AGW – Talkabout II

As suggested, this where you can argue all you like about climate change.

Climate change

Climate change (Photo credit: jeancliclac)

460 comments on “AGW – Talkabout II

  1. I see a new page. Wonder if we will get any new information. Information that stands up to scrutiny.

    One can always live in hope.

    I expect we will continue to get the pseudo-science.

  2. Cu, “I expect we will continue to get the pseudo-science.” ………a.k.a. RW projection. ……. sad really.. :( They think that they are Alpha’s, …yet every Alpha I’ve ever known, KNOWS how dumb they are……. yet these guys look at *humble* as weak….. look at *empathy* as some lame arse left-ism…… look at *fair dinkom* as something to be manipulated for their one and only goal……. ME, and f* the rest of you losers……. THEY ARE NOT AUSTRALIANS THEY ARE ME ME’S….. me me me me me me $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$….. nothing wrong with having money, BTW, nothing wrong with being rich, BTW…… its all about HOW you get it ….. GET IT……. dumb arse self f* rightious RWingers……. and P.S….. yes I have had a bad day… f* u….. :D just say’n ;)

  3. …..umm, sorry to any Whisperers that may have taken offence …….. squarely aimed at the one time arounders with no humanity…. digusting really…… but then again, thats RWhingers for you….. :puke-smiley:

  4. “continue to get the pseudo-science”
    gee, that’s a lot to ask,
    it takes a lot of effort to fake the science,
    now you expect us to fake the ‘pseudo’ as well

  5. Damn….wrong thread….another brain fade.

    While I’m at it blogmasta, how about a fresh thread for climate related matters?

  6. Might as well post this response to thesnufkin here as well.

    thesnufkin. I came across a piece on Watts’s deliberate distortions, selective cherry picking and falsification of data sets when throwing up pieces of disjointed non-sourced paragraphs and graphs to throw up here to mimic the way el gordo posts.

    Says a lot that the mindless right wing ideological driven deniers like el gordo fall for scams so easily and believe Watts is a credible source.

  7. Warmer oceans now and into the future are likely to influence the intensity of cyclones. A recent study summarised this as follows:

    “We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-and magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.”

  8. Watts is pretty much the only denier still standing though.

    The rest have taken their cheques and retired to enjoy their ill gotten gains.

    Heartlands have cancelled their annual bash and even Monkton appears to have been put out to grass.

  9. Love this from your post thesnufkin

    It turned out that climate scientists already knew about UHI effect and had been taking it into account, as they do various other changes in recording practise such as the weather station moving or the time of observations changing.

    http://thesnufkin.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/climate-change-denier-proves-climate.html

    Who’d have thunk, the scientists were actually thinking doh! As has happened so often in the past. the denialist think they thought of something that the scientists have taken into account all along. All they needed to do was read the literature. Oh, and understand it, hey grodo ;)

  10. Very telling Tom that the writer of the first Australian climate denial (nonsensical) article, framing proponents as religious fanatics, was written by the former chairman of the ABC, Maurice L. Newman.

    Yet the right wingers, and especially the Fierravanti-Wells’s of the opposition, still go around screaming ABC is a left wing media mouthpiece.

  11. Luv a fresh thread….

    So we know that when the ozone hole over Antarctica is large it strengthens the circumpolar vortex which creates more sea ice because of stronger winds. This has nothing to do with global warming.

  12. A quick look around the traps has the warmists saying the Arctic sea ice is declining much faster than the Antarctic is growing…which leads to an inevitable tipping point.

    Out of kilter? It might be how the bipolar see saw chugs into motion?

  13. The other day CU asked me to explain something Treeman said, so I dedicate this new thread to plain speaking on complicated matters.

  14. so I dedicate this new thread to plain speaking on complicated matters.

    lol, good start

    Damn….wrong thread….another brain fade.

  15. David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow.

    Come back to us in hundred years then grodo. That would be our children’s children’s children lol

    So, answered my question yet?

  16. ‘Why not?’

    In defence of natural variability, the system is operating normally and there’s no need for alarm.

  17. A quick look around the traps… el gordo code for cherry pick nonsense, post it here without context and sourcing as absolute fact to troll.

    A quick look around the traps shows me el gordo got it wrong… again.

    Luv a fresh thread…. el gordo code for geez thank god I can now put in more diversions away from the utter nonsense I was being picked up for in the previous thread and for which I had no sensible answers.

  18. You still haven’t answered the question grodo. Your ‘belief’ that there is ‘no cause for alarm’ does not explain WHY ‘this shouldn’t be happening in a slowly warming world.’

    It just says you don’t reckon it does. Is that the only ‘science’ you have left these days? Pretty much everything else you have claimed to be ‘science’ has disappeared up its own void of illogical irrelevance

  19. …so I dedicate this new thread to plain speaking on complicated matters.

    el gordo code for I don’t really know what I’m talking about when it comes to climate change and get it wrong more often than not so I’ll just post single simple paragraph non-sourced nonsense stated as absolute fact and hope nobody notices it’s bullshit. If they do I’ll just change tact or subject by posting another simple bit of nonsense.

  20. I like this funny streak in you Mo, had me laughing.

    The hot summers are perfectly understandable, even in the depths of the Little Ice Age the Great Fire of London came about in the aftermath of a very droughty hot summer.

    Its to do with the oscillations and the wobbly jet stream. In a world growing progressively warmer through AGW it was expected that natural variability would no longer play a dominant role, this is not happening.

  21. The cold winters are perfectly understandable, even in the heights of the severest heat waves in the interglacial periods. The great freeze of London came about in the aftermath of a very protracted heat wave.

    Understand el gordo’s logic here, which I’ve just flipped for the same effect.

    el gordo continually contends that the world is going into a global cooling period and often drops in examples of cold weather events, by the way ignoring all warm weather events whilst doing so.

    So global cooling can be explained by cold weather events, including those in the past, but hot weather events or weather anomalies caused by them can’t be explained by global warming.

    I wish I could say el gordo’s nonsense had me laughing as the great joke it is, but sadly it has me despondent.

  22. ‘hot weather events or weather anomalies caused by them can’t be explained by global warming.’

    Cannot be explained within the context of CO2 causing global warming. Individual weather events can be useful, by comparing and contrasting with historical information, but its the long term trends which indicate the Modern Climate Optimum has passed its used by date.

  23. Long term trends have passed their used by date…. according to super climate scientist and statistician el gordo.

    My you think you’re way more knowledgeable on the subject than you actually are, even calling yourself (and me for that matter) amateur climate scientists at one time.

    You know smick and run around here and there like a hungry chook pecking at bits and pieces with most being inedible garbage thrown up here, and like a starving chook mindless to everything else you peck at everything as long as it remotely looks like a piece of climate change denial garbage, even when it turns out it isn’t.

    Bukurk!

  24. ‘Your ‘belief’ that there is ‘no cause for alarm’ does not explain WHY ‘this shouldn’t be happening in a slowly warming world.’

    When you see a trend, as we have seen in Britain over the past decade, of scorching summers freezing winters, cool wet summers followed by more bitterly cold winters, then it makes no sense to continue arguing that this is global warming.

    This trend is not a cold air outbreak (CAO) so loved by the warminista, its full blown climate change.

  25. Tom a non answer of nonsense if I’ve ever read one, but we already knew this would be it if an answer came at all instead of the usual diversion.

  26. Now you know how the rest of feel when we read some of the one or two paragraph gibberish you so often post.

    But I think you will find Tom without a problem understood what I wrote.

  27. Suspect yours, el gordo. Most do not understand gibberish. As I have said previously, I have a habit of telling it, as I see it. Of course, that is only an opinion. Could be wrong, as I am not as trained scientist..

  28. Then again, I may be only relying on my instincts, which I suspect should become more reliable as one grows older. Life experiences and all that. It appears that scientific research agrees. Then one must not rely on the experts, should we.

    “TRUSTING your instincts really does work, scientists say.
    Making a decision based on gut feeling rather than cold hard facts resulted in the right answer up to 90 per cent of the time.
    During a study, volunteers were shown pairs of numbers on a screen in quick succession. One group appeared on the left and one on the right.
    They had to choose which of the two groups had the highest average. Because the figures changed so fast they were unable to memorise them or make proper calculations………………

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/trust-your-instincts-theyre-right-90-of-the-time/story-fneszs56-1226515801744#ixzz2C8OjE4BC

  29. its full blown climate change.

    Yes, and the global trend is warming. Which really makes one wonder how you can say something like ” it makes no sense to continue arguing that this is global warming.” when it is clear that globally, the temperature is warming. It is irrelevant that pockets are experiencing extremes either way (well, perhaps not irrelevant, as this is precisely what scientists predicted in a warming environment). A cold day does not negate the overall trend, in the same way that a warm day does not prove it

    All I ask is why do you think it means something else? Or are you going to go with ‘the vibe’?

  30. I’ll go with the vibe.

    Probably for the best. It’s all you really have left ;)

    Poor ol denialiti, left with nothing but ‘the vibe’ :lol:

  31. Federal govt announces $30m in clean energy grants
    Published 11:16 AM, 14 Nov 2012
    Login or register to post comments

    By a staff reporter
    The federal government has said it will offer $30 million in new grants from the Clean Technology Investment Programs to 89 Australian manufacturers. The grants will look to improve energy efficiency, reduce power bills, improve competitiveness and cut carbon pollution.
    Minister for Industry and Innovation, Greg Combet, said the latest grants from the $1 billion programs will generate $89 million of total investment in energy efficiency projects as businesses supplement the grants with their own funds.
    “Over coming years the Clean Technology Investment Programs are expected to support around 3,000 projects and help many manufacturers across Australia use energy more efficiently,” Mr Combet said.
    Among the projects are:
    — A $3,256,333 grant to Queensland’s Boral Bricks, Darra, for a $9.8 million project expected to cut carbon emissions intensity by 56 per cent and result in savings of $550,000 in energy costs per year, by replacing 110 kiln cars and upgrading existing kiln and dryers;…
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/federal-govt-announces-30m-clean-energy-grants?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

  32. ‘Evidence suggests that for most of the past 3,000 years, sea levels were stable, but that they began rising in the 1950s.’

    McQuaid in that Forbes article telling a monstrous fib.

  33. Your definition of a real scientist is one that believes in AGW, while the thousands of others are smeared with denialist scum.

    If you only took the time to read and comprehend reality…. it would change your life.

  34. I remeber that wonderful news interview of a Bondi Beach veteran, bronzed , wizened, undressed in budgie smugglers saying:

    “I’ve been coming to Bondi all me life and I can say I haven’t seen the sea level rise”

    A true expert, the science of the living, sharing with media all his expertise and better still the media put it to air!

  35. Sue, applying Abbott’s logic I could say that I lived near the beach (on Kangaroo Island) for ten years and never saw one person drown. Therefore, people don’t drown.

    Why is he such an idiot?

  36. I remember a certain blogger a long while back who also claimed to live on a beach and knew sea level rises were bunkum as they had never seen the sea level rise at their beach.

    Dozens of links and articles of explanations followed.

  37. On this thread you’re the one spreading the fears of gorebull worming….according to big al ‘weather’ is now ‘climate’ and I agree with him, no matter what the sceptics say.

  38. This is a war against irrational thought, but how to wage it?

    Who knows. But when it comes to irrational thought, you’re the x-spurt.

  39. El G, “This is a war against irrational thought, but how to wage it?”
    ……. so you do get what CW is about. :D …..”…how to wage it..” …..mm, lets see…. ???? ….. Oh, say… how about a price on Carbon…. :lol:

  40. “gorebull worming…”

    Well you see this is what loses you the argument, and you do the same in the political thread.

    If you have to resort to distorting peoples names and subjects as a form of denigration to make a point then it means you have no credible point to make so are left to falling back to disrespect.

    Yes I know both sides do it, that still doesn’t make it a valid way of putting a point across.

  41. If you have to resort to distorting peoples names and subjects as a form of denigration to make a point then it means you have no credible point to make

    Yea grodo! :shock:

  42. Glad you appreciate it Roswell. Although, it wouldn’t be possible without all of the choice material grodo supplies ;)

  43. gordo Tom. After all el gordo is good enough to call you Tom and calls me Mo, which is my preferred alias nickname. It seems the name calling is only reserved for proponents of global warming and left wing politicians.

    I’m not squeaky clean on this front either but I do make a conscience effort to used surnames as much as possible. Keeps things civil and debates the point not a point digressed by denigration.

  44. ‘it wouldn’t be possible without all of the choice material grodo supplies’

    All threads need a contrarian to keep it moving, otherwise it grinds to a halt. Trolls serve a useful purpose in getting the numbers up.

    As a kitchen table scientist I have no credibility and making fun of my namesake is what I do.

  45. That’s a terrible a reason to be an opponent as I’ve ever heard one el gordo.

    You are contrary to keep threads moving, which is a false premise by the way.

    Before the influx of the right wing zombie trolls here there were many threads that did very well thank you with lively and lucid discussions, and that’s the case in other blogs I visit that have like minded respondents.

    Unless a blog is full of clones then there will always be different opinions and outlooks on a topic, even in topics where the respondents are of the same beliefs, ideology and have similar opinions.

    There is no need for contrary views purely for the sake of it nor bloggers to set themselves up to be the contrary voice for that reason only.

  46. ‘that’s the case in other blogs I visit that have like minded respondents.’

    Yeah sure, like WUWT, but small blogs need a dynamic to function. Had a look at Massive’s place and he stopped in August without robust debate or any humour.

    On the other side, Jennifer Marohasy has taken time off from her blog and is running an open thread. After awhile even the resident troll deserted the place.

    Just sayin’

  47. ‘That’s a terrible a reason to be an opponent as I’ve ever heard one’

    Besides being Tom’s straight man I also have an interest in the new media.

    What are the qualities that make a blog interesting and sought out?

  48. Caught just a bit on the warm waters off Australia’s east coast and everyone’s happy the fish are migrating south.

  49. Delingpole in the Spectator on the secret 28….

    ‘So who were all these ‘best scientific experts’ who did so much to shape the BBC’s climate policy (and by extension, one fears, government policy too…)? Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation…

    ‘Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ‘climate change’. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ‘best scientific’ expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.’

  50. Oh I see having vested interests and non-climate scientists commenting on climate are only allowed on the climate denialist side

    Delingpole fails immediately by the statement (and by extension, one fears, government policy too….)? The question mark is a giveaway.

  51. Mass delusion is no laughing matter and those responsible for creating this warmist bias need to be disciplined.

  52. Sebastian Payne in the Spectator…

    ‘Remember, the BBC had claimed to have “held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus” on anthropogenic climate change.

    ‘So now we know the names of these “best scientific experts”, the remaining question is: why did the BBC feel it was so important to cover the identities up? Their official explanation — protecting journalistic sources — simply does not stand up.’

  53. Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
    The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
    This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2CPaIRgYI

    Short version

    Long version/

    Okay as you can see, there has been a VERY significant rise in temperatures with a steep rise from around 1980 on. The article proposed only looks at a very small section of a 100 year graph that no matter how much you zoom in on a single year or a single decade, clearly shows a rise in temperatures. So not happy to look at the WHOLE data, now the climate deniers are focusing only on the sections of data they want.

    Speaking of people zooming on data that they want, the Tony Abbott twitter account made a boastful claim

    @TONYABBOTTMHR Pleased to see research on the positive impacts of Gardasil being on the PBS; a decision I made as health minister

    ANOTHER LIE A BIG ONE

    Really Tony? A decision YOU made? Sure you supported Gardasil. But when it was omitted from the PBS, you actually attacked it. You even made the claim that you wont be rushing out to vaccinate your daughters on an unknown and untried drug. Then John Howard slapped you a new one and took over from your incompetence.

    You can find data anywhere to support your argument, just as long as you continue to cut out the bits of reality that spoil your argument. Abbott the champion of cervix cancer control? Oh Tony. You are not only unauthentic and devoid of culture, you are also unbelievable.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

  54. Cu that UK Met Office claim was a scam initiated by a paid for by vested interests anti Global Warming mouthpiece who had previoulsy been caught out falsifying information and publishing meretricious pieces.

    The UK Met Office never made the claim that global warming had stopped 16 years earlier nor did they release that graph.

    No surprise all of the deniers fell for the scam hook line and sinker when even a cursory search would have revealed it as a scam, they then ran a mile from it and jumped onto other prevarications.

  55. “I don’t understand Treeman’s purpose of posting that last link and the comment.”

    That’s because you just don’t understand. Furthermore, if you believe that the likes of skeptical science, real climate and deltoid have a carte blanche on objectivity, you never will!

  56. Oh Treeman you believe the likes of Watts so you can’t talk, and as far as you , el fordo or any of us understanding, that’s always been my point in this and if you go back through my posts on this subject you will find I’ve made that point many times.

    Why do the right wingers always think they are so superior and treat others as being inferior and beneath their level of intelligence, when time and again they prove they’re not.

  57. Actually, “Climate Dialogue” seems to be an interesting site. I wonder if Trollman has actually read what the experts are saying about melting of Arctic Sea Ice, the only dialogue held there so far?

    Here’s the opinions of the invited Climate “experts” in that dialogue:

    Walt Meier, Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center

    The evidence for a substantial role of “global warming” in the current sea ice decline comes from the fact that the decline (1) correlates with the global warming temperatures over the past several decades, (2) is outside the range of normal variability over the past several decades and likely over the past several centuries, (3) the decline is pan-Arctic, with all regions experiencing declines throughout all or most of the year.

    It is difficult to put a precise number on how much of the decline is due to GHGs. There is strong natural variability, which is seen in observations and in model simulations. It is likely that at least some of the acceleration of the loss of sea ice in the past ~10 years is due to natural variability. A modeling study [14] suggested that about half of the observed September sea ice trend from 1979-2005 could be explained by natural variability, with the rest attributable to GHGs. There may also be some influence of black carbon, though how much is unclear.

    So that’s one for “AGW plays a significant role”

    Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

    …there is undoubtedly a contribution from CO2 forcing, but it is difficult to find any particular signal in this year’s record minimum, other than the contribution of greenhouse warming to a longer term trend. In the overall scheme of what is going on with the sea ice…

    There is a complex interplay between natural internal variability and CO2 forcing, with complex interactions among ocean dynamics and heat transport, sea ice dynamics forced both by atmospheric winds and ocean currents, and atmospheric thermodynamic forcing acting to determine recent variations in multi-year sea ice extent. Hence sorting dynamical versus thermodynamic factors and attribution to increased greenhouse gases is not at all straightforward.

    So . . . what is the bottom line on the attribution of the recent sea ice melt? My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range.

    So that’s now two out of two for “AGW plays a significant role”

    Ron Lindsay is a Senior Principal Physicist at University of Washington

    I believe fundamentally the main process causing the decline in Arctic sea ice is increasing greenhouse gases….

    The evidence for a substantial role of “global warming” in the current Arctic sea ice decline is very strong, both from observations and from modeling studies. Of course neither can “prove” the role of greenhouse gases but there is overwhelming evidence it is true. To refute the evidence from models, one would have to show that they wildly underestimate natural variability (w.r.t to sea ice). Even in the NCAR CCSM4 which is one of the CMIP5 models with the highest “natural” variability, the sea ice extent trend over the last 30 years is still 50% due to greenhouse gases (Kay et al. 2011[4]).

    Hmmm, does this constitute a trend? That’s three out of three for “AGW plays a significant role”

    All of these experts agree that AGW plays a significant role in the melting of Arctic ice, albeit at different levels in the range 30% to 70% – none of them are saying “no role”…

    It seems the denialists have once again shot themselves in the foot :roll:

  58. And a most interesting comment on the comments by Walt Meier:

    One general thing I’ve seen is a question of balance, both in comments here and in post about this forum on RealClimate. One thing is notice is that there is criticism from both sides – that Judith, Ron and I are tilted too far toward acceptance of anthropogenic influence and those that think we are not tilted far enough. In my experience, this often means you got it about right.

    Those who think we are tilted too far toward an anthropogenic influence seem to be criticizing that we all accept such an influence and that there should be a contributor who does not. However, this is a scientific discussion. In science not all views are equally valid. A valid view must be backed by evidence. A view that anthropogenic GHGs do not influence climate is simply not supported by the evidence. I’m not going to go into detail, but there are myriad lines of evidence: the physical/chemical properties of GHGs, the paleoclimate record, the modern observational record, and climate models.

    My bold.

  59. T, not being one who has ever said emphatically that “the science is settled” I took your challenge and had a look at your link to Climate Debate and I would have to say that the range of comment there does not seem to support your claim that the ‘warministas (?) have got it badly wrong.

    Judith Curry, who seems to be closest to what we might call the skeptical position is not exactly unequivocal.

    The other participants in the debate seem to express views that don’t seem all that different from the “consensus”.

    To show you what I mean, I have (admittedly) cherry-picked from their presentations:

    From the Intro:

    “Several studies have suggested that the decline in arctic sea ice is at least partly caused by global warming.”

    Walt Meier:

    “The evidence for a substantial role of “global warming” in the current sea ice decline comes from the fact that the decline (1) correlates with the global warming temperatures over the past several decades, (2) is outside the range of normal variability over the past several decades and likely over the past several centuries.”

    Ron Lindsay:

    “I believe fundamentally the main process causing the decline in Arctic sea ice is increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Judith Curry:

    “So, what is the contribution of anthropogenic global warming to all this? It’s difficult to separate it out. The polar regions are extra sensitive to CO2 forcing and water vapor feedback, owing the low amounts of water vapor. However, any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is swamped by inter-annual variability in cloud radiative forcing. In the bigger picture sense, greenhouse forcing is involved in complex nonlinear ways with the climate regime shifts. So there is undoubtedly a contribution from CO2 forcing, but it is difficult to find any particular signal in this year’s record minimum, other than the contribution of greenhouse warming to a longer term trend.”

    “So . . . what is the bottom line on the attribution of the recent sea ice melt? My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range. Why such a
    ‘wishy washy’ statement with large error bars? Well, observations are ambiguous, models are inadequate, and our understanding of the complex interactions of the climate system is incomplete.”

    Regardless, thanks for the link. I’ll keep an eye on it. Looks interesting.

  60. Baccy,

    It looks like I was cribbing off your notes doesn’t it !

    Once again, it pays to refresh the screen before posting.

  61. No MJ – it’s not hard to come to the same conclusion when reading the same material :) Pity Treeman didn’t read or comprehend what it is saying…

  62. As that site Treeman linked to is purporting to be a balanced site open to all credited climate scientists, con and pro, along with having a separate layman section, I thought Treeman’s reference of it to met was a dig at me not understanding the science, with the inference he did.

    I have always openly admitted I don’t fully understand the science, and I would like any of the other non-scientists here to honestly say they do. Unless they are a scientist or at the least a statistician with the full data sets at hand for analysis, then I think I would be safe to say none of us really understand the science.

    The site puts up good scientific arguments, but more importantly empirical first hand information from those scientists in the field who have gathered data and seen first hand the degradation of environments.

    So far the site makes a very good argument for AGW, only differing on the extent, which is pointed out.

  63. Of course ME – I doubt any of us here have scientific qualifications sufficient to argue meaningfully and from first principles on climate change. Some seem to cherry pick what they think is “science” supporting their POV, but most often we find it either says the complete opposite, or it has been comprehensively debunked by real scientists, active in the field.

    Given that Treeman has consistently put the denialist POV, I assumed he meant this site would support his “cause.”

    The kerfuffle over the composition of “secret 28″ is another case in point. In 2006, the BBC invited a group of eminent people to propose a better “balance” of reporting of climate change issues. Simply because the denialists disagree with the decision arrived at, they must now come up with conspiracy theories to attempt to discredit the decision.

    The decision was actually agreeing with the point Walt Meier is making in comments on Climate Dialogue:

    this is a scientific discussion. In science not all views are equally valid. A valid view must be backed by evidence. A view that anthropogenic GHGs do not influence climate is simply not supported by the evidence.

    Or put more elequently by a wordsmith:

    “Balance” in reporting, if it means anything at all, certainly does not mean “find someone who disagrees with this guy and stick them on the next chair”. Nick Davies, the journalist and journalism lecturer, says to students that, if they are reporting what the weather is, their job is not to find one person who says it’s raining and one person to says it’s sunny: their job is to look out of the window. That’s not balanced, but sometimes – usually – the facts aren’t balanced either.

  64. Judith Curry is regarded by sceptics and denialati as a luke warmer, along with Lucia, but we respect their input.

  65. ‘Given that Treeman has consistently put the denialist POV, I assumed he meant this site would support his “cause.”

    No, its more likely he thought this will get them talking and he succeeded…all good comments followed.

    ‘A view that anthropogenic GHGs influence climate is simply not supported by the evidence.’

    There, fixed it.

  66. “I have always openly admitted I don’t fully understand the science, and I would like any of the other non-scientists here to honestly say they do. Unless they are a scientist or at the least a statistician with the full data sets at hand for analysis, then I think I would be safe to say none of us really understand the science.”

    Probably better to talk about levels of understanding Baccy.

    I myself have tried to give it my best shot as I’m not one who readily accepts what I’m told, no matter what their qualifications (vide my apostasy here on orthodox economics from time to time).

    The tricky counter-intuitive stuff mainly revolves around radiation physics and if Leaving Certificate Physics is all you’ve got to start with (like me) then you’ve got to do some serious homework if you want to keep up. Otherwise, just accept what the experts (and your own lyin’ eyes) tell you, and there’s nothing wrong with that. We all have lives to live.

    I also accept that the scientists’ worst case scenario (“business as usual”) is too awful for some folk to even think about and so they construct a mental hidey-hole for their denial. I don’t want triggering their descent into madness on my conscience.

    Around the fringes of my social network however, and indeed amongst some friends, I have never found any one claiming AGW was bullshit who had a grasp of the basics, like, being able to explain just how the so-called greenhouse effect works. I say ‘so-called’ because while it’s convenient it’s also wrong, and has probably itself created a lot of misunderstanding.

  67. Stuffed it again I see el gordo. I’d hate to go around in life being so wrong all the time.

    Bacchus it’s like their jumping onto the UK Met Office scam with such swift glee and nary a check of the facts, and then to jump onto the Nobel prize kerfuffle to be wrong again.

    I guess they must like going through life being wrong as long as it conforms to their view.

  68. ‘I say ‘so-called’ because while it’s convenient it’s also wrong, and has probably itself created a lot of misunderstanding.’

    Exactly.

    ‘The tricky counter-intuitive stuff mainly revolves around radiation physics’

    That’s also true, particularly ‘black body’ radiation, but this is too deep for me. At CERN they have confirmed that when Sol is quiet the earth is bombarded by more cosmic rays, which produce low cloud cover and more rain.

    Its a simple mechanism to explain global cooling.

  69. Why el gordo? You don’t look through scientific sites the are proponents of global warming to gain a greater appreciation of global warming, you only go around looking for those places no matter how tenuous or discredited that confirm your locked in contrarism.

    You do know Soon’s solar activity theory has been discredited, and from memory I think I have linked to previously when you have bought it up. I could post a bunch of links on why solar activity is not related to AGW and that the globe is still warming, not cooling but you will ignore then and then go onto something else you stumble across.

  70. “Ahhh..desmogblog.”

    That site shits you off and all it does is openly and honestly reveal the backgrounds, links and organisations a scientist or spokesperson has and where their money is coming from.

    I find it telling that the denialists who so often claim and decry climate scientists supposedly being proponents of AGW do it for grants and money, yet want to keep the sources of AGW opponents money and links secret.

    Try this then…

    Try what then? That link provides little and doesn’t link to any source, just mentions the papers.

    Also it talks about a conflagration and if you go back through my posts a long way you will find I’ve always stated, “outside of a cataclysmic event”. What is being talked about is a cataclysmic event, and that in no way confutes the current AGW theory.

    You seem to be grasping at straws here in attempting to find anything that remotely looks like supporting your cooling contention, even things that really don’t.

  71. Its the first par which illustrates best how it became polarized….

    ‘Scientists, it’s said, behave more like lawyers than philosophers. They do not so much test their theories as prosecute their cases, seeking supportive evidence and ignoring data that do not fit—a failing known as confirmation bias. They then accuse their opponents of doing the same thing. This is what makes debates over nature and nurture, dietary fat and climate change so polarized.’

    Mix in a dash of partisan politics and there you have it.

    The Younger Dryas debate is exciting and the extraterrestrial argument has my support.

  72. ‘Scientists, it’s said,

    That’s the giveaway that’s utter crap el gordo.

    Who says and where is the evidence for the confirmation bias?

    Maybe the opponents do so but climate scientists gather their data, write papers, many are peer reviewed and then explain their conclusions, sometimes as simply as possible as what they are concluding is very complex. This is often where the failures occur on the behalf of the opponents who jump on the simple explanations.

    The partisan politics also belongs to the right as almost exclusively the denial of climate change is a right wing phenomena whilst proponents are from all sides of politics, including many from the right and many who are apolitical.

    Hahaha

    “…and the extraterrestrial argument has my support.”

    Anything, and I mean anything, that remotely looks like showing AGW theory maybe false, even things that are contradictory, gets your support.

    I’ve lost count of those things that had your support, things now abandoned as you moved onto the next meme you’ve stumbled across on the web.

  73. So I gather that since the extraterrestrial argument now has your support the solar one doesn’t, or are you going to add the extraterrestrial one to your list of things you support even though it maybe contradictory?

  74. seeking supportive evidence and ignoring data that do not fit

    That’s absolute bullshit too grodo, and you know it.

    Michael Manne had problems with his hockey stick. Did he ignore it? No, he re-ran the theory with the new data, and got the same bloody result.

    wtfuwt got a lot of data he didn’t like. He’s still ignoring it.

  75. We have two choices; a big ice lake melted and shut down the conveyor belt or a large rock fell out of the sky.

    Closer to our own time there is the AD 1300 Event which is also being debated in academia along the same lines.

  76. That is, a large rock fell out of the sky and landed just south of NZ, causing a great deal of social disruption throughout the South Pacific.

  77. el gordo, it is shocking that those stupid scientist have just said after spending a few weeks in the Antartic, they have observed many instances that indicate global waring. We all know they must have it wrong,.

  78. Barnaby Joyce, Meet the Press. It is shocking about how they run Tony down. Making out he is a bad boy. What is in the media is just trash.

    Did the PM raised the issue of child abuse, as a diversion. I believe his evasive answer was yes. Must not turn into a witch hunt. If it does, whose fault will that be.

    “Is Queensland becoming Tony Abbott’s .Aquila’s heel.”

    Joke of the week from Tony, he is no more a misogynist than the PM is a misandrist. Had to explain his joke. Smug look on face indicated, he believes he was clever.

  79. “Did the PM raised the issue of child abuse, as a diversion. I believe his evasive answer was yes. Must not turn into a witch hunt. If it does, whose fault will that be.”

    For starters Mr. Bolt.

  80. Cu, isn’t it astounding how quickly the worm has turned..it seemed not that long ago that the msm was Tony’s bestest best friend..all those wonderful favours, all those wonderful photo opportunities.

    How dare they criticise Mr Picture Perfect aka Tony.

  81. One only had to listen how defensive Mr. Henderson was this morning.

    Bolt was unbelievable, Cannot understand how many of the best of Ten are going, but Bolt remains At least the NZler went. No lost there.

    I believe we are going to see plenty of Bishop this week. As far as I am concerned, the more the better.

  82. Nice bit of diversion today. One would think by reading the last lot of comments that this is another hate Abbott thread instead of the topic of global warming.

    Saturation commenting comes to mind. The slow burn continues.

  83. As I was sayin’, the hypothetical large rock caused social disruption when sea level fell and the atmosphere became cooler. If anyone is interested, Nunn is banking his career on this.

  84. scaper, how is repeating what Mr. Turnbull is saying, is hating Abbott. Sorry, I do not see the connection.

  85. Scaper, you are saying, we cannot talk about what Mr. Abbott intends to do about global warming.

    If one wants only good things to be said about the Opposition leader, go to a right-wing site. You will hear very little good here.

    That is unless Mr. Abbott surprises us all, and says something worthwhile. They say miracles do happen.

  86. el gordo, maybe you can explain why you made this link.

    Cannot see any connection to man made climate change.

    May be I am just stupid, or you are getting desperate.

  87. What has Abbott and child abuse got to do with global warming?

    Oh I see, blame Abbott for global warming and child abuse. You might be blind to your hatred but the proof is in the reading!

  88. Geez scaper talking about drawing a long bow and twisting things around.

    Quick look around. Nope scaper is not on right wing sites who bash Gillard telling them they are blind to their hatred.

    When they fall back to this Abbott hating meme then you know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel in argument.

  89. 3 posts and one reply posted off topic…

    scaper’s never inadvertently posted in the wrong thread /sarc :roll:

  90. Oh I see, blame Abbott for global warming and child abuse

    I haven’t checked yet scaper but I’m guessing that the media will blame Julia Gillard for these. Everything wrong in the world is her fault.

  91. When has looking at policies become “a hate session”..when the policies are decidedly on the nose me-thinks. Abbott’s Direct Action Plan is useless..the inference from Abbott being that many farmers/land care organisations haven’t already been taking “direct action” for many years. As per his mentor Howard, it would be latch onto already existing organisations and schemes and try to claim the glory for himself.

  92. ‘el gordo, maybe you can explain why you made this link.’

    I’m looking for scientists we can all agree upon, as a basis for discussion on CC.

  93. Scaper…”Nice bit of diversion today. One would think by reading the last lot of comments that this is another hate Abbott thread instead of the topic of global warming”

    Agreed, the hatred even blinds them to a drop of reason but all that hating isn’t doing much good…Labor still sitting on 47:53…”Labor’s national primary vote is steady on 34 per cent, while the Coalition’s vote has risen by 2 points to 45 per cent, and the Greens are up one to 12 per cent…not making much traction on the carbon tax either….62% oppose it…

    Meanwhile Gillard lets a mangy cat out of the bag…”International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share…So that’s the work of coming years, that’s what preoccupies my thoughts as I think through the agenda for this country”

    “So this is the new-ALP- out goes the workers-party, in comes the bankers-party? Ho Ho Ho”…

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/did-julia-really-say-that-shes-here-to-help-bankers-get-their-share/#more-25298

    A torrid week is coming up for Gillard and her merry unionistas!

  94. I don’t get it. First, the Carbon Price was going to send us broke, now it appears that it is bad that the Governments policy is positioning our banking sector (along with the all other sectors, for all workers) to be at the forefront of the global carbon pricing market

    So, what is it, a cobra strike, python squeeze, or pocket liner?

    Talk about a confused argument lol

  95. I think the political momentum has changed, from how it was a few years back. For instance 87% of nations have not signed onto Kyoto 2. The IPCC will not be present at Doha, & there seems little likelyhood of anything tangible being achieved there.

  96. :lol: I see old age hasn’t increased your wisdom Migs :mrgreen:

    But overcoming MAN FLU and that other minor ailment has done wonders for your sense of humour :lol:

  97. guffaw

    ‘World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim said: “A four-degree-warmer world can, and must be avoided – we need to hold warming below two degrees.”

    “Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/degrees-of-devastation-major-report-warns-of-drastically-hotter-planet-20121119-29l3c.html#ixzz2CdZsQNzt

  98. http://theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/

    “The geologic record as we know it thus suggests that climate is a profoundly grander thing than energy. Energy procurement is a matter of engineering and keeping the lights on under circumstances that are likely to get more difficult as time progresses. Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself. The earth doesn’t include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth’s climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them. Were the earth determined to freeze Canada again, for example, it’s difficult to imagine doing anything except selling your real estate in Canada. If it decides to melt Greenland, it might be best to unload your property in Bangladesh. The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control”

    Robert B. Laughlin is a professor of physics at Stanford University and a co-recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize for Physics. This essay is adapted from his new book on the future of fossil fuels, which will appear next year.

  99. Kitchen table scientists search for cooling mechanisms.

    ‘Much as I’ve been saying since 2008 and furthermore I’ve suggested a variety of mechanisms that fit observations.It appears to be solar wavelength and particle effects altering the ozone balance in the atmosphere so as to swing the AO and AAO between positive and negative.’

    Stephen Wilde

  100. On why Catalyst is no longer a science show

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/catalyst-climate-astrology-in-your-very-own-backyard/

    “Poor Jonica Newby doesn’t realize as she talks about the “greenhouse effect” that the physics is not the issue, it is mostly right, but only a small factor. From her radio interview about the program it’s clear she has no idea that feedbacks dominate the climate. Instead she’s obediently mimicking the climate activists strawman debate….Newby probably thinks skeptics deny the “basic physics” when that’s never been the case. She apparently doesn’t know the models she relies use dubious assumptions to amplify the basic physics into a catastrophe. She hasn’t done her research. If she had, she’d know the debate is not about the physics, but about the feedbacks. And it’s not that skeptics say there is no evidence, we’ve moved beyond that. There is evidence, and lots of it, from many independent angles suggests that feedbacks are negative, not positive, and the models are categorically wrong and are overestimating the predicted warming by a factor of 7 or so.”

  101. You’re speculating nothing el gordo. You’re back to making it sound like you know what you are talking about, a kitchen scientist, when you really haven’t a smick and prove with nearly every post.

  102. Would you like to discuss this?

    ‘It appears to be solar wavelength and particle effects altering the ozone balance in the atmosphere so as to swing the AO and AAO between positive and negative.’

  103. When el gordo posts a whole bunch of nonsense and graphs out of context I can put that in the shit tin of rubbish so often put forth by this person and can respond with counter information, and in the end more credible information at that.

    But when el gordo makes out as though they are an experient scientist, even a kitchen table one, and feign they know what they are talking about by posting snippets garnered from here and there just so they appear to be knowledgeable, though it’s obvious they are gormless on the subject, then I don’t play the game.

    And it’s not as though el gordo hasn’t done this before, on other scientific memes, constantly changing them with the click of a Google search, and at those times el gordo also posted as they are the font of all knowledge on the topic, spouting forth little bits of disarticulated (plagiarised) scientific pieces and adding a final line of adamant support as though that self important support makes it a done deal.

    In the end as always with el gordo it’s bullshit, and not even well disguised bullshit. Just a blatant in your face big load of stinking steaming male bovine crap.

  104. The financial incentives for a Climate sceptic, UK style

    “The Conservative MP Peter Lilley, one of only three MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act, has received share options worth at least $400,000 from an oil company, Guardian analysis has revealed.

    Lilley’s links to the oil industry have long been declared by the former cabinet member. But the revelation about the full extent of his financial interests will place him under further scrutiny in his new role as a member of the Commons select committee on energy and climate change, which will be quizzing the energy and climate secretary, Ed Davey, about the energy bill on Tuesday.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/peter-lilley-oil-company-shares

  105. Baccy the man only denigrates and doesn’t want to discuss CC, yet he comes onto this thread and trolls in a most abysmal manner.

    My graphs were good.

  106. My graphs were good.

    Well, they were better than your previous ones, anyway. I particularly like the choice of colours ;) They could have had some detail as to what they actually represented, but, as purely artistic works, a vast improvement. Perhaps the explanation might have taken away from their artistic form?? I don’t know, I’m not much of an art critic unfortunately. :(

    Baccy the man only denigrates

    Wake up to yourself grodo, since you have never constructively argued AGW, denigration is all you should expect. You have earned it.

  107. One can only denigrate, when something worthwhile and of value has been said.

    That is something in MHO that relates to reality, not the imagination of those who have their own agenda.

    Like mining and power companies defending their use of fossil fuels. Same methods applied to tobacco companies.

  108. ‘MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

    ‘FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011.

    ‘The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

    ‘The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

    ‘Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

    ‘There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.’

    Friends of Science

  109. ‘Red meat socialists ought to be spitting blood at the injustice the Great Wind Scam perpetrates against the common man. It takes money from the poor and funnels it straight into the pockets of greedy, often toffy landowners and rapacious, mostly foreign-owned energy companies.’

    James Delingpole in the UK Tele

  110. The lies, they just keep coming.

    …………Developing wind farms is not an easy job and if done badly you can get a community off-side. There are select regions of the country, such as immediately south of Adelaide and the Gippsland region within around 100km of Melbourne that most experienced developers steer clear of due to the high prevalence of urban farmers and tree changers. In addition, the astro-turf group of the Landscape Guardians and their offshoot of the Waubra Foundation spread all manner of misinformation amongst local communities that developers have to repeatedly dispel at much time and expense.

    But for Origin and Energy Australia to assert that there isn’t a social license to operate for wind farms in this country is preposterous given their small part in actually developing wind projects. The CSIRO actually undertook an investigation of this very issue via a series of case studies, concluding in a 2012 report that:

    “There is strong community support for the development of wind farms, including support from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views. This finding contrasts with the level of opposition that may be assumed from the typically ‘conflict-oriented’ portrayal of wind farm proposals in the popular media.”
    inShare…………….

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Origin-EnergyAustralia-RET-wind-farms-pd20121121-2923M?opendocument&src=idp&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=136763&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary

  111. ‘including support from rural residents who do not seek media attention’

    No…they are greedy landowners.

  112. ‘The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

    Aw, c’mon EG, we’ve dealt with that. You know that’s not so.

    After all the effects were taken into account, the correlation was slightly -ve.

  113. It’s why I’ve mostly stopped debating climate change with el gordo MJ, and if el gordo wants to call it denigration then so be it.

    A scam, a known crank, known paid for big oil company mouthpieces, discredited science and scientists, scientists not in the field whose papers and contentions have proven false and it goes on, el gordo jumps on them all whilst dishing a majority credited and peer reviewed science from specialists in the field.

    Next scam or mouthpiece that comes along, or a meme about ancient climate that’s all been covered before even if it contradicts and el gordo will post it with nary a thought but to add words as though they are all knowing.

    It’s become so old hat, and as much el gordo may claim it is, it’s not debating climate change.

  114. ‘Australia’s comparative advantage in the world has been its access to cheap energy… This strength has been sacrificed on the altar of global warming.

    ‘By most accounts Australia’s greenhouse abatement policies are among the world’s most expensive… The climate models we were asked to accept as the gold standard have been found wanting…

    ‘So, with so much doubt, why has the government chosen policies destined to make Australia less competitive? Why damage our economy when any emissions abatement achieved will be globally inconsequential?’

    Maurice Newman in the Oz

  115. It’s a complete waste of time. imho, to even attempt to engage in meaningful debate with those such as eg, who refuse to acknowledge the reality of AGW.

    Perhaps the most significant error the right have made in their battles against the future, is the assumption that facts and reality are left wing constructs. and can be ignored – this seems to be an article of faith among trolls.

  116. Pterosaur1,

    Their own “Liberal” Party has pollution reduction targets equal to Labor’s.

    Either they don’t believe the “Liberals” would follow through with it – in which case they endorse being lied to – or they endorse a “policy” which would be costlier than Labor’s and less efficient in the desired aim of reducing pollution.

    Either way they’re being taken for fools.

  117. ‘less efficient in the desired aim of reducing pollution.’

    MYTH: CO2 is a pollutant.

    FACT: ‘This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.’

    Friends of Science

  118. El grubo

    You’re so brainwashed into posting right-wing propaganda that furthers the agenda of resource billionaires that your ‘useful idiot’ efforts (if successful) would cost your own offspring clean air to breathe. You’re a danger to your own genetic lineage, halfwit.

  119. The debate has become politicised,

    Bit slow, are you? It always has been politicised.

    On the one hand it’s resource billionaires and other elites, their mainstream media noise machine, paid astroturfers, conservative political organisations, and those of the public brainwashed into (knowingly or unknowingly) pursuing the political agenda of the billionaires and elites…

    On the other hand it’s the overwhelming percentage of scientists and experts, progressive politics in general, environmentalists in particular, and others who want cleaner, not filthier air to breathe.

    Now, you, are you on the side of the billionaires and the agenda that their media, political parties and astroturfers push… or on the side of cleaner air for yourself and descendents? Take your time with an answer…

  120. “Australia’s comparative advantage in the world has been its access to cheap energy… This strength has been sacrificed on the altar of global warming.”

    People who use the term “comparative advantage” usually don’t know what it means.

  121. ‘Their own “Liberal” Party has pollution reduction targets equal to Labor’s.’

    A pox on both their houses.

  122. It became politicised when the UN introduced the ‘precautionary principle’.

    So you’ll fall for (and push) wingnut conspiracy theories that serve the agenda of resource billionaires and elites before believing in clean air for yourself and offspring? No wonder you’re seen as a joke, grubo.

  123. Just when you thought the science was settled…http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
    COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
    MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
    FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
    There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

    MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
    FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
    The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

    MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
    FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

    MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
    FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the “Greenhouse effect”. (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
    Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

    MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
    FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption – that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

    MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
    FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
    1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
    To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

    MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
    FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

    MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
    FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

    MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
    FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

    MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
    FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
    Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

  124. ‘Their own “Liberal” Party has pollution reduction targets equal to Labor’s.’

    A pox on both their houses.

    The Coalition have had climate change policies, in one form or another, for more than five years now.

    At the 2007 election Abbott campaigned on a platform that included, quote: “the world’s most comprehensive emissions trading scheme”.

    He’s also on the record as supporting a carbon tax, as he explained to Their ABC.

    Their current’policy’ is more expensive than Labor’s, more inefficient, and is shunned by almost all economists.

    So who are you going to vote for then?

    Vote for the Liberals – vote for their more expensive, less efficient carbon reduction ‘policy’.

    Vote for Labor and the Greens – vote for the government’s less expensive, more efficient, carbon price, that moves to an ETS in 2015.

    Vote for the Nationals – indirectly vote for the Coaliton’s more expensive, less efficient carbon reuction ‘policy’.

    Vote for a single issue denialist party … and your preferences are likely to go to the Coalition anyway.

    Doesn’t leave you with much wriggle room, grubo. The price of being a contrarian misfit who insists on helping along the agenda of resource billionaires over clean air to breathe.

  125. NASA Rewriting US History
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history/

    Until about ten years ago, NASA showed the US on an 80 year long cooling trend, with the three hottest years being in the 1920s and 1930s. They have deleted the raw data from their website and blocked archiving, but John Daly captured it. It was originally located at this link :

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

    and can now be seen here :

    http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

    NASA has since rewritten US history and shows the same period warming – with 1998 as the hottest year.

    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

    James Hansen wrote this in 1999, before he decided to alter US history :

    Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

    in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

    NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

    This sort of honest assessment was no use for obtaining funding or achieving radical left wing political goals, so Hansen created a hockey stick of adjustments to cool the past and warm the present.

    The current version of the US temperature record from NOAA and NASA is a complete fraud, and fundamentally misrepresents changes to the US climate.

  126. “Doesn’t leave you with much wriggle room, grubo. The price of being a contrarian misfit who insists on helping along the agenda of resource billionaires over clean air to breathe.”
    Oh what a lovely cup of smear drivel!

  127. Obviously the treetroll considers it is ready for the Nobel prize, given that it feels it knows more about the systems of climate and weather variability, and the nature of the tools used in their study, than do those who have devoted themselves to such study – all it needs to do now is justify its arguments, and await due recognition.

    Perhaps not, as strawmen are not actually considered as relevant argument. :sad:

  128. Mr. Blewitt on ABC 7.30

    Was having trouble with his memory After being shown documents, his memory has improved.

    Has been over seas 15 YEARS.

    Robert Galbraith, solicitor.

  129. Cuppa…if Abbott goes to the electorate with his Direct Action Plan I will write across the ballot paper ‘a pox on both yer houses’.

    This I vow.

  130. ‘Oh what a lovely cup of smear drivel!’

    Yes, but when they don’t have a clue about the science there is little alternative but smear.

  131. Conservatives should be very annoyed with Abbott.

    If he really does believe climate change is “absolute crap” he should be castigated for proposing an inexpensive, inefficient solution to a problem he believes doesn’t exist.

    In other words, he’s lying about the need for a “policy”.

    And maybe lying about even introducing it.

    If he does believe climate change is a problem that needs addressing, he should be castigated for earlier saying it’s “absolute crap”. (Another lie?)

    And if he does believe the problem needs addressing, again he should be castigated for irresponsibly proposing a policy that is vastly more inefficient, costly and inequitable than the Labor alternative.

  132. “Now, oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate away the energy thus gained from the surface. But they certainly do lose energy as the air moves up into cooler regions of the troposphere. So they must be transferring energy by diffusion into the radiating molecules such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane etc. It is these very molecules which are doing all the radiating of all the energy that is leaving the atmsophere as it cools. They are like holes in the insulating blanket which is formed, not by radiating gases, but by the non-radiating oxygen and nitrogen air molecules.”

    I’ve picked that para out of your link at 6.02 pm EG. The sentence I’ve bolded seems to me to be a statement of the bleeding obvious. It seems the author has only just discovered the true mechanics of the so-called “greenhouse effect”.

    But what the author doesn’t seem to understand (or more likely, chooses to omit) is that the radiating temperature of these “greenhouse gases” cools (following the adiabatic lapse rate) as their opacity increases with increasing concentrations in the atmosphere, leading, via the Stephan-Boltzmann law, to warming.

    Regardless, I am puzzled as to why you would provide a link to this paper as it is my understanding that you refute any role for CO2 in the Earth’s radiative budget when clearly your author is describing such a mechanism, albeit failing to join the dots.

  133. ‘So carbon dioxide clearly has a cooling function, not a warming one.’

    Yeah that caught me off guard, good catch, the science is not settled.

    Appreciate your input MJ…

  134. ‘Rafael Correa, proposed a carbon tax at a summit of Arab and South American countries in October in Peru which included the heads of state and energy ministers of nine of Opec’s 12 countries. The Guardian understands the proposal was taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. The idea was first mooted in 2001 by former World Bank chief economist Herman Daly – leading it to be dubbed the “Daly-Correa tax” – and will be further discussed by Opec countries at the UN climate talks which open on Monday in Doha.

    “The first global tax on carbon emissions would achieve the most efficient and just way to do what [the] Kyoto [protocol] has failed to do: make carbon emitters internalise the effects of their actions and pay for the pollution they create,” Correa told the summit.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/21/oil-nations-carbon-tax-climate-talks

  135. MJ, el gordo often posts sources thinking it confirms a closed minded point of view on global warming, but very often when you read the source in full it’s the opposite of what el gordo contends it is and actually confirms the global warming hypothesis.

    Being caught out this way so often is the reason el gordo rarely posts sources and just cherry picks snippets with no context whilst stating it is simplifying the debate. As I said in a previous post, it’s all bullshit on el gordo’s part.

  136. The debate needs to be simplified so that everyone can learn how the system works. That is essential.

    Cherry picking is acceptable behaviour and both sides do it. If you see anything along the lines of global warming, exampled by the Arctic ice melt, please let’s see it.

  137. ME,

    In this case EG was linking to a denialist source that maintains that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.

    So, does carbon dioxide still have some way of causing a net warming effect? Does it form some kind of blanket over the Earth? Absolutely not.

    But the author clearly described the radiative abilities of CO2 and its role in cooling the Earth, which is just another way of describing the warming effect. That is, the cooling effect has been knocked back a notch or two upsetting the former equilibrium. When the Earth warms up a bit, we will have a new equilibrium.

    EG’s paper didn’t say that of course, but once you admit a role for CO2 in cooling the Earth (via its radiative qualities) the rest follows as a matter of logic.

    The bigger question now is will EG agree with his author and accept that there is a role for CO2 ?

  138. ‘will EG agree with his author and accept that there is a role for CO2 ?’

    Not at the moment, it requires further consideration.

    Principa scientifica (sic) has been linked to a shadowy group known as ‘The Slayers’, a political and financial juggernaut aimed at destroying the green movement, so their credibility is not fire proof.

  139. A quick google suggests that increasing CO2 will cool the lower stratosphere and destroy the ozone around the world.

    I don’t believe it.

  140. eg

    Yes, but when they don’t have a clue about the science there is little alternative but smear.

    tal;k about projection much :lol:

    if you think I “don’t understand the science”, you are completely wrong (as is to be expected I suppose, from someone who has given repeated examples of its own ignorance and gullibility.

    The treetroll claims I

    Ahh the dinosaur flies in with ad homs, a touch of smear and nothing of substance

    Considering that neither itself nor eg has offered anything of substance but instead offer recycled lies, smears, and misrepresentations as “argument”, I for one, see no need to repeatedly address issues such as the trolls raise, given that they have been exhaustively analysed and rejected by those who study the real issues at stake, such as Real Climate and Skeptical Science.

    One of the advantages of a scientific education is the ability “to sort the chaff from the wheat” something the denialists are unwilling to do, excitedly rushing around siezing anything which “looks like” supporting their denialist stance, and steadfastly ignoring THE EVIDENCE which contradicts their delusions.

  141. ‘talk about projection much’

    Yeah, that was funny, considering the warminista mantra is all about projection. Hence the ‘precautionary principle’.

    I checked out Real Climate on the cooling stratosphere…..

  142. “Not at the moment, it requires further consideration.”

    El gordo speak for I’m just going to ignore that as;

    a. I’ve been wedged and attempting to answer it will prove I’m an ignoramus,
    b. I considered it for all of the time it took me to read it and concluded I’m going to ignore it from now on and ignore any repeated requests to answer it, just as I’ve done in the past, and
    c. Further consideration requires research and lucidity of argument, neither of which I engage in.

    So that’s the last you’ll hear on that, but expect plenty of diversions.

  143. EG, I’ve always found Real Climate to be a good place to go when you really want to get to grips with the science.

    The comments threads are always helpful too, and you’ll notice that whilst the readership is more or less “on board” with AGW, some of the more technical aspects get hotly disputed. There’s no blind consensus and quite a bit of “apology” and “thank you” for mistakes pointed out, which I find a healthy sign.

    Here’s another link you might like to check out:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

    At the end of the day (unless you’re a hot shot climate scientist yourself) you have to go with whomever you think makes the most sense. To do that, I think you do need a modicum of scientific understanding under your belt or risk being misled by others who might have an agenda.

    On that subject, I think you may be right about Principia Scientifica: the guy that wrote that article had a pretty good grasp of the physics, but still managed to draw a quite bizarre conclusion. I got the feeling it was perhaps written for Big Oil or Big Coal or somebody, for a fee (perhaps 30 pieces of silver !)

  144. I’m not convinced that CO2, at its present level, will cause catastrophic cooling of the stratosphere. Carbon dioxide was higher during the climate optimum without any deleterious effect on the system.

    Gaia works in mysterious ways.

    I’lll continue the hunt for a definitive answer.

  145. El grubo

    The burning of fossil fuels puts toxic byproducts into the atmosphere.

    We’re burning fossil fuels at an increasingly faster rate.

    Besides toxifying the air we breathe we’re furiously depleting non-renewable resources.

    Putting a price on carbon emissions will slow this down, to the benefit of the atmosphere on which every living thing depends, and prolonged resource security.

    The alternative is to deny there’s a problem and keep letting it rip. Very short-sighted and foolish, the state of the average right-wing moron.

  146. ‘Putting a price on carbon emissions will slow this down…’

    Its messy, a world wide recession will slow it down faster.

  147. It will lower emissions as intended. And it is necessary to lower emission output. Only right wing morons would want us to shit in our own nest at an increasing rate.

  148. “Its messy, a world wide recession will slow it down faster.”

    Well, we seem to have that underway.

  149. Can you explain the data behind that C3 graph please el gordo and how it was arrived at? The raw data would be good and a breakdown from you on how that data was implemented.

    Thank you in advance as I’m always glad to be given sound explanations of information from people who know what they’re on about.

  150. Sorry I’m having trouble understanding what they are stating. Can you explain how they know the CO2 levels hypothesis to be incorrect and since the natural climate phenomena isn’t ignored, you need only look at the sites that publish the raw data, then what is the basis of their second part?

    “First, the models’ erroneous predictions are primarily driven by CO2 levels, which is now known to be an incorrect hypothesis. Second, the models robustly ignore natural climate phenomenon that are the principal factors controlling global temperatures.”

  151. el gordo @ 4:08 pm

    Can you explain to me how the Holocene Max directly relates to the current climate? I can’t any explanation in your post, thanks.

  152. Very amusing, almost satirical, keep up the good work.

    They enthusiastically forced CO2 into the models and restricted natural variability, which produced a bias. The theory that CO2 causes global warming is not going so well…everyone agrees carbon dioxide is increasing as temperatures are falling.

    I’m of the view that our star is the main driver of the planet’s climate.

  153. The Holocene max might’ve been warmer than now but only in parts of the northern hemisphere EG as it’s my understanding that it wasn’t a global event which means that CO2 wasn’t an issue. It was an artifact of orbital perturbations.

    CO2 was in fact much lower than today at around 260ppm.

  154. You are correct in thinking CO2 was lower then…even though temperatures were higher.

    What happens in the northern hemisphere eventually reaches the rest of the world through ocean currents. The MWP and LIA impacted both hemispheres, so there is good reason to believe the Holocene Maximum was felt around the world.

  155. “so there is good reason to believe the Holocene Maximum was felt around the world.”

    A bit before my time EG, but the southern hemisphere temperature records I’ve seen say it was a northern hemisphere thing.

    And I’m not to sure about the MWP and LIA either. Would have to check.

    Orbital perturbations and precession can create different effects in the hemispheres. Right now we’ve got colder winters in the south because the Earth’s axis is tilted away from the sun at the aphelion. Give it another 50,000 years and it might be the other way around. I think the Milankovitch (sp?) cycles are still taken seriously.

  156. “Senator John Madigan from the Democratic Labor Party comes from a good place – he’s concerned for the downtrodden and the dispossessed. But he seems to suffer from a similar ailment to the likes of Cardinal George Pell and Fielding, who it appears believe that the globe’s climate is dictated by God rather than physics.
    and
    In his concern for the potential health effects of wind turbines, Madigan has put before parliament a series of amendments to the Renewable Energy Act. These would suspend the accreditation of a wind farm to create renewable energy certificates if it creates “excessive noise”. He defines that to be when the level of noise that is attributable to the wind farm exceeds background noise by 10 dB(A) or more when measured within 30 metres of a household or business premise.

    Now this is where I always tend to get confused with these people that believe wind farms are harming health. They claim that the cause of health ailments is due to wind farms generating infrasound – which is inaudible to the human ear. But then they try to hinder or stop wind farm development on the basis of them creating what they say is “excessive” noise that is not infrasound.

    Ignoring this rather odd contradiction, why not apply this kind of law beyond wind farms to any man-made structure or activity? After all it’s not just the noise from wind farms that people complain about. Below is a diagram outlining the amount of noise typically created by a range of activities:………….”

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/wind-turbine-delusionalitis

  157. Milankovitch cannot explain a lot of what is happening, but its always a good place to start.

    Mini ice ages within interglacials, lasting a few hundred years, seem outside of Milankovitch’s big cycles.

    And what about interstadials within glaciation? I have no idea on that score.

  158. I’ve just read some gibberish from you el gordo but no explanations, just copy and paste snippets that obviously show the poster really has no idea and is just taking things that seem to fit the questions being asked.

    I didn’t really expect anything more when I attempted to engage in asking questions from the sources provided from someone who is pretending to understand what is being put forth.

  159. Möbius Ecko
    NOVEMBER 23, 2012 @ 10:17 AM
    “I’ve just read some gibberish from you el gordo but no explanations, just copy and paste snippets that obviously show the poster really has no idea …

    Methinks el gordo has a much beter understanding of climate related matters than you do. Nothing you have written here suggests otherwise. The same can be said for Cuppa and CU who clearly haven’t a clue.

    IMO Mangrove Jack is the only one with any idea. The rest just resort to appeals to authority, smear and denigration. Nice work folks!

  160. Möbius Ecko
    NOVEMBER 23, 2012 @ 10:17 AM

    “I’ve just read some gibberish from you el gordo but no explanations, just copy and paste snippets that obviously show the poster really has no idea …

    Methinks el gordo has a much better understanding of climate related matters than you do. Nothing you have written here suggests otherwise. The same can be said for Cuppa and CU who clearly haven’t a clue.

    IMO Mangrove Jack is the only one with any idea. The rest just resort to appeals to authority, smear, innuendo and denigration. Nice work folks!

  161. el gordo, what does this mean. I know it is about weather, but I am sure you have other explanations.

    GENEVA, Nov 22 (Reuters) – There is only a slim chance that El Niño weather conditions will develop before the year end in the Pacific, with neutral weather conditions set to prevail in the first quarter of 2013, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Friday.

    The U.N. body had previously said that El Niño, usually associated with significant changes in precipitation patterns, was likely to develop in September and October.

    But Pacific sea surface temperatures returned to neutral levels by early October after warming slightly between July and September, a “highly unusual” phenomenon with no known precedent, the WMO said in a statement.

    “Model forecasts and expert opinion suggest that the likelihood of El Nino conditions developing during the remainder of 2012 is now low, and that neutral conditions are likely to persist into the first quarter of 2013,” it said.

    El Nino has been linked previously to drier-than-normal conditions in Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, northeastern Brazil, southeastern Africa and parts of Asia, as well as wetter-than-normal conditions in countries including Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Argentina and parts of Africa.

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/el-nino-unlikely-year-end-un-weather-body?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

  162. ‘…a “highly unusual” phenomenon with no known precedent, the WMO said in a statement.’

    That’s simply untrue.

  163. On second thoughts, Bob is a bit dry.

    When the WMO said its a ‘highly unusual phenomenon’ they might be correct, but then to say ‘no known precedent’ is simply alarmist spin.

    Their credible data probably only goes back a hundred years, so there might be something further back in time which might link this unusual phenomenon with natural variable cycles.

  164. UK Energy Nooze

    ‘The news this morning is that the government seem to have plunked once and for all for a gas dominated future. The Energy Secretary Ed Davey has said this morning that we are going to need a lot of unabated gas fired generation.

    ‘They’re not saying that they’re abandoning renewables of course, but it seems clear that the shale gas revolution is indeed going be central to the UK’s energy future.

    ‘A wildly expensive policy of promoting windfarms is going to be increasingly hard to justify.’

    Bishop Hill

  165. ‘This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers. Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out with…” He goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs.’

    Jo Nova

  166. Sea level falling says Australian scientist AA Boretti

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/aug/8aug2012a1.html

    ‘Commenting on these findings, Boretti writes that the huge deceleration of SLR over the last 10 years “is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models,” and that “the SLR’s reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years.”

    ‘To illustrate the importance of his findings, he notes that “in order for the prediction of a 100-cm increase in sea level by 2100 to be correct, the SLR must be almost 11 mm/year every year for the next 89 years,” but he notes that “since the SLR is dropping, the predictions become increasingly unlikely,” especially in view of the facts that (1) “not once in the past 20 years has the SLR of 11 mm/year ever been achieved,” and that (2) “the average SLR of 3.1640 mm/year is only 20% of the SLR needed for the prediction of a one meter rise to be correct.”

  167. “The oceans are the best indicator of climate,” said my mate Neville.

    Which leads me to suspect a downwave.

  168. So the globe is warming after all

    All the posts to the contrary, all the bullshit, scams, falsified data, discredited contentions and disproved science in the opposition of climate change come to nothing.

    But I won’t hold my breath waiting for the deniers to acknowledge the facts for that’s what they are, facts, and facts are an anathema to them.

    Rather they want their cocoons of scams and falsehoods for it means they don’t have to face the real world.

  169. The bete noire of Australian politics – the carbon tax – has come in from the cold.

    The latest poll by Essential Research has found that for the first time in a long time, more people support the carbon tax (46 per cent) than oppose it (44 per cent). While net support is at a wafer-thin +2 per cent, it’s the first time since at least September 2011 that the carbon tax has more fans than critics.

    The carbon tax is now significantly more popular than its chief detractor, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. Support for Abbott is at -31 per cent (voter satisfaction compared to dissatisfaction, in today’s Newspoll published in The Australian)..

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/carbon-tax-trumps-abbott?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

  170. Alarming study sees methane tipping point and three quarters of SMH readers believe its true.

    ‘THE world is on the cusp of a “tipping point” into dangerous climate change, according to new data gathered by scientists measuring methane leaking from the Arctic permafrost and a report presented to the United Nations on Tuesday.

    “The permafrost carbon feedback is irreversible on human time scales,” says the report, Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost. “Overall, these observations indicate that large-scale thawing of permafrost may already have started.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/where-even-the-earth-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html#ixzz2DPwCq6JZ

  171. ‘If scientists are going to claim high levels of expert authority they have a duty of care to make clear the level of uncertainty in their predictions. This is especially so where there are potentially major detrimental consequences from following their advice should it prove to be incorrect.

    ‘The essential difference between belief and science, or between alarmists and sceptics, is that the former assert certainty while the latter admit room for doubt. False claims of certainty and expertise by alarmist researchers have been a major obstacle to any rational public debate of the matter.’

    Walter Starck in Quadrant

  172. Climate change is controversial and much debated in the media. But did you know much of the debate is about straw man climate science?

    Straw man climate science is like real climate science, but with the science, awkward facts and complexity removed.

    It can be confusing. Straw man and actual climate science appear in the same articles and interviews. Editors drop the words “straw man” from articles. Some people even confuse straw man and actual climate science.

    So let’s take a look at straw man climate science in action.

    How much?

    We have increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by 40 per cent since the 1800s. How does straw man climate science deal with this?

    “And I can’t recall the number of times I have said, and it is uncontested, that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air.”, Alan Jones, 2GB, 19 October 2012

    We produce a modest percentage of all CO2 emissions. But the extra emissions aren’t absorbed by the carbon cycle, so CO2 builds up in the air. A small rise each year has resulted in a 40 per cent increase of CO2.

    An error of omission on emissions.

    Straw man climate science confuses the percentage of CO2 emissions we produce with the percentage of CO2 in the air we are responsible for. A big problem is hidden with a comforting number………….

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/beware-straw-man-climate-science?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily

  173. It seems that little remains to support the denialism meme now that The Permafrost is Melting

    Their next predicted step is to attempt to blame scientists for inaction in addressing the emergencies we face. Delays brought about by the cupidity and malice of the denialists.

    eg, once again attempts to promulgate the lies of denialism,

    The essential difference between belief and science, or between alarmists and sceptics, is that the former assert certainty while the latter admit room for doubt. False claims of certainty and expertise by alarmist researchers have been a major obstacle to any rational public debate of the matter.’

    The essential difference between belief and science, or between alarmistsscientists and sceptics,denialists is that the former assert certainty while the latter admit room for doubt. False claims of certainty and expertise by alarmist researchers denialists have been a major obstacle to any rational public debate of the matter.’

    There fixed it for all :grin:

  174. :oops:
    “tis that the former assert certainty while the latter admit room for doubt. ” should of course be
    “that the former assert certainty , deal in uncetainty, while the latter admit no doubt.

  175. The Methane Bomb is the next cab off the rank, now that we know the ‘CO2 causes global warming’ meme is dodgy.

    With northern hemisphere cooling about to inundate, that bomb will be seen as more unnecessary alarmism.

    Better to have skipped methane and gone straight to CO2 destroys stratospheric ozone, its a sure winner.

  176. Tony Windsor and Oakshtot, on with Lyndal Curtis. We are not judge and jury. I do not believe we are elected to do that. ABC 24.

    Can see it on PC if you do not have access.

  177. Merkel has gone cold on global warming activism .

    ‘Just one week before the world climate summit in Qatar, the chief advisor for climate issues to the German government, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, accuses politics for the failure.

    ‘The target of limiting warming to two degrees by the end of the century can only be achieved by a massive overhaul. [...] ‘We’ve said on multiple occasions that we need nothing less than a new industrial revolution.’ [...] Schellnhuber is demanding that Merkel to assemble a ‘coalition of the willing’. Unfortunately, the head of the government does not have climate protection as a ‘top priority’.”

    Spiegel channeling No Tricks Zone

  178. ‘Britain will shiver tonight as temperatures plummet in the first taste of what promises to be one of our coldest winters for a century.

    ‘The cold snap is expected to last until the end of the week, creating dangerous conditions on the roads and adding to the misery of those already battling floods.

    ‘Temperatures could fall to as low as minus 3°c (27°f) in some places, with snow already falling in the Pennines.

    ‘The torrential rain which has deluged the country for the last week is expected to ease at last but the clearer skies, coupled with northerly winds, will send the mercury plummeting.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/UK-weather-forecast-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years-Big-Freeze-follows-flood.html#ixzz2DW0CP5fr
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Needless to say, this shouldn’t be happening.

  179. Oh poor el gordo selectively beating a drum with no skin, and whilst there’s a whole lot of flurry of activity, nothing is coming out and no one is listening anyway.

  180. ME, each day on the news, from may sources,, they tell us the last ten years are among the hottest. They tell us the ice is disappearing, releasing double carbon, than expected.

    Now to rub salt into the room, the PM is still standing, as many here predicted.

    Not a good day for many.

  181. It was a great day for me. I really enjoyed watching Gillard flayed by the man you refer to here as a coward. Despite your hubris, Gillard is barely standing and brand labor is forever tarnished by this multi layered scandal.

  182. ‘…and no one is listening anyway.’

    If the attendance at my lectures get any smaller I’ll have to consider my future.

  183. Treetroll,

    It was a great day for me. …brand labor is forever tarnished

    Any damage done to Labor is damage done to your own grandkids’ way of life. The Lieberals will exploit every opportunity to set in place a third world style workplace regime that will make their lives hell. But ‘cheer’ on, retard, you won’t experience the harm yourself, but your grandkids will live it… And the same goes to every despicable Fiberal troll that drags their filth across these and other pages.

  184. Oh no not the old scientist signature thing again.

    Let me guess without looking:

    1. None or a very small handful will be credited climate scientists.
    2. There will be signatures from paid lobbyists and underwriters
    3. There will be many who won’t have a PhD and you will be lucky to find any with a PhD in a climate related field.
    4. If it’s like the last go at the signature bit there will be engineers in fields not related to climate and there will also be signatures from unrelated Bachelors like Humanities or Business Administration.

    In other words like the last one, where they even put in signatories of scientists without their knowledge, didn’t that cause a stink, it’s all falderol.

    Now the counter is as they did last time would be to get signatures from climate scientists directly related to the field and even better with credited works on the subject. From memory the last one got ten or more fold signatures just from climate scientists than the bunkum ones put up.

    Now if you were to open the proponent signatures up to multi-disciplines and unrelated scientists they would make 125 look piddling indeed.

  185. ‘LARGE wind farms will be licensed and their noise emissions regulated by the Environment Protection Authority under a plan to treat them as potential polluters like other industries.

    ‘Draft regulations released by the state government says wind farms with a generation capacity of more than 30 megawatts, or those designated as state significant development, must pay an annual licence fee of up to $16,950.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/wind-farms-to-pay-fee-and-will-be-regulated-for-noise-20121130-2amhf.html#ixzz2Dm5Kgj79

  186. Couple united in textual pleasure

    ‘They are both authors with Text Publishing.

    ‘Now it seems the esteemed 2007 Aussie of the Year – mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and climate-change activist
    Tim Flannery – shares a little more than that with stablemate Kate Holden, the acclaimed author and former heroin-addicted prostitute who wrote about her life in her book, In My Skin.

    ‘Although they seem to be at opposite ends of the publishing spectrum (she writes about pink dildos, he charts the history of life on our planet), the Melbourne-based couple are, we hear, dating and were spotted at a paper stall earlier in the year but have not been public since.

    ‘And while in her blog Holden is willing to gush about Flannery’s book, ”which I read too fast, is full of ideas and evocations to blow you away”, she is too shy to talk about the relationship in print, according to our snoops.

    ‘Perhaps they are saving the details for a joint book?’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/lowe-voice-rises-20121201-2anl6.html#ixzz2DsLXW029

  187. ‘After days of sub-zero temperatures, icy roads and the first snow flurries of winter, there is finally a moment of respite on the way.

    ‘Now for the bad news: it will be painfully short-lived.
    By Wednesday the big freeze will set in for the ‘foreseeable future’, the Met Office said yesterday.

    ‘Temperatures will plunge to below freezing ahead of further snowfall, the arrival of freezing fog and wind speeds of up to 30mph.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241366/UK-WEATHER-Britain-braced-6-inches-snow-tonight-temperatures-dip-6C-overnight.html#ixzz2Dy5xNIvR
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  188. eg, I can’t believe that the venerable blogmaster Miglo doesn’t know who Jo Nova is…calls her them/they…and asks if they’re political! hahaha, Goes to show how much is between the ears at cafe of no consequence.

  189. ”There is compelling evidence, not just that permafrost will thaw but that it is already rapidly thawing,” says Ben Abbott, a researcher at the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

    ”Borehole measurements, where temperature readings are taken at multiple depths within the soil, show more than 2 degrees soil warming in some areas of Alaska. While that may not sound like much, a lot of permafrost is at or just below freezing. “The difference between minus 1 degree Celsius and 1 degree is the difference between a fresh frozen meal and a rotten mess.”
    http://richardalanmiller.com/blog/?p=3009

  190. ABSENCE OF ANY GREENHOUSE GAS WARMING DULLS DOHA CLIMATE CONFERENCE

    Government-funded climate science is entering its death throes yet governments still want to tax carbon dioxide at the latest international climate conference in Doha. With no global warming trend for 15 years what does the latest science say about the “greenhouse gas effect” and ‘heat trapping gases’? Science is fast entering a new climate of realism about carbon dioxide. Nine leading scientists from Principia Scientific International (PSI) were among the 125-plus signatories of a key open letter last week to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon protesting at pointless policies to raise carbon taxes when there is no global warming.

    What sets the nine PSI experts apart from the other 120 or so is that they are in the vanguard of debunking the cornerstone of carbon dioxide fears: the greenhouse gas effect. Today Piers Corbyn, one of those nine, launches his own blistering attack against mainstream media coverage of those Doha climate talks.

    The focus of Corbyn’s venom is a particularly biased new Bloomberg article hyping the new U.S. government’s strategy to squander a further $100 billion of taxpayer monies by 2020 on pointless greenhouse gas-cutting initiatives. Corbyn pulls no punches, “CO2 [carbon dioxide] warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction.”

    Blame the Sun, Gravity and Hydrological Cycle, Not CO2

    And Corbyn should know what he’s talking about. He’s widely regarded as the world’s leading independent long-range weather forecaster – no one has a better handle on what actually drives Earth’s climate. Like his PSI colleagues Corbyn insists climate is driven by three key factors: the sun, latent heat (via water cycle) and gravity. All the evidence, says the PSI man, now shows carbon dioxide (CO2) has nothing to do with it. He has a point. Since 1998 global temperatures have flat-lined but atmospheric levels have risen exponentially. This proves there is no correlation between the two.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/75-absence-of-any-greenhouse-gas-warming-dulls-doha-climate-conference.html

  191. Tree and his ‘re-lie-able sources :lol: Try this about PSI……..”so far out there that even well-known anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Lord Monckton have apparently tried to distance themselves from its arguments. When there is an argument against AGW so bad that even Lord Monckton won’t embrace it, that’s saying something!” http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html
    …… its time you fella’s, last drinks…… crawl back under your respective rocks and wake the F* up….. the perma-frost IS melting like an denialists argument.

  192. The Abbott in this vid is a Ben Abbott, …..(snicker, snicker) :D
    …. talked to an old bushy today at the Dr’s, says he’s never seen the weather so erratic in all his years (80+)…. just say’n ;)

  193. The NH is freezing young Lovo, do try and keep up.

    ‘THE big freeze will tighten its grip on the country today and last well into the New Year, according to forecasters.

    ‘After swathes of Britain woke up to inches of snow yesterday, the Met Office said the cold spell will continue for the next four weeks at least, unleashing sub-zero temperatures, snow, freezing fog and icy 30mph winds.

    ‘Forecasters said temperatures would remain colder than average for the ‘foreseeable future’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242296/UK-Weather-Thermals-ready–big-freeze-till-New-Year-sub-zero-temperatures.html#ixzz2E40JrOod
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  194. The 80+ bushy has probably forgotten what it was like in the 1950s, but this is debatable.

    The good news is that Migs is writing up a storm to help people understand what’s up with the weather.

  195. You may recall Dr. David Viner (one of those Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) “experts” from the UK’s centre of CACC excellence the UEA) saying in 2000 that “our children won’t know what snow is”!!

    This was discussed in “More satellite images of snow-bound UK” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/04/more-satellite-images-of-snow-bound-uk/) and as one “beesaman” said ” .. That’s odd, for the last five years, all our local schools down here in the South of England have had snow day closures. But hey, don’t let observable facts get in the way of modeled predictions! .. “.

    It is about time that a lot of politicians, environmentalists and other blinkered types opened their eyes to the real world.

    Of course there are those on both sides of the debate who insist on pushing the CACC propaganda for reasons far removed from taking over Nature’s job of controlling the different global climates.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley
    Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

  196. Hi Pete, sometimes WordPress ‘spams’ some comments from people whose gravatar is linked to another blog or website. I’ve been pulling my hair out trying to find a way around it.

  197. El gordo why don’t you ever put up links of the heatwave and abnormally high temperatures being experienced around the world, you only ever single out cold weather events, which makes you disingenuous?

    Also using isolated weather events to make your points makes you disingenuous.

    Using disparaging names makes you disingenuous, it’s the sign of someone who has little to argue with so resorts to name calling.

    Also isolated abnormal cold weather events can be just as much a sign of global warming as isolated abnormal heat events.

    Plus I’m confused. If the world is cooling, which is your current meme, then why did a 20 year largest study of global ice cover ever undertaken, involving many different groups and organisations of climate scientists, find that not only is the cover melting, it’s doing so at a rate 5 times faster than estimated?

    Surely according to your latest meme it should be increasing at a rate 5 times faster than estimated.

  198. El gordo why don’t you ever put up links of the heatwave and abnormally high temperatures

    wtfuwt doesn’t provide them for him ;)

  199. ‘why don’t you ever put up links of the heatwave and abnormally high temperatures being experienced around the world’

    I’m focused on possible CC tipping points, perhaps you could carry out the duty of cherry picking for the warminista.

  200. ‘it’s doing so at a rate 5 times faster than estimated?’

    Did I mention that the refreeze in the Arctic is the fastest on record?

    In Antarctica the mass balance has been growing.

  201. So what is happening to the weather?

    Wobbly jet stream and ‘blocking’ in the northern hemisphere is bringing on a chill, while in Oz we are running hot and cold. Just as Lovo’s bushy mate said.

    The kitchen table scientists are hard at work looking for similarities in the past, because the clue to where we are is to be found there.

    We only recently discovered that CO2 is not a pollutant and doesn’t cause global warming.

  202. El Gordo, Antarctic mass balance has been decreasing… like a skeptics argument on AGW.
    “The results show that the largest ice sheet – that of East Antarctica – has gained mass over the study period of 1992-2011 as increased snowfall added to its volume.
    However, Greenland, West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were all found to be losing mass – and on a scale that more than compensates for East Antarctica’s gain.” ……””We can now say for sure that Antarctica is losing ice and we can see how the rate of loss from Greenland is going up over the same period as well,” he added.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483
    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/global-warming-antarctic-ice-growing-thicker/7056
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183 http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/blink-its-gone-greenlands-surface-ice-melted-2-weeks-ago/17908?tag=search-river

  203. The ‘discovery’ that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth is probably still rocking poor old el grubo.

  204. ‘BBC weather forecaster Chris Fawkes tweeted today: ‘I spy with my little eye Scandinavian high. Ecmwf [European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts] forecast middle of December could bring us really bitter snowy weather….fingers crossed!’

    ‘The wintry conditions are expected to last all month, unleashing sub-zero temperatures, freezing fog and icy 30mph winds.

    ‘Bookies last night slashed the odds of a white Christmas to 5/1 in the capital and to 6/1 in other cities across the country.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242776/UK-weather-High-pressure-Scandinavia-blamed-temperatures-plummet-8C.html#ixzz2E9ut8LwR
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  205. LOVO

    December 5, 2012 @ 11:12 am

    That’s exactly what was said. Added also , the scientists are worried more than ever, we may be reaching a point of no return.

  206. Hi Lovo,
    Which “Manuel” are you referring to? There is one very very unpleasant Manuel involved with a blogging group calling themselves Principia Scientific International and you can find out more about him by looking at “Spotlight On Principia Scientific International” Section 3.12 Friend of PSI Professor Oliver Manuel (further update soon). Are we not judged by the company we keep?
    I hope that you have a strong stomach.

    Möbius Ecko,
    May I suggest that you look more carefully at that report into ice melt and dig deeper into what it is all about. We have been coming out of what is known as The Little Ice Age. It has been warming again after a period of about 350 years of much colder regions across the globe. When it warms ice melts does it not? Those ice sheets over Greenland and the Antarctic would take 1000’s of years to melt even if the claimed present rate continued but there seems little likelihood of that because according to the attempts to measure the mean global temperature using thermometers the globe has been cooling slightly during the past 12 years and looks likely to continue doing so for several decades.

    That doesn’t look too promising for food supplies in some regions but fortunately plant growth should be enhanced because of slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels. There is no convincing evidence that those CO2 increases will have any noticeable effect on global temperatures.

    As for sea level rise, it is trivial.

    Stop letting the IPCCs CACC propaganda team scare you and do some research yourself.

    Unfortunately both sides of this vexed debate distort the facts to suit their own agenda which have nothing whatever to do with the processes and drivers of the different global climates. It just Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  207. ” Unfortunately both sides of this vexed debate distort the facts to suit their own agenda which have nothing whatever to do with the processes and drivers of the different global climates. It just Global Political Shenanigans ”

    What a load of twaddle. Some might say just outright bollocks. What is it with denialists? I mean I could understand the diatribe that comes out of most denialists cake holes if they had the science on their side, but they don;t. The worlds bona fide scientists so qualified to have an opinion on this issue, who are in the denialist camp, would fit in a telephone box.That would include the likes of Lord/Sir/Lady/Dame/Mr or whatever title he uses these days, a one Christopher Monkton .Remember him? He was sent down to the Antipodes to convince people with some modicum of intelligence, that their opinion on global warming was all wrong. I gave up the will to live just listening to the half wit.

    The fact is most of the worlds scientists by a country mile, thousands of them in every country in the world are saying we have a problem here, but some pomey communications engineer knows better. L.M.A.R.O.

    I know they’re all after the grant money ain”t they? It’s gonna be quite funny how one day about a squizillion scientists are gonna carve up the Nobel.

    Yep they really make me laugh. I can just see it now, some denialist floating out into a shipping lane some where in his favourite lounge chair, passing the last poler bear on a cupboard, shouting out, global warming is bollocks I read it on the Jeff Rense conspiracy web site.

    Mean while back at the ranch yada, yada ,yada.

  208. PJ, yes the denialists and the trolls remind me of the black knight in that classic scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” where the black knight gets his arm cut off by King Arthur and says it’s only a flesh wound, then gets his other arm cut off and starts to kick him.

    They really are delusional. :sad: :sad:

    Cheers :grin:

  209. You know who the denialists remind me of, the obnoxious denier and whining burden in every old disaster movie. Towering Inferno, Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake, Jaws etc.

    There’s always someone who denies the disaster can happen from the outset. When it does occur they deny it will be bad and everyone will be OK. When it hits them directly they demand to be the first to be rescued and shove others out of the way. When they are being rescued they are a burden to those trying to rescue them and whine every step of the rescue, all the while complaining the authorities didn’t do enough to prevent the disaster.

    They usually die, but if they don’t they are first in line demanding handouts and assistance relief from the disaster.

  210. “I’m focused on possible CC tipping points, perhaps you could carry out the duty of cherry picking for the warminista.”

    Thank you for admitting you’re doing nothing more than cherry picking thus being a grossly disingenuous troll.

    Concentrating on CC tipping points my arse, you’re doing no such thing but yet again lamely attempting to sound impressive with bullshit you don’t understand at all.

    I’ve had enough of trying to discuss global warming with you and the same old bullshit you keep putting out with the very disingenuous way you go about it. So on my part you can have this thread, I’m out of here.

  211. Truth Seeker indeed they are, indeed they are. What pisses me off is, they have access to exactly the same information on the subject as any layman, and they think they have some insight into the problem we believers don’t. Quite frankly I think most of them are barking mad.

    It has all the equivalence of me reading a few books on air craft, looking at the glossy pictures of a few holiday destinations, then ringing up Qantas and asking them if I can fly one of their Jumbo Jets. If I ever have the misfortune to require heart surgery, I will tell the surgeon I have seen an autopsy on the tele and tell him exactly where to cut my chest open.

    Have you ever noticed it’s mostly the loopy right that .don’t believe there is a problem? You’ll find the same imbeciles at the Rolex rallies against the mining tax. Or at Tea Party conventions where they have a bango under one arm, one tooth in their rancid ugly heads and most them are called Iain, Jethro, or Billy Bob…

    Anyway it’s all toooooooooooo late, the horse as they say, has bolted. Even when a lot of them will have to buy a boat to check the mail box, they’ll still think it’s a Marxist plot.

    The worst part about the whole problem is, it really wont affect the filthy rich for a long time yet. It is some poor family on the Ganges delta in India or some other poor place in the world where the inhabitants are already suffering the effects of global warming. Thankfully these imbeciles who don’t believe in G.W., are in the minority and will not be able to stop the inevitable extreme action that will have to be taken to save this planet.

  212. PJ global cooling has begun and the mob at Doha recognise they have backed the wrong horse…Kyoto is dead and there is nothing to replace it.

  213. Mo you fail to see that global warming stopped 16 years ago.

    I know this must be upsetting for you and your comrades here, but at some point you will need to come to grips with the new reality.

  214. Political, economic and scientific reality TS…the game is over for you lot.

    “Contrary to what many green NGOs are saying, the Kyoto commitment to CO2 reduction will cease effect on the 31st December. This is because the treaty requires amendments to be ratified well before they come into effect (by 3rd October). It took some 4 years for a quorum of countries to ratify Kyoto.

    “Even if there were total agreement at Doha on any amendment (there isn’t) the earliest change to Kyoto is 2015. Without agreement the earliest if there were agreement at the end of next year is that a change to the Kyoto Commitment could come into force in 2016. “

    Mike Haseler at the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum

  215. Sadly el drongo, you wouldn’t know reality if it bit you on the arse, which ti will probably do eventually, but then it will only be a flesh wound… Nyaaaaahahahaha
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

  216. Hi P.J.

    Hot air my friend, hot air. Have a read of “Scared to Death – from BSE to Global Warming … ” by Christopher Booker. Chapter 4 “Saving the Planet” will enlighten you.

    Hi el gordo,

    By 2015/16 we’ll be even deeper into the next Little Ice Age, which is forecast to last through the middle of this century – the Sun’s activity and all that stuff, nowt to do with our use of fossil fuels which in any case will keep on increasing for many many decades, driven by China, India and Africa.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  217. Global cooling is a serious matter…that’s why the ‘precautionary principle’ is so important. Natural variability is having a discernible influence on CC.

  218. At first I thought eg was an eccentric contrarian. But have seen them on other threads spinning for the LNP: Lies Not Policies Party. So they’re not just a wingnut but a partisan RWF. My advice to eg (for all the good it will do): Switch off Blot and talkback radio, they’ll rot your brain with pro-resources mogul propaganda.

  219. Mmmmm, Pete Ridley posts a comment at the cafe of alarmist spin and get’s panned by resident alarmists. PJ and Truth seeker, you just might learn something if you opened your eyes…Truth Seeker calls people drongos when much of what he writes is ad hom rubbish that only a drongo could write. PJ on the other hand just writes rubbish.

    You people really need a reality check. AGW and the whole IPCC bandwagon is loosing its wheels and to not admit this puts you in the drivers seat of denial yourselves. That CU and others still believe 97% of the world’s scientists are somehow in consensus that man is warming the planet is indicative how an overly politicised science has brainwashed the gullible.

  220. ‘eccentric contrarian’ is ok, I don’t run a book with the LNP.

    At Deltoid they called me a ‘concern troll’, which is probably more appropriate.

  221. I think you’re being sucked in by the voluminous propaganda put out on behalf of resource moguls. “Think tanks” don’t exist to make people think, but to instill ideologies and support for particular agendas. Columnists like Bolt are not true commentators but propagandists, appointed to push certain partisan, vested interests agendas. Any agenda that serves the interests of billionaires and moguls has nothing positive in it for someone like you (or me).

  222. Tree troll, you are the expert on ad hock rubbish, and I only call e g, el drongo, cos of the utter crap that he/she dribbles out, he/she is, and as I said before if you , collectively, want to be taken seriously, STOP talking shit.

    But you never will because like the black knight, you refuse to see the truth, just bury your sad little empty heads in you denialist crap, and put all your faith in Dolt and his ilk.

    Anyone who can blindly follow the propaganda set about by vested interests like, Ironheart, Monkton et al, over those that actually KNOW, are completely and sadly delusional and as you have plainly displayed your lack of language comprehesion, you really are challenged on many levels.
    Very sad :sad: :sad:

  223. Cuppa I’ve been studying climate change for a couple of decades, a Labor lefty unswayed by right wing propaganda.

    Get involved with the science and you will experience an epiphany.

  224. ‘utter crap that he/she dribbles out, he/she is, and as I said before’

    Could somebody explain to this young lady that I’m a man?

  225. a Labor lefty unswayed by right wing propaganda

    I don’t believe you. Were you not in the ‘Right To Be Heard’ thread talking up the Abbott?

  226. A “Labor lefty” would never talk up the Abbott as you’ve done. Can’t even keep the story straight over a couple of comments. Another BSing RWF.

  227. obviously like Abbott’s a man?

    I stand corrected, I didn’t know cos I stopped paying any attention to your delusional rants, after reading the first one that I came across.

    And as far as you helping anyone overcome anything…. Nyaaaaaahahahahaha
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    You really are delusional. and as far as calling you a drongo, I have to apologise ………… to that slur on drongos everywhere.

  228. Joolya’s tax on a harmless trace gas is pathetic and she needs her head read.

    It will reduce CO2 and other dangerous emissions. It will slow down the usage of finite fossil oil resources. All as intended.

    Your problem, as a RW, is phobia of change. Even legislative change that will extend resource security and clean up your air.

    I suspect fear of change has also rocked you as regards climate change theory. Where once upon a time there was no connection drawn between burning of fossil fuels and climate impact… now there is. The change from No Theory to a widely accepted theory is too great for you as a RW to tolerate, and you’re spinning out in a most demonstrable way.

    ..So when you say it’s the PM who “needs to have her head read”, it looks like RW Projection again. Who is the real fruitloop, el grindo?

  229. To el dildo, the troll formally referred to as el drongo, it all makes sense now.

    You said “I’ve been studying climate change for a couple of decades,” well there’s 20 years you’ll never get back, and explains why you are so dogmatic, irrational, and puerile in your arguments and comments.
    I suppose when you’ve wasted all that time reading and listening to garbage, the smart thing to do would be to admit it, but your mindset is such that with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you chose to throw good time after bad defending the indefensible.

    But never fear, you are being listened to by tree troll and other RW nutters

    The depth of your delusion and sadness knows no bounds. :sad: :sad: :sad:

  230. Truth Seeker,

    The el gaga’s of the world have always been with us. They’re the sort who spent centuries railing against scientific consensus of the helio-centric solar system, evolution and whatever else.

    In the past ages their bleatings were bad enough. They persecuted thinkers and ideological iconoclasts. They retarded intellectual and scientific development. They curtailed freedom of speech, thought and expression.

    They were a brake, an anchor, a dragging weight, on the progress of civilisation.

    In the modern day the threat they pose to the rest of life on Earth is more existential. In effect they stand for an acceleration of the toxifying of the atmosphere with the noxious byproducts of combustion of fossil fuels.

    They don’t care how much or how fast mankind ‘shits in our nest’ because they refuse to even see that it’s a problem. They will never see a need to change, because as RWFs they are phobic of change.

  231. ‘At the latest round of climate change talks in Doha, Qatar, the UK pledged almost £2bn over the next two years to help poor countries cope with climate change.

    ‘But the World Development Movement said the money is going to large companies rather than helping poor people likely to suffer from climate change.

    ‘A recent example was £385m, channeled through a World Bank project to promote clean energy in poor countries.

    ‘WDM say that most of the money went to private companies to build wind turbines or solar panels for profit.’

    Louise Gray UK Telegraph

  232. “Hot air my friend, hot air. Have a read of “Scared to Death – from BSE to Global Warming … ” by Christopher Booker. Chapter 4 “Saving the Planet” will enlighten you.”

    Indeed, I am adding to the CO2 levels just sitting here typing away. Hey me ol China you can recommend all the books you like, it won’t change the reality. But since we’re exchanging ideas I can recommend a book for you, Jack and the Beanstalk or anything else by the Grimm brothers, Hansel & Gretal may be a bit deep for you. For light reading I presume you live in the U/K ? Try the Beano or the Dandy, if they’re still available.

    Treeman, do you ever hear the rustle of white coats per chance?

    el gordo. If you have been studyding global warming for what was it ? A couple of decades, it really wasn’t time well spent was it? Have you thought about taking up knitting? You could knit some nice thermal underwear for those icey cold nights as the planet freezes into the next ice age. I believe on some of the more loopy right wing web sites, you can buy plans to build you very own igloo.

  233. Treeman, 125 scientists, Jesus wept well that settles it then. The other fifty thousand scientists around the world are all wrong.

    Treeman follow el gordo and take up another interest, the subject of global warming seems to be a bit taxing for you. What about taking up an interest in doing jig saw puzzles, basket weaving is good, it releases those tensed up muscles you get behind the neck, when you start thinking to much out of your own capacity to absorb toooo much information..

  234. The recent Cold Air Outbreak (CAO) in south-east Australia was a novel experience, yet perfectly natural.

    The freezing winters in the UK show a worrying cold trend.

    ‘A dusting of snow caused chaos at airports and on roads yesterday as council bosses admitted they had been caught out by the winter weather.

    ‘Southern England, the Midlands, the North East, Wales and Scotland were hit by a brief snow shower early in the morning after forecasters warned temperatures would plunge to minus 8C.

    ‘In most places the snow amounted to less than an inch but it grounded more than 40 flights, closed schools and left major roads in gridlock.

    ‘Five airports, including Stansted and Luton, closed temporarily, leaving passengers stranded.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243251/UK-weather-A-little-snow–lot-chaos-airports-roads-hit-inch-falls.html#ixzz2EFil0j2K
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  235. So check list.
    1. It’s off to the shops, water bottles and thermal underwear, and woolen booties all round. What size are you el coldo I’ll shout ya some.. I might even get me one of those wooley poncey hats for good measure.And don’t forget the mittens my hands suffer when it’s 35c.

    2. Check the electric blanket.

    3. Top up the anti freeze in the jam jar.

    4. Check the lagging on the plumbing.

    Should be safe now.

    The Brits will love it snow for xmas. “Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle all the way”

    “Memories” Oh btw my back gate needs a little oil.

  236. Treeman, 125 scientists, Jesus wept well that settles it then.

    But it’s not a 125 scientists PJ, there are engineers, a Bachelor of something or other and scientists in fields other than climate. They’ve done this before, but the last time they naming a dead scientist and scientists they didn’t bother asking if they wanted to be on the list, and weren’t they pissed off.

    Just another climate change denial scam that the right wingers fall for every single time. They don’t even bother to check to bona fides, as long as it starts out saying climate change is a crock they leap at it feet first and leave their brain disengaged.

  237. The article by Louise Gray further up the thread should be read before Ban Ki-moon waxes lyrical…

    “When I issued my statement to welcome his re-election, one of the key messages was to work together with the United States on climate change,” Ban said.

    “The climate-change issue should be led by the developed world. They should provide technology and financial support so that developing countries can mitigate and adapt,” he said.

    “The impact of climate change affects everyone equally without regard to where they are coming from, rich or poor. So it is only reasonable that richer countries should assume leadership, and the US should play and can play an important role,” Ban said.

    “No one is immune to climate change ― rich or poor. It is an existential challenge for the whole human race,” he said.

    Channeling China Daily

  238. ‘This amounts to one fifth of all sea level rise over the survey period.’

    They didn’t mention how many years are in the survey period, that would be useful.

    Otherwise, good catch Lovo.

  239. ” But it’s not a 125 scientists PJ, there are engineers, a Bachelor of something or other and scientists in fields other than climate.”

    Indeed, I know. Hey I just take the piss out of them. They are all in a world of their own. I have met some of them down the bottom of my garden. They talk funny too, something like flid tob floddle top means what exactly I just don’t know. I will ask Weed AKA Treeman he’ll know..

    The good thing is the denialists will not stop any action on G.W. it is only a few fringe cave dwellers that don’t believe the science. Once Abbott is gone, some common sense will prevail even in the Contortionist party. The same ilk that live in fantasy land voted for ol Mit Romney and as they say, the rest is history.

    They will have an occasional win it is the nature of politics.Throw enough mud some of it sticks Gillard may be gone. I pray not. However, Cameron, Newman O’ Farrell will all be out on their arse when their next election comes around. .

    They are great amusement these denialists.

  240. From the Hun…

    ‘THE French boss of the troubled Wonthaggi desalination plant has admitted for the first time that the plant is too big for Melbourne’s water needs.

    ‘Suez Environment chief executive Jean-Louis Chaussade told the Herald Sun the size of the plant was based on unrealistic rainfall expectations.

    “The design was done to provide water to the full city of Melbourne in case of no rain during one year – which was not realistic … The details why it was 150GL per year, I don’t know,” he said.’

  241. Ummm what did Napolean say when he marched into Russia ? Don’t take any prisoners.He’s French what would he know?

  242. El, ;) …. there give’n you ‘ell tonight….. ya gaga dildo grindo drongo…. :D
    …. f* me, just had an ‘epithany’ E :roll: l……. AGW/CC=melting perma-frost=methane=possible electricity production=more CO2=more melting perm-frost=methane=energy production in to the future solved…… unless, of course, it gets cold ;)

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s