The latest Climate Commission report has created a media frenzy all over Australia — though on the plus side, I know a few skeptics who have been interviewed on radio stations in the last 24 hours.
As usual, the well funded team produce a long 72 page effort that says very little that’s new. Curiously the graphic designers didn’t try as hard as they normally do. Where are the full color shots of a fragile Planet Earth? Where are the mandatory fields of baked-dry-mud? Maybe clip art is trendy now? Or maybe, just possibly, this document was slapped together at the last minute by a desperate department on the run from the crashing polls?
Apart from the sea of logical errors and half-truths, what is a sad mark of the times, is that despite all the taxpayer money, they can’t even produce a statement they will stand by. This is NOT a document that underscores decisions with billions of dollars at stake. It’s just for general information, and if the weather gets cold instead of warm, if people drown in floods they didn’t predict or build desalination plants that won’t be needed, it’s not their fault. “Don’t sue me”.
IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document, the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material.
I’m not one for suing in any case. If you invest in solar panels, or wind farm derivatives, and you lose money you have only yourself to blame for not reading the Internet eh? But the bottom line is that if we pay our public servants to give advice, shouldn’t we expect them to give advice that would stand up in court ten years down the track?
What will Steffen put his name to?
I will write to him to ask:
To Professor William Steffen,
Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute,
Panel of Experts, Multi-party Climate Change Committee,
Member, Climate Commission
Climate Commission Secretariat
GPO Box 854, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
Phone: 02 6159 7624
Professor Steffen,
The Australian government is spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money following your advice. Since you are paid with Commonwealth funds, you are no doubt doing your best to make sure you describe the situation as accurately as possible, without over or understating the case, and without omitting any uncertainty.
I note that the latest report, The Critical Decade, which bears your name, is for “general information” (is that for entertainment only?) and you accept no liability for anyone who relies on it. Since we pay you, we’d like you to issue a more rigorous statement, one we can rely on. Investors, farmers, business people and voters all have decisions to make.
Please do advise, as soon as possible, what statements you are prepared to put your name on regarding the state of the Australian Climate and man-made emissions. I realize you can’t predict the future, but given the best information available to the world at this time, we could expect you to issue clear directives and factual information.
Would you say that there is irrefutable observational evidence that a doubling of CO2 emissions will cause at least 2.5 degrees of warming?
I am particularly interested in the reliability of forecasts, or “scenarios” given that large infrastructure projects, and in some cases, lives, depend on the information.
If you stood up under oath ten years from now, what 2011 declarations could you unequivocally defend?
Sincerely,
Joanne Nova
Perth Australia
h/t Tom Danger, Mike W, Bulldust, and Michael R and many others for the links and thoughts on the report. Thanks to Tony Cox for advice.
PS: Any thoughts on extra questions or caveats I should add to the letter? Do suggest them in comments thanks.
PPS: Was this a coded message on the back cover?
Jo,
If I ever had one of these guys in a room their head would be swimming.
But, they have no faith in anything other than what their own brethren who agree with them.
So, they would have no clue or even interest in anything that can prove science is a disgrace to our knowledge base.
10
Don’t know about the “coded message” Jo. Looks more like the usual cockup to me …
Pointman
10
Hey Joe
Re: ‘If I ever had one of these guys in a room their head would be swimming’
It’s already been done by Andy Bolt.Check the link
It’s a long time since I have seen someone so comprehensively demolished and by a journalist,but full marks to Andrew for being across the brief.
It’s from an episode of Australian Storey on ‘our’ ABC.
10
Hi Moderator
The link doesn’t seem to be appearing on the preview
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/ove/default.htm
Thanks!
10
I thought the report was pretty good for a bunch of public servants. It was more than I was expecting from a group which seems more interested in road trips than doing actual work.
The argument was laid out in a very logical with an accessible style. It does present a very clear view of the alarmist science. So, I’d be convinced by this if I wasn’t aware of the serious flaws in the science upon which most of the arguments are premised. On that aspect of the communication, I would call it a success for the climate commission(but, no sane policy is determined from one report).
For the serious investigator into the issue of climate science there are a number of red flags which pop out at you. The most obvious ones create a fairly comical theme which can be described with the paraphrase, “We are uncertain of what’s happening but, we still maintain a high level of confidence [doomsday statement]”.
As always, I’m very disappointed by this whole ‘independent commission’ nonsense which is starting to pervade our government. Independent commission is just a reworked form of plausible deniability. Which, is all part of the vanguard of fascism. If the government wants to create policy, setup a government process for which it is fully responsible.
Btw, anyone remember a time when ministers were responsible for their portfolios and departmental staff?
10
At the press conference launching this report Flannery repeated a number of times that no credible, qualified scientist, disagreed with the contents of the report (or words to that effect). He thinks if he says it often enough it will become true. On the same day I came accross this article (lengthy), by William Happer – Professor of Physics at Princeton University : http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
The article is quite a good summary of the state of the climate change debate and where climate science is today. Just another example of the many well respected, well qualified scientists who do not accept the alarmists propaganda so well summarised in the Climate Commission’s report.
BTW all I take from the back cover is that ‘increasing temperature comes from the sun’.
10
Joanne, with respect, I would change your ‘…is for “general information” (is that for entertainment only?) and…’ to ‘…is for “general information” (is that for entertainment?)only and….’
Perhaps I’m missing your point and my pedantry is misplaced, but I think it reads better and conveys your idea a little better.
In the meantime, here in NZ, OT perhaps, but Labour, as an election year promise, are intending to bring forward the inclusion of farmers into the ETS. Labour leader Goff insists that this will not increase costs for the general public. There is lot of green leafy material up in the hills – maybe he’s been smoking some.
After 18 years in Fiji, I have returned to NZ, and like Rip Van Winkle, I am bemused by the changes that have occurred during my absence. Particularly noticeable is more apparent dishonesty of the media, the lack of critical thinking of the voters (how on earth did the pollies get away with introducing the ETS?) and the complete lack of objective reporting. (James Hansen was given free rein on our local television the other night, to air his cAGW views without a single penetrating question from our so-called investigative journalist.)
10
Come on Jo….please!
Just because cart-loads of taxpayers’ wonga has been delivered to these guys doesn’t mean that they actually have to do anything useful.
Once the heavy bags of wampum have been received, that’s pretty well the end of the process.
Was it ever any different? Bureaucrats exist, for the most part, to be paid by taxes taken from the private sector, under threat of imprisonment.
That’s it….end of!
10
Jim Lunty
Perhaps this is the Bolt debunk to which you refer?
Jo
News today in Courier Mail is that there was an IPCC meeting on the Gold Coast yesterday.
Out of desperation they seem to be trying to link extreme weather to climate change but there is little of substance from this otherwise invisible meeting of the madmen!
Even Nifty Nev has a go!
My take on all of this is that the charlatans are well and truly on the run and along with their crashing credibility goes that of the Australian Greens and the Labor Party who got into bed with them. Not before time!
10
Treeman, Nifty Nev caught out being thrifty on the evidence…
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/missing-news-bushfire-slap-down.html
10
Of interest regarding extreme events is this post by Ryan Crompton on the Climate Commissions treatment of bushfires, at Roger Peilke Jnr blog…
Treatment of Bushfires by the Australian Climate Commission
“My main issue is the report’s use of a key reference, the study by Cai et al. (2009c, full citation below) entitled “Positive Indian Ocean dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires”, to support the statement that “the intensity and seasonality of large bushfires in southeast Australia appears to be changing, with climate change a possible contributing factor”
While I have no issue with the Cai et al. study itself (we cited this in our recent bushfire paper), at best, the use of it in the Commission’s report is clumsy, and at worst, misleading.”
10
I hope you aren’t holding your breath for a sensible reply from Steffen Jo 🙂
I must say the thermometer = sun equation jumped out at me as well. A subliminal message admitting that its all about the sun? How peculiar… maybe the desktopper is a sceptic LOL
Who’s that Mike W person? Never heard of him >.>
10
I thought the image portrayed the statement “Gradual warming equals daytime”. I received this editorial in an email today. Thought equating the rapture preacher with cAGW was nice.
http://www.pddnet.com/column-karl-stephan-global-warmings-judgement-day-052411/?et_cid=1581418&et_rid=45603233&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pddnet.com%2fcolumn-karl-stephan-global-warmings-judgement-day-052411%2f
10
I wouldn’t be so nice to them Jo, they deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule for their misuse of taxpayer’s money to spout half truths and half lies. What perplexed me was that the report appeared to be rather muted and “conditional” (by comparison) whereas in media interviews Steffan and Flannery were anything but, persisting with alarmist and exaggerated claims, putting the worst spin on it. But it’s a good letter, I hope you don’t expect an intelligent reply.
10
This article in The australian is a must read IMHO:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/coal-seam-gas-means-jobs-money-and-less-emissions/story-e6frgd0x-1226062262501
Once again the Greens policies are shown to be contradictory nonsense. They object to nuclear power despite its low emissions credentials, and they object to coal seam methane production, which as the article correctly asserts, is probably the biggest single contribution (apart from traditional LNG production in WA of course) Australia can make to reducing world CO2 emissions.
What never ceases to amaze me is that this party can attract anywhere between 10% and 15% of the vote… either people do not research the Party’s platform or they are well below average intelligence. I shall be charitable and assume the average Greens voter is ignorant, not stupid, but I do not exclude the latter as a possibility.
10
It’s a standard disclaimer. Surely you know about these? They are in many government publications.
For example, here’s one related to coal mining.
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/urban/pubs/weo-mining-guide.pdf
Are you going to write and complain about this publication too?
10
Formal Complaints against Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – an IPCC author with ties to GREENPEACE
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/
10
The aspect of this push which I find most galling is the self important, self deluded, arrogance with which these Government lackeys & self appointed eco-warriors trumpet with absolute finality that “the science is settled” & their certainty that human action will be capable of changing the earthly effects of the sun.
Further as a tail end boomer I grew up with just a taste of Menzies, Vietnam, moon landings & the Silicon Age. Australia has moved from the sheep’s back to the quarry & the wheat farm while the population has moved even further to the coastal capitals & of recent times to brick veneerial McMansions in bloody “Ramsey St.”
Unfortunately while the ~ 80% of Australia’s population is getting its continuous drip of mind numbing & altering digital pap it appears we have lost the capacity or at least the will to think for ourselves.
I am fairly certain that a brief perusal of our export/foreign earnings will quickly bring home exactly which industries are earning the bulk of the nation’s wealth. Further a brief consideration of the locations in which these activities are undertaken & the number of people actively involved in them will bring home the dependence our lifestyle & standard of living owes directly to these industries.
Perhaps Australia may really be the most economically risk exposed of the “developed fist world nations”(another self-delusion) to this, the greatest fraud since man has been able to record history.
However our erudite political leaders continue to peddle the CAGW myth & the necessity & economic benefits of being in the vanguard of the action.
I am bursting with national pride!…………………………… First among lemmings!!!!!!!!
Go Julia!……………just go
10
If Climate Commissioner Steffen was independent he wouldn’t have stalled
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_climate_commissioner_steffen_was_truly_independent_he_wouldnt_have_stall/P0/
Alarmist report short of … er, alarms
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/alarmist_report_short_of_er_alarms/asc/P40/
10
Same day as the Climate Commission report came out this report also came out:
Message to Climate Commission members…whatever you do don’t be seen skiing.
10
[…] While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document, the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material. Source […]
10
blimey@16, still waiting to be edified by your explanation of the CO2 lag [from the previous post]; in anticipation of your failure let me apply the tag, ‘troll’ to you.
10
Alarmists are caught in a cleft stick- if they keep lying they get caught out and people stop listening, and if they tell the truth no-one is frightened and they stop listening.
If Steffen sends a return, it won’t actually be an answer (reply, response, whatever, it won’t cover the ground raised). Time wasted on Steffen is time wasted.
10
I assume Flannery ,Steffen and Co took legal advice in drafting the “Important Notice”. Can I infer they are not sure about the advice in their document? Maybe they would be less uncertain about reporting to the Nation if they also take “relevant” scientific advice? They could start with a quest for a proper understanding of the interaction of atmospheric CO2 and infrared radiation! No amount of modelling or Gore/IPCC rhetoric is going to change the basic physics. Why have we spent so much effort debating tax structures and so little effort establishing a factual basis for the tax? It is ironic that the change in the composition of our Senate in July will enable the Labor/Green coalition to legalise this destructive tax while also removing the only parliamentarian to question its factual foundations—Steve Fielding. Steffen of course was a member of the team that failed to answer this very same question posed by Fielding some time ago. I thought the good guys were supposed to win?
10
Blimey (16):
Users of the Water Efficiency Opportunities Coal Mining – Best Practice Guide are advised that they “…must make its own assessment of the suitability of the information or material contained herein for its use…” — an advisory omitted from the Climate Commission Report The Critical Decade (disclaimer) for the very good reason, I suppose, that what the user thinks is irrelevant, the government will impose its CO2 regardless.
It’s not a report for consideration, it’s a political pretext.
10
Bruce, skiing is exciting but by writing that you have shown a lack of understanding between what constitutes weather and what is climate.
Also a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour and will produce more snow so long as temps still get below zero. So the idea that more snow is evidence against global warming is quite silly.
10
cehenite @ 21:
I believe Blimy is referring to this irrefutable proof:
C02 drives climate change because we made a model in which C02 drives climate change. Case closed. You can see why the warmists dare not point out the source of their scare-mongering. It’s so stupid it would be funny if there wasn’t so much at stake.
To Andy Hogg, please return all the money you have stolen from the people of Australia.
10
“Blimey”,
Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.
PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.
10
Response to the Climate Commission’s unscientific ‘Key Messages’ in its report:-
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/Report20110523.pdf
“All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke
10
Warning, please do not believe this report! Do not use this information to make important decisions as we can’t be sure it is correct. Do not worry that we are making decisions based on our unreliable report, we know what is good for Australia. Everything is OK, just as soon as we start our carbon tax the world will be saved….ha ha ha ha ha…ha ha ha ha ha choke wheeze…ha ha ha ha!
10
Blimey in 16,
This is not so Blimey, according to the report sea levels around oz have already risen by a handful of centre meters in the passed decade or so and they…….well actually Steffen goes out on a limb here and predicts biblical floods. The point is *IF* people start to believe this then surely coastal property prices must fall, people lose out financially. What if they got it wrong? What if the floods dont come surely the people that have lost financially have some legal recourse? They dont with the disclaimer do they, it is simply an arse covering exercise and does nothing but show they lack honesty and credibility. In fact i have highlighted this to at least 20 people where i work and they had the same response……..they laughed their guts out and said “so this report is crap”.
Blimey in 25,
And where does this water vapour come from, Oh from the positive feed back from CO2? So it goes up in the air to make us warmer but then comes back down again to what, make us cooler again? ever heard of the hydrologic cycle.
In other words we are not getting more snow because it is geeting colder we are getting more snow because it is warmer due to increased water vapor? You have git rocks in your head my friend.
10
Just heard Alan Jones interviewing this character “David Karoly”.
What a fool karoly is !
Nothing but Lies and Propaganda.
Not a shred of Truth or Integrity to a single thing he uttered !!
These are the Traitors who want to destroy our great country.
10
[…] The Climate Commission Report: promotional material that they don’t even believe themselves… […]
10
Reading a thread on Andrew Bolt’s blog about the report and came across one of Blimey’s mates (I presume) linking to this on Wikipedia. Incredible , here is me thinking you guys lived in the Lucky Country !1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia
10
Every oppotunity Bob Brown and Christine Milne get in their too frequent press conferences, they quote Germany as a good example of green politics in eliminating coal usage.
It is disgusting that the MSM (especially the ABC) let them get away with this statement as a little research would show that Germany is currently commissioning the largest coal fired power station in Europe in Hamburg, their major industrial hub.
It is called the Moorburg Power Station, and it will supply 90% of Hamburg’s electricity as well as 40% of its heat supply.
Go to the website on powerplants.vattenfall.com.
I object to their incorrect indocrination of Australians less well informed, and the MSM journalists can do better.
This station will generate 1654MWe of electricity from coal.
Chris Uhlmann did well to pull Bob Brown up last Friday, but he did not go far enough for the sake of honesty in this issue.
10
A GREAT report. All walled in Soviets would love it.
No surprises and exactly what they were expecting.
Bravo – WAY TO GO “Climate Commission”
10
Back a few years ago, there was a worry that the mercury based preservative in infant vaccines was causing autism. The US banned the use of this preservative. Then all you had to do was wait 5 years and see if the incidence of autism in the US dropped. It didn’t, proving that the preservative was not causing autism. No theories, no models, just data.
So it is with climate change. Your side and my side can jump up and down all they want – but the truth will become evident with time. If you go back to 1990, and ask the AGW alarmists and the skeptics to predict 20 years into the future, who turned out to be closer to the truth? What has happened since then has strengthened the hand of the AGW crowd. The next 10 years should seal it, one way or the other. Its extremely unlikely that world greenhouse emissions will drop in this time, and the world will either keep warming, or start cooling. Warming of 0.2 degrees+ would be sufficient to confirm AGW (for people without an axe to grind). Cooling of 0.2 degrees+ without massive volcanic activity or solar dimming would pretty much discredit AGW. Somewhere in between would be problematic….
10
Damian Allen, please post a link to one that PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon dioxide (Weed Food), are/is NOT causing global warming.
No link? Then at least go learn the difference between mathematical proofs and scientific certainty.
10
“Blimey”,
Go back to school and learn the BASICS of the Scientific Method.
You and your Gaia Worshipper mates have proposed an Hypothesis ie Humans and Carbon Dioxide are responsible for global warming.
Therefore the onus of providing both Proof and Evidence lies with you and your warmist mates in order to promote the Hypothesis to Scientific fact.
This is the way that science works.
My you are appallingly Ignorant and your “education” has been sadly neglected.
Again I challenge you………
Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.
PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.
Either put up or shut up.
Also You can claim your easy $10,000 by simply going to The Punch website and providing them with all your Evidence and Proof that you supposedly possess, that human beings and carbon DIOXIDE (Plant Food) are responsible for global warming.
Just to make it easy for you here is the link..
REWARD: Take the climate change challenge – #10,000
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/
Please let us all here know what Charity you will be donating the funds to.
Have a nice day.
10
Not much media coverage about this……
Climate experts, policymakers deliberate at T&T meeting
Climate change experts and policymakers from across the Caribbean are now in Trinidad and Tobago to participate in a climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction conference this week.
The experts will share experiences and lessons learned in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction among Small Island Developing States from the Caribbean, Pacific and Indian Ocean, including Australia and other countries in the South Pacific.
The Conference is being co-hosted by Australia and the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, and is being funded by the Australian Government, through the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Australian Agency for International Development.
http://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=28842
10
John boy @37 sez:-
Absolutely Johnie, it’s all about time – and according to Timbo Flanners on “your side” that waiting time will be about…err…1000 years…
10
[…] The Climate Commission Report: promotional material that they don’t even believe themselves […]
10
For a report on a scientific matter, of which we are told in no uncertain terms, “the science is settled”, I find the folowing extracts,
rather curious.
Ch 1, p21
Large uncertainties
Although the fundamental features of climate change, as described above, are very well known,
For example, the ways in which the large polar ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are responding and will respond in future to warming are not well known, and are
. Similarly, although considerable evidence points toward an acceleration of the hydrological cycle as the climate warms – increased evaporation, more water vapour in the atmosphere, and increased precipitation –
as is the influence of climate change on spatial patterns of precipitation across the Earth’s surface and on the temporal patterns of precipitation – droughts and intense rainfall events. These uncertainties, however, in no way diminish our confidence in the observation that the Earth is warming and in our assessment that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary reason for this warming.
2.3 The water cycle
Australia is the driest of the six inhabited continents, and experiences a high degree of natural climatic variability – the proverbial “land of droughts and flooding rains”. Thus, the link between climate and water resources has been a dominant theme in the lives of all Australians, from the arrival of the first people about 60,000 years ago to the present. The risks of climate change for water resources, and especially the ways in which the longer term trends of human-induced climate change interact with modes of natural variability, is
Ch 2, p38
2.4 Extreme events
Many of the impacts of climate change are due to extreme weather events, not changes in average values of climatic parameters. The most important of these are high temperature-related events, such as heatwaves and bushfires; heavy precipitation events; and storms, such as tropical cyclones and hailstorms. The connection between long-term, human-driven climate change and the nature of extreme events is both complex and controversial, leading to
(emphasis added!
)
10
John Brookes:
Any warming or cooling over the next however many years proves nothing unless you understand all the variables and their interactions in the climate system. We are so far from this understanding, that simply stating an increase of 0.2C over the next ten years means AGW is valid… is … well… ignorant to the extreme. The IPCC blokes and blokettes don’t even know whether clouds keep us warmer or cooler and by how much yet, let alone the finer detail of what drives variation in cloud cover. Small changes in cloud cover blast any CO2 forcings out of the water, in case you didn’t know.
I know you know enough to know this, but your convenient ignorance, or rather deliberate omission of such facts, is hugely disingenuous. A scientist you are clearly not. A man should know his limitations…
BTW the way you portray the autism example is also a huge oversimlification. I read a story about autism (or maybe it was ADHD … same principal applies) diagnosis in schools in QLD a while ago. Schools stood to benefit if students were diagnosed with the condition … guess what happened? Autism diagnoses in QLD shot through the roof… if someone had been running a clinical trial using that set of the population at the time, all their results for autism would have been meaningless. In fact it is worse… their results would probably be a Type I or Type II error (depending on how the null hypothesis was formulated). A nil result would be preferable to misinformation.
10
Meanwhile… the real reason I popped in… it seems the first of the CO2 cowboys are turning a profit already:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/9513663/co2-jumps-on-maiden-1-5m-profit/
Bring on the rent seekers!
10
Bulldust do you think it will ever be possible to understand the climate enough for you to be happy to make decisions based on what we understand. To me it is clear that what we do know suggests we should take some action. It is indeed, however, a complex system with much that we do not understand.
10
Damian Allen, were you listening to the same interview this morning? Alan Jones hit a new low with his ‘interview’ with David Karoly. It amounted to no more than 30 mins of harassment and constant screeching over answers. For example, if Karoly had been allowed to answer Jones’ silly comment that March was the coolest since 1994 (like that’s proof against AGW) he probably would have said ‘so what, we’ve just had the hottest yr & decade since records began’. A check of this source shows that Jones was lying anyway. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/3
Then there was Jones’ grubby assertion that Karoly’s expert testimony amounts to little more than cash for comment (irony intended). Mr Jones should take a look (which of course he won’t) at the well-established and admitted funding by the likes of Exxon for ‘his’ denialist scientists. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080801-3okn.html
After to listening to Jones’ farcical interview this morning (and then a few of his obsequious callers after 8.30), I’m reminded of a recent comment by climate professor Andy Pittman. He said ‘Climate science is complex. It takes us 10-20 years to get to a point that we think we understand it. Explaining science that complex is challenging at the best of times, doing it when a radio host is cutting in, huffing and puffing, clearly laughing at what is decades of sound science or simply asserting that lies like ClimateGate represent a serious problem to the science, or that climate models are demonstrably wrong is probably impossible. In contrast, stating to a welcoming radio announcer that there is no proof that global warming is a problem and NOT BEING contested on this point is child’s play’.
Any objective person who heard the Karoly interview (and Jones’ laughable coverage of this issue over time) could only agree.
10
Matt b
Do you moonlight writing material for Julia/Bob?
That was almost a “Yes Minister” – ROUND OBJECTS
10
John Brookes (37):
Sceptics not 20 years ago, not now, make any predictions because unlike the alarmists, they don’t reduce the entire climate system to one overwhelming forcing agent.
10
pattoh from your statement I can only assume you’ve not actually watched Yes Minister
10
What I sincerely cannot understand is why, given the temperature record seems to be flattening out and the sea level rise slowing down, why the climate catastrophists aren’t happy. You would have thought that they might have expressed a little relief at getting some respite. But no, they are gloomier that ever. More desparate than ever. Its sick.
And can you imagine such a disclaimer on a scientific report? Oh that right, its supposed to be a scientific report. Can you imagine such a disclaimer on a cost benefit study? Oh thats right, we are going to cripple the economy based on that cost benefit study.
10
Ok different data sets show different numbers but how silly is it to use this one below?
2011 3 -0.027
2010 3 0.599
2009 3 0.155
2008 3 0.048
2007 3 0.349
2006 3 0.257
2005 3 0.323
2004 3 0.442
2003 3 0.234
2002 3 0.338
2001 3 0.178
2000 3 0.140
1999 3 -0.015
1997 3 -0.003
1996 3 0.102
1995 3 0.037
1994 3 -0.033
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
And here is that radio show:
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8984
37% higher CO2 than for a million years? Got proof of that?
10
Ian @47 relays nicely to us the utter arrogance of the Global Warming movement below:-
In contrast we have Isaac Newton:-
10
Mattyb @ 50
Did you hear the one about whether Cyclists or Dog Walkers have right of way at TOV?
Refer – http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=39773
If you can’t work this out! How can you comment on anything to do with this subject?
by Mattyb, Brookesy, Blimey and the Professor too! The Four Stooges
10
David in 54… did you hear the one about forming a relevant argument to take part in a debate? You may want to work that one out:)
10
A C, the surface temperature has flattened out temporarily many times in the past few decades. Earth’s natural cycles means short term record show a lot of variability. The long term trend will continue upwards.
Blogger scientists and Alan Jones may not agree – but then Alan Jones can’t understand how an additional 3% CO2 year upon year makes any difference.
10
The thing that gives me the night horrors is the way this is being sold as a complete package to our kids in schools.
Go back to the war in Europe and the way Hitler had his youth movements….. he indoctrinated them – get them young enough and teach them what you want them to know – they willl then go thru life believing it to be correct.
The kids are not being taught this as theory – but as fact.
10
“the surface temperature has flattened out temporarily many times in the past few decades”
It has also gone up, and gone down. (and please, lets call it the “global average temperature”, derived from goodness from where, and certainly with no consistency.)
“The long term trend will continue upwards.”
And your proof of this is… where ??
10
Bulldust@44, John Brookes and Mattb:
Yes, the extra snow is due to the lingering effects of La Nina, and is certainly weather. However it was not so long ago that we were being told that snow would be less common, a thing of the past, because of global warming. And whether the global temperatures go up, go down, or plateau, is no proof of the cause. Mind you, if temperatures stay plateaued or go down, global warming will be much harder to sell.
10
In the science AndyG55, you should read some one day rather than just browsing climate denier websites.
10
“Ian” (47),
I say to you as I have said to the other Gaia Cultists ………
Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.
PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.
And yes this “Karoly” character is a first class deceiving Imbecile who, like yourself, refused to provide Proof and Evidence when challenged, just like you and your ilk !
Stop wasting everybody’s time with BS.
10
Jo, thank you for what you do—
—-and would you please ask Will Steffen why he cites melting Arctic ice in his ‘tipping points’ section, obviously intending Australians to be alarmed by it, but doesn’t mention the research of Drew Shindell of NASA and others , that attributes up to 55% of the Arctic warming and some of the glacier retreat to black carbon—not CO2.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo473.html
[ “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”]
Would you ask him why he left that out, and whether he endorses the burning of biomass, that is responsible for this black carbon problem—-yet forms three quarters of the IPCC-defined preferred ‘renewable energy’ available anytime soon?
Would you ask him also, whether there is enough convincing evidence of past temperatures [ ie at the starting point of their much-vaunted temperature trend] now that we’ve seen the collapse in reliability of the tree ring proxies—– enough evidence to be able to say with confidence that temperatures now are so catastrophically warmer than then, as to justify the complete rejigging of the world—socially and economically—and the relegation of Australia to backwater status?
I expect him to answer these questions and to stake his reputation on them, and many other questions on this issue, since he , Karoly, Flannery and their cohorts are advising Green Labor to trash Australia’s economy.
10
“Blimey”,
Since you have demonstrated a total ignorance of the Scientific Method, I would suggest that you stop now as you are just showing us all what a comple Ignoramus and Illiterate you are.
Do you actually enjoy making a Fool of yourself or is it a personality defect…..
10
Damian seriously WTF would you know about “scientific method”. You probably need spellchecker to even get that right.
10
Blimey at #56
Blimey – you can recreate the trend on global average temperature using only 3 variables: previous solar cycle length (pSCL), a sinewave PDO/AMO type signal and a CO2 sensitivity of 0.6 C per doubling. I’ve done this using the 350 year dataset of the CET and the trend matches to 4 decimal places. That includes the last century, and the last decade. None of the IPCC official models can do this because they all don’t like it that 2XCO2 is so inconveniently low, and they can’t get it into their thick heads that there is this really hot magnetised ball of gas in the sky that controls climate.
You might also read Jo’s previous post for more direct measurements of 2XCO2 below 1.5 C. At the most likely range of 0.4-0.6 C any amount of CO2 we produce couldn’t fry a flea let alone a planet.
What is more the latest downswing in world temperatures is quite consistent with the length of the previous solar cycle (nearly 13 years) and the downward phase of the PDO, which we’re now in. Enjoy your next decade of cold, sir.
10
John Brookes:
“…So it is with climate change. Your side and my side can jump up and down all they want – but the truth will become evident with time. If you go back to 1990, and ask the AGW alarmists and the skeptics to predict 20 years into the future, who turned out to be closer to the truth? What has happened since then has strengthened the hand of the AGW crowd.”
The most famous AGW alarmist/scientist is Jim Hansen so let’s see how close he was. Remember the “Climate Conservatives” didn’t expect anything much to happen by now nor do they expect much temperature excitement, except for that caused by ordinary natural climate variability, by 2020 or even centuries into the future because of increasing (read China and India) human CO2 atmospheric emissions).
Who was closer to reality in 2011? Good question. Hansen, the paramount sample warmist or the average man in the street variety of skeptic? Well here’s the brilliant man himself:
“James Hansen 1986: Within 15 Years Temps Will be Hotter Than Past 100,000 Years.
Posted on January 6, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary|
25 metre rises in sea level, tropical temperatures in England, and widespread crop failures are only some of the predictions from Dr James Hansen. Here’s a selection of his predictions from the archives.
This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America:
“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”
At 0.7C over the past 100 years the temperature will have to get a bit of a wriggle on before 2020.
Back to googling exercises for you JB. I’m sure there are plenty more rush of blood to the head predictions from the CO2 warming scaremongers for you to discover.
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/
10
Bruce of Newcastle at 63 – so you think aerosols have no effect whatsoever!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
10
Mattyb
Quote 1:
Off subject again & angry
Quote 2:
Damians links have been very useful.
You have to find balance Mattyb – aren’t you feeling well?
BTW: WTF stand for World TaeKwondo Federation or whiskey tango foxtrot
Blimey – you’re funny?
10
Llew I appreciate that you will not trust RealClimate as it is run by people who have vested interests, or as I like to put it as a card-carrying warmist: “run by actual climate scientists.”
Anyway… http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
10
B at #65
Thanks for your interest in aerosols. You must’ve liked the 4th link I put in so much you decided not to cite anything yourself. Majestic brilliance, I must bow in your direction sir. My favourite aerosol finding is that much of what small melting of Himalayan glaciers that can be measured is due to burning biofuels. Ah irony, how could we live without it.
10
Lol you link to cycling forum thread discussing management of speed as a result bicycle collision with a dog and claim my reply was off-topic. And they you edit my quote to make it look angry. Nice work David.
10
Llew, if you want to know what the warmanistas were predicting, just try the IPCC. But Mattb’s link to Hansen’s predictions as analysed by Real Climate is a good one.
Anyway, I certainly hope you skeptics are right. Mind you, it would put me in mind of some Bob Dylan lyrics, “in the final end he won the wars, after losing every battle”.
Damn you guys have way too much time on your hands!
Mattb – I don’t think we’d find any of these guys riding around the river (except in gophers maybe…). BTW, I asked Jo to pass on your email to me, but have heard nothing.
10
Hey Matty, I haven’t read much forming of “relevant argument” in any of your posts as yet but I think it’s good to encourage people. (well some of the time anyway) As such I gave you another thumbs up – for encouragement and all you know…
Keep trying, you’ll get there eventually…..I hope!
10
Ok Blimey, show me a link that proves that the temperature will continue to trend upward.
I bet you can’t.
10
cr.buckels at vincent.wa.gov.au
lay off the heckling spam the rest of you guys.
10
Bruce of Newcastle, you say “you can recreate the trend on global average temperature using only 3 variables: previous solar cycle length (pSCL), a sinewave PDO/AMO type signal and a CO2 sensitivity” … if you wish to contradict yourself now with a 4th link by all means go ahead.
10
It’s promising to note that even the most hardened climate catastrophists now grudgingly accept the existence of the MWP (even though they prefer to call it something else) and that the temperature has ….
… i.e. there has been no significant warming in the past 10-12 years despite a ~5% rise in CO2 concentration.
Human CO2 emissions could not have had any significant effect prior to about 1945 — a fact acknowledged by the IPCC.
In the 66 years since 1945, there has been only one 20-25 year period (c.1975-c.2000) of sustained statistically significant warming (which can been attributed to many factors like PDO and reduced cloud cover).
That relatively brief period of warming (which was in no way unusually steep cp. 1910-1945) is the only empirical evidence to date on which the alarmists base their claim that the increasing atmospheric concentration of a minor GHG (CO2) is the overwhelming climate forcing agent and that human progress should be slammed into reverse gear.
10
[…] to JoNova for bringing this to public attention. Categories: Anthropological Global Warming, GENERAL […]
10
NOAA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is the United States of America’s monitoring organisation of weather, oceans, coastal ecology etc etc.
They have bought out a new “Report on Scientific Integrity” – sound familiar? YES.
Here’s the link http://www.noaa.gov/scientificintegrity/PDFs/NOAA_SummaryReport_ScientificIntegrity.pdf
They state in the 2nd last paragraph –
Moreover, NOAA, consistant with Department of Commerce Policy, allows, its scientists and engineers to receive honors and awards for their research, perhaps most notably illustrated by the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with contributions from more than 120 NOAA scientists.
Even searching on http://www.weatherimages.org/index.html#other you can’t access some of the data – especially the sites regarding sea level, temperature, Ice Cover, etc etc – we can only find out the information in non satellite form (PDF’s) some weeks later!
NOAA control many of these links?
So the infamous William Steffen is not alone in his inadequate reporting and beliefs.
No wonder ordinary Australians are angry at being charged for something they are not allowed to investigate for themselves.
10
“John Brookes”,”Matt b”,”Blimey”,”Ian”,
How’s all that Proof and Evidence working out for you all in claiming your $10,000 prize in the global warming challenge over at The Punch.
REWARD: Take the climate change challenge – #10,000
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/
Yep, just as we all know, you Gaia Cultists are full of nothing but BS..
Back to the caves!
10
This report is actually just like an episode from Yes Minister and a quote from Sir Humphrey – “never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.” !
10
A good sign for the Liberals, a bad for Malcolm Turnbull
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yada_yada_yada/
10
Blimey at #75
B – I will use small words. The reference I gave was to Spencer’s analysis of Enghoff et al, which appeared in Geophys Res Letts last week. They injected a mix of gases including SO2 into a chamber and subjected it to output from their accelerator. They found nucleation of aerosols increased, consistent with the effect of cosmic rays in the LT modulated by solar magnetism. Now if you read my first link (at #64) you will have noticed the authors said:
You will therefore be immensely and ineffably pleased to note that one of the variables I used, pSCL, as it happens, encapuslates the very same aerosol process mentioned by Enghoff et al. To whit there is no contradiction.
Now Blimey, can you bless me with your explanation just why we should be having a carbon tax to fix global warming when the temperature is going down, and will stay down for a couple of decades?
10
Waiting for a link, Blimey 😉
10
Climate Commission now short of scares…..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_climate_commission_now_short_of_scares/asc/#commentsmore
10
Mattyb, John Brookes et al
It started 9 years ago – when I was told via http://climatechangedownunder.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the-public-in-australia-is-very-naive-about-climate-change/ that I was very naive about Climate Change – I live in Australia – and love it.
From that day on I promised not to be “naive about climate change” – in that interim period – I have recognised that the et al’s above are the very same people that stated I was naive.
How wrong you were and are still are.
I live in Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and I am growing – the temperature is rising – but not on this planet!
The contributors to this BLOG (not me) but you know who they are – should be running our policies, hospitals, energy generation design etc etc – they have educated a people – the people of Australia and we are growing MattyB – not rowing!
10
Greens hint they’ll go low on a carbon Dioxide (Plant Food) Tax…….
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_hint_theyll_go_low/
Do Not Be Fooled By The Greens (Reds).
As Soon As This Communist Tax Based On The Fraud Of Global Warming Is Introduced It Will Quickly Be Ramped Up !!
Australians Say NO To A Tax At Any Figure !
10
Bruce of Newcastle – because last time I checked http://www.examiner.com wasn’t really well accredited for assessing climate change. Of course you may well get your climate science from bloggers, but I’ll stick with proper peer-reviewed science.
10
Blimey – I gave you 3 peer reviewed climate science papers which show catastrophic global warming is rubbish. I know you won’t read them. Nor would I expect you to actually read the words of Joe Bastardi, Ray Spencer and other learned people who are quoted in the Examiner article.
Keep teaching your horse to sing mate, I’m sure something will come up.
10
STILL waiting !!
10
Jo – please, please forward the back page to WUWT.
This is priceless.
It deserves a much larger auduence.
Your letter is very good, by the way.
10
AndyG55 – you should be reading, not waiting. But I guess that’s what climate denialists do. Wait a bit longer for another glacier to melt.
10
Bruce of Newcastle – all you do is rush to try to blame the warming on anything but CO2, even if that means the papers you cite contradict each other. Good one mate!
10
Damian,
How about these four papers to start:
* Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and 2004 (Griggs, 2004)
* Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006 (Chen et al, 2007)
Both these studies as well as others built on Harries earlier study in 2001 and all found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.
Indeed in his 2006 study, Wayne Evans went as far as saying that his findings “effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Sounds like Scientists and empirical evidence FOUR
Damo and his ilk ZERO
There again I get the impression that you are so wrapped up in your own importance that a thousand papers wouldn’t be enough to sway you, let alone that gross distorter of scientific reality, Alan Jones.
10
Matt b@68
I’m not a particular fan of the Climate blogs. I simply googled “James Hansen’s failed climate predictions since 1990” and lo and behold there were quite a few pages of the stuff. I posted from the first cab off the rank. JB it seems was having a guess that he was on the winning side as far as predictions go.
I’m an engineer and did a Mech Eng degree at Melbourne Uni a few years back. Engineers get paid only when things they design work. Climate scientists seem to get paid for speculation by generous governments that set up Climate Change Departments in all sorts of unusual places such as the Public Service which includes Universities. These being useful it seems to get confirmation of pollies prejudices.
That’s about the only “job” Steffen, for example, has had which is probably why he is more at home in politics and spin than with the science. ref Bolt’s interview.
On the other hand Hansen has a little more credibility in that he’s got something approaching an honest job with NASA. Of course apart from being a scientist he is also a bit of a fiery crackpot who got himself arrested for trying to save the world from certain coal mining activities back in June 2009. My experience of life has told me to be wary of crackpot activists. Thus I don’t have to go to a Hansen apologist, as you suggest, to be set straight on what Hansen may or may not have meant. If he said those things on that site I posted then his prognosis for the climate was not even in the ball part and all his predictions are best taken with a grain of salt.
We engineers get paid because we make things happen. Climate scientists make nothing but predictions. If they can’t get any of them right, should they be paid? Or taken seriously?
I’m pretty sure that Gillard and the alarmists lost massive public support when the droughts broke right down the Aussie east coast. The realisation that it had nothing to do with CO2 as “promised” by Uncle Tim and Karoly and a host of other spin doctor scientists but everything to do with major natural climate drivers like El Nino (causing drought) and La Nina (causing flooding). As all good engineers do I checked the BOM records for the Brisbane region dating back to 1824 and discovered that there were lots of periodic floods even more severe, than 2011, when the CO2 concentration was about 280ppm even as late as 1893. Engineers get their kicks out reading records rather than listening to spin doctors.
The same is true in the history (written or geological) of weather events dating back 3000 years or more right around the world. That’s why the IPCC predictions of gloom, doom and disaster are not credible in terms of predicted CO2 driven weather events. Or the supposed new climate conditions that drive them. Been there done that without extra CO2 up in the sky from human activity.
If they can’t predict reasonably accurately then their Climate science, in practical terms, is not worth a pinch of …. As we engineers are prone to say.
10
“Ian” (93),
Well if you think that BS is Evidence and Proof that Human Beings and Carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) are/is causing lobal warming then present it to “The Punch” and claim your $10,000 prize !
REWARD: Take the climate change challenge – #10,000
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/
GOOD LUCK !
10
Blimey at #92
Remedial reading classes for you sir. I pointed out at post #64 that CO2 indeed contributes to global warming. You know what logarithms are? Ah, good, you’ve had a fine progressive socialist-green education then.
In that case you know that at a 2XCO2 of 0.5 as found by the ERBE satellite instrument you would have to increase it by 16 times to get 2 C of extremely undangerous and vastly uncatastrophic global warming out of it.
10
BoN – Lindzen and Choi make obvious mistakes as has been pointed out by their peers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
Lindzen continues to make mistakes and still has not corrected these basic errors.
10
“Blimey” (97),
For your Edification………
More Hypocrisy: RealClimate and Funding Issues:-
http://www.veritasnoctis.net/blog/2007/05/30/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and-funding-issues/
Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for ‘erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving’ – Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice:-
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3661
You are an absolute JOKE if you start quoting anything from “real climate” !
More like REAL LIES !
PS Have you claimed your $10,000 from “The Punch” global warming challenge yet ????????
10
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming…….
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
10
Blimey at #97
Well done for having your first meaningful link in this conversation! And RealClimate too! I am suitably impressed that you chose it over SkepticalScience for your inestimable effort. Such marvelous peer reviewing! You are quintuply to be commended for your fine comment about sticking to peer reviewed papers in your post at #87.
As I said in #64 you can determine approximately what 2XCO2 is yourself, if you are objective about science. I determined an upper bound of 0.7 C using the CET with Butler & Johnston 1996. So at this immensely higher value of 2XCO2 you will see that a dastardly warming of 2 C would thus require 7.2 times increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Fry your eyeballs out such warming will if you’re not careful.
10
Damian, like I said,
Thank you for proving my point.
10
Damian,
You can’t be serious. I’ve read your Punch article. Who’s the judge for this 10,000 bucks … Richard Lindzen? Ian Plimer? The CEO of Exxon maybe?
A piece has the temerity to mention that 31,000 signature petition and you take it seriously? What colour is the sky in your world?
10
Hi Joanna,
What page does that ‘Disclaimer’ appear? I will send it to Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott who stated that he would not take notice of any of constituents regarding their views on climate change.
10
Got it on page 2. Thanks.
10
“Ian”,
Clearly you are delusional and brainwashed by your Gaia Religion.
Just like all Cultists in all Doomsday Cults, Reason, Common Sense and Logic escape you.
My sympathies.
The solution is Deprogramming as for all Cultists.
In your current mental state you are of no use to anyone.
The Religion of Global Warming
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html
Global Warming as Religion and not Science
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
PS By the I will fight to my last breath to stop Communists, like yourself, from destroying my county Australa and my family’s way of life.
Whatever it takes………
10
[…] Nova Comment is here: May 26th, 2011 […]
10
I’ve sent a letter to Tony Windsor with the page 2. Also emails
to Tony Abbott, Bob Katter, Rob Oakshott and Prof.Bob Carter.
And as far as Damian’s re communists. Well, Julia and Wayne Swann
are members of the Australian Fabian society. They are on the right of socialism. I don’t know if any of you have tuned into
ABC (Australia) Question Time in Parliament. They will never answer questions posed by the Opposition. And the labour Speaker
never contradicts them. Look forward to people like Andrew Bolt
tackling this report’s disclaimer too. I’ll alert him?
10
B o N – I’ll take note of climate sensitivity studies from many people, not just cherry pick one.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Nor will I try to replicate the calculations that the experts try. Far be it for me to think I am better than the climate experts.
As for your “peer review” only comment, you must have missed the part about how these errors with Lindzen’s work have been published as a response.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/
10
Blimey at #108
Let me make it easy for you, fine sir. If you go to Jo’s previous post you will have links to 8 studies of 2XCO2 which have found values less than 1.5 C, although I confess I have looked at only 3 of those cited. And my own modest bootleg value of less than 0.7 C, I contribute for a magic nine. No one has yet showed the method I used is incorrect. Falsifiability, what a nice concept don’t you think?
10
“Blimey”,
You are an Ignoramus since you continue to quote from Blatant Propaganda websites such as “real climate” (REAL LIES).
Clearly you have failed to read the previous posts concerning them!
Here they are again for your edification……….
More Hypocrisy: RealClimate and Funding Issues
http://www.veritasnoctis.net/blog/2007/05/30/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and-funding-issues/
Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for ‘erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving’ – Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3661
PS Have you claimed your $10,000 prize from “The Punch” yet?
Oh. I forgot you don’t have any Proof or Evidence that human beings and carbon DIOXIDE (plant food) are causing global warming !
Put up or shut up !
10
I believe that CAGW makes much more sense as a right wing conspiracy than a socialist or communist one. Here’s how the gambit plays out: firstly make grossly exaggerated claims of doom and catastrophe that cannot possibly occur ( 100 m sea level rise, acidification of a highly basic ocean, never seeing snow again, etc) with sufficient hyperbole to make PT Barnum blush. Then vilify energy in all but it’s most expensive and impractical forms to make it impossible for any of the world’s economies to function while simultaneously encouraging food prices to spike ( after all food supply and fuel availability and price are completely linked to each other) propelling millions of the world’s most vulnerable people into starvation. Feed this garbage to left leaning political parties who are indoctrinated from their university Trotskyite flirtations to believe the evil of capitalist endeavors, science and any other ambitions of progressive mankind. Then watch them mire themselves in a never ending spiral of lies, spin and hysteria until the population become so angry and disenchanted that environmentalists or leftist become complete pariahs when the inevitable cycle of our climate cools once again. Environmentalism would then be completely incapacitated to exert any future influence, even in more justified circumstances due to the loss of trust engendered by alarmism at imaginary CO2 problems. Labour and Green parties would then be consigned to the political wilderness for decades. Well played Big Oil!!
10
JB @ 37
The earth is still coming out of an ICE AGE!!!!
Cheers,
10
So we sit in the dark and ask: what’s this carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) TAX all for?…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/so_we_sit_in_the_dark_and_ask_whats_it_all_for/
10
Ah Damian, so I’m a communist now am I? What, for not being gullible enough to swallow the oil industry propaganda campaign? You are serious aren’t you? So is Angela Merkel a commie? Or Malcolm Turnbull? Or David Cameron? Or John Keys? Or John McCain? Or maybe John Howard’s a gaia cultist too. In his 2007 campaign he advocated an ETS that would put Australia in a position to lead the region and take advantage of the fact. Obviously he was just a bloody commie. Did you fight him to your last breath for proposing to destroy your county Australa and your family’s way of life? Take a valium pal, you’re getting hysterical.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think a CO2 tax is the way to go either (gee that’ll destroy your stereotypical rants) but to deny the NON-oil industry funded science is head in the sand stuff.
Speaking of which, did you hear your hero interviewing the oft-debunked Tim Ball this morning? Funny how AJ can go on ad nauseum about Karoly being paid to do his job (gee what a bizarre concept that is) but not a mention of Ball’s involvement in oil-funded ‘think’ tanks.
Anyway, you go and read your well-worn copy of Heaven and Earth if it makes you happy.
10
I was asked a question by a friend the other day that i could not answer.
If Mars has an atmosphere which consists of 95% CO2 then why is there no global warming on that planet?
Now this is quite a good question because the Martian night is well below freezing so what happened to all the trap heat from the GHG?
Can anyone who subscribes to the theory of AGW provide a plausible response so i can then inform my firend?
TIA
Crakar
10
JB @ 113. We are going back into an ice age. Even Penny Wong last election night live from the tally room when asked did she believe
the dropping of the ETS was the reason for labor losing so many
seats. “No – there is genuine concern that the planet is cooling now?” No wonder she left her ministry to Combet.
10
Crakar24 @124: There is no humidity or water vapor on Mars. If there was there would be plants and clouds keeping the atmosphere cool during the day, and warm during the night. No frost settles when there is cloud cover, and that’s why deserts without cloud cover temps are very hot during the day and in their winter plunge to minus C. In this way CO2 does warm the climate but not always, it also cools it too.
Love those clouds. Greenhouse gases 95% water vapor, 4 % CO2 and
1% trace gases like methane and nitrous oxide. Less than one percent of CO2 is from human activity the rest is naturally produced by the Earth. I suspect you know this, sorry to preach
to the converted. I get so angry at this climate commission who are they trying to convince when they themselves don’t believe in their report from their disclaimer on page 2.
10
Crakar24 at #116
Steve Goddard had a nice little post on this. At 50 km altitude in the Venusian atmosphere the pressure is 1 bar, same as Earth. The temperature at 50 km altitude is around 37 C, about the same as the tropics here.
Pressure is the reason, with CO2 a minor player.
See also this other nice little post. I can’t vouch for his numbers as I’ve never been to Mars. Too cold, and Jetstar doesn’t fly there.
10
John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” website is set up in such a way that skeptic arguments are marginalized and to reduce the ability for skeptics to debate. Firstly, by the classic divide and conquer tactic of dealing with each climate variable SEPERATELY (It’s the sun….) rather than allowing anyone to discuss the multiple climate forcings acting asynchronously and in concert because discussing multiple variables becomes immediately off topic. Secondly, the frat boy bullying mentality of many of the pro AGW posters on the blog effectively eliminates debate or even polite enquiry, in stark contrast to Jo’s site where antipathy is generally kept to a reasonably low level in spite of the passions involved. Clearly, Robin Williams has found a kindred spirit not only in religious conviction but also in skilled debate side stepping. When will alarmists realize that it is the overstating of their case and unwillingness to debate openly without a “stacked deck” that has eroded belief in their theories.
10
Sorry posted in wrong thread
10
BoN – “If you go to Jo’s previous post you will have links to 8 studies of 2XCO2 which have found values less than 1.5 C”
Idso of the 1980’s? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! He was so off the planet on the subject of climate sensitivity studies!! Is this really the best Nova can come up with? If I recall correctly, in one experiment he examined dust in the desert and then deduced a climate sensitivity figure from that – without any consideration for any short term feedbacks.
Idso definition of climate sensitivity was different to mordern definition. He looked at random temperature changes and related them to random fluxes.
You might wish to note that NO scientist cites and expands upon Idso’s work for todays climate sensitivity work. That Nova, and others here might cling to them simply shows why amature hour web-blogger sites like this are no match for the professional research.
10
Blimey at #122
Thank you for your polite hypocracy as you who says this now so helpfully slimes scientists, experts, whose work he does not understand.
You will no doubt feel competent therefore to falsify my own findings of upper bound 2XCO2 of 0.7 C, or Harde’s 2011 value of 0.45 C or perhaps Spencer & Braswell’s 2010 finding of 0.6 C, especially when they found all 18 of the official IPCC’s models fail to model fast feedback on a climate forcing. All 18 of them. And you might note none of them can recreate the CET or HadCRUT over the time period of the full dataset, whereas my use of pSCL can do so. Unless you have your assumptions right your model will fail to extrapolate because you do not have the correct forcings. The IPCC blessed modellers consistently have ignored the indirect solar forcings, so isn’t it amazing that they did not predict the flat temperatures of this decade?
I do like your comment about ‘professional research’ to a professional research chemist with many publications and 30 years in the field. Yah, I know thermodynamics, stats, modelling and all of that stuff.
I do hope if you are a climate scientist or policy guy that you can get your head around the fact that CO2 net effect is really quite low. If the ALP continues with its policy of instituting a carbon tax based on false pretenses then I fear for what has been a great and stabilising party for Australia. Barry Cohen (ex Hawke Government minister) even warned that the ALP could be cannibalised by a new social democrat party should someone form one. This has happened in Canada in their recent election. I really hope the ALP comes to its senses. In fact an early carbon tax election would be a good thing because it would save the ALP from an even worse wipeout as people increasingly see the double lie – lie of ‘no carbon tax under the government I lead’ and lie that a carbon tax is needed to stop dangerous
climate changeglobal warming.10
“Ian”,
Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.
PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.
10
Tune in to Andrew Bolts videos interviewing Prof Bob Clark. (29/5)
As I mentioned that the page 2 of the Climate Commissions report
has a disclaimer, I pointed this out to Tony Windsor et al.
However, Tony replied to another of my long letters refuting the
AGW hypothesis.
He advised me to email the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee
Secretariat by sending to:
MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au
I’m sure he wouldn’t mind sensible scientific reports refuting
the Climate Change reports contents?
Maybe Jo would like to send something?
10
Damian,
Are you a brick wall? Read no. 94 for your studies. You are getting boring.
10
For the latest troll who asserts that the IPCC is a paragon of virtue.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Stop smoking that stuff and wake up from your smoke induced haze. Do some reading on the scandals of Pachauri, the so-called “peer reviewed” material gleefully accepted from envronmental groups. Read about the sinister intentions of Maurice Strong. You’ll be fighting for occupancy of the nearest cave if he ever gets his way.
No doubt Blimey will come back with another troll-bot, zombie-like response.
10
New Zealand has introduced a cap ‘N trade that appears not to bringing in the dollars it is supposed to?
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/agriculture-pay-technology-goff-4183453
Oh dear, now that Golden Circle (Qld) are shifting to New Zealand
from Australia, are they going to get a surprise?
And Tony Windsor thinks agriculture will be exempt? For the time
being perhaps, but basically it will be introduced.
10
Gillard sinking, her tax wrapped around her ankles
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_sinking_her_tax_wrapped_around_her_ankles/
10
Meet New Zealand’s ETS: costly, corrupted and useless………
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/meet_new_zealands_ets_costly_corrupted_and_useless/P60/
Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hyde – New Zealand MP on the impact of an ETS:-
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneshyde120810.mp3
10
Jo,
can you please send me a link to all members of parliament
Regards
Walter
10
Walter:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/australian-elected-representatives-emails/
If you can’t find it, go to my INDEX (top right col) and look at the bottom of the list (under the A-Z section). The link is there.
10