From the first Skeptics Handbook (p 14-15). The very short answers to questions you might get in a bar, or in the media tent at the UNFCCC. Point 1 below was the single most popular riposte from supporters of the greenhouse theory at COP 13 in Bali.
1. How can so many scientists be wrong?
-
- Most scientists are not wrong, but they’re not studying the central question either. Instead they’re researching the effects of warming — not the causes. Whether orangutans in Borneo are facing habitat loss tells us nothing of what drives the weather. Likewise: wind-farm efficiency, carbon sequestration, and insect-borne epidemics. Warm weather changes these things, but these things don’t change the weather.
- Consensus proves nothing. It takes only one scientist to prove a theory wrong. Theories fit the facts or they don’t. Instead of saying “Which side has more PhDs?” a better question is “Where’s the evidence?” Once upon a time, the masses thought the world was flat, that no machine could fly, that the sun went ‘round the Earth.
The only thing we know for sure about climate change is that big government-funded committees will keep going long after their use-by date.
2. “This cooler spell is just natural variation”
That IS the point. Natural variation, or “noise” is due to something. And at the moment, whatever that is, it’s more important than greenhouse gases. In this case, “noise” is not some fairy force, it’s affecting the planetary climate. If we can figure that out, and stick it in the computer models, the models might have some success.
😐 Here’s an idea: Let’s base an economic system and global taxes on 50-year forecasts from computer models that can’t tell us the weather next summer. If we’re lucky they might work as well as the mark-to-model software did for Lehman Bros.
3. “Carbon dioxide is a pollutant”
Carbon dioxide feeds plants. It’s a potent fertilizer. We can thank the extra CO2 in our atmosphere for increasing plant growth by about 15 percent over the last century. (Fifteen percent!) Market gardeners pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to increase their crop yield, and we’re not talking a piddling 2ppm extra a year. It’s like, “Will we double CO2, or increase it five-fold?” In other words, there are people alive today thanks to extra carbon in the atmosphere. It’s scientifically accurate to say:
Carbon dioxide helps feed the starving.
4. What about the precautionary principle?
It cuts both ways. If we make it harder or more expensive for people in Africa to use their coal, it means they keep inhaling smoke from wood fires; babies get lung disease; forests are razed for fuel. Meanwhile electric trucks cost more to run, and that makes fresh food more expensive; desperate people eat more monkeys–wiping out another species; children die from eating meat that’s gone off or get Kwashiorkor–severe protein deficiency. More children could miss out on refrigerated vaccines and die of dysentery as a result. At the same time in the West, money could have been used for gene therapy or cancer research but wasn’t; the delay in medical advances means over 10 years, say, half-a-million people die who wouldn’t have if we’d put that money into medical labs instead of finding ways to pump a harmless gas underground. Either way we can’t afford to get this wrong. That’s why the responsible thing to do is look at the evidence.
There’s a point about cost-benefit here. How many people are we willing to kill in order to protect us from the unproven threat of CO2?
5. Shouldn’t we be looking for greener alternatives to fossil fuels anyway?
Hoping for a good outcome while acting on something for all the wrong reasons is called policy-by-accident. Oil is expensive and finite, so Yes, we could adopt a national taxation system based on a false assumption, employ more accountants and lawyers, and if we don’t cripple the economy too badly, there might be enough money left to research greener alternatives (except we’re not sure what “green” means anymore, since carbon dioxide feeds plants). It’s true, it could work.
Here’s the campaign slogan for that kind of government: “Vote for us, we confuse cause and effect, mix up issues, and solve problems by tackling something else instead!”
Good policies need good science. Everything else is random government.
6. “But carbon dioxide is at record levels”
Atmospheric carbon is at higher levels than at any time in the past 650,000 years. Yes. But go back 500 million years, and carbon levels were not just 10-20 percent higher, they were 10 to 20 times higher. The Earth has thoroughly tested the runaway greenhouse effect, and nothing happened. Indeed the Earth slipped into an ice age while CO2 was far higher than today’s levels. Whatever warming effect super-concentrated-CO2 has, it’s no match for the other climatic forces out there. Further, it doesn’t matter if it’s man-made CO2 or ocean-made CO2. They are the same molecule.
At the current rate we are increasing CO2 each year, we will hit historic record levels in just 3,300 years.
7. “The temperature is rising faster than ever before”
No. Last century, temperatures rose about 0.7°C (and most of that gain has been lost in the past 12 months). But around 1700, there was a 2.2°C rise in just 36 years. (As measured by the Central England Temperature record, one of the only reliable records of the era.) It was three times as large and three times as fast as the past century. Natural variation has been much larger than anything mankind may or may not have induced recently.
8. “This weather is extreme”
For most of the past 1.5 million years the world has been iced over and about 8°C colder. That’s extreme. For most of the last half billion years, the world was 5 or 6 degrees warmer. Temperature wise, we are ‘extremely’ middle-of-the-road.
Each of these points could fill a book on it’s own but all I could give them was a paragraph, so edits were brutal.
The only thing I would change is point 7. It could be made much stronger. As it is, it points to the longest running thermometer record on earth, but that’s a regional measurement, not a global average. The statement “Temperatures are rising faster than ever before” is as meaningless as ever, but that’s mostly because of what we can’t measure rather than what we can. (Pagan satellites being what they were, it’s difficult to know just how much global temperatures ranged back in the minus 2009’s, or the glacial 20,0009’s BC, not to mention the 4 billion years before that.) I mean, really, how the heck would anyone prove that temperatures had never risen more than 0.7 degrees in a century globally before?
Having said that, I think the most important points are #1, #3, #4 and #5. These are the four points that are key planks of the AGW PR machine: “The consensus”, “It’s pollution”, “Let’s take insurance” and “wouldn’t it be good to use less oil”?
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by johnnyA99 and topsy_top20k, ClimateGate_RT. ClimateGate_RT said: JoNova: Pub questions http://bit.ly/8j1iW8 #climategate […]
20
Great stuff Joanne!
Just wondering, when you say this: “most of that gain has been lost in the past 12 months” about global temperatures, what is the source for that?
Such an interesting idea to think that all the huff and puff could just be wiped out in one year!
Dean
[ Good point Dean, that was written in mid 2008, and referred to the UAH MSU data. I will update it. That was a flippant reference to the cold snap and not a serious trend analysis. That’s one of the reasons that posting each page is useful. Thanks – JN]
20
“The temperature is rising faster than ever before”
“Last century, temperatures rose about 0.7°C – But around 1700, there was a 2.2°C rise in just 36 years.”
That’s the sort of quick, factual information needed to counter the AGW zealots!
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
[ Don’t forget that was just Central England Temps. It is the longest unbroken record we have with thermometers, but it’s not global. – JN]
20
Have you specifically focused on all the examples of gross incompetence in the climate science field and compiled it for easy access in a separate post?
10
I will take on one claim. Oil is not finite. I sat in the international headquarters for exploration at Exxon Mobil and was told we would be out of oil in 1992. This was 1981. Oil was selling for less than half of today’s price. We are running low on oil that can be produced to the wellhead at 6 dollars a barrel. At 200 dollars a barrel, there is a lot of oil to be produced. At 19 dollars, we can separate it from Canadian oil sands. I don’t recall the price but it can be produced from coal.
My summary. If they make a claim and I find it to be dishonest in more than 1 way, i assume they are going to make dishonest claims in other ways.
Another quible. Temps rising faster than ever before? How long have we had thermometers. That alone limits the argument. Don’t even think they can argue temps using data before thermometers were invented. Anthony Watts finds even with testing and inspection, many thermometers are off several degrees.
10
Henry (#5), re: the quible. Sure a thermometer might be off – but it is consistent in its reading. This is the useful difference between precision and accuracy. Its likely how the CRU / IPCC mob got sidetracked. They started “correcting’ for accuracy bias. Once the practice became the norm, the reason for the correction and the amount being corrected became scientifically suspect.
As a scientists, its always important to have the raw data and the context by which its was taken. I can use any number of instruments to measure the concentration of an element in a compound. ICP, AAS, XRF, Titration, etc. They ALL give a different answer in terms of accuracy and precision due to their own inehrent capabilities and interferences. At least with context, anyone can apply corrections of their own in order to produce the new “truth” – as best we can know it.
On another issue: The very saddest part of the catastrophic AGW, is the level of data withholding and professional exclusion. If everything was/is so ‘settled’ the whats to hide? why not allow anyone – even some 12yr old whiz kid come up with some views. Just because someone has a PHD does not give them exclusivity to the new truth, a new concept, or the next great invention. In all probability, it probably excludes them. (ha)
10
Re: CO2 Levels
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343
10
@henry chance reply 5 “At 19 dollars, we can separate it from Canadian oil sands. I don’t recall the price but it can be produced from coal.”
Realistically, oil would need to stay above $50.00 per barrel if the Fischer Trope method or one of its variants were used. The process requires copious amounts of water and you would have to get past the greens in court.
10
I hope that this is not OT, but how do we get the “Pub Questions” (and answers) to the politicians and media. See [missing link sorry] for the latest nonsense from Garrett. I read all the blogs, I arm myself with all the answers, I send off comments left and right, and I think I convince about half a dozen people in total.
I wonder just how many truly rational people there are.
[ It all helps. It sounds twee, but I’ve heard research suggest that people only need to meet two skeptics to be likely to become a skeptic. If so, it’s exponential. I’ve spoken to staff at ministers offices and they notice the traffic and especially when they are individually written comments, it counts. – JN]
10
Sorry for the repeat, but I cannot master the “link” procedure.
I hope that this is not OT, but how do we get the “Pub Questions” (and answers) to the politicians and media. See for the latest nonsense from Garrett.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ets-scheme-will-benefit-low-earners/story-e6frfku0-1225814575176
I read all the blogs, I arm myself with all the answers, I send off comments left and right, and I think I convince about half a dozen people in total.
I wonder just how many truly rational people there are.
10
One of the issues I get hit with frequently is a claim about gas permeability regarding the ice core data and the relationship between warming & C02. The claim is that the permeability of C02 in the ice cores creates a phoney relationship that only appears to be C02 increases after warming and C02 has a more direct impact on warming than we have thought. I know this goes beyond the pub answers but if anyone has an answer to it I would really enjoy slapping down this alarmist with the answer.
[ I think you are referring to the “amplification” point. UNskeptical Scientists claim that the milankovich cycles triggered the rise, the oceans warmed and released CO2, which then caused more warming. Co2isnotevil has the best grip on this and I will (with help from George) do a specific post to answer this point. The shortest answer is that there’s no obvious extra “amplification” needed. Most of the graph can be explained just by knowing that oceans release CO2 as they warm, and suck it back when they cool, and they contain 50 times as much C)2 as the entire atmosphere does. Co2 doesn’t trigger the temperature rise, and nor does it trigger the fall. There probably is some amplification, but it appears to be minor. – JN]
—
10
macha,
So true! I keep remembering that it took a couple of obscure bicycle mechanics from Dayton Ohio to make the first powered flight. Meanwhile the pretender with the Smithsonian name behind him, government backing and a lot of money to spend just crashed into the Potomac without flying an inch.
Unfortunately the failure here won’t be as obvious until after a lot of harm is done.
10
Great answers! By the way, it wasn’t just the “masses” that thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it — it was the “scientific consensus” of the time. And the “scientific consensus” among physicists was that Einstein’s theory of relativity was crazy — only later was it proven right (at which point he became a genius).
10
Fasteddy106,
The logical fallacy here is essentially a request to prove a negative. The AGW alarmist is bringing up a permeability question and requiring you to prove it isn’t so. However, you have no responsibility because you can’t prove a negative. It is his responsibility to support his hypothesis that the CO2 permeability of ice is sufficient to skew the data. Even if he does so, it does not prove that CO2 has a more direct impact upon warming. Separate and independent proof is required for that part of his hypothesis.
All we have to do is examine their arguments in favor of their position. If we find a significant flaw in structure, context, or content, we have falsified their argument. Otherwise, you will be tied up with endless what if’s and if you can’t answer them, they will falsely hold that their hypothesis stands.
For example they could argue that the effect of three toed aardvarks scat is to increase the permeability of the ice so as to make it appear the CO2 level lags temperature by hundreds of years. If you actually did prove his propsal false, all he would have to do is change a word or two and force you to go back around the bush one more time. This scam must be stopped in its tracks. They assert. It is their responsibility to support their assertion with actual evidence.
While we might be useful to produce an alternate hypothesis and actually support it, that is going well beyond necessity to counter the AGW argument. Then if you did, it too would be subjected to the prove a negative attack. Clearly the goal of such an attack is to keep the focus off the absurd position they take.
10
I cannot get over the claim that CO2 is a pollutant. It begs another question: how much basic science do some of these people understand?
Plant life relies on CO2 – which we and other creatures exhale. And we in turn rely on the oxygen relieved of its carbon which the plants return to the atmosphere.
When I was at school it was called a symbiotic relationship.
10
Hi
I have an important question (that does not prove or disprove co2 manmade global warming).
How many times in human history (with a reasonable amount of accuracy) have temperatures risen or fallen by at least .7 degrees over the period of a century?
This is important, because if it has happened 10 times in the last 3000 years then it does reinforce the view that nothing is unusual.
Cheers
10
Have any of you looked up the hydrogen hyroxide site? it is exactly what the AGW scammers are doing but is done to make us think, and yes one USA sanator fell for it, it does illustrate the misuse of a substance for political gain (now there is a thought) If we can all inform at least 2 people, hopefully more, we will be unstoppable. When Gore is in chains how about using the list of AGW protgonists as a list of those “unfit to serve” ever, using this phrase should scare the hell out of career politicians.
We cannot get accurate temp readings except in a few cases where raw data still exists in print but we have plenty of evidence, for one, the Viking farms on Greenland, are they still under ice? they were not a while back in Nat Geographic they were just emerging, probably going back now though. This tells me, without any “adjustment” that it is still colder there than when the vikings farmed there (I guess that would the medieval warm pereod) then in history I read about the winter fairs on the frozen river thames,I grew up in London near the Thames, it never froze in 63 when we had snow from jan to march, so it was colder then. I did not panic in the 70s when we were told we were all going to freeze in the coming ice age (perhaps the AGW crowd are paying us out for scorning them then) Common sense is lacking in this war, except on our side, most adults have fair memories, maybe if we get the masses to remember what they know and ignore the bull we will get somewhere.
10
Michael Lewis:
December 30th, 2009 at 7:42 am.
I know your frustration. However, when you have one of the biggest ideological scams about to be perpetrated on the world, by ideologues, who if you will note, a majority are not using their own money, but ours – with a compliant MSM and virtual mass propaganda – that is the result.
Fortunately we have (at the moment) freedom of the Internet.
Sites like this and others, which have slowly put cracks into the wall of ‘mass hysteria’ created by Politicians and special interest groups, not to mention the ‘Carpetbaggers‘ who plan to make a lot of money of this scam, have – abet – slowly been exposed for what it really is – just another UN ‘grab for cash’.
The whole charade, as demonstrated at Copenhagen, the ‘ClimateGate’ emails and the unwillingness of some countries has just shown what a smoke and mirrors act it really was.
Still, Rudd and Wong won’t stop and plan to reintroduce an ETS next year. They will appeal, this time, not to the ‘we are all doomed and must do something to save the planet’ – but to a base instinct of the population – greed and the ‘money for nothing‘ mentality.
10
The “trick” – to use the now-notorious word – is to do what a trained salesman does. Hit the customer with post-sale details, rather than discuss the actual sale. When would you like delivery? What colour do you like?
Swamped with speculative details about an ice-free Arctic, the customer won’t notice the huge increase in Arctic ice since ’07, increase in polar bear populations etc. Sale closed.
And would you like fries with your AGW?
10
Michael Lewis @10 – whoa, Pete must think we ALL believe in Santa.
Coincidentally I just fired this email off to ALP Senators in WA today:
Good morning,
In the weeks preceding the Copenhagen summit, the Prime Minister was determined to see his Emissions Trading Scheme passed through the parliament. It was imperative, so he said, that the legislation complete its course through both houses before the conference began.
I think you would have to agree now that the Copenhagen has produced nothing beyond a worthless declaration: evasions masquerading as noble sentiments. Speaking for myself, I’m deeply grateful that the Opposition found the nerve to stand against the ETS bill in the Senate.
The Deputy Prime Minister was quick to announce that the bill would return to the Senate next February. Given the subsequent hollow triumph of Copenhagen it seems a far more sensible idea to kill the bill off altogether. Even if global warming was a genuine threat to our continued existence; even if carbon was a critical component in the size of that threat – in the light of the leaked CRU emails, both contingencies must be considered doutbful – the government’s bill would have no effect on the overall climate.
Were its effect on Australia’s economy equally insignificant I would not be communicating with you now. But I believe it has the potential for disaster. In the early days of his crusade the Prime Minister said the cost of the ETS would average about one dollar a week for every household. More recent calculations indicated the cost might be closer to $1100 per year – a twenty-fold increase. Who knows what the figure might be after the bill was passed and its bureaucratic machine assembled!
The glaring truth in the aftermath of Copenhagen is that governments around the world were not prepared to stand behind the glib promises they had made in the previous two years. Add to this the fraud that has been exposed among global warming believers, and the so-called global crisis begins to shrink dramatically. During this holiday season I would urge you to spend some time reconsidering the necessity of the ETS.
Regards…
10
I’me still veering from the “Pub Questions” but I still would like to know how to raise them in the press. In my post above I referred to a Garrett release in today’s Australian. I had previously left a comment, pointing out that any ETS process was pointless – refer to Climategate etc.
I’ve looked through the comments – most are scathing of the Government – but all from the nature of the effects of the ETS and the subsidy aspect. None says that it is all a pointless nonsense based on non-science. I detect a censorship occurring (mine hasn’t been posted). Is this handed down from the (very) top?
Strangely, Fairfax has opened up comments recently and seems more open.
10
[…] Pub questions – can science be wrong? […]
10
Henry – Oil (& gas) are finite but, as you say, a higher price raises the amount that can be produced. My expectation, after 40 plus years in the industry with around the world experience, is that alternatives will really eat into the market share about 30-50 years out and petroleum will be a minor player past then.
Jo – Great Work!!! I’ve been looking for this site for years!
10
Ravinsclaw, re #16,
During the last 3000 years, the global average temperature has changed by more than 0.7C exactly 6000 times. Each and every year, the average global temperature increases by about 3.5C from January to July and decreases by about 3.5 C from July to Jan. Note that this is opposite in phase to the energy variability between perihelion and aphelion. What manifests this, is that the albedo, via the surface reflectivity of northern hemisphere ice and snow, acts in opposition to perihelion induced variability. By itself, the N hemisphere shows 12C variability, while the S hemisphere shows 5C. Considering that little energy is transported across the equator, the physical substance of the planet, i.e land + water, responds rapidly to variable solar energy. The time constant is on the order of 2 months, which has a physical manifestation as the delay between min/max energy at the solstice and min/max temperature on the surface.
George
10
“But around 1700, there was a 2.2°C rise in just 36 years.”
Unless there is a geological reason for that warming, such as a mountain, or a new source of water, it is pretty much certain that a 36 year trend would have had to have been global in nature. Energy has a way of being redistributed.
[Sure energy is redistributed, but – correct me if I’m wrong, surely local currents, or wind patterns could change, and these could temporarily make one region cooler and another hotter. If that happened, the average would remain the same. Craig Loehle’s graph is probably the best approximation of global variation I’ve seen, but only 2000 years long. Check out variability around 1500… pretty steep on a composite of 18 proxies. – JN]
10
Jo
One small correction – the masses didn’t believe the Earth was flat etc, “Experts” asserted that and the masses then followed suit. 🙂
10
Remember no science was involved during the Copenhagen Climate Summit – it was all about money and how the Third World is to pillage the First World.
In any case the CO2 issue was driven by politics and remains so – and as I never tire of repeating, it’s all about forcing us to live a more sustainable lifestyle, apart from redistributing wealth.
This is simply Communism cloaked in a new coat – and they almost succeeded was it not for China and India torpedoing the Fabian agenda. (Fabians are communists who use the termite method of achieving their goals and it seems most Australians have been gulled into it).
10
Thanks for the new skeptic’s handbook!
10
Gregoryno6 @ 15 wrote:
I answered this one in a previous comment. My local university offers a degree in environmental management. Run by the arts faculty. With NO SCIENCE CONTENT in it. That’s right, no physics, no maths, no chemistry, no nuffink. One wonders what they teach. Dogma, perhaps.
So the answer to your question is – these people DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY BASIC SCIENCE. They don’t need to.
(It’s no different to the social studies teacher indoctrinating my kids at school about global warming. I spend a LOT of time around the dinner table saying “This is actually the truth, the teacher does not know what they are talking about. But when you sit an exam, this is what you must say. Just know that you are parroting back crap.”)
10
“Great answers! By the way, it wasn’t just the “masses” that thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it — it was the “scientific consensus” of the time. And the “scientific consensus” among physicists was that Einstein’s theory of relativity was crazy — only later was it proven right (at which point he became a genius).”
NO! Very few people since the third century B.C have thought the Earth was flat, neither the scientific elites nor the masses believed it, as evidenced by Bernard of Clairveaux talking about the spherical earth in semons to the PEASANTS.
10
Thanks for all your comments. I will do another edit of The Skeptics Handbook pdf. I’ve written some replies in in-line above. Great points, and obviously there is a need to get more short answers up on the site. It’s what we all need, the one sentence response at our fingertips.
10
Ashleigh @29 – I missed your answer the first time around. Thanks for repeating it here – disturbing as it is.
I wonder if the Arts Faculty would allow the Science Dept to run a summer school on art. Seems unlikely.
10
1. How can so many scientists be wrong?
A-) How many scientists?
2. “This cooler spell is just natural variation”
A-) The IPCC claim they have allowed for natural variations in their model predictions. This current cool spell is well outside of the IPCC “error margins”. i.e. Their models are WRONG
3. “Carbon dioxide is a pollutant”
A-) To whom? or to what?
4. What about the precautionary principle?
A-) You have as much scientific basis to fear and insure against a meteor striking the earth or a kitchen sink falling out of the sky and hitting your head.
5. Shouldn’t we be looking for greener alternatives to fossil fuels anyway?
A-) A tax didn’t develop the motor car rendering the horse and cart obsolete. Mankind has been “De-Carbonising” without government intervention for 200 years. From burning wood and straw (10Carbon atoms to 1 Hydrogen atom) to burning coal (4C to 1H) to burning oil (1C to 2H) to burning gas (1C to 4H)
6. “But carbon dioxide is at record levels”
A-) Which records?
7. “The temperature is rising faster than ever before”
A-) No it isn’t. There are thousands of pages of studies showing various errors in old and recent temperature records, look em up on the net. p.s. How does one measure the planets temperature?
8. “This weather is extreme”
A-) Says who? Ask the archeologists who continually dig up settlements from under meters of ice in such places as Greenland. Ask a Dinosaur how hot his climate was.
10
OT, but interesting. It would seem that the French have thrown out their Carbon Tax, which was to be made law on Jan 01 2010….. It was ruled as, “Unconstitutional”….. How cool is that!!!!:-)
10
Just a quick further response to 6. “But carbon dioxide is at record levels”
Mike Hulme, one of the silverbacks of warmists responded to an Economist Magazine question about appropriate levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Leaked email no: 0998401270
“We are aware that there is currently no consensus within the scientific community on what an appropriate level for atmospheric concentrations is. Indeed not – and there never can be”.
So from the horses mouth, nobody knows what level of CO2 is “normal” and it may never be known
10
Still, 2500 scientists contributed to the IPCC 4AR.
Surely a few eccentric sideshow scientists cannot be right and thousands are wrong.
Wouldn’t you tend to go along with the 2500?
You can aleways find a few who will dispute anything.
That’s the argument that gives me the most trouble. Can you help out?
Thanks.
10
P Gosselin
To answer your query, we need to understand the structure of the IPCC
The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization. Their brief is to gather research papers and COLLATE them into a summary for policy makers.
The oft quoted thousands of scientists are people who have done/may have done their research in a specific area without an eye to how it may affect climate. i.e one researcher puts out a paper stating glaciers have been receding. The IPCC uses that paper to support their claim, their brief, that man is causing the globe to warm.
One of the main areas of research that the IPCC has been intimately involved in has been that of temperature reconstruction. And as can be seen by the myriad of descenting papers, they botched that one up very very badly and are still trying to cover their proverbials.
It’s easy to see why most people would picture the IPCC and their 2500 scientists as some large research group, busily toiling away at their labs and fields.
The reality however is that the IPCC can be housed in one small office structure.
By the way, numerous scientists either removed their papers or tried to remove their papers from IPCC use because they didn’t like the conclusion the IPCC drew from said papers. Even some who were employed by the IPCC to research certain areas resigned their positions once they realised their work was being misrepresented.
I ask myself this one question. “If the IPCC was a legitimate scientific organization, wouldn’t their research show the pros as well as the cons of CO2 emissions and global warming?”. Surely someone, something somewhere will benefit from increased temps and CO2. Where among the thousands of pages are the pros? There is none. Not one. No working group, no past papers sited, nothing. Their job is to prove, somehow, anyhow, that mans emissions are bad for us.
How can reasoned, fair public policy be made with information from one side of the equation?
10
P Gosselin,
Apply the fundamental law of identity: reality is what it is without regard to what anyone wants, needs, feels, thinks, or commands. He who holds a position knowingly in agreement with reality, holds the truth. All who hold a different position hold falsity.
Science is not a matter of nose count. The ONLY thing that matters is the fact that the particular position matches the facts of reality and that you KNOW it matches. The knowing is the hard part.
10
P Gosselin@36,
I would suggest that it would be almost impossible to get 2500 good scientists to agree on anything. It would be very easy to get 2500 bad scientists to agree with whatever you like.
The following is my understanding of what went on with IPCC 4AR:
There were 2500 scientists of all stripes (not necessarily climatologists, climate scientists etc) who were involved in the review of IPCC 4AR. As one of Phils emails explained, it doesn’t matter because no one will ask, or somehting along those lines.
I also understand that many had far too little time to review it, and some of them complained bitterly about this. One Scientists review comments even has it’s own file in the climategate file package – his comments are scathing.
I also understand that many had major objections to the content of the said report and they vehemently opposed whole sections of the thing.
I also understand the IPCC Review process allows the authors to ignore comments from the said reviewers.
The IPCC PR machine then portrayed it as being 2500 scientists agree with the report. Many did not, some complained, and some even went public asking for their names to be taken from the said report. Some of these people were castigated accordingly.
10
Once again this site has given me more useful iformation than any other. If there were a real concensus to be reached I think it would be more along the lines that the IPCC efforts at controling climate change are akin to writing an action plan based on the question,”What if all the crabs come out of the ocean at the same time.”
10
I first heard of it as dihydrogen monoxide — same stuff. It’s easy to be fooled if you have no chemistry or physics between your ears.
This is our problem in a nutshell: our leaders are ignorant of even basic science, much less something more useful. Ask a lawyer or an MBA about the Michelson Morley Experiment and see what answer you get. It’s largely from these ranks that we send people to the halls of government. I would be much happier if I could believe there was some actual curiosity about the physical world in the minds of politicians. Currently no U.S. Representative and only one of 100 Senators is standing up for the truth. That’s just one out of more than 500.
10
Re #6: CO2 at “record levels”.
Ernst Georg Beck has updated his survey of historical CO2 measurements going back to the early 1800’s. See Real CO2
I’ve not yet gone through the re-re-analysis but he seems to have been more rigourous in showing error bands and selecting higher-quality data.
One notable aspect that isn’t widely considered with CO2 concentration which Beck illustrated clearly in his earlier re-analysis, is that it’s not unifromly-distributed either spatially or temporally. i.e. CO2 concentrations vary based on time and location. Daily fluctuations in one place can be greater than the whole increase “blamed” on anthroprogenic effects since industrialisation.
The official global concentration is determined at one location; at the top of an active volcano. There are some “checks” based upon other measuring stations. ISTR that Keeling guards the raw data very closely.
10
[…] […]
10
[…] Reason is not just the luxury of the elite. Information is not just the luxury of the elite. Discourse is not just the luxury of the elite […]
10
Roy, I have not studied either science since 1969, I did , however understand the hydrogen hydroxide as water but thought the idea brilliant, the sad fact is the political elite (now that is a misnomer) latched on to the potential of dangerous CO2 with scant regard to the science, check the EU referendum site for the shamefull truth about the UN’s climate tzar, this is a power grab for the far left, they want to make us all serfs and they will be the lords. I say use the AGW supporters list as the can never, ever be trusted list, you Australians are lucky, you have a few politicians who CAN be trusted, and you know who they are. We should start a “fit to serve” list, excluse anyone who supports carbon credits in any form, they should be unemployed instantly, or maybe if they beg, let them clean toilets but do not trust them above that.
No one in a position of power has any excuse whatsoever for not seeing through the CO2 scam from the start, there are 2 reasons for believing in the scam, they are corruption and unfathomable ineptitude, for the man in the street, but no one higher, lack of knowledge might make an excuse.
10
Chris Edwards,
Amen!
However, I’m not an Australian but a U.S. citizen. Your mistaking me for one, however is high praise in the current company. Thank you!
10
Hello everyone,
I found this website which is of grave concern to me. Our Government is now publishing for all to see, the bald faced lies of the now discredited CRU and the IPCC. Look at the links involving teachers. That should send a shiver up any thinking person’s spine.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/
10
Thumbnail – more of the same old PR BS.
Lots of happy faces from stock photos, not people who really know how their jobs and income will be pillaged.
10
I’d like to recommend this particular article, facing up to the implications of the “Climategate” emails:
http://www.troymedia.com/?p=6903
10
Oh, it gets worse. Girl Guides Australia have beeen hoodwinked. I have left a message on their site. Can anyone talk some sense into this atrocious government? How is it the Girl Guides leaders can sell their members so short?
If the leaders of the Girl Guides do not know the difference between a lie and the truth, are they to be trusted with our children?
http://www.guidesaus.org.au/page.php?pageid=127
10
Hi P Gosselin, Check here re “2500” scientists: http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html. Googling “IPCC 2500 scientists” will provide a lot of sites with info regarding your query (some con, some pro) Regards, Ray
10
New Years Eve, Time for predictions.
I will NOT claim a prize when the following come true lol
In the year 2010, I predict…..
GLOBALLY, MSM will link any and all extreme weather to AGW.
Any papers, peer reviewed or not which support and or raise the level of alarm of AGW will be given prominent coverage.
Other papers, peer reviewed or not, which do not support AGW will be ignored.
REGIONALLY, If you live in Australia, any event which reinforces drought scenarios, Great Barrier Reef bleeching or Murray Darling basin drying out will make headline news.
If you live in Canada, Russia or Nth Europe, Any event which reinforces extreme cold AS WELL AS melting ice will be given prominence in the MSM.
If you live in the USA, any event which reinforces stronger tornados, hurricanes, drought in the mid west or sea level rise at the coastal areas will make headline news.
If you live in Africa, expanding deserts, diseases like malaria, droughts, famine due to droughts, dissapearance of tropical forests and wiping out of species will be prominent. Busy year for Africa.
If you live in Sth America, droughts due to our interference in the El Nino cycle, heavy flooding rains, landslides caused by heavy rains and melting glaciers in the Andes will feature prominently in your news.
If you live in Southern or Central Europe, any hotter than usual summers day will be linked to AGW, any colder than usual winters day will be linked to AGW. Droughts in Spain and Portugal will be caused by AGW, as well as bad ski seasons in the Alps.
As a bonus, because so many Europeans live in temperate regions with little or no extreme weather, your MSM will be full of research papers, reports and studies showing polar ice caps melting, polar bears dying, various species dying off, specific species extinctions linked to AGW, impending food shortages due to droughts.
As a bonus for Europeans, being the harbingers of industrialization and colonisations of the past, special guilt trips will be bestowed on you, (especially just before any European nation intends to introduce carbon taxes of any sort), such as millions of Africans (whom Europeans feel guilt towards)dying because of AGW.
So whats your prediction for 2010?
10
On Christmas Day in Canberra the rain started at about 4am. And continued all day.
When I checked the BoM website for their forecast for the day (around 11am), they predicted a 95% chance of rain. It hadn’t stopped pissing down all day.
These kiddies need to turn off the computer ganes, open the curtains and look out the window.
10
Chris Edwards #17
A good argument for the existence of the Medieval Warming Period is that the Vikings buried their dead. Those graves are now frozen in the permafrost. There certainly wasn’t any permafrost when they were buried.
10
[…] 2009 became the year when if its warming its climate, if its cooling then its weather. It was also the year that the Alarmists repeatedly stuttered the phrase even if its cooling its still warming. Oh and don’t forget the clanger – if its warming its because of man if its cooling its because of nature. In 2009 we saw the alarmists re-adjust the data to try and fit the failed AGW theory. All of a sudden La Ninas had an impact on the climate whereas in previous years ENSO was ruled out by them as insignificant. 2009 science fiction award to METOffice for constantly being unable to distinguish between juvenile model projections and actual climate reality – all the while predicting the warmest whatever on record as Britain froze. Again an example of tens of millions of taxpayers money being wasted on politicalised science and citizens lives being put at risk in the process. Nature got the Denatured gong for totally ignoring nature and New Sciennce got the Nudescience gong for being caught with its scientific pants down so many times it might as well have been naked. The 2009 science realism award went to Jo Nova for her ongoing realistic articles and journalism. […]
10
Michael Lewis: #21
Probably you have been hit with the dreaded editorial policy.
Five Rules of Modern Journalism:
1. Remember who the advertisers are;
2. Remember which PR companies supply you with “story lines”;
3. Always consider existing relationships between the participants in rules 1 and 2;
4. Never publish anything that would upset rule 3;
5. If in doubt, don’t publish anything at all – and retire to the pub.
10
Baa Humbug: #33
An alternative to your point 3: Carbon dioxide underpins the whole of the food chain – plants, animals, fish – everything!
10
Hi RW #57
Yes ofcourse it does. It’s the very first link in the global food chain. I was trying to keep responses to short sharp sentences lol
Actually, it really really bugs me that such a vital compound like CO2 would be attacked so vehemently. Carbon is affectively our very first ancestor. Attacking it is a bit like having a go at your grandparents, if you see what I mean 🙂
10
Baa Humbug: # 58
Hey, I am not quite that old 🙂
10
Sorry
But unsubstantiated arguments like “2500 scientists can’t agree on anything” or “science is not about nose counts” or “the IPCC is politial=, while very likely true, just don’t cut it.
But Thanks to Ray Donahue who put forth a really convincing argument though his provided link:
“Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.”
It would be nice to know how many of the 2500 scientists actually agree with the IPCC’s conclusions. Personally I don’t think it’s a huge number. But it would be nice if there was a survey on this.
10
Gosselin @ 60,
Why should the fact that science is not about nose counts have to be substantiated in exhaustive detail on a blog who’s central focus is SCIENCE?
On what bases do you hold that a notion is made more true by increasing number of people holding it to be true?
This is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Belief. What is believed about climate has absolutely no impact upon what the climate actually is. Science is about making sure what one believes is consistent with what is.
If you need “substantiation”, I suggest that you formulate a belief that being hit by a speeding bus won’t hurt you. Then stand in front of a speeding bus. Report back on the results of the experiment. My prediction is that you will find that reality is real and that you won’t be able to report back for a very long time if ever.
10
Lionell if we were fighting a battle that involve real science and real logic you would be right on the money. We are not! We are fighting a social agenda that uses junk science to promote its beliefs to a populace that lives on polls and advertising, thus we have to meet on their battlefield and beat them at their own game, with their own weapons, as illogical as that may sound
10
Ed Gallagher @ 62: we have to meet on their battlefield and beat them at their own game, with their own weapons….
The fundamental rule of success in war is to be able to set the terms of each battle. The side able to do that best and most consistently, wins. By doing as you say, they have already won because we will have allowed them to set the terms of every battle. They have been setting the terms since the 18th Century. We have only recently started to focus on the battle. We have a lot of ground to cover and not much time to do it.
They use our strengths of honesty, honor, and openness against us. They keep us responding to their ever changing “fire and motion” bullshit to keep us distracted from their real game: the final takeover of everthing. If we fight the battles on their terms, we don’t have a chance.
Their most vulnerable point is that they are at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. Our best strategy would be to arrange things so they feel the full force of their war and that we avoid being collateral damage. How to do that is the challenge.
10
This is what happens when people claim to be scientists and spread false information.
If I was a warm monger, I would hide during a blizzard event.
10
Henry,
Seems that nature arranged for the Climate Change Believers to experience the effects of their war against reality up close and very personal. To avoid being collateral damage all we had to do was stay home.
10
Lionell. These people have forfeited their ability to think. It was only 8 years ago they conducted the olympic winter games nearby. If you want to protest warming, wear sandals and walk the sand in the Sahara. Makes for much better photos.
10
Henry: These people have forfeited their ability to think.
Agreed! That is the nature of their war against reality. To live and be successful one must think hard, long, and well. They simply believe.
They mirror the opinions of others who similarly mirror opinions of still others. Even their so called leaders participate in the mirroring while pretending to be in charge. They exist only as a part of a collective of mirror people. Reality ignores their ravings, is ultimately in charge, and will set the final terms and conditions.
As a consequence they will experience a long series if such spectacular battles in which they are screaming about global warming in raging snow storms to no one in particular. See the recent Copenhagen Climate Change Summit for instructive detail.
This doesn’t mean that they won’t do a lot of damage on the way down and out. They can and will. Our challenge is to arrange things so that the damage is limited to their collective.
We have just begun to fight.
He who is free never surrenders.
He who surrenders was never free.
10
Be thankful (those of you who love in Aus) you live in a country that is smarter than most, you have some politicians who are openly honest and thinking, your press does publish some of this scam, Canada has the same advantage, this gives us hope and more to work with, contact as much of the press as you can, dont be rude but come over as shocked, same for the politicians, both these bodies go where the votes are, if they think they can get ahead then they might consider leaving the closet, if we do not all push we are lost. I am putting forward an idea, it is the “fit to serve”list, anyone who has bought in to the scam is publicaly unfit to serve, the 2 reasons for indulging in this scam are corruption and total ineptitude, neither are curable, so how would politicians react when faced with the question “do I get onboard with this scam and maybe get rich and powerful, is losing all power and money worth the risk?”
10
sorry freudian slip in the first line, should rear”live” not love, happy new year!!
10
Hello Jo and others,
RE:#47 from Thumbnail. He posted the link http://www.climatechange.gov.au/
Have you seen the section/link “Science facts and Fiction”?
It is quite scary to read, scary to think people will believe this stuff. If they have informed themselves with the posts from this blog and the likes of Andrew Bolt, they would have to question the unsubstantiated, and some, now questionable assumptions.
How do we tackle this?
The section on ‘If scientists are unable to forecast the next week’s weather accurately,
how can they predict the climate in the next 50 to 100 years?”,says “For example, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases warm the Earth,”, when it has been shown in this blog that temperature comes first and causes the CO2 to rise.
How can this Official Government Website be corrected? As Thumbnail states they use/quote the IPCC 2007 report.
This website also promotes the reliability of the peer review process. In light of the climategate emails, this has to be questioned as well.
I want the truth to be known and told.
Frustrated,
Liz
10
There’s a simple strategy that probably makes a lot more sense in the USA than in Australia. People are moving their money out of any of the big Wall Street banks and into the smaller community-oriented banks. The theory is that banking works on leverage, so $1 pulled out of a bank is probably $10 that they lose in terms of speculation and circulation. The smaller banks are less likely to be corrupt, less connected to Washington and more conservative w.r.t. speculation.
The real key is choosing your bank very carefully.
Mind you, this only strikes at part of the problem, but the large banks do seem to be fairly deeply involved so if “people power” wipes a few of them out then that’s at least a small step in the right direction, and quite likely deprives other corrupt activity of finance.
Home owners can also consider refinancing their loans with smaller, more independent banks thus diverting the revenue stream of the interest payments.
Search around a bit, various people are discussing the idea. This strategy has the advantage that it is legal, and although there are risks involved it is a lot safer than attempting a single-handed revolution. Also, the old and the young are equally capable of voting with their dollars.
10
Another simple strategy is to avoid buying from India and China, they have fragile economies(that is where the trillions of carbon tax dollars will go) and the Chinese bankroll Obamas destruction of the USA, contact all media and politicians, shout louder than the left (not easy as we have lives to lead) good luck to us all, hey maybe get on to schools as well.
10
“The temperature is rising faster than ever before” dont agree re climategate the data is fraudelant
10
Lionell,
We’re talking past each other.
The question is: DO WE ACT, OR DON’T WE? What are the arguments?
SIDE A says: 2500 scientists say we have to act.
SIDE B says: Well, there are some scientists who say we don’t have to act and it’s possible for the other 2500 to be wrong.
Which side is going to be believed with that information?
If I need medical treatment, I’d choose SIDE A, because you know there are quacks in every field.
But if SIDE B says: “Look, that 2500 number is bogus, and here’s a survey to prove it – the number is actually only a few hundred”. Then I get very sceptical because SIDE B has a formidable argument.
Just hearing someone say “Well, you know it’s possible for all scientists to be wrong and a single one to be right. blah blah blah” aint gonna sway the masses who are being forced to make a decision.
But if you can prove the 2500 is a lie, then you’re in the ballgame.
10
The average Joe in every day life decides according to what the consensus says.
If you shatter the myth of consensus, then you can get the guy to decide differently.
7 billion people don’t have time to look at the science like we have. So they’re going to rely on consensus. It’s the economical thing to do. Many are not even knowledgeable enough to go through the science.
Recently, the sceptic side has made progress namely because it has been successful in shattering the myth of consensus. The fact that people have had to shovel a lot of snow lately has helped. too.
10
P Gosselin: The question is: DO WE ACT, OR DON’T WE? What are the arguments?
So Act. There is NOTHING stopping YOU from acting.
However, when you act shouldn’t you know what you are doing and why you are doing it? Shouldn’t your actions be based upon actual knowledge and not myth, fraud, lies, and fear? Shouldn’t there at least be a good chance that the benefit of the doing will exceed the cost of the consequences of the doing? Shouldn’t the cost of not doing be provably greater than the cost of the doing and the consequences of the doing? If you answer to one or more of these questions is negative, what makes you think that your doing will make things better? Since there are far more ways to do wrong things than right ways to do right things, isn’t the probability of doing the wrong thing all but certain? Even if you do what you do because “they” say you must?
Consider the following demands of the IPCC and UN;
1. The formation of an unaccountable global government by the UN
2. The extraction by force of arms a major fraction of the developed world productive capital and transferring it to the third world
3. The taking of all the intellectual property of the developed world and giving it to the third world
4. The all but elimination of the use of low cost energy
If implemented, personal liberty, property rights, AND modern technological civilization will cease to exist to any meaningful extent. Shortly thereafter the bulk of mankind will become extinct. The few humans who do manage to survive will envy the dead.
I say we need far more than the word of ~60 IPCC political hacks who assert without foundation that the science is settled and that there is an overwhelming consensus that we are doomed to have catastrophic global warming if we don’t do 1 trough 4. The assertions, by the way, are in direct contradiction to the statements of many of the actual scientists included in the fraudulent 2500.
If you need more, I refer you to every thread on this blog. It is filled with references, discussions, explanations, and details of why the AGW Climate Change is not only bad science, its false and a fraud to the core. It is not about science. It is not about improving the lot of man on earth. It is simply about the takeover and destruction of the economies of the earth based upon less physical evidence than Chicken Little had for The Sky is Falling.
10
Why should I act? I’m a sceptic and don’t agree with taking action.
Of course. I answer yes to all your questions. But as I said, many people don’t have the time or background to check if it’s a myth. And so they rely on the “consensus”. That’s why we have shoot down the notion of consensus.
I know what the IPCC and UN want. And I know the consequences.
I know all that. But unless you can cite a study and hard numbers, people will think you’re just making it up. That’s why I said that reader Ray Donahue was the only one who really helped, and spared me a lecture on filled with unsubstantiated claims.
Thanks for the effort anyway.
10
In my earlier post I said that we have to beat the AGW KoolAid Club with their own weapons. I did not mean fight them on their terms. They have used ridicule against those who question the junk science of AGW. With the Email revelations we have the weapon to defeat them in a manner they will not recover from. We shall use their own words. We shall use the date they have forged to ridicule their assumption that any of mankinds puny efforts could even possibly affect a process that nature has put in force. The no growth nuts have chosen the battlefield of public opinion. They did not plan on their field marshalls being such incompetent leaders as to hand the ammunition for their own destruction to us. Each email contains evidence of the fraud and posturing and deceit of the elitists. We must exploit this gift from them at every opportunity on every blog we subscribe to and in every chance in coversation. More importantly we must hammer home to our elected representatives the cost of ignoring the truth behing the AGW corruption at every opportunity. I like the idea of “Reality Checks”. We should send a copy of a check made out to the opponent of an AGW supporter campaigning for reelection. The reality of continuing to support a fraudulent agenda should be the realization that it will cause their premature reentry into the private sector. If for example, Lindsay Graham were to recieve several thousand “Reality Checks” in his email and snail mail box, he might be willing to reexamine the evidence that he has ignored to date. If they continue to swallow the AGW KoolAid, then they deserve the politcal suicide they will commit. I’m sure someone here is enough of a graphic artist to come up with an attention getting facimile of a “Reality Check” we can all forward to our esteemed congressperson and senators.
10
Henry chance: Post 5,
Henry, I agree! It’s only finite thru reasons givin by Environmentalists and Governments! Here’s a very good article. http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/05/15/oil-and-the-doomers-dire-predictions/
10
astonerii: Post 25,
I thought this site might be of some interest in relation to this time frame involving volcano’s.
http://www.poetpatriot.com/timeline/tmlndisvolcanos.htm
This “may” help explain why..
10
P Gosselin: Post 36,
Mr. Gosselin, try checking out this article and see if this is what you’re looking for…Hope it helps!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1469.post
10
Denny @ 79 and Henry @ 5
The questions and answers you propose are apples and oranges. Oil is finite but is still quite plentiful if you are willing to pay the price. Nigeria requires $75 a bbl to break even. The up front costs for the new Tiber discovery are tremendous. One day alternative energy will undercut the cost of petroleum and there will still be oil in the ground.
On the other hand – read “The Bottomless Well.” I repeat, oil is finite but as Huber and Mills prove there is no end of energy.
Now if we could just get the guvmint out of the energy business ….. You know the Department of Energy, right? Created during the Carter Administration on August 4th 1977 to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 32 years later their budget is over $23 billion a year, they have over 16,000 employees and just look how much good they have done.
10
2old4this: Post 82,
2old, hey, I like that title..I too feel like that at times…Yes, I see what you are getting at! I was thinking along those lines but still posted the article because I wanted to show the “Apple” and “Oranges”! Good post though and well taken…Thanks for the input. And yes, you have to love “Carter” 🙁 for what he did!
10
Jeff Id presents Rutan.
Worth the watch.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/burt-rutan-on-global-warming/
10
Thanks P. Gosselin, the home site link RPS3.com is another great weapon in the arsenal against the no growth eco-nazis of the AGW KoolAid Club
10
Ed Gallagher,
I love it! One problem may exist in that there may not be a better candidate to support. I don’t know how to deal with this unless we can grow up our own candidates. Any ideas?
Denny,
The question about the DOE is, does it produce any energy? The glaring truth is not only that it doesn’t but that it gets in the way of energy production.
10
Oops! It was 2old4this who posted about the DOE. I got two good posts mixed up.
10
[…] 2009 became the year when if its warming its climate, if its cooling then its weather. It was also the year that the Alarmists repeatedly stuttered the phrase even if its cooling its still warming. Oh and don’t forget the clanger – if its warming its because of man if its cooling its because of nature. In 2009 we saw the alarmists re-adjust the data to try and fit the failed AGW theory. All of a sudden La Ninas had an impact on the climate whereas in previous years ENSO was ruled out by them as insignificant. 2009 science fiction award to METOffice for constantly being unable to distinguish between juvenile model projections and actual climate reality – all the while predicting the warmest whatever on record as Britain froze. Again an example of tens of millions of taxpayers money being wasted on politicalised science and citizens lives being put at risk in the process. Nature got the Denatured gong for totally ignoring nature and New Sciennce got the Nudescience gong for being caught with its scientific pants down so many times it might as well have been naked. The 2009 science realism award went to Jo Nova for her ongoing realistic articles and journalism. […]
10
[…] […]
10