There’s a letter in the paper today in response to my article:
Climate scientists are not failing to convince others
From: The Australian
August 27, 2012 12:00AMEvery significant science academy supports the case made by the climate science community. These academies encompass the full spectrum of science and members are elected by merit.
As a researcher in immunobiology, I watch the climate field from the sideline, go to some seminars, talk to scientists, monitor key websites and read leading journals such as Science and Nature.
Climate researchers are rigorous and conservative, and I don’t see anything that gives me unease. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, for example, input 50,000 pieces of new data every day. These are the people who dedicate their lives to grappling with the massive experiment we’re doing with our atmosphere. Unlike my field, this is an experiment that can never be repeated.
Peter C. Doherty, Medical School, University of Melbourne, Vic
My point was that argument from authority is not science, and Doherty’s response is to argue from authority.
One of the reasons “Argument from Authority” is a fallacy is because people are human, and associations of humans don’t always neutralize our failings, sometimes they magnify them.
Yes, science academies and science associations do support the “consensus” – but none of those agencies asked for their members to vote, and none have hosted a public debate. The academies may pretend to represent 50,000 members, but the committee that declares the official position may have only eight members. Members of many of these associations are resigning or launching revolts in protest at the slipping, or non-existent scientific standards in relation to pronouncements on climate science. Nobel Prize winner, Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society, over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS , Steven J. Welcenbach resigned in disgust from the American Chemical Society (ACS) saying “ACS has died as a scientific society. ”
While science funding comes from government and science funding bodies are controlled by warmists, how can you expect any science academy or association to say that the CO2 theory is bunk?
The Royal Society made pronouncements on climate science that so outraged its membership that for the first time in history members rebelled, with 43 calling in a private petition for The Royal Society to rewrite it’s position, which it subsequently did. While the protest came from only a small group within the membership, it’s telling that it was arranged by an email, and two-thirds of those approached signed the petition. The dissatisfaction was widespread.
As I said in the article, there are no Gods in Science, and there is no Bible. If Doherty gets his opinion of climate hypotheses from following opinions of others, it’s a short cut to the real deal. Only the evidence matters, and it’s strange how many scientists are willing to sprout an opinion without being able to cite any. One’s leanings on this topic seems to follow mainly on whether you consult the data or the climate scientists.
Climate Depot has a list of more than 1,000 eminent dissenting scientists.
A scientific consensus can be bought. Like any human endevour science can be distorted by massive one sided funding.
——————————
POST NOTE: A drafting mistake meant I lost my caveat “The World Federation of Scientists does not endorse the consensus. Not that means anything of course, but there are thousands of scientists who disagree with the IPCC conclusions. ” As I’ve said before, even though we can name more scientists we’d never make the mistake of suggesting that means we are right. We are right – we have the evidence, and the alarmists don’t (I’ve been asking for 30 months).
I am a scientist who has been a keen student of palaeoclimatology since 1966 and I certainly don’t agree with Peter Doherty. Nor with Robert Manne for that matter. When I was first reading about the causes of glaciation in issues of “Scientific American”, albedo affects from variations in cloud density in the atmosphere were given prominent influence as to causes of climate change. It still seems like that to me. Oh! and variations in solar energy as well.
00
Nor do I, a keen student of nuclear and space sciences since 1960, nor do many other scientists who have abandoned government hand-outs as incompatible with research integrity.
There is a A Win-Win Resolution to the AGW Debate
World leaders have been struggling for their own survival and for the illusion of saving the world since 1945, unaware that we can all (believers and skeptics of AGW) instead work together to achieve these common goals:
Working together we can achieve goals 1-6, instead of abandoning goals 5 and 6 for 1-4 !
1. We all want world peace.
2. An end to racism and nationalistic warfare.
3. An end to the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.
4. Cooperative efforts to protect Earth’s environment and bounty.
5. Governments controlled by the people being governed, including
6. Transparency and veracity (truth) in information given the public.
See updated summary posted here: http://omanuel.wordpress.com
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
00
Where does freedom come into your list of desiderata, Oliver? Governments controlled by the people aren’t necessarily free of tyranny.
00
My freedom was proclaimed and guaranteed by these words in the US Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”
“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —”
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —”
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to . . . “
Fear, the instinct of survival and guilt over the deaths to thousands of innocent civilians in the “nuclear fires” over Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 and Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945 convinced world leaders to establish the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945:
a.) To save the world and themselves from destruction by “”nuclear fires”,
b.) To end racism and nationalism, including national governments,
c.) To promote misinformation on energy (E) stored as mass (m)
d.) In cores of heavy atoms, some planets, all stars and galaxies.
By a strange coincidence (Fate?),
1. The very first Japanese scientist to visit Hiroshima after its bombing – Dr. Kazuo Kuroda of the Imperial University of Tokyo – recognized that [1-3]:
_ i.) The vaporization of Hiroshima was like the beginning of the world, and
_ ii.) “Nuclear fires” spontaneously burned on Earth until ~ two billion years ago
2. Someone, perhaps Sir Fred Hoyle [4-6], contacted another British author of science fiction, George Orwell, to warn him in ~1947 that world leaders and leaders of the Western scientific community were beginning to promote misinformation to save the world and themselves from the threat of “nuclear fires”.
George Orwell had already written “Animal Farm” about the rise of communism under Stalin before the Second World War. In 1948 George Orwell wrote a futuristic novel about a tyrannical government that would control people through misinformation and electronic surveillance of people.
Since the novel was about the future, George Orwell rearranged the date to form the book title, “Nineteen Eighty-four” (1984):
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
In the synopsis you may see similarities to today’s world government.
References:
1. P. K. Kuroda, “On the nuclear physical stability of the uranium minerals,” J. Chem. Physics 25, 781 (1956); “On the infinite multiplication constant and the age of the uranium minerals,” J. Chem. Physics 25, 1256 (1956).
2. P. K. Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon (Springer Publishing, Dec 1982, 165 pages). page 2 http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Chemical-Elements-Oklo-Phenomenon/dp/3540116796
3 . P. K. Kuroda, ”The Oklo phenomenon,” Naturwissenschaften 70, 536-539 (1983). http://www.springerlink.com/content/n556224311414604/
4. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946)
5. Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946)
6. Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows (University Science Books, 1994, 441 pages), pages 153-154
00
In the old days when westerns ruled the cinemas, the rule was the goodguy always wore the white hat. Maybe from the sideline it looks like those at the KEY websites and the LEADING journals are wearing the white hats.
00
Nobel Laureate, Peter Doherty, is appealing to authority. That’s not science, that’s politics.
Furthermore, it appears the policy statements he refers to by the national academies and scientific establishments are a result of political pressure from the CAGW activists within their membership. If not, why don’t they make even stronger policy statements about higher risks. Fir example, The World Economic Forum “Global Risks 2012” http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2012/ rates ‘rising greenhouse gas emissions’ after several other major risks. Why don’t the the national academies and scientific establishments have policy statements about these higher risks?
00
Now you naive fool, imagine you are a meteorologist in the old USSR when the theories of Comrade Lysenko in genetics held sway with the authorities. What would you believe about genetics if you knew nothing about the field as you clearly do about meteorology nowadays?
00
That would be scientific and logical Mike, you ask to much.
00
We are not physically “in the old USSR” – but the entire Western scientific community was sliding into “Lysenkoism” in ~1947 when someone, probably the British astronomer Fred Hoyle, warned George Orwell:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
Orwell had already described the rise of Communism under Stalin prior to the Second World War in the novel “Animal Farm”:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/
In 1948, Orwell wrote a futuristic novel, “Nineteen Eighty-four” (“1984”) describing a tyrannical post-WWII government that used electronic surveillance and misinformation to control people:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Those who scan the synopsis may recognize similarities to today’s world government.
Western “Lysenkoism” is also evident in the experimental observations [1-3] ignored, hidden or manipulated to promote the illusion Earth’s heat source is a steady H-fusion reactor:
1. “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron Journal 19, 123-150 (2012: http://tinyurl.com/7t5ojrn
2. “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998):
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
3. NASA Administrator releases 1995 data from Jupiter (1998)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco
00
The motto of the Royal Society you mention is “Nullius in Verba” loosely “don’t take anybody’s word”
Mr. Doherty wouldn’t fit in if they lived up to their motto, but there is a window of opportunity right now perhaps.
00
The skeptical battle cry…
“Nullius in Verba!” cried the Skeptical peasant army as they stormed the ramparts of The Monthly castle to demand the tyrant Lord Manne retract his recent edict:
–Lord Robert Manne, August 1012 AD
Nullius in Verba! Nullius in Verba!
“Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, – quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes.”
00
Wes,
My schoolboy translation of “Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri” is: “Not bound to swear allegiance to the law” Is that what you intended?
00
The Alarmists seem unable to get beyond their rigid positions — the term ‘deniers’, well-funded and well-organised disinformation campaigns, consensus, bad weather = global warming, and the arrogant notion that they could not possibly be wrong in any way whatever.
However reasonable they try to present themselves, sooner or later, out comes the hairy hand.
00
Rick,
A man can grow up eating meat without gravy, and it tastes good. But, give that man meat with gravy, and he can never enjoy meat it its own again.
(Badly translated Russian saying)
University researchers are hooked on the funding “gravy”. Literally hooked on the gravy train.
This is at the heart of the problem, and this is what has to change. Governments around the world have to go back to funding Research bodies, and not research outcomes.
The source of the problem is the bureaucratic bean-counter, looking to save a few dollars in areas they don’t understand. The creative part of research – the insights – the ideas – the eureka moments – do not have a discernible process. And lack of process, means lack of measurement, and that makes it impossible to manage, and therefore difficult to estimate.
Such a world is anathema to the bureaucratic bean-counters. From my own experience, I have been asked to detail the results and conclusions that will be created by a piece of research (not in the climate area), before they will release the funding to develop a research plan, let alone conduct the research.
The bureaucratic bean-counters will destroy economies around the world in an attempt to balance the books.
00
It’s not an attempt to balance the books, it’s an attempt by bureaucrats (and other leftists who fill our institutions) to achieve the outcomes which they desire, notwihstanding the fundamental science. And they are generally being very successful, although we the people are now turning the tide, at least on global warming.
00
Rereke,
The addiction to the climate-fear gravy train explains the delusional belief that it’s the skeptics that have a greater vested interest. After all what could be more propitious for Big Business profit margins than the collapse of civilisation?
It’s called psychological projection…
–wiki
00
A bit like you quoting Wiki as a definitive source? 🙂
00
Rereke,
I’ve found Wikipedia is an OK source for anything non-controversal (or too boring to attract debate). The problem arises when some group has a vested interest in controlling information. In the case of climate science, there is a group on Wiki that will remove, distort, and change anything they find threatening (to their agenda) within minutes sometimes.
One should not trust the Wiki on any hotly debated issue, as you don’t know who is in control. Psychological Projection is probably a safe subject for now — although that may change if too many skeptics keep quoting it against warmists.
00
It was a joke Bob.
I use Wiki all the time, even if only to start a list of other reference sites.
In fact, in a previous life I was an editor for a short time, which is probably why I am so sceptical about it 🙂
00
“A man can grow up eating meat without gravy, and it tastes good. But, give that man meat with gravy, and he can never enjoy meat it its own again. (Badly translated Russian saying)”
This is just a comment on the low quality of meat under communism.
“The bureaucratic bean-counters will destroy economies around the world in an attempt to balance the books.”
They gave up that as soon as Keynes muddied the waters, long before most of us were born. Politicians have long since preferred to borrow or print money against the future. The young are in for a painful lesson.
00
This science is being revealed as the biggest scientific fraud in History: 6 mistakes in the physics, 3 so elementary as to be cringe-making.
Contrary to a century of experiment, these dorks assume the Earth emits IR radiation as if it were a black body in a vacuum. With another heat transfer mistake, this creates 40% more energy, 5-fold increase in IR absorbed by the lower atmosphere.
Offset by exaggerating cloud cooling, it has the effect of increasing evaporation over sunlit oceans hence imaginary positive feedback. The justification is a failure to understand the instruments they use to measure ‘back radiation’ really measure temperature.
A major error is to fail to understand there is no mechanism for direct conversion of absorbed IR energy to heat in the atmosphere. The predictions, e.g. ‘atmospheric hot spot’ have failed to materialise. Key scientists are distancing themselves.
What really happens? High quality military data show IR absorption by CO2 in dry air levels off by ~200 ppmV and that >~ 1800 ppmV water vapour apparently turns it off almost completely. There can be no CO2-AGW except possibly in deserts.
And the way it works? Standard spectroscopy physics shows the GHE must be a reduction of band-specific IR emission from the Earth’s surface, turning this dog’s breakfast of a pseudo-science completely on its head. The GHE must be a fixed level set by the first ~900 pmV water vapour. Can we have our money back?
00
I read this letter on the bus at Camooweal. I was hoping Jo would respond to this obvious piece of ignorance. For a prospective scientist he does not inspire confidence in his research and investigative ability.
00
[…] Nova’s piece in The Australian elicited a letter in reply from Peter Doherty, a Nobel prizewinner in […]
00
” For a prospective scientist he does not inspire confidence in his research and investigative ability”
I disagree. This is not his speciality , so he has looked to all of the leading organizations and they mislead him. How is he to know? Goebbels’ big lie is all around us — it takes many hours of searching and evaluating evidence to arrive at the real situation. The fact that the world was warming until recently along with the faked temperature record and alarmist media makes the task more difficult.
I would think that a concentrated effort should be made to get at least one major institution to disown this fraud would be a prerequisite to ending this fraud. If one major organization can be persuaded to actually look at the evidence, then others would be easier to bring back to the evidence.
Thanks
JK
00
This one?
“Russian Academy of Sciences officially claims main reasons of global warming are totally different from that announced by UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/russian-scientists-disown-global.html
“Top scientists of Russia’s most prestigious academy say global warming is ending.”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/
00
Well, he might be self-aware enough to realize that his opinion is based on nothing but the opinion of others, and not promote it like he actually had something to say.
I have to agree that this behavior inspires little confidence in his ability to reason, and by implication in his research. When Jo makes the case that argument from authority isn’t science, and he simply responds with more argument from authority, you have to doubt either his reading comprehension, or logical reasoning ability.
00
IMO, Peter Doherty’s problem is that he expects the rigorous scientific method that he follows to be followed by other scientists and therefore he forms his opinion based upon a high degree of trust that the science is sound. In other words, he would not use faulty, flawed or manufactured evidence in his quest for answers, and he cannot comprehend that others do.
Doherty’s problem is his ‘trust’ in the honesty, integrity and methodology of climate scientists.
00
Quite – the experiments are derived from climate modelling (virtual world which the modellers control) and extrapolate cures for the (so called) ailing (real) planet.
Climaholics appear to believe that scenarios dreamed up by them where the problems/results are foreordained and built into their models (virtual world) can result in their model producing real world solutions.
So far their predictions have failed to come to fruition.
At least I can predict yesterdays weather more often than not ;¬)
00
This guy fail also to realise the ‘scam’ of the UNIPCC and all that adhere to its criminal policies of deception (deliberate). Also he this that all these CSIRO (Govt stooges for official science policy whether they agree or not) are ‘good guys and well meaning’ This is the total fallacy of those that blindly follow Govt doctrine. Just believe and keep believing. I think Orwell had a name for it..
00
Doherty could well profit from these words from Linus Pauling:
Pauling was one up on Doherty in the Noble Laureate stakes!
He never took scentific papers at face value, and certainly not abstracts as gospel, always doing his own computations to check the mathematics of the claims. Of medical research papers, he once claimed, along with others, that at least a third of them were not worth the paper they were written on.
00
The “every scientific academy” statement ignores that many of the statements by those academies are very weak – often only asserting some AGW, and leaving open the possibility of negative feedbacks, for example – with resulting positions that most skeptics would agree with as well.
00
I attended a function in Auckland, quite a while ago, where one of the guests for dinner was a German lady, then in her late eighties or early nineties.
One of the other guests asked her if she had been in Germany during the war. “Oh yes”, she replied, “I was born in 1920, and was thirteen when Hitler came to power.” “What did you, as a German, think of the war”? One of the women guests asked. “Well we didn’t think much about it at all, at least not in the beginning,” she answered, “Of course there were lots of extra troops around, before the war started, and lots of parties to be invited to, with good bands and lots of wine, and things like that.” “So you quite liked the blond SS Officers in their black uniforms?’ I asked. “Oh, we thought they were gods,” she replied, “So tall and handsome, and such good dancers”.
Another guest then asked her about the persecution of the Jews, and Kristallnacht. She said that they didn’t know much about it at all, except what was in the newspapers, and that it was all caused by the communists. So I said, “Surely you would have known about the rounding up and deportment of the Jews?”, to which she replied, “Well of course we know now that it happened, but there was nothing in the newspapers about it, at the time, and all we knew was that some of the Jewish businesses had shut down, or had been taken over by German managers, and the the Jews had moved somewhere else. We didn’t really think about it at all,, we were more concerned with which or our blond gods we would dance with, and perhaps get to know a little better?’
I later apologised for asking an indelicate question over dinner, and she said, “Don’t worry. You think that I and my friends haven’t thought about it all these years?” “Of course we have, but at the time the war really meant very little to us.” “It only became real once the Allied bombing started, and that was only in the industrial areas, at first.” “I was lucky, and got evacuated out of the city, so even then, the war was somewhere else.”
I believed her when she said that she and her friends knew nothing about the Jewish Concentration Camps. There was so much propaganda sloshing around in Germany at the time, that it would have been impossible for anybody reliant on the newspaper or radio for their information to have known much different.
We must never allow any Government to hold a monopoly on information content or opinion. If it happened in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s, it could happen in any country, at any time, including Australia.
00
Thank you for a very informative post!
You said — “We must never allow any Government to hold a monopoly on information content or opinion”
I argue that we are 90% there without government control (in the USA). Gore’s climate criminals have managed to subvert most of the media without the jackbooted thugs. The media has failed miserably and if it weren’t for blogs like this, we would be suffering much more at the hands of climate criminals like Gore, Hansen & Mann.
Thanks
JK
00
I agree, which is one reason why I lurk on sites like this.
Journalists, rely on access to the great and famous to get their material, and it has been known for credentials to be revoked for certain journalists who have overstepped the line of what they are permitted to report.
To be safe, journalists and their editors prefer to rework the material supplied in the official press releases. The press releases, of course, have been written by a PR specialist, and are usually 90% propaganda.
The saving grace is that the general population are smart enough to realise that too much sugar coating on the bitter pills of politics are just to much to swallow., So they turn to blogs like this one, and the MSM suffers financially as a result.
In Australia there are calls from some quarters for “the Internet” whatever that is, other than a concept, to be regulated and for blog sites to be licensed, and only be permitted to tell “the truth”.
“The Truth” in Russian, is the word, Правда – pronounced, Pravda.
00
The Australian Federal Government certainly gives the impression that they are working on it.
00
I had a German great aunt, who I visited in 1982, when she was in her 80’s. Lovely lady, with a big old house. She walked me and my girlfriend off our feet around Salzburg. However, she had a forceful personality and held to the view the Hitler wasn’t that bad.
Anyhow, as always, introducing the Nazis into a debate is a sign of defeat. There is absolutely nothing about AGW that bears any resemblance to the Nazis in Germany. To claim that there are parallels is clutching at straws.
00
Oh Right John. So now we are not allowed to discuss Germany and it’s history at all ever on this blog – even if we draw no connection with AGW etc, because if we do it’s a sign of defeat in relation to a debate on climate sensitivity?
Have you pondered the exact steps in the logic chain is in #12.3?
00
Heck Jo, that’s the only way John can “win” this argument, since he seems incapable of producing any actual data, reasoned argument, etc.
No doubt he will now brag to his friend(s) that he ‘won the agument for CAGW’ at Jo Nova’s.
00
John,
Had you read what I wrote, instead of listening to the voices in your head, you might have realised that my story was making the point that nothing much has changed in the last eighty years. Young people are still focused on the parties and dancing and drinking, and will just believe what they are told through the media establishment. The fact that your German great aunt was of the same mind only goes to reinforce my point.
And since you brought it up, I didn’t mention Nazis – you did. It is you that bring the political dimension into the debate now, not me. [Your fail]
I was focussing on the social aspects of life in Germany at the outbreak of war, and how young people of the time thought and acted. And I was also interested in how much they knew, about what was going on around them, and what information sources they had access to – newspapers and radio, as today. And then, as now, most Government information was disseminated through press releases. Although in Germany press releases were issued through the Ministry of Propaganda – then literally the Ministry of [Information] Propagation if you replace the Latin with English.
My question about the Jews was intended to establish if the general population at the time, were aware of what was really going on, or only aware of what the Government of the day permitted them to know. It was the latter.
So now we at least have one government that has withheld “inconvenient” information from the population, and demonstrably so, from the evidence of two quite lovely ladies, who were there at the time.
Do other Governments use propaganda against their own people? You bet they do, if it will assist them in establishing unpopular policies, or it keeps them in power for another term.
00
Equating Nazi Dispositional Factors to Warmists.
a) Blind obedience to authority.
b) Driven by intense hate or prejudice. (Hatred of climate sceptics)
c) Main motivation is to benefit in-group, (Grants)
d) Delusional:
“The insecurities of post-World-War I Germany and the anxieties they produced provided an emotional milieu in which irrationality and hysteria became routine and and illusions became transformed into delusions. The delusional disorder assumed mass proportions….In modern Germany the mass psychosis of anti-Semitism deranged a whole people” Dawidowitzc.
e) Bias towards persuasion pressures (Science papers of mass propoganda, leaders, peers).
f) Cognitive dissonance sufferers (after shocks get too high, can’t undo past behaviour and don’t want to label self as “bad” or “immoral”).
g) Informational influence: Can’t know everything so when situation is confusing, trust expert (Appeals to authority in climate science discussions).
h) Subjective to group pressures to conform were high in Nazis (nonconformists were ridiculed and looked down upon for not doing their share).
i) Name calling (“Denialists”).
j) Cultural myths about heroes and heroic deeds (Worship of Climate Scientists).
k) Narratives about victimization (Purported death threats by Climate Scientists).
l) Group socialization (e.g., Enviromental campuses, we watch out for one another).
m) Belief without causation
Germans’ antisemitic beliefs about Jews were the central causal agent of the Holocaust. They were the central causal agent not only of Hitler’s decision to annihilate European Jewry…but also of the perpetrators’ willingness to kill and brutalize Jews. (The inference is that anti-scepticism motivates many thousands of “ordinary” humans to have irrational thoughts) And would have moved millions more had they been appropriately positioned — to slaughter Jews. Not economic hardships, not the coercive means of a totalitarian state, not social psychological pressure, not invariable psychological propensities, but ideas about Jews that were pervasive in Germany, and had been for decades induced ordinary Germans to kill unarmed, defenseless Jewish men, women, and children by the thousands, systematically and without pity.” ( The inference is believers in CAGW will cause great harm because of irrational beliefs)
n) Ignorance: Ignores many compelling psychological and situational factors.
You John Brookes mainly have the disposition at ‘m’ above.
00
The Nazis were the original Green political party. One of the long term Nazi aims was to convert virtually all of Germany to wilderness. To achieve this they planned to kill all the citizens of the Soviet Union and relocate almost all of German agriculture to eastern Europe.
00
Well, John, that would explain why the proponents of the failed global warming hypothesis refer to skeptics as the climatological equivalent of holocaust deniers! I see you get your powers of deduction from your Aunt!
00
I guess that’s the kind of story I’d tell people to help me live with turning a blind eye to one of the greatest acts of genocide in history.
00
You dont do history do you Matt.
00
The Nazis went to considerable lengths to hide the Holocaust from the German public (and the world at large). eg There was no official mention of extermination by any Nazi leader – only vague euphimisms. No death camps were located in Germany. Only specially chosen SS troops were used to round up victims and transport them to the death camps.
00
——————————————————————————–
What are you talking about, Matt? Perhaps the claim that “hundreds of species” are going extinct every day? Are you aware that these claims are based exclusively on unverified models? (Now, what does that remind me of?) Can you name a species that went extinct in the last year? (There should be over 30,000 to choose from.)
No MattB — the real genocide will start when civilization is deprived of cheap energy. You’ll probably survive, since the main die-off of humans will occur in the Third World and you will be able to easily ignore it. (Or, should we say “deny it”, given the Green’s response to the genocide of children caused by the banning of DDT?)
(Of course, there is no similarity to the citizens of Nazi Germany in this — why would anyone even think it? /sarc)
00
The Klimate Kommissars have now reached a new level of desperation in the war for our dollar.
Having had the reputations of their best and dullest smashed against the rocks of empiricism they now conscript every grunt and goon they can find to be sent into the fray on a credibility suicide mission. Throw enough soldiers of fortune at the IPCC credibility breach and eventually the position shall be recaptured, regardless of the career losses incurred. That apparently is the strategy.
Hey Dr Doherty, I hope they made it worth your while.
And now a moment of silence for Dr Doherty’s credibility, and a Prayer For The Unknown Warmist.
They whose careers shall not grow old,
whose grants shall never be rejected,
When the sunspots go down,
and in the morning,
we will remember them,
so we can bill `em for the carbon tax.
00
the war for our dollar?
That war was lost along time ago. Most people no longer know, or much, much worse, care what the dollar is, which is unfortunate since the consequences are, as they always have been, catastrophic.
00
Loved the poem, Andrew. But it couldn’t compete with this:
The guy is a stand-up comedian.
00
When I take over as El Supremo Dictatormate of Oz, i will be looking to appoint a Lie-Hunter General. You can appoint your own uniform tailor, Jo.
00
Uniform tailor? An oxymoron, innit?
00
Doherty is typical of warmists, whether they are climate scientists or cheer leaders. They are not primarily concerned with the science but rather are environmental activists or their sympathisers of one sort or another who hide behind a veneer of science.
Here is Doherty’s real motivation rather than genuine concern with the credibility of the science and its observational data:
“These are the people who dedicate their lives to grappling with the massive experiment we’re doing with our atmosphere. Unlike my field, this is an experiment that can never be repeated.”
Now that is a little more sophisticated than say the founder of the Sierra Club, John Muir, who abhorred urban development in the US, and did his worship of nature in the wildness of places like Yosemite and if one scrapes just below the surface a James Hansen, who wants to shut down the coal industry, always emerges with all the warmists. It then is not about science but rather about the worship and thus preservation of the natural environment and consequently stuff human progress.
This quote gives us a humane response to a poorly disguised contemporary nature worshipping Paganism of the Doherty sort:
“Dr. Christy ended his essay with the title of this post saying “Don’t demonize energy, because without energy, life is brutal and short”.
00
Apparently Mr. Doherty thinks what we are doing is an “experiment”. I think of it more as “living”. If it we’re an “experiment”, it might make sense to question the approprietness of what we are doing. However, since it’s “life” we’re talking about, I’d just as soon keep the “experiment” going a little while longer.
00
If a real experiment was possible I’d be all for it. The matter could then be settled. Too bad it ain’t possible.
I’m with you, let’s just keep on keepin on.
00
A poster I had in my lab for a while (people didn’t know what to think about it):
Let’s keep “experimenting” (living). Human civilization IS having a tiger by the tail. Those who want to let go want to go back to the Stone Age, when life WAS brutal and short. They aren’t smart enough to realize that they will fall back there also.
In the meantime, our liberal, technical civilization (that part of it that actually is, anyway) has created the greatest increase in human wealth and well-being in the race’s history.
Anyone who wants to go back to the Stone Age, I say let them go — by themselves.
00
The “Executive” of the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) did precisely what the lead article says – this “Executive” declared that CAGW was scientifically highly probable, then stonewalled the inevitable complaints from their paying Members
The only defence offered was that such a statement as made by the Executive was that this was within the legal rights of the Executive under the GSA Constitution and no Membership poll was required. There was even an attempt to merge with the other Professional geoscientific body in order to try and achieve the same deadening result … fortunately, this attempt failed
So I resigned after over 30 years continuous Membership. Gagging debate may well be within the Constitutional reach of the GSA Executive, but they can do so without my money
00
Ian,
Many years ago I had a run in with the GSA over some essays written in TAG at the behest of the editor. I ruffled a few feathers apparently, and from that display of scientific intolerance I quit the GSA in the early 1990’s. (The complainers wanted the editor to stop publishing them). Classical Euhermerism was the topic I recall, but the white coats really don’t think beyond the box, I feel.
00
Way to contradict yourself, Jo “Nova”: first argue from authority by claiming scientists are not convinced by AGW evidence, then when Mr Doherty points out that in fact most of them are convinced, accuse him of arguing from authority, and then go on to argue from authority some more by citing prominent sceptics. Kind of a self-contradiction sandwich.
While I’m here, I’m curious to tackle a little “tribal groupthink” myself: you guys seem to believe that the reason behind the dominance of AGW is that funding goes to research that supports it. I have a couple of questions: What’s in it for the funding bodies, that is, why would they prefer such results? How do the funding bodies know what the results of the research will be? And given that funding is allocated according to merit, isn’t it likely that the best research, which thus gets funded, supports AGW because it is actually correct; that is, you have the causal link the wrong way around?
The last right-wing blog I asked these questions on (at The Australian, where you’ll find Ms Nova’s version of groupthink word for word and topic for topic), I was told it was a U.N.-led conspiracy to control all life through carbon, because all living things contain carbon and “when you control carbon, you control life”. Seriously. I hope you guys are a little saner. Surprise me.
It’s difficult to see how anyone makes big money out of inventing AGW – research grants are not really in the same league as say, oil company profits. However, it is easy to see where the money trail leads from the deniers – to some of the most lucrative industries in the world.
—–
John, thanks for reminding me of the draft line which was edited out. I added a post note. Cheers. We’ve been discussing evidence for 4 years here. I guess you are new, and perhaps you didn’t read my article about … Robert Manne…? I asked for evidence here and my favorites are here Stick around. – Jo
PS: Money? People who invested $250bn in renewables presumably expect a profit. Likewise carbon traders (and brokers, and auditors) etc. Fossil fuel companies won’t lose much if Carbon trading comes in. Renewables companies will go broke. For them it’s 100% or nothing without the subsidies. And GE has not given away 16,000 wind turbines either.
PPS: Groupthink is what AGW fans do.
00
I, too, believed the consensus until I came across a very interesting website a few years ago. I have since done my own research on the matter and am not only no longer convinced, but horrified at the hold this business has on so many imaginations.
Please have a look at http://www.green-agenda.com. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to understand the political interest in taxing the very air we breath (out). I have recommended this site to many friends and colleagues who once believed. Most changed their minds.
00
Popular site – I have just followed your link and get a site overload error – who says advertising doesn’t pay? 🙂
00
If a government funds “Climate Change” departments what would a reasonably rational person expect those relatively recently formed government organisations to tell them? Climate change has always been with us and is primarily caused by natural factors? Of course not.
Surely one reasonable conclusion is that they are solely propaganda fronts for things like the Australian carbon tax or the introduction of an ETS.
00
John O’Hagan, this comment of yours shows that you have no understanding of what is actually going on around you in this area. Let me deal with what you said piece by piece …
Jo’s point (that you clearly missed) is that there are a large number of scientists that disagree with the AGW premise which means that there is no “consensus” and making that argument is a fallacy. Physics is not a democracy. What people think makes no difference to the universe itself. Only observational evidence can improve our understanding of the universe around us and the evidence against AGW is very comprehensive.
What’s in it for the funding bodies is very simple. Power and money. They get to raise taxes to solve a non-problem to destroy the economic prosperity that they hate. It is all about power over individuals and getting a small group of collectivists the ability control the population at large.
They know because they make it simple. If you want funding, tell us what we want to hear. Try to tell us the inconvenient truth and we will cut you out of the funding and consultative process.
Refer my previous point. Funding is allocated according to message, not merit. This then invalidates the rest of your argument.
No, it is more like “when you control information, you control society”. Try reading the UNs agenda 21 and let me know who is the sane one. Surprised yet?
Research grants that total billion dollars is huge money compared to what a scientist can usually expect as the pool of research grant money available. Follow the money and it will lead you to big corporations like GE that are making billions out of “green” energy. None of the deniers that matter, like Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Roger Tallbloke, Steve McIntyre and the like get any money from “big Oil”. Most of the high-profile alarmist websites get money from big government, so which one is the really lucrative industry in this context?
00
Tell you what, I’ll take the worlds fossil fuel profits and you take the research grant money. Deal?
I think Jo Nova understood my initial point better than you did, and in fact added a note to clarify her position. Obviously evidence is the only way to do science, but citing prominent deniers is exactly as much of an appeal to authority as noting the fact the all the world’s academies accept AGW.
I have tertiary training in physics but not in climatology, and do not pretend, like many here do, that I am qualified to interpret the extremely complex data involved. I have looked at the links here and while they seem plausible, they also look cherry-picked, and I am also aware that behind the scenes on this issue there is a US-style astroturf libertarian agenda, which comes with a history of anti-science and playing loose with the truth (e.g. evolution). The pro AGW stuff is much more extensive and compelling and less linked to a package of political agendas, but still I am not qualified to interpret it.
So I’m called on to choose between two theories:
1. The vast majority of the world’s scientists are right.
2. The UN has has a master plan to “collectivise” the world. In order to achieve this, it has infiltrated every government in the world, both progressive and conservative, in order to make them exert pressure on research funding bodies to only fund research which supports AGW, because having everyone believe this is the most effective way to control everything. Almost all the world’s scientists are willing to lie to get money and gladly cooperate, (even though if all they wanted to do was lie for money they could just go into real estate).
I’m sorry, but Occam’s Razor and common sense make the choice pretty clear.
BTW, the first I heard about AGW was from my very conservative Marist Brother chemistry teacher in about 1978. It was already known then that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing CO2 levels. I wonder how the UN got to him? Perhaps they had already infiltrated the Catholic Church?
00
Which “vast majority” of scientists are you referring to? The 9000 odd that have written an open submission to the US government that there is no evidence of catastrophic anthropological global warming or the very few actual scientists that responded to the IPCC “survey” which has been often incorrectly characterised as a “consensus”?
If you really are a trained physicist then you would know since the universe only works one way and our perception of the universe is very limited, that means that that everyone is wrong and it is only a question of degree of wrongness that we argue over.
Let me cut you with this view of Occam’s Razor. Choose between these two theories.
1. Computer models do better at determining temperature than actual observations as measured by satellites, Argos buoys and radiosonde balloons.
2. Power corrupts and gaining control of science “output” allows bureaucrats to make themselves more “necessary” and require more funding to solve the “problem” of global warming thereby gaining more power. A bureaucrat will never solve a problem because his job relies on there being a problem to solve.
Naivety is not a good problem solution methodology. Sometimes Occam’s Razor is a trap for the simple minded. The world is more complex than anyone can fully understand.
00
Modern science is merely a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. It is an insatiable money-eating beast that is never satisfied – no matter how much funding it receives. Producing useful science is nothing more than an unintended waste product of the money-eating process.
As long as science produces the results (votes) politicians want the funding never stops flowing. That is why vast amounts of research money is spent on breast cancer and rare diseases of children and very little on mental health.
00
I have no doubt Prof. Doherty has faith that his colleagues in other fields are all as diligent as he is.
“Current academic staff include Professor Peter Doherty (1996 Nobel Prize in Medicine), who discovered how the immune system recognises virus-infected cells.”
Prof Doherty shouldn’t be blamed for concentrating his efforts on his chosen field and leaving the validation Climate Science to largely unpaid & many retired volunteers.
00
I wonder if Doherty once believed stress and lifestyle caused stomach ulcers. That was the consensus in Medicine and many, many people wrongly underwent surgery when all they needed was a daily dose of yoghurt. Maybe Doherty should talk to Drs. Marshall and Warren about dogma in science.
00
IMHO the Nobel Prize for medicine is frequently awarded for fairly dubious research. The work of Marshall and Warren is simplistic and at best partially correct. Most people have H pylori in their stomachs but don’t get ulcers. Many people (including myself) have had peptic ulcers but don’t have H. Pylori.
The English surgeon TL Cleave in his 1962 book The Saccahrine Disease (saccharine meaning sugar in this case) noted that peptic ulcers were very rare before the early 1900s and never occurred in populations that avoided sugar and refined starches.[This is despite the fact that H pylori is ubiquitous and most likely been present in humans and our ancestors for millions of years).
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Cleave/cleave_ch10b.html
00
The discovery of Helicobacter pylori as the “cause” of ulcers by two intrepid renegade scientists makes a great story. However the story doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny (eg almost totally contradicted by epidemiology).
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/epidemiology-and-etiology-of-peptic-ulcer-disease
00
Doherty trained as veterinarian before switching to immunology.
Unfortunately the medical and biological “sciences” tend to emphasise the accumulation of “facts” and “techniques” rather than teach rigorous experimental methodology and statistics like the physical sciences.
00
As a veterinarian with various higher degrees and publications and a major discovery scientist I can categorically say that Doherty hasn’t got a clue on this one. Its very typical of persons in biological sciences not knowleagble of the statistics of weather and climate data who haven’t bothered to look at the satellitee temperatures or antarctic ice extent last 20 years for example, to fall for the AGW. I believe most of my colleagues are fervent believers for this reason. My deceased father who was an atmospheric scientist/Physicist and meteorologist (WMO) told me in 1997 that its was just “a tax grab” and the whole theory was absolute horse@@@@!
00
Well I hope climate science is true because if it is not it will take a hundred years to clean the egg away.
00
Well, perhaps you have come up with a more politically correct saying: “When the omelette hits the fan, we all get covered in egg”.
Hmm, doesn’t quite have the same cachet as the original, but it will do “in Polite Circles”.
I will try it, and report back.
00
The Dr says:
That is complete garbage; all of the usual culprits wheeled out to suport the above claim are government funded; the question should be is there a government finded organistion which is against government policy on AGW? The implication is these funded organisations are bought to some extent. Anyone who thinks that and uses the example of the CSIRO should google Clive Spash.
One thing is apparent and that is the list of sceptical organisations is large.
00
Somewhat off subject
We know that the Alarmists’ (aka Climaholics) are about “Control”.
Who are the “all eligible”? Would Prof. Doherty’s bracelets’ be used to control breeding?
00
That is just terrible: “poor genetic profile”; so this guy is a eugenicist; no wonder he argues from authority.
00
Awe, be fair.
The photo above that grab shows him with a broad grin on his face and the last sentences (unfortunately not quoted by rockape) sort of give it away as a poor joke.
Don’t you think?
00
Prof Doherty has a broad grin on his face in practically all of his photographs, though, and I am not suggesting that Prof. Doherty is one of their number, many unsavoury characters do similar.
last paragraph (though I included the link for you) is:
While it may be true that he was talking somewhat tongue in cheek, his humour is questionable, tasteless, and which, if used by a sceptic would bring vilification and accusations of being extremisy/racist/anti-disabled etc*.
Too many Climaholics have been calling for the incarceration and re-education (and worse) of those who do not agree with their somewhat extremist views.
*delete or add to the list as you see fit.
00
… should read “extremist”.
00
Rockape
You presented Doherty’s quote without context, inviting those who didn’t follow the link to assume it was meant seriously. And you followed it up with a few comments of your own to reinforce that impression.
OK, you’re pissed off with him – we all are. But sometimes some of us should lighten up a bit. Just because the warm mongers are so often humourless misrepresenting dogmatists doesn’t mean we have to stoop to that level.
00
Before we get too carried away, the word “eligible” has also been used, in polite society, don’t you know, to mean a male with sufficient financial means to support a family, or a genteel female with the health and vigour required to raise a Victorian sized family.
Sexist and chauvinistic, that may be, but it is another interpretation of the word, and he may be using it to imply young folks out hunting for a mate.
Just sayin’.
00
.
How refreshing to finally hear from Nobel prize winning Dr Peter Doherty.
How strange that it should be on the subject of climate change.
Dr Doherty’s research laid the groundwork for nearly two decades of peer-reviewed, published papers suggesting that using adjuvants, particularly squalene derivatives, in vaccines was Not A Good Idea.
Dr Doherty’s research laid the groundwork for nearly two decades of peer-reviewed, published papers suggesting that using adjuvants, particularly squalene derivatives, might have something to do with the corresponding increase in auto-immune deficiencies in society at large over the same period.
Dr Doherty’s research laid the groundwork for nearly two decades of peer-reviewed, published papers suggesting that using adjuvants, particularly squalene derivatives is dangerous, which are now being used in hundreds of class action law suits around the world, to try and gain compensation from the Big Pharma companies for irreparable damage to health.
Strange that, in nearly two decades, Dr Doherty has never commented on that, one way or the other.
Him being the “expert” and all.
And yet, here we have him, commenting on CAGW. An “expert”.
Ah well, I guess a million bucks doesn’t go as far as it used to, and squalene adjuvants are worth billions to Big Pharma.
.
Just sayin’.
00
Very interesting, MV.
I had 3 new vaccinations two years ago so I do have some skin in the game now. 🙁
The largest single fine imposed on any company by any USA government agency in history was the fine put on Pfizer a few years ago as a result of a class-action lawsuit for selling drugs to a class of patients that were never meant to receive it. There is nothing these Big Pharma types won’t try on. It is all a numbers game to them and letting a few percent die from their products is just par for the course.
A vaguely similar case is the infamous Dr Andrew Wakefield of vaccine/gastroenteritis/autism fame. I have heard both sides of that story and I cannot tell which is the lie, and they both can’t be true. Ordinarily one could trust a court to arrive at the most supportable conclusion. I found it odd that part of the prosecution’s case was that Wakefield’s data was obtained unethically, as though who sent who the vaccination dates has any bearing on microbiology. Similarly suspicious was Wakefield’s constant “oh but THINK OF THE CHILDREN” exclamations in interviews, as though he would need to appeal to emotion if he had all the right facts. It is also possible that he had hypothesised the right answer but it can’t actually be proven from the data he had.
Heard anything interesting you could “just say” about that one?
00
Andrew M
I can recommend reading ‘Callous Disregard’ by Dr. Wakefield. I think you would find the answer to your question therein.
Cheers
00
I have met Andrew Wakefield personally in around 1998 at a conference, having a son with severe classical autism. I know that he is completely genuine in his beliefs and I don’t believe for a second that he is guilty of any deliberate malfeasance (though he may have been subject to the same confirmation biases that blind many similar advocates). I also believe he is likely to be incorrect in his belief that MMR “causes” autism, but would defend his right to propose it freely and openly absolutely. A simple trial to test his assertions could have been conducted with separated vaccinations had the political will been there to do so and would have been relatively cheap and effective, but too much was riding on discrediting him, and so it came to pass- a sacrificial lamb- I admire his bravery.
As an aside, I have had concerns personally about the safety of antenatal ultrasound at critical developmental stages in utero (in the 14-18 week window), particularly in auditory development and processing via altered neuronal migration, recruitment and interlinking. I know that if I was to raise these concerns publically without adequate proof (which is impossible without government support and funding to conduct a large enough study) that I would be hounded out of the profession or burned at the stake, whichever was the more appealing to the powers that be. For a theory that may well be incorrect when put to the test, I would also be fighting against a powerful Radiology industry lobby group that would be up for multimillion/billion dollar lawsuits if ultrasound was found to be in any way deleterious to development. So do you think I have much chance of ever exploring my hypothesis? Not bloody likely, I have a family and a disabled child to consider, and suicide is not a palatable option.Do I think anyone else will explore this possibility?- In short, no.
So, if this was a factor in the rise of Autism in the 1980’s and 1990’s, then no one will ever find that out, because no one would be game enough to take on the vested interests involved. Sad, isn’t it?- Let’s hope I am wrong and the ‘leaky gut’ dietary hypothesis is the correct one, because at least then a fair and open investigation is likely to be unhindered by politics, and legal minefields are at a minimum.
00
A relevant report:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx
MMR/Autism gets an all clear, but anaphylaxis and encephalitis (ie brain damage) can in extremely rare cases occur if the patient already has a particular autoimmune abnormality.
Also, sometimes the vaccine gives you disease it’s meant to prevent, but the summaries are frustratingly vague about how often that happens.
00
This is the same Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate, who gave the opening address at a Melbourne University public forum televised by the ABC a few years back. With David Karoly sitting behind him he set about attacking climate science skepticism and then made plain the depth of his prejudice against those who dare to oppose the alleged “scientific” consensus which is really the authority of the mob in the positions of power.
He put up an overhead slide which listed Aids, Inoculation, Flouride as matters which “deniers” assert are scientifically false. Next on the list was The Holocaust and then of course was the climate science of AGW. The immediate target was Ian Plimer as I recall, also a professor at Melbourne I understand and no watcher from the sidelines in his technical expertise.
It was a moment of epiphany for me, a Nobel Laureate too could be so outrageously vile and vicious as to the use the most disgusting, Goebbellian propaganda devices. His credit as any sort of witness on anything went down the toilet as far as I was concerned and trickled down into the sewer to join that of Marcus Einfeld and such like.
Frankly this bloke is, in my opinion, the epitome of the corruption of science to suit the now quite vast vested interests. With Karoly sitting there, he appeared more as the very essence of the useful idiot than a feted laureate. What kind of arrogance does it take someone who by his own admission sits on the sidelines to launch such a disgusting attack?
He certainly shifted my position, straight over to the Skeptics Camp because there was no way the ravings of grub like that could be taken seriously, ergo the other side needs to be looked at in detail.
I worry about our universities, I was taught (engineering) by people of international stature and have taken succour from the knowledge I was taught by people of such stature and of serious mind. I now see the likes of this bloke and Manne and Lewandowsky rabbitting on on matters outside their fields and just wonder where in the heck did these self important rabbits come from?
M –
00
What not tobacco????????
Good post M Seward, I’m way over in the US so I don’t really get a “feel” for some of your AU “experts”. With your post however, I get a very clear idea of this character. Thank you.
00
How about that? He is from the Oreskes school. I should have known. Oreskes’ thinking is entirely “a priori.”
00
It could well have been there but it that might have been a bridge too far, even for him.
00
Maybe it’s just something about a certain class of Nobel Prize winner, for the economist, Paul Krugman, is also an expert on “climate denialism” which expertise, to be credible, should entail a sound knowledge of climate science. That knowledge should include the natural factors involved in climate change.
It is important to note that there are highly credentialed climate scientists who are not alarmists so it is the manipulation of climate science used by the alarmists for their environmental ends rather than climate science that is the issue.
00
Thank you for that heartfelt and first hand account M Seward.
Time to stop giving this bystander the benefit of the doubt then. So much is down just to individual character and the company they keep.
00
Trust Me! I am and Engineer!
00
This groupthink amongst medical academics on AGW, by no means confined to Melbourne but probably most blatant there, is an absolute disgrace. They seem to be falling over themselves to keep in with “the great and the good”, who claim to know all the answers and propose to nobly save mankind from itself, a la The Club of Rome. It is sheer elitist nonsense.
If they thought about it for even a few minutes they would acknowledge that many many more people succumb, every northern winter, to cold-induced illness than those who are well-adapted to tropical climes. And no, there is no evidence of malaria and other tropical diseases spreading due to global warming.
It is mostly the academics who have little or no contact with patients who have jumped on the CAGW bandwagon. (A similar phenomenon occurred in the old unilateral nuclear disarmament days, when the amount of wailing and handwringing by a few earnest medics was truly bizarre.) Meanwhile the active clinicians, GPs, physicians, surgeons and other specialists, are getting on with their practical humanitarian vocations, treating disease and injuries and relieving pain and suffering as best they know how.
I suspect that a poll of doctors would reveal that the majority of them are not sanctimonious do-gooders wishing to demonstrate their political correctness to the in-crowd, but rather people who want to quietly apply their knowledge and skills to actually do some good. But we are unlikely to hear from them as they continue to care for their patients, from day to busy day.
00
If you apply the medical practitioner’s Hippocratic Oath to the disease known as CAGW, what action does it recommend?
Does it imply “hands off” or does it imply “a half-transfusion in which the patients blood is drained out of their throat with no replacement”?
Yeah, that is what is called “a loaded question”. 😉
00
I think this is poart of a broader malaise that has spread through academia, particularly through the Arts-Humanities areas of study with some overlap, “Climate Science” being one of those areas. The malaise is the adoption of a sort of tribal affiliation to the “progressive” side of socio-politics that is a particular characteristic of the baby boomers who adopted the 60’s “counter culture” as a new truth revealed, that is in a quasis religious sense.
The first corrollary of that is that doctrine/ideology/dogma or just plain enemy of my enemy mentality creates a gravitational attraction to anything that is contrary to the mainstream/establishment world view. It is precisely what Orwell wrote about in Animal Farm as the mindset that gets locked into an orbit that is defined by what it is opposed to.
The second corrollary is that such beliefs do not require independent checking or testing because they are simply “true” or “correct” for political reasons. In other words the scientific method is by definition, surplus to requirements.
The upshot is that policies advanced by such groups tend to be quite impractical, poorly thought out and as often as not quite counterproductive or at best quite ineffectual. They have no sense that the successful implementation is far more important than the concept rather the concept is iconic and to be treated with reverence.
One of JFK’s advisers said that if you cannot implement a policy idea then you may as well not have a policy.
I think it will take some time before this cadre of clowns ever twigs to such notions of administrative humility.
00
That, is an interesting comment.
The Boomers were brought up understanding the horrors of mass warfare, as described by surviving relatives, both military and civilian, compounded by the very real threat of atomic war between East and West.
They were inculcated with a strong desire to ensure that it could not happen again, and those who felt the need for overt action went one of three ways: they either shunned all violence, and joined a peace movement; or they believed in the deterrent, and went into the military; or they literally dropped out of society altogether, on the basis that you might as well commune with nature and get stoned, so that whatever happened, wouldn’t matter.
Of course the majority of the peace movements started on university campuses, and many of them were formed around a cell of Communist fellow travellers. An example of this was the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK. The people who went into the military, received a normal military education with reference to the technology and techniques of the day. The third group were just having a really good time.
It had not occurred to me before that the malaise, as you put it, is generational in that a significant proportion of those who were exposed to various peace movements, especially those with a socialist organisational structures, would go on to take positions of responsibility in academia, and therefore bring that particular way of thinking to problems and issues of the day.
This explains why the inherent challenge, and trial by critical review, that is at the heart of the scientific method, has become an anathema to many of the softer disciplines, including climate science, which is more social science than atmospheric physics and chemistry,
It is obvious once it has been pointed out, and you finally see it, as so many things are.
Thankyou.
00
Here is an example of academic groupthink I came across by pure chance. There is so much wrong with this statement it would take a mini-essay to fully analyse. Basically he is saying that the average climate sceptic is a middle-aged/old fool of a white male who is fair game for abuse and sneers. Time for a little education of the good professor, Jo?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/it-just-makes-me-happy-when-i-can-make-someone-angry-a-special-investigation-into-the-dark-world-of-trolling/story-fndo28a5-1226283852843
00
Chris, I agree with your post, but malaria is definitely not a tropical disease. In the old days it was known as ague, & was widespread in Europe & North America. Malaria thrives wherever conditions are right for the various mosquitoes that harbour it, which is basically from the Arctic Circle south to the tip of South America.
00
mv
Seems to me that is a correlation argument – US postal prices cause AGW ;¬)
00
Actually Jo there IS a Bible in science, albeit in the same way that Jesus of Nazareth’s words were preserved orally for a few decades following his crucifixion, before being written down. I refer to the scientific method, of which you yourself are one of the most eloquent advocates.
Nor is authority such a bad argument, in fact, for we learn 99% of things like that – from people we call teachers, then lecturers, and then from writers of papers in research journals in conjunction with journal editors and referees. Who has personally done all of the experiments necessary to reach the research front? Authority is certainly a reasonable guide in areas outside one’s own expertise – the trouble is when the tradition becomes subverted, as it has in climate science – and again as you (Jo) document very eloquently.
The case of the Royal Society was particularly heinous, as its leaders actually went against its own precepts in order to Pronounce on AGW.
00
Not only that, they so far as to change its precepts, or at least its motto.
00
Perhaps Peter Doherty and the scientific acadamies in Australia can explain the Terrestrial Greenhouse Effect to me as it has me baffled.
The Terrestrial Greenhouse Effect is said to be 33 degrees, being the difference between the average surface temperature of the Earth, 288 degrees Kelvin, and the global mean effective temperature, 255 degrees Kelvin. The later occurs at about 4.5 km above sea level and is said to be due to the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So what about the remaining 12 or more km of the troposphere which is reported as containing much the same concentration of greenhouse gases? Apparently this does not generate a greenhouse effect. It sounds daft to me, what about you?
00
No. You sound daft. Why do you try and make wilfull ignorance sound like a virtue?
00
Pot…..Kettle…..
00
Where John Brookes, is the wilfull ignorance?
The temperature of 288 degrees Kelvin is widely applied in the literature as the average surface temperature of the Earth. The temperature of 255 degrees K is also widely used as the global mean effective temperature, or the model temperature, for an Earth – without an atmosphere.
The temperature of 255 deg K can be measured and occurs at about 4.5 km above sea level. It can also be estimated from the atmospheric environmental lapse rate of 6.49 deg K per km. The estimate is derived using the force of gravity on Earth and the specific heat of air. Note that there is nothing in the formula about the properties of greenhouse gases. They are irrelevant to the determination.
The fact is that the average surface temperature of the Earth is a consequence of the Gas Laws that have been applied successfully for centuries in determining topographic heights, for one. The temperature is greatest where the pressure is greatest, at the interface between the surface and the atmosphere. The temperature is least where the pressure is least, at the outer reaches of the atmosphere. No greenhouse gas invoked.
The Terrestrial Greenhouse Effect was made up decades ago to mislead and confuse the public, in general, and politicians, in particular. It has all of the signs of having been a wilful fraud so that the IPCC and its controllers could gain political, economic and social power and priviledge over the world at large.
Now tell me, John, how is it that the upper 12 or more km of the troposphere does not generate a greenhouse effect in spite of having much the same composition as the bottom 4.5 km? Or am I completely daft?
00
Johnny boy… you always sound daft…. 🙂
00
“As a researcher in immunobiology, I watch the climate field from the sideline, go to some seminars, talk to scientists, monitor key websites and read leading journals such as Science and Nature.”
What Prof Doherty may be lacking is a bit of perspective. Academics are mostly great at what they do. What often passes them by though is the bigger picture.
Lost in the details they often lose sight of the context, of the essentials and of the significance.
It seems to take someone who has worked in the field to see it. To understand the field and the methods well enough to see and appreciate the shortcomings – a la Dr David Evans for instance.
Prof Doherty would probably learn more from a Monckton presentation, than from many of his colleagues. Academia insulates its self from that though. The cacophony of nit picking irrelevances, trotted out by would be academics, entities such as Abrahams, Deltoid, Potholer & Bickermore, to drown out significances, often delivered in such matey tones to appeal to the brotherhood. Another of the Academia’s self protecting mechanisms? Academys exist to serve & protect Academia first & foremost.
10
Well what else would Academies exist for, and why is that wrong? Doherty is no doubt a senior board member of several learned societies in his own speciality, in which he won a Nobel Prize for classic work. Furthermore he is perfectly entitled to comment on work outside his own field – that’s called Free Speech and is (rightly) supported on this blog. Nowhere has Doherty said that his arguments re AGW should be given more weight because he is a Laureate in biology. It’s just that his arguments are lousy on this subject and need calling – as Jo has done, rather well.
00
Nothing wrong with Academies behaving like professional institutions, to protect their members. So long as :-
a) they do represent their members
and b) no one harbours any illusions they are for anything better than that.
Unfortunately too many progressive organisations would see them as agents for change.
00
The wrong is in abusing the once good name of science in the service of political activism. Science might never recover its good name. Are you prepared for the consequences?
00
The assorted National Academies will embarrass themselves, reminding everyone they are far from infallible and move on.
00
I wish. If the present madness continues, the graduate schools of Science Communication will be packed with students while the graduate schools of Science will be empty.
00
Unless you can read the unwritten words. Therein lies the danger of such arguments. He passes himself off as an authority without saying it. And he undoubtedly believes himself to be correct so he sees no reason to not speak authoritatively.
00
Then blame the people who give him a platform outside his own subject, not him. We all believe ourselves to be correct or we would change our position, wouldn’t we?
00
You can’t blame those who give him a platform for his using his credentials (Medical School, University of Melbourne, Vic) to make himself more credible. It’s bad enough that someone gives him a forum in the first place but the speaker must take responsibility for his own words, right down to the signature he puts on it.
00
I expect he’s entirely happy to take responsibility for his words. But he wouldn’t be able to talk on a subject about which he knows nothing if he hadn’t been given a platform to do so.
00
The 1949 Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to António Egas Moniz for his work on frontal lobotimes. The unfortunate reality is that at least 20,000 people had their lives totally destroyed by this unscientific and ultimately worthless procedure.
So even lousy and incompetent scientists can sometimes win a Nobel prize.
00
As can lousy and incompetent politicians…
00
– or Donna Laframboise’s Delinquent Teenager.
00
I see that Dr. Phillip Chapman was interviewed on 2GB about the death of Neil Armstrong today. Now Chapman is another intelligent and high profile scientist who doesn’t believe in the “consensus” of AGW alarmism. In fact he is one of 6 Apollo (including Buzz Aldrin), 2 Skylab astronauts and many other engineers and scientists who signed a letter denouncing NASA’s & GISS’s AGW public position and promotion of AGW alarmism.
Summary and links here
00
Yeah, but Armstrong had his “first man on the moon” title taken away, and that honour now goes to Buzz Aldrin, who finished 2nd in the race…
00
Professor Doherty probably has many colleagues who are honest, objective scientists who deserve his trust. He should read the Climategate emails.
00
A “consensus” can be formed through selecting members for their opinion: “100% of everyone I listen to says AGW is true.” What a sad confession.
The “consensus”, for a considerable period of time, was that the sun revolved around the earth. Why? Dissenters were persecuted and killed.
Running with the herd because it’s the herd is not something about which to brag: it is an admission of failure; of the lack of moral or intellectual capacity to consider countervailing data.
Let’s face it, there are some things that we simply don’t care about enough to put much effort into researching, and so we rely on the guidance of others. That’s fine, but it’s not a good look to then use your name as some sort of authority on the subject: you’re not. You’re a lemming and should keep quiet about it, if you have any self-respect.
00
Doherty is quoted:
“Climate researchers are rigorous and conservative, and I don’t see anything that gives me unease. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, for example, input 50,000 pieces of new data every day. These are the people who dedicate their lives to grappling with the massive experiment we’re doing with our atmosphere. Unlike my field, this is an experiment that can never be repeated.”
What utter nonsense. Climate scientists, so-called, have no complete theory of the natural regularities in climate that affect global temperatures. All they have is radiation theory and Arrhenius’ laboratory tested hypotheses about CO2. Yet they claim that they have the knowledge to tell us how global temperatures are going to change for years, decades, and centuries. How can anyone call that conservative or not disturbing? It is downright megalomaniacal.
And then Doherty gives us that childish reference to the one great experiment that is our atmosphere. Well, Sir, the problem is that Trenberthian climate science is committed to a “radiation only” account of climate and refuses to look at the individual natural regularities that make it up, regularities such as ENSO or cloud behavior. Trenberth’s watchword is “temperature change can cause clouds but clouds cannot cause temperature change.” He is no less “a priori” in his so-called scientific reasoning than was Descartes or, for that matter, Ptolemy the astronomer. Of course he cannot do experiments because he has no empirical instincts whatsoever.
00
And so it is.
00
I believe Prof Doherty is of the old school.
Having trained as a vet and got his PhD. from the Royal Dick Vet School in Edinburgh in 1970 I doubt if he’ll be aware of the shenanigans they get up to with computer models and such in the relatively new area of research known as Climate Science.
At 72 there may seem little point in taking an interest now. If he did I think he may be horrified at what he finds.
00
I have written before about how climate science is largely about the behavioral and social sciences, not the natural sciences. That distinction is not widely advertised of course. The declaration that modelling is designed to change human behavior and influence political policies would get in the way of it working. Hence the lucrative stealth approach.
I wrote about Australia’s involvement in the Belmont Forum through its Dept of Climate Change. The Belmont Forum has also issued the very troubling Belmont Challenge in 2010 and participates in the Future Earth Alliance (FEA) that I wrote about here http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/future-earth-alliance-where-education-climate-and-economic-planning-are-all-cores/. The question I get asked a lot is does Australia have a Common Core. The answer is yes. It is called the Core Skills Framework and the Student Wellbeing Framework.
What Doherty is not saying is that another one of the partners in FEA is the International Council for Science (ICSU). With the professional bodies being part of a coalition to remake the world in a way that shows complete ignorance of history, economics, and the resiliency of human nature, citing the professional bodies as authority is even more egregious. Apart from the logical fallacy argument.
Australia’s close involvement with FEA can also be seen in the inclusion of Karl Jones from Willis Re, Australia on the list of the FEA Transition Team.
http://www.icsu.org/about-icsu/about-us/our-staff/global-secretariat gives you some idea just how corrupted intl science professional bodies have been by UNESCO’s global political vision. “Strengthening international science for the benefit of society” is not the motto of a hard science body. Except ICSU is composed of hard science professional bodies. See our problem?
The political vision pursuit is corrupting all the professional bodies. And all of this was largely out of sight until I started writing about it. Scary, huh?
00
But I do! An oh yes, they’re conservative too. Just ask their apologists. Too bad conservative science would have thrown in the towel long ago.
Garbage in, garbage out as they say in my world.
Lovely appeal to authority…too bad the amount of data means nothing compared with its veracity.
And then off into the wild blue yonder he goes.
And they wonder why we begin to belittle them. My son, at about age 15, could make a better argument than this.
Is it just me or does anyone else notice that they’re always appealing to emotion (…dedicate their lives…)?
00
Or do they even take themselves seriously?
00
A recent poll found that every current member of the Labor Government said (in public) that the Prime Minister is doing a great job. That is a CONSENSUS.
And only the gullible or ill-informed would believe it.
00
Why do they all look so much like ten pins?
00
Doherty is, of course spouting utter nonsense, obvious fallacies that a Freshman debate team would snigger at. Interestingly, the malignant behaviour he refuses to see was anticipated in 1961:
00
A bit of a lack of consensus showing here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/pielke-sr-and-curry-on-the-new-ams-climate-statement/
00
Doherty’s rational for his point of view digusts me. I work in a field (computer science) where if you don’t explictly test what you write as you go, you end up very quickly with code that does not work. The approach of essentially ‘just taking someone elses word for it’ if applied to my field would result quickly in total failure for all. In essence he is assuming they are right and as the old saying goes ‘assume makes an ASS of U and ME’.
BTW some of the biggest mistakes in engineering come from the wrong assumptions – including the act of assuming in the first place. Doherty should really know a lot better. Maybe we should just label them ‘the assumers’..
00
So when someone tells you that they’ve thoroughly tested the software, and its good, I imagine you don’t believe them, and do your own testing to verify that all is ok. Then you hand it on to the next bloke, who doesn’t believe either of you and tests it all again…
Get a grip.
00
JB
This is simplified in order not to tire you too much.
Before software is finally released, it undergoes beta testing by independent testers, which can take years, until the bugs/glitches reported have been resolved.
The release candidate is then tested (again) by independent testers, and bugs/glitches reported are resolved; then the final version software is released.
This beta and release candidate testing could be equated to peer review.
This kind of scrutiny appears to be lacking amongst the so-called “leading” climate scientists.
00
Jo, I think your ende[a]vouring has, again, highlighted the ‘religousity’ of those seeking the Con-Cents-Us.
00
It is remarkable and very telling that none of the bloggers of the fake skeptic variety have dared mention the Arctic record breaking ice loss numbers this year. Watts wont touch it. I wonder why?
(I see that you went completely off topic) CTS
00
Watts won’t touch it???? Have you asked him?
“Telling” what is it telling you Jesus, that we aren’t falling for alarmist scaremongering?
How many polar bears have died Jesus?
How unprecedented is it Jesus?
Why don’t you and Maxine go get a room, you two have a lot in common…….
00
Can you tell us, how much ice the Arctic held during the Holocene Climate Optimum, when it was 10C warmer than it is nowÉ
00
So are you suggesting that if/when the Arctic becomes ice free during the summer in the next decade (or less??) that wont have dire consequences for NH weather? The rate of loss here is of particular concern.
00
I don’t have access to my notes at the moment, so I am working from memory, but …
The Arctic has been ice free before. Once in the mid 19th Century (1836, I think), and again about ten or so years later. From First People and Scandinavian legends, it has also been ice free earlier than that, on occasion, and sometimes for several years at a time. There was certainly an ice reduction at the time the Vikings had permanent settlements in Greenland, if you believe the physical archaeological evidence (such as the depth of midens) etc.
Dire consequences? Define dire! How dire does dire have to be before it is, well dire?
When will folks finally realise that the world is constantly changing – always has, and always does? Nature adjusts, and we adjust with it. It is called evolution. Read the manual, nowhere will you find a guarantee that the world will remain in an ideal state for any give period of time, at any stage, and you also will find that there are no refunds available. Get used to it.
00
Couldn’t have been ice free in 1836, ’cause that was the bottom of the little ice age, which might have been the coldest cold snap so far during the Holocene optimum.
I don’t know of any studies which show an ice free arctic in recent centuries.
The Norse Sagas do refer to voyages that were made in ice free water where the Norse expected icebergs, but they didn’t travel towards the poles so it says little about whether there was an ice free arctic in the MWP. Although there is apparently some reason to believe the arctic might have had ice free in summer circa 1000 AD. But it’s very doubtful that the arctic was ice free through summers for several years at a time.
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/lamb.ppp.1965.pdf
Still the fact that the arctic was warmer than today during the MWP means that modern warming is well within the natural climate variation envelope and therefore can be explained without recourse to a special one off theory.
00
It could well have been ice free even during the cold end to the Little Ice Age, as the melting seems to run on its own cycle.
The vikings in Greenland traded up to Baffin Is. which is towards the North Pole. The records of pack ice in Iceland don’t start until the thirteenth century, or about 300 years after they arrived.
There were concerns about ice melting in the late 1800’s (well they weren’t actually concerned, more delighted) when there was a cool spell. The arctic ice cover was quite low in the late 1930’s e.g ships could make the north west passage easily, including a Canadian corvette(?) which crossed twice in 1940, one time in 6 weeks. Not possible these days.
On in the context, the latest melting has reduced the World’s ice cover by 0.006%. Hardly catastrophic.
It should also be noted that the ice cover is never complete, hence those cold war pictures of submarines and ships at the North Poles.
00
And so, relegated to the page “ice free by” is Jesus saves’ bizarre prediction of catastrophic proportions about melting ice.
You see, Mr J. Saves, tipping points have been passed.
For example;
* Tim Flannery, Climate Controller & Commissionar in 2006 – Ice free by 2011
* NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said 2007:
Maybe Mr J Saves can peruse those 139,000 pages in first link, “ice free by”, and highlight which page provides the information relied on for such dire scenario as imagined by Mr. J saves.
Or, reading your own chicken little entrails, you can continue making up your own, like Tim & Jay, and move the goalpost when wrong.
Oh. You tried that, I see.
May be you could consider changing your name to ‘Jesus Fails to save’.
The ice is still there.
And any melt is precedented at lower atmospheric cO2 levels.
00
Well gee did you realize that it was far smaller during this inter glacial period and wonder how the cuddly white bears survived with little ice for long periods of time:
Paper finds Arctic sea ice extent 8,000 years ago was less than half of the ‘record’ low 2007 level
LINK
00
So you are not capable of answering my question?
00
So? They have recorded the lowest ice extent since 1978, that is, since satellite measurements began.
And yet, global atmospheric temperatures are relatively stable.
So what is causing the low ice extent Jesus? Can you provide any evidence as to why?
Didn’t think so….
00
Does that prove CO2 caused it? Can you provide evidence please?
00
If it’s not CO2, what is it do you think? BTW if you think science “proves” anything you don’t understand science.
00
Jesus,
Please refer to my comment 44.6, from the links i provided we can see that the ice extent of this year during winter was at the 1979-2009 average so are we to assume that CO2 plays no role in winter temps?
Also from the links i provided we can see the temps have remained basically the same since 1958 so what role do you think CO2 has plaed in the summer melt season.
If you wish to enter into a debate on this topic then please refer to the evidence available to support your position so far you seem to be ignoring the evidence and simply appealing to your beliefs.
Regards
Crakar
00
Nice deflection. Someone asks you to provide evidence for your hypothesis, and you respond with a question, and make a stupid statement about “proof”.
The onus of proof is on your side JS. It is up to you to provide the evidence to support your theory, not for us to provide alternative theories to your satisfaction.
If I said that alien heat rays were melting the ice, it would be up to me to provide evidence of that fact, it would not be up to you to prove me wrong.
Yes, the ice extent is lower than it has been since 1978. Do you honestly believe that 30 odd years is a reasonable sample size?
00
Asks Jesus, waving his arms around wildly for emphasis, and to try and mask the Argument from Ignorance.
And although Jesus is unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that there is even a demonstrable correlation, he still blindly accepts that there must be a causation, because, well, something must be causing it.
Why not think about the sun? Why not think about the moon? Why not think about the large planets? For they all influence the Ocean currents, and affect the tides, and heavy swells of warmer water under the Arctic Ice will undercut it so that it slowly breaks up. I am not claiming that as a reason, but it is a yet-to-be disproved hypothesis.
And what about Antarctica. If the loss of the Arctic Ice was due to global temperature changes, then why has the amount of ice in Antarctica increased?
So many questions, and so few answers, and there is more that we don’t know, than the little that we actually do know. But lack of certainty is no reason to panic. Unless, of course, you aspire to being a lemming.
00
This is Watt’s not touching it …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-11-part-2-other-sources-show-no-record-low/
Jesus, you really are clueless.
00
Truthseeker, may I fix this?
Jesus! You really are clueless.
There
00
No it should read, Jesus “Jesus you really are stupid”
00
Ha Ha, yes I see he’s doing his best to spin it away. Very amusing!
00
But seriously though, this is a real problem for you guys cos arguing with melting ice is gonna make you look real silly, to put it mildly. If the world is cooling then how do you explain it?
00
Jesus saves,
I’m curious here.
What will all this melting ice DO?
Not what it means, but what will it do?
Tony.
00
Fluctuating warm ocean currents, for starters. Then there is submarine volcanic activity, like the Gakkel Ridge. All that heat has gotta go somewhere.
See, it’s not too difficult if you realy try.
00
If the world is warming how do you explain the above average sea ice extent in the Antarctic?
Global warming is ‘global’ is it not?
00
Jesus Christ, you just blew up AGW again!
LMAO.
The “unpredecent” shocking, SHOCKING! melting of arctic sea ice is now nearing a 17-year record smashing low!
Oh. My. Gawd. We’re all gonna die!
Think of the polar bear carnage!
Fortunately, whatever is causing the ice to melt has happened before
12,000,000 years ago80 years ago in 1920-30 arctic ice levels were as low as today or lower.A study based on aerial views of the coast of Greenland shows that it was just as warm or warmer in the 1920′s and 1930′s, although the peer-reviewed study was published in that notorious denialist rag, Nature Geoscience.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1481.html
What it means is that recent low arctic sea ice levels aren’t outside of the normal envelope of natural cyclical variations.
I’m glad Jesus brought sea ice up, because the fact that arctic sea ice has in the recent past been as low as today WITHOUT the benefit of high modern CO2 levels is pretty strong evidence that CO2 is not the cause of modern arctic warming since we know whatever cause past arctic warming can not be explained by anthropogenic CO2 production.
Even more damning is the fact that after the sea ice lows of the 1930’s, Greenland glaciers apparently grew for ~45 years as CO2 levels approached modern levels.
The principle of parsimony suggests that instead of proposing an entirely one-off explanation for modern arctic sea ice loss, which can possibly explain past warm spells or the cold spell of the mid-20th century, we should seek an explanation that can explain BOTH modern and historic sea ice variation.
00
Jesus, a question for you.
If all of the Artic sea ice melts … how much will the oceans rise?
Approximate answer in mm will be acceptable.
Tick … tock … tick … tock …
00
Crickets chirping …
00
Maybe you should actually check WUWT instead of taking someone else’s word for it, js. Lead story right now.
00
Interesting discussion point Jesus lets explore it in a little more detail
Here we have Arctic temps (extrapolated kind of like GISS) from 1958 which show no change or trend in Arctic temps
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Here is some graphs
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Interesting facts to take out of the above is:
1, The Arctic does not appear to be warming (see DMI link)
2, The Antarctic has gained sea ice over the 30 years of observations (see NSIDC link)
3, If global warming is to blame for the Arctic sea ice extent “falling off a cliff” then why didi it have no effect during winter? See IJIS link, you can clearly see the winter ice extent to be on/near the average so i suspect AGW has no role to play in this (rather strange) reduction in sea ice.
Cheers
Crakar
00
Struth Crakar – the first graph doesn’t even remotely show what you just pretended it did – it’s simply a calculation of the daily mean, by day of the year – it doesn’t compare temperatures over time at all.
Here is such a graph:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/DMI_daily_small_update.JPG
and
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/DMI_decadal_average_comparison_small.JPG
which shows Arctic temperatures have increased. Based on modelling by the DMI.
In other words, your points are:
1/ Completely wrong.
2/ Irrelevant to the fact Arctic ice is vanishing at a rapid rate?
3/ It is not possible to interpret any recent year as being “on/near the average” without having first supped on a massive serve of self-delusion. Seriously.
10
Craig,
Is this your version of “having a debate” you seem so bitter and twisted……i wonder why that is?
In response to your comment:
1, Completely wrong is incorrect these are the temps and if you look at your second JPG it shows you that the DMI temps have not changed which is in fact what had previously shown. It is the same data showing the same information but just in a different way. Notice the red and the blue lines are in the exact same spot for both periods of time? Your second JPG shows a 0.3C per decade positive trend and the trend began in 1958 and has not accelerated over the period.
2, Irrelevant in what context? If one is to claim that the GLOBE is warming due to increased CO2 then the fact that the Antarctic has gained ice is extremely relevant, you cannot simply gloss over this point, this point must be addressed.
3, The third point i made was that during the NH winter of this year the ice extent was within +- 2 standard deviations of the average but yet here we are watching the ice extent “fall off a cliff”. The question then is if CO2 is the cause of the loss of summer ice then what is the reason for the retention of the winter ice? Does AGW only work when the sun shines? Surely not, therefore if we accept AGW as the cause of the summer melt then why does it not melt the winter ice, any thoughts on this point Craig?
Cheers
00
Very, very embarrassing question that, Crakar. A new record low for you.
00
1. Neither your nor my graph shows what you continue to claim they do.
Perhaps I can remind you to compare your interpretation with the interpretation that the Arctic ice itself is putting on the temperature record?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
I know what your problem is, though: you don’t understand that the latent heat of fusion is not sensible heat.
Additionally, claiming that a linear trend, “shows no acceleration” is very, very, uh, not-clever.
2. So, in your mind, if the average temperature of the Antarctic increases from -80 to -78, what kind of difference will that make to the ice that it contains?
For bonus points, if the globe has warmed up, causing the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, what implications might that have for precipitation in the Antarctic?
Do you *really* think that the relevant professionals who actually understand science have neither considered nor “addressed” this point?
3. If the average temperature in the Arctic in winter is -30degrees, how much ice do you expect to see melting?
For bonus points, perhaps you could explain your thinking on what happens to the annual variability in winter maximum ice extent during a period in which a decreasing trend is apparent? Does variability vanish? Could one year’s variability negate a 30-year trend?
10
Wes,
I realise that you are as dumb as a box of hammers so i will attempt to break it down into smaller words so you can understand.
First word you need to learn is “context”
Definition: 1. a set of facts and circumstances pertaining to a situation or event; 2. the linguistic sense of a word that helps explain its meaning–the words before and after the word in question
Now to dumb that down a bit what this means is that you simply cannot cut and paste a statement and claim it is embarrassing to the author if you do not include what the statement is referring to (in this case winter Arctic ice extent). Yes i know for you stupid people this is they way you do things but intelligent adults do not converse in this way.
So lets look at the entire statement first and then i will break it down to your level so you can understand what everyone else clearly understood in the first instance.
The statement:
First breakdown
3, The third point i made was that during the NH winter of this year the ice extent was within +- 2 standard deviations of the average but yet here we are watching the ice extent “fall off a cliff”.
What this means is that during the NH winter the amount of ice was within + – 2 standard deviations refer to this link to understand what that means
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/standarddeviation.asp
To dumb that down, last winter the Arctic ice extent was close to the average (1979-2009) and what this tells us is that if AGW was real then it was having no effect on the Arctic sea ice extent.
Second breakdown
The question then is if CO2 is the cause of the loss of summer ice then what is the reason for the retention of the winter ice? Does AGW only work when the sun shines?
Once again to dumb it down to your level, AGW either exists or it does not exist, AGW cannot cause ice melt in the summer but not in the winter. THe DMI data shows very little trend in temps since 1958 so if AGW is not melting the ice via air temps how is it doing it?
There questions are rhetorical of course and i do not expect you to understand them.
So hopefully now Wes you understand the reasoning behind my statement that you cut and paste, if you still have further learning difficulties then please do not hesitate to ask. Remember there is no such thing as a dumb question.
Cheers
Crakar
00
I just want to relink to comment 44.6.1.1.3 as i would hate if Wes did not get the opportunity to read it and respond.
00
What part of: Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002. don’t you understand?
The green line is old (averaged over many decades), the red wiggly line is recent. They look kind of similar. That’s the general point.
00
The curves are based on a whole pile of different models, they don’t look even vaguely similar, and as the notes that accompany it say,
“…temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most
northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual
physical mean temperature of the arctic.”.
I’ve already provided two figures from the DMI data which show the actual trends.
10
Oh No! Six Thousandths Of One Percent (0.006%) More Of The World’s Ice Melted This Summer!
From P Gosselin
“So just how bad is the Arctic ice melt this year? Listening to the alarmists you’d think the world’s ice supply was rapidly dwindling.
This year in the Arctic, I estimate that a “whopping” 1600 km3 more Arctic sea ice will have melted by mid September. Yes, 1600 km3 from the total of almost 25 million we have stocked on Earth!
How much is that in percent? (1600 / 24,808,600) x 100 = 0.006%”.
00
we don’t have 25 million km3 of arctic sea ice, do we?
00
Km2?
00
Km2?
ROTFLMFAO…. Thats a cracker Crakar 🙂
00
Bob M uses Km3… I assumed it was to demonstrate gross amount (volume) of ice not surface area (ie some is v.thick)…
00
Dont change the subject and think your making a point Matt, nowhere did either myself or Gosselin refer to sea ice only. Just pointing out the insignificant ice loss in the greater scheme of things.
The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million km2 and contains 30 million km3 of ice. Around 90% of the fresh water on the Earth’s surface is held in the ice sheet, and, if melted, would cause sea levels to rise by 61.1 metres.[3] The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957.[4]
So if Wiki is to be believed P Gosselin has overestimated the percentage of extra ice loss this northern summer.
00
BobM… you said “I estimate that a “whopping” 1600 km3 more Arctic sea ice will have melted by mid September”
you then said
“Yes, 1600 km3 from the total of almost 25 million we have stocked on Earth”
SO thanks for clarifying that you had changed from sea ice to total ice.
00
Matt, I said nothing, I posted an extract from no tricks zone, in the quote I posted, it clearly stated the percentage of total ice on earth.
here is the relevant paragraph again,
I take it you never bothered to follow the link and read the full article.
00
No no no Bob… in the sentence:
“I estimate that a “whopping” 1600 km3 more Arctic sea ice will have melted by mid September. Yes, 1600 km3 from the total of almost 25 million we have stocked on Earth”
Now that may well be sloppily worded but it would be entirely reasonable to infer that the 25 million refers to Arctic Sea Ice.
00
I give up! I can’t work out if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you simply misinterpreted the passage I quoted, just reading the link I left should have been self explanatory.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/27/oh-no-six-thousandths-of-one-percent-0-006-more-of-the-worlds-ice-melted-this-summer/
note oh no six thousandths of one percent-0.006 more-of-the-worlds-ice-melted-this-summer.
00
Hi Bob
A transposition that offers perspective on ice.
It is worth re-reading what Jack said here about receding glaciers:
———————————————
““Over the 80 years, two events stand out: glacial retreats from 1933-1934 and 2000-2010. In the 1930s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning that they did not contact the sea. Those that were melting retreated an average of 20 meters per year — the fastest retreating at 374 meters per year. Fifty-five percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates during the 1930s than they do today. Still, more glaciers in southeast Greenland are retreating today, and the average ice loss is 50 meters per year. That’s because a few glaciers with very fast melting rates — including one retreating at 887 meters per year — boost the overall average.”
You implore me to think rationally but even the evidence you provide doesn’t support your position.”
—————————————————
End of Quote.
The reason I have put that up there is for contrast.
Jack is caught up in the micro analysis of current glacier melt which is a very vexed topic.
For a little perspective I offer this:
A thought experiment in the Real World.
Go back to the building of the great Pyramid about 4,560 years ago. The Earth’s oceans were roughly where they are now in terms of level, but over the previous one or two thousand years had dropped by about 1.2 metres to their present level.
Now we go back another 1500 years and the Sea levels has just ended the massive rise associated with the great melt: they rose 119 metres in the previous 12,000 years; a massive rise.
Now go back to the start of the melt or 20,000 years before present. If we were in the vicinity of New York Central Park we would be standing on an ice field with a depth of 1500 metres.
All of that ice has melted, in the process the oceans rose a total or near 130 metres.
Now that is melting ice.
The current advance and retreat of glaciers is piffling by comparison and in light of the forces at work can currently be considered to be extremely stable.
What I am saying is that there is little or no perspective offered with alarmist comments on glacier melt in 2012.
The current worry about glacier melt is a bit like obsessing over a glass full of ice cubes melting – not real important in the scheme of things.
We are currently in a warm, interglacial period which is usually very short compared with the length of the normal ice age which is coming.
They run to 80,000 years or more and the next one will not be pleasant as there is not enough room for Earth’s entire population to live in the Equatorial or temperate zones when it arrives.
Human origin CO2 is incapable of having any effect on the Earths climate and is incapable of delaying or moderating the next ice age.
The current alarmist/political/power focus on Man made CO2 as a driving force in our weather is farcical and needs to be confronted by all scientists.
Sadly, as has been pointed out very eloquently in this blog just recently(was it Wes?) scientists employed in the CSIRO and government departments cannot speak up and expect to hold their job.
This is a world wide problem – it is spooky to think that so many intelligent people have been silenced. In the USA a couple of high profile people from previous administrations did speak out and lost their jobs.
The message has been sent.
Shut Up.
Toe the line.
Get us Elected / re-Elected.
We want access to the treasury.
KK
00
Look bob I had no idea you’d decided a quote a bit of an article that was not clear when it changed from talking about arctic sea ice and total volume of ice on the planet. One would ask what the hell the total amount of ice on the planet has to do with sea ice in the arctic though… especially as the latter is plummeting to “new” lows.
What you are essentially saying, however, is that when I said “we don’t have 25 million km3 of arctic sea ice, do we?” a polite answer would have been “no he is comparing loss of arctic ice with the total amount of ice on the planet – you;re right matt that is not clear from the sentence but the article makes more sense as a whole.”
So yeah thanks for agreeing with me.
00
JS; This was an interesting, constructive thread until you turned up demanding to be fed.
We don’t want to be “saved”.
Just go away and preach to the converted.
00
Record breaking Ice lost compared to what?
00
So, Watts and other bloggers won’t touch it, eh JS?
Here you go you intellectual piece of SH!t with shoes!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-11-part-2-other-sources-show-no-record-low/
And from elsewhere in the blogospere. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/08/28/arctic-sea-ice-reached-record-low-extent-in-2012-or-maybe-not/
I have a feeling that you are just some lowlife troll that has been banned from this site before for taking up space that could be occupied by something more worthwhile such as a vacuum!
You hate yourself, your miserable life and you can’t abide another human being experiencing happiness because your life is as devoid of joy as it is of purpose.
The day you make an intelligent positive and sincere statement will be the day hell freezes over and the Arctic is ice free. In other word, not during your pathetic lifetime!
00
Come on JS, you know that we are coming out of the little ice age, and that any arctic melting is caused by that. And anyway, when its not melting its rebounding – have you thought about that?
Besides, the Wattosphere is now full of sea ice discussions. It turns out that (and you’ll be suprised by this), things aren’t quite what they seem. A lot of those sea ice monitors are sitting right next to air conditioners and airports and polar bear cities, making them very unreliable. And you shouldn’t ignore anecdotal evidence in favour of what is so loosely called “science” these days! There are submarines from back in the 11th century that regularly popped up at the north pole so that the crew could sunbathe in the balmy late summer. What do you say to that?
And its not like its the warming that is causing the sea ice to go away (if indeed it is going away, which I very much doubt, because Lord Monckton said it was doing “Just fine”, and I’d sooner trust him than an army of greedy authoritarian power hungry scientists), its the wind, or other things, like Plimer’s underwater volcanoes (I always keep my volcanoes under water, much harder to find that way).
00
Oh Oh, you have un-deserved the thumbs up I gave you downthread.
00
…and we certainly know where you keep your head.
00
This is the guy who a few years ago warned us about the coming flu pandemic that never happened. [
00
From: The Australian The Vatican Chronicle
Rome 1633
Every significant
science academytheologian supports the case made by theclimate science communitychurch. Theseacademiestheologians encompass the full spectrum ofsciencedivinity and members are elected by merit.As a
researcher inimmunobiologymember of the Inquisition I watch theclimateastronomy field from the sideline, go to some seminars, talk toscientistsbishops, monitor keywebsitesdictats and read leading journals such asScience and Naturethe bibleClimate researchersInquisitors are rigorous and conservative, and I don’t see anything that gives me unease. …These are the people who dedicate their lives to grappling with the massive experiment we’re doing withour atmosphereheresy.Unlike my field,this is anThere is a consensus Mr Galileo; save your soul for that was an experiment that can never be repeated.Cardinal Bellarmine on behalf of the committee of consultants to the Inquisition
00
“offbeat” proposal? more of a non-stop demand for such a tax, WaPo.
“need to raise revenue”? that is more like it, WaPo.
27 Aug: Washington Post Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog: Brad Plumer: Could a carbon tax help the U.S. avert the fiscal cliff?
With the United States facing the expiration of a slew of tax cuts in 2013—the dread “fiscal cliff”—there has been plenty of interest in offbeat tax-reform proposals. And one idea that a few economists keep knocking around is a fee on carbon emissions. After all, if we need to raise revenue, why not just tax global-warming pollution?
A new paper from the MIT Global Change Institute lays out how a carbon tax might work in practice…
The authors, Sebastian Rausch and John M. Reilly, estimate that this tax would raise $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. If that revenue were then used either to cut income taxes, reduce payroll taxes, or deflect cuts to social-spending programs, the MIT authors find, most Americans would be slightly better off than if Congress simply let the fiscal cliff hit, with the Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts expiring automatically. (Using the carbon tax in this way would lead to an 0.02 percent bump in consumption and leisure over time.)…
According to MIT calculations, a modest carbon tax, on its own, wouldn’t get the United States close to that longer-term mark. It might make sense as a more economically efficient way of raising revenue. But the tax would either have to be hiked dramatically or combined with other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/27/how-a-carbon-tax-could-help-the-u-s-avert-the-fiscal-cliff/
reality…in the middle of a GFC and before most of the world develops in the first place!
28 Aug: Ninemsn: AFP: Carbon efficiency failing to fight warming: Study
A surge in carbon emissions from power demand in the developing world is overwhelming progress by nations including China and the United States in improving efficiency, new research shows…
But a database set up by the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, found that the greater efficiency was far offset by emissions from electricity, which grew by 13.6 percent globally from 2004 to 2009…
But in the developing world, a decline in carbon intensity of 1.3 percent was swamped by a 34 percent surge in power use…
Economic growth rates in China and India have cooled from heady levels in recent years. But the impact on emissions is unclear as much of the rising carbon output comes from a growing middle class that is seeking out once-unattainable household goods such as refrigerators and air conditioners.
“Frankly, I don’t think anyone sees this curve significantly bending in the near future,” Ummel said of the growth in carbon emissions…
Canada, however, withdrew last year from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and is looking to ramp up production from Alberta’s tar sands, a process of extracting energy that emits far more carbon than conventional methods.
http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8523196/carbon-efficiency-failing-to-fight-warming-study
00
Instead of a carbon tax I would propose closing down:
– The Department of Energy
– The Department of Education
– The Department of Health and Human Services
– The EPA
– About half of The State Department
– NASA
– All of Obama’s czars
– The White House (we couldn’t possibly be any worse off if we did)
Many billions saved there every year!
Then we could start over after passing two* constitutional amendments.
1. Require every law passed by congress to state which section of the Constitution specifically authorizes them to legislate on the matter in question (what is the authority for doing this?).
2. The President shall not sign and the Senate shall not ratify any treaty the implementation of which would violate The Constitution or subordinate any Constitutional or statutory right of any citizen or legal entity in favor of any foreign nation, foreign national or entity, including the United Nations. No treaty shall be signed by the President or ratified by the Senate that compromises the sovereignty of the United States or any state (it must work in our interest and not against it).
Problem solved!
See how easy it is when you look at the real problem. Climate change would be a nonstarter.
* These are the best I’ve ever seen proposed
00
Hey Roy whats the deal with Ron Paul, i thought you needed to win 5 states to get a chance to go to the big shindig in Tampa so why are the GOP stopping him?
What chance has Romney got of beating Obama?
00
RE Ron Paul: Can’t say. You might try someone with the RNC for an answer.
RE Romney’s chance to beat Obama: Can’t say there either but it’s looking somewhat better lately. November will tell us all.
Mark D. has it about right on Romney.
00
Thanks Roy 🙂
00
Roy, I’d add one more thing: that the congress members swear with their lives to uphold the constitution.
Crackar, right now polls are running Romney ahead by 1%. Romney really has only begun to campaign and there are some very good TV ads coming out. IMHO, Barring an “October surprise” I think Romney has a good position. The Obama Left has been running very Chicago (negative) ads. It won’t work well and he has little else to stand on.
I wish I could say that Romney would be a BIG change in politics but alas he’d only be better than what is there now…….
00
As long as it is an improvement then you are heading in teh right direction i suppose :-
00
And the Supreme Court too!
00
Mark & Roy,
I hope Romney wins too.
Granted he doesn’t have as strong a platform as Ron Paul would have had.
But honestly, you know that the US MSM would have destroyed Ron Paul by now and the Left would be apoplectic with confected outrage as each day the banner headlines flogged another faux pas from some long forgotten Ron Paul newsletter datelined Houstooon, Texas, 1980’s-95. Paul would have been railroaded as a racist and political wacko, all the more hard, because his real economic and social justice platform is such powerfully good medicine against creeping statism.
Out of the rest of the field of Republicans, Romney was the only one that had a chance against Obama, so the Republican establishment made the right call.
Then Romney himself must have surprised you by picking Paul Ryan, you got to give him credit for that.
You know I hope Obama loses and Romney has the balls to push Ryan economic plan through a friendly congress. Hope and Change!
But my money is still on Obama to win by the electoral vote, while losing the popular vote, but as you know its all about the electoral college and Obama is still leading in those big urban liberal zombie controlled zones of the US.
However, Obama is hugely vulnerable… That’s why the Republican convention is in Florida, right?. If the Republican can hold all their strongholds plus Florida, then snatch a Pennsylvania-size block of the college from the blue, Romney wins.
http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php
Heck, I might even fly over and vote a couple of times myself! I hear your attorney general says it would be raacist to try to stop me. Yo hablo Espanol, mis amigos!
That’s why all you yanks should take a break from the climate debate and git yer bums out pounding the streets to save your bloody country. It’s all about winning over hearts and minds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNQVbqkHNTY&feature=player_embedded
PS….I reckon I have a big stake in seeing the USA make a surprise comeback after Obama, because I no speak MANDARIN!
00
Ron Paul is like Ross Perot; great ideas, crazy ideas, no chance in hell to be elected in our present party system.
You are correct and more, it’s a shame that this is how the system works. Nothing Paul did is remotely racist and with the left having recent members of the KKK and all, pretty hypocritical. Wacko? How about crazy like a fox? Most people don’t understand just how correct some of his “crazy” stuff is. Most people don’t know how concerned the standing Republican party is about Ron Paul either. I fully expect to see some concessions made and perhaps acceptance of RP planks during the R Convention. There are too many RP supporters to risk alienating them. (goes for Tea Party as well)
Fair assessment but there are much better people out there. That’s not to say that Romney isn’t good, he just can’t seem to get the notion of how to relate to people. He needs to have someone train him (quickly) in the Ronald Reagan style of warming up to a crowd.
Yes Ryan is an excellent choice! and a bit outside the beltway for thinking too.
This is tricky. It needs to be done but the Dems can easily make it sound bad. There are a now too many people getting some part of their life paid (they think) from the government. It does no good to frighten them even if you KNOW it will be worse if not dealt with.
Can’t argue with you on this. It does mean we (US) all need to make the extra effort to become active in the campaign.
Also agree. The state of our economy alone should do him in. He Obama is an enigma to me, I don’t know why he is even there. That alone is evidence of sinister shadowy groups in control. Obama is the least qualified and least capable president I have watched and perhaps in the history of the US.
I wish you would. I’ll provide a place to stay and you could easily vote in two states (a few times each).
My home state is one that will have voter ID on the ballot as a law change this fall but too late to affect this presidential election. I think Jimmy Carter should be more active here IN the US working to have fair elections.
I can multi-task 🙂
Me neither, do you think there is some small island in the Pacific we can hide out for 30 more years til I’m too old to care?
00
Why not? Even the dead managed to vote for Obama in 2008. We could use a few friendlies trying it for us.
00
28 Aug: Bloomberg: Richard Weiss: Siemens Deepens Revamp as Wind-Energy Drought Forces Job Cuts
Siemens intensified a push to lower costs and announced 500 job cuts at the business making mechanical drives, saying that continued slack demand for wind- energy components necessitates a streamlined organization…
“The reason for the changes is the lasting weakness in demand for wind mills, which should be compensated by demand for drives from other industries in the long term,” Siemens said in a statement today…
The cuts add to thousands of reductions that Siemens has announced so far this year at businesses ranging from medical technology to transformers and lighting. Chief Executive Peter Loescher has cut his profit target once this year and said last month that the lower goal will also be a stretch as demand dwindles from China and Europe grapples with the debt crisis…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-27/siemens-deepens-revamp-as-wind-energy-drought-forces-job-cuts.html
00
27 Aug: WUWT: Sea Ice News – Volume 3 Number 11, part 2 – other sources show no record low Arctic ice extent
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-11-part-2-other-sources-show-no-record-low/#comments
00
You’ve got to choose your source well Pat. No point going with the ones you used to trust if they suddenly start saying that the ice is melting…
00
On the BOM home page there is a site to click on named “Discover Weather Stations”. When you do so there is an invitation to nominate any site in Australia for data..e.g. max temps, min temps, rain, etc, over any nominated period…e.g. yearly monthly, etc.
Fine, except for one thing. You have to fill in a form to download the information and PAY for it. I find that deplorable. Why should we pay for what our taxes have paid for? Next thing they will want us to pay $$$ just to get a weather forecast when a cyclone is approaching. Also it is a way of ‘hiding’ lots of information from more people.
00
Elva for your information, go to the BOM web page, at the bottom section click on “Climate Data Online”, from that page select from the drop down-lists, firstly for “Weather & Climate”, “Rainfall”, “Temperature” or “Solar exposure”, choose a time frame for the required record, choose a location and then choose to view the data. This gives the records in tabular form which can then be downloaded for free in .csv format.
I encourage all readers to study the available data in the light of the Greenhouse Global Warming theory. It certainly caused me to seriously doubt the theory after studying the temperature data from 112 locations in WA and the Antarctic Territories.
This is the sort of data where anyone, amateur or an authority, can undertake their own scientific research and reach their own conclusions. Go to it!
00
Why is what Steven J. Welcenbach has to say important, unless you are arguing from authority?
Why do you want any Science Academy to “host a debate”? In science, the debate is held when people present their very carefully considered opinions, observations and analysis for publication, inviting similarly careful, considered criticism.
The scientific process is far more productive, rigorous, and precise than providing a forum for the likes of Christopher Monckton who has proven unable to participate in any rigorous and fact-based process.
The upshot of the scientific process is that ideas are presented; good ideas survive and bad ideas get shot down. String Theory’s still an idea that has not been shot down yet, while Dark Matter appears to be a good idea. Climate change is obviously a factual observation [Snip] while the precise figure for forcing is still just an idea.
And your problem with “argument from authority” is that you can’t seperate in your mind the logical fallacy from the functional purpose of the subject matter expert, which *is* to perform as an authority in his/her area of expertise.
[No one here would dispute the fact of climate change. It has been changing since the beginning. Any further use of ‘nutjob’ will get you even better rewards. ] ED
10
What?
00
Inviting similarly careful, considered criticism? you mean like Phil Jones criticism of Julia Uppenbrink, the Editor at Science, for not selectively sending a paper to himself and others in the team so it’s publication could be stopped.
A further example of the team setting the rules for peer review comes this.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
00
Those little bits of email have been done to death.
The only thing those emails reveal is that some people are dishonest criminals who hack servers, steal people’s emails and then deceptively selectively quote from them in order to smear scientists and pursue their political ideology.
And then you link to Lavoisier……You sure doing that is any good for your credibility?
10
“Little bits of emails”?
Bob is only quoting sources that the authors have agreed are genuine.
“… some people are dishonest criminals who hack servers …”
Is there such a thing as an “honest criminal”? The tautology shows your ignorance of English, and your confused thinking.
“… who hack servers …”
That is supposition only. It has never been definitively shown that the servers were hacked, nor has it been shown that the material was released by a “Whistle Blower”. Both are current and valid hypotheses.
“… steal peoples emails and then deceptively selectively quote from them in order to smear scientists …”
Two comments here: Firstly, the way you link the act of quoting from the emails, with the act of “stealing” them, implies that they are done by one and the same person. Such a juxtaposition could well be libellous, you should be careful what you type; it may get you into serious trouble when you get into the real world. Secondly, the accusation, that the quotes have been “deceptively selected”, is also libellous, a matter easy to prove, since there are so many images of those emails available on the web, and in private storage, that places the quotations in true context.
Lavoisier is just one source. The fact that you object to it says more about you, and your lack of intellectual independence, than it does about Bob.
00
“It has never been definitively shown that the servers were hacked, nor has it been shown that the material was released by a “Whistle Blower”. ”
False.
This is why we call you D[snip].
10
Let me think this through:
You already disagree with the skeptical scientific approach because you find consensus has more value.
You already don’t find me credible because I’m in the Skeptical Camp.
You then have the stupid notion that I’d be worried about how you view my credibility?
I’m so……nonplussed.
Like you so don’t get the opposite of argument from authority.
Dumbass comes to mind.
00
Rereke, Mark:
He criticises my link to Lavoisier and questions my credibility, while at 44.6.1 links twice to skepticalscience, the irony is mind numbing.
Is he worth any more of our time.
00
I agree Bob, I was wondering how many links to Craptical science he’d be allowed to post before having problems…..
00
I was just warming up, Bob.
Kill-joy.
00
Rereke:
Just ignore me, I’d hate to spoil anyones fun.
00
“(I’ve been asking for 30 months).”
Ha, beat you. I’ve been asking for over 3 years. Still haven’t found anyone willing to guide me to, point out or even describe any empirical evidence though. Very few actually answer the questions (I put two, asking for evidence of human attribution and of strong positive feedback), most simply start to smokescreen.
From that I have learnt not to say anything with the question, simply ask. Otherwise they talk about anything, the most errant nonsense, the most trivial nitpicking. I have one currently arguing that describing the AGW and CAGW hypotheses as “distinct but related” is a contradiction, because distinct means different and related means the same (huh?) at the same time complaining that my term is not clear because it can have a range of meaning between “completely different” and “identical”, but I obviously mean one or the other. He then complains that I am not writing precisely!
00
Joanne Nova you are positively psychic!What a great term;”argument from authority”and didn’t they just freefall into it!Its slapstick.If it wasn’t so sinister and serious.Look at the previous comment,”pompous”,me-thinks.
Keep up the great work[Jo]!People will listen to you.
00
Craig Thomas’s comment was”pompous”.
00
I agree.
So I replied in kind. 🙂
00
followup to Reuters Point Carbon excerpt i posted on previous thread yesterday:
27 Aug: Bloomberg: Torsten Fagerholm: Nasdaq OMX Suspends Trade in EU CO2 Permits for September
Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. will suspend trading of September carbon allowances under the European Union’s emissions trading system and United Nations Certified Emission Reduction credits due to changes to a registry.
“The decision of suspension is linked to the 26-hour delay which is introduced for transactions within the EU ETS Single Registry affecting the margining and delivery arrangements of the clearinghouse,” the exchange said in an e-mailed statement…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-27/nasdaq-omx-suspends-trade-in-eu-co2-permits-for-september.html
surely the australian MSM should be reporting the following:
27 Aug: Reuters Point Carbon: Australian firms buy CDM portfolio for undisclosed fee
BEIJING: Australian emission reduction project developer CO2 Group and consultancy Asia Energy Development Partners (AEDP) have bought a portfolio of 15 million U.N. carbon credits from Indian and Vietnamese clean energy projects, the firms said in a statement Monday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1966444?&ref=searchlist
00
what’s it all about, Doherty?
27 Aug: Reuters Point Carbon: Carbon tax could rescue U.S. budget deficit: MIT
Applying a carbon tax of $20 per ton could raise as much as $1.5 trillion in revenue in 10 years that could cut U.S. taxes and stave off difficult budget cuts while reducing the growing deficit, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) said in a report on Monday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1967059
00
MIT sure ain’t what it used to be. I have to wonder what they were
researchingsmoking.00
I knew someone once who graduated from MIT. High IQ but a complete whack job.
00
Nullius in verba, is the motto of the Royal Society.
I was appalled to see Paul Nurse, the current president of a Royal Society, invoke appeal from authority as a reason why James Delingpole, his opposite number in a BBC debate, should believe in manmade global warming. It was implied in an analogy made by Paul Nurse to the effect that Delingpole should submit to the expert opinion of a heart surgeon, for a heart condition, not to the opinion of a layman.
I would have retorted with another question. Would Paul Nurse agree to heart surgery tested only on a computer model of a mammal’s heart? That is what being asked of the world economy.
Since no sane person would submit to Russian roulette in a matter of life and death it is sad to see Paul Nurse in an institution that once had Isaac Newton in his position.
00
excellent – may I use that? 🙂
00
What experiment? First I have heard about it. Perhaps he is talking about the models. A computer model is not an experiment; it is a theory in numerical form. In my experience, the more “massive” a numerical model, the more likely it will misbehave.
00
Just to be clear about this – are you in fact aware that human activity has drastically increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
10
Craig,
Can you quantify the exact amount that humans have increased the level by? We need to establish this fact before we can move forward in this debate.
Cheers
00
Krikkets …!
00
No, Craig, I am unaware.
Can you please provide information on what percentage of cO2 level rise human activity has contributed, (as compared to natural)?
What is the danger of increased cO2 levels?
Many thanks in advance as I have been unable to find this information.
00
“I have been unable to find this information”
Liar or stupid?
00
By its absence i must assume that you too do not have this information.
00
You, mattie? Both!
00
Why would you assume that Crackar…
Look internet links are rarely to primary sources but the following will have to do for you. I’ve endeavoured to only select ones that deal with actual science not propaganda.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-System/ipcc-faq-human-natural-causes-climate-change.html
Look to me it is a no brainer that “human activity has drastically increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”.
Maybe Jo would like to give us her perspective? I’ve not seen any credible science that suggests that the known increase in GHG levels in the atmosphere are not directly related to increased emissions, rather than say being a coincidence.
00
MattB
From No Brainer Heaven says:
“Look to me it is a no brainer that “human activity has drastically increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”.”
Actually Matt there are several more likely sources of the very mild increase in atm CO2.
Gopher farts are a big problem in the Gobi desert.
lots of CO2 there.
KK
00
““human activity has drastically increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”.”
About bl***y time too !!! Finally the plants can breathe and flourish !! 🙂 🙂
01
Just to be clear about this, Craig Thomas, man has contributed very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Man’s portion of the CO2 content of the atmosphere is 3%.
Let me put it in perspective for you. 390 ppm multiplied by 3% equals 11.7. So, man contributes approximately 12 parts per million to the atmosphere as a whole. If the atmosphere was a 100 story skyscraper the Co2 content would constitute the linoleum on the first floor and man’s contribution would be a barely discernible scratch in the aforementioned linoleum.
Does that put things in perspective for you, Craig?
00
Hi eddy
To add insult to injury.
The irrelevance of man made CO2 is further diluted by the fact that water is about 95% of the so called greenhouse effect, and ALL CO2 is only about 4%.
As you mentioned, man made CO2 is only 3% of that 4% of the total effect.
KK 🙂
00
Eddy “Man’s portion of the CO2 content of the atmosphere is 3%.” you are confusing the % of CO2 in the atmosphere that is of human origin with the increase in CO2 levels un the atmosphere due to human CO2 emmissions.
Do we need to go through those smarties in a bowl AGAIN?
00
Who is this masked man?
Is it a bird, a plane or just
Super matt.
Able to sit at any door.
Waiting to have your feet trample him under.
The eternal masochist showing off his 15 watt control mechanism.
Cant wait for another intriguing episode of Super Matt the Klimate destroyer.
KK
00
No Eddy.
If I have a bucket with 5litres of water in it and add 1millilitre to it, you can say I am adding very little. If I add my 1millilitre every day, my added water will eventually add up to another 5litres and the bucket will overflow.
According to your maths, if I add 1millilitre every day, then my contribution to the water level of the bucket is always 1millilitre and therefore inconsequential.
The concept we are talking about here is one of accumulation.
CO2 levels have increased by almost 100ppm since the start of the industrial revolution. Isotopic analysis demonstrates the origin of the extra CO2. It’s us.
According to Jo, the crux of the science-related climate change debate is the exact figure for the forcing this extra CO2 is responsible for. I would say virtually all reasonable people would agree with her.
Sadly, however, many of you seem stuck in a time-warp and continue to deny the basic facts of climate science which are not a matter for “debate”.
10
Craig, with all that science I’m stunned that you forgot about losses. Evaporation you know, and that is just the begining! Lets talk about the deeply hidden heat in your buckets of water. Cause you know that AGW theory says that a bucket of water left outside will collect that back radiation and it’ll be found smackdab at the bottom of the bucket………Deep in the bottom.
00
Mate, if you put 1mm in a bucket each day.. It will be gone by the next day.
As is any heat anomaly in the atmosphere.
01
Nil
None
Zip
Nothing
00
Craig,
Thanks for trying to keep the math simple. You have a few variables missing in your equation. First is the fact that you forgot to factor in that CO2 resides in the atmosphere before it is absorbed by the planet, primarily the oceans. Second, as CO2 enters the oceans a portion of it is absorbed and becomes part of the seabed and is locked away in rock. That is why over time the CO2 level in the atmosphere has declined from several thousands of parts per million to approximately 390 parts per million.
So, please provide empirical data to show how much of the CO2 produced by man will actually remain in the atmosphere and how much of the CO2 will disappear into the oceans never to be seen again.
00
Eddy, the currently increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact of life. The origin of the extra CO2 is also fact of life.
The immediate warming effect (ie, the new point of equilibrium where incoming radiation equals outgoing) is the current point of scientific conjecture.
You seem to be a few steps behind where the action is at and appear to be D[snip] either or both of the origin of the CO2 and whether it is accumulating in the atmosphere or not.
10
Hi CT
Nice to have you back, I thought you had chickened out on us.
The comment “You seem to be a few steps behind where the action is at” is interesting; obviously this person is “moving
forward” at a sensible speed and can see the ground ahead.
Craig, may I call you Craig, have you considered the possibility that you have climbed up the Climate Change ladder a few
steps past where the rungs end and are in fact a few steps ahead of where the action is at ?
Have a look back down Craig and climb down before REALITY takes over and gravity drops you on your bum.
KK
00
Craig;
I notice you ignored Eddy’s request for empirical data. I assume you have none and are just talking through your hat.
If you think that sort of response will get any respect here, you are indeed as delusional as John Brooks says/is.
00
Craig,
You have not responded with the empirical data that I asked for. While you are looking for it consider this analogy. You have a bucket that can hold 2 gallons. The bucket is 1/2 full or contains one 1 gallon. The bucket contains the CO2 content of the atmosphere of Earth. 97% of the CO2 comes from nature and three percent comes from man. Put a hole in the bottom of the bucket that leaks the CO2. It takes 5 years to empty the 390 parts. Nature is supplying enough CO2 so that it is replacing all the CO2 at a rate where it is goes out the bottom as fast as it comes into the bucket, less man’s twelve parts per million. Every molecule that Man adds will leak out the bottom within five years. How much would man have to increase his CO2 content of the atmosphere to double the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Remember, if nature is increasing its contribution of CO2 and continues to do so it will only be a matter of time before the CO2 content doubles. Is nature increasing her contribution, lessening it or just maintaining the status quo?
Good luck with your bucket list!
00
Eddy, your bucket seems quite confused. The bucket isn’t ever going to empty (at least not for a billion or so years until the Sun starts to run out of Hydrogen and expands, blowing off our atmosphere entirely), therefore the outflow rate isn’t the rate at which it empties, because it never will.
What you have is a bucket of water where the inflow and outflow rates are currently in balance over the short and medium terms.
At least, they *were*, until man started burning fossil fuels. Over the last 100+ years, man has added to the inflow rate of your bucket. The lack of balance between inflow and outflow rates has resulted in a steady increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. Isotopic analysis removes the question of where the extra CO2 is coming from: it’s coming from us.
The original source of any CO2 which is fixed out of the atmosphere is supremely irrelevant to the fact that the accumulation in the atmosphere continues, and the one source of inflow we have control over is CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels.
It is really quite strange to see people trying to argue that Man isn’t causing the current increase in CO2 in our atmosphere when it is a plain fact that He is doing exactly that.
Of course, all the extra CO2 in the world doesn’t matter *unless* that extra CO2 is going to cause significant warming, which is, as Jo says, the issue currently under “debate”.
10
Craig, I think you have misunderstood Eddy’s model:
I thought it was clear that Eddy was postulating that the outflow rate was such that the amount removed would equal the total amount in the bucket in 5 years; i.e., the rate is 1 gal/5yr. He was, in other words, giving the RATE of outflow, not claiming that the bucket would empty in 5 years. This is clear from his next statement:
What you’re missing about Eddy’s model is that the outflow rate is a linear function of the amount in the bucket — the more water in the bucket, the faster the outflow, and vice versa. (This follows from the rate of flow through a fixed size hole being proportional to the pressure differential.) Your statement below shows that you are assuming that the outflow rate is unaffected by the amount:
A static (and non-physical) model like that is the only way that anthropogenic CO2 could continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at a rate proportional to its generation rate.
Let’s answer Eddy’s question, in the context of a model where the rates are proportional to the amounts (e.g., follow exponental curves, like CO2 concentrations are known to do in response to an increase).
In Eddy’s model, the outflow rate per year is 0.2 times the amount in the bucket. When the amount is 1 gallon, we postulate that Nature is adding a constant 0.2 gal/year, maintaining an equilibrium level of 1 gallon. Eddy’s question is, “How much more do we have to add to the bucket (per year) to get the equilibrium amount to grow to 2 gallons?”
Well, when the amount is 2 gallons, the outflow rate will be 0.2*2 = 0.4 gal/year — just double what it is for a level of 1 gal. So, the answer is, Man would have to produce CO2 at the same rate as Nature is currently in order to double the amount in the atmosphere. We would have to multiply our current output by over 30 times, and that’s just to reach a STABLE level of double the current concentration.
In your model, outflow never changes, so ANY increase in input rate whatsoever will eventually result in very large increases in total amount. Besides being unstable, this ‘model’ does not describe any known mechanism for removing CO2 from the atmosphere (except perhaps subduction, which operates on million year time scales). It certainly doesn’t describe the way gasses are absorbed by liquids (e.g., Henry’s Law ), which Eddy’s model does, and is certainly responsible for a considerable fraction of the CO2 cycle.
Well, not exactly — since isotopic ratios can’t distinguish between anthropogenic sources and other sources from inside the Earth. This argument is based on the extremely dicey claim that we have all such sources cataloged and known. Given that the number of undersea volcanoes estimated to exist has gone from 10,000 to 30 million in the last 30 years, it seems premature to claim such complete knowledge.
00
Craig, you must be joking if you think anyone here will concede that! Its a slippery slope, I tells ya. One minute you agree that grass is green, and the next the bank has forclosed on your house, your wife has left ya, and your teef have fallen out. So if someone asks you what colour the grass is, don’t get sucked in until you are sure they aren’t out to trick you…
10
John, that is funny, I always give you a (much deserved) lot of crap but this time you have a deserved thumb up.
00
I try, God knows I try…
10
Don’t you know..
There is no “try”, only “do” or “not do”
You seem to lack any of the “force”.. or any “intelligence” for that matter, hence are doomed to continued failure.
You should be getting used to it by now though.
01
I think you guys have some sort of agreement.
John says he is trying … we can all accept that.
Andy says John lacks any kind of force … we can accept that too.
Wonderful. I am so pleased I could help.
00
Craig Thomas, time to take Dr. Spencer’s vision test.
Did you know that CO2 in the atmosphere is a harmless, colourless, odourless gas which is essential in the process of plant photosynthesis; that it is a minor so called greenhouse gas which keeps much of the planet at equable temperatures and that each doubling of its concentration causes about 1C increase in temperature, all else remaining equal?
00
“… each doubling of its concentration causes about 1C increase in temperature…”
No, I didn’t know that, and in fact I think you’ll find very little science to support that assertion, as summarised here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080202032331/http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
Anybody who says they “know” that a doubling will cause an increase of n degrees, where n is any number, is basically lying.
10
Dude, do you bother to read what is at the link or are you just trying yo overwhelm us with minutia?
From the link you posted.
Skeptics agree with the warmists on what a doubling of CO2 would do. We disagree with them on positive feedback. Care to cite some empirical evidence that proves that there is a positive feedback from water vapor?
00
As I stated above, anybody who asserts they “know” what the net warming effect is going to be is making a false assertion. That goes for “1 degree” as much as it goes for “5 degrees”.
The link I provided shows the different results that a whole bunch of clever people can come up with when they have a think about it.
Two things are obvious:
1/ There is no precision and little close agreement between them.
2/ Between 2-3 degrees would fit within the vast majority of the estimations’ ranges of error.
In other words, to say you “know” warming will be 1 degree is at once a false assertion AND a fairly fringe one, although not by any means completely ridiculous.
What I’d like to see is which model they’ve used to come up with 1 degree, and what other scientists think of that model when put to the test.
Obviously, Spencer’s model turned out to be complete rubbish, so nobody’s going to rely on that.
10
“drastically increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
GOOD !! plant life can now grow and prosper.
00
Drongo clueless Labor govt changes the co2 tax after just 7 weeks, what a balls up.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/carbon_tax_changed_already_to_limit_damage/#commentsmore
Talk about making changes on the run and now it’s even more hopeless and unfunded than before.
It was always a total con and fraud but now it is even more so. God help the next govt trying to sort out Labor’s mess.
00
Combet is claiming that the “long term” EU price is $23/tonne, but the fact is that the EU price is collapsing and emissions are rising.
00
Dennis co2 emissions are rising slightly in OECD countries, but emissions are soaring in the non OECD like China, India etc. 18.8 bn tonnes in 2010. OECD only 13 bn tonnes in 2010.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD
USA emissions are falling back to 1990 levels because of greater use of gas replacing coal.
00
Yes Neville.
00
Well I’d like to think this is the reason but I fear it is really because Obama has overseen a greatly diminished US economic output and therefore less demand for energy.
I’m hoping we can fix that soon.
00
Mark, the decrease is caused essentially three forces. 1. A weakening economy. 2. Efficency and 3. The main reason: switching from coal to natural gas because gas is cheaper.
00
The “floor price” was always an unsustainable nonsense. The stuff of so-called “command” economies which is in turn the wet dream of left wing idealogues everywhere.
Finally, it dawned on the dills in Canberra that “something must be done” to attempt to salvage some electoral capital come late next year.
00
I believe that signing up to the EU scheme also suits their socialist agenda for a new world order and a world government, or as Bob Brown referred to it during a National Press Club address, a world parliament.
00
[…] Peter Doherty responds in The Australian but science is not done by committee […]
00
I have analyzed the data and it clearly shows that CAGW is a farce.
However, because of the Gaia theory and the opinions of my esteemed colleagues (who know about these things), I MUST conclude that the raw data is wrong!
00
On melting Arctic ice. Professor Ian Plimer in his Heaven and Earth (p265) notes the discovey of submarine volcanoes along the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean. “Large deep=water submarine explosive vulcanism was only discovered in 2008,” Plimer writes (in 2009). We have no idea how such events have affected the Arctic.” Could the big melt be due to plate tectonics (which might also contribute to the El Nino/La Nina events)?
00
a quick look at the lying, deceptive MSM:
all headline as if it’s a positive move, not a backflip. just knew who would have written the Australian article, which manages to wrongly insert the name “Mr. Abbott” instead of Combet in the silly figures game (accidentally or on purpose?), when basically we’re just talking of the single EU unit. haven’t found any MSM that even includes the low EU price:
28 Aug: Australian: Dennis Shanahan and Ben Packham: Combet to axe carbon floor price from 2015 in deal with Europe
???Mr Abbott said the change meant Australians would be covered by the same emissions trading scheme as that covering 530 million people in 30 other countries.
He said the linkage of the schemes would make it more difficult for Tony Abbott to axe the carbon price…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/government-cuts-carbon-floor-price/story-fndttws1-1226459926677
bloomberg talks of the “so-called carbon tax”?
28 Aug: Bloomberg: Jason Scott: Australia Scraps Carbon Floor Price Ahead of Link to Europe
Tony Abbott, the Australian opposition leader whose Liberal-National coalition leads polls ahead of elections that must be held by November 2013, has vowed to repeal the so-called carbon tax…
The agreement with the EU paves the way for potential linking with carbon-trading markets in the Asia-Pacific, Combet said, without elaborating.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/australia-to-scrap-carbon-floor-price-as-market-links-to-europe.html
ABC, why on earth would the EU WANT to buy ours?
the EU wording is so deceptive, “more liquid” and more trading opportunities is the name of the game, and any suggestion it will reduce pollution at a lower cost is straight propaganda. Dennis has commented about the $23 long-term EU average, which sounds ridiculous and is based on what exactly?
28 Aug: ABC: Combet ditches carbon floor price in deal with Europe
Australian businesses will be able to buy carbon credits in Europe when the scheme kicks off in 2015.
But the linkage will be one-way only until 2018, with European businesses unable to buy Australian carbon units until the initial three-year trial period has elapsed.
Mr Combet said the long-term average European carbon price was around $23 per tonne…
An EU memo released in Brussels said the deal “benefits both parties and provides an example of how, through international cooperation and the use of markets, countries can work together to reduce carbon pollution”…
“By connecting markets that would otherwise be isolated, linking will create a more liquid carbon market that reduces carbon pollution at a lower cost.
“A more liquid carbon market will offer a more stable carbon price signal. It also provides businesses with more opportunities to trade, as businesses with excess units will have access to more buyers and businesses that need more units can purchase them from a wider range of sellers.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-28/combet-announcement-on-carbon-floor-price/4228260
00
Poor ol’Dougherty… he dosen’t realize it, but he is just another mind-contracted eco-religious bloody idiot that provides some amusement and we have to put up with in our tolerant democratic society. Good on him to put forth his ponderings for us to ponder over.
My views on “carbon pollution” and associated Green Buzz Words are listed on my “Carbon Cycle” blog at http://carboncycle-argo.blogspot.com.au Cheers, Allano
00
Go on Craig;let it all hang out!
00
a look at the entities mentioned in earlier comment, who have purchased 15 million U.N. carbon credits from Indian and Vietnamese clean energy projects. creative traders & accountants?
Asia Energy Development Partners
Chris Carman
Investment Director
Chris has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Climate Change and brings a wealth of financial experience to AEDP, primarily gained through a previous career in investment banking.
Between 1992 and 2007 Chris worked for a number of different investment banks (notably JP Morgan and Citigroup) in various trading and structured finance roles. His career initially focussed in derivatives trading where he managed trading desks in the interest rate and credit derivatives areas…
In 2007 Chris left the investment banking world and undertook a Masters in Climate Change at the Australian National University in Canberra. This led to a move into carbon development and green project investment with Perenia Pty Ltd based in Sydney…
http://www.aedp.com/management-chris.html
Wikipedia: CO2 Australia
In 2004, CO2 became the first reforestation company to be accredited under the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS). From 2004 to 2005, CO2 Australia became a supplier of carbon credits for Origin Energy and Country Energy, and established forest carbon sinks for Eraring Energy in Australia.
CO2 Australia entered a joint venture with Macquarie Bank Limited to establish and manage a forest carbon sink in 2006. During the same year, CO2 was engaged by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment to undertake plantings. CO2 Group also became the first Australian Associate Member and a listed Offset Provider under the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). CCX operates North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.
In 2007, CO2 Australia became the first reforestation company to become an accredited abatement provider under the Australian Government’s Greenhouse Friendly program. In the following year, CO2 Australia announced projects for INPEX/Total Browse JV, Newmont Mining Corporation and Rip Curl. CO2 Australia also has contracts to establish and manage forest carbon sinks on behalf of Qantas Airways, Woodside Energy, the City of Sydney, EDS Australia and the Big Day Out. In 2010 CO2 Australia will again sponsor the world’s longest running and most prestigious surfing contest, the Rip Curl Pro, for their Bells Beach event…
The company specialises in the commercialisation of business opportunities within the environmental services sector. The formation of CO2 Australia, a Socially Responsible Investment Company, is CO2 Group’s first major initiative…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Australia
28 Aug: TheFifthEstate: CO2 Group in joint venture with Asia Energy Development Partners
CO2 Group has signed a joint venture agreement with Asia Energy Development Partners, a Singapore-based carbon and renewable energy specialist, to establish CO2 Asia. The new company will specialise in the development and commercialisation of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. It has already secured a number of major contracts that will generate about 15 million Certified Emission Reduction Units, valued at more than A$50 million, over a 21-year period. CO2 Group chief executive Officer Andrew Grant will be chairman of CO2 Asia. David Tow has been appointed managing director.
http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/37887
CO2 Australia: CO2 Australia
Andrew Grant, Managing Director (CO2 Group)
Leading the CO2 Group and its related entities since 2005, Andrew has grown the company into the leading carbon business in Australasia. Prior to that, he was the National Head of Ernst and Young’s environmental advisory division and also fulfilled this same role at Arthur Andersen in previous years.
Earlier, Andrew held the position of Executive Manager in Sustainable Packaging at Visy Industrial Packaging. When the New South Wales Government developed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, Andrew was their lead advisor and for three years (2006 – 2009) was Chairman of the Port Phillip Western Port Catchment Management Authority…
Chris Mitchell, Executive Director Corporate Development (CO2 Group)
Prior to joining us, Chris was Foundation Director of the centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research and was CEO of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting.
He is currently a member of the Victorian Climate Change Minister’s Reference Council on Climate Change Adaptation and the CSIRO Environment and Natural Resources Sector Advisory Committee…
Ryan Warburton, Commercial Manager
Prior to joining CO2 Australia, Ryan spent 6 years at Caltex Australia predominately in Finance and Business Development and was also a key part of a dedicated team established to deal with Caltex Australia’s response to Climate Change and Emissions Trading…
http://www.co2australia.com.au/about/our-people/
00
followup to reuters’ San Onofre article posted on previous thread:
27 Aug: CBS: AP: Ailing Calif. Reactor Prepares To Remove Fuel
The operator of the San Onofre nuclear power plant is preparing to empty the radioactive fuel from one of its twin reactors, a federal official said Monday, another sign the plant won’t be operating at full capacity anytime soon, if ever…
The plant located between Los Angeles and San Diego has been shut down since January, after a break in a tube that carries radioactive water. Investigators later found unusual wear on scores of tubes inside the plant’s four steam generators, and Southern California Edison has been trying for months to determine how to fix it…
Dave Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ nuclear safety project, said placing the radioactive fuel in storage puts the reactor in a condition “requiring the least amount of safety equipment to be operable, and therefore the fewest number of tests and inspections to be performed.”
Coming shortly after Edison announced plans to cut its workforce, “reducing the scope of required work at the jobsite is a good thing to do before discharging workers,” Lochbaum said…
About 7.4 million Californians live within 50 miles of San Onofre, which can power 1.4 million homes.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/27/ailing-calif-reactor-prepares-to-remove-fuel/
00
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a left wing lobbyist organsation. The only qualification needed for membership is a $25 donation.
00
Proof that they will let anyone join …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
00
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
[1169 citations.]
Summary
00
final word from me today. who is the real dill, Tristan?
28 Aug: Business Spectator: Tristan Edis: CLIMATE SPECTATOR: Can Turnbull save the carbon price?
With Labor’s slight improvement in the polls, and Abbott being made to look like a dill in recent interviews (see 7.30 Report and AM), I find myself in conversations with optimistic people unwilling to concede that the carbon price will die…
5. The Liberal Party in a panic to turn things around will then turn to Malcolm Turnbull because out of all the leadership contenders he is by far the most popular in the polls. And remember he only lost the leadership ballot to Abbott by a solitary absent vote.
6. Turnbull will support the continuation of the carbon price.
And voila, the carbon price will stay…
This fails to recognise that a large proportion of the Liberal Party base are conservatives rather than liberals. And their core constituency is small business who can be highly suspicious and resentful of big businesses.
For these people, Turnbull is a bit of a turncoat. His prominent role in the republican movement and his support for gay marriage, not to mention that he takes the advice of scientists seriously on climate change, all make them think he’s a bit suspect. His role in Goldman Sachs is also not necessarily seen as a positive…
Sure, Abbott’s monotonous scare mongering about the carbon tax will become a liability as it becomes blindly obvious to the electorate that he’s been lying…
Also, even though the population will increasingly wonder what all the fuss was about, many still believe they were lied to by Gillard…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Malcolm-Turnbull-Tony-Abbott-carbon-tax-price-pd20120828-XL3B5?opendocument&src=rss
many still “believe” they were lied to by Gillard? good one, Tristan.
the writer, Tristan Edis:
there’s more, but enuff said:
All-Energy: The built environment
Speaker Abstracts & biographies
Chair: Tristan Edis, Research Fellow – Energy, Grattan Institute
He has also held prior roles in finance and business advisory with Ernst and Young’s Cleantech Group, Ferrier Hodgson and Arthur Andersen…
http://www.allenergy.com.au/the_built_environment_speaker_information.html
00
Pielke Jr has a story at his blog that looks at the possibility of recycling co2 into liquid methanol.
This is taking place in Iceland where a joint Iceland USA venture is in progress.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/recycling-carbon-dioxide-in-iceland.html
00
Why bother?
It has no effect on temperature
KK
00
Regarding recent Combet climate currency confiscation communications…
It has the appearances of an attempt to shut up the ‘deniers’ by giving them the free-roaming market price that the political Right so reliably fawns over. They are feeling the scientific heat on Global Flatlining and have elected to double-down on stupid. There’s one wrinkle and several scars in the façade of this sudden free-markets love-in from the Left.
1) Wrinkle: For 2015 – 2018 we can send money to the EU, but money doesn’t flow from the EU in our direction.
2) Scar: From 2015 onwards we are locked in because Combet never directly answered the question of an exit clause.
3) Major Scar: There are still market caps on annual emissions to enforce the gradual suppression of CO2 emission over time, so it doesn’t matter how much value you can create from carbon emissions, if that quarter’s block is sold out then you can’t buy emissions to cover supply. The technocrats behind the scenes limit total aCO2 output and industry fights over the scraps within a narrowing field. Seems fossil fuels are too precious to let just anybody have it. The elites will have no problems getting all they want and (as has been pointed out here many times) there is no sign any coal or gas fired plants will actually be shut down soon. (Because you don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, do you?)
4) Gangrenous Scar: The confidence behind the $28/t credit price by 2015 in absence of local control can mean only one of two things, either it won’t happen and investments that assumed a $15 minimum are screwed, OR the entire market price is covertly controlled and will be set to $28 by the major invested players as soon as Australia gets far enough down this track that it can’t unlink. In other words, either the game is rigged or the rug is about to be pulled out from under the renewables industry. I hope you notice that in both cases the banksters win.
Proposition: “Pay more for fossil fuels and you get the benefit of less warming plus clean energy from your new locally-supported renewables industry.”
Public: “War-ming scar-ry. Clean goood. Duh, Okayyy!”
Result: Deal is done, carbon price in place, price collapses, renewables either collapse or are nationalised, but a few percent of your electricity and petrol costs are now channelled to the banksters and UNEP, raking in billions. Classic bait-and-switch.
Without the smoking gun proof that this is a cryptofascist bankster scam, there does not seem to be much incremental reform possible. A sudden proliferation of 3rd party candidates is the only hope, and if Aus signs international treaties before 2015 that cannot be broken then even that seems slim. Magical thinking reigns supreme in problem and solutions.
Wheels within wheels. All the world’s a stage and we’re supposed to applaud some puppets.
00
Brilliant analysis AM.
I would go far as to say.. bugger the scars, this is an amputation!!
What a disgrace this Govt. and Combet err… Buddy Holly is!
Perhaps Andrew, they could tie in with Chicago Carbon Stock Xchange`s price which I believe is 1 cent per tonne!
00
Combet was asked during a radio interview if ten per cent of carbon dioxide tax will be handed to the UN, he denied it. After several more questions the interviewer changed tack and asked if an amount of money equal to ten per cent of the “carbon tax” would be handed to the UN and Combet confirmed it would be. We cannot trust anything these people say.
00
Germany started a new brown coal fired power station this month near Cologne – 2200MW (about 5400 typical wind turbines). They have given the go-ahead for 23 new coal fired stations.
Concerns about replacing nuclear capacity as it is shut down, reliability of supply from “renewables” and the rising cost of electricity (due to “renewables”). This last is the political concern as 15% of Germans are having trouble paying their electricity bills.
So, will all these new CO2 sources push up the demand for EU carbon credits? Probably not, as Germany has decided that its brown coal business is outside the rules. Since they’re bankrolling half Europe, they will get away with that. In fact, the question is not what the price of EU carbon credits will be in 3 years, rather will there be an EU scheme in 3 years?
00
While we can suspect its motivation, the Russian Academy of Sciences is predicting an end to Global Warming.
When are all the ‘significant’ Academies of Science going to wake up and realise they’ve been scooped ?
Do they set opinion or just follow it ?
00
An end to Global Warming in Russia?
Only when Pussy Riot is in the room !!
🙂
00
And global temperature did not even reach previous warming period levels.
00
Dear Dr Doherty,
I have the utmost respect for your achievements. Some special personal interest arises because early foundations of your work were investigated by a person with my surname, also a Nobel Laureate.
The mechanism by which new understanding of science replaces old is not merely complex, it is influenced by human nature. With that in mind, would you care to trace for us your path, your progressive thoughts, your development of acceptance, of those 2 further Nobel Laureates, Marshall & Warren?
This is not an adversarial question in any way. Simply, I am interested in the ways in which a person of your ability sees a problem that concerns many of my colleagues greatly. We seek to learn. Perhaps our perspectives need a new intellectual injection.
00
Dear Geoff,
Thank you for your polite question.
As you know I’m the leading UN approved immunologist on the planet and have the same number of Nobel Laureate prizes as Al Gore. I believe my Paul Ehrlich award for Ropable Exaggeration trumps Al Gore’s Oscar. I’m pretty much an expert’s expert-at-large.
It’s true, Marshall & Warren did work in my lab. Mopping floors and keeping the coffee flowing was indispensable to the timely completion of MY paradigm shifting research. But I was concerned about their disrespect for settled science and gave the boys low marks on their PRPDs for insubordination and thinking without filing the proper forms first.
The fact that you share a name with a Nobel Laureate might well mean you have the same superior genes as my line of natural nobility. People like us were born to rule. So I’ll tell you what makes a great scientist like me so bloody brilliant.
First you develop a hypothesis. Hypothesis formation is structured to tick all the right boxes with catch phrases the ARC – or whatever slush fund you apply to – is looking for. Normally, the ARC circulates a list of state-approved orthodoxes for the season. Stick to the List, mate! It doesn’t matter if your hypothesis is hogswaddle, one can’t just swan around the campus as grand pooh-bah without cash in hand. For proper gravitas one must keep a stable of indentured researchers and a harem of grad students fat and happy. It ain’t cheap, let me tell you!
Once you have your grant in pocket you can begin to develop rigorous experiments to prove your hypothesis is correct. Be sure to conservatively avoid any difficult questions that might trip you up.
Then, it’s simply a matter of rigorously gathering the data. Think Quantitatively, not quality… say 50,000 points a day is good. No worries if it’s rubbish. Sift said data for the curves that best fit your hypothesis, discard the rest to ensure it’s an experiment that can never be repeated. (use a paper shredder and magnetic harddrive wipes, can’t be too safe in our modern FOI world.)
That’s it, Bob’s your uncle!
Oh, and be sure to do a media spin campaign before the paper is published to insures no facts are available to confuse the punters. The little people couldn’t possible understand the science. That’s what experts are for, mate. To tell them what to think.
Good Luck with your research!
PS, Say hi to Jo for me. I hope global warming gives her hives. Btch! 😉
cheers, Pete
Peter Duh-Herty, TAFE I, II, MVSc. PhD, BStA, WHanK, OMG!, ASShl
Professor of Biomedical Alarmism Research
Chair of the Immunological Climate Change Department at St Gaia’s Eugenics & Phrenological Research Hospital
Mailing Address:
School of Creative Data Management, and Biological Justice, Division of High Alarmism
1984 Orwell Avenue
Largo Boca, Tennessee, 6666
Socialist Republic of the United Nations, North American Union
IMPORTANT NOTE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the orthodox elite and may contain confidential or politically compromising information. If you are not the intended elite member of the ruling class or an authorised enforcer of the coming police state, using, distributing or reproducing this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please denounce yourself to your local thought police authorities immediately.
00
Gawwwwed there went a whole glassful of pretty good white……
I’m in tears…..
breath
Breath
Sip
OK we need a special gut busting thumbs up box to check. Jo?
00
Good one, Wes.
Cheered me up, that did!
00
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
KK 🙂 🙂
00
TO: <duhertyp@ha.cdmbj.int>Dear Dr Duherty,
We received your application for a registered mark on 29th August 2012. For a person of your outstanding publication history and formidable reputation within The Party we are compelled to supply you with a fast-tracked turnaround time on your application.
We find your mark to be of great trade-suppressive value and, having put the prior art down the memory hole, are pleased to secure for you the exclusive rights over your new registered mark:
indentured researchers®We hope your exclusive rights over this term will assist you greatly in exterminating rogue communications amongst the proles.
– Yusef Ulidiot
Office of Intellectual Theft
North American Union
00
From: Peter Duherty
Subject: RE: Indentured Researcher TM Application
Date: 30, Aug, 2022, 9:45 AM
To: Yusef Uldiot
Dear Comrade Ulidiot!
ALL HAIL THE STATE! WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH OCEANIA!
At ease.
Thank you, comrade, for your heroic attention to efficiency. I’m sure you had 50,000 other things to file today.
You’ll be pleased to learn I’ve recommended your office for the Michael Mann Hockey Puck Award for Unprecedentedness in the Service of The Party. I would not be surprised if there is a promotion in it for you. Wink, wink.
Btw, I was wondering if you have any, uh, discreet connections in the UN ICANN Blog Licensing Authority, I believe it is a division of the Ministry for Truth Control. You see, I’m having a bit of strife getting the SatLink for a rogue blog in the Socialist Republic of Australasia shut down. The local thought police are entirely incompetent. Some prole named Colonel John Brookes is in charge at Perth Stasi, but it’s like herding kangaroos! I’m sure it’s an Aussie thing, you know. The whole lot of them should have been gulagged in the First Occupation. Gaia Bless comrade heros Combet and Shorten for their epic martyrdom in putting down the 2018 anti-revolution! ALL HAIL THE STATE!
At ease.
Thanks in advance, Yusef, for looking into this. Your promotion might just be fast tracked. 😉 Oh, and keep this under your hat. We wouldn’t want have to denounce ourselves for interstate thought trafficking, eh? End up like Julian retiring as a llama farmer in the Andes. LOL.
Cheers, Pete
Peter Duh-Herty, TAFE I, II, MVSc. PhD, BStA, WHanK, OMG!, ASShl
Professor of Biomedical Alarmism Research
Chair of the Immunological Climate Change Department at St Gaia’s Eugenics & Phrenological Research Hospital
Mailing Address:
School of Creative Data Management, and Biological Justice, Division of High Alarmism
1984 Orwell Avenue
Largo Boca, Tennessee, 6666
Socialist Republic of the United Nations, North American Union
IMPORTANT NOTE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the orthodox elite and may contain confidential or politically compromising information. If you are not the intended elite member of the ruling class or an authorised enforcer of the police state, using, distributing or reproducing this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please denounce yourself to your local thought police authorities immediately.
– – – – – – –
On 18/29/22 10:56 AM, “Yusef Ulidiot” wrote:
Dear Dr Duherty,
We received your application for a registered mark on 29th August 2012. For a person of your outstanding publication history and formidable reputation within The Party we are compelled to supply you with a fast-tracked turnaround time on your application.
We find your mark to be of great trade-suppressive value and, having put the prior art down the memory hole, are pleased to secure for you the exclusive rights over your new registered mark:
indentured researchers®
We hope your exclusive rights over this term will assist you greatly in exterminating rogue communications amongst the proles.
– Yusef Ulidiot
Office of Intellectual Theft
North American Union
00
Hey,Joe V, your’e being a bit ageist! I am of a similar age to the Nobel Laureate who is also a warmist-by-association, and age certainly does not stop me from being sceptical of stuff that comes from all sorts of sources and is new to me. Age is a burden we all have to face sooner or later, but age does not mean that our brains ossify as grow older.
I once accepted ‘the consensus’ until I began asking questions about standards that apply to terrestrial weather recording stations – what I eventually learned horrified me and I now know that most Western governments have used science in the worst possible meaning of the word ‘used’ and that many of the ‘great and good’ have feet of clay.
00
with Germany building 23 new coal-fired power stations, Michael Mann and Greenpeace have other ideas!
28 Aug: UK Telegraph: Arctic ice melts to record low levels
Scientists said the record was all the more striking as 2007 had near perfect climate patterns for melting ice, but that the weather this year was unremarkable other than a storm in early August.
Michael E. Mann, a lead author of a major UN report in 2001 on climate change, said the latest data reflected that scientists who were criticised as alarmists may have shown “perhaps too great a degree of reticence.” …
“I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things,” said Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
“There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted,” Mann told AFP.
“The sea ice decline is perhaps the most profound of those cautionary tales because the models have basically predicted that we shouldn’t see what we’re seeing now for several decades,” he added…
Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace who on Monday intercepted a Russian ship in the Arctic, said the ice melt showed that the planet was “warming up at a rate that puts billions of people’s future in jeopardy.”
“These figures are not the result of some freak of nature but the effects of man-made global warming caused by our reliance on dirty fossil fuels,” he said in a statement…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9502543/Arctic-ice-melts-to-record-low-levels.html
00
(emphasis added).
Ah, there you have it! The models are wrong.
00
The latest comments about our idiot co2 tax from the clueless Gillard labor govt.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_carbon_tax_just_became_another_damaging_tax_grab/#commentsmore
00
This letter illustrates the problem very well.
It comes from a well educated person who has developed a trust in our society that is, no doubt, built on personal experience in a
medical area, namely Immuno-biology.
Obviously, the learning experience, the work experience, the application and p[politics of Immuno-biology have all worked well and to
the satisfaction of the writer.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is a logical way of seeing and interacting with our environment; experience must guide us.
The assumption that all areas of Australian academic endeavor are as rigorous and scrupulous as Immuno-biology is however very dangerous.
The writer has wrongly ascribed his own experience to an unrelated area of science and politics, Climate Science, that is not
rigorous in any way and in fact encourages a “marketing” approach to the science.
Climate Change Science is at best misguided but more accurately should be seen as deceptive and fraudulent.
When a relatively well educated person is so easily mislead by Authority, what hope has the general population got of seeing the truth
of the matter.
KK
00
It has occurred to me that there has been a change of terms.
That is, once upon a time the “Weather Bureau” was the organisation which predicted weather for the ensuing 2 or 3 days. They would also record each day’s temp’, rain, etc. This is what we now call the “Bureau Of Meteorology” or BOM.
The term ‘meteorology stems from the old notion that the sky watchers were mostly interested in meteors.
In today’s newspaper I notice the ‘Climate Department’ (or is it the ‘Department of Climate?’…whatever…giving a forecast for the next week or so. So I am forced to ask WHO is running the short term forecasting? BOM or Climate Centre?
00
UPDATE-
He’s back!
Letters; The Australian August 29, 2012
Doug doesn’t need help, but, Doherty does, being unable to operate a computer attached to the internet to search out information.
Dare it be suggested a thread with any relevant links for Doherty.
Come on over to Ms. Jo’s site, Mr Doherty, for a respectful discussion.
Here is one link about ‘scientific consensus’ @ the UN-IPCC, a good spot to start.
00
I like the letter below that of Dr Doherty;
00
It would seem that Dr Peter Doherty, Craig Thomson and other warmist commentators are blissfully unaware that the supposed greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide all have absorption spectra in which the major peak occurs where the incoming sunshine exceeds the outgoing Earth’s infrared. For CO2, the incoming spectral radiance from the Sun at the absorption peak, 4.368 microns, is 3.4 times greater than the outgoing spectral radiance from the Earth. For methane, quoted by the IPCC as being a dangerous greenhouse gas, the incoming spectral radiance from the Sun at the absorption peak, 3.26 microns, is 85 times greater than the outgoing spectral radiance from the Earth.
Thus if back-radiation of the Earth’s infrared can cause warming of its surface then back-radiation of the incoming Sun’s infrared will cause cooling of the Earth. Furthermore, as the Sun is the source of the heat energy in the first place, the resulting colder Earth’s surface will generate a much lower outgoing radiation and thus a lower back-radiation. Overall, a colder Earth from the so called greenhouse effect, not a hotter Earth.
Taken together with the muddled definition of the Terrestrial Greenhouse Effect, as described in my posting at #29 above, and the Greenhouse House Gas Global Warming theory is shown to be a nonsense. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 23% in the past 50 years but this has not resulted in a colder Earth, which would be the logical outcome of the theory, so the theory is unambiguously falsified.
00
On ya Bevan, succinctly put. The answer to the question, what came first the chicken or the egg, would put many at ease over the conundrum of back radiation.
00
Warning, sark on: No, no, no. Only shortwave gets through the invisible greenhouse roof to reach the Earth’s surface, shortwave in longwave out is the meme, remember it, no direct heat from the Sun reaches the Earth’s surface and only shortwave heats land and oceans.’ sark off
Got it? Idiotic science at its finest. They have no direct heat from the Sun which is capable of heating matter, thermal infrared, and have given its properties to shortwave, UV and Visible, and some add in Near Infrared, which are totally, utterly, incapable of raising the temperature of the Earth’s land and ocean. So there is no 4.368 microns from the Sun, it’s all from backradiation..
Why this AGW basic imagined fisics of an imaginary world isn’t better known, I think because no one bothered to look to see what exactly they were saying.
When I first questioned it I was told, by a PhD, that I should get outside in the Sun more and bask in the heat of visible light.. That like an incandescent lightbulb it was the visible light which would be heating me up.
In the real world and not this through the looking glass with Al, an incandescent light bulb gives off 95% heat, thermal infrared, and 5% visible light.
If you read their spiels they emphasise how great the power of shortwave, but they never come back with the figures I request for how much this heats the oceans.. In the real world water is transparent to visible light. They have empty space instead of our fluid gas atmosphere, they have ideal gas molecules instead of real, they have no water cycle, they have no rain, I can elaborate if there’s interest..
00
Someone doesn’t like this.. Well, I suggest you take a good long hard look at the basic physics claims of AGW – they are all made up, impossible in the real world.
In the real world we know that it is the Sun’s direct Heat, which is thermal infrared, which is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move which is the great power from the Sun heating matter, including us. It is this invisible Heat from the Sun which penetrates our bodies and heats us up, Visible light cannot do this.
Real traditional physics has know the difference between Visible Light and Invisible Heat from the Sun since Herschel – visible does not have the power to move molecules of matter in vibrational states which is what it takes to heat something up.
In the real world we have industries based on the real physics – try out an invisible thermal infrared sauna some time, and then ask yourself why special lights are made to grow crops in greenhouses which provide more visible and take out the invisible heat..
Every part of the basic physics of the AGW Greenhouse Effect cartoon is comic. Every part. It’s a JOKE. Created by tweaking real physics by giving the properties of one thing to another, by taking laws out of context, by completely excising whole processes – they’ve taken out the whole Water Cycle! You don’t have any rain..
As long as the detail of this is not appreciated you will not begin to grasp just what a scam it all is. And the totalitarian takeover of us oiks will continue unabated while you argue as if their fantasy world fisics is real..
00
Sorry Myrrh, but you have been cruelly mislead. The fact is that the incoming Sun’s radiation consists of ultraviolet, range 0 to 0.38 microns wavelength, portion 10.0%,
Visible light, range 0.38 to 0.76 microns, portion 44.8%,
and infrared, range 0.76 to 1000 microns, 45.2%.
The infrared is defined as near IR, 0.76 to 2.5 microns, mid IR, 2.5 to 25 microns and far IR, 25 to 1000 microns. The incoming Sun’s energy, Watts per square metre, is about 3.46 times greater than the outgoing Earth’s infrared energy, which means that the infrared part of the incoming sunshine is 1.6 times greater that the outgoing total Earth’s radiation.
However you are not alone in your ignorance as this mistake is carried by a large portion of the world’s population because of the reports emanating from the IPCC. Their AR4, 1990, states on page 47, of the IPCC Scientific Assessment of Working Group 1, quote “…in the thermal infrared ( 4 to 1000 microns ) ….”. This enables them to state on page XIII, quote “…The Earth intercepts solar radiation (including that in the short-wave, visible, part of the spectrum.” Here they have surreptitiously redefined the thermal radiation, ie infrared, to start at 4 microns wavelength, then throughout the report, as far as I am aware, they avoid any mention of that part of the spectrum in the range 0.76 to 4 microns. As a result people in general now think that there is no incoming solar radiation in that range. In effect they are rejecting Planck’s law for black-body radiation.
This is convenient for their purposes as 4 microns is roughly the spot in which the diminishing amplitude of the incoming Sun’s spectral radiation is equal to the increasing amplitude, with respect to wavelength, of the outgoing Earth’s spectral radiation. They simply do not want anyone to be aware of what happens within the atmosphere for electromagnetic radiation in the range 0.76 to 4 microns wavelength.
In addition to this, the IPCC dismisses the Universal Gas laws, as explained in my posting at #29.1.2 above. Then there is their disregard for the Laws of Thermodynamics whereby they insist that the cold atmosphere is causing warming of the hotter Earth’s surface below. We all know from experience that a hotter body warms a colder body. We have never experienced being warmed by a colder body. If this happened then every body would be causing an increase in the temperature of all of the surrounding bodies regardless of the relative temperature difference, that is, the whole of the Universe would be increasing in temperature, creating energy out of nothing.
We have seen this strategy before of using a position of high authority to dominant everyone else via misinformation, lies in fact. It was applied to great effect by both Stalin in Russia and Mao Tse-tung in China to cause the majority of the population to worship them in complete ignorance of the murder of millions of their fellow citizens. It is possible that the driving force behind the IPCC is another endeavour to gain control via rewriting the laws of physics, but this time in order to dominate the whole of the world.
00
Bevan, I’m talking about the basic premise of The Greenhouse Effect energy budget as promoted to support AGW/CAGW – the premise is “shortwave in longwave out” as seen in the cartoon KT97 and kin and explained as in the descriptions of “the Greenhouse” – that thermal infrared direct from the Sun can’t enter (they have no explanation for what is this invisible greenhouse glass shell preventing it from entering), and that Shortwave only reaches the surface and it is this shortwave which heats land and oceans, which thus heated up, then radiate up the thermal infrared, “longwave out”. This is what is claimed, this is what is taught, this is what is junk fisics.
I’ve had, far too, many arguments about this from those taught exactly that because it is in the textbooks, it is what is actually taught as if it is real world physics.
It is impossible. Shortwave can’t heat matter and Thermal Infrared which they have excised and given its property of Heat to shortwave, does actually really reach the surface and is what actually, really, heats land and oceans and us because it can.
They have done this for one reason only, so they can pretend that all the downwelling thermal infrared measured from the atmosphere comes from that supposedly ‘backradiating’ from the upwelling thermal infrared from the Earth which has been heated by Shortwave. AKA, Solar, i.e., Visible Light and the two near shortwaves of UV and Near Infrared, under 4 microns.
“They simply do not want anyone to be aware of what happens within the atmosphere for electromagnetic radiation in the range 0.76 to 4 microns wavelength.”
This is their Solar/Shortwave In, when they talk about ‘infrared’ they are talking about the ‘longwave out’ or ‘backradiated’.
I found that the education on this has been changed even by NASA, which used to teach that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, but now they teach the AGW Science Fiction fisics that this doesn’t get through the atmosphere and give its propery to shortwave.
When I first began questioning this I was was told by the PhD that I should go outside and sit in the Sun to bask in the sunlight because the visible light was the heat I would be feeling…
He then said that this was like an incandescent lightbulb, the visible light was heat. In the real world of course visible light is light and not heat and only around 5% of an incandescent lightbulb’s output, the 95% being real heat which is thermal infrared.
A whole generation has now been indoctrinated with this fake fisics – they have no idea that it is impossible in the real world.
00
Just for Tony in case you have not seen it.The Germans may become your new best friends !!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/#more-70077
00
When you read about how Germany is in the process of constructing a further 23 Large scale coal fired power plants, think very closely about when those plants will be coming on line.
Three years.
Sound familiar.
2015.
Okay now, so what does that mean, especially with reference to Australia.
Huh, and I can see some furrowed brows from here in Rocky, and I’ll get to it in a short space.
These plants will obviously be new technology coal fired plants as was the most recently opened one in Cologne.
Each of those plants will be burning around 5 million tons of coal a year, (best guess here, but calculated, and in fact quite close to the mark) and because of that, they will be emitting around 15 million tons of CO2 each year per plant, hence around 350 million tons of CO2 EXTRA each year for all those plants.
Now think about it for a minute. What Government in its right mind would even start a process like this construction if any form of ETS was introduced. The purpose of any ETS is to place a cost on those emissions, and that’s what people will concentrate on. However, one of the main purposes of any ETS is to lower the cap on those emissions each year, and not by a piddling amount, but by up to 10%+ each year. Then as part of that, if that plant exceeded that cap, then they need to make up the credits, and on top of that pay a fine equal to 1.5 times the cost of the credits for that excess, and then on top of that, the excess is then deducted for the following year’s already lowered cap.
So, here we have a brand new plant, well 23 of them in fact. The power that they generate is not just excess in case it might be needed at some time in the future. It is power that is required, and probably not in three years form now, but in fact right now.
So, those new plants will be operating at their maximum, as they can because they are brand new. If that CO2 price per ton is ‘hoped’ to be as high as some expect, the cost of operating those plants becomes prohibitive, and more prohibitive each subsequent year.
Now, Germany must ‘know’ something if they have gone ahead and actually started this construction process, not just talking about it, but actually DOING it.
Now for Australia.
Combet has hooked our Carbon price up to Europe’s, and without flinching says that he trusts the Australian treasury modelling, and oh how I just love that word modelling. If he seriously thinks the Carbon price will go up to where he ‘wants’ it to, he’s dreaming. Christine Milne actually believes it will be up and beyond $50 per ton. She’s dreaming too, in fact, she’s off with the pixies.
If they actually believe that price will rise from where it is now, then these people are even more stupid than some of us make them out to be.
Germany would not even be having a ‘thought bubble’ about that amount of new coal fired power if the price was going to rise, let alone digging the dirt at the sites of these plants. Germany has more of a finger on the pulse than Combet has.
On top of that Combet also said that Europe will likely regulate to raise that price. Let’s say that regulation comes into effect and Europe does artificially boost the price to the hoped for $AUD29 per ton, and even north of that. For Germany, that means an EXTRA $AUD10 Billion+ each and every year. Do you seriously think Germany would be doing this is that was going to be the case. Germany ‘KNOWS’. Combet is clueless.
You still think that price will rise? Yeah! Right!
What a joke.
Tony.
00
Very good of you to catch up Tony. 🙂
I suggest pressing Graeme No 3 for details as he believes Germany will simply rule that the new power stations are automatically absolved of their original carbon sin right from day one.
I tentatively and cynically suggest that the option which you dismiss could even be the one that is actually chosen: that the power stations are subject to the EU ETS, the price does go to AUD29/t, and the resulting economic collapse and death is exactly what the globalists want; because they want to wipe the slate clean and remake the world for themselves. Unpleasant, but not impossible, especially if every major country is cajoled stepwise into the same precarious position by a combination of artificial sticks and carrots.
David Evans predicted years ago that carbon accounting was difficult to validate and easy to rort, and it now appears to be happening in China. So…
A fourth possibility not yet considered: A whole raft of new CER or CCX tradable carbon sequestration credits suddenly appear right on schedule in 2015 all based on various green projects and statist land management rorts, exactly at the time greater demand is created in China, EU, and Australia, and all owned ultimately by the banksters (eg Deutsche Bank and N.M.Rothchilds branches in Europe and China). The price is whatever the rort-holders want, and so it is not even necessary that the higher CER supply leads to a lower price.
Whether it turns out a high or low price tells you what they are really aiming for. In the high price case the cynical goal is manifested. In the low price case it is just money and power acquisition. Either way it analyses as the Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Problem: fake CAGW; Reaction: Need emissions credits cheaply; Solution: Pay the banksters.
00
Andrew,
there is another way to look at it.
What happens when a Company has a new share release to raise money. Once the shares are sold at the price needed to raise the new money, the overall price of all their shares now drops to reflect their new value.
The same should apply here. With 23 new plants coming on line, that means that, in accordance with the ETS, Governments now have to issue those 350 million new credits to cover that new level of emissions. I would suspect that of itself would drive the credit price even further downwards.
With respect to what you say in your Comment, I just cannot imagine that Germany would shell out for 23 new coal fired plants if the sole purpose was to render them inoperable, under any circumstance.
Tony.
00
If one was being cynical one would say that loss was the price of gaining control. If these generators can supply at lower prices by not being subject to the tax rules they will suddenly find a large export market in electricity regardless of how many consumers remain.
But since this is unimaginable I shall stop imagining it.
Then it is the low price bait-and-switch option that is more likely.
00
More from Doherty’s letter in today’s Australian:
“Nothing I read leaves me with a sense other than that the world’s oceans and land masses are progressively warming, that we are rapidly losing ice cover at both poles, and that, globally, we are experiencing more extreme weather events with greater unpredictability.”
So much for Socratic method, modern ‘science’ now boils down to sensing what may be happening if you limit your reading to like-mined and like-funded sources. No research, no verification, no testing of hypotheses, just a ‘sense’ that the grape kool-aid looks kinda tasty.
Galileo Galilei – “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
My sincere thanks to Jo and other individuals bound by the shackles of reason.
00
Peter Doherty Nobel Laureate is repeating his appeal to authority argument in todays Australian.
I’ve seen Peter Doherty interviewed on TV a few times. He certainly doesn’t appear to be highly intelligent or particularly insightful. He seems more of a hardworking plodder who just happened to be in the right place at the right time (ANU in the early 1970s) to win a Nobel Prize.
00
Max Dulbrück (Nobel Laureate) describes the Nobel Prize process:
00
Although only briefly, I’ve met Dr Doherty and some of his friends and colleagues working in the rather important field of immunology. People like Sir Gus Nossal, a thoroughly likeable person. I’ve written to Laureates Marshall & Warren, but not got a conversation going. Win some, lose some. I’ve luched at the home once owned by Walter & Eliza Hall while their income grew from the Mt Morgan gold mine, which we operated for a number of years. I’m glad that this country hosts the Walter & Eliza Hall Institute for medical research. It’s a better investment, I feel, than climate change billions.
Now and then, you meet a person whose mind seems to work in a different way. Some top surgeons are like this. Their logic seems to be immediate and instinctive, not a chore to be worked through step by step. These are people capable of causing us to improve, should we come to understand them better. They are better being on the side of most people on this blog, not antagonistic to it.
We knew a rather well decorated medical scientist with the type of mind I mean (I call it the steel trap mind), sadly now deceased. Although he made significant advances in his field, he was hopeless at simple chores like knowing how or why to top up the oil in the engine of his car. I’m not going to write deprecatory comments from my armchair about top scientists whom I hardly know. I’d rather be friends with them, and learn another dimension.
So, Wes George, what do you know that I do not about this approach? I found your comments subtractive from general knowledge when personally I’d favour progresive commentary.
00
Indeed, Mr Sherrington. Dr Doherty’s responses would make the basis for a fine dissertation on warmista intellectual perceptions. Notwithstanding, Wes’ humour simply reflected the absurdity of Dr Doherty’s proposition in the first instance.
I would prefer that Dr Doherty undertake some simple ‘research’ of alternative viewpoints before he concludes his statement on global warming. He may like to start with this: Steve Milloy: Models, Not Climate, Are Hypersensitive to Carbon Dioxide the linked .pdf and discussion should be a good starting point.
00
testing could not post
00
I was trying to post on a new thread and it has disappeared?
00
Can someone who knows more biochemistry than me set forth an analogy for Peter Doherty’s arguments about climate, but in his own field of expertise? Then he MIGHT get the point…
00
Biochemistry eh?
Am not sure what your parents told you about this, but…
…when an infrared photon and a carbon dioxide molecule love each other very much…. 😉
Okay but seriously. The challenge with contriving an analogy that all skeptics could agree with is that some skeptics are greenhouse effect deniers. Perhaps they have good reason, and if so I might one day understand it, but to my mind if water vapour can have a GHE then why can’t CO2 and Nitrogen? They all have a non-trivial absorption spectrum, a few degrees of freedom in their molecules, and a non-zero heat capacity. These skeptics can’t argue the GHE is mainly (or only) due to gas pressure and also say there is zero CO2 GHE. So the challenge is to find an analogy in biochemistry that relies upon a GHE-like reaction existing but does not require an artificially boosted compound to be a significant part of its change over time.
Well the only reason I never flunked biology is because I’ve never studied it. All those latin names to remember, a gazillion different reaction pathways, and it takes years to get to the point where you can start altering the things you’re studying. With computer software you can start building on day one. I was impatient.
BIOCHEMISTRY PEOPLE, HELP US OUT.
Perhaps the temperature of the human body is the most straightforward analogy? The International Pork Chop Commission says our temperature is going up because we’re eating too many pork chops and it is provoking our metabolism to burn up energy. But the pork skeptics say that several natural factors can increase body temperature, and in predictable cycles. So although we have been eating pork chops, it is also 5am and a NATURAL RECURRING CYCLE in the body’s metabolism is that it will decrease in temperature from sunset down to about 4am and then begin increasing again in anticipation of daytime energy demands. So even without pork chops we would expect our temperature to be increasing at the present anyway. We might also have a naturally occurring infection which will increase temperature at onset but eventually fade as the body’s built-in HOMEOSTATIC MECHANISMS repel the infection. There is also evidence that our body temperature’s rate of increase is not unprecedented, we’ve survived higher absolute temperatures in the past, and the rate seems to have slowed recently. On that basis, putting a high price on pork is not yet warranted.
OK, that analogy was simply so I could redefine IPCC humorously.
Yeah, okay…
BIOCHEMISTRY PEOPLE, HELP US OUT.
00
Andrew,
What I meant was to create a satirical example in Doherty’s own field of expertise in which a majority of scientists believe one thing, the truth is elsewhere, and someone from a wholly different part of science starts pontificating about consensus. Then he might get the point. As a postdoc in physics I can and sometimes do read the primary research lit on climate, but I have no expertise in the field in which Doherty is eminent.
00
Analysis and commentary (anonymous if you like) from people with your level of science qualification upon the standards of evidence used in climate science is needed more often.
00
Thanks for the compliment Andrew, but physical science is now so specialised that even a plasma theoretician like myself is quite a long way from climate science. Although I understand the equations of compressible fluid flow and heat transfer involved in atmospheric dynamics in a deeper way than Jo (probably), I recognise that she has educated herself to a higher level than me on the climate issue specifically. Probably I could get myself to a higher technical level without ‘going back to school’, but I haven’t done that and I can say that the scientific exposition and the rhetoric at this blog are absolutely spot-on.
00
Well.., I did write a post some time ago on the love cycle of carbon dioxide and water, it got quite steamy.., but no longer recall where I posted it.
00
**
Those who have given considered comment to this article should reflect that continuing scientific inquiry and discovery will render many of the scientific knowledge claims we comfort ourselves with as being certain false and each of our current beliefs relating to the precision of science may also prove false. Cocksureness may blind some groups to the fact that scientific knowledge is gained only by the best methods we can devise and these may be short of fully explaining global phenomena. The probability of the dependability of scientific claims has to be reckoned when their effects may have widespread impacts.
A great amount of scientific knowledge comes to us through classic scientific method applied to the outcomes of research teams of scientists. However, with the extraordinary growth in scientific inquiries over the past two centuries we have little choice but to depend on knowledge that is the collation of work by vast numbers of scientists contributing various specialist knowledge and data. The process of collation demands the creation of expert committees and authority to interpret results and form predictions. There are many examples. One example: the Manhattan Project of the 1940s brought hundreds of scientists together to develop a way of controlling nuclear fission and avoiding accident.
This excites sceptics but then where is the limit to scepticism? Even when scientific inquiries are carried out in ethical, responsible and controlled ways, where dependable knowledge is claimed from established epistemic communities sceptics can question the legitimacy of those claims and call relentlessly for more grounds leading to prolonged regressive justifications. Unfettered scepticism could destroy all the scientific knowledge we depend on.
Sceptical discussion may be unavoidable but sceptics who are free of tunnel vision would have to agree that all reasons in favour of one particular set of claims are no better than those against.
As a mere observer of the discussions on Climate Change, its causes and impacts, I am inclined to accept the announcements of the academies as mentioned by Dr P. C. Doherty as having the highest probability of being scientifically reliable in the foreseeable future.
00
Just came across this stream of discussion and must admit that I am intrigued by the way that some of the arguments and comments are formulated. I’m at the point of embarking on a book that probes the issue of why we believe what we believe, with the “we” including professional scientists like me who are trying to grapple with the arguments and subtleties in a different area of research that looks to be of broad significance to society. Aspects of our influenza research program are, for example, now dependent on the computational expertise of others as we become increasingly involved in, for example, genomics. It’s a bit like climate science in the sense that it brings together a spectrum of people with different, specialised knowledge and techniques in pursuit of the same problem. We are also putting the data sets on line for open access, so that anyone who has a different approach can apply their own analysis and either put all the details that have led to their conclusions online or, even better, submit an article for peer reviewed publication in some decent format.
To put something straight,it could be that I’m a co-author on a paper where we did some experiments for a project that was being driven by others, but I’ve never had any interest in the adjuvant squalene so far as I can recall, and certainly did not do any basic work that would have impacted on the use of squalene. Don’t know where this one came from….
Peter Doherty
00