In the big battle for the meme-of-the-moment, Fakegate has won.
DeSmog can’t be too happy about this. Google “DenierGate” and get 67,000 results, but google “Fakegate” and get 168,000.
UPDATE #2 March 14: FakeGate is now 6 times as popular. (“FakeGate” 420,000 results v “Deniergate” 69,000)
What do you know? Stealing things, breaching privacy, and exposing nothing but tiny funding isn’t catching on. As a PR faux pas this is a case study in implosions. DeSmog have inadvertently shone a beacon on the real David and Goliath story here, where the Big-Oil funding isn’t so big, and the real money is on the side who pretends they are “doing it for the planet”. Worse, between them, DeSmog and Peter Gleick have arranged a public ethics challenge for ethically challenged scientists, and a mass-media bias-test for biased journalists. The spectacle of scientists debating if it is OK to steal, and journalists making excuses for criminal activity, is doing as much damage as the original theft and overreaction. It’s so bad, even the Koch Brothers (target-number-one) can take the unassailable high ground (see below).
Note the auto-prompts: When it’s “FakeGate” it’s news, but when it’s Deniergate, Google queries the spelling … Did you mean: “denigrate”?
(Oh yes, I think they do…)
PS: Koch Industries wrote an open letter to the New York Times, pointing out what everyone online can see. The Times don’t do their research, don’t correct their errors, misinform their readers, and use sources that lie and steal:
“… the [New York Times] subsequent reporting still omits any mention of our direct and salient statements to the Times about that apparent fabrication. Readers are still left with the false impression about the size, duration, and intent of our donation. Our good faith questions about why the Times failed to call us and won’t include our viewpoint remain unanswered. Not one of the five Times reporters that have written on the topic – Leslie Kaufman, Justin Gillis, John Border, Felicity Barringer, and Andrew Revkin – even attempted to contact us for input or reaction.
One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity. Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.”
—————————————————————-
UPDATE: Revkin has replied to critics about the Koch letter, pointing out he is an opinion writer, not a news writer, and has not mentioned Koch with this topic. He also bagged out Gleick more than most commentators, which is true. But why make any excuses for stealing and deceit, and why praise someone who only admitted their guilt when their name was top of the suspect list? — Jo
The hole the warmist activists are digging themselves gets ever deeper. wider, longer. I’m suffering from pop-corn addiction.
00
Deeper, wider and longer? Will make a great fire pit!
00
I find this general inability to face facts very troubling.
00
This is high comedy. It’s too bad it isn’t spread across every TV screen in the civilized world for all to see.
00
When we look at whole groups that possess a willingness to lie, cheat, commit fraud, for the purpose of pushing their ideology or agenda we are very close to anarchy.
We hear a lot about the wealth disparity but what is really going on is ideology disparity. More correctly; Reality disparity! Silently but inexorably, people are consciously (or through the subconscious via propaganda) separating into at least two groups. A group that prefers freedom and to be left alone, and a group that is willing to be dominated for the purpose of saving the world. These two groups (“races”) are growing wider and wider apart creating a sort of “racial tension”. Just as in time of old, people lie to protect their racial turf. Sooner or later (if this continues) we are going to see anarchy on the same stage as the “racial tension”.
It is going to take extremely strong leadership to keep the peace. Even more leadership to get the groups back closer together. Sorry to say I don’t recognize anyone with what it takes to do the job.
00
And that is “the elephant in the room” that nobody really wants to talk about.
I agree with most of what you say, but you are slightly wrong in your classifications.
There is certainly a group that prefers freedom, and is willing and able to do something to recover it, and protect it. But it is a small group of under-funded and dispersed people who will work together, but would object to becoming “organised”. That would be us.
There is certainly a group that seeks control and power, not necessarily for evil purposes (they convince themselves they are doing good), but because they see the world as a chaotic and therefore dangerous place that they want to make safer for everybody.
Then there is a much larger group who will just do as they are told, by the most authoritative person around. These are people who just want to live their life, within the law, earn sufficient money to bring up a family, and save something for their retirement.
The fourth group are people who feel that, because they have great expertise in a narrow field, they are somewhat superior to the lesser mortals, and that they should hold the more privileged positions. This group include many of the climate wonks that we have come to know and “love”, but also sports people, movie celebrities, etc. This group will manipulate the “power seekers” either through “scientific evidence” (which nobody understands), or through money (especially at this time in the political cycle in the US), or through having contacts in the right places.
It is this last group that I see a being “the enemy”. This is the group who can pontificate in scientific terms, but have little grasp of reality or even of the rules of society. The are “the enemy” because they are dangerous in their arrogance, and their incredibly narrow view of the world. I call these people “SIF’s” – Single Issue Fanatics. In my particular trade, they are also known as “Trouts” (for some reason that nobody knows) but alluded to in my comments on the previous thread regarding the prehistoric volcanic explosion in New Zealand.
00
Hi RW
Great outline of categories.
Did you leave out a cynical group whose main ambition is wealth and influence through politics?
For the first time in the experience of humanity we are fighting problems that only exist in the web and media and have no reality that can be touched or held or stopped.
Politics creates the appearance of reality eg CAGW and gives a solution and demands action but where is CAGW exactly – is it locked up in the basement at the UN building?
We are in a dark period of human activity and the war seems to be won by those in Government.
00
“Then there is a much larger group who will just do as they are told, by the most authoritative person around. These are people who just want to live their life, within the law, earn sufficient money to bring up a family, and save something for their retirement.”
These are the sheeple
00
Colin mentions this:
This is where that fallacy of Superannuation comes in. That particular industry has something that is always working in its favor.
The Here and Now.
The amounts bandied around in that ‘Here and Now’ are huge, and people envisage a lifestyle in their retirement based on the Now part of that meme.
I learned a salutary lesson about this when I recall the very first week I joined the RAAF in January of 1967 still not yet 16.
Our intake of 72 guys, all the same age, were in the large lecture room, and a Rep from an Insurance Company was there to tell us about Life Insurance.
Our starting pay was $21 a fortnight.
His job was to sell Policies. (and incidentally, he got a percentage of how many he sold) The ‘spiel’ was that for just on $2 a fortnight, he could sell us a policy that would mature when we turned 60, and would be in the vicinity of just under $5000.
It was based on the Here and Now.
As youths, man, that 5K was the equivalent of 5 HR Holdens, the new model slated for release soon, or even half a new house, but the Holdens were all we thought about.
That was a fortune at the time, especially since we were only earning $21 a fortnight, (before Tax).
He got a bunch of us to sign up, well more than half the course.
I cancelled the Policy in the early 80’s now aged 30 something, and even then, that end amount of 5K would have purchased not very much at all. I got a refund of around a grand and I had to pay tax on that as well.
Now I’m 60, and had I kept that policy, I would have received that 5K just last year if I wanted to cash it in and not roll it over into something else, and that would get me about 16 to 20% of a base model Commodore.
The 5K at the time was huge, but is worth almost nothing at the time of cashing in.
The same applies now with Super.
The numbers are huge NOW, but when they mature, it will probably be just the absolute minimum to maybe get by on.
And now those Super Companies, making monumentally huge amounts are investing in ‘Green’ schemes, that have every probability of crashing and burning.
Then there’s tax going in tax coming out etc.
It’s a clever move by Governments so that with just enough to get by, it might even be the equivalent of the Pension, that they then will not have to pay.
I have my Air Force Super which now pays me a fortnightly amount, just slightly more than the Pension.
My local member is from the ALP, and all going as is now indicated, that member will be voted out at the next election.
That person will have served the Country for just under half the time I served.
The Super that person will get will be just on four to five times higher than mine is, and that’s before all the extra perks are added in.
Superannuation for ‘the plebs’ is there just to keep the masses thinking that one day they will be able to live in comfort.
As Wayne Swan has said a few times, he wants those vast amounts in Super to be invested in Infrastructure for Australia, so, in effect, when you retire, you can proudly say that part of your investment in Australia’s future is a wind plant somewhere.
I have no bitterness, contrary to what I mention above.
Life is good, and in fact, life is great.
I have something to do, and that is to point people at something that they are not being told about.
Rereke mentions it perfectly about the last group. They will do absolutely everything to protect the money, and that includes using any excuse they can lay their hands upon.
Our task is to ‘call them out’.
Tony.
00
Tony I think I met that bloke.
I was one of an intake of 6 who joined the navy as trainee pilots on, would you believe, April fools day 1958.
Within a few days we got that insurance bloke selling us this special policy that actually covered folk like us in dangerous activities.
This pandering to our egos worked & about half signed up, although I doubt many were still at it within about a year.
00
I still remember tha add from many years back for “Carnation milk, the milk from “Mooo”, contented cows”.
I have often wondered if those Mooo cows were not the lucky ones.
00
Rereke,
The last named group are also the ones responsible for the anti-discrimination laws that stifle debate, they are the apologists for the extremes of Islam yet denigrate Christians at every opportunity, they champion diversity but ignore the many good things in our society, they spruik a history of our nation which emphasises the faults and ignores the many accomplishments. In another time and place they would be traitors but nowadays are seen by some in the press and government as true patriots. IMHO they are certainly not the latter. Another observation; only for the taxes of productive and innovative people most of the elite would starve. They are not and can never be wealth creators only supplicants.
00
Forgive them, Lord Whakaaro, they know not what they do.
Nor the consequences of who they vote for.
Nor why they give their answers in opinion polls.
Nor why they accept “The Science” without understanding its method.
Wait… I thought ignorance was supposed to be bliss, not impending doom.
Being sheep just lets them be taken by wolves all the more easily, the poor creatures.
And who is the more sheepish, the first sheep or the sheep who follows the sheep? What does that say about Greens, Labor, and LNP all being united on the “need” for CO2 emissions reduction?
I think we are all sheep in some matters, but our differing interests cause us to choose different topics to examine more closely and take a stand. Most reading here have elected to be more critical of global warming. We’ll have our lone tiger hat on one minute and our sheep hat on for the rest of the day, and notice no transition. eg “Dr Karl” of JJJ and flashy jackets fame – great explainer of matters medical and anatomical, but jumped on the global warming bandwagon.
While we may aspire to omniscience, none of us are gods.
00
Truthseeker says at WUWT: (Gleick confesses post)
February 29, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Greg Laden does not do a lot of moderating it has to be said.
Just read this comment:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php#comment-6235931
Don’t sugar it up Markus, tell it straight!
——————–
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ Friedrich Heyak
If the likes of Greg Laden are in their camp, people need to be wary while these crocodiles attempt a death roll. Where does Karma say I have to turn the other cheek?
Last December Greg Laden lied that I threatened his Life, in his post where he defamed Tallbloke..
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/computers_of_criminal_cyber-th.php
Specifically;
Comment 73
You [redacted]
Some of us with integrity will hold you personally responsible for the fraud you have committed against humankind. I have a family, [redacted], and your insane religious beliefs about AGW harm them. Some of us see that as enough reason to terminate your existence.
Posted by: Marcus Fitzhenry markusfitz[redacted]@gmail.com | December 15, 2011 10:44 PM
Coment 74
Marcus. That was a death threat. Please do not contact me again under any circumstances or in any manner. I’m sure that someone will be in touch with you at a later time.
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 15, 2011 10:49 PM
This was my actual Email;
from [Available] markus fitzhenry markusfitz[redacted]@gmail.com
to greg@gregladen.com
date Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM
subject YOU [redacted]
mailed-by gmail.com
“I can not be sued by anyone for what I wrote here.
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 15, 2011 10:03 PM””
You [redacted].
Some of us with integrity will hold you personally responsible for the fraud you have committed against humankind. I have a family, [redacted], and your insane religious beliefs about AGW harm them. Some of us see that as enough reason to terminate your existence within climate science.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
There are three types of people of people:
1. Those prepared to update their worldview. The humble.
2. Those who cling to their worldview. The self-righteous.
3. Those who have no worldview. The psychopath.
There are plenty on this blog who fall into category two, on account of CAGW scepticism being part of their political agenda and nothing to do with questioning their worldview. You will find those folks reading Andrew Bolt.
00
I not only read Bolts blog, I sometimes contribute to it. Why don’t you tell everybody what my political agenda is.
Jo Nova was an environmentalist who believed in CAGW. She “updated her “worldview” a few years ago, now she is an environmentalist who is sceptical of CAGW. How does she fit your waffle?
00
“I don’t recognize anyone with what it takes to do the job”
The failed predictions are doing the job. I got to see some people again after a long break recently. Previously they were convinced of a permanent drought for south eastern Australia. They frowned at me for being in denial about global warming and what the permanent drought will be like and were shocked that such an ignorant opinion could still exist as I predicted much more rain. I was scolded and spoken down to for doubting the “science” and wisdom of the gov’t. They live in the bush and get trapped if a small river rises. Being trapped again and again and again has got to them. They will be trapped again right now!
Now they speak of the gov’t being being held in place with “rusted on voters” and wonder how to get rid of it without voting for the enemy. So they do not “recognize anyone with what it takes to do the job” either but that vacancy will be filled by people like them!
00
The problem Sliggy is that these same people will fall for the next “big moral issue of our times” because their view of the world is still that the majority of humans are ignorant and awful and need to be told what to do in order to “save the palnet” “save the whales” “bring in push bike utopia” or what ever. All that is needed is the right cause and a good catch cry and they will be off proposing to restrict our freedoms in some other way to save us from ourselves. This is why they see any political party that might be for increased freedom and personal responsibility as the enemy.
00
I like that – PALNET.
That’s how they operate; somebody says or does something stupid and all the Pals chorus about how right it was and how his heart is in the right place. The roar of acclamation confuses people who know very little about the issue.
00
Cameron,
This is indeed what has occurred in the past, as evidenced by Lee Rhiannon’s migration from Communist to Green. However we now live in the age of the Internet and I believe this to be a game changer. There will of course be new “Causes” involving words such as Bio-Justice, Social-Justice and Sustainability. However all the main players who would champion these causes are locked to their past involvement in the AGW hoax by the Internet. This in part explains the growing panic and desperation writ large in the recent Gleick stupidity. Those involved in the hoax never considered the price of failure in the age of the Internet and they have no exit strategy. A fun Google game to play is to do a search for the language of vilification such as “denier”, “contrarian”, “big oil shill” or “flat earther” along with the name of any environmentalist, politician or journalist of the left or “High-Profile” climate scientist. The Internet will prevent a great many from simply moving on to the next “Cause”
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it
For the Left there will be tears. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
00
Well put, bravo.
00
The arse you kick today may be the arse you kiss tomorrow. Who can know which side of the next Cause they will be on. Sometimes forgiveness is a survival strategy.
I’ve also heard from research on reputation systems that the protocol works best if there is a forgetting process built into it. The forgetting leads to both reputation decay and forgiveness. This means no-one is brandished forever, but you’re also only as good as your last two projects. Thus goodwill and authority are continually validated.
People can change, but I think for most it is too difficult to bother trying. The people with the most motivation to change are the statistical outliers. (That may also be why absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that’s a whole other tangential topic.)
00
Can’t resist reminding of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy! 😀
Brgds/TJ
00
Cameron
“The problem Siliggy is that these same people will fall for the next “big moral issue of our times” because their view of the world is still that the majority of humans are ignorant and awful and need to be told what to….”
Well I am ignorant and awful and need to be told what to do but did not fall for the wrong advice from the CAGW scam because I have learned to question what “experts” say and listen to ALL not just both sides of any argument! My hope is that once bitten twice shy will come in to play. So rather than people like this swinging from one extreme to the other that they have learned to check the fad phenomenon before following it.
Who knows the next “big moral issue of our times” may be real!
00
There comes a time for everyone when they roll out of bed, look in the mirror and are faced with reality. I wonder if the NY Times is going through that experience at present. Surely, the journalists have to making some self-analysis of their recent writings and wondering if their opinions are being skewed by their emotions rather than the facts. Perhaps they might come out of this with a little more skepticism about their own sense of self-righteousness.
00
Heartland Institute should not hold their breath awaiting a correction from the New York Times. Millions of Jews, White Bolsheviks, and Kulaks are still awaiting an apology for Duranty’s ‘reporting’ of how wonderful the USSR was in the 1930s.
00
Anna Puma
And how right you are Anna.
My own family is still awaiting an “apology” for the atrocities committed against them at the time.
No, not really, we moved on in more ways than one but every time we are reminded of it it hurts to see that the very people who had the influence to do something about it were either on the side of the perpetrators or kept silent.
Shame on them.
Shame also on those journalists today who should or maybe know better but for ideological reasons carry the line they do.
00
It became obvious around the time of Climategate I, that Google was “managing” the number of hits on the term. They do this on the basis of the complete word but a useful google hack around it is trying the following query. Note that the space before and after “fakegate” is vital to bypass the filtering. Enjoy.
“fakegate ” OR ” fakegate”
Result ? 397,000 hits …
Pointman
00
Searching “deniergate ” OR ” deniergate” now brings up this JoNova page!
00
People might find that the number of hits is dependent on where they are in the world. What you get is the current count of references on the server nearest to your location. These servers are constantly being updated, but it takes considerable time for copies of documents (or at least the key access metadata) to be distributed across the web. Also, you sometimes get double-counting as a byproduct of the updating.
00
When I search this morning I get ” Fakegate ” (242k) v deniergate (39k) “deniergate” (50k) ” deniergate ” (67k). It’s just getting worse for DeSmog et al.
00
Welcome to the dark side of Google. The farce is with them …
Pointman
00
Which only proves that “skeptics” are more organised and vocal.
00
I have a challenge for you John.
For every sceptics organization, I will name five (5) environmental/alarmist organizations.
The person who runs out of organizations first will donate $50 to Jos blog.
Have you got the courage to back up your claims John?
Or are you just blowing out of your [self snip]
00
John,
You make an interesting point. In fact, I marked my calendar to note this unique event!
The skeptics are spending a few million and the warmists are spending billions and yet the skeptics are winning the war on every front.
I share Baa’s frustration with you and I hope your meds are working, John. That being said, if I opened my refrigerator and saw a picture of you on a milk carton with the caption, “Have you seen me? Missing since….” I would have to bite my tongue until it bled just to work up a tear for you, John!
The day you post a sincere comment will be the day I begin to develop a measure of respect for you.
00
In that case John, why when I type in Fakegate into google, it autocompletes Fakegateway or Fakegateway OpenVZ?
And he is (As usual) blowing out of his derriere!
00
@Pointman, at 1920hrs GMT on 29 Feb 2012 your query string in Google gave 415000 results!
00
Hi Stephen. It’s interesting to note that applying the same wheeze to “deniergate” yields no significant change in results. Make of that what you will.
Pointman
ps. Let’s keep that hack to ouselves …
00
James Murdoch has quit his position at News International. This is an indication of the fall-out that results when organisations obtain information illegaly. Hopefully some of Gleick’s supporters will get the hint.
00
The alarmists have lost the propaganda war and understanding why does not require an academic treatise: the evidence that the world faces catastrophic climate change has been fabricated and/or exaggerated and most people in the world now know that. Yet the corruption of Australian public policy and the resulting economic damage has not yet been undone. At best, it is a salutary lesson about the dangers of groupthink; at worst… well, there will be many criminal investigations. To use footyspeak, Australia’s scientific elite needs to have a good, hard look at itself. Best to start now, I’d have thought, not wait until the whole scientific institution is a public laughing stock.
00
Gleick, Mann, Jones, Briffa, IPCC, ……..Gillard, Swan, Combet, Garrett, ….. Labor
What a mess!
00
You forgot to mention Craig Thompson. Lots of parallels between Thompson and Gleick- not least they will be long retired (maybe even dead) before justice strikes.
00
& perhaps one of the recently departed……….
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/link-by-link-the-powerbrokers-of-the-right-emerge-20111121-1nr08.html
00
Sorry for the off topic post Jo but her answers are going to surprise you.
The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness – An Interview with [Dr.] Judith Curry
00
For “deniergate” Google asks “Did you mean: denigrate”
An entirely appropriate suggestion on Google’s part don’t you think? The Free Online Dictionary gives the following definitions.
den·i·grate (dn-grt)
tr.v. den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates
1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
An entirely appropriate suggestion on Google’s part don’t you think?
Maybe we should have the word DENIGATE, to describe the massive, often secretly funded, effort to denigrate and marginalise critics by making unsubstantiated accusations about their motives and calling them “deniers”, contrarians, anti-science etc. As many like Desmogblog and Bob Ward have switched their major effort from spreading alarmism to silencing any opposition, DeniGators is an appropriate, but mild word to describe them. By invoking the Watergate analogy as well, it suggests that their actions are getting them into an ever bigger web of intrigue and distortions that will be their eventual undoing.
00
Aproximadamente 275.000 resultados (0,14 segundos
Googling fakegate” from Sapain
00
Look at the NASA budget for “Global Warming (or whateverit is called this year).” Add in the federal spending on “global whatever.” Now look at the NASA Budget for the Mars Mission. Now ask “why do we have NASA? What does NASA stand for?
00
Steve MacIntyre has a new post on the legal aspects of Dr Gleick’s actions. It does not look good for the good doctor.
This is also an interesting test for the FBI – if they go with their masters’ political inclinations they will be ripped to shreds in the subsequent civil damages trial, but if they prosecute they will be torn apart by the left. I feel a FWA-style investigation coming on…
00
Note also that “Fakegate” gets 167,000 hits in .15 seconds, and Deniergate gets 67,000 hits in .23 seconds. 2.5 times the number of hits in 2/3rds the time means that “Fakegate” is a more established search string on the Google servers, meaning the servers are getting hit with searches for “Fakegate” much, much faster than “deniergate.”
00
Never mind the impact on the servers, what about the impact on CAGW?
Has FakeGate become a worldwide Warmageddon, or is it just a regional Gleickastrophe? 😀
00
Belief in Global Warming on the Rebound: National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2012/02_climate_change_rabe_borick.aspx
This contrary specific and is highly specific to the topic.
Highly Skeptical Climate Change folk should understand about an enclave approach to this subject is counter productive.
No-none should stop visiting web sites on the latest research by Scientists globally. That is your right and privilege.
Read on…………
The survey, which was fielded in December of 2011, found 62% of Americans agreeing that there is solid evidence that average temperatures on earth have been getting warmer over the past four decades, with 26% of U.S. residents maintaining an opposing view on the matter. The 62% “belief” mark is the highest level recorded since the fall of 2009 when 65% of Americans reported that there was solid evidence of climate change.
Contrary to the apparent partisan influence on perceptions of climate change, other traditional demographic categories such as gender, race and educational attainment offer little in the way of providing cues about an individual’s standing on this issue.
Now here is what CONVINCES and CHANGES the minds of those who think Climate Change is made up or not happening:
Warmer Temperatures Observed:
2008 19% 2011 24%
Weather Changes Observed:
2008 18% 2011 24%
Human Activity
2008 4% 2011 9%
While Americans who think the planet is warming largely disagree with the premise that the media and climate scientists are overstating evidence about global warming, most citizens who do not see evidence of increasing temperatures on Earth believe that scientists and the press are distorting evidence on the matter.
In terms of scientists, more than 8 out of 10 Americans who don’t think global warming is occurring believe that scientists are overstating evidence about global warming for their own interest.
Comparatively, less than 3 out of 10 Americans that think global warming is occurring held the belief that scientists are building up the evidence of global to pocket more funding through self interest.
The total number of completions results in a margin of error of +/- 3.5% at the 95% confidence interval.
Go to the above web site for a full report.
Ross J.
——————————–
REPLY: Wow! Another survey that doesn’t ask a useful question. Even I would say “yes” to this one, (thought it’s pathetic, with no time frame.. warming since when, since last year?) The shock for me is that a quarter of the population don’t even believe the line that it’s warming anymore. – Jo
00
So tell me Ross.
Are those Politicians who agree with this Science that they have absolutely no comprehension of:
1. Actually doing something to address this catastrophe by immediately ceasing those emissions.
2. Imposing new taxes to place a cost on those emissions to raise money for their own bottom line, and not to actually address the catastrophe.
Answer truthfully now.
Ross, until you show me something constructive that is being done to cease those emissions, I will keep calling you out.
You can babble on all you like about how disastrous it is going to be, but until you actually look at what might happen if we are to follow what you call for, then all you have (figuratively speaking) is hot air.
You can point us at any so called supporting evidence you may have, but you’re not even looking at the consequences.
Trust me on this Ross. The first time some Government does do something to cease those emissions, there will be anarchy, absolute anarchy.
That’s why those politicians are not doing anything to cease those emissions, because if they did, they would be bouncing on their fundament at the next election.
Go looking for what those consequences will be Ross, not just the consequences that YOU tell us will happen, but the actual consequences.
That is something that should frighten you Ross, and frighten you more than what you are currently perceiving.
Tony.
00
HI Tony
1. Actually doing something to address this catastrophe by immediately ceasing those emissions.
Habits are affected by taxation measures. The measures by forward planning are small steps. Example: Norway implemented what would be termed a highly socialist agenda in their education system in the early 70s. I’m very surprised they have no PRIVATE schools. There system is rated as the best education system in the world. The number one underlying goal: EQUITY with MOTIVATION and FREE ACCESS regardless of your status economically in life. This flies in the face in counter to the American system of education which is slipping behind world standards more and more. Lurching further to the Far Right will further wound their own well being and nation. What is at stake is the vulnerable end up paying to support the established enclaves. Shifting wealth to even spread in the USA has failed. IT is becoming more and more INEQUITABLE.
I am not promoting socialism though it would seem on the surface. I am promoting EMPOWERMENT by DEMOCRACY in ACTION with RESPONSIBILITY.
What am I saying then in regard to Climate Change and policy then? Government intervention must be OWNED by the people for the people. BY taxing various industrialists we are taking a small insignificant step in Carbon mitigation. More has to be done. Allowing free market to take over is illusionary and meaningless.
There is a third way – not borne of Old forms of Socialism or lurching more to right that is free market chaos. This is not an answer.
Private Schools – abolished. Enclaves.
Public Schools – abolished. More & more of centralised systems that are failing.
The Third Way: Equity, self determination, self governance but with government standards of policy and funding support to further its motivation to improve.
The same thing should happen with our hospital systems. No more Private Hospital Enclaves. No more public hospitals.
The systems BOTH are fraught with irresponsibility and DO NOT achieve EQUITY for people.
IF you had a heart attack in the US – It’s anyone guess who would get the best attention and hope of recovery.
The educational system instigated by Norway holds the key to your answer: In a nutshell – it is empowerment and autonomous in working by the people for the people and governed by its own locale. You empower folk to do. You empower folk to change. You empower communities. The tax carbon system places back in the hands of all reimbursable tax credits for a time. The Coalition’s method of direct carbon abatement action TAXES you the wage earner and gives to Industrialists. That is the simplistic way of all conservative thinking.
2. Imposing new taxes to place a cost on those emissions to raise money for their own bottom line, and not to actually address the catastrophe.
The catastrophe you speak of will not affect us greatly until 2050 according to nearly all projections of all CAGW. To be doing a small incremental step now is most likely after the patterning of Norway’s Educational system in the 70s. It should not happen all at once as it would kill the economy as changes should transpire slow rather then just standing still.
We live in global change at the moment. The deregulation mantra is overheated at the moment. It is the very thing that overt deregulation brought to the US – corruption in the financial institutions. Looking forward it is the productivity and capacity of everyone. One could say much more. The labour market has become more de-regulated then at any other in our history. The cost is great on anyone over 50 years- they are sidelined.
Back to Climate Change – my best understanding whether we like or not – is going to bring some of most extrapolated and prolonged changes to the world’s democracies never before seen in history. But it will take the final evidence and verdict of the people power. Just how much change we are prepared to carry out when the huge social-economic shift occurs is guesswork. The dynamic climate change starts on scales never thought possible begins for all when this happens. It will be left to the next generation to carry on baton.
Ross J.
00
Most notably the corruption of government. Now go say 20 pink bats and give me a solar rebate scheme when you’re done. You are forgiven my child.
00
Just because you can puke endless ramblings doesn’t mean you should:
You don’t know about the “American system of education”. If you did, you’d know that it has been firmly in the control of the LEFT by the powerful teachers unions and their lobbies. The Congress has constantly funded more and more Left ideas on education without making progress.
Conversely, Catholic and other private schools do better with far less money per student than public schools. Charter schools (which are public) routinely out perform regular public schools.
Precisely what Charter and private schools do. In other words you have contradicted yourself.
Your comparison of tax money spent on Norway’s schools and carbon tax is not valid either. Norway was already spending money on schools and the outcome is tangible within a short time. Carbon taxes are new and the effects on climate will potentially never be seen.
On the surface, and right to the core. You spare not one moment pointing out the flaws of the Right, and you incorrectly attribute failures of the Left and disregard the successes of the Right.
More made up and unsubstantiated garbage. Ross, you amaze me with your lack of understanding mixed with bold false notions.
I KNOW why you are moderated and you should be moderated. You can’t help yourself from puking garbage in nearly every one of your posts.
00
You’re comparing apples and oranges, Ross. Norway doesn’t have large numbers of immigrants that they try to educate (maybe because not that many people are interested in immigrating there). America does its best to educate everyone, as equitably as possible — your ranting to the contrary just shows your ignorance.
Here is an interesting breakdown by ethnicity of how American students do on the Programme for International Student Assessment tests (PISA), (adminstered by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]).
Some interesting results:
1) Asian Americans outscored every Asian country, and lost out only to the city of Shanghai, China’s financial capital.
2) White Americans students outperformed the national average in every one of the 37 historically white countries tested, except Finland (which is, perhaps not coincidentally, an immigration restrictionist nation where whites make up about 99 percent of the population). [Note: Norway came in behind the US.]
3) Hispanic Americans beat all eight Latin American countries that participated.
And African American students would have likely beaten all African countries, if any had chosen to participate.
I would say that American education is leading the world, not falling behind. People are voting with their feet, Ross, and coming here en mass — they are much better informed than you. Many US universities’ student populations are nearing 30% foreigners.
Of course, this factual information is waaaay too politically incorrect to ever have come to your attention, and I imagine you will ignore it in favor of your leftist fantasies.
00
Jo -Wow! Another survey that doesn’t ask a useful question. Even I would say “yes” to this one, (thought it’s pathetic, with no time frame.. warming since when, since last year?) The shock for me is that a quarter of the population don’t even believe the line that it’s warming anymore.
There was a time frame given Jo. You must have missed it………..found 62% of Americans agreeing that there is solid evidence that average temperatures on earth have been getting warmer over the past four decades, with 26% of U.S. residents maintaining an opposing view on the matter. Double Wow – This survey confirms the gains on non-existent Climate Change made after Climategate have EVAPORATED!
As I’ve said before Dr Roy Spencer has stated he will change his mind on climate sensitivity if the next decade still shows statistical measurable warming. It is all about global heat gain and evidence. That is the smoking gun in the whole debate. This survey re-enforces the timeline of diminishing return in one side of the controversy. If it gets much much colder and Arctic Sea ice rebounds to > then the last 10 year average, glaciers stop melting and rebound all over the globe, if record temperatures begin to go backward, if hot spots in the oceans all get much cooler and I see taps freeze in QLD winters and our QLD Summer radically shorter at begin and end I will accept I was wrong.
Reading climate charts (trends) and the diminishing La Nina strength which has brought remarkable rains to ALL of Australia – the deserts are blooming in this La Nina window, drought will eventually return to Eastern Australia with a vengeance. (WA is contra top our La Ninas often) I also predict one of the most powerful El Ninos since modern climate instruments began collecting data will show up towards mid 2013.
Ross J.
[Ross, when will you learn, if you say something like: “Dr Roy Spencer has stated he will change his mind on climate sensitivity if the next decade still shows statistical measurable warming.”you absolutely HAVE to provide a supporting reference.] ED
00
[Ross, when will you learn, if you say something like: “Dr Roy Spencer has stated he will change his mind on climate sensitivity if the next decade still shows statistical measurable warming.”
you absolutely HAVE to provide a supporting reference.] I vote we do not approve until he does provide proof of this. ED
The Supporting evidence is found RIGHT HERE……………………
Watch with great interest:
Debate between Dr Scott Denning and Dr Roy Spencer – HEARTLAND INSTITUTE CONFERENCE
http://youtu.be/potLQR7-_Tg Postion Goto 45mins and 53mins approximately on the Video.
Some will be very surprised by some of Dr Spencer’s other statements as well.
He fully endorses the fundamentals of Radiative forcing of CO2.
Ross J.
00
No Ross, I’m not even a tiny bit surprised that Roy Spencer supports the “fundamentals of Radiative forcing of CO2.” I’ve made my position very clear on that in this blog. Please stop trying to bait people into going off topic. That has nothing to do with this post. Jo
00
Jo,
I was challenged to provide evidence of such a statement – I have.
Roy Spencer has stated if there is statistical evidence of continued Global Warming over the next decade he will admit he has been wrong about his estimates of low climate sensitivity.
Don’t miss that most important point. Please.
I will no longer labour this point as requested.
Ross J.
00
And I released your comments as agreed. Jo
00
So? And your point is?
He also says a lot of other things, most of which you disagree with.
So not only are you cherry-picking your data, you’re cherry-picking from your data sources too.
Besides which, it doesn’t necessarily make him right – about radiative forcing or anything else.
That’s what being a skeptic is all about.
00
Ross James,
Seriously, you post a link to a Heartland Foundation sponsored debate between a warmist Dr Scott Denning and Dr. Roy Spencer on the “science” of global warming?
Let me quote Ross James:
Ross, do you not consider published video a “publication”?
Then you insist that Spencer says this
Which appears to be a cunning misrepresentation of what Spencer says. At :35 into the Heartland video link you supply, Spencer clearly states: “for the past 7 or 8 years warming has stopped” he continues saying “if warming resumes in the next year or two at the same rate as the previous 30 years of warming, year after year, then he’d begin to question his understanding of low climate sensitivity” (paraphrasing)
At :53 Again he says “if warming resumes”…….
Clearly, Spencer did NOT say “IF THE NEXT DECADE STILL SHOWS STATISTICAL MEASURABLE WARMING” and more, without including full context you have grossly misrepresented his position where he clearly states we have had 7 or 8 years where the warming has stopped.
You attributed to Spencer something he did not say, creating false support of your warmist fears.
In closing, let me thank you for providing a good example of Heartland involved with actual scientific debate. I’m impressed that you’d take the time to watch the “propaganda” that Heartland puts out.
.
.
.
.
For the rest of you skeptics, take advantage of the link Ross put up it is a good debate between Dr. Scott Denning and Dr. Roy Spencer. Ultimately (and sorry for Ross) Spencer does a good job of reminding us what we DO NOT KNOW, Denning (the warmist) admits that we did have a Medieval Warm period, that the atmosphere is chaotic and that something else COULD offset the warming attributed to co2.
PS there is a problem with the sound levels on the video. You must listen in a quiet room.
00
Mark D,
Regarding the video – this is not a printed publication. When was written before inferred Print/Books and Pubs on Webs in written English form.
This Video is a very RARE occurrance at Heartland I assure you.
Perhaps next time Heartland could invite the Republican advocate for Climate Change! That would be a howler for the other side thinking they are the only ones with a correct idea of America.
Of cause there are unknowns in Climate Sensitivity – but this DOES NOT in anyway negate calculated sensitivity to be much higher then Dr Roy Spencer’s hypothesis who will at the end of the day- CHANGE HIS mind if such evidence of warming continues. So we have both found them to be TRUE skeptics. As taking the term “statistically” significant – what do you think Dr Spencer was talking about when he said YEAR AFTER YEAR? And what do you think changing his mind means? And what do think changing his level of sensitivity to CO2 means?
I have a problem with those who think non-creatively have such a hard spending their days wanting to crucify the non-literalistic. It is called the Galileo syndrome.
Of the 238 Republicans constituting a majority in our House of Representatives, 237 could not even bring themselves to vote for an amendment that would merely have required them to acknowledge that global warming was a reality, human activity had something to do with it, and there was a possible risk to public health. This unanimous certitude about the dubious nature of global warming was quite remarkable given that not a single one of them was a climatologist and they were at odds with a global scientific consensus, the conviction of every other nation, and the overwhelming weight of physical evidence.
Shades of Galileo! If the famed 16th-century scientist could have been transported back to life to hear congresswoman Foxx, he would have felt right at home. After all, he was condemned by the Catholic Church for blasphemy and permanently confined to his quarters in an anti-science hissy-fit because of his contention that the earth revolved around the sun rather than vice versa.
Galileo’s response to that injustice was to insist that the Scriptures should not be taken literally when science uncovered contradictory facts in the physical world. It’s wisdom that holds true to this day, although you would never know it on occasion in the U.S. Capitol during the spring of 2011.
You yourself are polarised to extreme in this debate. I am not and never have been. Not by a mile politically either. It would take me hours to explain how such a non-centralist government socially responsible would work. It would require you to set aside all prejudices about private verses public.
Until we can return to communities responsible for each by the will of government handling the macro economics we will never make headway.
The climate change debate is micro example of polarisation and dislocation of one set against another. This is either a case of one doing without and someone being so greedy so as to maintain the lifestyle of enclave mentality – a fortress to their self centred existence.
Ross J.
00
Ross, if that type of video is rare at Heartland it’s only because alarmist scientists are too chicken to take up Heartlands offers of open debate.
Jo
00
Ross James,
“Think non-creatively” translates to: “doesn’t think the way I do”
“spending their days wanting to crucify the non-literalistic” translates to: “I don’t want to be held accountable for the words I choose to use”. Ross, When you quote someone you have to be literal.
“It is called the Galileo syndrome.” Oddly, just a few years ago a skeptic might have used this complaint! That the religious Warmists locked up the few skeptics and shut down their ability to comment.
Is there something wrong with being polarized?
Ross, you are polarized in both the subject of AGW and what I’ve seen of your politics. Saying otherwise is denial.
Well this would be very off-topic here. I am always interested in discussing politics Ross, perhaps you can take this up in the next “Unthreaded” post Jo does from time to time.
I’m afraid I don’t understand this comment. Add the explanation when we discuss politics someday.
Now here you seem to sound very much like me!.
And here you provide ample evidence of your own bias.
00
I am shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that Dr. Roy Spencer is willing to change his mind if new evidence comes in.
BTW, for everyone who didn’t pay attention over the past few years, here’s Dr. Spencer from 2010 measuring (!!!) backradiation in his backyard.
Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
00
Ross reminds me of one of my relatives, of course this particular relative is in her 70’s so there may be legitimate medical reasons for this, but she will talk to you. And talk to, and talk to you…
That seems to be her one skill in life is running her mouth. Doesn’t matter if you are in the room, doesn’t matter if you leave the room while she is talking, doesn’t even matter if you are engaged in some activity that makes so much noise that no rational person would expect someone to be able to hear anything someone else is saying.
In short whether or not she will be heard, whether or not anyone is even listening, and regardless of whether she has anything to actually say, she will start talking.
Ross seems to have the same ailment.
00
Ross do a Jay Leno poll on the streets in the USA , Ask them where Australia is
60% said near Germany ,Geography ,Literacy ,Science and History , Lets not teach our Children these . Lets teach GLOBAL WARMING , forget about anything else . Ross wake up .
00
I know I should not enjoy this, but, I am going to really savour it anyhow.
00
“It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his
terrible error in judgmentcriminal action to defraud.”Amasing how they become so ‘holier than thou’ when caught out.
00
gleick “team member”? greg laden with more insanity:
29 Feb: Science Blogs: Greg Laden: Heartland-1 … NCSE-0
So, it turns out that Heartland was behind the Heartland leak after all.
The evidence seems to suggest that Heartland’s Joe Bast wrote a memo, then he and/or Heartland-symp blogger Steven Mosher sent it secretly to Peter Gleick. Peter Gleick then obtained additional material from Heartland, which came to him at his request but all to easily to be explained as a mere oversight on the part of some administrative or secretarial staff. The only thing missing here is evidence that Bast or Mosher or someone suggested to Peter that he verify the memo by asking for related documents from Heartland. But that would be too easy.
Anyway, it now seems clear that the document, the allegedly faked internal strategy memo with the most damning text in it (but nothing really different from what is shown in other verified Heartland documents) was fed to Gleick, presumably in an effort to engineer his downfall as an incipient board member of the National Center for Science Education…
The evidence for this is the analysis just published by Shawn Otto…
Shawn Otto’s analysis is here.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
read the comments.
who are the 15 journalists and experts gleick sent his stuff to? why isn’t the MSM curious. why isn’t any of this story on our TV and Current Affairs’ news????
00
Regardless of Otto’s “analysis,” this makes no sense.
Why would Bast or Heartland be willing to break confidences of contributors, expose their friends to media slander, and risk losing what little funding they have? To pull a sting on Gleick, and bad journalist fellow travelers, knowing full well that the big media types like NYT would come to the defense of warmist advocates no matter their crimes (just as we’ve seen happen already)?
00
John, It looks like you and I are twins.
00
I notice that there is no mention of Gleick impersonating a Board member by claiming to be them. Greg Laden is desperate.
00
That pretty well sums it up.
00
“DeSmog can’t be too happy about this. Google “DenierGate” and get 67,000 results, but google “Fakegate” and get 168,000.”
Search String: Google Results
Fake Moon Landing: 2,300,000 results
Elvis is Alive: 3,710,000 results
9/11 conspiracy: 36,000,000 results
Obama Birth Certificate: 2,790,000 results
Just sayin’…
00
Actually it is not really clear what you are “just sayin'”.
Fakegate is a scandal with competing names (fakegate vs deniergate); but you are comparing it to well entrenched fairy tales maintained by very passionate believers. As is common on this topic, you ‘contribute’ a logical fallacy.
To better round out your list of a well entrenched fairy tales.
“Climate change is real” : About 337,000,000 results
For my next trick.
“climate change is not real” : About 263,000,000 results
What can it possibly mean?
00
“what can it mean”
Well it just means that the number of google results has no bearing on authenticity of the various claims.
00
Actually google results do provide us information; they provide us insight into what humanity, in aggregate is generally spending its collective brain compute-cycles on. Hence the reason why I use the term ‘climate change’, even though I personally do not like the turn of phrase; because it is my impression that most of humanity uses this phrase over more specific terms like CAGW.
It was yourself that implied in your original post that there is an (inverse) relationship between quantity of search results and the veracity of claims made based on search result quantity.
So I take it that you now repudiate your original insinuation then?
00
No no no I simply provided evidence that high google results are not corrolated with strength of argument.
00
Please ignore my last comment. I realise I am misunderstanding/misrepresenting your position and confusing the subject somewhat; my apologies.
Lets get back to your latest statement:
“Well it just means that the number of google results has no bearing on authenticity of the various claims.”
Your results are meaningless and fail to back up your above assertion; because you make no attempt to normalize unrelated claims. Lets go back to one of your claims:
Fake Moon Landing: 2,300,000 results
Easiest way to falsify this is to compare it to the competing claim:
“moon landing was real” : About 16,300,000 results
Now we are comparing apples to apples.
Apologies again for me wondering off the path and making incorrect insinuations.
00
And please ignore my last email, as to be honest I was slyly suggesting that the internet is full of fools who love nutjob conspiracy theories;) No offence intended. But look there are many more skeptical websites and blogs than there are warmist ones, it’s just the nature of the web.
00
Wow, Matt! Is it possible that you will have had an epiphany and have quit basing your belief in CAGW on an appeal to authority?
00
let’s not get ahead of ourselves now Ed:)
00
For the record and to be quite clear about it because I more or less see myself as more of a luke-warmer at this precise moment; subject to change on consideration of new evidence of course. I detest the use of the phrase ‘climate change’; I personally require far more specificity; i.e. CAGW, AGW, Natural-CC, etc.
00
Wot, like the “its anything other than CO2” crowd?
00
It’s the derivative of the change in CO2 concentrations, John.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:5/offset:-0.8/from:1980/plot/uah
Unfortunately that isn’t what the warmists believe. So they are wrong.
00
MattyB. What can the Matty Be?
Search String: Google Results
MattyB: 65,300 results
MattB: 2,260,000 results
John Brookes: 15,800,000 results
Tristan: 74,700,000 results
Troll: 143,000,000 results
The further down the chain you go – the more google gets you! How do you feel?
00
I’d love to claim some fame or infamy, but somewhere there is a bloke of my name who writes gardening books, and no doubt >99% of those google search results are for him.
00
Oh my Goodness , You actually research yourself , What an ego .
John go back over your posts here .Sycophants should not be teaching our
younger Generation.
00
Siliggy
March 1, 2012 at 5:29 am – comments on
“I don’t recognize anyone with what it takes to do the job”
‘The failed predictions are doing the job.’
I think Siliggy has pointed a positive way forward for posters on this premier Aust/NZ Science blog.
If Jo agrees, I’d like to see a permanent page with the relevant citations, web or article links etc., dedicated to listing the failed predictions of those members of the BoM, CSIRO, Climate Commisssion and any other “scientific” body who provided the advice on which Gillard, Combet, Brown, Milne etc., say they relied to put a tax on carbon dioxide.
As more predictions fail they can be added.
There would be no need to denigrate anyone because the damage to their credibility would come from their own mouths!
Tim Flannery alone provides an absolute goldmine of failed outlandish predictions, and earlier combined CSIRO/ BoM climate statements are also a fertile field, especially as regards “semi-permanent and increasingly severe droughts”. IPCC members like David Karoly also provide good ammunition.
I’m sure most of us at times feel the frustration of, in essence, “preaching to the converted”, particularly as there is obviously such a pool of combined talent and knowledge here just waiting to be harnessed and directed into a more productive effort.
Such a page would be a great introduction for first-time visitors to the site and ideal for distribution to politians of all persuasions, community groups, influential organisations or any other interested parties.
Any support out there for the idea?
00
I think it is a great idea. I might even suggest a title for it, “Out of the mouths of babies and fools …”,
00
How about –
“Various official justifications for national bankruptcy and mass murder”?
00
We at least need to give Tim Flannery credit for being courageous. Today the usual hypocritical claims of cherry picking in this attempt to explain our current spate of record wet weather and cool summer….
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/rainy-days-do-not-long-term-climate-make/story-e6frezz0-1226286517228
00
Very “scientific”.
Just what we need!
00
These are seriously tough days, if you’re an alarmist troll, especially when you consider they didn’t function too well in the good old days. There’s nothing in the playbook to cover mitigating the compulsive self-destruction of the movement, except a bit of obvious misdirection off the topic.
Pointman
00
Yeah – I’ve been waiting for MattB to provide his Plan B for over a year now, to no avail – apart from suggesting all the people who froze to death recently should have been wearing an extra jumper. So, presumably it was their own fault.
Pointman, long ago in another galaxy you once wrote a great post on the strength of the forces of nature, and how puny we were in comparison.
Any chances of posting a link to it – just to remind people of the awesome powers involved.
00
What’s your Plan B MV?
00
I’m pretty sure MV’s plan B is to try and understand some climate science. He’s hoping it won’t come to that though…
00
Seeing as you don’t even try to understand it but act like you do what’s your point?
00
MV
Thought I’d supply a couple of links for you as examples of how tiny, minute and insignificant the human race is – love to see what Pointman has as well).
Know we like to think we’re important (and to our loved ones and family we are) but there is oh so much we don’t know and NEVER will. Not sure if this is along the lines you were thinking but
I hopeI’m SURE these links demonstrate my statement above.BTW – they are also good for warmists who think man can control earth’s climate – fat hope with numbers like this.
The sun – (NOTE how much hydrogen it fuses EVERY second and just think – it’s over 4.5 BILLION years old)
Then, compare how TINY is OUR sun up against some of our neighbouring giants such as Antares situated in our Milky Way.
And these germs think they’re going to fix everything by reducing man made CO2 by 5% – REALLY!!
Enjoy!!
Cheers,
00
Popeye ,
I like this animated one for illustrating the sheer gob-smacking size of some of the objects in our universe .It`s a little slow to start so be patient.
enjoy
00
Byron,
Many thanks for that – it’s brilliant!!
On consideration, makes one wonder how these self righteous fools think they know everything about our planet and what to do to fix it.
I believe nature will fix a MINOR increase in CO2 without batting an eyelid.
Cheers,
00
@MV
Is this the piece you were thinking of?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/the-steady-state-environment-delusion/
Pointmam
00
Thanks Pointman.
00
Great Post Pointman, My Daughter will love this.
Cheers
00
See Pointman,
as to be expected, MattB simply slithers around, avoids the issue, and wastes time – again
Since I’ve already responded to his challenge for my Plan B so many times that regular readers here could recite it parrot-fashion in their sleep, I see no point in boring everyone by repeating it yet again. He just repeats himself like a broken cuckoo clock and assumes nobody notices.
But I’m pretty certain a lot of readers would be interested in finally hearing his Plan B – now that his Plan A has started killing people in earnest, and his “extra jumper” suggestion didn’t seem to work out so well for all those souls who died over the last few weeks.
Mind you, I doubt we will ever get a Plan B from him – truth is in my experience people like MattB are never particularly concerned about how many people die from the “unintended consequences” of their ill-conceived ideas of “what’s best for us”.
00
MV
By definition, to have a Plan B, you first need a Plan A. I have yet to see any plan from MattB, for anything.
00
Rereke,
Plan A is based on the concept of runaway catastrophic global warming.
The “Plan” in response to this is as is being implemented now as Plan A, which is to:
* – Deprive both developed and developing nations of cheap, reliable energy by preventing the use of fossil fuels,
* – Reduce food supplies and increase food prices by diverting food-growing capacity to the manufacture of biofuels,
* – Bankrupt nations firstly by diverting funds to the construction of useless windmills and “alternative energy sources, and second by imposing nation-destroying carbon tax regimes.
The original query to MattB way back was as a result of his defending these genocidal policies by invoking the “precautionary principle”. The question put to him back then was, “what if you’re wrong and climate is, indeed cyclical and we are now in for perfectly natural, cyclical cooling period? What are you intending to do about all the millions of people who will now freeze and starve to death as a result of these policies?
In accordance with the “precautionary principle”, what’s your Plan B if you’re wrong?
After about six months of slithering, MattB offered the sage advice that if people were cold, they should wear an extra jumper.
As can be seen from his comments here today, including the one below, he doesn’t have a Plan B, and doesn’t intend having one, because like the rest of his kind, even the idea that they might be wrong is unthinkable.
Genocide comes easily to them – they just rename it “unintended consequences”.
00
You also don’t have to have a plan B if you don’t really care if you are correct in plan A. Seeing as MattB et al. can just disavow any responsibility for the failure of plan A (and the consequences therefrom) by stating that they were only following the best “science” of the day, and that they could not have possibly foreseen what would happen as a result (conveniently overlooking any sage advice given by those who frequent this blog, principally your good self, MV). That way it can always be palmed off as someone else’s responsibility- I like to call it “the NIMBYism of accountability”!
00
Yeah, but “who” exactly is going to be held accountable?
The politicians will claim your “best science of the day” excuse, and when pushed they will point to the likes of fools like Flannery, Karoly, Chubb and the rest of them. (You know the authors of the “settled science” that people like MattB worships).
But the Flannery’s Karoly’s and Chubbs will turn around and quote from the various rubbish produced by the CSIRO and BoM, who will in turn point out that all their “climate science” material comes complete with an all-encompassing disclaimer disavowing any responsibility for anyone foolish enough to actually take it seriously.
So that leaves the angry crowds with people like MattB to vent their spleen on.
.
It’s not going to be pretty.
00
wow I just noticed this absurd summary of our ongoing discussions MV. Since your position is that man doesn’t influence the climate, then Plan A is not mutually exclusive to your plan B. So what’s your Plan B, or I guess it is your Plan A? It didn’t seem to help anyone that as you poit out died this northern winter.
00
Plan A: Keep up to date with modern science and make economically sensible decisions based upon said science.
Plan B: Refer to Plan A.
00
Lets see, hmm:
Lindzen & Choi 2011 – 2XCO2 = 0.7 C
Dragić et al 2011 – Forbush charged particle events cause clouds
Allan 2011 – clouds cause lots of cooling, from Mike Lockwood’s group
Rao 2011 – GCR’s caused most warming from top Indian cosmic ray scientist and ex head of the Indian space agency
Solheim et al 2011 – Svalbard temperatures correlate with pSCL
Solheim et al 2012 – long SC23 predicts cooling
Carlin 2011 – solar magnetics caused most 20thC warming and mitigation is economically silly – by an ex USEPA director
Enghoff et al 2011 – experimental generation of clouds using charged particles
Kirkby 2011 – CERN CLOUD experiment ( ” )
These are just a few peer reviewed papers from memory because Murphy ate my C drive a month ago along with dozens of other papers from last year.
Now, Matt, what were you saying about modern science?
00
Sorry Bruce,
But according to the likes of MattB none of that is “science”.
Rather, it is dishonest, misleading “denier” propaganda produced by corrupt “scientists” who are all in the pay of the Heartland Institute, which, in turn, gets the funds from evil Big Oil and even more evil Big Tobacco.
(Yes, this is the same MattB who under any other circumstances, doesn’t believe in conspiracies).
To the likes of MattB, their concept of “conspiracy” is as malleable as their concept of honesty, integrity, deception and fraud – just ask Peter Gleick, Greg Laden, or any of the crowd at DeSmogBlog.
00
well MV for starters the Carlin one isn’t science. It is probably a reasonable paper if one was to accept low climate sensitivity.
00
See Bruce?
Slither, slither, slither.
It’s like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.
00
how is that slithering? The Carlin one, the only one I’ve had time to look at, is exactly as I describe it.
00
I think your referral to Dragic et al grossly misinterprets the results of that study. Even the Watts Up review doesn;t make any conclusions one way or the other.
00
See Bruce?
MattB’s now posted four times on my original post about his lack of a Plan B in reply to a comment by Pointman at # 24.
Four posts and he’s now even further away from the original query then ever.
Slither, slither, slither.
In a sick sort of way it’s fascinating to watch.
00
Now five posts, and even FURTHER away.
Slither, slither, slither.
00
I’m replying to a post from Bruce you dunderhead. your plan BG obsession is serious – you should see a shrink or something. I’m serious.
00
Even the thickest of thick thick thickies from the family McThick can see I’ve yet again answered your Plan B… yet you again think I’m slithering.
00
.
Seven.
It’d be pathetic in a sad sort of way.
If so many people weren’t dying as a result.
00
Nah Bruce, I read what Matt said, and there was nothing about choosing a whole lot of crappy self and mutually contradicting papers. Actually, the cloud paper was ok, except that they specifically said that they couldn’t see how cosmic rays could produce clouds.
And yes MV, it is painful. You can stop now – no one will think any the worse of you…
00
Ah yes, the CLOUD paper and the old “Emperor may have the finest clothes in the land” routine. I believe I have commented on this phenomenon before.
If other readers have noticed other examples of skeptically-inclined scientists suddenly publishing warmist-friendly headlines the moment they get major funding and publicity, please tell us all. It seems a curious case of doublespeak, but without more examples to work from I don’t if I’m just being a bit too hasty and unfair in that judgement. Need more data.
00
Matt – I included Carlin 2011 because you said “make economically sensible decisions based upon said science”. He draws from the solar magnetism research field to demonstrate why economic intervention for CAGW mitigation is a waste of money. Or that’s what I recall as it’s been a year since I read it.
You’re the one who raised the economic aspect.
Have you actually read Dragić et al 2011? I have and it seemed fine to me. You will note they address that only intense Forbush events give a detectable signal. Which is not surprising given their short duration.
BTW you can keep digging hole as long as you like. If your shovel wears out let me know and I’ll give you another.
00
yes I read the Dragic one. NO problem with it really. It just doesn’t make any findings that could result in Dragic et al being quoted as though it is a (nother) nail in the CAGW coffin.
The Carlin – I agree with the analysis, which is analysis that says “if we accept these obscure fringe science results, then there is no point spending money on reducing CO2”. Heck is Carlin Mr state the bloody obvious? What it doesn’t mention, of course, is that if the IPCC version is accurate then indeed we should be spending to reduce CO2.
00
Matt you might need to look up Galileo, Mitchell , Newton , Tesla and many more. History may reveal more than you thought.
00
Matt,
Your Plan A and Plan B are what is commonly referred to as an idiot loop. Plan A requires us to destroy the economies of the world for no gain.
If we reduce man’s CO2 contribution to the ecosphere to prehistoric levels we will shave 3 tenths of a degree of warming (3 or 4 degrees) that the IPCC ERRONEOUSLY concludes is inevitable this century. That conclusion is arrived at using the IPCCs math.
Your Plan B is the idiot feedback which concludes the loop.
Rather “loopy” but, coming from you, to be expected.
00
you’d have to think “Plan A requires us to destroy the economies of the world for no gain” to think it is an idiot loop Eddy.
00
Absolutely tragic isn’t it Pointy, old bean.
They are like Japanese fighter pilots, riddled with bullets, running on empty and looking desperately for an aircraft carrier to plunge headlong into before they drop limply and aimlessly into the Pacific. Gleick-san just happened to be one of the first Kamikazes to make the ultimate sacrifice for the Emperor. The sense of impending doom must be almost unbearable, poor pets! Just settle into another G & T, with some cucumber sandwiches, and relax while the denouement plays itself out to the inevitable conclusion. Hardly sporting at all, chaps!
00
You’re right Winston. I’m already beginning to miss the troll wars of old. We used to fight some rock hard Panzer Grenadiers in those days. Today it’s just some miserable Volksturm rabble wandering around in a daze amidst the rubble of Berlin. Who says war is hell?
Pointman
00
So right. All the hard science guys got pissed off at the crap here and left. All you’ve got now are sad gits like me and Matt B who try and score cheap points when something egregiously silly gets said.
00
Yes, we surely do miss those hard science guys like Gleick. And yes, as you yourself say, sad and cheap to seem to be the apposite adjectives for you guys …
Pointman
00
I would have to disagree. Cheap implies at least some value.
00
It is now 214,000 to 68000!!
00
re the ridiculous Brookings survey – it’s all about “belief” – CAGW as religion. only 887 surveyed and loaded ???.
28 Feb: MSNBC: AP: Seth Bortenstein: Poll: US belief in warming rises with thermometer
Americans’ belief in global warming is on the rise, along with temperatures and surprising weather changes, according to a new university poll.
The survey by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College says 62 percent of those asked last December think the Earth is getting warmer…
Nearly half the people who say they believe in global warming base that on personal observations of the weather. Climate researchers say that’s reaching the correct conclusion for reasons that aren’t quite right.
When asked an open-ended question about why they thought the Earth was warming, one-quarter of those surveyed pointed to temperatures they experience and another quarter cited other weather changes. One in 7 mentioned melting glaciers and polar sea ice, and 1 in 8 noted media coverage. Only 8 percent mentioned scientific research.
“It seems to be driven by an increased connection that the public is making between what they see in terms of weather conditions and climate change,” said Chris Borick, the director Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.
The poll was conducted from Dec. 4 to Dec. 21, after the U.S. experienced a record 14 billion-dollar weather disasters in 2011, including killer tornadoes, an unusual northeastern hurricane, a devastating southwestern drought and floods along major rivers…
“I’m pleased that Americans believe in thermometers,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver. “People feel confident about what they personally experience. They mix up the difference between weather and climate. It’s not unexpected. It’s human nature.”…
NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt called strange daily weather “the visceral experience of climate” for people…
The survey of 887 people has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The findings are similar to other recent polls, including a 2010 AP-Stanford University Poll showing 3 out of 4 Americans thought global temperatures were going up, said Stanford poll chief Jon Krosnick.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46562357/ns/us_news-environment/
00
1 March: Brisbane Times: Brian Robins: Carbon tax fallout will hit power bills
HOUSEHOLD electricity prices will become exposed to world oil prices following the introduction of a carbon tax, which will result in more electricity being generated from gas.
In little noticed comments last week, Mr John Pierce, who now chairs the Australian Electricity Market Commission, the body that oversees the national electricity market, warned of the emerging link between the oil price and domestic gas prices.
”We should start to think about what the domestic energy sector … is going to look like in the event that electricity prices become linked with the international oil prices because of a linkage of gas,” Mr Pierce, a former head of NSW Treasury, warned at a public forum. ”Those sort of structural shifts … are going to drive an increasing trend … towards energy efficiency.”…
Gas prices in the eastern states are rising as a number of export gas projects are being developed in Queensland, which is taking place at a time when electricity generators are planning to build gas-fired power stations as the carbon tax will make it uneconomical to generate electricity from coal***…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-fallout-will-hit-power-bills-20120229-1u3gw.html
***oh yes, we can sell coal to China for hundreds or even thousands of power stations, yet it won’t be economical for us to build a few coal-fired power stations for ourselves. it is criminal as far as i’m concerned.
00
1 March: CIO: AAP: NBN, carbon price to stay: Independents
Two independents have predicted the NBN and carbon pricing policies are here to stay, despite what Tony Abbott says
NSW MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who have an agreement to support the Labor minority government, used a National Press Club address on Wednesday to give a report card on the past 12 months in federal politics and their future priorities.
Both independent MPs have been crucial to getting carbon pricing and NBN-related bills through parliament…
Both Windsor and Oakeshott said the complexity of unwinding the two policies made it all the more likely Malcolm Turnbull would return to the leadership of the coalition in the future…
http://www.cio.com.au/article/417107/nbn_carbon_price_stay_independents/?fp=4&fpid=5
00
I very much doubt we can believe anything that Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott say since I think that the next election will bring a end to both of them in parliament. Futhermore Tony Abbot has been quite clear that repealing them(with respect to the carbon tax) can be done if 6 months if labor complies,a year if they don’t. This just stinks of more attempts to “put down” tony Abbott,but when has labor ever stopped trying to do that?
00
guess u won’t be allowed to breathe when u r inside!
1 March: News Ltd: Living in the future: a glimpse of a zero-carbon home
Designed as part of the Zero Carbon Challenge competition
Winning house to be built in South Australia
Climate change is real and ruining Mount Everest
http://www.news.com.au/technology/living-in-the-future-a-glimpse-of-a-zero-carbon-home/story-e6frfrnr-1226285758210
00
how did we miss this genius idea!
2 Feb: Branson and Gore send messages from Antarctica trip
“As Jim Hansen, the scientist, said on this ship: “We cannot continue to burn all the coal, oil from the tar sands without pushing the planet out of control. It’s time to stop subsiding fossil fuels.
“The quickest way of solving the problem is to tax all fossil fuels and distribute the taxes back to every man and women in the country.
“Within 10 years we’d have a 30% reduction in fuel use and begin to get on top of this most worrying of problems.”
http://www.rtcc.org/nature/messages-from-antarctica/
00
RE: the brookings thing from mattb.
The key term there is “Believe”. nuff said.
I overheard an avid AGW believer talking to a colleague the other day.
His colleague was mentioning about how we have all these desalination plants with all this rain falling.
The believer quickly jumped to defend the desal plant decisions with “but you can’t blame them for making the decision at the time”.
yeah, suure. Who woulda thunk it?
Anyway the conversation came to a dead halt as the believer said “you just can’t convince people about climate change when it’s this wet”.
His colleague didn’t even respond. I’d bet I knew what he was thinking because i was thinking the same things:
Bummer how nature doesn’t listen to the wannabe xperts
and, of course something else I won’t document.
00
In case anyone else is looking for “the brookings thing from mattb”, it is in fact the brookings thing from Ross James. I probably agree it is not particularly reliable survey.
00
Oops. I apologise Mattb – my bad. Thanks for calling it out.
00
It does`nt matter really!
Ross or MattB is irrelevant. They are both man made climate change hoaxers….
As Eddy Aruda [snip]
Once [snip]
Ouch.
[You need to pause and think before hitting the post comment button. mod oggi]
00
[snip]
[normally I would snip this, but sadly it is accurate on this occasion. mod oggi]
[But I snipped it. He can be accurate without being crass. JN]
00
The believer failed to argue that unusually wet and cold summers are not inconsistent with ever shifting and evolving science of climate change, in which any weather activity can be linked with or divorced from the activities of mankind to suit the current political climate.
It has been all too easy in the past to blame draught in WA on global warming, while blaming floods in Victoria and QLD on climate change. The alarmists take full advantage of their 20/20 hindsight vision. Whether the majority of the public believes it is a moot point. All that matters is that the message gets pummeled into us until we capitulate or lose interest.
00
Josh is bang on form again
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/US_vs_HI_spending.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1330593531195
00
Hello Grumpy,
Bishop Hill prevents people from directly linking to their hosted images. Readers will have more luck if they locate the blog post which features that cartoon, which is this one:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/1/us-government-climate-change-spend-2011-vs-heartland-josh-15.html
I explained it last weekend here. It is really not obvious they are doing this unless you check the link works in preview before posting, which most would not think to do because it’s very unusual for blogs to add that limitation.
00
From the records about 8 degrees of Trenberth….
Tristan
February 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm · Reply
“
If you check you will find Richard Somerville and Katherine Hayhoe are not on my list. I gave those two IPCC alarmists the benefit of the doubt as they were meteorologists or climatologists.
Sorry, my bad!
Just from looking at the first two ‘dentists’ I can tell you Oppenheimer has a pretty illustrious research career in climate and Gleick is a water resources guru. They’re totally legit members of the climate science team.
Of the 16 naysayers however, only 4 have ever written a climate science paper and of those 4 it’d be a stretch to call anyone but Lindzen a legitimate climate scientist. That’s why I feel that the respective appeals to authority are of disparate quality.
——————————————————————————–
Hi Tristan,
I see in your ignorant reply to Llew Jones that you said an absolute cracker.
I highlighted it!
Do you feel a bit silly now Tristan??
Hahaha you really are blind to real life Tristan !!!
Grabbing the popcorn now 4,3,2,1, mmmmmm crunch!!
00
Odd!
I’m really surprised that no one has mentioned this up till now.
Google Gleick – 1.43 million results in 0.53 Seconds.
Google Heartland Institute – 26.7 million results in 0.10 Seconds.
I guess more people are in fact searching for the truth!
Tony.
00
[…] Full story at JoNova. Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Deniergate. Bookmark the permalink. ← Climate Spending: U.S. Government vs. Heartland […]
00
Revkin says in his response. “One thing you should be aware of is that I write my blog for the Opinion side of the paper.”
That seems to say the the truth is irrelevant in his opinion. If that is so, who cares what he says?
Andy, you can’t hide-the-decline forever. Global warmers are the biggest fraudsters on the planet. They make Madoff look like a badge winning boy scout.
Lying commie thugs.
00
Same thing with ClimateGate vs. “SwiftHack”, the name our AGW friends tried to attach to that scandal. I’d never heard of that version until after I’d just used my initials instead than my longer name at a pro-AGW blog, and some guy got it into his head that I had something to do with ClimateGate after I cracked Steve Milloy’s “I’m FOIA™” joke.
Meanwhile, I’m contributing to the rise of the “Fakegate” label with my own article, two days ago at American Thinker, “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy“
00
Strong and Growing Evidence of What?
00
So the state of things for Gleick and Desmogblog is … worse than we thought.
00
O/T but … Data Tampering: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulating Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision
GISS and the GHCN are preoccupied with the Arctic, bestowing large “corrections” on the few and far northern stations. The raw data of the Arctic did not tell the story they wanted to hear, and so GISS took it upon themselves to rewrite it.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/
00
From “Explaining Hitler,” by RON ROSENBAUM (1999):
“A kind of evil we’ve never seen before? An evil that transcends Hitler? It’s–by definition–beyond imagination. Or has it already made its presence felt?”
00
desperation on the cusp of madness:
3 March: The Economist: Carbon prices – Breathing difficulties
A market in need of a miracle
THE European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), the world’s biggest carbon market, has two main aims. One is to restrict the carbon-dioxide emissions of the 11,000 companies trading on it to an agreed cap. The other is to give these firms an incentive to invest in clean technology. On the first count, thanks to the economic malaise, the ETS is a success: its participants’ emissions are well below the current cap. On the second, for the same reason, it is failing wretchedly. Oversupplied with permits, the market has tanked…
The situation is about to get worse. The EU is in the process of selling an additional 300m permits to raise cash for green energy projects, adding to oversupply. It is also about to introduce a new regulation on energy efficiency, which will further reduce emissions and which was not factored into the current cap. Matthew Gray of Jefferies, an investment bank, reckons that by 2020 the ETS will have an accumulated surplus of 845m permits, against a planned cap that year of 1.8 billion permits.
Investors in green technology are pleading for intervention to prop up the carbon price…
In December, when the carbon price fell well under €7, a committee of the European Parliament recommended three possible strategies: withhold—or “set aside”—an undetermined tranche of permits from the market; withhold 1.4 billion permits; or tighten the cap. On February 28th a higher-powered committee approved the first strategy. It will now be voted on by the parliament; if passed, the details will be negotiated with member states.
This is a familiar sort of Eurofudge. The simplest thing would be to tighten the cap, so that the carbon price rises to somewhere between €15 and €30, the range regulators had in mind for it. Yet this would be furiously resisted by heavy emitters such as Poland, which burns lots of coal. And it would set a meddlesome precedent, another way to deplete investor confidence. To address that worry, the set-aside would ideally be no bigger than the reduced demand for permits resulting from the energy-efficiency rule, which is the ostensible reason for acting.
That would be a modest measure: the carbon price actually fell in response to the committee’s announcement. And even then it will require fraught negotiation. Meanwhile, the market’s overseers are left dreaming of a sudden economic upturn or a new American or Japanese cap-and-trade scheme to boost demand for ETS permits—in short, for a miracle.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548962
00
I understand that this is way off the topic, but read pat’s comment carefully.
If there is intervention to artificially drive up their price on those emissions, then power plants will just shut up shop, and close the plant.
Wait and see what happens then.
Same same here in Oz.
These people writing this stuff in those European articles have absolutely no idea.
I’m wondering just what it would take to actually have them check.
Tony.
00
Markus @ 4.1 Good on you Markus, telling Greg Craven how it is in the real world.Time for all us denizens to start our own Get Up campaign of reasoned argument and humour.Write to politicians and newspapers, letters are better tha emails, and let’s send letters to some of those well paid mouthpieces and beneficiaries of the green, well the call themselves ‘green,’ environment clique.( They know who they are.)
I will be writing to GC. Remember when Australia was the free land of opportunity and have a go? Heck my dad took out world patents, a self made man who helped anyone.
Let’s do it!
00
I’m in Beth, and I know a few cowboys out on parie who are ready to giddy up as well.
🙂
00
today’s MSM scare is already in UK Telegraph, UK Mirror, Bloomberg, New Scientist, all the news agencies, etc:
1 March: UK Daily Mail: Rising carbon emissions could wipeout marine species with oceans acidifying at fastest rate
Carbon emissions are acidifying oceans at a faster rate than at any time in the past 300 million years, raising the prospect of ecological catastrophe in decades to come…
The research, published in the journal Science, also looked at two other catastrophic climate change events at the end of the Permian and Triassic periods 252 million and 201 million years ago…
Professor Andy Ridgwell, from the University of Bristol, a member of the international research team, said: ‘The geological record suggests that the current acidification is potentially unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years of Earth history, and raises the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change…
Dr Barbel Honisch, from Columbia University in New York, US, who led the new research, said: ‘What we’re doing today really stands out.
‘We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped out – new species evolved to replace those that died off.
‘But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about – coral reefs, oysters, salmon.’….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2108844/Rising-carbon-emissions-wipeout-marine-species.html
oh no, not oysters and salmon, Dr. Honisch!
00
Of course we aren’t hearing about the greatest lie ever told in the AGW/CC debate:
From the patroness of the Galileo Movement, Australia’s own version of Heartland.
“Global warming is a hoax”
Of course this is scientifically absurd, but entirely consistent with the climate crap that emanates from the bowels of the Galileo Movement
Jones may be right about some things, such as his fight against the possible negative impacts of CSG mining, but his views on all things AGW/CC are completely and untterly “fracked”
00
Back to your GetUp stable ‘silly. This is not like spreading your invective on Bolt’s blog … you will be hanged drawn and quartered here.
00
She’s probably bored by the moderation problems at AB’s. Anyway, welcome to Jo’s blog, SF, maybe you’d like to discuss some science? Matt doesn’t like Dragić et al 2011, how about you?
00
From MattB:
I think your referral to Dragic et al grossly misinterprets the results of that study
Given this comment I totally concur. and given this from the study
Research highlights
►No correlation is found between cosmic ray changes and the whole cloud cover. ►Influence of cosmic rays on the cloud cover in the troposphere is at the level of 1%. ►Cosmic rays have negligible effect on the global temperature and on climate.
I also concur with the authors.
And add: Lindzen and Choi have been running around trying to infer that sensitivity is low, based on a subset of global temperatures centred on the tropics. Misleading at best and no wonder PNAS and GRL have not accepted their fawlty postulations.
I can also refer you to Jasper Kirkby (of CLOUD fame) “Our work leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate. However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do,” this is because the aerosol particles studied were too small to seed cloud droplets.
So you’re batting a big fat zero it appears!
00
Ah, but now you have to read Allan 2011 who finds the cooling infuence of clouds is much more than previously understood by the IPCC. Ten-fold? I forget, I should go read his paper again.
And SF, likewise read the Uni of Aarhus paper, which found rapid increase in the nuclei. Maybe Kirkby and his team would have done the CCN experiment by now, except the IPCC crew fought to restrict his funding for so long that he’s only just getting the resources together, ETA for 2015 as I recall. To think, if he’d been able to demonstrate this, why, the whole carbon tax would be completely unnecessary. Come to think of it the whole carbon tax IS unnecessary! We already knew that in 1996, sigh, our ALP are SO behind the times. And you can always bring up Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, its fun when you do that.
You might want to look also at the other papers, like Rao 2011.
I should go find the other paper I had on Forbush event effects which was a beauty – the authors were trying to show they didn’t lead to global cloud cover change as you mention…except when you look at their data that is exactly what happened. But they didn’t want to say that. I suspect that they knew what would happen to their funding if they had mentioned this anywhere in their paper.
00
I’m sorry SF, I missed your reference to L&C 2011. Did I say I independently checked their result against the IPCC model derived sensitivity numbers? And found a 2XCO2 of 0.7 C? Oh look, its 0.7 C at 54 deg N latitude, over only 250 years too! Bad that, CO2 must only be a weakly warming greenhouse gas. Maybe all those trillions spent on windmills and stuff have been wasted, who’d’ve thought that could possibly be?
00
SF, again I have to apologise. If I’d waited an hour before replying to you I would have noticed Svensmark et al 2012 is just out. Here’s what the abstract says about CCN formation:
Seems the little blighters do grow bigger, and I don’t have to wait until 2015 for CERN’s results after all.
00
Nice catch Bruce, are you on the Svensmark hotline or what?
On the plus side, cosmic rays are mostly 10^9 eV. Cs137 decays with product energies of less than 10^6 eV, so if an effect can be demonstrated with less powerful radiation than in nature then it must be happening in nature.
However I must regrettably express some reservations about the new paper.
Question 1 : The majority of cosmic rays are protons and Alpha particles and only 1% are Beta decay particles. Cs137 decays mainly into Beta particles followed by a secondary gamma decay of equal intensity. So what Svensmark used is mostly not the same type of particles as cosmic rays. Does that matter? Does it show that only 1% of cosmic rays are making all the cloud cover changes? I don’t know, but the paper should have said something about this.
Question 2 : The level of radiation entering the chamber is not tracked or calibrated, which seems a rather bizarre oversight when it is the critical parameter of the mechanism he is trying to examine! How much of the radiation source penetrates the stainless steel walls? Is it sufficient to assume it’s close to 60MBq of 0.6 MeV gamma rays? He should have measured this, at least once at the beginning.
Any ideas?
00
“are you on the Svensmark hotline or what?”
Nope nothing so nefarious, I just went over to check out WUWT who by chance had just cross posted from Nigel Calder.
I confess I haven’t read the paper yet, but I recall 14C and 10Be correlations with temperature. I had a look just now and found this paper from 1980. Here’s a quote from their conclusions:
So you may well be right. But certainly cloud correlates with GCR and TSI both, and 10Be and 14C correlate with GCR flux. But beyond that I haven’t looked in detail as I’d mainly been interested in the empirical pSCL-temperature relationship. (When I say ‘correlate’ here I mean both correlate and anticorrelate, since 10Be for example technically anticorrelates with temperature).
00
Bruce, yes indeed the cosmic-climate connection has never been in doubt. Shaviv showed that. I’m just saying this isn’t an excuse for not measuring vital quantities in skeptically-inclined experiments. We have our scientific method or we have nothing.
Perhaps there is some reason for this lack of radiation quantification being okay which is obvious to those well versed in the science but not obvious to me.
00
Further to the above, Nigel Calder was quick to put me in my place.
In his opinion, the gamma rays perform the same role as natural cosmic rays, the argument being that any kind of radiation that can ionize air is fine, and Svensmark and Co apparently established that last year in a paper I’d not heard about.
He unfortunately misses the point about not measuring the radiation, which I still think is an experimental wrinkle but I guess it was not their main focus in this experiment. Quantifying the radiation-ionisation process is no doubt well documented elsewhere in fields unrelated to climate science. I would still like to know how closely the strength of the lab radiation matches the strength of the real cosmic ray flux. If their lab source is 100 times stronger than nature, did they get an ionization rate 100 times faster than nature or only 10 times faster? It’s a missing number in the 20th century warming attribution argument. That’s the 64 billion dollar question.
There’s another paper in this, for sure. The whole formula for radiative forcing from cosmic ray count.
00
well said sillyfly!
00
Say sillyfilly,
I suppose it must be boring when you ‘Forum of choice’ is not having as many comments getting up, so welcome here.
I guess you must have somehow got the message that Joanne’s blog was voted as the best in Oz and NZ, and decided to come and have a look eh!
Well, now you’re your here, maybe you can help us out with something.
You seem pretty ‘full bottle’ on the Galileo Movement, referring it in the same comment to The Heartland Institute. So, perhaps, knowing so much about them as you do, might you mention to us about what sources they are getting their funding from.
Perhaps you might also like to mention how this compares with that bastion of Environmentalism, The Sierra Club, and how they accepted $25 Million from Big Oil themselves, from a Company whose main concern is ‘fracking’ for Natural Gas.
Then you could perhaps explain why this was OK.
Then again, I suppose you wouldn’t have heard about that at your usual sites, so see, you’ve learned something already.
Oh, almost forgot, here’s the link to that story.
Give us some insight eh!
Tony.
00
Nothing much of the funding that was unexpected, but still illuminating!
I rather deal in the science, something that appears to be an anathema to those institutions I mentioned.
Take Plimer (Gina’s latest recruit), his last rant on glacial melt in the OZ, mostly plagierised/summarised from a Uni Of Copenghagen press release, add in the misrepresentation of two glacial studies and then quote totally incorrect historical CO2 measurements.
And now we have Carter (a notable? of Heartland and Galileo and NIPCC) running around here on the coast proagating the fallacy that sea levels are not rising. That’s totally implausible given the satellite and tide gauge records: on the same level as his insipid conclusions that ENSO was the main cause of the long-term warming of the planet.
Anything else I can help you with?
00
Envisat has been trending down for 7 years. Why is that SF? Do the Europeans build dud satellites? Or maybe you’re referring to Doug Lord who the ALP censored before the election (such a nice election wasn’t it). 1 mm a year over the last 120 years. Whoee! My local council will have to raise their chambers up on stilts at that rate.
00
Global mean sea levels trends:
GMSL Rates
CU: 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)
And rather than reying on Doug Lord try this:
Article Citation:
P. J. Watson (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1
RESEARCH PAPERS
Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?
P. J. Watson
Principal Coastal Specialist, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
Bruce, are you just acting the goose?
00
The trend for Envisat dataset I linked is -1E-05x+0.5107 m since the start of 2005.
Perhaps you would like to address this real live recent data. I’d go get the Jason dataset, which has been falling for a couple years or more, but it’s Friday evening and I can’t be bothered.
Job title of Doug Lord was Manager Coastal, Coastal Unit, NSW Department of Natural Resources. I suspect that means Mr Watson reported to him, especially as they coauthored papers. Incidentally you might like this quote from the paper you cited:
The italicised word is his not mine. Rather odd that with exponential rise of pCO2e we have decelerating sea level rise.
Goose yourself SF if you want, I’m happy with the data. Some say I’m kinky about this.
00
Umm, sillfilly,
Assuming that they’re correct, let’s then go with your figures OK.
The average of the four pieces of data you have there is, umm, 3.1mm per year.
So, let’ see then.
88 years at 3.1mm a year, umm, (hits buttons on plastic brain) er, 273mm.
Eleven inches, er, by 2100.
Have you written to Professor Flannery and mentioned that his numbers might be incorrect. Could be handy to drop Karoly a line also.
Hey, just sayin!
Wouldn’t want those guys embarrassed now would we?
Tony.
00
Bruce:
Do you understand the term deceleration?
And you must have missed this:
So Carter still has it all wrong.
00
Yes SF it happens I know what deceleration is. I did manage to pass 2 years of uni physics before embarking on 30 years of chemistry R&D. Admittedly I don’t use the word deceleration much in chemistry, but then there you go.
But I will credit you this, sea level is now accelerating again. Er, downwards.
00
Silly is silly to think simplistic statistics have any hope of explaining our climate phenomena. The ameleration of the muti coupled dynamic climate systems is beyond her grasp and deluded Co2 theorists.
Apart from sillys attempt at vaudeville, the most interesting aspect of the week for me was the new study led by the Georgia Institute of Technology that provides (further) evidence of a relationship between melting ice in the Arctic regions and widespread cold outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere. Inherent in the findings are more understandings of seasonal snow and temperature anomalies across northern continents.
Our personal relation with physics is our immediate realisations, idolisation of man and his ability to interact globally with a planets nature bodes a poor reflection on humility.
Why would science chase the sensitivity of a refraction of a small amount of energy back to surface that generated it with scant regard for the causation of the climate by the absorbed energy of the Earths surfaces?
Hubris? Polliwoffles, pollicracks, polliwinkles? Misanthropies?
I am simply flummoxed at the simplicity of the climate and the complexity of scientists in explaining it.
Consider a steaming gaseous sphere, a malleable hydraulic surface, electro-magnetised, spinning, variation in insolation, unknown galactic parity violations, with rotating magnetic poles and the forces of pressure on its atmosphere.
As the study ‘Arctic Sea Ice Decline May be Driving Snowy Winters Seen in Recent Years’ shows there are decadal changes to heat distribution as the sphere overcomes the forces of gravity as the same forces causes a informality of heat distribution within it. Dynamics!
How does one reconcile the relativity of the composition and volumes of Co2 and its atmospheric emissivity as a sensible cause of climate change, compared to the enormity of the Earth composition and volume?
The study said, “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, the circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
Many scientific papers in this climate dispute, subjected to a fair static analysis are just noise, adding nothing to the greater meaning of climate change. A rhetorical focus on mans use of fossil fuels as a driver of climate change was a death trap for the science climate, in the process of good science, a philosophical dead end.
Do the studies simulations show that diminishing Arctic sea ice induced by significant surface warming in the Arctic Oceans, is caused by a decadal multi latitude distribution of heat in Earth and atmospheres? And cooling effect over northern North America, Europe, Siberia and eastern Asia also as the models also showed above-normal winter snowfall in large parts of the northern United States, central Europe, and northern and central China, is further evidence of the musicale climate sensitivity forcing of global Co2 emissivity?
Professor Robert Brown offers a perspective on the evolution of scientific theory and it’s the abuse by the climate science community. I’ll post a summary of it later.
The debate that will rage this academic year is that there is scientific plausibility that climate science principles are not correct. I wouldn’t suggest not all of the science needs to be ‘shitbinned’ just Co2 causation modelling as a predictor. Optimistically, the dispute of what is science and what is not will be relaxed by the year end with a definition of when scientist crosses a political tipping pint. I do not offer a prediction of what points the political debate will reach.
As that courageous Kangaroo, Robert I Ellison alludes,
‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’
00
Marcus,
Seeing this
“the most interesting aspect of the week for me was the new study led by the Georgia Institute of Technology that provides (further) evidence of a relationship between melting ice in the Arctic regions and widespread cold outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere. Inherent in the findings are more understandings of seasonal snow and temperature anomalies across northern continents.”
makes me wonder about this (courtesy Georgia tech)
And from a true sceptic:
The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earth’s Surface
The atmospheric gases most responsible for IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere (“greenhouse gases”) act like a radiative blanket, cooling the middle and upper layers, but warming the lowest layers and the surface.
This leads to two common misconceptions on the part of those who believe the greenhouse effect does not exist:
FIRST, contrary to the assertions of some, the rate of IR absorption and emission of atmospheric layers are, in general, NOT the same. While the rate of IR absorption does not change much with the temperature of the absorber, the rate of IR emission increases rapidly with temperature.
The SECOND misconception is that because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming. While it is true that GHGs do lead to an overall decrease in the mass-weighted average temperature of the atmosphere, their altering of the energy budget of individual layers leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.
By the way as you appear to be a fan of the Ned Nicolov club:
try this.
Happy reading!
00
Bruce,
Here’s some more science for you on sea levels.
So, despite all your commentary (and that of your mates?), you still haven’t given me a single substantive argument that disproves my assertion that Jones, Plimer, Carter et al have all got in scientifically wrong. They should be seen for what they are, climate nobodies.
The fact they postulate this insidious nonsense under the auspices of those mobs mentioned in the e-mails, surely is full testament to the notion of the “Denialist Organisation”.
I like to thank Jo for hosting my commentary, the way it’s gone it’ll be a pleasure to come back and “prove the bastards wrong again”.
00
SillyFilly why are you ignoring the truly gobsmacking sea level increase predictions made by your fellow AGW believing buddies?
LINK to chart
The background information is in the link.
I find Dr. Hansen’s two listed predictions incredibly stupid.So is Al $$$ Gore,Heidi Cullen and Rahmstorf’s
The dumber the AGW believing scientist the wilder the sea level increase prediction.
00
SillyFilly writes more one sided bromides:
Does this mean you have already exhausted your deeeeep examination of the IPCC’s much lower sea level projections than those made by the giants of the warmist camp?
LINK
00
Apparently she (must assume that as a filly is a she) is delusional.
Of course we could also speculate that just as a filly is to young too be called a mare, sillyfilly is too young to be called mature and therefore hasn’t developed proper reasoning skills as yet.
Consider the “and from a true sceptic” remark in which the person is never named. So who is this mysterious person? If the she is going to quote them she should be able to name them wouldn’t you think?
Not surprisingly she thinks her mindless babble is “commentary” that has actually proven anything other than that she is very adept at ignoring anything which contradicts her worldview. Not as though that will surprise anyone.
00
Silly says;
‘While it is true that GHGs do lead to an overall decrease in the mass-weighted average temperature of the atmosphere, their altering of the energy budget of individual layers leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.’
Ah yes Silly, the missing G spot. That magical point in the sky that regulates all on Heaven and Earth. Measured from a com-oxion of skill and bull. You are going to have to get a bit deeper than that to convince me you have merit.
As for you quoting: ‘The analysis revealed two major factors that could be contributing to the unusually large snowfall in recent winters — changes in atmospheric circulation and changes in atmospheric water vapor content — which are both linked to diminishing Arctic sea ice. Strong warming in the Arctic through the late summer and autumn appears to be enhancing the melting of sea ice.’
I am now perfectly aware of your inability to fully comprehend words placed before for you, suspiciously I’d presume from a prosaic bent. What is your prediction of the consequences now, with insolation entering a minimum.
As for you suggesting this as being septical: ‘The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earth’s Surface’. Where is your question of its falsifiability of its relative mechanics? Where is your experimental proof? And why the recent divergences from the best scenario modeled climate behavior?
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3303
00
Hi SillyFilly
Neighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
00
Bwa ha ha! Heeeelarious!
fbhbhhhbhhhbhhbbbbhfff chomp chomp
00
SF – liked your link to ‘science’ upthread, which is indeed science: I mentioned last night it was late and I could go get Jason dataset to show sea level by that satellite instrument had been falling for a couple years or so. Thanks, you have saved me that effort.
Dr Willis doesn’t say why except to imply the extra rainfall on us has something to do with it. I do not know the ratio of Australian landmass to the sea surface, but I guess the two blue bits are around 1/30th of sea surface area. Maybe I’m over estimating. But lets say 30:1.
In that case on the sea level fall over 2 years Australia should be permanently 15 cm deep in rain water right now. Maybe it is in Gosford, but I happen to notice this isn’t the case here.
Of course the temperature could be falling, and the sea may in fact be shrinking therefrom, but that would be difficult to explain from the rise in CO2 these last few years. CO2 being such a strongly warming greenhouse gas according to the IPCC.
Or it could be due to the low solar magnetic activity and the downswing phases of the PDO and AMO, which we presently are in. That as it happens fits quite nicely with the data. As la Nina is more common and deeper in the downswing of the PDO. By the way some meteorologists are thinking there might be a third la Nina in a row. That would be rather surprising given previous postulations that global warming could lead to a permanent el Nino state.
00
‘I rather deal in the science’
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
00
Yeah – thanks – I’m not too good at this scientifical stuff.
Could you explain what the blue curve in the attached graph means?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c016302429c78970d-pi
.
Thanks in advance.
00
Yes, it’s short-term trend in global temps: polynomial fit.
But, if you look at the long-term trend it shows the complete idiocy of using short-term trends to make substantive argument on climate: where’s ENSO, TSI etc and other natural variations?
All in all, puerile!
00
SF – how about long term sinusoidal fit? Hmmm, 160 years. Phil Jones’ HadCRUT no less. Of course you can’t do that in Excel except the old statistical way. But that should not stop a climate scientist like Dr Jones.
00
Bruce,
Thanks for confirming the long-term warming trends.
Perhaps you’d like to speak to John McLean (Carter’s co-author and analyst)and ask him how stupid his prediction was that 2011 would be cooler than 1956.
00
Temperature’s been falling for 15 years now SF. Ok, 14 year 9 months on this trend. How is that A1B prediction going again?
Seriously, the solar magnetic/low climate sensitivity hypothesis is working out very well, and the high sensitivity hypothesis is looking quite sick indeed. I know you know science, I’ve enjoyed crossing swords with you from time to time. But if our Government keeps on with the current ideologically driven misunderstanding of the science it is going to be costly for them. My local MP is Mr Combet – the state seat most contiguous with Charlton swung 28% in the NSW election. I hope he takes notice.
00
Thanks for that, SillyFilly. But I’m afraid your response only raises more questions for my all too inadequate brain.
1) – If CAGW “theory” says CO2 UP = temperature UP, how can we have a graph that clearly shows CO2 UP, but temperature DOWN – even if it is, as you state, a “short term trend”?
Please don’t say “natural variations” or something like that. Back when Dr James Hansen started all this in 1988 he assured Congress that any possible “natural variations” – and indeed any other factors – would be well and truly swamped by the warming effects of man-made CO2 by the year 2000, and we’re well past that now. Was Dr Hansen wrong?
2) – How do we KNOW it is a “short-term trend”, and not the top of sinusoidal curve, like the crest of a wave, and it’s going to be all down-hill (cooling) for the next fifteen years or so?
After all, that would fit the 25 to 30 year natural warming – cooling cycle inside 300 year warming – cooling cycles of climate as taught as science for at least fifty years before the CAGW “theory” came along. So there has to be some valid, demonstrable, verifiable REASON why this is NOT the case this time, if, as you have implied, apparently we “KNOW” it is only a “short-term trend”.
00
Stupid Horse…..Off to the Knackery with you
00
Silly, you are so 2010. ”From the patroness of the Galileo Movement, Australia’s own version of Heartland.” “Global warming is a hoax” Well if one considers the refusal of consenus scientists to move forward with science then , yes , it is a hoax.
They are lost in a forest of greenhouse, with a silly little radiative theory that should have debunked in 1897.
The surface temperature can be explained using Stephan-Boltzman, Newtonian gravitation and the gas laws. RTEs (Radiative Transfer Equations) can be neglected because in the troposphere convection and baroclynic eddies are the dominant heat transfer processes.
The chemical composition of a planet’s atmosphere therefore has a very minor importance. The major factors are TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) and surface pressure. All the other factors such as gas composition, ocean currents and so on have effects that are of second or third order importance.
So, Co2 running away with it, is a fallacy.
00
Last time we crossed paths on Bolta you stated this:
Radiation cannot enter the mass of Earth, radiation cannot enter the Oceans, radiation cannot enter the Atmosphere
And a part of my reply:
“they let you post this monumental stuff up of physical reality. Par for the course I suppose”
Nothing, of course, has changed IMHO
00
No Silly, you may have left a little squiggle under mine, but you haven’t been unfortunate to cross my path until now.
You will need to come out with more than rhetoric, I’m afraid, if you want your science to be considered with me.
Tell me about conservation of energy, I’m all ears.
00
Hi marcus, I’m interested by this. Can you help link me to some papers etc that this is based on?
Thanks.
00
Oh THERE you are sillyfilly… We’ve been wondering why you’d disappeared from Andrew Bolt’s blog. Is it because you’re embarrassed about the comments you made about FakeGate? You do remember what you said, don’t you?
And now that the truth has come out… that the documents were indeed stolen by an AGW proponent using fraudulent means, and that the primary document you (and the rest of the AGW apologists at Bolta’s blog) relied on so heavily has been proven to be a complete fake… Care to apologise?
00
No apologies required, facts are facts!
00
So sillyfilly, you like facts? Here are some facts in picture form so you should have no problem understanding them.
00
Classic Truthseeker!
That should shut him up!
I`m grabbing the popcorn….
00
sillyfilly,
wowee! Man, that’s an awful lot of money going to those guys from Heartland.
As I mentioned above, I wonder why you’re not commenting on The Sierra Club and their $25 MILLION from Big Oil.
$25 MILLION.
Only declared when it was found out, umm, through legal means might I add.
Tell us how that’s OK, and the pittance Heartland distributes isn’t.
Maybe you might care to comment about it.
None of the others here from ‘your side’ will.
It’s either ‘Hey look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears’, or gee, there’s a spelling mistake in your comment, or it is somehow ad hom!
Answers mate. Not the hypocrisy of avoidance.
Tony.
00
Dick the Butcher got it right!
Tony,
00
My mistake here.
This comment above refers to Madjak at Comment 47 below.
Tony.
00
You’re quite right DumbDonkey, facts ARE indeed facts.
And the facts are that Dr Peter Glieck FRAUDULENTLY impersonated a board-member of Heartland Institute to gain access to documents illegally. He then distributed those documents to thrid-parties, again illegally. And the evidence sure is stacking up that the ‘original document’ that prompted his actions was actually authoured by Dr Glieck himself!!
It seems that the most delicious detail of all is that The Church of AGW is so desperate to drown out any attempt at open discussion on this matter that they are prepared to condone the creation of false and misleading documents to use to slime their opponents…. One wonders if they are prepared to stoop to such behaviour how we are to be assured that they wouldn;t stoop to the creation of false and misleading data to support their shaky ‘science’…
But of course you won’t apologise will you DumbDonkey.. No matter how many times you have been proven wrong in the past, you return again and again to bray your pro-AGW nonesense.
Fact are indeed facts, but unfortunately it seems that you prefer your facts manufactured, as opposed to reality.
00
Ho hum, didn’t hear all this righteous indignation
re:
Fact are indeed facts, but unfortunately it seems that you prefer your facts manufactured, as opposed to reality.
Ho hum: we see this nonsense all the time from Heartland and Galileo and their minions. If you’ve got any substantive evidence to contradict me, then go for it. Otherwise your merely another mouthpiece for scientific ignorance.
00
Hmmm… Facts are facts?
So when are you going to provide some?
We could just as easily say fraud is fraud, which you appear to support.
00
SillyFilly,
Translation:
I am busy eating crow!
Carry on……
00
1 March: Environmental Finance: Elza Holmstedt Pell: FTSE launches new carbon indexes
Index provider FTSE has launched four carbon indexes to help investors reduce long-term climate change risks.
In a partnership with not-for-profit organisation Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and carbon benchmarking provider ENDS Carbon, FTSE has developed indexes addressing climate change risks and related regulation in Australia, Japan and Europe.
The new indexes are the FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy Australia 200 Index, FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy Australia 300 Index, FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy Europe Index and FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy Japan Index. These indexes are additions to existing UK indexes – the FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy All-Share Index and the FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy 350 Index.
The indexes give investors the ability to “redefine passive equity strategies in light of future carbon risks, while maintaining close performance tracking of the underlying FTSE benchmark”, said David Harris, director of responsible investment at FTSE…
Paul Simpson, CEO of CDP, said: “These indexes, which apply forward-looking analysis to the CDP data set, offer investors a straightforward mechanism to protect themselves from risk and factor climate change into their investment decisions.”
“Institutional investors have demonstrated an appetite for using alternative index weighting methodologies, including the incorporation of risk-based approaches,” said Harris.
“At the same time, they are under increasing pressure to demonstrate action on integrating climate change and carbon-related risks in their portfolios.”
http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/2340
was listening to BBC World Sce radio this week, discussing why no-one predicted the GFC; thought surely someone will bring up the next potential bubble, the “carbon dioxide bubble”. naturally, no-one did. how amusing to find the CAGW crowd have actually written to the Bank of England, and received a reply and promise of a meeting, regarding a “carbon bubble” of a very different kind:
6 Feb: Carbon bubble: Bank of England’s opportunity to tackle market failure
Bank’s willingness to consider fossil fuel exposure as a risk to financial stability will serve as an important test of whether anything has been learned from the sub-prime crisis
by Ben Caldecott and James Leaton
(Ben Caldecott is head of policy at Climate Change Capital & James Leaton is project director at Carbon Tracker Initiative)
The depth of the financial system’s exposure to high carbon and environmentally unsustainable investments could be a systemic risk that threatens economic security. In a letter sent to Sir Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, a coalition of investors, politicians, and academics recently urged the bank to investigate these issues in order to prevent the profound harm that could be wrought by an over-exposure to high carbon assets and a rapid shift in their values.
In an important reply, the governor has now accepted that there is a need for further evaluation and it is encouraging to see the bank willing to consider the levels of fossil fuel exposure as a potential risk to financial stability…
The response from the vast majority of conventional energy analysts to the idea of climate risk has been largely negative, with one recently saying publicly: ” I think it’s a bollocks subject. I’m not interested in this kind of subject. I think this is complete hot air.” To us, this doesn’t sound like someone who is factoring in climate change risk…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bank-of-england-market-carbon-bubble?newsfeed=true
00
Using the Scientific Method – Heartland Associate gets a BIG FAIL.
An associate of the Heartland Institute, the think tank devoted to discrediting mainstream science based assertions on climate change with the link to the greenhouse gas CO2, taught a course at a top Canadian university that contained more than 140 false, biased and misleading claims about climate science, an expert audit has found.
A team of scientists, who reviewed the videotapes of Harris’s lectures provided by the university, found 142 false, biased and misleading claims. The course, which is not intended for science majors, may for many students be the only academic exposure they have to climate change while earning their undergraduate degree.
The report found the course under Harris’s direction systematically deviated from the scientific mainstream on climate change, embracing extreme opinion. The audit found constant references to Dr Bob Carter and Anthony Watts.
“The content of this particular course is heavily biased against the scientific consensus concerning the anthropogenic causes of dangerous climate change,” the report from the Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Scepticism said. “The unbalanced nature of the course, the lack of peer-reviewed literature cited, and the non-science audience mean that the course fails to constitute ‘promotion of debate’ and instead merely presents a biased and inaccurate portrayal of contemporary climate science.”
http://www.scientificskepticism.ca/content/climate-change-denial-carleton-university-course-exposed-national-science-team
Ross J.
00
Ross, how do you feel about the fact that the report you’re quoting from comes from the (Canadian) Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism, a propaganda organisation set up in 2010? Regular visitors to this site also know you are also a propagandist for the climate alarmism industry. So who pays your salary? Or are you just doing a favour for your mates? Sheesh.
00
WOW – Ross, thanks for bringing this matter to our attention.
I mean, how can we possibly tolerate a so-called “teacher” who tells these kinds of things to his pupils:
Surely this guy should be tarred and feathered and run out of town for spreading such heresies.
00
Hi MV
“Surely this guy should be tarred and feathered and run out of town for spreading such heresies.”
A better idea might be to dress him up in a suit, take him to the UN and put him in charge of the IPCC and make professor Pachauri the cleaner.
00
Ross,
So uncritically accepting the assertions of a different biased organization – because it agrees with your own biases – is science?
W^3
00
O/T,
Does anyone else here reckon that anyone trained as a Lawyer should be permanently and irrevocably prohibited from ever being able to be come Prime minister/President or in Australia’s case short term unelectable dictator?
00
MadJak,
It is no bad thing to have a prime minister who respects the law, and people who’ve devoted great expense and time to studying the law are more likely than most to have some respect for it and its attendant bureaucratic processes.
I can’t say I don’t ever rip on lawyers occasionally. I think the hate is because we always seem to hear or see them under unfortunate circumstances that they become “guilty by association”. The other reason is suspicion of corruption. The extent of corruption in our legal system is difficult to determine for one good reason: all lawyers hate each other and would nail anybody corrupt to the wall given half a chance. If there is corruption it is very well hidden for the same reason that makes our system somewhat resistant to corruption: sharks have no professional courtesy! 😉
If I knew what your ulterior motive was then I might agree with your goal even if I presently disagree with the method you’ve proposed.
00
Actually MJ,
Given that the position of Prime Minister does not even appear in the Constitution (deliberately, and with good reason), anybody claiming the title, and anybody supporting their claim, should immediately be charged and tried for treason.
00
Spot on MV,
The Constitution is silent on the role of political parties in parliament. It does not make any reference to a government party, an opposition party or minor parties, or to roles like Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
Political parties are private businesses having ABN numbers – those elected from those businesses must put their company policy first.
00
Another thought,should private enterprise get taxpayer benefits for presenting cadidates for election to the Australian parliament?
00
Concur with that
Cheers MV
00
Andrew and MV,
Time for a ramble. For the record, I think no-one should be in parliament unless they have respect for the law.
My motive is that right now, I think I have figured out why a particular PM is so difficult to trust. It’s not just that as a person they appear to compulsively lie, but that the way she presents that lie is so bold and brash, that the minions are quite happy to believe it.
That is, until someone with some nouse actually figures it out -which often has come too late. Of course in this case, some journos have actually twigged onto this.
I wonder how much of the current truth deficiency comes from many years of arguing a case in court to defend a particular stance. To me this would explain why there is so much difficulty with the truth in parliament – the lawyers instinct is to instantly defend and to continue defending at all costs.
These skills are definitely attributes I would probably want in a lawyer presenting me, but in a Prime Minister I think it is much more of a liability to the people having someone behaving as though parliament is a court of law. In short they undermine the system purely with their behaviour, IMHO.
Of course, people like that in parliament tend to bully other elected representatives and be much better at bullying than say a farmer from Woop Woop County. This tilts the power dynamic within parliament and the parties significantly in their favour.
I know it’s guilt by association, but maybe the occupational hazard of being a lawyer makes them more of a liability to the system as PM?
00
counterexample: Swanny is one of the biggest bullies in parliament and he’s been a career politician since day one, no law degree, and unfortunately no economics degree either. JooLiar is the only obvious example that fits, and aren’t all politicians famous for dissembling? I think some people are inherently bullies (and liars) and having a law degree is neither sufficient nor necessary for becoming a bully.
However I’m warming to the no-lawyers-in-parliament idea.
Lawyers love creating more laws that their ilk can make money from litigating. I don’t want Big Government to creep forward step by step. The easiest way to achieve the desired result is to make possession of a law degree an irreconcilable conflict of interest for parliamentarians. 😀
Yeah, there’s plenty of room for lawyers in the judiciary, departments, and staff advisors, so in parliament we need ordinary people with life experience and an extraordinary sense of civic duty.
Instead of the rigged remunerations tribunal endlessly raising the salaries of politicians, they should take a pay cut back to the ~$90,000pa level. It’s still a very decent salary but many of them could be making much more than that in their usual business or medical practice or law firm. A lower than market salary would ensure that the moment they stop doing the job for the good of the country, they stop doing the job and make way for someone more motivated.
It doesn’t reduce the quality of the applicants because there’s nothing to stop an experienced individual from applying if that’s what they want to do.
00
RE: Swann ;- Manipulating liars tend to attract others. To use a crude example, shit attracts flies.
I think if we banned lawyers there would be less skilled and trained manipulators to protect amateurs like swann.
I would also suggest that Politicians wages should be indexed to the average wage of the populace as well as the growth rate of businesses.
As people become more prosperous, the politicians wages increase accordingly.
If they borrow, spend and tax, the pollies pays decline as a result.
00
Errh – Apart from Ministers appointed by the GG, Federal Politicians aren’t supposed to paid, either.
It was one the options canvassed in the referendum to adopt the constitution in 1900, and the idea was soundly defeated.
00
MV,
Interesting point. Although i could argue that paying them something that is indexed to the consequences of their decisions would be better than not paying them.
By not paying them, the non wealthy people will get excluded due to the necessity of them needing to put bread on the table.
00
.
I was spelling out what the rule book (constitution) had to say on the matter, not my personal opinion on whether they “should” get paid or not.
My personal opinion is that the Founding Fathers made a fatal error in setting up our Federal Parliament when they devised it with Members and Senators elected separately from the States’ elected bodies.
The primary intent was that Australia was to remain a loose federation of largely independent states, that co-operated together on a handful of issues where it made sense to do so, and clearly defined and limited by the Constitution (standard gauge railway, communications, defense etc). That way, if a state went “rogue” people would move to a more amenable state and the damage would be contained.
A secondary intent was to avoid, at all costs, the development of the “party political system” that was, at the time, beginning to paralyse both the English and the U.S. parliamentary systems, and especially its corollary – the “professional politician”.
To my way of thinking they would have had a better chance of success if, instead of creating a whole new class of politician – Federal Members and Senators – they had instead set up a system where already elected State Members, selected on the same proportional basis as now applies to Federal seats, sat in the two Federal Houses, from time to time, to decide on those matters that fell under federal jurisdiction.
This would have seriously limited the influence of “party politics” at the federal level, and also curtailed the encroachment of Federal Parliamentary power into areas that were always meant to be the province of the states.
00
MV, you might like to know that “states rights” are a hot topic here in the US as well. The Federal Gov. has repeatedly ignored this concept and used federal funds to extort compliance. There are a number of states starting to flex their rights and more to follow.
00
Hi Mark,
Yes, you folks have the same basic problem – how to stop the ever-constant centralisation of power.
00
MV and Mark,
I agree with both of your last comments whole heartedly. The party concept, I believe is becoming more and more irrelevant by the day. This is because the more people added to an institution, the more cumbersome and prone to mistakes it becomes.
This is a good thing for independant thought.
It is a bad omen for those who rely on others to think for them.
00
Dont worry maddy you’ll get a chance to vote in 2013. 🙂
Worst example of a lawyer in the HoR at the moment though would have to be that idiot Julie Bishop. She’s a serial failure fool, who hasn’t yet worked out that the HoR is not a court and nobody there is impressed by her catty schoolgirl antics.
00
Catamon,
Once again, please provide examples of your accusations or apologise to Julie Bishop – a real apology this time, not that insulting rant you gave some weeks back when i called you out on your continued repetition of the lie that Tony abbot said “climate change is absolute crap”.
I am tired of having to call you out on your repeated use of Third Rate and Third hand propaganda spin lines from the ALP.
00
Ok Maddy my love.
She was Minister for Education under Howard just before he got Sh@tcanned so unceremoniously. Did nothing.
Then, as DLOTO she got busted for plagarism in her “contribution” to PVO’s book on the Fiberals. Bad look huh??
Then she had to step down as Shadow Treasurer, before she got dumped, since the Libs were becoming so distressed at her inability to do basic arithmetic nd the like. Hah! they gave Hockey that one.
Then she did the whole “we fake passports too!” thing. That should have been a sacking offence for a shadow FM. She’s still there.
Then there was the vicious rant on Wednsday at Julia Gillard. Turns out Bishop was wRONg in her entirety and should make apology to the PM.
Call me on what you like Maddy, but i’ll continue to disturb your little echo chamber to my hearts content. XXX
Remember Maddy, there is a real world out there.
00
RE: Catamon,
There sure is, you should visit it sometime – although I must warn you it exists far beyond the spin of the rusted on ALP comrades.
Yet again, you demonstrate that you are just a myopic mouth for the ALP party line. You’re just mouthpeice for the party -no independant thought whatsoever.
I am really going to enjoy your pathetic silence as the ALP is ripped to pieces by the external voters – instead of being ripped to peices by the internal lying and knifing that this country has had to tolerate for so long.
Still waiting for that apology, but then again someone who is so hopelessly conditioned to follow the ALP cause probably has no idea how to ever admit being wrong. I guess they never taught you rusted on losers that one did they?
00
McCrann gets it, and we must demand it:
3 March: Australian: Terry McCrann: Carbon tax must be dumped and the NBN amended
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/carbon-tax-must-be-dumped-and-the-nbn-amended/story-e6frg9k6-1226287774921
this gets to the heart of the CAGW scam. Climategate 1.0 would have buried CAGW instantly, if it weren’t for the MSM simply refusing the drop the memes.
you can argue the science – and u should – until you are blue in the face, it will never be enough, because the CAGW scamsters always have the precautionary principle to invoke.
it is only when the memes and the memesters are fully exposed that CAGW will be finished.
btw guess the MSM aren’t too interested in asking Gleick if they could see a copy of the alleged documents he claimed to receive in the post (with envelope, pretty please) or who his 15 friends are.
maybe Jo could do a thread where we all guess the 15!
28 Feb: American Thinker: Russell Cook: Fakegate Opens a Door
Fakegate may offer a similar doorway into an elaborate scheme, more complex and nefarious than mere identity theft and fabrication of false documents.
In this case, the Wall Street Journal’s 2/21/12 “Not-So-Vast Conspiracy” editorial opened the door ever so slightly about an otherwise unexplored older and bigger problem surrounding the entire global warming issue. Facts not mentioned in the editorial open it further.
The name of Ross Gelbspan indirectly figures in the WSJ editorial. A 1995 Harper’s article cited in the editorial was written by Ross Gelbspan. The stolen Heartland Institute documents first appeared on the internet at the enviro-activist blog site Desmogblog. Its star blogger is Ross Gelbspan.
The door opens wider with the revelation that Pacific Institute scientist Peter Gleick confessed to inappropriately acquiring the documents. A little digging reveals a still-current Pacific Institute web page dating to April 2004 titled “Science, Climate Change, and Censorship” (backup link here), where Gleick says this about skeptic climate scientist Pat Michaels: “He is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence.” Farther down that page is a prominent reference to Ross Gelbspan…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html
00
Read that. McCrann is an idiot. Nuff said.
00
Terry Mcrann is a lot smarter than you Catamon….
for starters, he does`nt vote ALP like you…
00
Nah BA. Just read the crap he wrote re: the NBN. Hr doesn’t even get the financing arrangemnts and just has Fiberal talking points. Not a journo, just a hack.
00
“Just a hack”
Just like you……
00
Wow the insults on here are just so cutting.
Is the D team on today or something??
00
ALP…Australian LIARS PARTY.
00
The Climate Wars.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/
Pointman
00
This will go on until the whole green ideology of “regressive” progress has been driven from the puiblic space. The main driver of this is the UN agenda 21 for sustainable development. The CAGW scam is only one part of this and that is why they can just change the name to climate change or swich scares to something else like biodiversity so quickly.
The following comes from James Dellingpole on what the real war is: “It is said of the British, however, that we tend to lose all our battles except that last, thus winning the war. Climate sceptics, on the other hand, now seem to be in danger of reversing this process – winning the battles but losing the war.
This thesis is tried out in an important piece by Autonomous Mind who notes that the battle over climate science is by-and-large meaningless. The climate agenda, he says, is but one front in a much broader campaign involving the centralisation of power, the erosion of democracy and liberty and the transfer of wealth.
Thus says AM, no matter what the “science” reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political – and economic corporatist – agenda. On that front is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change.
Exactly the same sentiment is reflected in a report by Dennis Ambler.
Whilst the continual scientific rebuttals of the climate reports produced by the IPCC may make many people think that this charade cannot continue much longer, behind the scenes it is quite irrelevant, he writes. The long-term process marches relentlessly on as if there had never been any challenges at all.
As the advocates throw in yet more spurious claims of the “hottest year on record”, or record cold caused by CO2 emissions, they occupy the debate, and determine the daily agenda in the media, whilst those who know that the claims are spurious, are driven to waste time, effort and resources on refuting them”.
Every time you here the term “sustainable” you know that the process continues. This is why most city and town planning is now focused on “sustainable” planning which means couping humans up into dense housing around public transport corridors. This controls them and keeps them out of “the environment”. The whole concept is that people need to be controlled and kept in cages so that all of the animals can roam free.
00
As depressing as your post paints the situation, instilling one with a feeling of hopelessness we can only continue our battle in the hope that our voice becomes too loud to be ignored.
A small battle has just been fought in Virginia, while the outcome could not be considered a victory, better things may lay ahead.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/48166.html
00
CLIMATE OF LIES AND DECEPTION FLOWS FROM THE TOP DOWN
Read this damning report from Tony Thomas in this month’s Quadrant Online
Also read Anthony Watts “demand” for defunding of IPCC following the US GAO report on secretive funding not reported to Congress
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/05/defund-the-ipcc-now/
The ever-lengthening Pinocchio Nose of Julia Gillard keeps “great” company!
00
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the end. I am beginning to think that Jo [and all other decent, thinking people] may be proven wrong that Gleikgate will prove to be the PR disaster [for them] that we might expect.
My honest appraisal of the situation at large is that the committedly global warming crowd has spit off so completely with main stream society that they no longer CARE about getting caught lying and committing frauds, they no longer care about getting caught in the act, they no longer care at all about what main stream society thinks of them – all they care about is getting their way.
I wonder how many of this type are watching to see if main stream society has any real teeth left in punishing a Peter Gleick, or if he will be effectively shielded from all real consequences to his actions. If nothing happens to Gleick it will be interesting to see how much more emboldened they become in the future.
What is most disturbing to me is that there seem to be a significant number of people in the sciences and academia, intelligent, middle class, well educated professionals who’s personal ethics have become so totally self-referential and self-sealing that essentially any course of action which supports the success of their personal agendas can be rationalized as for ‘the greater good’, nothing is off limits to them, any course of action can be rationalized.
We’ll have to see if any law enforcement agency, or jurisdiction can be stirred to take any action against Gleick. I don’t expect to see any of his natural partisans to ever change their opinions about Gleick’s justifications in doing what he did.
W^3
00
The Heartland Institute issued Cease and Desist notices to those sites that put up the Gleikgate material. They were sufficiently arrogant to ignore those notices, thus leaving themselves open to civil action. Also, identity theft is, I believe, a Federal offence, as is wire fraud, and forgery, all of which were arguably involved in Gleik obtaining the material in the first place.
Now I am not so naive as to assume that the FBI will ignore instructions to drop a case, if those instructions come from a high enough level, but the fact that they do not pursue a case, also speaks volumes.
These things take time, and it will be interesting to see how the legal process proceeds.
00
In reply to SillyFilly’s post:
Do you see the long term warming trend is evidence that the warming trend is “natural”?
Instead of beating up on Dr. Carter about a “stupid” prediction.Why not tell us why we should overlook the IPCC’s utter failure on their projected.20C warming for the first decade of this century.They were waaaay off and getting worse because they have the same .20C warming rate projected for the second decade right in front of us.But there is strong indication that we are heading into a couple or three decades cooling trend.
By 2030 or so the IPCC projected temperature accumulation of around .60C warming will probably instead be zero or into the negative trend.Not a good sign for the projected trends which are based on the AGW conjecture.The one that has never enjoyed any kind of success.
Maybe the IPCC is much stupider for making their numerous error filled temperature projections and publishing them so loudly to the world?
00
Sunsettommy,
The 30 years are upwards. You are placing far weight on climate variability caused by ENSO patterns.
This is Dr Bob Cater’s misunderstanding: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif
This is the REAL trend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Realists.gif
The next EL Nino (late 2012/2013) may destroy take away 9% of the support for Climate Change Skepticism.
Ross J.
00
Ross says:
The next EL Nino (late 2012/2013)”
ROFLMAO
00
Markus,
Hang in there. If we stay the course on the science we may yet make headway.
Ross J.
00
Markus, Hang in there. If we stay the course on the science we may yet make headway.
Ross J.”
Listen, goose. You can kid yourself about what is and isn’t science. All your statistics, graphs, trends, computer simulations, etc are a poor excuse for science. Video games don’t cut it with me as science.
When you come to me with a list of experiments, I’ll consider you a worthwhile opponent. As it is, my first impression of you was you are a dribbler and nothing I’ve seen from you, shakes my perception.
We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you
were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll
disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind
of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to
fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in cargo cult science.
Richard Feynman
Let’s talk about this – http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5156v1.pdf -experiment and how it is going to have a major impact on GCM’s.
Idiot.
00
What is really funny about Ross is that he chides me about climate variability based on ENSO events.Then prates about the coming next… ENSO event of an El-Nino.
Meanwhile Bruce and myself post long term temperature data that clearly show distinct warming and cooling trends that have a definite ENSO signature in them.
CHART
00
Ross,did you even bother to read the link I posted and what he was replying to?
I doubt it because your reply to me indicates that you as usual just make replies out of thin air.Here is why I am going to expose what a narrow minded dip you are:
SillyFilly was replying to what Bruce wrote,
Bruce showed in the link undeniable dominance of the “natural” cycling of warming and cooling.
SillyFilly then replied,
But like you he fails to see that it is a stable up and down cycle.EACH warming trend since the 1850’s have been similar and of similar length.It seems to favor the .16C per decade increase that is partially offset-ted by the cooling trends in between.The latest warming trend is doing that same thing.There is no acceleration warming trend going on at all and it appears that the warming has slowed down to near zero in recent years.
Dr. Jones a noted warmist AGW believer admit to this not long ago.
Dr. Jones admits that there is no acceleration in the latest warming trend (that appears to have ended) and that all of the warming trends back to 1850 are very similar to each other.No AGW signal is there Ross and there is nothing you can do about it.
In a forum is a series of postings I have made on this very thing. Posts from 733 to post 737 is filled with charts and comments on why there is no visible AGW signal in the warming trends at all.
He has not replied since I made these 4 postings that I made TEN days ago.
00
By the way Ross,why did you completely ignore my comment about the awesome IPCC projected decadal warming statement of a .20C per decade?
The one that is waaay off the mark in the first decade of the 21st century.
00
Sunsettommy,
Easily all missed on a such large forums – apologies right here.
It would however take several posts to rectify my tardiness and lack thereof in replying.
1. IPCC can be shown to be in line with ALL prediction estimates – see my later posts I was developing with Truthseeker. You want graphs etc ask me to post them. You want the latest documented proofs – post 2010 studies and papers are ALL highly relevant to your requests – you’ll have them all for easy access.
2. HadCrut 3 does not take into account the Northern Polar regions. This is to be superseded to HadCrut 4.
3. The Jones statements can be shown to be taken mainly out of context. Reason why HadCrut4 will take into account the extra heat in the Northern Polar Regions to gain that average global temperature rises in line with all other well known global averages.
4. It would take several posts to show careful calculations of natural variability does not SWAMP the signal of CO2s radiative forcing over the century. It exists despite the best attempts in its removal.
5. This is much like the false allegation that the MVP period was supposed to have been removed from the record by the IPCC.
6. You should NEVER rely on just one Global temperature estimate (Jones) as a basis to support natural variability and drowning of radiative forcing and nullify its calculated estimates. Some show COOLER biases whilst others show warmer biases. When lower averages are offset with the higher averaging this CANCELS out BIAS anyway – this is very important to note.
7. ENSO has always played a role in those estimates and understood much more now (2012) then then in the 1998 El Nino spike. It is simply false to allege this is not taken into account in all calculations (IPCC or otherwise).
I hope to address all these things over the coming weeks. I have a lot of appointments to attend to this morning and the coming week. I assure you your avid interest in all these issues is highly commendable as a sound basis for good ongoing science dialogue and is worthy of lengthy replies.
Ross J.
00
To both Ross and Silly, The Earth is an unplumbed heat pump, the source of heat is the sun and water is the refrigerant. The tropics are the heat input regulators which act as a very efficient input thermostat. The poles are our radiators of heat to space and thus also act as thermostats.
The fine tuning of our system for temperature control is in the unplumbed chaos of the temperate zones which we call weather.
Having said that we now have to add in some rather complex outside influences that include the planetary and solar mechanics, the electrical and magnetic variances, our place in the galaxy and our suns petulant behaviour. The moon of course also has rather some rather interesting affects on both climate and life.
The results of all this chaos is beauty, sine waves within sine waves of variances over time scales that interweave and over lap and give us an unending change that is beyond our control.
The planet earth is self regulatory within the bounds of this chaos and CO2 is a gift of life that has zero affect on the climate, but totally beneficial for all life.
I think I forgot that John B a forgettable sort of person, however you are all barking up the wrong tree, there is no CO2 bogey man up there.
00
Wayne, s. Job
That was Poetry!
🙂
00
Thank you Kinky I get a bit cross some times and have to say some thing.
00
The earth is a unplumbed heat pump with a non-natural adding of a certain type of gas to its naturally balanced gas mixtures causing the loss of heat over night to be slightly less over time.
Refrigeration is a closed system. The earth never was a closed system as we are exposed to space. It is an open system that is open to plunder by an increased requirement of its natural resources which are re-introduced into the natural cycle too fast.
Ross J.
00
Here is a comment from an IPCC expert reviewer from an article in the Scientific American (November 2010) talking about Judith Curry challenging the climate orthodoxy.
The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface (including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing. Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational average can be derived.
Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived. They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings. Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two .
The assumptions of climate models are absurd. They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.
Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day. No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.
It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting any future climate behaviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.
There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.
After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning , I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud.
The link to the article and comments is here. You have to navigate to comment 14 by “Iconoclast”.
00
Truthseeker,
Dr Curry has read far too much into variability. The original authors discuss here…What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Of course, this contrasts sharply with other forecasts of the climate system; the purple line roughly indicates the model-based forecast of Smith et al. (2007) , suggesting with a warming of roughly 0.3 deg C over the 2005-2015 period.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
…it has the cardinal virtue of being a consistent record with respect to time. The sole exclusion in the figure is the line connecting the 1997 and 1998 temperatures. Now, anomalous behaviour is always in the eye of the beholder.
______________
Take what you may from the article intended as it supports fully my assertions. I have followed the temperature trends since 2005 myself. Where we do find is plateauing due to the double dip La Nina. I find ENSO cause those fluctuations. The evidence statistically exists for the upward escalator phenomena since the 1970s.
A simple understanding of ENSO impacts would appear to support the notion in what accounts for this variability.
My understanding is sound, valid and is backed up by recent studies of oceanic heat. (If you are interested beyond any confirmation bias). EL Ninos release pent up heat in the oceans to the atmosphere and La Ninas sequester heat from the atmosphere to the oceans as a negative forcing for a period of time. (Double dip La Ninas as well even more so). The trend beyond all doubt is always upward. This is signal of radiative forcing that is expected. This is in full agreement with the IPCC range of predictions.
The bottom line, Truthseeker above and beyond all variabilities is: the signal of CO2 forcing is unmistakable. The next EL Nino late 2012/213 will put paid to any thought that global temperatures will continue to drop or cease. The escalator will continue to climb over time and not go downward.
The Truth of Climate is not for the faint hearted blogger.
Ross J.
00
Ross,
The sun appeared to rise in the east this morning. As it did yesterday morning, and the morning before. In fact, it has been doing it for as long as any one can remember, and there is historical and other kinds of evidence to suggest the sun has been appearing to rise in the east for significantly longer than anyone alive today can attest to.
Today the generally accepted explanation for this observed phenomena is that the earth orbits around the sun.
Based on past observations, historical data, and our current explanation of why, most people are happy to assume the sun will also appear to rise in the east tomorrow, and the day after, and for much the same reason as it has done so in the past.
.
Now Ross, I want you to imagine some wild-eyed person runs up to you in the street and starts screaming “The sun’s going to appear to rise in the east tomorrow”.
I think, Ross, that your reaction would be something along the lines of “So what – that’s what it does every day because the earth orbits around the sun”.
“NO!” screams the wild-eyed person. “That’s what has happened in the past, but tomorrow the sun is going to appear to rise in the east because a giant alien spaceship has caught the earth in its tractor-beam and is going to tow the earth into such a position that the sun will appear to rise in the east”.
.
You see Ross, what we have observed in the past is that climate goes in 25 to 30 cycles of warming and cooling, and that these cycles fit into larger cycles of warming and cooling as evidenced by the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO), the Roman Warm Period RWP), and the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
What we are observing now fits perfectly into this cycle; we have been through a perfectly natural warming cycle from the mid seventies to the turn of the century, and now we are transitioning into a perfectly natural 25 to 30 year cooling cycle.
All that remains to be seen is whether the next warming cycle is warmer than the last, meaning we are still heading up to the next equivalent of the HCO, RWP and MWP, or whether we are now on the downward slope in the larger cycle, which will mean a descent into a future equivalent of the LIA.
Now Ross, since to the rest of us what is happening simply fits what has been observed to happen in the past many, many times, you have to appreciate our skepticism when people like you, and your religion’s priests over at Real Climate, run up to us and start screaming that THIS TIME it’s happening because of a giant alien spaceship.
Or, even more implausibly, because of a slight increase in the amount of a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere.
.
Personally, I think you should have gone with the giant alien spacecraft.
I think you could have convinced more people for longer with that fairy-tale.
00
You argument introduces destructive criticism on my character and assaults my intelligence. It is mainly Ad Hom as it is character assassination. When I came to this board I made a promise. I will be respectful of all.
There is also a touch of bitter irony in your words as you struggle to respond intelligently with another fellow human being like yourself that disagrees with.
I expect your childish behaviour to improve.
Ross J.
(I read what memoryvault wrote and wonder what you are so aggrieved about.Sure he suggested that you ride out with the alien spaceship.So what! it is a mild jab) CTS
00
Ross,
Just as an addendum I thought you might like this graph.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Ljungqvist_HadCRUT3.png
00
Ross,
My sincerest apologies if my post crumpled your obviously over-sensitive feelings.
I was merely attempting to point out, in humble lay-man’s terms, that if one wants people to accept an alternative explanation for something already readily explainable, then one needs a little more evidence than a link to a bunch people saying “Trust me, I know what I’m talking about. I’m a climate scientist”.
Particularly when said group of “scientists” have been proven wrong over and over again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10
.
Let me leave you to ponder this quote attributed to Aristotle:
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
00
Good graph overall with limited pitfalls and splicing from proxies to modern instrumentals.
Even Mann (2008) agrees with the graph.
Interesting to see the “cine wave” rhythm broken in the last 30 years (upward).
Ross J.
00
CTS
I wasn’t suggesting poor old Ross should take a jaunt in an alien spacecraft, merely that the promoters of CAGW would have had more success in promoting such a spacecraft as the cause of CAGW, rather than the far more implausible “theory” that it was caused by trace amounts of CO2.
Dearie me, I certainly don’t want Ross to go anywhere.
His entertainment value here is priceless.
00
Ross, you really have no idea what you are doing do you? My post was about a comment made by a person with 20 years experience in studying climate and who has been involved in the IPCC process from the beginning. It was not about Dr Judith Curry, but then that is probably as far as you got in reading my comment before you decided it was against your own confirmation bias.
There is no hidden ocean heat and the troposphere is not showing any signs of CO2 forcing. The models have been unmitigated failures at predicting anything for the last 15 years.
Stop looking at computer models Ross and start looking at observational evidence. Who knows, maybe you will end up discovering science along the way.
00
Here is something for the alarmists to think about.According to the rigors of scientific discipline,no theory or hypothesis is worthy of any consideration unless it implies the sort of evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are tested against the facts.To paraphrase Einstein,a single anomalous result alone is sufficient to invalidate the proposition concerned.Recent history is replete with failed global warming predictions.Ergo the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been discredited.
00
Col,
It would be helpful for you to read the following article:
http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/ajhoff/pub_academic/2011%20Strategic%20Organization.pdf
Your premise is incorrect. This presented by Dr Carter is fraught with subjective opinion and culture wars.
There are three levels to this science:
1. The Hypothesis of radiative forcing causing warming is well established science and Provable laws of tests in a laboratory.
2. The Hypothesis of climate sensitivity of increased temperatures is supported by trends in climate instrumental records and modern proxies.
3. The Hypothesis calculated within Computer Models on how accurate the rise in temperature will be in a hundred years have to be ERROR barred estimates ONLY. They cannot be proven. The error bar ratios however show ACCURACY since 1990. Estimates that were higher are presently weaker and the lower estimates higher. The range is to the lower estimates.
The word predictive is being put around the internet. You cannot predict tomorrows climate – you can only place error barred estimates on such, establish risk factoring and mitigation measures based on our present knowledge and understanding.
The “smoking gun hypothesis” in regards to Global Warming not being real science does not exist.
Ross J.
00
Fully graphed are predictions of Scientists and the IPCC in line with global temperature measurements.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png
Ross J.
00
Your graph is wrong. Hansens scenario is the one that shows where temperatures would be if we ceased emitting CO2 altogether.
Here is a link for you http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/17/hansen-scenarios-a-and-b/
If they lie about Hansen, why do you believe everything they state? Try THINKING instead of regurgitating!
00
Eddy,
Steve McIntyre concludes:
As to how Hansen’s model is faring, I need to do some more analysis. But it looks to me like forcings are coming in below even Scenario B projections. Thus, if Hansen’s projections over-state what we’re experiencing in 2005-2010, then this does not per se invalidate Hansen’s model, as some people are too quick to conclude. To the extent that the differences lie in lower than projected forcings, I’m not prepared to place fault on the model for those defects. Whether the forcings account for the defects is a different matter and it would be interesting to run the 1988 model with actual GHG concentration changes – an experiment that’s long overdue and which would end much speculation about the merit or lack of merit of Hansen’s 1988 projections.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/17/hansen-scenarios-a-and-b/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HansenActualPrediction.png
Observed temperature change (GISTEMP, blue) and with solar, volcanic and El Niño Southern Oscillation effects removed by Foster and Rahmstorf (green) vs. Hansen Scenario B trend adjusted downward 16% to reflect the observed changes in radiative forcings since 1988, using a 1986 to 1990 baseline.
In reference to Figure 1 we’ve included both GISTEMP data, and GISTEMP with solar, volcanic, and El Niño Southern Oscillation influences removed by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). The 1988 to 2010 trends are similar, 0.20°C per decade with the natural effects, 0.18°C per decade without. Scenario B has a 0.23°C per decade trend, but when removing a simulated volcanic eruption in 1996, the trend decreases to about 0.22°C per decade.
As the figure above shows, Hansen’s 1988 model overpredicted the ensuing global warming. However, it only over predicted the warming by approximately 15 to 25%, which is a far cry from the 300% overprediction claimed by Michaels in his 1998 congressional testimony.
Hansen’s results add to the long list of evidence that climate sensitivity is not low. While it’s true that Hansen’s 1988 model was too sensitive, this is not news. The sensitivity of his model was 4.2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (see Section 6.1 on page 4398 of his paper), which is towards the high end of the IPCC likely climate sensitivity range.
However, as noted above, Hansen’s model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a conservative estimate), this suggests the actual climate sensitivity is approximately 3.4°C for doubled CO2, which is close to the IPCC best estimate of 3°C.
Ross J.
00
You’re doing it again. Ross.
You CAN’T take a prediction made in 1988, ADJUST that prediction (downwards) to account for every observation made in the subsequent 20 years, and THEN claim the end adjusted result validates the original prediction.
On that basis I will happily predict that average temperature in 2020 will be between 5 and 10 degrees cooler than at present. I will go further and bet you a million dollars my prediction turns out correct, PROVIDED I can “adjust” my prediction every six months, based on actual observed temperatures.
If Hansen’s original predictions have been “adjusted” downwards by 16%, and the “adjusted” results are STILL between 15 and 25% out, then Hansen’s ORIGINAL predictions must have been between 31% and 41% incorrect.
Add to that the fact that Hansen’s “predictions” start at zero error and accumulated that level of error in just 20 years, AND continue to diverge from observations at the same rate, means without further “adjustment” in twenty years time they will just as far out again as the “unadjusted” ones are today.
This isn’t “science” Ross. In truth it reminds me most of the sort of thing one finds on Christian Cult numerology sites: Just take George Bush’s name spelled backwards in Aramaic, convert it to numbers, multiply by 12 for the Apostles, divide by 3 for the Trinity, subtract 523 and convert the result back into letters, and voila! – ANTICHRIST.
00
Memoryvault,
The key here is prediction as opposed to projection. When Hansen initially made the projection there were three propositions. The underlying fact remains the radiative signal of CO2 was calculated into those projections.
Over the decade of 90s science has improved climate sensitivity calculated forward estimates.
Steve McIntyre clearly states: “I’m not prepared to place fault on the model for those defects”. Therefore Congress was misrepresented to by Michaels in 1998. He has been called out on this many times over. As to your statement that we are headed for some novel ideal or idea that we are cooling shows just how out of step you are with climate science.
There is no divergence. The only downward trends couples to ENSO. And if we remove all ENSO patterns over the 40 years now we still see the Radiative CO2 warming signal. The removal of climate or weather short term variability does phase me one bit.
The Dog wag tail syndrome of skeptics on Climate is an easy trap fallen into by those who think or would wish that the laws of physics and radiative effects can never be shown to exist at all. The downward trend you are seeing is not global climate turned on its head. An example the dog wag syndrome is every time we have Northern winter – global warming is over. This is getting far to repetitive. What is not sorted here is that snow does mean colder climate patterns on the way at all. It does not always imply lower means of temperature.
Why is it so difficult for you understand variability of weather and short term climate as opposed to trends of 40 years and climate change signal being clearly shown to you.
The question of revisionism is in the level of climate sensitivity over time. The new thresholds of warming reached and maintained is climate shift or change. That is global warming in the purest sense. Global warming will continue unabated with cyclic climate equalising still at work. It is just that sometimes when the equalisation process (which is constantly out of balance anyway) creates the plateaus we see in short terms. This is evidenced in periods of pause since the 70s that we see in all climate temperature graphs.
It would be wonderful if the trend was to cooler over a ten year period but it’s not. Of course then the physics of radiative forcing as understood would of course be incorrect. So the curve down you see will not stick – it is just wishful thinking.
Whilst its very true of the 1998 spike – this was put to rest when that spike should have waned is disappeared. It did not. Warmer years followed in the decade post 2000. The temperature graphs all of them do not show at all a restoration of the ways things were in the 60’s and 70’s. My experiences of QLD Winters are in stark contrast to the Winters we are having even in a supposed cooler La Nina. The water vapour in the atmosphere is certainly not in a dry state and contributes to global warming. I actually remember the freezing Winters when LA Nina were present in QLD Winters. Ice would freeze pipes, hoses, washing left on the line, ice destroying frosts would kill lawns and crops. We have had some of the mildest Winters since 2000 on RECORD in QLD.
We will leave alone this idea of an implied Christian Cult numerological calculation out of the debate thank you. I am just beginning to appreciate where indeed you get all your information from. It is very difficult to mount a convincing argument on blogs that do not allow one to post up calculated findings and the empirical evidence of such from graphics.
How long have you understood Climate Change? Are you recent to this form of blogging?
Ross J.
00
Ross,
According to my trusty English dictionary a projection is
6.a prediction based on known evidence and observations
So i am a little confused when you try and seperate the two, a prediction is a projection is a prediction its as simple as that.
The point MV has so clearly demonstrated is that if Hansen made a projection in 1988 and has since had to adjust this projection several times by quite a large amount then obviously Hansen has got it wrong. I do not think anyone thinking with a clear mind could draw any other conclusion………….he simply got it wrong.
To be honest the “dog wag tail” analogy is getting a little tiresome and is not a cure all for the flaws so i suggest you dont use that anymore. Just because *you* claim QLD winters (and i assume you are referring to a very small part of QLD) are not as cold as they used to be does not count as evidence that AGW is real, sorry but it does not. The eastern seaboard has had a very cool summer, do *you* Ross consider this as evidence that AGW is no longer a threat? Of course not so a mild winter in QLD does not prove it exists.
Oh and before i go you only get ice and snow when the temp drops below 0C when you get lots more ice and snow what does that mean? Are you trying to tell me that global warming is making it colder so we get more ice and snow?
Sorry Ross but you dont make any sense i suggest you rewrite this post in a more coherent manner.
Cheers
Crakar
00
What winters (years please) when you state:
Don’t forget – they must be La Nina years please Ross!
00
Ross,
You can call it what you like – a prediction, a projection, a proposition, a prophecy or even the Inspired Word of God as channeled by Hansen: once made you can’t just go and change it and claim the revised, “new and improved version” PROVES that the original was correct. In fact, the very act of having to change it PROVES the original was faulty.
As to the rest of your completely irrelevant (to the veracity of Hansen’s predictions) rant:
Freezing winter temperatures in parts of QLD are neither new nor confined to a historical past. Stanthorpe recorded frosts, ice and snow just last winter.
This, of course, and tediously, brings us right back to my original post @ # 51.1.1.
YOU are claiming an alternative explanation (CAGW) to something already observable, observed and measured through many cycles. It is therefore incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that, just this time, it’s happening for a completely different reason (the giant alien spaceship metaphor). To date, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars, no such evidence has been forthcoming.
This is straight bull-yang and Jo has pulled you up on it before. Get yourself a Photobucket account or similar, upload all the graphs and diagrams you like, and post the links here.
I think you may mean “how long have I been studying Climate”, as “Climate Change” is a given – it does.
My best-selling book titled “The Green Hoax Effect” was published in January 1990. The book, in turn, was based on articles written and published in 1987, 88 and 89 in my newsletter, the “Inside News”.
So, short answer – about a quarter of a century.
How long have you been studying the subject, Ross?
.
PS – I put up my first web-site in May 2000, via a dial-up connection.
00
Ross,
say, here’s an idea. You say:
How’s about you start up your own Blog, and do all that stuff there.
Hey! Problem solved.
Tony.
00
——————————————————————————–
ROFLMBFAO
00
Just visited that Desmog blog for the first time, what a load of crap and almost no traffic.
It would seem the alarmists have circled the wagons and are firing blanks outward and real rounds into their feet. NO ONE IS LISTENING ANYMORE.
00
Memoryvault,
Quote:
I will need to pull you up on the above statement. Of course you would cherry pick Stanthorpe! Afterall this is the real state of climate to a skeptic over the whole globe. Forget about the heat waves that killed over a 1000 people in Siberia – lets talk up a regional blast of ice in Europe whilst neglecting one of mildest Winters on record in the USA and Canada. Forget the record temperatures of the Coral Sea last year when that cold La Nina current hit and buffeted it causing massive condensation which translated to the massive state wide QLD floods. Don’t mention heat – oh no – just to keep on keep on getting cool. I think some have drunk the cool-aid with this ice age coming on the horizon.
I was referring to country towns west of Brisbane like Gatton which actually got snow in Winter in 1963, and the freezing temperatures of Brisbane which HAVE NOT returned even with La Nina’s since the 60s. As a child I remember it fell like fairy dust settling on the ground and melting at sun first sight. Our QLD Winters are so mild lately we can sleep with just sheets on the bed in some of the Winter months.
I know your intention is to present me as some rat bag environmentalist – but that is the radical ideas you guys are meshed in and marinated with. Confused with some alternative reality of conspiracies that do not exist. To you – we are mysterious folk who simply understand the science which obviously you do not gauging by your writings. And your latest: This fantastic tale of two CO2s – the CO2 you think you know and the one I know. Please stop the lefty cook up job and the verbalising you do on anyone who accepts mainstream science. You don’t – I do.
Let’s not get into some intellectual mind game or war here. I simply will not respond. It will not work. Been doing this for too long.
Tales of Two Climates – the next best seller release.
Ross J.
00
Ross,
Now it’s:
But before it was:
Which is it??
00
Dave,
Clarification in order:
As a child I remember it fell like fairy dust settling on the ground and melting at sun first sight -Gatton QLD Winter 1963
But before it was:
Ice would freeze pipes, hoses, washing left on the line, ice destroying frosts would kill lawns and crops – Brisbane QLD Winter 1964
Ross J.
00
Ross,
I’m not going to bother answering any more of these rants. You want to defend Hansen’s “predictions” by changing the prediction after the fact and claim that makes it correct. You want us to believe in the climate equivalent of the “giant alien spaceship”, but you offer no evidence.
Everything else in your various posts is strawman garbage introduced by yourself, not me. However, for the sake of the casual passer-by I’m going to give a couple of examples from your last post to demonstrate just how foot-loose you can be with the truth to try and support your argument:
You try and convey the impression that Stanthorpe and Gatton are a continent apart, whereas the truth is Gatton is less than 150 kilometres due north of Stanthorpe and the same distance inland.
Since records began, there has only been one below freezing minimum recorded in Brisbane, (-0.1 deg C) and that was on July 19 2007.
Right in the middle of what you cultists keep telling us was the hottest decade on record.
Finally, in closing, I’d like to thank you at least for bringing to the attention of any casual readers that it was, indeed, cold in the mid-sixties. If you care to go back and check the sinusoidal graph, you will see that was smack-bang in the middle of the last PERFECTLY NATURAL cooling cycle (mid 40’s to mid-70’s).
00
Ross,
Utter garbage 1
1970,1971 and 1972 were the 3 coldest years in Stantrope while 1963 was considered a mild winter!
Utter Garbage 2
1970 & 1985 were considered the coldest winters in Bribane – while 1964 was termed medium.
Check with BOM data first. Water pipes did not freeze, lawns and crops did not die in the Brisbane winter of 1964!
10