It has been reported in the Age over the last few days that a climate report, commissioned by organised climate skeptics (that was touted as free of human influence), has concluded the manmade climate change is even worse than first thought. The boffins commissioned to conduct the study now declaring themselves converted from skepticism.

When I have tried to present these new facts to the climate skeptics in my life, one responded by saying "well thats why we have religion !." I thought what on earth does she mean?, so I asked what do you mean ?, she said well the theory of evolution is not a proven theory. That's why people believe in God.

Another one said it can only be regarded true in science when one scientist proves everyone else wrong, not when everyone agrees.

Whilst I see the strange principals attached to these beliefs, I fail to see their relevance to the climate debate, when it is now apparent that the facts speak for themselves.The link is

http://www.theage.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html

After that, I read the Age survey asking the question "do the facts have a bearing on the way you feel about climate change", 44% of people said no. About then, I became quite fearful for our future.

The only time your global warming people will ever lie straight thinker, is after they have stopped breathing.

Muller's paper is so full of flaws & mistakes, accidental of contrived, that it appears it can not find a publisher in the scientific world. The fact that it had to be published by the greeny rag the Age does tell us something of it's value.

Anthony Watts new paper had all ready ripped the floor out from under Muller by proving that over half of the warming claimed by the warmists is due to faulty siting of gages & some totally unjustified "adjustments" to the raw data.

The global warming community are now going to have to justify their "corrections" or withdraw from the game. It will be interesting watching them, as they have always avoided trying to do the impossible, in the past.

Even many in the warmist community have complained of Muller rushing into the public arena, with a paper that has not been peer reviewed, or accepted for publication by the scientific press.

It does tend to indicate this is an application for funding, first & foremost.

Dear Hasbeen,

Good to see you buddy. I thought you had retired but you are back for more.

The nose is a touch out of shape still, but the bruises seem to have healed well.

Okay, who do you have for us now?

Ouch! Not Anthony Watts? Really? Heartland Institute favourite and Glenn Beck chum?

Me thinks you may still be a tad groggy.

You tout his paper which worked off data from 600 odd volunteers as ripping the floor out from Muller's paper.

Then you claim “Even many in the warmist community have complained of Muller rushing into the public arena, with a paper that has not been peer reviewed, or accepted for publication by the scientific press.”

But wait! What does Watt's release state about his own paper?

“This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication. “

Oooh nasty.

You sure you want to do this? A man in your condition?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Hasbeen.

...Muller rushing into the public arena, with a paper that has not been peer reviewed....."

It seems Anthony Watts now thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave about a paper in the public arena before peer review:

"The pre-release of this paper follows the practice By Dr Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project...."

Here's a review of Watt's paper:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

and Muller

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

(Can't wait to see which journal accepts Watts' piece)

Yes I noticed the dams in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne nearly empty as Flannery predicted. Oh well pseudo science can't get it right all the time.

And to think that if it was the other way around, he would have been hailed as some sort of genius by the very same people who are now dragging him down. I guess he has fallen in with those other discredited alarmists, like NASA and all those major science academies.

thinker 2,

despite any amount of facts, some people never change their opinion when it threatens their world view (ie sense of reality).
They'd more easily accept the notion of a planet-wide ultra-conspiracy for world domination than concede that they may actually be wrong.

That's why some still believe in talking snakes and unicorns and will kill others who dare to think otherwise.

I would ask my fellow believers not to be too upset with the runners and hasbeens of the world.
After all they are going to have to live out the remainder of their lives knowing how wrong they have been.
Then again maybe not, the ability to understand seems absent.
EG Carbon tax would cripple us.
Thomson should resign, the slipper crafting scandal mongers should be left to the police.

The Hasbeens and the Runners of the world I can forgive because their nonsensical, ill informed thinking does no real harm.
However, those who, despite having access to the best information, willfully promote denialist lies for profit, political power or influence, such as Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Plimer, Monkton and Rinehart's toyboy Andrew Bolt, they must never be forgiven.
They must go down in history as people who put their personal gain before humanity.
And they should be made to pay, heavily.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

When I went to school scientists were tellling us we could expect another mini ice age in around 2050. Where are they now to defend their science?

oh dear we were right again[i told you so]..nah nah you werre wrong]
no i was right...you lied..now the liar is good..

its the same old red herring!
[we got the damm tax.,.you won..get it]

the real issue is will the tax fix it
and apparently it wont..thus you flog the dead frog...

any judgmenyt on past facts..will be flawed
by them having been given the treatment..[siting etc and suburban encroachment...has made what was local..put into the a global record..into suberbia..

sure the temp went up as subburbia..encroached the impure science warming[cooling]/change..of local climates..*scam

you got the tax
i got the tax...no only 1000[oops 50//oops 450 will be paying[directly[..indirectly energy costs affect us all[unless your one getting twice market rate..for day time solar

wind has proved not worth the effort
tide/wave power is a lol..and govt gifts to solar is a perversion

near free solar cells
double fixed contract price..buyback
yeah no wonder you lot keep trumpiting past glories

YOU GOT YA TAX GET IT?
now figure out how to pay your other energy bills[it goes on ya cars/go juice after the next election]..[lol only 500]..

too clever by half
guilty minds cant switch off?

YOU WON GET IT?

Well, I always knew an injured animal was most vicious, but this is the first time I have observed just how vicious, {& self delusional] a dying animal could be.

The fraud is over fellers, it's failed. Why don't you give it up now, & save yourselves a mountain of pain with a slow death.

UOG,
I'll try to explain.

Will the Carbon Tax directly fix global warming? Of course not! Nobody said it would, so you are creating a straw man argument.

However, will the carbon tax push us towards an economy better able to compete in the low fossil fuel usage environment that will inevitably emerge? All the evidence is that the answer is yes, absolutely.

Will Australia's action, adding to the growing number of countries/states taking action, (California, China, Sth Korea, Germany, France, Scandinavian countries, UK, - some 35 so far), help push the recalcitrants like the US federal government to final get off their collective duffs and take action?

Yes, it will. There's already evidence of that in the way the Australian action is being reported.

So, will the introduction of a carbon tax move us all a little bit closer to a world no longer under threat from AGW? Yes, it will.

And that's the first of three reasons why I support the Carbon Tax.

The other two are:
1. The evidence is clear that urgent, drastic action is needed; and
2. Politics is the art of the possible, so while the Carbon Tax wasn't a perfect solution, in the face of people like your good self, UOG, it was at least doable, and moved us a step closer to the goal of saving the world - for your grandchildren as well as mine.

UOG, it's still not too late for you to put your not inconsiderable powers of persuasion to work on the side of good.
I urge you to do so.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Hasbeen,

Just on a quick break so this will be brief.

If I go through the posts the most vicious thing said thus far was; “The only time your global warming people will ever lie straight thinker, is after they have stopped breathing.”.

In fact if you hadn't led with this I might not have even got involved.

So when you proclaim: “Well, I always knew an injured animal was most vicious, but this is the first time I have observed just how vicious, {& self delusional] a dying animal could be.” I tend to agree.

Calling all those who do work on global warming liars will get a response from me every time. Perhaps a less bombastic approach might be more fruitful. If not I will enjoy the jousting.

Knights of the redneck clan gather.
Fully equipped bib and brace over alls big straw hat and a straw hanging out of the side of the mouth.
Gum boots, most usually on the wrong feet.
The booming voice informing all who will hear that other mob, us, are wrong, about every thing.
You Hasbeen are always good for a chuckle, runner? not sure maybe crying is the response,such a closed mind is reason.

Skeptics are just that. We are on track for another record ice melt this year.
Solar and wind are proceeding at a great rate. By 2030 renewables will overtake the bulk of power usage.

'Skeptics are just that. We are on track for another record ice melt this year.'

And yeah kids in England might never see snow again as predicted about 10 years ago by the warmist. Don't lose any sleep 579.

I think/know the folk who insult us here are not known for original thought.
Never doubted a time would come that gives support to man made climate change being true.
And I watched in amazement as other questions did not get much air.
What will be the over all affects very bad just bad or good,maybe a mixture of all.
Tax, gee you make it hard OUG!
I have noted the great improvement in your posts.
Want to recommence our talking, but your post is wrong and insulting.
Global warming is not an Australian invention to bring in a tax/price on carbon.
SOME global warming, note SOME, has to beman made.
Tax/price on carbon is to make cleaner energy worth while, some do not understand even that.

Which warmist said no snow in the UK, runner? Reference, please.
Or is this just another brain fart?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve

'Or is this just another brain fart?'

No just typical of the arrogrance of you warmist. I am sure you will have an excuse for this 'scientific'prediction

;According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.'

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/12/19/global-warming-hysteria-2000-english-children-will-not-know-snow-2010-oops-nevermind/

This prediction made in 2000. Sorry to pour snow on your models again.

I agree with you Anthonyve with regard to vested interests and their paid shills, particularly the Jones's and Bolt's etc. Wilful deceivers of the young,whom they knowingly target as easy marks believing them lacking education or cognisant powers of their own.Their activities should not go forgotten or un-noticed in the same way that drug cheats should be stripped of their rewards once discovered as cheats down the track.

They are also looking for the easily led and least intellectualy capable amongst us, and have been very successful in finding them.
There a now some working people according to recent polls whom actually believe the LNP represent their interests(lol).The Campbell Newman Cowboy dictatorship in Qld gives working people an inkling as to how an Abbott Govt would be.

They seem to have synced up anyone who has "fear of the devil", "fear of the unknown" "fear of change" "fear of great big new taxes", "fear of evolution", fear of their own inadequacy, etc and so on, and co-ordinated them in to 44% of Australian's whom believe that the facts should have no bearing upon their attitudes.

But going back on topic, with practically everyone in science agreement that climate change is real, manmade and preventable, wouldn't it be wise to accept that something needs to be done and do it. And isn't it past time to lambast and shame wilful deceivers, instead of rewarding them.

That's right thinker 2,

The day after Abbott gets elected, global warming will miraculoulsy cease to exist as a global phenomenon, boats will suddenly stop coming and the mining companies will magically pour more money into our economy for no reason whatsoever and everything will be magically become "better".

Not only will he solve all those local problems but he will heal the world as well.

Then on the second day...?

I'm with you Thinker 2 and Rache,
Abbott and Hockey, the Road Runner and Shrek of Australian politics.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

one thing for sure with the leftist. They create problems, sook that they can't fix them and then get jealous when someone like Howard makes it look so easy. Nothing like envy!

Josephus wrote 'When I went to school scientists were tellling us we could expect another mini ice age in around 2050. Where are they now to defend their science?' They may be hiding in the same place as Tim 'no rain' Flannery.

Belly whinged about 'the folk who insult us here ' yet in a previous post he wrote 'Knights of the redneck clan gather.
Fully equipped bib and brace over alls big straw hat and a straw hanging out of the side of the mouth.
Gum boots, most usually on the wrong feet'.

Hypocrisy or what?

We are experiencing in Sydney the coldest winter in 40 yrs.The proof of the warming is in the actual experience.The CO2 influence is total BS.

Arjay,

"We are experiencing in Sydney the coldest winter in 40 yrs. The proof of the warming is in the actual experience..."

Are you vying for thicky of the year?

Well, we had OUG, then runner, so i guess it was but a matter of time before Arjay poked his head over the ramparts and made an idiot of himself - again.
Guys, it's over. Your side lost.
Time to move on.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

"The results were obtained by going back to re-examine more than 14 million temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753 — and excluding those that sceptics had believed were artificially enhancing global warming data."

This proves it cannot be us by sheer logic, If the trend is displayed before the industrial revolution ergo: no matter what [ according to his data ] nothing will stop the warming, and what about, etc etc.
Sheer crap from the first paragraph

Pepper, if you'd bothered to look at the graphs you would have seen thatgoing back that far set a baseline and there are two sharp increases in the rate of increase over the period, the times of which both support AGW.
It really helps if you look at that about which you plan to express what I will loosely call an opinion.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Just noting that Anthony Watts gave the BEST project a positive critique in March 2011.

"...I think, based on what I've seen, that BEST has a superior method..."

"And I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let's not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even get the results."

(Of course, the "sceptic" yippers are having a field day disowning Muller in the wake of his "conversion")

Interesting read.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

if talk could change things i would talk
if the tax would 'fix it'..we wil see

but when the earth moves[to wit a pole shift..and yes the earth movement is due]..the dust obsures the sun for up to 2 years..its then that many will die.

cause we spent our cash and the kids cash..
on solar fluff lies spin and wind...

enjoy your free govt gifts.[dont think they dont know..and that its the perfect storm..to reduce the workforce..now they got machine men]

and the docile guilt sharers
took the free coolaid..then refuse to drink in..the why of why it was near for free...[the rest of us will pay the fee/levie/tax..and you lot get our monery for nuthin..[till the do do hits the fan..and no sun lights up your life

i se so many roofs coverd..with hundreds of solar cells
we paid for that..[if they need that much power...they ignored the main excuse..of heat..[over use]..

the big users got thier bill for 500 to 1000..saw the free solar cell sell..and for the cost of a single bill..got free solar plus top input tarrif at insane..[criminal rates]

now they need the earth to melt
despiritly need ity to be true..but their guilt will be clear to all[just look at their roof]..then their nbill[their power ABUSE..dont stop at night

[hence we build extra power infastructure
JUST FOR THEIR GROSS abuses[when the sun dont shine..
or the blowhards winds dont blow..or the tide takes the tidepower plant to the deep...

buyt its the lies and spin
its just cheap..but with much worse to come
the clue then will be FOLLOW the money..[in the end big abusers arnt paying!]

Here you go, OUG,

http://skepticalscience.com/best-results-consistent-with-human-caused-global-warming.html

Poirot,
I do not normally support Argay but in this case if PM Kevin Rudd can claim a couple of hot days in Adelaide is proof of global warming (made shortly before the copenhagen talkfest) then I think it is OK for Arjay to claim the coldest winter in sydney is proof that the world is not warming.

Arjay,
Don't forget the biizzards across the US last winter and that Texas had the earliest snowfalls ever last year.

runner,
Yes that was a good comment about kids in the UK not knowing what snow was, from an emminant scientist. Nearly as good as our Tim's predictions!

This won't help Arjay, Banjo - or will it?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=fe138741-9ce8-4444-9912-c2004ae9e955

Any comments?

What's that?

"...A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented weather and climate events."

Who'd have thunk that?

(Thank you, bonmot)

bonmot,

I don't know whether you've read this paper by Clive Hamilton. I've posted it before, but I thought I'd repost it here.

http://clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/why_we_resist_the_truth_about_climate_change.pdf

"Innocently pursuing their research, climate scientists were unwittingly destabilising the political and social order. They could not know that the new facts they were uncovering would threaten the existence of powerful industrialists, compel governments to choose between adhering to science and remaining in power, corrode comfortable expectations about the future, expose hidden resentment of technical and cultural elites and ,internationally, shatter the post-colonial growth consensus between North and South. Their research has brought us to one of those rare historical fracture points where knowledge diverges from power, portending a long period of struggle before the two are once more aligned."

What a lovely quote, Poirot.
perfectly describes what we're seeing unfolding.
Thanks for threading it.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Poirot,
In view of all the wild claims and distortions made by the so called climate scientists ant their supporters, I think your quote is all bulldust.

The warmist brigade have done themselves serious harm to their religion to the extent that the general public no longer accepts what they say as correct.

Banjo,

"....I think your quote is all bulldust."

Sounds a bit vacuous to me...."bulldust", I say!

Here's another, to which I'm sure you'll bestow an equally profound critique.

"In these circumstances, facts quail before beliefs, and there is something poignant about scientists who continue to adhere to the idea that people repudiate climate science because they suffer from inadequacy of information. In fact, denial is due to a surplus of culture rather than a deficit of information. Once people have made up their minds, providing contrary evidence can actually make them more resolute, a phenomenon we see at work with the upsurge of climate denial each time the IPCC publishes a report..."

Sound familiar, Banjo?

Dear Poirot, I think the problem is, that adhering to a position like climate change skepticism so vehemently and delivering this view with vitriol, for so long, means that some skeptics have no choice now but to continue with the self righteous indignation.

Hopefully the Muller experience will be the tipping point for most fair minded folk. Hopefully we will again consider "what we can and are doing about it", important.

Piorot,
The only question that needs be asked is, Where is the proof that climate change is caused by human activity?

There is not proof, dispite billions spent trying to establish proof.

Lucky me, I do not have to keep up with the latest because if ever solid evidence comes to light I have faith that Tim will let us all know.

In the meantime mother nature will continue on her merry way.

And, the predictions of the warmists religion will continue to be shown up as false.

Dear Banjo,

As our "needs" increaase, our capacity for
exploitation expands. Many don't see our
ravaging of the environment as "ravaging"
at all; It is "progress" or "development."

We are so used to exploiting natural
resources and dumping our waste products
into the environment that we frequently forget
that resources are limited and exhaustible and
that pollution certainly can disrupt the
ecological balance on which our survival depends.

The effects of pollution may not show up for
many years, so severe environmental damage can
occur with little public awareness that it is
taking place. Plus preventing or correcting
pollution can be costly, technically complex,
and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible
impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are
now actively trying to limit the effects of
pollution, but the populous less developed societies
are more concerned with economic growth, and they
tend to see pollution as part of the price they have
to pay for it.

One thing is certain in all of this - we cannot
deny that the planet has a finite amount of
resources or that the planet can tolerate only a
limited amount of pollution.

If world population
continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation
spreads around the world, and if pollution and
resource depletion (burning of fuels and wastes,
razing of forests, dumping of noxious gases
and particulates into the atmosphere) continues at
an increasing rate - and all of these are happening -
human society will, one way or another, be in for
sweeping social changes. That is a certainty which
no amount of denial will prevent.

Anyway for your information the following link may
help:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-htm

My Dear Lexi,
Strange as it may seem, I agree with you about pollution and our need to limit that and look after the world we live in.

However that is a far cry from saying that human activity is changing the climate of the world. I have spent all my life out in my enviroment and i can appreciate the power of mother nature. I know there are certain things that humans have not control over, such as tides, earthquakes, volcanos and continental drift. I recognize that the climate changes from time to time but I remain sceptical that we humans influence that.

One of the things that increases my sceptasism is that there is no discussion about limiting world population at any of the many climate change talkfests that are held, in spite of the claim that humans are to blame for climate change. So I am sceptical of just how genuine the warmist brigade are, because if you reduce the number of humans you reduce the CO2 produced and the amount of pollution as well.

As i said earlier, in this thread, the wild and false predictions made by the warmist brigade, designed to frighten people, has backfired and the general public no longer has faith in what is predicted.

It will now take very solid evidence to change peoples thinking

Banjo,
I would take you back to the use of CFCs.
Back in the 80s, a substantial hole in the world's Ozone layer appeared, and each year grew larger.
It affected the world's weather patterns, and measurably increased the incidence of skin cancer.
What caused it? Human use of CFCs. Once this was understood, other products were quickly developed, CFCs were banned and within a few years the hole reduced in size.
Isn't this a clear example of human activity affecting the weather?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Banjo,

I'm glad that
you acknowledge that the planet can tolerate only a
limited amount of pollution. However the pollution
problem is an exceedingly difficult one to solve,
for several reasons.

First, some people and governments see pollution as a
regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired
economic development - "Where there's smoke, there's jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution sometimes requires
international co-ordination, for one country's
emissions or pesticides can end up in other countries' air
or food.

Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for
many years, so severe environmental damage can occur with
little public awareness that it is taking place.

Lastly, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
and as I stated previously, it can be technically complex,
and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

Pollution however is not an inevitable outcome of industrial
technology; it derives also from political decisions to
tolerate pollution rather than to bear the costs - probably
including slower economic growth - of limiting it. Further
control of pollution is politically difficult, however, for
the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the task.

The threat of human-induced climate change, accepted as a
genuine and very serious threat - as a consequence of the
Stern Report released in October 2006 had the potential to
change attitudes worldwide. It even influenced Mr Howard
and his government in changing their attitudes and it made
it easier for our conservative (in the sense of being
hesitant to change) economists to act according to the
laws and understanding of their science.

However many people have a propensity to discount the future -
"a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush."
Discounting the future is one of the most common practices
in the business world. The psychological reason has to do
with understandable risk aversion, for example, any one of us
might not be around to benefit from a good time in the future -
so let's have it now regardless of the long-term
consequences.

Poirot,

Banjo asks: “The only question that needs be asked is, where is the proof that climate change is caused by human activity?”

If one was really interested in seeking the answer/s; one need not look far.

Sadly, most people who ask that question get their science from ‘denialist’ block sites, media ‘shock-jocks’, or from a socio-political stance they adhere to – most often right-wing conservatism.

Typically, they do not believe (or do not want to believe) what the science is telling them.

Lexi provided a link about the empirical evidence. The 'Skeptical Science' site also gives an explanation of the human components:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

The comments are also well worth a read.

If anyone is not all that up to speed with the technical stuff, you may prefer to look at the basic or intermediate tabs in that last link.

bonmot,

Strangely enough, I came across this by James Hansen yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here-and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html

Thanks for the link : )

Hi Poirot,

The paper "Perception of Climate Change" will be published next week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It will be available to journalists via PNAS but stories are embargoed until 3 PM Monday 6 August -- local time.

The paper was submitted earlier this year under the title "Public Perception of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice".

Here is a link to some Q&A's on the paper:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DiceQNA.pdf

An easy to interpret synopsis is here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

Now, off to my vege-patch :)