it without the predicted pain, unless we take in to account our old Friend self interest, the owners of todays energy/fuels.
You can and do, fool most of the people most of the time.
No hard task, they enjoy the feeling, of assisting you.

Think we have talked this subject out here.
Thread after thread, insults from all sides.
And yes from both sides, some thoughts and ideas that came from the lower end of Gene pool.
But if nothing else, we can if we just look, find much.
In matters that should hold our attention, we take a side based on politics.
Or base our views on them.
The other side.
They are never right.
Maybe we need a dictatorship.
It may well be we are not capable of fixing much.

Hi Belly,
I think we just have to keep on banging away until the facts overcome the emotion and prejudice.
I mean, there are folks I know who are totally against the Carbon Tax for one reason only - they hate Julia Gillard.
We simply have to patiently wear them down with facts until the urgency of the situation is understood.
Professor Muller's research and subsequent change of position has given us a big step forward.
I'm optimistic :)
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Ok, while I do believe we contribute to the pollution, can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, what caused the last ice age and, why did the climate change so drastically then?

BTW, global warming is old hat, mainly because the temp has actually gone down I. Recent years, so, they simply re badged it to climat change.

Well Anthonyve, I'm not too sure about your language. I would hardly call the 30,000 scientists, including the 9,000 PhD who signed the anti AGW petition "a few", but you're the expert so it seams.

Even then I have some doubt about your wisdom. Bring up the totally discredited hockey stick is not the wisest course. When there has been no warming at all for over 12 years, the blade of that stick would be a rather strange looking bit of kit.

It really must be hard for you blokes who draw the short straw. Having to be the one trying to defend the indefensible AGW scam in blog sphere must be difficult. How long is your sentence, & what is your reward at the finish. A week at one of Gore's nice new water front properties would be good. Fortunately you wouldn't have to swim.

Thank you Anthonyve for your informative post.

I have come to the same conclusion as your good self in that I believe the time has come to stare down the skeptics because the future depends upon it.

Australia is now an exception to the rule in terms of acceptance of the science. Along with the other straw chewing nation of the world the US. Both countries are suffering from hillbilly politics, Australia's Abbott opposition and The Tea Party movement in the US have identical goals. Maintaining the power of their constituents, the Big End of Town.

I have always sat back complacently and thought that the absurd nature of the argument (climate change denial) would eventually fizzle away under its own steam. But in OZ and the US it has gained traction with the support of closed and deceptive media.

Misinformation abounds about climate in our media Anthonyve, spiced up with premeditated xenophobia, chest thumping blood promises to rescind climate action, and bogus claims of immediate doom, gloom and job losses. Without nary a look in for the actual facts or news.

Does this concern you as well Anve, if so, do you have any plans to counter misinformation in the general media ?, as you seem to be successfully doing here. I note that your sources/links are international BBC and Washington (ironically). Would it be true to say that our local media has not covered this Dr Muller thing , making us the last people in the world to know of this event ?.

cheers thinker 2

You know, Belly, if the birth-rate everywhere could be reduced to bare replacement rate tomorrow, and if life expectancy in the developing countries could be extended to the same levels as in developed countries, world population would still keep growing, perhaps to that ten billion by 2100.

If all of those people who worry about population growth were to agree to top themselves at, let's say, eighty, then population growth would slow, maybe to only nine billion by 2100. And if they could agree on, say, seventy, they could save the world.

Now for global warming, ......

Piece of cake !

Joe

"""
If all of those people who worry about population growth were to agree to top themselves.
"""

That's the problem though, Loudmouth. The ones who cry the most don't want to go, they want everyone else to die. Same as the cry babies over climate change. They want everyone else to pay for their luxuries. No way would they give up their imeds, iphones, computers, cars, and Mcmansions, they want to take them away from everyone else!

Most of them don't have jobs, so they scream at the government to tax those that do so that they can feel they've stuck it to the man.
Having a government as incompetent as we have, they are all too willing to raise a few more bucks for their blunders and play along with the ruse.

The hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking!

THe alarmist camp has one convert and they believe that validates their religion. They refuse to shoot the false prophets who already look very foolish indeed.

Anthonyve writes
'Many of these are the same scientists who, not many years ago, were still arguing that there was no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer.'

And of course no mention of the scientist who only a few decades ago insisted that we were in for another ice age. Hilarous for any thinking person.

Here you go Rehctub read this link about ice ages :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Changes_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

cheers

1) <<Professor Richard Muller, a respected physicist at Berkeley>>

What a difference a day makes. Prior to his *conversion* Professor Muller was just another of the great unwashed multitude of skeptics. You can picture him hanging around railway stations with a sign around his neck "scientist-for-hire hoping some mining magnate would throw him a coin.

He certainly had no show of ever joining that August group of perfectionists called climate scientists and therefore could never offer any credible comment on climate issues.

But a day after he writes "that Anthropogenic Global Warming is 'very much in the picture'" --he's suddenly not just credible, but "respected" --Halleluiah!

2) << It’s worth noting that in part the project was funded by a 150KUSD grant from Koch Industries. The Koch Brothers, whose inherited fortune comes from oil and mining, have been among the most vocal opponents of Global Warming>>

And there are not too many things surer that a each way bet (except perhaps that climate will always be trending one way or the other!)

We are told the study was funded by the Koch Brothers who accrued their wealth through oil & mining! What do you suppose would have been the hue and cry if it had found: "that Anthropogenic Global Warming [was NOT] "very much in the picture"'

I'll hazard a guess it would have been a variation on: "Oh well what do you expect from a study funded by mining"
Mining is right up there with big tobacco in the AGWers pantheon of boogie men ("Many of these are the same scientists who, not many years ago, were still arguing that there was no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer").

However, now that the study has found "that Anthropogenic Global Warming is 'very much in the picture'" --it's a credible source and surefire proof --Halleluiah!

Thanks for the lols Anthonyv

Perhaps someone made him an offer he could not refuse.There is no money in being a denier since Al Gore and his Globalist mates want to make enormous profits.

In amongst all the hyperboly coming from the deniers, free market solution opposers and Gillard haters, it would be nice to see one, just one, attempt to refute Muller's data.
He's a scientist using scientific tools to arrive at a rational conclusion. And, after completing one of the most detalied studies ever conducted on this issue he concudedthat he had hitherto been wrong and so changed his mind
If you want to refute him, then that's what you have to address.
Or, alternatively, face some realites:
1. Global warming is real and human activity caused;
2. Free market solutions are always the best and most cost effective;
3. The carbon tax, morphing as it will into an ETS in a few years, is the best way of stimulating the free market into action.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

rechtub isn't the weather patterns are being affected by sea temperature. El nino is on it's way back again. What happened to the ten year cycle. It only left last year. More floods and drought all at the same time. Ocean currants are raising in temperature, and effecting the whole world. It seems the ocean can not take any more co2. It is time the denialist brigade stopped the opposition and get behind climate change action.

<<it would be nice to see one, just one, attempt to refute Muller's data>>

Can't say I have read Professor Muller's report yet. However,If its finding is that climate is changing --few would argue with that --climate is always changing, one way or the other.

On the other-hand, if its finding is that climate change is inherently linked to CO2, why would anyone need to re-invent the wheel(?). Professor Ian Plimer has done a magnificent job of debunking that, here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2011/3299038.htm

Spain is acquiring enormous solar and wind power projects around the world, In 2008 spain spent twenty-billion $ on solar subsidies, the govt; has since withdrawn it's subsidies, in a hope that the industry is now able to be self supporting. Time will tell. The USA has now taken over as the biggest alt; energy producer in the world. The Spanish have contracts in India, Dubai, Puru, etc; With the cost of solar panel's now decreasing greatly, more and more clean power generation is rapidly expanding.

Loudmouth Joe if I make 80 can I top a couple of others instead?
Athonyvc now yes quite true.
But, I bet my last dollar, and any years left, a close review of say Rechtubs true understanding,it could have been others, Hasbeen for sure, would work against their stand.
I am convinced history will support our views.
But too,those on the other side, with not doubt, will claim to have always stood with us!

SPQR , it is a fraud to portray the content of one side in a debate (as your link does) a theory ; as having the same or equivalent credence as the scientific process in the case of Muller.

A fraud, next refutation please because that one doesn't work.

Rather than downloading the audio from SPQR's link, just take the time to read the 21 comments about it, then you'll get the idea.

Downloading the audio probably ends up as a stat supporting that view somewhere, don't bother.

@Thinker 2

<< SPQR , it is a fraud to portray the content of one side in a debate (as your link does) a theory ; as having the same or equivalent credence as the scientific process in the case of Muller>>

It is fraudulent to have a handle like yours ("Thinker 2") and not use your noggin!

1) My previous post was specifically referring to the argument that (is often made) that CO2 and climate change are closely linked. Professor Plimer gives a very succinct refutation of that claim in the link provided.

2) Neither you nor I know much about Professor Muller's "scientific processes". We have only heard about them second or third hand. His arguments need to stand on their merit. They are not entitled to reverence or immunity because they were derived as a result of scientific process!

3) << Downloading the audio Probably ends up as a stat supporting that view somewhere, don't bother>>

"PROBABLY"! "Don't Bother"! Thinker 2?
You didn't even bother to listen, did you?
Once again, zero marks for *thinking*.

Hi SPQR,
My goodness, you must be about the last person in Australia who still gives any credibility to Plimer.
You can read a thorough demolition of his misleading and highly selective use of data here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics
and here:
http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
The last one is penned by the president of the Australian Academy of Science, Dr Kurt Lambech.
Plimer - a geologist, not a climate scientist, by the way - has made money from his books but has been thoroughly discredited by the scentific community.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I do it now and again.
Publicly ask that we, each review our opinions.
And lets see, in private look at my expressed views opinions, ideas, about once a day.
So I will review my thoughts,on this subject, based on the views and opinions published just in OLO by those on the other side.
My tendency to agree with mainstream politicians, both sides that man has/is impacting on climate?
Makes me a fool and a tool, to Germany's attempt to rule the world.
A reason to tax the bigjazzus out of every one.
A conspiracy against todays fuel owners.
Well need I go on.
My understanding it is not about Carbon, but all polluting gas?
A fear , near certainty we are polluting the planet, so why not its atmosphere?
Well silly old bloke that I am, maybe I should retreat to the garden.
Do I after all these years not understand it is the views of others not my side that count.
Now yes, the planet is getting hotter, but in not under standing, not caring, the local fish shop owner has studied this issue, IN DEPTH!
Reading all about it on the paper he wraps the fish in.
See it has happened before, it will again, it will be good!
Good for my garden, it will grow better, it does now, on the product of deniers.
Silly old fool! do I not know the rising seas will be ok, fish at my door, more storms more rain more fires more drought.
Come on Belly! Get with it Chinese say it in blessing us
May you live in interesting times
You have/do
Fish shop rules ok.

Hi Anthony
<< you must be about the last person in Australia who still gives any credibility to Plimer>>

Not quite: This one was penned by Don Aitkin, a former member of the Australian Science and Technology Council and Foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council in response to your Kurt Lambeck citation.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/in-defence-of-heaven-and-earth/

But if you think it is about demonizing anyone who does see eye-to- eye with you, you've already moved beyond science an into the realms of religion or politics.

Plimer only needs to be right once, and he shoots down your pet hypothesis.

Cheers

Addendum:
But if you think it is about demonizing anyone who does NOT see eye-to- eye with you, you've already moved beyond science anD into the realms of religion or politics.

Hi SPQR,
Difficult to see where I've demonised anyone. I just offered analasis by scientists who used complete instead of selective data to show Plimer's deceptions.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
Now as for your suggestion that I have entered the realms of religion, I would respectfully point out that I'm not the one who is clinging to outdated beliefs in the face of vast and ever growing scientific opinion to the contrary.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hi Anthonyv,

<< Difficult to see where I've demonized anyone>>

So I take it, you don't see examples like these:

i) " a handful of ‘Scientists-for-hire’"
ii) "Many of these are the same scientists who, not many years ago, were still arguing that there
was no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer"
iii) "Plimer...by the way - has made money from his books but has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community", and
IV) Your little Tolkienesque parable --which you've now linked to twice.

As in anyway designed to denigrate?

<<I would respectfully point out that I'm not the one who is clinging to outdated beliefs in the face of vast and ever growing scientific opinion to the contrary.>>

And I would respectfully point out to you, that when you support the left side of politics climate change agenda, you are not just ticking the box for us to reduce pollution and develop alternative forms of energy -- to which I say bravo!

But, you are also supporting a wider political platform that will see Australian industries and workers handicapped re their main competitors; will see Australia lumbered with what amounts to reparations for the underdeveloped worlds climate “damage” (which in mostly cases results from their own bad governance); and will see more power ceded to corrupt bodies like the UN.

I do hope you consider this when you're doing all "[you] can to ensure that [ your grandchildren] can live out their lives in a world at least as pleasant as the one I've been able to enjoy"

Cheers,

Anthonyve:>>In amongst all the hyperboly coming from the deniers, free market solution opposers and Gillard haters, it would be nice to see one, just one, attempt to refute Muller's data.<<

Anthony, my grandfatherly, generation saving, china plate, let’s look at your logic, and your conclusions embedded in the above statement.

Deniers have a plethora of lies deceit and failure to substantiate their stance.
Lies such as the fudging of data to make man induced global warming a fact rather than another factor to climate change. Deceit in the fact that the onus to clean up existing or invest in new technology that drastically reduces emissions has moved to the consumer rather than the polluter.

Let us now address your “Free Market solution opposers”.
I will inform you of what your “Globalized Market Solution” has done for pollution Anthony in terms even you may comprehend. Globalization was and is about finding the cheapest environment available to produce manufactured products. The only thing that stops this event being cost effective is sovereign nation Tariff Barriers, which with the implementation of Free trade agreements no longer exist in the First World, and as a consequence nor does manufacturing. The consequence is that manufacturers are free to pollute in Second and Third World nations because of their abstain status to global pollution protocols. Globalization is the enemy to clean manufacturing.

Finally “Gillard Haters”, this administration has accumulated the largest debt in modern Australia’s history and in the shortest time span. When the world reeled from 2008 Australia kept digging, kept exporting and saw no real decline in our GDP, but we still accumulated the largest debt since Federation. If you can not see any competency in this simple fact you are what I suspected you were when I looked at your blog, a simplistic mid life crisis cause crusader. Anthony I never chip others over spelling and grammar so this is not a rebuke but an example of acolyte synchronicity. Gillard can’t pronounce “HYPERBOLE” and you can’t spell it.

Correct SOG.They lied at Cophenhagen and many other scientists are now saying the data does not support the theory.The world has not warmed since 1998 with expoential increases in CO2.Even NASA admits that in past warmings the SUN is the major influence.There have been much warmer times just a few hundred yrs ago.What made the 1990's warming different? Lots of money to research a theory that was wrong.

But of course their intentions were good since even if it was wrong they would save the planet for the wrong reasons.Where are they on coal seam gas,shipping low grade bunker oil,true toxins killing people and poisoning food.CO2 is not a toxin.It is a plant food and the basic building block for all life on the planet.Tax that and you can kill off billions of people.

What is making the ocean currents warm up.

Oh dear,sonofgloin,
Do i detect a hint of desperation in your over-the-top hyperboleeeeeeeee?
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Every one has the right to an opinion.
All opinions have value.
Some less, far less than others.
Anthony it is true, I warned you.
Some opinions come from Alan Jones.
I such cases no need exists for truth or understanding.
You and I , part of the world wide conspiracy to ?
Must understand,some comments are from our betters.
SOG, rest! only pulling your leg.
Back under my rock.
PS
Understand world wide drought floods and such are a myth.
Thailand is not flooding.
Just too many people and as a result it is sinking.

We as farmers are encouraged to save electricity ["let's go Solar or use Bio-diesel !"], fuel and water ,unfortunately and rather stupidly ,guaranteeing a supply of essentials ,and at least a somewhat precarious life for those consuming billions of people yet unborn .
With our new effecient dozers and Tractors ,we can then with a clear conscience, go out and continually clear and poison those mute native grasses and Trees ,shrubs ,kill our native animals and waterways - and turn a blind eye to the continued Species Extinction that we produce in our own Paddocks.
I think we are being conned by Big Business and Spineless Corrupt Governments who are not game to talk about the Future in a Rational way .
The Promised Environmental Water for the Murray is allready starting to be stripped away for projected Population Increases - the " Essential Human Requirements " guarantee.
And Yes - using Australian water on Species decimated Landscapes to feed the World, so they don't have to Destroy Their Environments .

Hi Belly,
You did indeed warn me. And how right you were.
Some of the opinions we've seen on this thread are definitely Jonesian. The mistrust of science we've seen... It makes me wonder how some of these folks can bring themseves to fly, or go to a hospital.
And what a mystery electric toasters must be for them, without science to explaining their inner workings.
Or perhaps it's only some scientists they mistrust, i.e. the ones who present facts about which their level of discomfort appears to be unbearable.
But I guess we have to have patience.
I see a day, not too far in the future when Alan Jones will tell us all that he's always been for the carbon tax and we must save the world; that he was simply misunderstood.
And that it's all the Gillard government's fault for not acting sooner.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

<< The mistrust of science we've see...>>

You're having yourself on Anthonyv!

The ability to lip-synch a few science sounding phrases does not make you a representative of science.
Anymore that the ability of a monkey to bang away at a set of bongo drums makes a monkey a musician.

It is not science that people mistrust but the monkeys who bang away pretending to be the spokespersons for science.

Anthony it was my intention, with silly statements and humor to highlight some views do indeed come via the chip wrappings.
History will look at these days and wounder.
I see,so very plainly, a deception that has been masterful in play.
While no side can be proud of recent behavior Gillards Lie/Perceived lie, useless sole that she in fact is.
is minor along side Abbott, and those that support him,they have ten times ten more Lies/Promises they have zero intention of keeping/ and chanted mantras they them selves do not believe to be held to account for.
This will, in time happen.
Driven by big business/American Republicanism and the Shock jocks fever, we march to tunes composed in the name of self interest.
Not our own , in fact charging blindly at our OWN best self interests!

Hi SPQR,
I do believe i detect a hint of desperation in your increasing levels of insult as well as sonofgloin's.
Newsflash, old chum, insults are never a sustitute for well thought, out data based positions.
Of course, if, as you are, desperately trying to hold onto a discredtited position, as the start of this thread demonstrated, well, i guess you have little left but insults.
I don't mind. I remain confident that you'll see the light eventually.
Cheers,anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony, if you wont to see some desperation I suggest you think of the quote, "hide the decline". Then explain why anyone should trust that particular branch of polluted science.

Hi Hasbeen,
Your comment makes no sense to me, unless you are referring to assertions that declines in world temperatures in the past decade have been, intentionally or otherwise, concealed.
In that case, I have to tell you that that piece of junk science, (put about by Plimer and others), has been thoroughly demolished and would refer you to a detailed reading of IPPC, Muller's, Mermutter's et al, research.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony I do not know about you but I carry the scares of many conflicts on this subject.
At times I have shaken my head at the acts of some on my side.
Those e mails, while stolen are still the product of fools.
How ever if you like a grin think on this.
IF your threads subject.
Had never changed his mind.
Those tossing the mud at you/him/me.
Would be?
Quoting him to us!

Good to see the early snow in the US. It makes you wonder how much egg on the face the alarmist need in order to get them to crawl back in their holes. Its time they employed a few new High Priests to explain why all previous predictions have been so wrong.

Anthonyve no one can start telling others about global warming, or upholding the morality of "science" as it is practiced by activists, without checking the warts in their camp.

Try looking at some of the climate gate details exposed, but be prepared to change your mind about the whole thing. The exposed information shows what a bunch of lying, cheating, shysters the leaders of the con really are.

Not only that, it shows they are proud of the way they have concocted the "science" to suit the scam.

The "hide the decline" glorifies a cheat in switching from tree ring data, [it self a cherry picked con] to actual thermometer data, when the tree ring data showed a drop in temperature, when the theory required an increase, but hiding the change in data source.

The hockey stick, you so foolishly brought up, was another con to try to get rid of the medieval warm period, & the little ice age, to make the 70/98 warming look much more dramatic than it was.

Their smug, self satisfied arrogance, thinking they were too smart to be caught is evidence of how dumb they are. Fooling academics, & politicians is child's play of course, but real people aren't that easy.

Unfortunately for our morally challenged so called scientists, without an "Exterminator" type capacity, to go back & change the massive evidence of these periods, it doesn't work. These lies may fool dumb politicians, & suit a conniving UN, but can't fool any thinking person. If you are fair dinkum, try turning on your BS detector & doing a little Google. Look at the evidence, then come & join the honest people.

Hi Hasbeen,
Well, that was quite a rant. I think you might need a bex and a good lie down after that.
Anyhoo, I'll address just one point, the hockey stick.
Just to correct you, I didn't actually raise it in this thread. It was one of the items that dr Muller and his team verified in the research i reported at the start of the thread. After analysing 1.6 billion weather observations, he and his team have concluded that climate scientists have been right all along, including the hockey stick effect.
Dr Muller is professor of physics at UC Berkeley. His associate, Dr Pearlmutter is a Nobel prize winner.
So please don't shoot the messenger because the latest data ravages your pet theory.
But let me see if I understand your position correctly.
CSIRO, more than 90% of the world's climate scientists, the academies of science in all the developed nations, NASA, are all a bunch of charlatons and con artists.
But, good old Hasbeen has got them all sussed.
I'm sure you can see where my problem lies.
As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." yours is undoubtely an extraordinary claim, yet you offer no proof at all.
Occam's Razor would definitely apply, donchathink?
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
I'm sure you can see where my problem lies.

Hasbeen / rehctub

Please stop reiterating the lie that the earth has been cooling since 1998.

This is simply not true. All records show the earth is still warming. 1998 was a particularly hot year so is convenient for denialists to compare the years since.

9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the last decade.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Jim, please cut the appeal to authority. All Gore & a heap of as near as dammit criminals in East Anglia got a Nobel prise, so forget that rubbish. I think yours is the extraordinary claim, & the desperate one.

Trashy, if you believe that you are more simple than I've guessed.

How much ice has Antarctica gained in the last 10 years?

Let us look at the heated responses.
At too the slanders.
Even at the idea that climate changers, such as me are?
Well wrong, but also idiots, victims of con men, very nearly some say, evil.
Now this may fall on deaf ears, but one day, without doubt, we will all find out who is right who is wrong.
Why, tell me, would ANYONE want to deceive the world about climate change.
And for Conservative deniers, are you aware? your party has publicly agreed man, in part is bringing about climate change.
Self assurance in some hands is destructive.
But only of that persons own standing.

Hasbeen,

The total mass of ice in Antarctica is decreasing, so there has been no gain of ice in Antarctica.

The rate of loss is increasing annually.

You're getting confused with the amount of sea-ice, which is increasing despite warmer oceans, compared to total ice mass (land + sea ice) which is decreasing. Perhaps because the land ice is thinning and spreading out to the seas, where it will thin and melt further in the warmer waters.

So, once again you only have half the story. Yet you call me simple.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110308.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.ht

Anthony and TCM, for some reason you place the superior moral compass in the abode of the scientist. Scientists, like the society deemed morally superior medicos have the same feet of clay that the general population have. Would and do they take money for accumulating data and making projections that favour their benefactors case,yes particularly when it comes to the science of weather, nd they always have the terms of reference to fall back on should it fall in a heap. I expect they justify it morally as a fore warned is fore armed service and given we are talking projections with a raft of variants that comprise the whole it is easy for them to justify the morality of giving the man what he wants to hear.

We have decent global weather stats going back a century or so, before that we rely on chroniclers of extra ordinary events and astronomer’s logs believe it or not, they charted the weather because it affected their viewing. We also have the geological record and that shows warming and cooling is not new, nor is the variation in atmospheric CO2, add solar activity to the equation and the future is anyone’s guess. Why has the debate on the weather warming formed a "currency" to pollute, which is being paid by the consumer and not the polluter, because the polluter is the Carbon abatement movement. That any one could believe the likes of Gore astounds me, pick an intellect at least.

TCM:>>You're getting confused with the amount of sea-ice, which is increasing despite warmer oceans, compared to total ice mass (land + sea ice) which is decreasing. Perhaps because the land ice is thinning and spreading out to the seas, where it will thin and melt further in the warmer waters.<<

Thank you TCM, that explains everything, the warmer it gets the more it freezes, and it has wanderlust this hot ice, spreading out to even warmer waters, the same but warmer water that aided and abetted its formation in the first place, but wait, this time it will melt you say, bloody physics changing the rules again.

Endorsing this link is probably the only thing I am entitled to at this point in the the discussion, But Anthonyve is a winner on points for mine.

http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_dunbar.html

To throw a spanner in the works, cope with this one, CO2 skeptics.

Oh dear, skeptical scientist does excatly what the 'skeptics' wanted a skeptical scientist to do, examine the data and check and control for 'heat island effects', which was one of things the skeptics were crowing about and publish the full analysis so that everyone can see how it was done. You do realise that he did exactly what Watts and crew wanted him to do, right?

And guess what: the data said what the 'other' scientists said it did.

...and many of you guys still don't believe it. Some even want to disown Muller and say he was never a 'skeptic'. Even Watts has his own hypocriticisms.

I could have laid bets on that

Sonofgloin,

The alternative being that you actually take the time to understand my post. But apparently you didn't, either through lack of will or lack of intellect

We can not ignore this subject is not truly being debated .
I see entrenched positions, at least I research my view daily on this all important subject.
A view that defies science as SOG does so very often must ask questions about his views.
Again
WHY
Would any party lie, well if I owned energy, big energy, I would protect it.

Been thinking about this subject all day.
After posting I got a load of top soil and spread it but could not stop thinking.
No not about true or false afraid I now believe strongly we contribute to climate change and must reduce our impact.
But why do we clash so heatedly, why do each side challenge the science.
Science took us to the moon showed us our DNA cured Polio, so very much more.
We know the earth is not flat,some of us do, we goggle instead of searching books.
But ignore science if it says some thing we do not want to know.
Deny if you wish, but for some time this threads subject WAS USED against us,
Now he is a fool?
And science its self, those who study different subjects, know little of climate, are put before us to prove?
Anthony history will indeed justify us.

I've just checked into this thread and find it a bit disappointing, although I shouldn't be surprised - this is a debate about global warming. The thread's based on a false premise. Muller does not say that temperature increase is due to man as you can tell by a bit of Google research. Here is the original op-ed http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html and here is the BBC interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9621000/9621049.stm.

His study is restricted to trying to determine how much warming there has been and his figures are in line with everyone else's. No big deal. Most credible skeptics that I know of accept that the earth has warmed in the last 150 years or so and it has never been a major issue although Anthony Watt has done some great work showing how shoddy the climate network is in the USA. Notwithstanding that it seems that even poorly sited weather stations measure relative temperature fairly well.

Muller also says that he can see no evidence that global warming has slowed. That is contrasted against the claims that there has been no warming for the last 13 or so years.

On this point I've done a blog piece drawing on a graph constructed by the GWPF using Muller's data which he has made freely available via Berkeley's web site and there is no warming for the last 10 or so years. However, the biggest point of interest in that for me is that 2010 appears to have been a quite cool year, even though other groups claimed it to be the warmest, or equal warmest. http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/10/31/best-data-show-2010-as-unusually-cool/. And by "quite cool" I mean "very cool".

The bottom line is that Muller's work gives no reason to anyone to change their view as to whether global warming is manmade, or likely to be cataclysmic. It does however tend to confirm recent instrumental measurements that temperatures are increasing.

Interesting this bloke claiming to be a "Renowned Global Warming Skeptic".

It truly is breath taking how these global warmers can lie, with a straight face, I guess they get plenty of practice.

It's equally not surprising that none of the warmers have denounced his lies.

A couple of quotes of his previous position.

Here from 2003; “carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history.”

Again from 2008;“The bottom line is that there is a consensus and the president needs to know what the IPCC says”.

Please Trashy, Thinker & the rest of you, would you say that sounds like a "renowned" skeptic talking.

It really is at the stage these warmists can no longer speak the truth. Lying is all they know. They know their case is so weak that they can't help embellishing it, every time they speak, to try to make it stronger. It is probable the truth would now choke them.

GY ok but have you a comment on the standard issue denier Hasbeen thoughts about us believers?
I understand you point, is it going to be as bad as some say, but am convinced man plays a role.
And that we can, with out much pain do better.
I however question the standard issue answer from such as Hasbeen, the debate strangling, use of the lie word.
Any, at all? truly think one side is lie telling the other TOTALLY right.

Graham:"The bottom line is that Muller's work gives no reason to anyone to change their view as to whether global warming is manmade, or likely to be cataclysmic"

Absolutely. I wouldn't expect any less. What it DOES is, as you say, confirm the temperature trends and the instrumental data. It removes the argument that 'heat-island effects' on the temperature record have been messing with the trend. It also removes the accusation that the data were massaged and corrected and tortured to produce the warming trend, so much so that the scientists who first worked on it are often accused of fraud. Hopefully we won't see to much more hoopla on this score. I won't hold my breath on that though.

Hasbeen: selective quote mining copypasta is very easy. See:
"claims that global warming has harmed the Earth so far are not scientific"
"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."
"Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice."
"80 percent or 90 percent of what's in Inconvenient Truth is wrong or exaggerated or cherry picked."

Guess who said those?
Oh yeah, this guys a true believer! (NOT)
What he appears to be be is an actual skeptic, not a full on denier nor believer. Holy crap, can scientists actually BE skeptics?!!

Graham,

You are correct, it is folly to suggest this new release of data on its own proves Human activity is causing global warming. It does however verify that the earth has been warming and that the much maligned hockey stick and other previously presented data is valid, despite the claims of shoddy science from the denialists an skeptics.

It should also be noted that the BEST data is only land temperatures, so does not represent all of the earth's surface, and in fact is biased by northern hemispheric climatic variables (hence the dip in the graph in the northern winter of 2010, which you indicate being particularly cold).

When all of the earth's surface temperature is taken into account (land + water) we do see continued warming, which is the data used behind the claims that 2010 was hottest or equal hottest on record (see the NASA website). The oceans represent a much larger portion of the earth's surface than land, so to only use the land data to claim the warming has stalled is, again, misleading.

Belly, my interest in this issue resurfaced around 11 years ago when Rachendra Pachaudri abused David Henderson and Ian Castles in an official IPCC media release for correctly pointing out that the IPCC should have been using PPP not EMR in their projections.

This alerted me to the fact that there must be serious problems with the IPCC case. The more I delved into the area, the worse it got for the IPCC.

Bugsy, you're running a straw argument. Who are the skeptics who have accused anyone running the official temperature databases of fraud in their conduct of those databases? It has generally been accepted that the temperature trends are about right, although I prefer the satellite data because they avoid the selection problems that the land-based data involve.

Michael Mann and his hockey stick are another matter. It is literally the Piltdown Mann (sic) of climate science where he spliced one set of data onto another in violation of all the rules of statistics. There's plenty more of that sort of "trick" going on.

If anyone wants a good over-view of the issues have a look at this brilliant speech by Matt Ridley on Scientific Heresy http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

It's not a straw argument Graham. That's an easy accusation to make. By inference, you deny that there are skeptics who believe that the temperature record has been fraudulently 'adjusted' to show the warming.

Who are these non-existent skeptics?

Well ,Marc Sheppard for one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/american-thinker-on-cru-giss-and-climategate/

There are a number of lesser known and anonymous bloggers of course, a few of whom frequent these pages that have directly out and out accused the temperature record keepers of fraudulently adjusting data. But let's not name names,eh

They exist Graham.

The wording of the original post does mention global warming GrahamY, you are correct.

With regard mans effect on the environment, the facts that we need to know are; How much are we effecting the planet ?. How fast is that occurring ?.

If we are to bristle over the concept of global warming and which scientist interprets data correctly, without considering the actual question which is , what is the effect of manmade carbon pollution on the planet.

I have contributed a link that I'm wondering if anyone has watched about the effects of carbon pollution, with references to the temperature variations over the millennia.

Here it is again http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_dunbar.html

Global warming is a touchy one GrahamY, so I'm hoping a more relevant discussion regarding the effects of carbon pollution evolves from this one.

Bugsy I don't know how you can suggest that a clear statement from 2003 “carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history.” could ever be attributed to a skeptic.

Please explain how this claim to be a skeptic is not lying, at least by someone. If you can't you have no legitimacy, & certainly no right to claim the high ground.

I must stop trying to talk to warmers. They will still be yelling "warming" as the last bit of breath is frozen from their rigid body.

Fellow travelers, or fools, it doesn't matter much, they have too much belief, or ego invested now to ever admit their mistake. All we can do is hope our tax payer funds stop being wasted some time soon.

Hi Hasbeen,
Or alternatively you could get on board.
At the risk of mixing my metaphors, come on in, the water's fine.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Oh, and here's one of the worst offenders of accusing the temperature record keepers of outright fraud, right on cue.

Actually Hasbeen, it helps when you have the whole context, or even the whole sentence.
Which you will find here, for your own perusal, I'm not expecting you to read it though, I know you only bother with the selective quotes.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medievalglobalwarming.html

The guy is really a true skeptic, what he isn't is a denier. He follows where the data leads. That's probably why you don't identify with his position.

Marc Who? Bugsy. Never heard of him. You need to do better than that.

Trashcan Man, this report does not vindicate the Hockey Stick, it just demonstrates confirmation bias - yours. The Hockey Stick took in around 1000 years of reconstructions spliced with data, and this paper looks at around 150 years. It has absolutely nothing to say about the Hockey Stick.

I'm not sure that the research is as robust as it could be. Apparently they do their statistics on averages (smoothed data), at least according to this analysis http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/21/keenans-response-to-the-best-paper.html.

But full marks to Muller for putting all of this out in the open. If he continues in this way we will all learn some more about statistics, and the results will be refined to give us a much better answer to the question of how much the earth has warmed.

However, as I said earlier, the satellite record gets around most of these issues, so I'm not really sure why we persist with the land-based records. And yes, the satellite record says it has been getting hotter. That is not an issue in this debate.

Graham. Yes, I was wondering if they had to be famous to matter to you.
Now I know.

"Generally accepted" is not the same as "universally accepted", as you of all people should know. There is a subsection of the skeptics that believe that the databases are fraudulent.

They may not be in the majority, but some of your more avid commentators have been listening to them intently.

Careful Bugsy, your arrogance is getting a bit thick there.

By the way, have you seen what Judith Curry [co author] has had to say about Muller getting a bit chatty with the press, before peer review & publication, & Muller's back down on some of his early running off at the mouth.

People do need to be careful of that, don't they mate.

Hasbeen,

People should also be careful about what they read in the media.

Have a look at what Judith Curry has to say about misrepresentation of her statements.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

And her general agreement with Muller

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540

Thinker 2 I thank you.
18 minutes and a bit your link was great.
Do you know what concerns me the most?
Some/many will say he lied!
You and Bugsy win hands down in my mind.
Tens of thousands of every day crimes against this planet continue under the white wash of its a fraud group.
Lakes Rivers Streams continue to be used as dumps and we ignore it.

Thanks for taking your time Belly, I was thinking myself after watching that Ted link (which is a fantastic site by the way) if your into recent scientific discoveries, that the issue of carbon pollution has many more ramifications beyond the mooted global warming argument.

Acidification of the oceans through carbon produced by humans dissolving from the air into the ocean, may well be the doozie for us.

Thinker 2 current state of debate, on politics, finance, this, seems to doom us .
I truly can not walk away from a feeling we are being divided on such issues and we need to know why.
Surely, no one watching that link, can not fear it?

Hope I'm not badgering about this, but here is another link regarding carbon pollution and ocean acidification

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm

cheers T2

Hi T2,
I don't think you're banging on at all. And thanks for the post, I hadn't seen it.
I think the only way we can get people who currently don't to accept reality is to keep presenting them with facts.
Or maybe they'll just come back and say that marine scientists are in kahoots with the physicists and climate scientists as well.
It's going to be a hard slog, but it has to be done if the planet is to be saved.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hi Anthonyve, yes man made carbon pollution is a threat and the skeptics are not helpful in a ever more advanced, accurate and conclusive scientific world. The fact speak for themselves.

Are we too wait for the first hard core signs of a problem before we act, such as the beginning of the end ?. Human existence will have been a waste if we don't act before that I believe.

Cheers and keep up the good work T2

AnthonyV might have a point. Lord of the Rings (LOTR) might hold clues as to the motives & methods of the characters in the climate debate.

You will recall that when last we saw our two LOTR heroes, Sam & Frodo, they had just saved the shire and were hunkering for a new challenge.

Bilbo: [smiling] I think I'm... quite ready for another adventure!
[Bilbo climbs on board with Elrond. Galadriel follows with Celeborn]
Gandalf: Farewell, my brave Hobbits. My work is now finished. Here at last, on the shores of the sea... comes the end of our Fellowship...
Gandalf: It is time, Frodo.
Sam: What does he mean?
Frodo: We set out to save the Shire, Sam. And it has been saved... But not for me.
Sam: [weeping] You don't mean that. You can't leave.
Frodo: [hands Sam the Red Book] The last pages are for you, Sam.
Sam: [reading the book's title] There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale by Bilbo Baggins, and The Lord of the Rings by Frodo Baggins. You
finished it.
Frodo: Not quite. There's room for a little more.

Note the hint that there is a bigger challenge to come!

Then, I came upon this Hobbitesque little passage:
Thinker2: "Hope I'm not badgering about this, but here is another link regarding carbon pollution and ocean acidification"
AnthonyV: "Hi T2,I don't think you're banging on at all. And thanks for the post, I hadn't seen it...It's going to be a hard slog, but it has to be done if the planet is to be saved"

It got me wondering ...could it be?

Antony's website, with a banner picture of what could only be Tolkien's Mirkwood forest only deepen my suspicions.

But what really clinched it was this description of Hobbits:
"The most distinguishing feature of a Hobbit was their short stature...slightly pointed [ears] and their furry feet [with]leathery soles... [and they are] fond of yellow and GREEN.

Now, if Tony Abbot is Gollum ...who do you suppose are the impressionable little Hobbits who believe in fairies and goblins and see dark conspiracies behind every event?

Hi SPQR,
I never thought of my website banner as being the Shire, but you might have a point...
Hairy feet, hmmm, sort of.
Love green and gold? Well, who doesn't follow the Aussie cricket team.
And I must admit, I do like the idea of two morning teas every day.
I definitely share the hobbits' disdain for excessiely hard work.
I do hope this doesn't get out, or I shall have to give everyone else presents on my birthday.
The only bit I don't get is about the conspiracies. I thought it was the GW deniers who believe that there is this huge conspiracy among the climate scientists to rip off tax payer dollars.
But otherwise, I'd make a good hobbit.
Well, I'm off to the Bridge Inn beside the Brandywine River for a quick pint of ale, a puff or two of the weed and a song.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

That post shows that you've got nothing left SPQR , other than your creativity.

You have addressed none of the issues and your creativity is little more than an adaption of Anthonyve's original creativity.

A good balanced discussion on the current state of affairs. Worth watching through, no matter which team you barrack for.

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/11/201111464716543397.html

Dear Grahamy,

I was interested in your comment; “Muller also says that he can see no evidence that global warming has slowed. That is contrasted against the claims that there has been no warming for the last 13 or so years.”

I have tended to keep out of debates on GW as I had spent a decent amount of time researching the issue and have been strongly convinced of its veracity. Therefore it seems pointless to be putting in more effort to further cement that firmly held belief or to try and convince others who are just as firmly entrenched on the other side of the debate.

However having a lazy evening keeping out of the way of a child wrestling with her VCE studies I thought I might dip the toe in again.

So I read what you have had to say on Muller's findings both on the forum and your blog. My first task was to find out the source of the graphic you posted. Thank you for having the link attached though might I suggest replacing the cropped version with the full one. It quotes the source and has the temp dip you discussed.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation Wiki entry rang enough alarm bells for me to want to see the data for myself particularly as they had accused Muller's graph of hiding the fact that “Global Warming has stopped for more than a decade”.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg

What stood out like the proverbial “dogs balls” was the fact they were using a different y axis plus using what look like monthly data in the second graph rather than annual which gave the appearance of a confused mess with no obvious trend.

So obviously I needed the raw data. I downloaded the BEST 350MB odd zip file which unzipped was over 20GB however did not have the RAM nor a program to open it. After a few attempts I went looking for a more condensed summary of the data and found it here, http://berkeleyearth.org/downloads/analysis-data.zip

Cont'

Cont'

I downloaded the monthly readings of temperature anomalies from 1997 to 2010 into a spreadsheet added up each years worth and divided it by 12 to get an average over the year. My results were;

1997 0.58
1998 0.91
1999 0.66
2000 0.6
2001 0.81
2002 0.98
2003 0.9
2004 0.67
2005 1.1
2006 0.95
2007 1.21
2008 0.86
2009 0.91
2010 0.63

Could I invite you to graph the figures since when I do it they reveal what looks like a definite trend upward over the past 13 years.

Further you wrote; “However, the biggest point of interest in that for me is that 2010 appears to have been a quite cool year, even though other groups claimed it to be the warmest, or equal warmest http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/10/31/best-data-show-2010-as-unusually-cool/. And by "quite cool" I mean "very cool".”

Muller's data only includes the first five months of 2010 but averaging these out shows it was warmer than 1997 and 2000, this is despite including April which was an extraordinary -1.035 degrees below the average 1950 to 1980 baseline of 7.11 degrees.

While I am more than happy to label the GWPF disingenuous for their manipulations I am certainly not pointing the finger at you. However as stated I think it would be a better look if your blog included a mention of the source directly or via a more complete graphic.

I feel while we might be on opposite sides of the debate we are equally frustrated by the excesses from both sides clouding what should be a rational discourse based on the science.

Finally my figures are probably worth checking as it has been a long day so I am happy to stand corrected.

csteele,

It depends which year you start and finish on. I plotted some graphs using your data (assuming it was all accurate). If I began with any year up to 2000, I got a trendline indicating a rise in temp. If I began with 2001 or later there was a decline.

However if you exclude 2010, it doesn't matter what year you begin with, the trendline is going up. In fact, the rise is about 0.3 deg C if you go from 1997-2009.

This indicates that 2010 is probably an outlier, and is the very reason why it doesnt make sense to be looking at such short periods when discussing long term trends. Not to mention that this data is only for land temps and that if you include ocean and land temps, 2010 was the warmest on record (which is what we should really be looking at anyway).

Thanks for providing that for us.

i have avoided contributibng to this farce topic..[so far]

but now i have found a good rebuttal
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12844&page=0

quoting but a little bit from it

..''we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks
to stop a nosebleed.

I also think the climate debate..is a massive distraction from much more urgent environmental problems like invasive species and overfishing.

I was not always such a “lukewarmer”. In the mid 2000s one image in particular played a big role in making me abandon my doubts about dangerous man-made climate change: the hockey stick.

It clearly showed that something unprecedented was happening. I can remember where I first saw it at a conference

and how I thought: aha, now there at last..is some really clear data showing that today’s temperatures are unprecedented in both magnitude and rate of change – and it has been published in Nature magazine.

Yet it has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montford’s careful and highly readable book The Hockey Stick Illusion.

Here is not the place to go into detail, but briefly the problem is both mathematical and empirical. The graph relies heavily on some flawed data – strip-bark tree rings from bristlecone pines -- and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other sample.

When I say heavily – I mean 390 times.

This had a big impact on me.

For,..apart from the hockey stick,
there is no evidence that climate is changing dangerously or faster than in the past,..when it changed naturally.

continues..""It was warmer in the Middle ages..and medieval climate change in Greenland was much faster.

Stalagmites,tree lines and ice cores
all confirm that it was significantly warmer 7000 years ago.

Evidence from Greenland suggests..that the Arctic ocean was probably ice free..for part of the late summer at that time.

Sea level is rising at the unthreatening rate..about a foot per century and decelerating.

Greenland is losing ice..at the rate of about 150 gigatonnes a year, which is 0.6% per century.

There has been no significant warming in Antarctica,..with the exception of the peninsula.

Methane has largely stopped increasing.

Tropical storm intensity and frequency
have gone down,not up,..in the last 20 years.

Your probability..of dying as a result of a drought.. a flood or a storm is 98% lower globally..than it was in the 1920s

No doubt,there will be..plenty of people thinking..“what about x?”

Well, if you have an X..that persuades you that rapid and dangerous climate change..is on the way,..tell me about it.

When I asked a senior government scientist this question, he replied with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum...That is to say,..a poorly understood hot episode,..*55 million years ago,of uncertain duration,..uncertain magnitude and uncertain cause.

Meanwhile, I see confirmation bias everywhere..in the climate debate.

Hurricane Katrina,Mount Kilimanjaro,the extinction of golden toads – all cited wrongly..as evidence of climate change...A snowy December, the BBC lectures us, is “just weather”;..a flood in Pakistan or a drought in Texas..is “the sort of weather we can expect more of”.

A theory so flexible..it can rationalize any outcome..is a pseudoscientific theory.

To see confirmation bias in action,you only have to read the climategate emails,..documents that have undermined my faith..in this country’s scientific institutions.

It is bad enough..that the emails unambiguously.showed scientists plotting to cherry-pick data,subvert peer-review,..bully editors
and evade freedom of information requests.

What’s worse, to a science groupie like me, is that so much of the rest of the scientific community seemed OK with that.

They essentially shrugged their shoulders..and said,
yeh,..big deal,..boys will be boys.

Nor is there even..any theoretical support..for a dangerous future.
''

continued at link
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12844&page=0

OUG,

And then there's this to offer balance to your quote:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle2.html

Dear Trashcanman,

My reason for choosing 1997 to 2010 was because ofGrahamY's comment; “Muller also says that he can see no evidence that global warming has slowed. That is contrasted against the claims that there has been no warming for the last 13 or so years.” and I had wanted to address that specifically.

I do however take your point about starting and finishing years determining the trend and it would not have really concerned me if it had been dropping over that small a scale.

I would like to see if Muller has done the figures past May 2010 as one suspects without a second aberrant result like April the year will end up being relatively high and not an outlier.

As Graham says all good statistical fun but nothing to sway either side. The concern is more the shoddy treatment of those figures by the GWPF. 

Dear Trashcanman,

I have done some trend lines as described in your earlier post and would like to back up your point that there is really only one time span that can be chosen to give even a slight negative trend. Every other combination returns a positive one. 

With such a small sample size it would be hard to claim a statistically significant trend or plateauing unless one were desperate. Indeed given that this was the hottest decade on record by a fair margin it seems rather silly to be discussing yearly trends especially given the rise in decadal average temperatures between the current decade and the prior one was larger than any on record since 1880.

Having started this thread, I want to say that I don't have a scientific background; engineering/technical and literary but not scientific.
I've found the posts over the last couple of days a really interesting and illuminating discussion, with some fascinating references.
I for one have certainly learned from it and have a better understanding of the complexities of this issue.
Thanks all.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au