The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Climate of fear.

Climate of fear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 33
  7. 34
  8. 35
  9. All
“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”
Franklin D. Roosevelt First Inaugural Address
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNpxQANk0M

It seems to me that everybody is afraid of climate change even those who do not believe it is happening!

Scientists are worried that we will not take any meaningful action in time to prevent radical changes to the earth's climate.

Ordinary people are scared that they will lose access to all sorts of modern conveniences such as electricity and cars.

Economists believe that reducing greenhouse emissions will either wreck the economy now, or if we don't act, it will be even more expensive to deal with in the future.

Environmentalists believe that climate change will cause mass extinctions, possibly including us.

Fossil fuel companies are scared, that they will have to leave most of their reserves in the ground, potentially missing out on trillions of dollars of income.

The politicians are simply scared to do anything which might upset anybody.

The result is various groups pushing vast amounts of misinformation, with a total disregard for future generations, but yet we have a range of solutions available to us. We rarely do need to stop the fear mongering and recognise the problem and deal with it but are we smart enough?
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 10:16:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

Unfortunately the "...various groups pushing vast amounts of misinformation..." is where we're at.

We can't move along in any meaningful way while "funded" denialist spin seeks to stymie acceptance and action.

While people make vast fortunes from "business as usual", they are willing to fund the misinformation - all they need is to sow the the seed of doubt and the ability to invoke conspiracy and they have "skeptics" in their tens of thousands eating out of their hands and further disseminating the junk.

It seems to me that it's only the actual experience of extreme conditions occurring more frequently (as is becoming apparent in weather anomalies worldwide) associated "climate change" that will alter the playing field
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 10:52:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
the only reason that there are 'tens of thousands' of sceptics, like me, is because AGW has not been proven and because:-

A. The AGW advocates became 'alarmists'

B. Exaggerated claims that have not come to pass.

C. The so called scientists were found to be fiddling the data

D. Some of the info put out by the IPCC was found to be unfounded.

E. The UK met Bureau and the IPCC both now recognize that there has been no global warming for the last sixteen years, dispite record amounts of carbon being released.

Time the alarmists found another cause. Mother nature will do as she wants with our climate if and when she likes.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:40:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only people in any fear are the elites, who can't understand how they let the peasants get to have it so good. Some of them are probably worried that such worthless hordes are accessing material comforts intended only for those elites.

Hell, how can they feel superior, when even checkout chicks own cars? This was never meant to happen. Someone deserves a good thrashing for not stopping it.

Perhaps some of their useful idiots, the greenies, are worried, because they are stupid enough to fall for the spin. Even most greenies, [watermelons, red on the inside] are not worried, they see the fraud as a good way to put those peasants back down where they belong, in a mud hut.

You are right about one thing, hundreds of millions are being skimmed off the scam. Just look at Obama's mates, with grants of tax payer funds up to half a billion. Now that's a scam.

Some academics are worried. 16 years of no heating, & less storms. Hell the funding might dry up if this continues. What was it? $80 billion in global warming research funding, & still no actual evidence found. God knows, it's even getting harder to stop the truth from being published.

The gentry in pommy land are doing OK too. Hundreds of millions in rental for windmill sites. Of course this is only as it should be, It's only the peasants paying through their power bill, & the peasants are supposed to pay well for their aristocracy. Can't let them get too well off, they're likely to get uppity don't you know.

Now I've done my bit, so as you appear to know all about it, please direct me to the source of all this oil industry funding for us skeptics. They appear to have trouble getting the funding into my bank account.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For every scientist that says Global Warming happening you can find another that says it is false.

One truth is the scientists who provided evidence about it were discredited by the data being provided FALSE.

Also Al Gore and a small number of people will end up making billions of dollars.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:58:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Corrected

One truth is the scientists who provided evidence about it were discredited by the data being proven FALSE.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 1:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,

"For every scientist that says that says Global Warming happening you can find another that says it is false."

WRONG!

For every 97 scientists who support AGW, you can find "3" who say it is false.

Certainly a telling ratio - don't you agree? : )
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 1:37:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For every 97 scientists who support AGW, you can find "3" who say it is false. Certainly a telling ratio - don't you agree? : )"

Yes, very telling.

The study that conjured this 97% figure has been so comprehensively debunked that it tells me that anyone using it either doesn't have the slightest respect for the truth or is incapable/disinclined to look at the methodology of how such misinformation is constructed.

For such people it is much easier and far more comforting to read and believe the headline than to trouble themselves with a checking the validity of the headline.

No one knows what percentage of scientists accept the AGW story (and the numbers don't really matter anyway). But I'm supremely confident that Philip S is much closer to the mark than Poirot.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 2:48:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Come on now. We all know that peer-reviewed papers by "skeptics' published in science journals are almost as scarce as hen's teeth.

Most of their review is pal-review on blogsites run by non-climate scientists - aka amateurs.

Here you go...nice little pie chart 'ere on peer-reviewed climate articles - 1991-2012.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 2:56:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
even the gullible who do fear have now found out that the current Government is so incompetent with finances, immigration, environment and almost every other portfolio that they don't care about the scare. Of course Q & A and OLO can still find a few 'true ' believers mainly because they are to stubborn to admit their errors. They are happy to see pensioners slugged with more for power just so their pet theories aren't exposed. Thankfully Abbott is about to change all that.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:24:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot - Obviously you have been sucked in by the Global warming scam to the point nothing anyone says or does will persuade you otherwise.

Doing a internet search will provide data for and against it NO ONE has conclusively proven it enough to move my thinking either way.

BUT what tends to have me disbelieve it is.
1) The UN is totally for it - I don't trust them they always have ulterior motives for anything they say and do.

2) So many new taxes will be appearing.

3) Al Gore and company will make BILLIONS out of it.

4) The original scientists themselves were sending emails saying the data was incorrect.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:33:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, you can take it from runner, that Tony - global warming is "absolute crap" - Abbott is right on the money (as far as denialism is concerned)

It's great, don't you think that we have a climate ignoramus standing for the highest office in the land - and people like runner (who denies evolution) to cheer them on.

Woe is us.......
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phlip S,

I note that none of your points (that see you in favour of disbelief/ conspiracy etc) include you attempting to include the "actual science".

Par for the course with "skeptics"...the "actual science" doesn't get a look in. It's all the IPCC this, Al Gore that, taxes this...and fair stories about climate scientists recanting.

You fellas are mucho entertaining (if a little predictable)

How about examining the science - most kosher sites (ie, those run by people who have qualifications in the various disciplines of climate science)attempt to explain the intricacies for lay people.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot - Selectively reading again, here read this part.
"Doing a internet search will provide data for and against it NO ONE has conclusively proven it enough to move my thinking either way."
There is your missing "actual science"..

One more compelling point there is Hundreds of millions of dollars in grants are available for Global warming research TO PROVE IT but no company is going to give scientists even a quarter of that money to DISPROVE it.

The money (big business) wants it to be true so they can make more money from it.
If it is proven wrong they (big business) will loose hundreds of millions of dollars.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:59:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Research grants are "granted" for research....

If you search for peer-reviewed material, you'll find it.

If you inhabit denialist sites you will find mostly non peer-reviewed material - but that material will most probably confirm your bias and your notions of fraud and conspiracy.

Those sites are about junk science which is constantly disproved.

Big business is in the game of funding doubt. Their intention is for that doubt to be translated in political non-action on the climate front - business as usual.

They are funding to spread doubt and to "disprove" - but to disprove with fallacy and junk science. They are not funding for neutral research.

(Remember Muller's BEST - the Koch brothers funded that because they "expected" Muller the (real) skeptic to find against AGW. so did all the other (fake) skeptics - and when he came out in agreement, the fake skeptics dropped him like a hot potato.

: )
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 4:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Yes, you can take it from runner, that Tony - global warming is "absolute crap" - Abbott is right on the money (as far as denialism is concerned)

It's great, don't you think that we have a climate ignoramus standing for the highest office in the land - and people like runner (who denies evolution) to cheer them on.

Woe is us.......

Well well well…..runner and his gang of “she’ll be right mates” god will come and fix it all, oh dear:) Runner, there are endless amounts of evidence just with naked eye of what’s happening, and I can’t for the life of me understand why you and hasbeen with others on this thread have your heads wedged in preverbal abyss. Just on the Australian shore line…..look!..just use what-ever visual aids you have and see the damage done. Trees that have been standing for seventy years are now in the ocean, glaciers reseeding up to 25 metres per year, tree die offs at a million hectares a year, the fastest global extinction rates ever recorded…..and I can go on to fill the rest of the page….with more science links than you can poke a stick at.

Its clear to see who,s the capitalist are....its all money and no brains.....goodluck with that.

http://tinyurl.com/9wn6oys

http://tinyurl.com/avp4dkk

http://tinyurl.com/az8rzaw

http://tinyurl.com/atazz6w

PLANET3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 4:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I welcome the threads author I see no reason to believe he/she is better informed than most.
Or in fact world climate scientists as opposed to other scientists, contributing views.
Obama today confirmed he is to take the issue head on, and change much of the western worlds opinion in doing so.
It can not be avoid, behind the deniers in open sight, stands big business and the interests who are to suffer the most, by us using cleaner energy.
In another thread, but repeated because it is true, I have warned climate change will play a roll in our federal election.
We may well see international moves and possible more bad weather here, force Liberals to confront more than one of Abbott,s statements.
Be warned.
The quickest and cleanest way to change policy's on climate change is to dump Abbott.
Another warning, it is too late!
Some of the threatened changes to our weather and climate will not be turned around for century,s if at all.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 5:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Lord Monkwhatever posting here.
Saw the silly old fool at the launch of that idiot new Christian politics party.
Run by the clown w2ho said Victorian bush fires came as Gods curse!
Stand firm Poirot, time will ask questions of your opponents they may wish to forget todays words.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 5:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Belly, but the 'Lord' will post here:

http://catchthefire.com.au/

You might find this um, er, ... interesting, Belly. Why? Because Pastor Daniel Nalliah also says:

“We are ready for a 20 year fight to take back Australia and keep it Australian. Yes, my dear friends, it is time for us to stand up for our country right now. If we do not protect our Australian culture now while we still can, there will be nothing left of it for our grandchildren.”

Quite a conundrum, eh Belly?

More background reading at:

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/mad-monk-and-moncktons-mates

I know it's off topic Belly, but given your dislike of Gillard, who will you be voting for given she will be taking the ALP to the election?
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 6:56:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ya gotta love the way Poirot thinks (for want of a better term). He makes a big deal that 97% of scientists think a certain way, I point out that that is utter rubbish and, without even seeking to defend his original silly assertions, he just moves on to more ludicrous assertions. Now he asserts that big business is behind the sceptics. Has he got any evidence of that? No, but when you have a religious faith in something, who needs evidence.

Philip S wrote: "Poirot - Obviously you have been sucked in by the Global warming scam to the point nothing anyone says or does will persuade you otherwise."

Never a truer word. In another thread I asked Poirot what data he'd need to see to even start considering that the AGW theory is wrong. He couldn't actually come up with anything. That is he can't even conceive of any new data, any future discovery, any future evidence that would cause him to rethink his dogma. That's religion, not science.

I'm pretty sure the outgoing Pope can't think of anything that would cause him to rethink his faith either.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 7:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What scares me about the whole CAGW myth is the economic damage that will be done as we are railroaded into useless measures to fix a non-problem. Australia's CO2 tax will have such a small effect on temps (even if the theory is correct) that it won't be measurable, yet we can all see the economic harm its doing. Europe is in dire economic straits due, in no small part, to their zealous adherence to the demonisation of CO2. And, even though the warmists have tried to keep it quiet, the death toll wrought by the transfer of food (mainly corn) into so-called clean fuel, is a scandal that will make future historians shake their heads in disbelief as to the gullibility of the left.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 7:34:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

"...Now he asserts that big business is behind the skeptics. Has he got any evidence of that?..."

Gosh - sorry about that - fancy imagining there is evidence of big business funding skeptics. I mean, "skeptics" don't work (in the main) with climate scientists - they work with right-wing think tanks and denialist blog sites run by non-scientists.

But then there's this :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-on

and this

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/10/idUS427145980520120510

And oodles of other articles detailing their fingers in the "denialist" pie.

..............................

qanda,

I remember this media release on Monckton's visit.

http://catchthefire.com.au/2013/02/media-release-rise-up-australia-party-launch-on-11th-feb-2013-at-national-press-club-in-canberra/

This bit was intriguing:

"We welcome all patriotic Australians to bring their Australian flags to show their support to (in bold print) "Keep Australia Australian".
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 8:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> warmists have tried to keep it quiet, the death toll wrought by the transfer of food (mainly corn) into so-called clean fuel, is a scandal that will make future historians shake their heads in disbelief as to the gullibility of the left. <<

Actually Mr Haze, under the leadership of President George W Bush, it was the good ol' US of A who subsidised South American countries to cut down their forests, plant corn and feed ... not people ... but the George W US of A's transport fleet.

I don't recall George W being from the 'left' but obviously, Mr Haze thinks differently, perhaps he is the gullible one?

Nevertheless, people like Mr Haze tries to turn this whole issue into 'right' vs 'left'.

@ Mr Haze, whether you believe in the science or not, you have demonstrated the real problem is not with the science but rather, on one's political and ideological leaning.

Debate policy responses to AGW all you want (I encourage it) but to metaphorically bury your head up your darkest intestinal tract is sheer stupidity, imho.

Much better to work together to adapt to a changing climate and look at other sources for our future energy needs - fossil fuels will not last forever.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 10:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes in the 70's it was the ice age and then the ozone layer and then the Y2k bug and the warmist have the audacity to criticize religion. Go figure! I wonder what the next diaster they create in their head will be in order to control people and redistribute wealth while their high priests cash in again.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yup, mhaze - this article on the World Bank's report on biofuels and the food crisis, backs qanda's assertion that it was the Bush Administration and its "unchecked biofuel boosterism" that was responsible for the huge rises in food commodity prices that followed.

http://grist.org/article/biofuel-bombshell/
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot so you are a he?
Calm, it is as close to the truth as that poster gets in this thread, not even close.
Voting Labor Gillard is no certainty to be leading us and if she is she is not my party, we have valued folk unheard of in the tent.
Happy to be judged on my words, we will see less phooey science and more who believe in climate change.
Fact is more Australians think we should act than not.
While your side awaits Abbott's promise mining will end city,s disappear, costs sky rocket.
So many childish lies maybe one of our deniers writes his stuff.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 February 2013 7:09:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like an answer from both the pro & anti climate change brigades.
In far Nth Qld we haven't had a decent Wet for some 25 years. This season we've had about 4 days of good rain. By now we should have had a solid 6 weeks of rain.
How will the Carbon tax get us back to proper wet season rains ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 14 February 2013 7:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>How will the Carbon tax get us back to proper wet season rains ?<<

Spend the tax revenue on cloud seeding.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 14 February 2013 9:28:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to popular and mistaken belief, Australia's introduction of the carbon tax (leading into an ETS) was not, and is not, to mitigate global warming.

The 'carbon tax' was introduced to help transition Australia to alternative energy sources, sooner rather than later.

Sure, there are policy issues. However, the science is the science - regardless of the policies that flow from it.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 14 February 2013 9:50:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, Poirot thinks he can prove so-called sceptics are in the pay of big business by linking to two articles. One talks about how rich the Kocks are and doesn't mention funding at all. the other is a report from Greenpeace that doesn't provide even passing evidence of the Kocks providing funding climate sceptics but just partially funding organisations who do lots of things, one of which is fighting the great myth. If that's the level of proof Poirot accepts then I can prove God exists based on this report from the Vatican and that wizards regularly visit the British PM based on a report from J K Rowling. (sarc off)

Yes, qanda, the transfer of corn and maize from food to so-called clean energy was done by the Bush admin in the US. But it was done at the instigation and cheering of the dedicated alarmists. Some businesses see great profit in going along with the myth. We see the same with wind subsidies in the UK and ethanol subsidies here. Normally, if business was to literally take the food out of the poor's mouth to make unwarranted profits the left would be screaming blue-murder. But on this ocassion they (the left) went along for the ride and still support those subsidies whereas it was the sceptic community that blew the whistle on the rort.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 14 February 2013 11:28:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In far Nth Qld we haven't had a decent Wet for some 25 years. This season we've had about 4 days of good rain. By now we should have had a solid 6 weeks of rain."

Well that's not what the BOM data shows for places like Weipa and Laura. In both places they show way above average rainfall in each of the past three years and (in Laura) January 2013 alone had 50% of the total average annual falls.

There are two common errors here. One is to base views on recollection rather than historic data. The other is to assume there is a level of rainfall that 'should be'. Who's to say that the rainfall of 30-40years ago was normal or what should be.

You can go to the BOM site to see the rainfall data for places like the Laura Post Office:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=028000
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 14 February 2013 11:36:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Contrary to popular and mistaken belief, Australia's introduction of the carbon tax (leading into an ETS) was not, and is not, to mitigate global warming."

So the CPRS had nothing to do with reducing CO2 levels blamed for causing climate change? They just wanted to reduce CO2 levels for the heck of it?

Well qanda, I think you might need a hand to move those particular goal posts.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why can’t the AGWers win the debate?
Because their spokepersons cannot seem to see more than one step ahead at any one time!

Consider this example from Qanta.

Preface: Before you read it –forget for the moment the question as to whether or not AGW is real –and (especially for Poirot!) forget which side Qanta bats for – just consider the merit(s) of the proposition:

<< Contrary to popular and mistaken belief, Australia's ...carbon tax (leading into an ETS) was not, and is not, to mitigate global warming.

The 'carbon tax' was introduced to help transition Australia to alternative energy sources, sooner rather than later.>>

So that’s it then? It was done to “help transition” [period!]

And there was no thought/desire/FANTASY(?) that in doing so it would reduce the flow of GHGs and thereby “mitigate global warming”!

That being the case Why the urgency? Given that Oz has 100s of years worth of coal And a good number of years supply of gas.
Is it--at all-- likely that the govt was thinking hundreds of years ahead, way,way,way past the next election cycle?

Mindful of Ockham’s Razor (the simplest answer is …) it is far more likely that our “progressives” got caught up in the general hype and believed that by making carbons more expensive they'd cut emissions and thereby halt climate change, returning us to a (mythological) goldilocks era where it was never too hot and never too cold and no ill winds ever blew.

And here’s an interesting footnote:
Remember we were being told how AGW would shut down the Gulf Stream and that would lead to the freezing over of Europe. Well the February 2013 edition of Scientific American reports that they may have got it all wrong. It seems that climate & the Gulf Stream are a lot more complicated than they led themselves to believe.

Knowing that Poirot posts regular links to Scientific America (along her own guff). I was waiting,anticipating, hoping she’d soon post
a link to this article, but alas it never appeared –I guess it wasn’t the right sort of story!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 14 February 2013 1:38:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, SPQR,

Here's a little help:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/transition

Tell me another way that a capitalist paradigm is going to tackle AGW?

(Apart from denying that it exists)

(Yes SP, I know you're only interested in finding little nuggets that you think conclusively rule out any scientific nous on AGW....keep up the good work. As far as denialism goes, this forum is the online chapter of "Cherry-Pickers Anonymous" :)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 February 2013 2:06:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a further critique of the guy who's the flag-bearer for denialists - and his connection with the Creationist pastor.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/13/climate-science-denier-lord-monckton-joins-creationist-pastor-launch-extremist-political-party?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

mhaze, SPQR....what do you make of Lord Monckton and his affiliation with this dodgy lot?

I mean this guy is regularly lauded and extolled on all the main "skeptic" sites.

The denialist movement has almost no cred at all.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 February 2013 2:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I awoke this morning to a "scientist" (I didn't catch his name) from our CSIRO on ABC radio bleating on about sea level rise. He talked about glaciers melting, sea temperatures rising and the Greenland ice pack melting. He then stated that NASA satellites had identified sea level rises.

The host, a woman, asked him why there had been no rise in sea level in Sydney, as reflected in the Fort Denison daily tide measurements. This imbecile then said it is a northern hemisphere event…..I switched off….If I want to believe a lie, I will make up my own thanks. I can lie as well as them, except I am not being paid for it.
Posted by sonofgloin, Thursday, 14 February 2013 2:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who's to say that the rainfall of 30-40years ago was normal or what should be.
mhaze,
That's what I have been asking too when they talk of global warming. Are we just simply into another natural cycle or is actually man made. I can appreciate it if the argument was that man's activities are quickening the supposedly every 10,000 year ice age cycle by a few years.
I have checked on historical journals of sea fares & explorers who wrote of weeks & weeks of rain. I recall rains like that especially in the Northern Peninsula. Further North in Torres Strait & southern New Guinea rainfall has also become of less volume in the past few years then it was 25 years ago.

Tony Levis,
re your idea of cloud seeding, well there certainly is some seeding going on but it's with consultants & other experts.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 14 February 2013 2:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Oh Poirot you as part of the sisterhood take the cake for double standards.

You label guilt by association with Lord Monkton and you defend your PM sister who lived with a criminal and then clained to be naive. The old evolutionist demonisation of anyone who shows up their fantasy. You are brilliant at it. I am sure you learn''t that at some arts uni.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 February 2013 3:11:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

What are you babbling about?

What is the "sisterhood"?

And where have I been shown to defend something termed a "sisterhood"?

And will you at least attempt to fossick around in your rhetorical kit-bag and try and come up with "anything" that resembles cogent argument - rather than your usual off-the-cuff spite...('twould be a welcome change:)

(btw, you're slipping. You didn't once mention your "ace" term "high priest" in your last post)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 February 2013 4:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For mhaze:

Correct, it was the Bush Administration’s policy to fuel the US transport fleet with bio-fuel. As to its “instigation and cheering of the dedicated alarmists” – I do not think former Australian Prime Minister John W Howard would agree with you. Indeed, he had direct implication in introducing ethanol blended fuel here in Australia. Many people don’t realise that the combustion of any hydrocarbon produces CO2 as an end product. Many people also don’t realise that removing or not maintaining the filters (quite common in the States and other developing countries) produces a ‘dirtier’ combustion product that also contributes to global warming. You knew this of course.

Correct also mhaze, the “CPRS had (has) nothing to do with reducing CO2 levels blamed for causing climate change”. By slowly (it will take decades) moving Australia to a ‘low carbon’ economy, we will be preparing our country for the anticipated future shock of higher prices for all ‘non-renewable’ hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal, gas) – it will happen, sooner or later. Unfortunately, as you might well be aware, many governments have not prepared for the future – take infrastructure as just one example; power transmission, public transport, waste management, water supply, add your own.

In fact, anyone who knows anything at all about ‘long-lived-greenhouse-gases’ (SPQR obviously doesn’t) they would understand that even if the whole planet (forget about Australia) stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, warming is still going to occur – decades hence. The aim is to adapt to a warmer and wetter world. This is important mhaze: Any mitigation effort will help limit the increase in warming that will occur, but it will not reduce the warming that will occur in decades to come. This is something that many people don’t understand – would you like a reference to some research on this?

Thanks for linking to BOM – AGW sceptics think BOM (and the CSIRO) are involved in some kind of world-wide conspiracy.



For sonofgloin: You should familiarise yourself with GRACE (for example) before you make more foolish remarks.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner and reason are not linked poirot.
Thought you knew that, interesting SOG is unaware tides have far different heights and impacts not just in the northern hemisphere but even here, see tides in Darwin vs Sydney.
Telling however, the baseless things some use to prove nothing is changing, well try to prove.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For runner : )

It seems to me that the ‘church’ (of all religions and doctrines) wants power and control over the masses and their wealth.

Despite your shrill to the contrary, science is not a faith based religion.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
quanda

'Despite your shrill to the contrary, science is not a faith based religion. '

No one said it was. Evolution and the warmist doctrines however are very faith based. Your denial does not change that.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

"No one said it was."

And in the very next breath - that's exactly what runner says...as in:

"....Evolution and the warmist doctrines however are very faith based."

How do you work that one out, runner?

Both evolutionary theory and climatology are science based....so your "No one said it was." is a load of old hooey.

"You" are the one saying that the disciplines involved in these two important areas of science are predicated as are faith-based religions....exactly contrary to reality.

That really takes some doing!

Denial-a-palooza!
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:51:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The below quote is Qanda trying to waffle himself out of a tight situation he waffled himself into:

<< In fact, anyone who knows anything at all about ‘long-lived-greenhouse-gases’ (SPQR obviously doesn’t) they would understand that even if the whole planet (forget about Australia) stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, warming is still going to occur – decades hence. The aim is to adapt to a warmer and wetter world.>>

Hmmmm! if there's one thing we can take away from that it's that the Carbon Tax is --TOTALLY NOT-- about cutting emissions or climate change mitigation!

Except!

When introducing the Clean Energy Bill of 2011, this is what Julia Gillard said:

"Mr Speaker, this House has been debating climate change for decades.

Parliamentary debate of this issue predates this building itself.

My predecessor as Member for Lalor, Barry Jones, once said this about climate change:

If we are only prepared to plan five years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years down the track all the dangers that are feared can be avoided.

Those words were spoken twenty four years ago next week.

We have now had decades of heated public argument and political opinion.

Alongside decades of enlightened scientific research and economic analysis.

After all those opinions have been expressed, most Australians now agree:

our climate is changing

this is caused by carbon pollution

this has harmful effects on our environment and on the economy

and the Government should act

And after all that analysis has been done, most economists and experts also now agree the best way is to make polluters pay by putting a price on carbon

So that is the policy of the Government I lead.

And that is the plan which is before the House now…

A plan to cut carbon pollution by at least 160 million tonnes a year in 2020…"

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/clean-energy-bill-2011-gillards-speech-20110913-1wp4r.html

Hmmmm!

So either Julia belongs to the group Qanta categorizes as knowing nothing about ‘long-lived-greenhouse-gases’!
Or, Qanda belongs to the group of naives who knows next to nothing about the politics of the cause he aids and abets!
My moneys on the latter!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 14 February 2013 7:29:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Definition of ESCHATOLOGY
1
: a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind
2
: a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind; specifically : any of various Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, or the Last Judgment

When we talk about AGW "believers" we're not talking about scientists, we're talking about those people whose lives are so sad and empty that they have made a faith out of the science, few of them can understand a scientific report so they need their High Priests to interpret it for them.
There's a term which some people use to describe the modern Western faith, "Holocaustianity", it's narrative begins in the fiery furnaces of Auschwitz and looks ahead to the end of all things as the seas rise and the earth bakes in a coffin of atmospheric pollution.
As in all faiths one is a believer or a denier, a believer in "Holocaustianity" has faith in the scientific underpinnings of the ordeal by fire of 1941-44 just as they have faith in the scientific basis of the coming end times and like all dogmas the underlying science is not to be questioned or revised, it's literally written in stone like Moses' biblical tablets.
Contradictions don't matter to believers, it doesn't matter if there's no scientific proof only that the science makes sense.
I often make the observation that Science Fiction fans are far more critical of implausible science in their favourite genre than a reader of climate change literature would be. If a science fiction writer pushes his scenarios just a bit too far he'll get torrents of emails and derisive Tweets from his own devoted fans, AGW believers just accept whatever they're told.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 14 February 2013 7:56:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay,

You guys are most entertaining...really....it's gymnastics beyond the call of denialist duty.

What a load of bunkum.

(And it's a shame about "those people whose lives are so sad and empty" that they seek to encompass debate within the confines of their own vacuity)

As if scientists aren't always questioning and testing hypotheses. they are the "real skeptics" - not a bunch a of no knowledge conspiracy theorists and big business men who don't wish to see their cash cows shut down.

Whadaya reckon - should I take my guidance on climate from people who actually understand how it works - or from lay people who seem to have a fetish for likening rational thought to religious faith? Should I take my guidance from the presentation of empirical evidence - or should I listen to the Jays and runners of this world?

I'll take my guidance from the people who actually know what they're talking about. Remember, the denialist argument isn't predicated on the science - it's based on conspiracy and fraud and a whole lot of funded amateurs who contort themselves every which way to "avoid" the science.

(P.S. congrats on using runner's line "High Priests".....but that line is becoming a little worn and wan. It's about time you fellas lifted your game, I reckon:)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot.
I'm not saying that "deniers" aren't a cult as well, I just didn't include it in that post, "Climate Deniers" see the end of all things coming in the form of the one world government and their supposed depopulation agenda. It's all the same stuff, "deniers" like the followers of Alex Jones for example start at the same point as the believers, the atrocities of 1941-44 and project a future where the only people left alive after the "prophecy"(the agenda) has been fulfilled are the "Elites" (God's Elect).
This is a doctrinal dispute between two sects of "Holocaustianity", they both begin with the sacrifice consumed by fire, the prophecy fulfilled and the post Armageddon reign of the elect, the differences are about as meaningful and have the same practical effect as the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox schism.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 14 February 2013 9:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'As if scientists aren't always questioning and testing hypotheses. they are the "real skeptics"

yea Poirot after the non event of many of their prophecies you would think they would hang their heads in shame. No wonder science is scoffed at when people like you try and claim fantasies are science. The warmist brigade are not interested in anything that challenges their theory and cash flow other wise they would not of been caught out fiddling the books and data (a fact you conveniently ignore).
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 February 2013 11:28:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Au contraire, runnaire.....

http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

Let's face it, aside from your ultra-snazzy assortment of religious descriptors (such as high priest, dogma, prophecy, etc) which you slavishly deploy in, what I'm sure you consider, a dastardly clever manner every other post - what have you got "that challenges their theories" on the science?

Nada.....nothing....zilch.....zippo..........

All you've got is a conspiracy theory, which for some reason singles out, among scientists, those who practice climate science.

Do you have the same problem with biologists, chemists and medical scientists in general - Astrophysicists maybe?

Here's a new story - do you reckon these scientists are fraudulent as well?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-14/scientists-discover-malaria-achilles-heel/4519684
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Do you have the same problem with biologists, chemists and medical scientists in general - Astrophysicists maybe? '

Only the dishonest ones who know that something that can't be reproduced or tested adequately is still only a theory. There are many good scieintist who don't just nod their heads in order to get a pass. Many in fact have phd's in science. You conveniently ignore the myriads of scientific discoveries by those who have their eyes open wide enough to acknowledge design despite demonisations by the likes of yourself and high priests such as Dawkins etc. You also gladly ignore data manipulation as done by many climate 'scientist' Pretty amazing for such a smart person like yourself.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 February 2013 12:38:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Never mind, runner,

You can be assured that conservative/libertarian entities have the situation well under control.

As long as they can pour money into the unscientific denial machine, people like you will continue to do their work for them, by spouting your conspiracy theories willy-nilly across the blogosphere.

"Donors Trust" are apparently making the Koch brothers and Exxon look like two bit players in the sham...(so never mind about the funding - that's all been taken care of:)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network?intcmp=239

(I note that you couldn't help yourself in your last post - "...high priests...." - you never disappoint:)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 7:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And the beat goes on:

http://desmog.ca/2013/02/14/us-scientist-caught-canadian-muzzle?utm

Canada, these days (due to its tar sands industry), appears to be doing its utmost to stymie the dissemination of climate-related scientific research and global outcomes in response to it.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 8:46:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's so easy to nail the warmers, just get to start with answering these questions.

1.0 What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?

2.0 Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?

3.0 Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?

4.0 Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?

5.0 If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?

The CCX collapsed in December 2010, by November 2012, Barclays US Carbon trading Desk closed, the UN, EU and NZ markets were trading at just off their all time lows at A$5.60, EU, UN backed credits A$8.45 and NZ trading A$4.10.

By January 2013 these markets had collapsed a further 40% with NZ trading at US$ 2.00.

RENIXX is the key international stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007.

In the USA alone eight of their largest subsidized renewable energy manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy between 2007 and 2012. Beacon Power Corp, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Babcock and Brown, Mountain Plaza Inc and Solar Millennium. The cost to the US taxpayer is U$ 3.9 Billion.

A further six subsidized green energy companies are in default or in decline at a cost to the US taxpayer of U$ 6 Billion. The wind industry in the USA, the largest in the world, is predicted to lose 70 to 90 percent of its orders. Investors predict its total demise.

The USA’s EPA, NIWA, NZ’s, CSIRO, CRU, Pen State University, IPCC and Met Office are all providers of scientific advice to governments. So how come every one of these “scientific” providers are facing litigation and FOI requests against keeping their science secret?
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 15 February 2013 12:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“ello monsieur Poirot, I zee you haf’ not got zee answeers to zee questions. Perhaps you could ask zee ozzer warmers to ‘elp you non?

On zee ozzer ‘and, perhaps zey ‘have zee same problem as you. There are perhaps no links for zeeze questions.

You have never addressed these questions and we suspect you never will. Perhaps you could instead supply a piece of spontaneous humor, ad hominine or bypass response? Anything to avoid your response to these questions. Reality is such a bitch.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 15 February 2013 1:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A logical fallacy, Barry Spinks - but typical.

What you are nailing is the policy makers, the economists and the processes of the UNFCCC.

What you are not nailing is the science, despite your inane and childish arguments to the contrary.

A world-wide conspiracy Barry?

As to your last comment - about time you got out of the Menzies House kindergarten.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 15 February 2013 1:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes qanda, but can you answer the questions?

If your science is not good enough for the policy makers, why should it be good enough for us?

Calling the questions “logical fallacy” is just another tactic for avoiding the questions. You cannot, you will not and you are incapable of responding to the reality. Your failure to refute that reality is noted.

The global infrastructure that once supported your view is gone, what does that say about your science?

Without your pseudo-science you, like the rest of the warmertariat, can only duck, weave and avoid.

The questions were 1 through 5, and your answers are?
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 15 February 2013 2:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda - Scientists mostly follows the orders of the master or whoever pays the money just as public servants do, if the masters do not get the answers they want they will moreover LIE and say they got the answers. (remember WMD in Iraq)

The scientists already admitted to falsifying data in the leaked emails,
now you still want to trust them.
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 15 February 2013 2:47:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

I see you are impatient for me to reply to you...(I do have a life outside of posting on OLO:)

Regarding your final paragraph where you highlight the myriad spurious FOI requests and sundry litigation as if they were some sort of game changer.

On the contrary, they are nothing more than funded denialist strategy - an abuse of process.

I can see why your ilk would hold them up as a trump card.

Once more, they are not about the science - they are about intimidation and silencing.

As Michael Mann knows all too well:

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/11/07/first-they-came-for-the-climatologists/

"...it's about power and intimidation and a national strategy by Koch financed right wing "think-tanks" to turn the Freedom of Information act...into a new tool of surveillance and oppression, to silence free speech and curtail thought at academic institutions across the country."

"The latest technique used by conservatives to silence liberal academics is to demand copies of their e-mails and other documents..."

"...We think all of this will have a chilling effect on academic freedom. We've never seen FOIA requests used like this before."

That's all denialists can do....abuse the process by foul means.

It's all they've got, because they sure as hell DON'T HAVE THE SCIENCE.

(Sorry, and I know you spent some time composing your posts, but I find denialist spiel utterly despicable - especially when it constructs a FOI snowman amidst a blizzard of logical fallacy)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 3:11:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Barry, some pre-schoolers need to be spoon fed.

1. "What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?"

Actually, it hasn’t – so there's your first lie, I mean spin-doctored-assertion.

On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 UNFCCC Conference, an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020.

You could have looked it up yourself Barry, but no, you just want to demonstrate how childish and churlish you are - well done.

2. "Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?"

The question should be directed to politicians, policy makers or economists – but you could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Market-based_and_least-cost

3. "Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?"

You persist in chasing tails Barry, perhaps you should sniff here instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re_investment_2007-2017.jpg

Detailed more here:

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

4. "Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?"

They’re not and I find it intriguing why conspiracy theorists like yourself (and other extreme right fruitloops) want to discredit science – but there you are, in all your glory.

5. "If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?"

Getting 193 member states and governments of all political persuasions to agree on anything is a big task, Barry – it is not easy.

However, I tend to put it down to the non-progressive ‘tea-party-esque’ business as usual types - obfuscating, denying and delaying as they always tend to do, but that is only my opinion.

.
..
.

PhilipS

You obviously don’t understand how science works.

Your comment is really not worth responding to except for the fact that the 'war against Weapons of Mass Destruction' cost many people their lives, many more were/are injured and traumatised, and it cost trillions of dollars – a debt that our current world leaders are having to deal with, some more so than others.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 15 February 2013 4:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd just like to add the "WMD's in Iraq" line was merely the convenient spiel adopted by those other right-wing fruitloops, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, so they could launch their grab for control and influence over Iraq's main resource (this was all before tar sands and fracking became the new catch-phrase in the US of A)

In fact the UN found there were no WMD's in Iraq - and Bush & Co invaded anyway.

spindoc,

The only people trying to keep research secret are various right-wing governments who aren't real happy with it interfering with their plans:

Reprise....
http://desmog.ca/2013/02/14/us-scientist-caught-canadian-muzzle?utm
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 4:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda>> For sonofgloin: You should familiarise yourself with GRACE (for example) before you make more foolish remarks<<

A foolish remark is it sport, or sportette!

I started a thread last year based on the Fort Dennison tide measurements over the past decade. THE HIGH TIDES WERE DOWN ON AVERAGE FOR MOST OF THOSE YEARS, sorry to yell but I want you to hear.

You keep listening to the "scientists" quanda, the ones who bullsheisered the numbers so their hockey stick could stand up by itself. I will make my own mind up rather than regurgitate something I know nothing about fed to me via vested interest scientists I have never met.
Just in parting I mentioned in that thread that I have several old rels who are fishing crazy, they have lived in the same places for fifty years and they have not noticed a difference. Jetty’s are the same, high tide marks are the same….but we are being flooded if we listen to you regurgitate something you don’t know from someone you don’t know.

I bet you would be the last to shout: “The king has no clothes”, followers never open their mouths first, and that’s why they are followers.

Tell me why did Professor Tim Flannery buy a waterside property a few years back, shouldn’t this gravy train engineer know what’s coming, or was it a short term investment?

Belly>> interesting SOG is unaware tides have far different heights and impacts not just in the northern hemisphere but even here, see tides in Darwin vs Sydney<<

God you are a dill… Belly my china.
I did not say there was no differential in tidal flows, but as I said above the last decade was marked by lower than average tides at Fort Dennison…or are they fudging the figures just for Sydney Harbour. Sea level rises are spread around the globe and the tides would reflect that here, there, and everywhere tiger.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 15 February 2013 4:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

"You keep listening to the "scientists" qanda...."

Well it's kinda hard to avoid for the likes of qanda because he appears to be a scientist.

"...I will make up my own mind rather than regurgitate something I know nothing about fed to me via vested interest scientists I have never met."

How does that go?

"...something I know nothing about...."

And if you refuse to listen to "the scientists" regarding "the science", then you're left with regurgitating (ad nauseam) your own ignorance.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 4:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah! Yummy qanda/Poirot.

So Kyoto has not lapsed? Really? Now I thought it expired on December 31, 1012. So if as you say it has not lapsed, who might we ask are the signed up member States?

"Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?" Your answer, “The question should be directed to politicians, policy makers or economists”. Roughly translated this means, well yes they have but you don’t know why. I don’t need to ask the politicians, I asked if you knew. I already know why and so do they.

"Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?"
It matters not if I’m, as you say “chasing tails”. We can all read the RENNIX stock index. I suppose you are going to tell us this is wrong?

"Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?"

You say they are not. Curious? Which of those listed are not defending secrecy? The court cases are published from the various courts around the world, I guess the courts are just wrong eh?
Alternatively, since you are not a denier perhaps you could ask them to release their data?

"If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?"

Your answer. “Getting 193 member states and governments of all political persuasions to agree on anything is a big task, Barry – it is not easy”.

But you forget, they did at one stage agree, now they don’t and have refused to sign any more binding agreements. That is because they can no longer be persuaded by either the science or the economics.

I find it really interesting that when you take away your science you fall into a gibbering heap and saying the facts as presented aren’t true. Your problem is you cannot refute them because they are all from published industrial data upon which investors make decisions.

I think you’re stumped but that doesn’t surprise anyone. But you are both very funny.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 15 February 2013 5:19:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot>> Yup, mhaze - this article on the World Bank's report on biofuels and the food crisis, backs qanda's assertion that it was the Bush Administration<<

Poirot, I know the baking cartels and the 5% that own 85% of everything (an amazing figure) run the bloody lot. So every scurrilous big business deceit that you example I agree is criminal.

Where you have it wrong is that the international socialist movement is doing the bidding of the 5%.

Why are we plebs fighting about a carbon tax? Because the agenda of holding the polluters accountable has morphed into holding the consumer accountable. Leaving the 5% free to pollute.

The Green movement and your governing lefty snout in trough internationalists are chasing the money not the polluters.

How much emission control technology could you invest in if you owned 85% of the globes assets?

Terry McCrann The Australian August 20, 2011
>> Australia will be sending $57 billion a year overseas just for the right to keep our lights on, as a direct consequence of Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax and consequent emissions trading scheme.

We won't be getting anything tangible back for that $57bn.It doesn't buy us windmills or solar panels made in China. It doesn't buy us technology or licensing rights. It's not even a (carbon dioxide) tax, that would at least generate revenue for the government.

It just sends money to foreigners for "permission" to keep a few of our coal-fired power stations operating.
This extraordinary "fact" is in detailed Treasury modeling of the proposed carbon dioxide tax.<<

Poirot you have not got a clue as to what happens to the Carbon Tax, because if you did you would want it spent here in Australia to clean up the environment.

These burgeoning second and third world money pits have a governing class, where do think the billions are going to go after the U.N bureaucrats have had their share P…into the Bank of Rwanda? It’s going to go back into the system via the afore mentioned banking cartels. You have not got a clue my dear.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 15 February 2013 5:34:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this thread alone the term "the science" has been used 18 times, mostly by qanda and Poirot. Its the silliest of notions and a complete misreading of the real world to think that there is such a thing as "the science" on climate change or anything else for that matter.
the fact is there are many many scientists who disagree with the so-called consensus view. There are many many scientists who are currently working on theories about how the climate works which are entirely at odds with the simplistic notion that mankind increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% can change the climate. Are these people part of "the science" or are they excommunicated for their heresy?

Is Freeman Dyson part of "the science"?
Is nobel laureate Ivar Giaever expelled from "the science" because he doesn't buy the one 'true' version of the story?
Is Will Happer part of "the science"?
Is Henrik Svensmark no longer part of "the science" because he is working on an entirely different theory as to how climate change works?

I'm sorry fellas but this notion that there is one science, "the science" and everything else is right-wing spin just reveals a hopeless lack of understanding as to the current level of research.

There is no consensus. Its a political term, not a scientific one. And there is no "the science". there are many many different sciences.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 15 February 2013 8:07:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

"You have not got a clue my dear."

Let's take a look at the 5 percent you claim are the "polluters"....

Who consumes all the goods they manufacture?

Who drives all the cars and operates the machinery?

Who uses all the electricity?

It's us who consume the goods and who use the fuel.

It's consumer demand which drives the industrial process - always was and always will be.

If that process is polluting, then a way must be found to mitigate it.

Of course, all that makes perfectly good sense until you come to the part where consumers are slugged for their consumption (in the capitalist system, it's consumption and growth which are the drivers)...only one thing to do in that case if you're dependent on consumption to make mega profits - and that is to deny that AGW is real, that it's a conspiracy, a fraud, etc.

And that's exactly what big business has done.

Your 5 percent are busy stoking the denialist furnace, sonofgloin....because although they've passed on the tax, they have no desire to see consumption fall.

Here's a timely article, seemingly written with all you blokes in mind:

http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763

We are the polluters.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 8:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting a whole of nit picking about the science followed by a load of whinging about the current government.
To start with how many of the skeptics think that adding an extra blanket does not keep you warmer, or adding insulation to house
helps to keep the heat in, or that thermos flasks don't work ?
if you can make a convincing case that any of those statements are not true them maybe you can try and argue greenhouse gases
do not trap more heat in the atmosphere.

The carbon tax has actually been more effective than anticipated, it has reduced carbon emissions by over 8% already, of course the Australian had to put their own spin on it rather acknowledge that the tax was doing what it was supposed to do.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-drop-signals-fall-in-carbon-tax-take/story-e6frg6xf-1226559632995
Posted by warmair, Friday, 15 February 2013 8:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes sonofgloin, a very foolish remark - your reply confirms it, sport.

The twin-sats have been orbiting since 2002 and the results have been validated. AR4 reports are more conservative than previously thought (AR5 WG1 due later this year).
For example:
Ocean temperatures are warming faster and deeper;
The Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic ice-sheets are melting faster than originally expected;
Water loss in the Murray/Darling system is more likely to be associated with climate change than drought;
Siberian tundra is collapsing over a wider area;
Arctic sea-ice is diminishing at a faster rate than thought,;
The Global Mean Sea Level is rising;
so on and so forth.

.

Mr Barry Spinks,

You are such a bore: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9844#158217

.

Absolutely mhaze, that is why I generally enclose the term with inverted commas.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154776

You say:
"There are many many scientists (you list 4) who are currently working on theories about how the climate works which are entirely at odds with the simplistic notion that mankind increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% can change the climate."

I can list 1,000's against your 4 but at the end of the day (if you knew anything about 'climate science' but you don't) it's all about weight of evidence - notwithstanding even you could knock the theory of gravity on it's head /sarc :)

A survey of 13950 scientific research papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2012 has found that 0.17 per cent (just 24 papers) argued global warming was either false or was caused by something other than human activities.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

mhaze, so you acknowledge CO2 concentration has gone up 30% (since industrialisation). What you don't seem to comprehend is that the miniscule amount of 0.03% prevents the planet from turning into a snowball planet.

Imagine what a 30% increase (0.03% to 0.04%) could do.

Don't bother, you're not a 'climate scientist'.

You believe what you want to believe but 1 will give me 100 that you base your 'belief' on political ideology, socio-cultural upbringing or religious doctrine - not science (in whatever clothes it is worn).
Posted by qanda, Friday, 15 February 2013 11:21:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, this puts my response to mhaze in perspective:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/bolt-from-the-fringes-when-is-a-climate-denier-too-extreme-34316

The mood is gone.
Posted by qanda, Friday, 15 February 2013 11:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda,

Thanks for the link....too true!

But, hey - Wacky Lord Monckton adds so much farce to the denialist cause that he should be seen as a gift to climate scientists.

It probably says something worrying about our society that reasonably intelligent people can hail a clown like him as having some sort of heft and credibility in attempting to conjure up some doubt on climate science.

His latest stunt lends him even less cred - and yet over at Jo Nova's he's granted their best red carpet treatment.... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/monckton-returns-to-australia-book-now/

Monty Monckton's Flying Circus : )

On sea level rise - this is the best one I've struck this year:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595&page=0#153889

(Hope that puts you back in the mood - bit of a larf:)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 February 2013 11:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>To start with how many of the skeptics think that adding an extra blanket does not keep you warmer, or adding insulation to house
helps to keep the heat in, or that thermos flasks don't work ?<<

Thermos flasks don't work: haven't you ever heard the tale of the man who would play chess in the park every week against a friend with a magic bottle - in the winter it would keep his tea steaming hot and in the summer it kept his lemonade cold without ice. The man asked his friend about his wonderful magical bottle. 'There's nothing magic about it,' the friend snorted. 'I don't know how it knows to keep hot things hot and cold things cold - probably got one of them microchips - but you can buy them at the supermarket.'

The man goes out straight away and buys a thermos flask. The next day he meets his friend in the park. 'I think this new thermos flask is broken,' he complains. 'The man in the shop said it would keep hot things hot and cold things cold just like yours but just feel that'. He offers a thermos flask cup. 'See, just warmish. And it's ruined the flavor.'
'What did you have in there?' aks the friend.
'Two cups of tea and a cornetto.'

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 16 February 2013 12:10:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda/Poirot,

After an initial “toe in the water” of reality, you’ve once again retreated into your comfort zone of “your science” and started trading links again, predominantly between yourselves as you seek solace from each others “beliefs”.

You seem unable to recognize the reality that the only remnants of global responses to CAGW are your links to your science.

1.0 Global Agreement: The only global emissions cap and governance agreement was Kyoto. It expired on December 31, 2012.

2.0 Global emissions trading: The CCX collapsed in December 2010, by November 2012, Barclays US Carbon trading Desk closed, the UN, EU and NZ markets were trading at just off their all time lows at A$5.60, EU, UN backed credits A$8.45 and NZ trading A$4.10. By January 2013 these markets had collapsed a further 40% with NZ trading at US$ 2.00. This market was trading at $45 in 2007 and is now at less than $7 globally. It has collapsed.

3.0 Renewable energy industry: RENIXX is the key international stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007.

4.0 Your “Scientific” advisors to governments: The USA’s EPA, NZ’s NIWA, CSIRO, CRU, Pen State University, IPCC and Met Office are all providers of scientific advice to governments. So how come every one of these “scientific” providers are facing litigation and FOI requests against keeping their science secret? You’ve already dismissed this as a “denialist propaganda plot” Ahem? Can we conclude you agree it is true but just not the fault of your “scientists”?

5.0 Your “science”: If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the all the international infrastructure listed above, that was created to support your “science” in the first place?

All the above global response mechanisms are gone which leaves only one element, your links to your “science”. And you call me a denier?

You could of course continue to do a Monty Python and convince us that this is not a “dead parrot”?
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 16 February 2013 8:18:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,
1.0 I cab't believe you are still going on about this. The Kyoto agreement has been extended until 2020. All parties that originally signed it are still signed on. A google search for 'Kyoto protocol' will turn that up in the first three links. Your ignorance of this is astounding.

2.0 A lot of markets collapse for various reasons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes
However I cannot find one of them attributable to 'bad science'. Perhaps you could point out another case where that has happened. Most collapses I can see are due to economic, not scientific reasons.

3.0 See above

4.0 Sharing of datasets and methods has generally be an ongoing process in science. Most of the datatsets used have already been shared in open databases. The multitude of FOI requests are mostly time wasting exercises and requests for private information, such as emails. Perhaps I could ask you for all your emails relating to the terms 'climate change'?

5.0 The 'international infrastructure' is tun by economists and business people. Capital goes where it will get the best return, this is not generally predicated on science. I remember a massive dotcom bust, where their markets collapsed as well. Did that mean that computer science and internet amerkets were somehow bad science and 'wrong'? Oh please.

So, if the markets are the arbiter of what is true and 'real', then if the RENIXX suddenly jumps and starts increasing over the next decade, you will become a 'believer'?
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 16 February 2013 8:36:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

Regarding denialists abusing FOI and instituting litigation, two words sum it "frivolous and vexatious".

I also find it fascinating that the denialists on this thread are criticising the use of the word "science" when discussing the issue of climate change.

Accurate scientific data and description is the last thing they're interested in.

They can't disprove the scientific aspect so they resort to contorting every other aspect at hand - and invent some as well.

Michael Mann coined the term the "Serengeti Strategy" where "no-science skeptics" isolate and pick off climate scientists one by one...and the abuse of FOI and litigation are examples of this strategy.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/freedom-information-laws-used-climate-sceptics-rifle-through-scientists-daily-emails
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 8:53:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bit of a larf, Poirot?

I’ll tell you what’s a bit of a larf;

Spindoc enters the fray with:

“What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?”

I answer with:

>> Actually, it hasn’t – so there's your first lie, I mean spin-doctored-assertion.

On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 UNFCCC Conference, an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020.

You could have looked it up yourself Barry, but no, you just want to demonstrate how childish and churlish you are - well done. <<

The “denier” fires back:

“Ah! Yummy qanda/Poirot.

So Kyoto has not lapsed? Really? Now I thought it expired on December 31, 1012. So if as you say it has not lapsed, who might we ask are the signed up member States?”

The “denier” is unable to help himself and regurgitates again:

“1.0 Global Agreement: The only global emissions cap and governance agreement was Kyoto. It expired on December 31, 2012...
… All the above global response mechanisms are gone which leaves only one element, your links to your “science”. And you call me a denier? ”

Not only is Barry Spinks a “denier”, he is a complete fool. He can’t even do some basic fact checking (as Bugsy has done).

Yep, spindoctor is what I call a bit of a larf Poirot … wasted space and a waste of time.
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:26:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Barry Spinks

I will type this slowly, try and keep up:

In Doha, Qatar, on 8 December 2012, the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. The amendment includes:

• New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020;

• A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period; and

• Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.

On 21 December 2012, the amendment was circulated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as Depositary, to all Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Protocol.

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php

Now Barry, what part are you denying?
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:30:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
quanda>> The Global Mean Sea Level is rising;
so on and so forth.<<

Sea level rising everywhere...except in Sydney harbour it would seem, explain that tiger.

Poirot>> Michael Mann coined the term the "Serengeti Strategy" where "no-science skeptics" isolate and pick off climate scientists one by one...and the abuse of FOI and litigation are examples of this strategy<<

Abuse of FOI....P?

Abuse of an indoctrinated and biased media more like it.

After the unraveling of the lie that was the basis for the "Global Warming" scare campaign, the spin gurus then changed the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”, new game, new name.
The numbers (models) were manipulated to give an outcome that did not materialize. Not just one scientist or team fabricated the truth; they all lied with mental giants like Al Gore leading the indoctrination of a nation.

The transparently self serving imbecile Gore like the imbecile Flannery did not practice what he preached. His home was lit up like a Xmas tree 365 days a year, he added more lights as he told us to turn ours off. Just like Flannery buying WATERFRONT property a few years back….give me a break P, can’t you find “real” conservation guru’s to follow?
You believe what they tell you P, I will look out the window, if the water is lapping at the door I will let you know.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda/ Bugsy, thanks for the link. Perhaps you might refrain from editing out the bits you don’t like?

This is what you failed to mention so I’ll add it in to correct your censorship;

Doha Statement, 8 December 2012

Not yet in force: This amendment shall enter into force in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Kyoto Protocol. (Article 20, paragraph 4, the amendment will enter into force for those Parties having accepted it, which are whom precisely?)

Status: Parties: 0

Opted out: USA, Canada, Russia, Japan, China, India, NZ, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

So who is in? (Who are the “parties having accepted it” under article 20?)

Qanda you say “Not only is Barry Spinks a “denier”, he is a complete fool. He can’t even do some basic fact checking (as Bugsy has done)”.

Oops! Fact checking anyone?

Yummy, can I just catch some of that bucket of scrambled egg dripping off your face?

The Kyoto Protocol states its own mechanisms are:
International Emissions Agreement on caps and trading
Clean Energy Development Mechanism (CDM)
Joint Implementation (JI)

There is no International Emissions Agreement on caps and no monitoring.
The Trading Market has collapsed
The clean energy industry has collapsed
There is no Joint Implementation because there are no international “joinee’s”)

Bugsy, “A lot of markets collapse for various reasons” Really, so glad you could get your head around that one. Not the point, it has collapsed.

Bugsy, “The multitude of FOI requests are mostly time wasting exercises” Now why didn’t I think of that? So there are a multitude of FOI requests and they are from other scientists. I must have missed that, why not? you did.

Bugsy, on the renewable energy market you say “Capital goes where it will get the best return” Yep, that’s what I said and because of that it has collapsed, we are in total agreement.

Homework for qanda/Poirot/Bugsy. “I must avoid name calling before I check my facts”

Sorry boys, very poor effort and definitely no bananas.

Like I said, once your “science” is taken away you’re thrashing.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:58:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

You've managed to get the "global warming/climate change" aspect completely about face (like spindoc does with his British sitcom analogies:)

Yes, it's all about linguistic spin, however, the alteration from one descriptor to another came from the conservative/skeptic camp - not from AGW proponents.

Here's a case in point:

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

"Frank I, Luntz....an American political consultant, pollster and Republican Party strategist. His most recent work has been with Fox News Channel as a frequent commentator and analyst....Luntz's specialty is 'testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product [which in the denialist's case is doubt] or turn public opinion on issues or a candidate'..."

If you scroll down to the section "Global Warming", amongst other things it reads:

"Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" because "climate change" was thought to sound less severe..."

All sorts of things in those paragraphs that basically add up to denialist/conservative strategies to counter what scientists were concluding during those years.

sonofgloin - you should save your outrage for the con-artists who are leading you and the rest of 'em by the nose.

The contortions and spin are all theirs.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Qanda>>

• New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020;

• A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period; and

• Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.<<

Here is my Kyoto Q:

• For and hitherto the party of the first part shall be called the party of the first part. The party of the second part shall be called the party of the second part or parts unknown.
• The party of the third party shall not inhibit the girth of the party of the first part, or p[arts unknown, unless the party of the second part takes annual leave.
• In the case of annual leave the party of the third part will inform the party of the fourth part that milk is delivered before 6am, excepting on the 30th of February every other emission.
• All parties, excluding China who shall be known as the party of the greatest part will do what the U.N. say’s.


Dribble is the issue qanda, lots of bureaucracy and canapés, but nothing at all effective given China is building two coal fire power stations a week. The only thing to come from Kyoto is to tax sovereign nations and control BILLIONS of dollars.

You want to do something for the environment Q, get onto the campaign against the CSG travesty that is polluting our water tables and ruining productive land…that boogie man is closer to home and more immediate that the Kyoto Krap.

http://coalseamgasnews.org/

Find a local CSG group, if you don’t have one, you will soon.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonogloin,

Like I said, "we are the polluters".

Look around your house and try and find something "not" made in China.

Much of it will be superfluous crap...but it's what we demand - and it's what they give us - and it's "cheap".

Cheap Chinese imports are helping to keep the battered US economy afloat.

Consuming is what we're about.

In order to combat pollution from "wherever it emanates in the first instance", we have to alter our pattern of voracious consumption.
However, with acolytes like you guys here who wish to deny the problem even exists, what chance do we have or reestablishing a more balanced relationship with the environment.

spindoc,

You "haven't" "taken away the science".

You're not interested in the scientific aspect of this debate - as per denialist strategy.

You are interested in spinning (like its going out of fashion) in order to support the shenanigans that seek to stymie global policy to address global warming.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:47:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh spindoc, you also omit the text:

"Pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 7 and Article 20, paragraph 4, the amendment is subject to acceptance by Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, the amendment will enter into force for those Parties having accepted it on the ninetieth day after the date of receipt by the Depositary of an instrument of acceptance by at least three fourths of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol."

The Depository statement is dated the 11th Dec 2012, and it was agreed to on the 8th. It has been 67 days since Dec 11th, so the agreement will come into force in March.

It doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? "It has so far lapsed for 47 days, but will be officially extended on the 69th day. What do you say to that you sniveling believers? muhahahahahha"

"Bucket of scrambled egg"?

Mate, I think you are a bit invested in this skeptic thing. I like your stories, sometimes they are quite creative and I'm never quite sure if you totally believe them yourself, but you would be a fool if you did.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:48:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot>> Yes, it's all about linguistic spin, however, the alteration from one descriptor to another came from the conservative/skeptic camp - not from AGW proponents.<<

You have to look hard to see where the rhetoric from both sides of this argument originates. One factor that has me believing that the “conservatives” are behind the “climate control lobby” reflects in the first world press’ two decade campaign of brainwashing us about manmade climate change and our individual responsibility as consumers to wear the burden of compensation.

Who "owns" the press?
Who owns the legislators?
Not the socialist left who are the backbone to the green movement. The only thing the infiltrated greens have achieved is a tax to placate their media indoctrinated guilt.

The press do not report that a global manufacturer has just installed an emission capture system that barely meets legislated guidelines when a system that reduces emissions by half again is available, but at three times the cost.

Have you ever read Silent Spring? That girl knew who the enemy was.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:50:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spin, deny and lie all you like Barry but the Kyoto Protocol did not lapse, end or expire on 31/12/12.

On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 UNFCCC Conference, an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020.

.

sonofgloin

Listen kitten, Fort Dennison is not the centre of the universe - GMSL is rising.

The UNFCCC is a sticky place as I've said. Thing is kitten, it don't and can't change the science. Something you and all the other conspiracy theorists round here just can't accept.

As to CSG, if only you knew - what group are you in?

Btw, Flannery’s home stands many metres above the Hawkesbury River with steeply rising banks. His house will not be impacted by a one metre sea level rise.
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 16 February 2013 11:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda, you say “The Kyoto Protocol did not lapse, end or expire on 31/12/12”. Rubbish.

The UNFCCC statement of 8 December 2012, is true but as super sleuth Bugsy includes, “the amendment will enter into force (only) for those Parties having accepted it on the ninetieth day after the date of receipt by the Depositary of an instrument of acceptance by at least three fourths of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol."

Depository date December 11, 2012. Plus 19 days is December 30, 2012. As stated, At least “three fourths the of the original Kyoto signatories” must sign to activate the amendment before December 31, 2012 or Boom! “Status: Not yet in force:” “Current Status: Parties: 0”

If you three cannot comprehend plain English, no wonder you are still “feeling” what is written rather than actually reading it. Kyoto lapsed by default December 31, 2013.

Poirot, you’re an absolute gem.

I never realised what the problem was. I seem to have screwed the entire global response to CAGW because I failed my “British sitcom analogies” test. Sorry about that.

In addition, as you so astutely point out, failure of the response to CAGW is caused by? Contortions and spin, linguistic spin, alteration from one descriptor to another, conservative/skeptic camp strategies, frivolous and vexatious litigation, con-artists and the term "climate change" being too soft.

I’m so sorry Poirot; all this time I thought it was “your science” that was causing the problem.

Can you please send me some more of those “these are my other excuses” links?

I need to send them to all those countries that are refusing to sign a Kyoto replacement, the UNFCCC, the IPCC, Met Office, CSIRO, CRU, NIWA, renewable industry stock exchange, emissions trading markets and the US EPA. I’m sure they would be really interested because I have this sneaky feeling that they are till working on “their science”.

I could be wrong Poirot, but you know how silly I can be on these matters, but you really should write to them all yourself and get them on the right track.

Thanks heaps.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 16 February 2013 12:30:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well it seems that neither qanda nor Poirot are prepared to defend their assertions that there is one 'the science'. They want to believe that there is a consensus and pointing out otherwise is so unheard-of within their circle and therefore it can't be countenanced. Oh well, closed minds are difficult to reach.
To be fair qanda has an inclination that the assertion that there is 'the science' might be a tad of an exaggeration and so asserts that " I generally enclose the term with inverted commas". Well checking this thread the term is never so qualified - but I guess in some circles asserting something to be so is the same as believing it is so.

qanda asserts :"I can list 1,000's against your 4 [ scientists]".

Well actually you couldn't - at least not here because of the 350 char limit. I mentioned 4 names from the multitudes who are available but space limits preclude listing those multitudes. And besides I wasn't postulating a contest of numbers, simply pointing out that there were many eminently qualified scientists who demure from what you childishly call 'the science'.I know its hard for a warmist to get this but science isn't decided by a popularity vote. Its decided by the data. I don't care how many people say we are warming due to CO2 when the data plainly shows we haven't warmed for a decade and a half despite significant CO2 increases. The data is the only one who gets a vote here. And besides, if you want to run it as a popularity contest who gets a vote. Are statisticians allowed to vote? Are economists? Solar scientists? Astrophysicists? etc etc. All of them were excluded from Poirot's stupid 97% survey.

Its more than a little interesting that the so-called consensus wants to assert that there is 'the science' which is settled. It is they who want to close down any prospect of debate. Is it because increasingly the data and therefore the debate refuses to conform to their prejudices?
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 16 February 2013 2:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to say how fascinating it is to watch denialists in action....

"No warming for 15/16 years (take your pick)".

"Warmists say 'the science' is settled".

"Heaps of eminently qualified "skeptic" scientists".

mhaze - "..The data is the only one who gets the vote here..."

Well...cough!...splutter!...ahem

The very point is that the "data' is there - only to be roundly ignored and/or disparaged by denialists.

Denialists reject the "data" from climate scientists.

That's why they have to stoop to their spurious strategies.

Nice little cherry-pick (the "skeptic's ultra-specialty) about the term "the science".

"THe science" is shorthand for the data and expertise that "skeptics" abhor, much preferring the Lord Monckton's of this world tapping away on their PC's providing amateur "science" on Microsoft Excel, while with his other hand putting the finishing flourishes on his latest conspiracy theory.

I particularly enjoy a game of "whack-a-mole-skeptic style" on the weekend.

There's not a neo-cortex in sight amongst my opponents.

It's that old warm familiarity when dealing with the "skeptics' on OLO. I get the feeling you've received attention from these guys - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68GeL8PafE

(They don't have "the science" either :)

Nothing like an amateur doing an experts job.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 6:32:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an institute with long ties to tobacco disinformation.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute which describes itself as "Non-profit, non-partisan, research advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government"....that it serves "as both a 'think-tank'--creating intellectual ammunition to support free markets--and an advocacy organisation--putting that ammunition to use in persuasive ways."

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

Here's another "institute" called the "American Tradition Institute" which describes itself as a public policy research and educational foundation...."part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation..."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tradition_Institute

Here's a man who is both a senior fellow at CEI and the "director of litigation" at the ATI's law centre.

http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner

Here's his latest bog at WUWT on FOI:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/16/another-document-cache-from-noaa-via-foi/

And you guys reckon it's all about transparency.

It's all about vexatious litigation and frivolous FOI demands by groups who represent vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

A "Director of Litigation" says it all.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 9:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia" meaning knowledge.
There is no alternative knowledge either we know something or we don't.
That knowledge can be divided into observations (data), and explanations of that data.
Now there is a vast amount data that we can not explain but nevertheless there is a lot that we can. The best test of any explanation is that it can make useful predictions. Climate science is able to make useful predictions.

The process that skeptics use is to concentrate on the areas that are not perfectly understood and then claim that we don't understand anything.

In climate science a number of facts are well established. First and foremost is the means by which the earth warms and cools.

1 Sunlight in the form of visible light heats the earth's surface.

2 The warm surface heats the atmosphere

3 The atmosphere cools by emitting long wave radiation (heat) to space.

4 Greenhouse gases interfere with the cooling process by absorbing long wave radiation.

These are the basic observations. The only question that remains is, how much warming is likely, if we continue to increase the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

The calculation based on the best estimate, is that we must radically reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases especially CO2, if we are not to cause warming in excess of 2 Deg C globally.

There is virtually no wriggle room, despite the claims of those who that stand to lose, by moving to a low carbon economy.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 17 February 2013 9:46:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy/qanda/Poirot,

Well, this is real progress. Having been abused as a “liar, denialist, spin-doctored-assertions, childish and churlish, no neo-cortex, skeptic, amateur, spin, deny and lie, superfluous crap and shenanigans that seek to stymie global policy to address global warming”, you have come full circle.

Your initial reactions to the five statements below were utter rejection, anger and vilification. Having been unable to contradict these you now grudgingly accept the facts but trot out a load of excuses.

1.0 What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?

2.0 Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?

3.0 Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?

4.0 Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?

5.0 If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?

What I find really fascinating is the sheer obsessive effort you have put into your science whilst being so myopic and disconnected from reality that you never realised, or were too lazy to find out, that all the things once created by your science and for your science have gone!

You all seem to be intelligent and yet you have no idea what is actually going on! You just keep churning out more and more links to the science that has not only failed you it has also failed the entire global response to CAGW.

Your anger, frustration and disbelief perhaps understandable but you are going to have to think things through on your own. Your case becomes absolutely unsustainable when you seek to blame “shenanigans that seek to stymie global policy to address global warming”.

You just cannot believe that it is your science that failed you, your paranoia that the rest of the world is trying to “stymie” you says it all.

Aren’t you all just a little bit curious as to why the only remnants of action on CAGW are people just like you? Quite sad really.

Regards,

Barry.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 17 February 2013 10:15:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

On your point:

"The process that skeptics use is to concentrate on the areas that are not perfectly understood and then claim we don't understand anything."

Here's great interview with Michael Mann tiled "Besieged by Climate Deniers, A Scientist Decides to Fight Back".

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climate_scientist_michael_mann_fights_back_against_skeptics/2516/

He echoes your sentiments:

"These attacks obscure the bigger picture. Climate science is like a vast puzzle. Individual papers like ours are a single piece of that puzzle. Scientists are still filling in pieces [of] the puzzle, but we can see a relatively complete picture of our climate that tells us the Earth is warming, human activity is the cause, and that we are locking in substantial rises in sea level, increasingly intense heatwaves and floods and threats to global fresh water and food resources as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

But politicians and ideologues try to make climate science out to be a house of cards. Remove one card and the whole thing falls down. The hockey stick papers, they decided, must be one of those cards and their response was to attack our research and challenge our integrity. I call it the "Serengeti strategy", in which predators look for what they perceive as the most vulnerable animals in the herd."
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 10:33:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

You're the guy who titles yourself "spin" doc.

And that is such an apt descriptor...the totality of your denialist rhetoric is spin.

Your questions (which for some reason you seem to think are triumphant game changers...?) are on based political and economic contingencies.

Are you suggesting that a country, say like Canada, is thumbing its nose at Kyoto and emissions control because there is no scientific basis for AGW. On the contrary, Canada is executing the complete denialist routine because it wishes to continue its dirty energy emissions - of which tar sands is the major player.

Canada's attitude is the ultimate denialist template. It is a perfect representation of big business and government ignoring and demonising climate science in order to line its own pockets.

World-wide, its right-wing think-tanks who do the bidding of big business for those very ends. Deny the veracity and the integrity of climate science and scientists....and then have your acolytes ask why global agreements have trouble sustaining themselves.

Your "questions" are disingenuous - although it's what one expects from a apostle of a movement of such dubious integrity whose only recourse is to contort and misrepresent motives and research.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 10:56:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We will have to adapt eventually...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/global-warming-already-costing-us-billions-348428.html

When the denialists can no longer deny, and when big business and vested interests see their profits evaporating from lack of action - the tables will turn.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 12:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Warmair

<<In climate science a number of facts are well established….
4 Greenhouse gases interfere with the cooling process by absorbing long wave radiation>>

It’s always heartening to come across a source who has such a command of the facts.

Apropos of your established fact No. 4, what percentage of atmospheric CO2 --does THE SCIENCE tell us-- is derived from human activities?

If you don’t know the answer just say “pass” .

______________________________________________________________________

@ Poirot

Ok. So you’ve done your little witch-doctor dance and rant routine –but it did work, it hasn't driven away all the nasty challenging skeptics , we’re still sitting here, waiting, hanging-out for the answers to Spindoc’s five points.

Here they are again to save you looking for them:

<<1.0 What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?

2.0 Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?

3.0 Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?

4.0 Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?

5.0 If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?>>

And please don’t try that Arjayian conspiracy hype about right-wing think tanks controlling everything. There are heaps more, and much better funded lefty NO-think tanks!

(Talk about irony – after ranting-on about credibility –she links to the Epoch times! to substantiate her point [ROFL]–still , I suppose, it’s a massive improvement n Naomi Klien!)
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 17 February 2013 12:57:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

Nice try, yerself and spindoc...

Keep asking the same disingenuous questions ad nauseam - and then -

Continue to ask the same disingenuous questions - and then -

Ask again the same disingenuous questions - and then - and then - and....

You're the dupes who hang out the "conspiracy" flag at every amateur blog site.

You're the incredulous acolytes who extol the likes of Monckton as your defender and spokesman.

Sling as much critique as you like at Klein and others - 'sall you've got:)

I'd stack them up against Lord "Promote-Thyself" Monckton of Brenchley any day.

What a joke!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 1:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Your last response was quite frankly, awful.

It was awful because your self composure and your confidence in your science have simply evaporated. It was replaced by vicious, vindictive, personal attacks and name calling, not the mark of the “scientific” Poirot we have previously seen on OLO.

On the other hand it has been impossible for you to find any handy links to the issues I raised, because these represent the world of reality without which your precious scientific links are irrelevant. The information that refutes your assertions is called reality. It has just broken into your delusional world.

I was concerned at your transition because your last response was so out of character. Without links to your science you have become isolated, dysfunctional and thrashing as the reality that you have been “had” breaks into your “Walter Mitty” world.

I note that SPQR refers to you as “she”. Forgive me; I have been referring to you as Monsieur Poirot. Looking back though the responses it seems I have missed the fact that you are actually a “Madame Poirot”. At the risk of being called “sexist”, your response was both the reaction of a woman scorned and the reaction of a person that suddenly realizes her isolation.

I don’t know how you can move forward; I don’t know how you can continue to post on OLO knowing that you have failed miserably to respond to the logic of reality.

Why are my questions “disingenuous”? Is it is because you cannot answer them? Is it because you failed to research the reality of where the world is at? Is it because you are so self indoctrinated that you refuse to even look at the real world?

I don’t know the answers to these questions however; I do know that of the five questions you were asked, you know absolutely nothing. For a person who “purports” to represent an intelligent expert opinion, you are woefully short on facts and clearly myopic. You are interested only in promoting that which supports you adopted ideology.

Cont.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont.

The reality of CAGW is implicit in the five questions asked, you cannot answer these because you cannot even understand why they have even been asked, all you know is that they disturb you and require you to abuse the messenger.

Many on OLO must be asking the question, why is Poirot not answering these simple questions, why are such simple statements of fact that can be obtained by anyone with an internet connection, being converted into an ideological hissy fit?

Poirot, you have become an emblem of the surreal world of CAGW, you can’t even understand what it is you don’t understand. Your answer to everything is more links to your science.

What you have failed to recognize is that it is your science that has failed you and all the institutions that were built around it and everything in which you had faith.

Let me give you one example of your diversionary tactics.

You ask me, “Are you suggesting that a country, say like Canada, is thumbing its nose at Kyoto and emissions control because there is no scientific basis for AGW. On the contrary, Canada is executing the complete denialist routine because it wishes to continue its dirty energy emissions - of which tar sands is the major player”.

Allow me to answer, NO!

What I have said it that not one of the original (?) signatories of Kyoto, after 15 years of trying, is willing to subject their electorates to the head on collision between green ideology and austerity. To your example I might add USA, Canada, Russia, Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, NZ, Poland, Czech Republic, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The Kyoto Protocol renewal failed after 15 years of trying. You cannot reasonably cite Canada as the only guilty party, the other 195 Nations also refused to sign.

So the entire 195 nations are all guilty of “complete denialist routines because they wish to continue their dirty energy emissions”.

For pities sake Poirot, get a freaking’ life.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:08:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

"Your last response was quite frankly awful.....vicious, vindictive, personal attack and name calling..."

Gawd!...Really?....did I?

I believe I referred to you as "spin" doc....should I apologise for the grievous insult there?

And of course, I referred to My Lord Monckton - of the Brenchley Moncktons (of vaudeville fame) as "Promote Thyself".

Now I realise that you're a precious petal, but if you think my last effort was vicious, vindictive personal name-calling, then its obvious you've led a sheltered life (No wonder in your naivete you've hitched your wagon to a bunch of sham "skeptics":)

My advice is for you to study your denialist manifesto with a bit more gusto and due diligence (I'm sure there's an addendum which advises one on further procedure when your "question asking stunt" fails to receive the attention it so surely deserves - good luck with that)

Here's some added inspiration - Lord Monckton in full denialist flight - replete with fancy dress.

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

What a joke!

(I can't believe after all this time that you've just noticed I'm a she:)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 6:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@SPQR

"Apropos of your established fact No. 4, what percentage of atmospheric CO2 --does THE SCIENCE tell us-- is derived from human activities?"

The level of co2 prior to the industrial revolution was about 280 PPm. The current level of co2 is 395 PPm. The increase of 115 PPm is almost certainly entirely due to human activities. Therefore the answer to your question is 29%.
http://co2now.org

Of the other greenhouse gases the level of methane has doubled, but has plateaued over the last decade, the nitrogen dioxide level has also substantially increased, and we have added potent new man made greenhouse gases in the form of CFCs to the atmosphere. The total effect is the equivalent to increasing the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 50%. The best estimates we have tell us that doubling the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to increase temperatures by about 3 Deg C. As we know the effect of greenhouse gases is broadly logarithmic, then it is probable that a 50 % increase in GHGs equivalent should lead to a global increase of temperature of about 1.5 deg C. The actual temperature increase we see in the atmosphere is so far around 0.75 deg C. The excess heat at present is going into warming the oceans which due to its huge thermal mass will take much longer to reach equilibrium with altered heat flows, than the atmosphere.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 18 February 2013 9:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irrespective of whether one wants to believe in global warming or not the fact is that the human race is destroying the environment and overpopulating the planet at a phenomenal rate.

The damage is done and cannot be undone.

I think recent films such as "The Road" provide an insight into the type of world we will have in the near future if governments do not bite the bullet and start putting plans into effect that will allow them to control what is left.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 18 February 2013 10:12:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its been mentioned a few times by various people that qanda appears to be a climate scientist and certainly he pushes that idea with comments suggesting others don't get it because they aren't scientists (the implication being that he gets it cos he is). I was prepared to go along with that...then we saw this howler:

" the miniscule amount of 0.03% [of CO2] prevents the planet from turning into a snowball planet"

That is hopelessly wrong. GHGs in total combine to make the earth's temp what it is today. But CO2 is just one of those GHG and by no means the most important. This honour goes to water vapour. No one knows what would happen to temps if there was suddenly no CO2 but the earth becoming a snowball isn't on. Apart from anything else, well over half the light wave lengths 'caught' by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapour.

He then goes on to make the amateur error of talking about a 30% increase in CO2 increasing it efficacy by 30%. But that is also hopelessly wrong.

So I think we have to assume that qanda is merely an interested observe who, hiding behind a nickname, likes to pretend that he is more than he is. There's a lot of that on the WWW.

Just some facts for qanda to help in his understanding:

* the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG is logarithmic ie it decreases with concentration. each new tonne or whatever of CO2 is less efficent at trapping heat than the previous one.

* its estimated that a doubling of CO2 (to around 600ppm) would increase temps by 1c if nothing else changed.

* the whole CAGW theory depends on the postulated positive feedbacks ie a temp increase caused by CO2 would cause other changes that would amplify that increase. But to date the evidence for positive feedbacks is very questionable to the extent that some IPCC related scientists are prepared to admit that they don't know the extent of feedbacks or even if they are positive feedbacks or negative feedbacks.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 18 February 2013 10:27:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that Poirot is right...sections of big oil are interfering in the AGW debate:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/14/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit/

I'm sure she'll find some reason to pretend this isn't true.

While addressing Poirot she linked to this article:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/freedom-information-laws-used-climate-sceptics-rifle-through-scientists-daily-emails

A good part of that silly article relied on the work of Australian Stephan Lewandowsky. If Poirot thinks Monckton is an embarrassment for sceptics she should acquaint herself with the work of Mr Lewandowsky to find out to just what ridiculous lengths warmists are prepared to go in their search for ways to attack sceptics now that the climate data is co-operating.

By not co-operating I mean that temps haven't increased for 16 to 20 years depending on which dataset you read. I know that is another one of those things Poirot likes to pretend isn't true, but unfortunately for her, that data doesn't lie.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 18 February 2013 10:43:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

I'm sure qanda is just about to reply to your bunkum.

I'm not going to bother to reply to the bunkum you served me...(we've been through it all before)

Monckton is a clown - and he's one of the denialist's "leading lights) - says it all : )

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/09/lord-monckton-heads-down-under-to-remind-australians-there-is-no-global-warming/
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 18 February 2013 11:47:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, you on the button girl :)

.

mhaze:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#155034

Methinks there are obvious similarities between you and Geoffrey.

If you want to be taken seriously, please try and understand the ‘science’ – including why CO2 is a significant component of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

You say “No one knows what would happen to temps if there was suddenly no CO2 but the earth becoming a snowball isn't on.”

Really?

My advice to mhaze (and his fellow travellers) is the same as that to Geoffrey - do some undergraduate study in real ‘science’ like;

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_GB

before you spruik ignorance for all and sundry to see.

.

Just some facts for mhaze to help in his understanding:

“the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG is logarithmic ie it decreases with concentration. each new tonne or whatever of CO2 is less efficent at trapping heat than the previous one.”

True, but oh so simplistic (I didn’t even mention efficacy, btw). What mhaze fails to understand is that Earth’s atmosphere is nowhere near approaching saturation or levels of concentration for the relationship to have a significant effect.

“its estimated that a doubling of CO2 (to around 600ppm) would increase temps by 1c if nothing else changed.”

mhaze’s assertion?
Why does he not cite his references/sources?
Why does he not cite the uncertainty or provide 95% confidence levels?

Perhaps mhaze should write a paper and get it published like the rest of us have to.

* the whole CAGW theory blah, blah, blah … *

mhaze is wrong in so many ways:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_GB

Behave like a 'dufus' if you want mhaze but I didn't even allude to CAGW (although I notice ‘deniers’ of AGW always slip the ‘C’ prefix in there - as in catastrophic). No, I think a 2-3 degrees C rise in GMT or a 60-80 cm rise in GMSL by 2100 (say) is bad enough, but it won’t be CATASTROPHIC.

Notwithstanding, you won't be around to see the effects of 'deny-n-delay'.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 18 February 2013 12:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Warmair

You cannot possible believe in AGW due to “THE SCIENCE” , since you clearly do NOT understand THE DATA!.

This was my question:
" what percentage of atmospheric CO2 --does THE SCIENCE tell s-- is derived from human activities?"
And this was your answer:
“The level of co2 prior to the industrial revolution was about 280 PPm. The current level of co2 is 395 PPm. The increase of 115 PPm is almost certainly entirely due to human activities. Therefore the answer to your question is 29%.”

WRONG! ( Stay back after class with Al Gore who claimed it was 50% of all atmospheric CO2!)

What you derived from the warmist website was the % increase ( the supposed % increase) in the anthropogenic component since the industrial revolution.

The actual % of CO2 in the atmosphere that “THE SCIENCE” says was derived from human activities is variously estimated at between 3-5% .

Now, I don’t blame you Warmair for not knowing, since most warmist sources studious avoid citing the anthropogenic CO2 figure –I wonder why?
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 18 February 2013 12:08:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoffrey mk-III?
Posted by qanda, Monday, 18 February 2013 12:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pepé Le Pew mk-11?
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 18 February 2013 12:36:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dearie me, I think qanda is a tad peeved about being outed as someone who talks the talk but not much else. Try this:
When I refute his assertion (for that was all it was) that the only thing between us and a snowball planet is CO2, he tells me I'm ignorant and then adds a link to show my ignorance. And the link? It to an advertisement for a book. An advert!! At least he knows a lot about comedy.

Just on the point however, it is reckoned that total GHG effect is around 20c with CO2 making up about 3c of that. So superficially a complete loss of CO2 would reduce temps by 3c but the other effects (eg no plant life) might also have some effect.

qanda's initial assertion was, I thought, just an oversight from someone who doesn't really understand the issue. But his doubling-down on the error is pretty funny.

Then, to my pointing out that a doubling of CO2 would mean a 1c increase in temps, qanda goes hypo and wants references, a paper written etc. Well...

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback" Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008).

Note that they say the 1c figure is "undisputed". But qanda disputes it. Perhaps they meant undisputed by anyone who has the faintest idea what they're talking about.

qanda also doesn't seem to like the term CAGW. I use it in opposition to AGW on the basis that mere AGW of say 2c warming isn't worth worrying about and only a warming over that would be a problem worth our concern. I call that CAGw...perhaps he'd prefer me to call it Pretty Bad AGW.

Since qanda likes linking to adverts, he'd probably find this one useful...
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Global-Warming/dp/B008SLEQ0S
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 18 February 2013 2:24:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Further reading - http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=347

..........

CAGW is only ever warbled soprano-style by overly excitable "skeptics".

They do it to make the scientific data and scientists appear hysterical.

Tactics - strategy....you guys are so transparent : )
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 18 February 2013 2:42:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda writes:"True, but oh so simplistic (I didn’t even mention efficacy, btw). What mhaze fails to understand is that Earth’s atmosphere is nowhere near approaching saturation or levels of concentration for the relationship to have a significant effect."

It is true that the earth's atmosphere isn't close to saturation. But completely irrelevant since we were talking about CO2. (I'm not sure if qanda struggles to follow a logic argument or just changes subject as soon as he realises he's wrong).

So we were talking about CO2 and CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels and is indeed already there at some wave-lengths. There's lots of places to see the data on this but to keep it simple for qanda perhaps this will suffice...
http://cosmoscon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/atmospheric_transmission.png
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 18 February 2013 2:56:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pathetic hazy, it's a standard textbook used in university undergraduate courses - but you wouldn't know.

You should read it, you might learn something.

It even explains feedbacks, something else you can't comprehend. Good to see you believe Stefan though, given most 'deniers' say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

'bout time you lot made up your mind, eh.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 18 February 2013 2:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels <<

You are completely out of your league hazy - try atmospheric physics for beginners.

CO2 is nowhere near saturation in our atmosphere.

Even the most ardent of 'deniers' understand Earth is nothing like Venus.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 18 February 2013 3:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Further reading - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 18 February 2013 3:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ SPQR

The actual % of CO2 in the atmosphere that “THE SCIENCE” says was derived from human activities is variously estimated at between 3-5% .

I don't know where or how you arrive at that figure but the reality is that the global concentration of Co2 has risen from 280 Ppm to 355 Ppm. I would be interested in your explanation as to where you think this extra Co2 came from ?
Posted by warmair, Monday, 18 February 2013 3:32:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How dare you link to real climate science Poirot!

What would people like Rahmstorf, Raypierre or any of the others know?

And Skeptical Science? Come off it - they link to each other!

Wait a minute, hazy links to them as well! Maybe he just doesn't get it, hehehe :)
Posted by qanda, Monday, 18 February 2013 6:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Warmair,

<< I would be interested in your explanation as to where you think this extra Co2 came from ?>>

It's sounding very much like someone has misled you into believing that humans produce most of the CO2 (and with a name like "Warmair"
you have no doubt contributed more than your quota).

FYE (For Your Edification):
1) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And just in case you find that source NON-halal and not fit for consumption (a trick Poirot often pulls when something doesn't sync with her preconceived notions!)

Here's another:

2)http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pd
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 18 February 2013 6:37:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh, I know, qanda....the problem is that I just can't help myself.

Strange as it may seem, I always get a hankering to link to actual climate scientists when I wish to glean a little something concerning climate science (stoopid I know : )

Perhaps I should take a page out of SPQR's book and link to a conservative think tank - I'm sure they're "full of it" : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 18 February 2013 8:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Gosh…Perhaps I should take a page out of SPQR's book and link to a conservative think tank>>

Hehehe …true to form!

Golly gosh, I would dearly loved to have cited a “climate scientist”… or even a straight dyed-in-wool–loony-left–Poirot- preferred source.

And there hundreds of ‘em out there, all spruik figures/graphs/charts with the volumes of CO2 released, the sources of all that anthropogenic CO2, and all the bad things you never wanted to know about CO2.

But, strangely enough--in the short time I had available – I could not locate any that showed the atmospheric percentages of anthropogenic vis-à-vis non-anthropogenic CO2. One can only surmise that if you are hell bent on pushing the line that we are drowning in anthropogenic CO2, it's NOT A GOOD LOOK to reveal that only 3-5% per cent of emissions are anthropogenic!
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 7:18:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

Further reading - http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 7:50:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I say that site --it was one of the first I came upon--but on a cursory reading it waffles/side-steps the issue talking about absorption rates etc.

How about a simple/clear/direct percentage break-up!
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 8:07:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

Just how "simple" do you wish to make climate out to be?

Absorption rates are integral to the system and, therefore, to its study.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=384
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 8:26:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Here’s my question (again): what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist (in my first links) says 3.225%.

You give me two links:
Your first –which purports to answer my question-- is headed: “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”

And, your second -- which purports to answer my question-- Is headed: “ What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?”

For God sake!

We know all that –we have heard it all a million times –we might even agree with it!
BUT it does not address my question—what PERCENTAGE of CO2 is anthropogenic?

If you were ravishingly hungry and asked me what percentage of the big tasty meat (or, perhaps, in your case halal vegan) pie on the table you could eat --- you wouldn’t want me to go yabbering on about how the pie was made!
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 10:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

You're not going to suck me into playing little games.

We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).

The issue here is how much extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources outside the natural carbon cycle.

Carry on being pedantic about your bloody graph - as if the whole issue is static....

I'm not falling for it : )

Further reading - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-CO2-emissions-to-CO2-levels.html
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 10:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR
According to your link
Note these figures are claimed to come from the year 2000
level co2 Pre-industrial 288,000 Ppb
Natural additions 68,520
Man-made additions 11,880
present level 368,400

On those figures we arrive at your figure of 3.2%.

In other words the site is claiming that of the increase in CO2 levels, since pre industrial times, the natural increase is 6 times greater than the the contributions from man made sources, frankly this is a ridiculous claim, but nevertheless lets have a look at it.
The most obvious questions are where did this supposedly natural increase come from ? Can we find a natural source for this massive increase in atmospheric CO2 ? about the only remote possibility is from volcanoes, but it is clear that this source is totally inadequate. According to the best information I can find volcanic emission's are at most 1% of of human emission’s annually. The next possibility is the out-gassing from the ocean, this does not work as Co2 in the surface layers of the ocean are also increasing whereas the deeper layers are not. in other words the Co2 is coming from the atmosphere not the other way round.

Can we account for the increase in Co2 levels by adding up the amount of CO2 generated by man"s activities. The figures are clear we have produced more than twice the amount necessary to account for the total increase in atmospheric levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 11:54:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The responses from qanda and Poirot yesterday were instructive.

Poor Poirot, who bases much of her beliefs on the meme that sceptic scientists are in the pay of big business, was presented with evidence that business was indeed surreptitiously supporting pro-AGW groups. Her response was to completely ignore the information, calling it bunkum beneath her consideration. She reminds me a fundamentalist christian presented with evidence that the world is more than 6000 yrs old - she doesn't want it to be true and therefore assumes it isn't true.

qanda is equally perplexed. He can't work out how it is I quote approvingly from an avowed consensus scientist (Rahmstorf) and assumes it because " he just doesn't get it".

By "it" he means the notion of picking a side. For the religiously committed in this issue, its all about picking a side. Then having done so, you only read information from the approved gurus, treating everything else as inherently wrong. This is why qanda is confused by a sceptic reading Rahmstorf, let alone agreeing with Rahmstorf. Its entirely alien to the way qanda thinks.

For qanda/Poirot, the argument is over. But they still have to find some face-saving way of ignoring all the contrary data coming out of non-consensus scientists. The approved method is to assert there is a massive disinformation campaign by business and all this contrary data is funded and paid for. They don't actually know to be actually true that because, as per above, they don't look at the data but it is their standard MO so ingrained that they probably don't even know they're doing it.

This is why people like Lomborg are so difficult for the warmists to understand. Someone who doesn't buy the myth but is clearly not in the pay of big whatever - they can't work out a face-saving way to ignore him.

So a little tip for our jihadist warmists - worry about the data and ignore the source. Don't ignore data because it doesn't fit the prejudices and don't blindly accept data from the approved gurus.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 12:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda writes:"It even explains feedbacks, something else you can't comprehend."

Now, since the only thing I've written about feedbacks is to mention their importance in the entire issue , I wonder how it is that qanda knows I can't comprehend them. Marvellous skills of deduction has our qanda, being able to deduce what I do and don't understand despite my never actually mentioning my understanding.

But I guess he thinks I don't understand feedbacks because I'm not a climate scientist whereas he is, at least in his own mind.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 12:13:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

It wouldn't matter so much if the "skeptics" in the pay of big business actually produced valid scientific argument and empirical evidence to support their stance.

But they don't/can't, whatever.....

In the main they produce non-peer-reviewed "junk".

And in response to their lack of substance they indulge in a variety of strategies to muddy the waters.....it's the only recourse left to them in a situation where they cannot produce the "evidence" to support their stance.

Attacking peer-review is one of their strategies which goes to the heart of scientific process.

Dangerous waters methinks.

(mhaze - you are so typical of the common denialist. You insert your religious jargon as a matter of course [diabolically clever, indeed]- which, of course, is hilarious since the "skeptics" are the ones who are light empirical evidence and data...and heavy on smear, strategy and fairy dust)
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 12:59:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, here is an example of non-peer-reviewed "junk":

mhaze says:

>> CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels <<

I guess real climate science has got it all wrong, again:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Tweak your whiskers and have a good look at SPQR’s link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Looks like SP and Geoffrey have got something in common:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

SP says: “Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist (in my first links) says 3.225%.”

Now have a closer look at SP’s link – the only thing Singer says is (quote):
“There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.”

Entertaining but now quite boring - back to work I go.
Posted by qanda, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 1:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Won't be back here Poirot so may as well show you this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html#19734

"Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as an evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training."

Monte said it, not Fred :)
Posted by qanda, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 1:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda purports to demonstrate my error by quoting me as " CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels"...but the full quote is "CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels and is indeed already there at some wave-lengths".

so we weren't talking about absolute saturation but saturation levels in regards to CO2's absorption efficacy. I did send a link through on this but I guess it went over qanda's head.

Just a quick lesson....CO2 doesn't absorb heat at all wavelengths but only selected ones. Most of the wavelengths affect by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapour as well. Consequently there are some wavelengths where all the heat is absorbed by the combination of CO2 and water vapour. For those wavelengths CO2 is at or close to saturation. Its rather fundamental...I'm surprised a climate scientist like qanda didn't understand it :)
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 2:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aw, qanda, don't go just yet...

You should stick around to take Monte's amazing "Global Warming Test":

(Pythonesque:)

http://www.desmogblog.com/are-you-a-global-warming-denier-take-the-heib-global-warming-test

...although I have my doubts as to whether you'd pass.

(P.S. - that's a good thing:)
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 2:28:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Pythonesque>> Poirot says.

And she’s right --What could be more Pythonesque than this?

It’s starts with a rather tame question to Warmair: “what percentage of atmospheric CO2 --does THE SCIENCE tell us-- is derived from human activities?"

Getting a straight answer was like getting blood from a stone.

Warmair didn’t know. He cited “29%”!
Poirot did her level best to avoided the question providing three links –and an equal number of put downs –none of which addressed the questions:
ONCE: <<Further reading - http://www.skepticalscience...>>
TWICE: <<http://www.realclimate.org/index...>>
THREE TIMES: <<http://www.skepticalscience.com...>>

And when finally cornered, she made this admission:

<<SPQR,
You're not going to suck me into playing little games.
We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).>>

For God sake are we NOT trying to extract the secret formula to Coca Cola!

Two pertinent points--in response to her admission:
1) “WE” didn't know --because Warmair (above) was talking of 29% (hardly tiny!)-- and Al Gore is on record as implying it was at least 50% --and further, I'd hazard a guess that most members of the public reading the various Green/Climate/lefty group press releases and studies would never know it was a “TINY PERCENTAGE”
2) Secondly –it(now) seems that Poirot knew all along what I was seeking but she studious avoided (she wasn't going to rat on her fellow parishioners!) –and even when it was out in the open SHE COULD NOT --COULD NOT--BRING HERSELF UTTER the percentage/figure involved!
(And through it all Qanda swaggered about in the background making condescending noises –but offering nothing)

To which I ask: WHY?

It had all the hallmarks of someone defending a religious faith—not science!
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 8:21:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

Well whoopy doo!

Exactly what have we derived from your song and dance?

As I said..."The issue here is how much extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources outside the natural carbon cycle."

Quite a bit it seems.

(Thanks for the reprise of the religious theme...I find it's never really a kosher debate with you guys unless one of you raises it every few posts....I can almost set my clock to that one:)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 9:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing is, Poirot, that, in your case, calling your attitude to AGW religious is simply accurate.

You've already all but admitted that there is actually no evidence that you could even conceive of that would shake your belief in the theory. Nothing will cause you to ever believe that AGW isn't happening.

That means that, for you, AGW has moved beyond the realm of a scientific theory and into the realm of an article of faith. The very definition of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. but you have declared that, for you, AGW is not falsifiable. QED.

You may not like the description, but it IS apt.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 12:27:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, are we still arguing about the wrong problem ?
If you want to worry about a real problem go read this;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5640
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 1:26:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, mhaze,

Religious reference right on time (ding!)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 1:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SQR

Your figure of 3.2% for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dervided from human activity is just is just plain wrong, no ifs, no buts ,no ands. Your figure has been simply plucked out of thin air. It has no support whatever from any reputable source.
In fact it is typical example of the sort nonsense that can be found on the Internet.
The correct figures for anthropogenic CO2 is around 30%.

According to the IPCC we are currently emitting 26.4 gig tones of co2 annually which works out to about at 13,333 cubic kilometres of CO2 at normal atmospheric pressure.

http://oto2.wustl.edu/bbears/trajcom/carbon3.htm

Quoted above Gary W. Harding

Scn. Human (+) _Natural_ (+) Subtotal (+) Natural (-) Net (+&-)

A 270 (100%)_____ 0 ( 0%)___ 270__________ 110 (41%)__ 160
B 270 ( 95%)____ 14 ( 5%)____284__________ 124 (44%)__ 160
C 270 ( 50%)___ 270 (50%)___ 540__________ 380 (70%)__ 160
D 270 ( 5%) ___5400 (95%)__ 5670_________ 5510 (97%)__ 160

One of the basic principles of science is the simplicity hypothesis. . Scenario A in Table 1 satisfies the simplicity hypothesis.

Scenario B accounts for the possibility that there could be a minor amount of natural emissions.

Scenario C, advanced by the IPCC, leaves considerable wiggle room for adaptation to the, as yet, incompletely understood carbon cycle; including the mystery of the missing carbon.

Scenario D, put forth by the climate-change skeptics, is preposterous on its face. Here, a 5.4 trillion ton, undetected natural source (emitting 95%) as well as a 5.5 trillion ton natural sink (absorbing 97%) are required to explain the observations. Further, in accordance with the data in Fig. 2, this hypothetical net source and sink must have grown over the past 200 years almost exactly in parallel with human carbon emissions.
End Quote
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 21 February 2013 11:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Harking back to warmair's opening post:

http://theconversation.edu.au/orwellian-climate-double-speak-dominating-discussion-12279
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 21 February 2013 12:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Warmair,
“Your figure …has no support whatever from any reputable source”

1) Who get’s to decide who and what is “reputable”?
2) My figure is supported –by a most unlikely source--reread Poirot’s post:
<<We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).>>!
Here it is again:
<<We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).>>!

I guess you were NOT part of her “WE”!

The real question you should be asking yourself is WHY you can find a hundred graphs/charts of every aspect of anthropogenic CO2: i) What industries make the most. ii)What countries make the most. iii)The percentage(s) increase year on year. But to find a simple graph/chart that compares anthropogenic V non-anthropogenic is like looking for the proverbial hens teeth.

Ask yourself: WHY?

P.S. (as Poirot might say) “further reading”: http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 21 February 2013 1:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR
There are only three possibilities here
1 you simply do not understand the science in question.
2 you are deliberately trying to mislead.
3 you are a double agent presenting wacky ideas so that the better informed can shoot you down in flames.

Your argument has no merit and is wrong end of story as I have demonstrated above.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 21 February 2013 3:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair,

LOL

Why ONLY three possibilities?

I could name at least half a dozen more!

Following "the AGW debate" might give a bit of an insight into "climate science" --but it gives a H-U-G-E insight into psychology!

Cheers, over and out.
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 22 February 2013 5:45:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is attributable to man is only of importance if the total quantum of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem.
Since there is very little evidence that CO2 is causing any real problems then the percentage put there by man is by-the-by.

The fact is we don't know with any degree of certainty how much CO2 man has put up there since we don't know what the natural level is. We know with some certainty what the level was around 1800-1850 but that doesn't mean that that was the absolute natural level. There is good evidence that CO2 levels jumped all over the place over the past 1000yrs being higher or roughly equal to the present at times over the 2nd millenium and lower (but not much lower) than the 280ppm that applied around 1850.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 22 February 2013 12:31:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze

The evidence for the influence of CO2 on the climate comes from several sources and has been
recognised since 19th century.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The reason that CO2 has such a marked effect on the climate is straight forward.Co2
absorbs part of the heat radiation given off by the atmosphere, whereas nitrogen,oxygen and
argon, which make up 99.9% of the atmosphere, do not. The result is that the way in which
heat flows through the atmosphere is altered, at lower altitudes the heat flow is
retarded at high levels it is increased, thus the lower atmosphere stays warmer and the
higher atmosphere becomes cooler. This is exactly what has been observed.

Water vapour acts in a similar way to co2 in that it is also absorbs part of the heat trying to escape
the atmosphere but it is a different part. The amount of water vapour that the atmosphere
can hold is dramatically influenced by temperature with a 1 Deg C temperature increase
adding some 7% to the amount of water vapour that the air can hold. It has been
established that a doubling of the CO2 level will lead to a temperature rise of 1 deg C
which in turn will add 7 % more moisture further increasing the temperature rise.

If you find this improbable consider what would happen if you painted out all the windows
of your house. The amount of paint needed to do this is would be around the 2 parts per
million of the total volume of the house, but it would have a dramatic effect on the the
internal temperatures of the house.
Eg
volume of house 20X20X3 meters = 1200 cubic meters
glass area at 10% of wall area =20X3X4X10% = 24 sq meters
volume of paint at 0.1 mm surface thickness= 24X0.0001= 0.0024 cubic meters
1200 cubic meters divided by 0.0024 cubic meters gives us 1 part per 500000
or 2 parts per million.

Conclusion if you mess with radiation flows, you will alter the temperature. Greenhouse gases do that despite their very small proportion of the atmosphere
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 23 February 2013 8:33:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

No one's doubting that the natural level of CO2 has a significant effect on the earth's temperature. The issue is whether the increase in CO2 has a significant effect.

Your analogy about painting windows is a little simplistic, but adequate for this purpose.

So you paint out all the windows. Fully agree that that would cause an increase in the houses internal temps. Let's call that the natural level of CO2.

Now paint the windows again. Does that have a significant effect on the temps. Does the temp rise by 50% of the rise from the first two temps.

Let's say the temp does still rise by some amount. Now paint them again...does the temp rise again and does it rise by the same amount as with the third coat. And so on....
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 24 February 2013 1:53:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze,

The issue is how thick or effective the initial layer of paint is. It is easy to envisage a situation where the initial cover reduces the amount of radiation passing through a window by say 12.5%. The next coat could reasonably reduce the radiation by a further 12.5%. If at each application, you put on twice as much paint as the last time, it would take 3 applications to completely block all the radiation.

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/files/BIGw08-greenhouse-effect.gif.gif

CO2 currently represents 0.039% of the atmosphere, It is well established that without the greenhouse effect the global temperature would be some 33 Deg C cooler. It is also been established that water vapour is responsibly for some 60% plus of the warming. Co2 accounts for around 29% of the remaining heating effect.

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/files/BIG09-percentage.gif.gif

In the end what we know that a further doubling of CO2 will directly cause near surface heating of 0.8 to 1.2 Deg C with a best estimate of 1 deg C, which when we include the effect of water vapour leads a likely figure around 3 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2.

Below is a more rigorous explanation
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30768
Posted by warmair, Monday, 25 February 2013 11:16:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well yes we could postulate that each coat catches 12.5% but in the real world that doesn't happen. Using your own figures which I'll accept for the sake of argument, CO2 accounts for around 30% of total GHG warming and total GHG warming is around 30 deg C. So CO2 accounts for around 9 deg C. (I know its not that simple but its in that ballpark).

So a doubling of CO2 increases temps by around 1 deg C. So in your painting scenario the second coat is only 10% as effective at increasing temps as the first coat and so on.

"when we include the effect of water vapour leads a likely figure around 3 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2."

Well this is the so-called positive feedback mechanism that I mentioned in a previous thread and which you didn't then understand. All models postulate a +ve feedback which is the only way they can get anything scary out of a doubling of CO2 (ie converting a 1 deg C into a 3 or more deg C increase.) The only problem is that there is next to no evidence for positive feedbacks and it seems that the IPCC in AR5 will be admitting that, not only don't they know anything about the extent of postive feedbacks, they aren't even sure they are positive. Many scientists have suggest that at least some of the feedbacks will be shown to be negative ie offsetting the increase on CO2 warming.

Indeed it may well turn out that the unwarming of the last 2 decades is caused by these postulated negative feedbacks.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 6:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The situation is straight forward higher temperatures mean higher levels of water vapour in the atmosphere.

Many studies have confirmed this in theory:-

Cess, 1989;
Elliott, 1995; Zhang et al, 1995
Manabe & Wetherald, 1967
Sohn & Schmetz, 2004
Stephens et al, 2004
Bony et al, 2006
Held & Soden, 2000
McCarthy & Toumi, 2004

The earth's surface is about 70% ocean and and numerous studies show an increase in moisture levels over the oceans. The measured figure is 5.7% per 1 deg C increase in temperature. The increase over all the oceans for the period 1988 to 2004 has been established at 1.2%.

Numerous studies have confirmed the effect is real in practice:-
Robinson, 2000
Wang and Gaffen, 2001
Philipona et al, 2004
Auer et al, 2007
Ishii et al, 2005

All the evidence points to the conclusion that water vapour increases in line with temperature and that the feedback is positive.

On the claim that temperatures have not increased over the last 2 decades, I think you might like to explain the dramatic reduction in the volume and area of the Arctic ice sheet.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/08/Figure3-350x261.png
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 9:41:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't doubt that its very likely that a warmer planet means more water vapour all else being equal. But that's not the end of the story. Clouds, at least certain types of clouds, have a negative effect on temps by reflecting sunlight back into space long before it has any heating effect. Svensmark and others are working on ideas that the level of cloud cover is determined by solar activity. He might be right and he might be wrong but its definitely wrong to say we know all there is about such things.

If you are right that higher temps lead to more water vapour which leads to higher temps what causes that cycle to break. We know that temps were higher in the past than now. Why didn't they just keep rising. Why did the Medieval Warm Period stop?

Could it be that more water vapour leads to more clouds which leads to lower temps? We and they don't know. But they are prepared to uproot society despite this ignorance of the whole story.

"On the claim that temperatures have not increased over the last 2 decades,". Its not a claim. Its fact..or at least fact if the temp records are right. Even the IPCC and the CRU now admit it.

As to the arctic...we have records going back to 1979 only. But there is very good data that this decline in sea ice occurred in the past and even in the recent past eg around 1850. And if the rising temps are causing the arctic to melt why aren't they doing the same to the Antarctic?
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 10:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just came across this spiral graph on Arctic ice loss.

http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png

West Antarctica?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/the-heat-is-on-in-west-antarctica/
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 4:11:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, good links.

Real sceptics would also have been following the work of our CSIRO's Antarctic Division.

Fake sceptics follow anti-science blog sites.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 4:42:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze

Clouds are a huge topic some cause warming for example the temperature does not fall nearly as quickly on a cloudy night as it does on a clear night, on the other hand continuous layers of low level cloud dramatically reduces the incoming radiation thus leading to lower daytime temperatures. The result of good deal of research is that total cloud cover is unlikely to change sufficiently to alter the earth's albedo.

Quote Mhaze
"If you are right that higher temps lead to more water vapour which leads to higher temps what causes that cycle to break."

Every object that is above absolute zero emits radiation. The rate of emission goes up by the fourth power or in other words double the temperature and the radiation output goes up by 16 times or looked at another way the rate of cooling goes up by a factor 16. It is this effect which breaks the cycle. See The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation.

Quote Mhaze
"We know that temps were higher in the past than now. Why didn't they just keep rising. Why did the Medieval Warm Period stop?"

We know of a great many factors which influence climate we separate them by estimating the impact of each individual component as best we can. In the case of CO2 we have great deal of confidence about its impact on temperatures, whereas the effect of aerosols which in total causes considerable cooling we are not so sure about.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/~/media/Images/climate-change/understanding-cc/20120110-warming-20thc-role-of-water-vapour-500px.jpg?w=500&h=359&as=1
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 28 February 2013 8:20:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So to summarise, warmair, as temps go up natural forces come into play to counteract that rise, thus keeping the earth's temps within a liveable span as has happened in the last several million years.

Fully agree. So let's sit back, enjoy the very slight warming that's occurred in the last 150yrs and hope it continues for a lot longer before the negative feedbacks kick in. Seems like a better plan than setting out to destroy our modern way of life.

Unfortunately, given the halt in temp rises in the past two decades, it may be that the negative feedbacks have already kicked in. So as one wag was wont to say, don't sell your coat just yet.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 28 February 2013 10:36:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...thus keeping the temps in the liveable span as has happened in the last several million years."

mhaze,

Our climate has contributed to man developing the level of civilisation currently in play.

"Liveable" - what dos that mean? Beetles and bacteria can thrive in conditions that humans find intolerable. Scientists are saying that global warming impacts our ability to go about our business as usual.

The beetles and bacteria will thrive regardless - human civilisation may have a few more challenges.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 28 February 2013 11:00:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Beetles and bacteria can thrive in conditions that humans find intolerable. Scientists are saying that global warming impacts our ability to go about our business as usual.

The beetles and bacteria will thrive regardless - human civilisation may have a few more challenges.<<

On the other hand, humans can be remarkably ingenious when it comes to adapting to extreme conditions. If the heat and dryness of the Arabian Desert or the icy blizzards of Greenland can support people then it's going to take lot more global warming than even the worst-case-scenario models predict to make temperate zones uninhabitable.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 28 February 2013 3:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote mhaze
"So to summarise, warmair, as temps go up natural forces come into play to counteract that rise, thus keeping the earth's temps within a liveable span as has happened in the last several million years."
See this image
http://cnx.org/content/m41579/1.1/graphics10.jpg

The difference is that the Co2 level is now way above the natural levels that have existed for over 1/2 a million years. If we keep going on the present path, we will reach a figure of 3 times pre-industrial levels by 2100, which has the potential to raise average global temperatures by 10 deg C or more. That would rapidly lead to an ice free world, and sea levels some 65 meters higher than today. The extinction of vast numbers of plants, animals and fish. It seems improbable that human civilization would survive such a dramatic shift in climate. At this point in time, we have a reasonable chance of avoiding that scenario, but we have to get a wriggle on or it will be too late.

Quote mhaze
"Fully agree. So let's sit back, enjoy the very slight warming that's occurred in the last 150 years and hope it continues for a lot longer before the negative feedbacks kick in. Seems like a better plan than setting out to destroy our modern way of life."

There is absolutely no need to damage our modern way life, a path to a low carbon future has been shown time and again to be possible for something less than 1% of GDP, over the 35 years.

Quote mhaze

"Unfortunately, given the halt in temp rises in the past two decades, it may be that the negative feedbacks have already kicked in. So as one wag was wont to say, don't sell your coat just yet."

This claim that global temperatures have not risen over the last 20 years is just plain wrong. You really should get out more.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 28 February 2013 4:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

"The difference is that the Co2 level is now way above the natural levels that have existed for over 1/2 a million years."

Well it depnds on your time frame. Go back even further and CO2 is at historic low levels.

" If we keep going on the present path, we will reach a figure of 3 times pre-industrial levels by 2100, which has the potential to raise average global temperatures by 10 deg C or more. "

Now let's see. It took us 150yrs to increase CO2 by less than 50% but you're saying it'll increase by a further 250% in 90 yrs? Its increased by 2.6% in the past 5 yrs indicating a rise by by 2100 of maybe a further 50%.
And this 50% rise so far has resulted in a temp rise of .7 deg C. Even if we assumed a further 250% rise and even if we ignored the diminishing effectiveness of increased CO2 to heat the planet, how does a 50% rise cause a <1C rise but a 250% rise cause a >10C rise.

Ummmm, simple maths v. your scare-mongering? Which to trust?

"a path to a low carbon future has been shown time and again to be possible for something less than 1% of GDP"
I've no intention of getting into an intricate economic argument over this but two things. The 1% number is at the low end of predictions...funny how you take the low end numbers for this but the high end numbers for temp rises. Two, even a 1% cost would devastate the economy costing 1000s of jobs. But it'd be even worse for the developing economies where most of the cost would be borne since they are where most of the new CO2 will come from.

"This claim that global temperatures have not risen over the last 20 years is just plain wrong. "
Well if you're gunna just ignore simple facts that even the IPCC now accept, there's really nothing more to say.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 1 March 2013 10:43:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

"This claim that global temperatures have not risen over the last 20 years is just plain wrong. "
Well if you're gunna just ignore simple facts that even the IPCC now accept, there's really nothing more to say.

Ok supply the link that proves your point I can't find any suport for it anywhere.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html#table-3-2
Posted by warmair, Friday, 1 March 2013 4:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

I think it's helpful to understand that the "skeptics", all warm and fuzzy, from the Graham Lloyd's Pachauri article (you know the one where he attributed views to Pachauri, but didn't actually quote him on the "17 year "pause")...anyhooo, they've dropped the "Pachauri" bit in the last few days, and have now replaced it with the "IPCC" (makes it sound much more official-like, don't you know)...especially when all most "skeptics" are capable of is mouthing any cliche that suits their cause.

http://skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 1 March 2013 5:01:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
Thanks for that explanation.
I was wondering how on earth the claim of no warming could possibly be justified. I am amazed how people can be so easily sucked in by the nonsense coming from some the of skeptics. Maybe its time I got a job selling Nigerian investment schemes.
By the way I see that Australia has just had its hottest summer on record. I expect the skeptics will now put all their thermometers inside to keep them out of the heat.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/australia-experiences-hottest-summer-on-record/4547746
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 2 March 2013 7:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

Go here ...http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Now there are lots of places you could go to to see temp data but I chose this one since its one of those pro-warmist sites (indeed I think its Poirot's home page since she quotes it so often). If I sent you to some other place you'd simply refuse to beleive the data but I think you're less likely to if it comes from one of your own.

This page offers data and analysis on temp records over the years.

Select "RSS". Select the years 1990 to 2013. Select Calculate. Observe that the programme shows the warming trend and the error range at the 2 sigma level. Observe that the trend is less than the uncertainty and therefore is not significant. This is very important. It means that at the 95% confidence level there is no upward trend.

You can do the same for UAH using 1994 as the start year, Hadcrut3 (1994), Hadcrut4 (1995), GISS(1996) and so on.

This isn't opinion, this is data.

I find it fascinating that the warmists are constantly talking about being pro-science, accepting the data etc but as soon as the data doesn't tell the approved story, they look the other way.

So what? Well many warmists in the past have said that a period exceeding 15yrs of no warming would cause one to doubt the models and therefore the entire theory. eg NOAA "”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” Phil Jones said something similar. (NOAA's then revised the time frame out to 17yrs to buy a bit more time).

Bottom line...there's been no statistically significant warming for about 2 decades depending on which data set you choose. And no models predicted that and no models have an explanation for it. Therefore the models are faulty.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 2 March 2013 12:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a more substantive appraisal:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 2 March 2013 1:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote Mhaze
Select "RSS". Select the years 1990 to 2013. Select Calculate. Observe that the programme shows the warming trend and the error range at the 2 sigma level. Observe that the trend is less than the uncertainty and therefore is not significant. This is very important. It means that at the 95% confidence level there is no upward trend.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
From the same site:-
http://skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html
We have this quote under explanations:-

"If you see an uncertainty quoted as ‘two sigma’ (2sigma;), then this means that according to the statistics there is a roughly 95% chance of the true trend lying between B-E; and B+E"

The correct interpretation is that the level of confidence the trend is real is 95%. A trend is not considered conclusive until the level of confidence is greater than 95%. So to put it crudely the odds are 10 to one that temperatures have really increased.

It has been estimated that the total number of people who have ever lived is around 100 billion the current population is around 7 million this proves that the chance of dying is not statistically significant at only 93%, but that excludes all other information so I would suggest you broaden you view to consider why we are seeing such high rates of ice loss and rising sea levels.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 4 March 2013 8:51:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arctic sea ice volume 1979-2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GetB-xs9D_A

Three dimensional graph....and how it was conceived and created:

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/02/24/the-making-of-a-classic-climate-graph/
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 4 March 2013 10:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

You might not like the results but that doesn't invalidate them. What those figures show is that (taking the case of Hadcrut4 1995 -2013) that we can be 95% confident (sure) that the temp trend was between 0.205 c/decade and -0.015. And that means there was no statistically significant warming.

When scientists and statisticians (you know, the people you keep telling me I should pay homage to) say that there is a warming trend, they mean there is a statistically significant trend ie they can be 95% sure there is a warming trend. For that period they can't say that and thus there is no warming trend. This is the science...surely you accept the science. Or are you one of those who accepts the science so long as it comes up with the right answer?

But I wouldn't fret, warmair. I'm sure the good folk at data adjustment central are already on the job. At some point we'll find that they've done one of those miraculous 'data adjustments' which will retrospectively decrease the 1995 temps and thus, having tortured the data, it will confess to whatever they demand. they've done it so many times before it hardly even gets commented on any more.

Or they might go down the path of the EPA as regards 2nd hand smoking and reduce the confidence level to 90% and thus achieve their pre-ordained answer.

Either way, I think that within a year, all these statistically insignificant trends will be telling the story that the warmists want.

I'm really not at all sure what you were on about with your population analogy but it defintely wasn't statistics.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 March 2013 11:29:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I think you need to understand the idea of scientific consensus, mhaze.

The consensus of the datasets that you linked to, over the original period you mentioned (1990-2013) show statistically significant warming.

Dataset.........Trend(C/decade).....Statistically significant?
Land/ocean
GISTEMP.........0.141+/-0.080...... YES
NOAA................0.141+/-0.079...... YES
HADCRUT3.....0.131+/-0.089.......YES
HADCRUT4.....0.141+/-0.080.......YES

Land
BEST................0.279+/-0.144.......YES
NOAA................0.272+/-0.123.......YES

Satellite
RSS.................0.0126+/-0.135......NO
UAH.................0.170+/-0.133.......YES

So seven out of eight datasets show statistically significant warming over the period mentioned. The consensus of data from 1990, shows that there has been statistically significant warming. Yet you pick the RSS and say there has not been!
Oh, you’re not much of a cherry picker are you?
You then proceed to lambast other posters for ignoring data they don’t like? Ho ho ho.

Now here’s an exercise for you, for the series starting at each year you picked (1990, 1994, 1995, 1996), how many datasets show statistically significant warming? How many do not? How many series showed positive (i.e. warming) trends? How many showed zero trends?
A difference that is not statistically significant (i.e. p<0.05), is not equal to zero, it just fails to reject the null hypothesis.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 4 March 2013 12:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THANK YOU, Bugsy : )
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 4 March 2013 12:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Are you serious? Or just scrapping around for some way to square the circle. A consensus of the datasets? There is no such thing. There can be no such thing. Each of the data sets measure different things so they can't reach a consensus. Struth. If what you say is right we could just take an average of all the data and call that the consensus temp. But people don't do that because it would be invalid. Wow!

Let me try to explain it in simple terms. Last year the NRL determined that the best team was Melbourne. The AFL determined that the best team was Sydney. By your methodology we could assert that therefore the best overall team was the midway point and crown Canberra. But that'd be invalid because they weren't measuring the same thing.

If you read my original post on this you'd see that I was saying that each dataset had determined that the climate hiatus started at some different point. But they have all shown that an hiatus has occurred and continues.

Look, you chaps (and chapettes) might not want it to be true but even the warmoholic scientists are admitting it. Not just Pashauri but Hanson, Barnes, Trenberth,Solomon, Lean and a lot more. They're all accepting that there has been an hiatus of some length (dependiing on their preferred dataset) and they all have different reasons about the cause. But they, unlike you, aren't disputing its existence.

BTW - warmair. In checking what Solomon actually said on the hiatus (I don't actually like that term since it assumes there will be a return to warming but the warmists use it so for convenience...) it seems Solomon has determined that water vapour declined by 10% between 2000 and 2009. Weren't you convinced that water vapour would rise inexorably and therefore be the major positive feedback that would deliver us into the temp realms of Hades? It just isn't fair when the real world won't do as its told, is it?
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 March 2013 1:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, yes mhaze I am serious, and I don't think you have any standing to be berating people for being scientifically or statistically illiterate.

Actually, all these datasets are just different ways of measuring the same thing, i.e. surface air temps, whether it be from the land or sea surface. They are not in different leagues. They are different because they were measured in different ways. This is why as you correctly state we should not average them. But I do not advocate averaging them, that is a strawman of your own construction. The datatsets say that it has warmed since 1990. Of course all these datasets are derived from a very large amount of very choatic and variable data. So it is not surprising that the statistical significance declines from the mid-90s, but that actual "hiatus", as you put it may actually start much later, I would say after 1998 at the very least, as it's a bit odd to say that the hiatus started in 1995, when the hottest year on record occurred a mere 3 years later.

The thing is, yes the surface temperatures appear to have briefly plateaued, but there is quite a lot of evidence that the Earths oceans seem to be accumulating heat energy as fast as ever. If the oceans are still warming, can you honestly say that there has not been any global warming?
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 4 March 2013 2:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Even Snoopy eye-balling a dog's breakfast can see that since 1998 the rate has 'plateaued' - that is not in dispute. However, just because there's been a slowing in the rate of increase in 'global warming' does not mean the long term trend is false. We can still measure energy coming in and going out - the planet is still warming (you haven't studied statistical time series analysis). There is much literature detailing the complex coupling between atmosphere and ocean reacting to this input of energy, and how the planet might respond, as it is. It can even be argued that we are entering a new 'normal' and when the system has 'normalised', the trend will continue upwards.

You said you checked:

>> what Solomon actually said on the hiatus ... it seems Solomon has determined that water vapour declined by 10% between 2000 and 2009.

Weren't you convinced that water vapour would rise inexorably and therefore be the major positive feedback that would deliver us into the temp realms of Hades?

It just isn't fair when the real world won't do as its told, is it? <<

You really don't understand the difference between stratospheric water vapour and that of water vapour in the troposhere.

You really don't understand positive and/or negative feedback, short and long-lived ghg's either.

You really don't understand what Solomon is saying about the effect of increasing/decreasing stratospheric water vapour on tropospheric warming/cooling.

Either you really don't understand, or you are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the science. Which is it?
Posted by qanda, Monday, 4 March 2013 2:54:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talking (as you were) about Cherry-Picking.

Here's a "championship cherry".

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/cherry-picking-is-childs-play/
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 9:18:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
first qanda,

wrote: "We can still measure energy coming in and going out - the planet is still warming".

Well yes, anything can be measured. But can it be measured accurately. Given the amount of new data coming through, casting doubt on previous measurements and the admissions from scientists like Hanson that they have undoubtedly misunderstood the role of aerosols in the cycle and the work of Svensmark in cloud research and a myriad of other new information, anyone asserting that we can measure incoming/outgoing energy accurately enough to know which is greater is either woefully out-of-date or at least has no right to claim to be conversant with the science.

qanda wrote:"you haven't studied statistical time series analysis"; "You really don't understand the difference between stratospheric water vapour and that of water vapour in the troposhere."; "You really don't understand positive and/or negative feedback, short and long-lived ghg's either"; "You really don't understand what Solomon is saying...".

Pray tell qanda, how do you know any of that. Since I haven't written on any of those issues but merely alluded to them, how do you know what I do and don't know?

I'll draw attention to this once again. Your entire method of arguing is to assert that others don't understand when you (1) have no way of know what they do and don't understand and (2) don't attempt to enlighten anyone about the issue.
Additionally by leaving things up in the air, you hope to insinuate that you indeed understand these things without ever needing to demonstrate such understanding. Yet when we've been able to tie you down to specifiics we've found that your understanding is rather rudimentary.

Presumably this methodology of yours works on some people, but not many.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:45:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever floats your boat.
Posted by qanda, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy wrote:"yes the surface temperatures appear to have briefly plateaued...".

Good, that's all I was trying to show. This whole sub-thread on recent trends grew out of warmair's assertion that temps hadn't stopped rising. Since it is spectacularly obvious that they have, as you say, plateaued, I was just making that point. I'll leave you to convince warmair of the nose on his face.

"all these datasets are just different ways of measuring the same thing"

Well yes and no. They are measuring temps but not the same temps. Some are measuring temps over the land only. Others a re measuring the temps over land and sea. UAH infers temps in the troposphere and stratosphere.

Assertions about heat accumulating in the deep ocean are based on very ambiguous data and are more in the nature of hope than fact.

The level of uncertainty in all these measures is such that we cannot say with any precision exactly what's happening.

But we can say some things with a degree of certainty:
* despite continued increases in CO2 levels temp rises are either negative or not significantly different to zero for period of 15 to 20 years.
* no model predicted this and no theory can account for it.
* it falls way outside the predictions of the IPCC and its fellow travellers.
* it proves one of two things - either CO2 is much less effective as a GHG as the sceptics have been saying since 1989 OR natural cooling factors are much more effective than the alarmists have assumed.

All of this (should)lead to the inescapable conclusion that the claims of an urgent need to shackle society to schemes to reduce CO2 emissions are massively overplayed. Even the MET are now admitting that there may be no more warming til 2018 by which time we'll have had a quarter century of no warming.

"the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" becomes the greatest example of mass hysteria of any time.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 1:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

On the contrary, the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time - gives rise to the greatest example of mass denial and the purveyance of junk science of anytime....

Ocean heat content:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 1:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, if you think that any one of those points you think have a degree of 'certainty', then you have not been doing the required reading.

Each point has been addressed time and time again in different fora and shown to be false.

>>* despite continued increases in CO2 levels temp rises are either negative or not significantly different to zero for period of 15 to 20 years.<<

Actually they are not 'negative', if anything the regressions show plateauing for at most about 12 years. If you back 20 years, then temps have significantly (that is statistically significantly) increased. The lats summer was one of the warmest just about everywhere.

>>* no model predicted this and no theory can account for it.<<
Actually no, there are models and analyses that account for it by removing the effect of el ninos and volcanic aerosols and other factors. No model predicted it because it caused by a short-term non-predictable variability. If you can find models that can predict these weather patterns and volcanic activity on the scale of 5-10 years and are able to predict their effect on long term climate variation, then I think a lot of people would like to know that, and not just for climate.

>>* it falls way outside the predictions of the IPCC and its fellow travellers.<<

Actually it doesn't, it falls outside of most, but I guess it also depends on your definition of 'way'.

>>* it proves one of two things - either CO2 is much less effective as a GHG as the sceptics have been saying since 1989 OR natural cooling factors are much more effective than the alarmists have assumed.<<

Actually it 'proves' nothing of the sort. Nice shot at dismissing the ocean heat data by the way, yeah real objective there.

Anyway, none of the things that you list can be said with *any* degree of 'certainty', and in fact the opposite case could be stated with greater degree of 'certainty' about some of them.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 3:55:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
There are many indicators when taken as a whole tell us that the warming hasn't stopped. You are focusing on the recent surface temps, because they tell you what you want to believe. What will happen to that belief if the surface temps start not telling you what you want to believe? I suspect you will find something else to hold on to.

You may think that is what I am doing, but I have a LOT more data on my side. The data is dictating what I think is true.

The best you have is a measure of 'non-significance' (of surface temp data only), which isn't actually a measure of anything at all. You cannot say anything definitive or with any degree of certainty about a non-significance. Do you have any positive data for your assertions? Where is your data that shows that the current 15-year trend is significantly different in the previous 15 years trend? That would be more believable wouldn't it?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 5 March 2013 4:02:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big jump in CO2 last year.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-scientists-report-big-jump-heat-trapping-co2
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 8:50:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy wrote:"There are many indicators when taken as a whole tell us that the warming hasn't stopped. You are focusing on the recent surface temps"

Actually I'm not focusing on recent temps but focusing on warmair's and other's refusal to accept that the temps aren't rising even though many (most?) of the warmist scientists have accepted that fact. But surface temps are important. This whole saga was kicked off by the rapid rise in temps between 1975 and 1995 and while that rise continued the alarmists were happy to talk only about that.

But once temps refused to play nice, the alarmists suddenly wanted to talk about other things. That's why we went from global warming to climate change to climate disruption. First they wanted to talk about sea surface temps. but then Argo showed they weren't warming either.
Now they want to talk about deep ocean temps even though there isn't any real data to show they are warming.

In the meantime we had the polar bear scare - until we found their numbers were increasing, not decreasing. and we had the rising ocean scare until we found the rate of rise was decelerating and was consistent with the rise over the past few millenia. We had the Himalayan glacier scare until we found that was just an IPCC stuff-up.
The corals were going to die off until we found they weren't. The Maldives were going to sink until we found out they were growing. And so on and so on.

The theory is in its death-throes. It'll be fascinating to see how it plays out.

" What will happen to that belief if the surface temps start not telling you what you want to believe?".

I've already listed elsewhere in OLO the things I'd need to see to convince me I was wrong. A return to rapid rising temps after 2020 on a par with the 1975-95 rise is one of those things.

I've invited others to list the things that would convince them that their alarmism was misplaced. No one has taken up that invitation.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 10:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze
Quote
This whole sub-thread on recent trends grew out of warmair's assertion that temps hadn't stopped rising. Since it is spectacularly obvious that they have, as you say, plateaued, I was just making that point. I'll leave you to convince warmair of the nose on his face.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

First of all I will give you some credit for linking to an interesting site. I am not into statistics, but I do appreciate their importance. I have spent some time looking at the information, and the data at the link. The two main problems are the use of raw data as against adjusted data and cherry picking the data to find the desired result.
The calculator below is more appropriate if you really want to know what is going on.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend-fr.php.

By the way I suspect the problem with many a climate skeptic is the increasing length of their nose. The latest data shows a trend well in excess of 2 sigma.

Foster and Rahmstorf 2011.
Re the ajusted data from thier abstract.

Quote:-
We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K per year. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I therefore conclude that global warming is continuing even without considering the vast body of evidence from other sources.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 10:19:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot pointed to an article in RealClimate purporting to support her claims about deep ocean temps. Linking to RC to prove AGW is like linking to the Bible to prove God but let's let that pass.

I don't know whether Poirot read the article or just the headline, but it doesn't contain any actual data. It talks at length about climate models and how they predict deep ocean warming, but there isn't a passing semblance of empirical data supporting that. Yet alarmists are now happy to assert that the case is proven.

We've seen this several times before. We were told that sea surface temps were rising as predicted by the models and this was used as a proof of the theory by warmists. then real scientists did actual studies and found the contrary. And we were told that sea level rises were accelerating and this was used as proof. Then real scientists did actual studies and found the contrary.

To be fair to some of the alarmist scientists this is partly a timing issue. It is quite likely that sea levels were rising very rapidly for a short time and have since settled down to their millenial average. But the problem is that the activist alarmists use these short term blips to extrapolate long term trends. And when they are proven wrong they just move on to the next big thing.

In a few years time we'll look back at the Arctic sea ice melt scare in the same way.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 10:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Er hem....temperatures have been "playing" very "nice" indeed, don't you know.....http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall--.html

Unless you're a "skeptic" who doesn't want to know.

Hows about we invite you, mhaze, to list the things that would convince you that your denialism is misplaced?

(Warning! - this will include actual science:)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 10:39:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...is like linking to the Bible to prove God but let's let that pass."

Let's not let that pass, mhaze. Otherwise you'd miss out on this morning's RJ (religious jargon) award.

Congrats on that!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 10:45:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, you say that there isn't any "real data" to show that ocean temps are warming. Then, what do you call the data presented in:

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010
Levitus, S.; Antonov, J. I.; Boyer, T. P.; et al.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Volume: 39 Article Number: L10603 DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051106 Published: MAY 17 2012

Chopped liver?

Mate, you can dismiss any datasets you like, and pick the ones you do, but it doesn't change reality.

Your historical narrative is certainly one shared by your compatriots, but not one shared by climate scientists. Conspiracy theorists also like to rewrite history picking out little 'factoids' to weave into their fictional narratives. I have noticed many parallels with the 'skeptics' and conspiracy theorists, indeed large overlaps as well.

It's funny, but many features are also shared with creationists, surprisingly enough. In their world evolution is also a conspiracy of scientists and dissent is unfairly squashed, Ben Stein made a movie about it. They also think that they are defending 'true science'. I was once told quite few years ago that the ID (Intelligent Design) train was picking up steam and I should get aboard or get run over! It's hilarious. Announcements on ones personal (political) views taking over rarely eventuate. Please be prepared for that.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 11:37:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the subject of "skeptics" and conspiracy theory - this cartoon sums up the "climate" of debate fairly well : )

http://skepticalscience.com/2013-SkS-Weekly-Digest_9.html
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 March 2013 1:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood the nature of the data. Yes,the "Foster and Rahmstorf " data is adjusted but so is the other data I mentioned. Almost all data you see these days is adjusted..not raw. Indeed it can be hard to get the original raw figures. So Hadcrut, Giss and the rest are adjusted data. Foster and Rahmstorf is just another form of adjustment which gives answers you prefer.

"When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors..." etc etc. So they are just estimating the natural factors and then saying let's pretend they don't exist. Using this methodology we can prove Coke is a health food...if we ignore the sugar, colours flavours etc.

Poirot and Bugsy,
re the depp ocean temps. I agree that there are quite a few studies which purport to show that temps are rising. But if you check the actual study rather than the headline, you find that most of the data is actually from models, not from direct measurement. ie they create a model of what they think is or will happen and then use that as though its actual measurements. Now I know there is a fundamental disagreemnet on this with warmists thinking models are indeed data and most sceptics (me included) think models are only of value when verified. To draw a recent comparison, Wayne Swann has spent the last 3yrs claiming that we will have a surplus based on models. It was only when the real data came in that we found the truth.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 7 March 2013 10:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

We saw the same thing with sea surface temps where models vastly over-estmated what turned out to be mild to no warming. Models also predict a 'hot spot' in the atmosphere over the tropics and its only when the real data came in that we found this to be false also.

Re the whole conspiracy thing...this does neither of you any credit. Its just guilt by association and indicates that you know your case is weak and requires these childish assertions. For the record I'm not a truther, or a birther, I know the US landed on the moon, that the earth is round, and I don't think there is a vast conspiracy among climate scientists to deceive the world. I've said in the past they're wrong not evil. Do you know that the Unabomber was a strong supporter of Gore and AGW. Should I write a post explaining how you are guilty of evil based on your association with him?

Poirot wrote:"Hows about we invite you, mhaze, to list the things that would convince you that your denialism is misplaced? "

Well I wrote in a previous thread the following. As I recall you assiduously avoided the issue which is where I first realised that your belief is more religious than scientific.

My list is:
* we had rapid warming of approx 1c over the next decade or two
* we saw evidence that the postulated positive feedbacks are indeed positive and exist outside the models and that they overwhelm negative feedbacks
* we saw evidence that models are able to simulate cloud movement/formation and still predict a warming
* we saw evidence that models were able to replicate past climate changes
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 7 March 2013 10:52:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

You go on as if your opinions are above all the peripheral denialist guff...

And then you raise the Unabomber......

Whaaat!

The Heartland Institute's use of that particular argument demonstrated an almost complete lack of intelligence and veracity - it was "stupid".

You post here, regaling us with all your 'skeptical" points - and then you raise the Unabomber, saying "....Should I write a post explaining how you are guilty of evil based on your association with him?"

I really wish you would : )

That's exactly the strategy that Heartland came up with when they tried that stunt (which misfired badly:)

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/05/04/heartland-institute-ends-experiment-unabomber-global-warming-billboard

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/09/heartland-institute-donors-lost-unabomber-ad

But that's what organisations and their followers do when they don't have the"the science" (and in Heartland's case, nor the integrity).

They pull stunts and resort to strategies - in place of real science.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 March 2013 12:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze

Just clarifying that in quoting part of your point "...based on your association with him."

I realise that you are referring to Gore and not the Unabomber.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 March 2013 12:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know why you bother poirot/bugsy. If it was left up to 'fake sceptics' you wouldn't adjust for calibration errors, urban heat island effect, satellite drift, changing methodology/technology, station bias, etc - you wouldn't concern yourself with quality control/assurance - just use raw data. Sheesh, when Roy Spencer adjusts data it's ok, when done by 'alarmists' it's bad science - go figure. As far as oceans go, the Argo and satellite data is available and there has been enough time for statistical validation, as you know.

I remember all too well Josh Willis some years back said the oceans were cooling - the 'sceptics' went hoopla. Yet when Willis realised there was a calibration error with some of the floats' instrumentation, corrected for it (showing no cooling) the anti-science mob went rabid. Fake sceptics often turn to fallacious and strawman argument to justify their 'scepticism' - nope, don't buy it. However, if you want to keep banging your head - be my guest, entertaining to watch.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 7 March 2013 1:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yeah, qanda....I often ask myself the same thing.

Being that it's all so perfectly pointless, I'm sure with a little self-encouragement I can find something more useful to do with my time.

(Hard to resist sometimes:)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 March 2013 2:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

Just to lighten things up a bit here is my favourite climate change cartoon.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3xO_3Lntxeo/S5mljT805_I/AAAAAAAAA30/Sk-RY6_0Mi0/s320/Climate+Cartoon.jpg
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 7 March 2013 4:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

Superb

: )
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 March 2013 4:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tamino has a party with Watts' Ocean Heat Content graph:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/

(see, qanda - can't help myself:)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 March 2013 6:49:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Poirot, I take your point - enjoy 'playing' with them :)

From my perspective, 'fake sceptics' are a waste of time and a waste of space.

Thanks for your tenacity :)
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 7 March 2013 7:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda,

yeah, I don't really know what good it does...and I think that because you're a little closer to the front that it rankles you more.

With me it's a bit like skeet shooting. I go about my daily life and have a bit of a look round occasionally - and before you know it some fake skeptic has lobbed another clay target to shoot down.

Had an interesting outcome the other day. I tweeted a link to Michael Mann referring to a shonky article by Lord Monckton over at Jo Nova's.http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckton-explains-why-taking-climate-extremists-to-court-works-and-uni-tas-agrees-to-investigate/ Mann responded by setting the record straight on his facebook page, berating Nova for neglecting to fact check Monckton's claim.....and she "amended" the article (probably got the wind up because the piece in question concerned Mann's libel suit against Tim Ball)

Anyway, the point is that she amended Monckton's inaccuracy. Considering all the false blather that goes down on denier sites - that was a win!
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 March 2013 8:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The true face of climate's hockey stick graph revealed."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 8 March 2013 9:03:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally I'm having a great time watching all the squirming. AsI see it each of you have your approved site(s) where all data is appropriately screened to achieve the right nuance and the belief that there is only one way to look at the issue.
Then you are presented with all this unapproved data and new ways of viewing it and it comes as a mighty shock.

So we see you all running back to the warmist playbook: sceptics are creationsts, are like Monckton, are paid by big bad capitalists, any data that doesn't give the approved answer is cherry-picked etc. Since I do read both warmist and sceptic commentary and sites, I'm used to seeing this type of stuff from the uniformed but committed warmists. But its still fun to watch the squirming when new ideas are thrown up and you get an inkling as to how much is withheld from the warmists sites. For example, it was revealing that so many of you didn't know about feedbacks when they are absolutely central to the whole saga. They're not talked about so much these days in the warmist realm because the evidence for them is not good and at the very least, ambiguous. But to be so committed to the theory without knowing how important feedbacks are to it, is pretty funny.

Its been especially fun watching qanda squirm as I've exposed his debating technique ie assert that others don't understand this or that while alluding to being fully informed without actually demonstrating it. As its got worse for him, qanda has become increasingly irrational. The latest is a completely ludicrous assertions that sceptics want to use raw, unadjusted data when anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the issue of data (especially temperature data) adjusts ought to know that sceptics, far from being opposed to adjustments, want more of it, beleiving that the adjustments for things like UHIE are currently inadequate. But that's qanda for you - all assertion, no fact.

Since we are showing our favourite pictures I'll drop this one in which I found t'other day....http://greenhousebullcrap.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/blog_global20mean20temp201850-2007.jpg?w=500&h=249
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 8 March 2013 9:49:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze lurches from raising the spectre of the unabomber to posting a link from somewhere titled "greenhousebullcrap".

Yeah, I'm really going to open that one (ho, ho!)

Very impressive!

What do you do for an encore?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 8 March 2013 9:54:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

I'm afraid you've completely, entirely, utterly, astonishingly misunderstood my unabommber reference. I wasn't in any way proposing to use the green leanings of the unabomber to draw any conclusions about warmists. I was just trying to point out as gently as possible that your and others assertions that sceptics are creationists, truthers, birthers,believers in a vast scientific conspiracy etc etc is as bad and as invalid as linking warmists with the unabomber. Get it?

Also, noticed that you have again declined to address the issue as to what data you'd need to see to convince you that the theory is wrong or even doubtful. As I've said before, such an attitude treats the theory as religion not science. I know you don't like being told that but alas....the facts are the facts.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 8 March 2013 9:59:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least the unabomber understood maths.

Anyway, I'm also pretty much done. Anyone who can immediately dismiss piles of data (I chose that Levitus reference deliberately mhaze, because it's based on lots of actual data) as 'just modelling' is not likely to listen to reason.

BTW, I love the pics everyone.

PS mhaze: anyone can make any sloping graph 'look' flat by adding a much larger value and changing the scale (but it still isn't flat). Go to the original dataset referenced in your picture and plot it yourself in excel and you'll see what I mean. But you won't because you will always believe what you want.

I just had an image flash in my mind of the picture on the old Cherry Ripe wrapper. Those naughty boys.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 8 March 2013 10:31:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

"Yeah, I'm really going to open that one (ho, ho!)"

Excellent idea. Wouldn't want to be exposed to anything that might upset the carefully crafted belief system, right?

Bugsy,
"Anyone who can immediately dismiss piles of data.."

I didn't 'immediately' dismiss it. I was already well aware of this and all the other Levitus et al papers. I know there is some empirical data in this paper...each new one has more and better data. But it is still a long way from complete. I could walk you through it if you like, but bottom line is that they only have workable data for 5% of the 1 deg grids world-wide and have to use models and extrapolations to reach any conclusions. With Argo they are starting to get better data but its still a long way from having anything that would allow us to draw firm conclusions.

"anyone can make any sloping graph 'look' flat by adding a much larger value and changing the scale"

I'm not sure you understood the graph. It was a graph of actual met office temps using normalised y axis scales. No one 'added' a larger value. They used the actual value. I know its not flat (who said otherwise?) but it puts the very mild warming in perspective.

Speaking of which, Poirot linked to another hockey stick graph earlier today. In the abstract for that paper the authors say "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history." So for fully one-quarter of the last 12000 yrs, temps have been higher than now. I wonder what caused that? Maybe the Romans burning too many Christians? It must have been caused by man... no other explanation is possible.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 8 March 2013 11:55:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Actually I did get the point that you were making. It's just that your example of the Unabomber was so wide of the mark regarding the issue that it was ludicrous.

When I criticise the likes of Monckton as an ambassador for deniers, it's founded on his rhetoric and his position as a revered figure of scientific knowledge in the denialst sphere. He's the guy that links AGW to conspiracy and who intimates that climate scientists are "liars". and his example is dutifully followed by the majority of climate deniers. Just because you personally don't think that, doesn't mean that it's not the basis of most denialist argument. Mentioning Monckton (and others) is not a random critique because of his notoriety on unrelated grounds (as is a Unabomber comparison).

And let's face it. You don't want to know what a climate scientist has to offer. The recent example of you dancing around celebrating your self-perceived superiority in debate is a case in point. I assume that qanda can't be bothered arguing against block-headed denial. All he and Bugsy have mostly received from you are taunts - which, I might add, - are typical denier tactics.

I'm sorry but if you offer me something called "greenhousebullcrap", I'm not going to read it. Have you no shame?

Regarding that hockey-stick link...you seem to have missed the part that goes: ""The rate of warming in the last 150 years is unlike anything that happened in at east 11,000 years....Over the Holocene, temperatures rose and fell less than 1[degree] C, and they did so over thousands of years. "It took 8,000 years to go from warm to cold..."How fast temperatures change is the real issue..."

Natural cycles mean we should be cooling...I wonder why we're not?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 8 March 2013 12:47:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, mhaze, the dataset at http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt

which is the reference given on your picture, doesn't go up to 14 degrees. In fact it looks like a dataset of difference from an average, which shows a definite warming of the climate. What value do you think they added to show that graph?
Why didn't they just use degrees Kelvin? That would have looked a lot flatter, but it still would be as invalid as a means of understanding climate change as what they did.

On that graph, what would the average degrees C be for a 'snowball earth'? I bet that graphing the 'actual temp' flattens out those curves puts things 'in perspective'.

Yes, the question is 'what caused that?' is a good one. Care to at least try and answer it? Perhaps someone has a hypothesis from the literature? When you take it to the next stage, "is the same cause happening now, or is it possibly caused by something different?" it becomes a a more scientific research endeavour.

Simply saying that "it's just natural variation, happened before, will happen again" is not a scientific conclusion. What caused it then? What is causing it now? Are the conditions the same now as then? That would be a good start, don't you think?
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 8 March 2013 1:21:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze Quote
Also, noticed that you have again declined to address the issue as to what data you'd need to see to convince you that the theory is wrong or even doubtful. As I've said before, such an attitude treats the theory as religion not science. I know you don't like being told that but alas....the facts are the facts.
______________________________________________________________________
The evidence I require is proof that greenhouse gases do not influence surface temperature in theory or in practice.

The data I require is evidence that Co2 and other greenhouse gases have not increased in the atmosphere and are not the result of human activities.

Data clearly showing that global warming is not occurring, or evidence for an alternative mechanism to explain the warming.

Unfortunately the above is not the case, Co2 absorbs infra red radiation as can be easily demonstrated in the lab,which is part of the spectrum that the earth uses to cool.
The evidence shows that global temperatures have risen steadily since at least the 1970s. This is true for both land and ocean, in fact temperatures have risen faster over land than the oceans. We have the the undeniable fact that ice cover be it glaciers or at the poles is in decline. We have the steady increase in max temperature records but a steady decline in cold temperature records. We are constantly having to update the the figures for average temperatures, because the average is no longer useful for example Melbourne has not seen an average summer temperatures for 27 years. We have evidence that sea levels are rising and accelerating. We have seen a long term increase in sea surface temperatures. We have evidence of ocean warming down to at least 700 meters.

If you wish to dispute any of this, then you have problem because the data and the conclusions have been arrived at by many different reputable organisations and thoroughly checked by suitably qualified people.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 8 March 2013 4:29:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a great exposition on "climate debate" in the online arena.

mhaze - pertinent to you and other intelligent people "skeptics" who assume they know what they are talking about.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/back-to-school/#more-6326

"And that's much of what's wrong with the online discussion of global warming. People look at some data and try to understand it, but they're in way over their heads and haven't a clue what they don't know. Then instead of inquiring whether or not they might have gone wrong and how - as they should - they declare the real experts are missing something."

Not only that, but they often taunt and insult, and dig out anything else in their bag of tricks. People like Watts and Nova and Monckton actually stake their reputation on such behaviour - and their acolytes trail along behind them casting aspersions like confetti up and down the blogosphoere.

It's an odd phenomenon in a scientifically and technologically advanced age - and its tied to a fundamental insecurity of the notion of change.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 March 2013 9:59:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair wrote:"The evidence I require is proof that greenhouse gases do not influence surface temperature in theory or in practice.

The data I require is evidence that Co2 and other greenhouse gases have not increased in the atmosphere and are not the result of human activities."

But...but....I don't think you'd find anyone who doesn't agree that GHG influence the surface temps in theory and practice. To be fair I think you mean the increase in GHG and there again I think you'll find that the vast majority of sceptics agree that the increase has had some minor affect.

Equally I'd doubt you'd find too many who don't agree that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and that its primarily caused by man.

So in effect you're asking for people to disprove things that are not in dispute.

I'm very much afraid, warmair, that you've entirely misunderstood the views of sceptics. Perhaps if you spent more time trying to understand these contrary views, you'd understand the entire issue a little better.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 10 March 2013 7:19:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot wrote :"mhaze - pertinent to you and other intelligent people "skeptics" who assume they know what they are talking about."

The problem here, Poirot, and this goes back to my Unabomber comment, is the belief among the committed warmists that all sceptics think alike. I think this is related to the notion that many warmists have just bought the story without thinking too much about it and they assume that the 'other side' does the same.

But I and, I'd venture, most sceptics don't dispute that the amount of arctic sea ice is at or close to record low levels since records began. that isn't the issue. The question is the significance of that, the cause and whether these levels are historically low.

Bear in mind that records only go back to 1979 so saying they are at record lows is somewhat misleading. There is awfully good historic evidence that these sought of low arctic sea-ice levels have been seen before (in the late 19th century). But, since historic data falls outside the purview of climate scientists, it is routinely ignored.
Equally, there is good data that the current levels are caused by local weather patterns rather than global factors. finally, the dispute is the so-what factor. So-what if all the arctic sea-ice melts?

The problem with alot of AGW science is that it is based on assertion loosely supported by unverified models. We go from proving absolutely that sea-ice in the arctic has declined in the past 30 yrs (undisputed) to assertions that, according to models, CO2 is the only possible cause. But, if sea-ice levels were at these low levels in the recent past, then that assertion is (or ought to be) doubted. And that's where the contention lay...not over the maths.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 March 2013 11:10:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

Arctic ice events happen on century of even millennial time-scales. Looking at a short, 30yrs period and drawing defintive conclusions is fraught. But somehow, whenever we have short periods that support the theory, they are taken as long enough (arctic sea ice) but when we have short periods that don't support the story (surface temps) the period is never long enough. I wonder why that is?

In this vein, a story the late John Daly used to tell. When French researchers, in the 1950's first dicovered the ozone hole over the Antarctic, they fretted that it seemed to be getting smaller each year. But this was in a time when people hadn't worked out how to turn such observations and concerns into research dollars and so they moved on and the measuring of the hole was dropped. It was only in the late 70's, when alarmism could become a career, that the then growing hole was hyped to death. A solution was proposed and implemented. But now we find that the 'solution'actually wasn't and that the growing and shrinking hole may be just a natural ebb and flow.

Eqaully, had the satellites that now measure the sea ice in the arctic started doing so in 1969 or 1989 we would have a very different view of what was/is happening.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 March 2013 11:11:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 33
  7. 34
  8. 35
  9. All

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