‘Well, why do all the scientific academies support the AGW issue as something that governments and the world must deal with?’ #11 My perspective on ‘climate change’

Sooner or later someone on the orthodox side will call out that ‘all the world’s scientific academies agree that the warming is real, due to humans and a threat’. That is supposed to be a discussion-stopper. There is plenty of support for the cry if you go to the web. Here is the beginning of a very recent NASA statement on ‘climate change’:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 per cent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

I dealt with the 97 per cent absurdity in a recent essay, and note this is not an encouraging start to an essay on anything to do with global warming. The NASA site lists a lot of the American organisations that have followed its example, but not from elsewhere in the world. Now NASA sounds as though it is a scientific organisation of undoubted quality, and to a degree it is. It is also an arm of the US government — its website is nasa.gov etc. The particular essay I have linked to is not a scientific paper but a political statement, and one that is in accord with the position of the Obama Administration.

Not every scientific academy has come out with a ringing endorsement of the IPCC position. The conspicuous exceptions are the Russian, the Chinese and the Indian academies, all of which seem to be somewhat undecided, with official pronouncements that seem to support the orthodoxy, and statements by leading scientists  that are not supportive of the orthodoxy at all*. Since Russia and China are highly controlled societies, the ambiguity of their positions points to a conflict of approach. Global warming would undoubtedly be a great boon to Russia, a large proportion of whose land is tundra, The same is true to a smaller extent with respect to China. As for India, my own guess is that the Indian Government, whichever party is in power, is intent on rapid industrialisation, which is far more important to the nation than statements about global warming or ‘climate change’. Nonetheless, if there is money about, then India will define itself as a poor nation and stick its hand out. That is, I am reasonably sure, the motive behind the unanimous support of the African association of scientific organisations, and of other such bodies in developing countries..

Australian scientific bodies have been to the forefront in adding their own convictions, the only exception of which I am aware being the Australian Geological Society, which consulted its members and decided against having any statement: there was too little agreement among the members about the direction and wording of any such document. The two scientific Academies, Science, and Technological Sciences and Engineering, are independent bodies that derive some of their income from Federal Government grants. How much of their position is related to that income stream I do not know.

The AAS, the more important of them, has issued two such statements, one in 2010 and a later one in 2014. First, the AAS in context. It is a wealthy body, as such organisations go, with total assets of around $52 million, and an annual revenue of about $14 million. In 2014 it received  a special grant-in-aid from the Commonwealth of $1.7 million, received another $3.5 million in other grants (mostly Federal), and collected $2 million in donations, mostly from Fellows and deceased Fellows, plus another $2 million in publication income. It is the go-to institution when important matters of science are being considered by governments in our country, and its President is taken seriously as a scientific leader and spokesperson.

Its 2010 statement was a robust account of how dangerous global warming was. But it was not exactly a reassuring beginning to discover at once that the Academy had thanked ‘the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for providing financial support to prepare this document’. That was when Mr Rudd was in charge of things, and Mr Rudd, as we all know, thought that ‘climate change’ was ‘the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time’. But if you looked hard at the document, the robustness was at odds with the very frequent references to ‘uncertainty’.

Try this long-winded account: There are uncertainties in climate science. For example, a precise value cannot be given for the likely range of warming because of uncertainties in climate sensitivity to small disturbances, although climate models and evidence from past climate change provide a plausible range of values. Climate changes over small regions and changes in rainfall patterns are very hard to estimate. Tipping points or rapid climate transitions associated with overall global warming are possible but cannot yet be predicted with confidence. These uncertainties work in both directions: there is a chance that climate change will be less severe than the current estimates of climate science, but there is also a chance that it will be more severe. 

Your ordinary reader, having read that disclaimer, must have been puzzled about the high confidence with which the writers then pictured a future hotter, drier, more extreme Australia prone to droughts and floods. All in all, the whole Statement was a conflict between scientific caution and the global warming agenda. It didn’t matter. The ABC and every other media outlet fastened onto the scare, and said nothing about the uncertainty.

The revised statement, which came out in 2014, was not much better. Back came the uncertainties, but readers were told, nevertheless, that Despite these uncertainties, there is near-unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is real. Well, I would agree that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will, other things being equal, tend to increase temperature, and human activity has indeed been sending more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But when I go to the three references that support the claim of ‘near-unanimous agreement’, I find them to be Doran et al, Anderegg et al, and Cook et al, each of them hopelessly weak as a basis for such  a statement. And this from the premier scientific Academy in our country. What was it thinking of?

The fact that there had been no significant warming for more than a decade was disposed of with some hand-waving about the oceans. The fact that the models greatly overstated the role of greenhouse gas emissions was not mentioned. The fact that the models used to forecast the future have neither been verified nor validated was not mentioned. The fact that the models’ projections are nowhere near the observations, was likewise not mentioned.

In short, there was nothing even-handed in the Academy’s statement — and it was drafted by a committee consisting of the AGW orthodoxy, some of whom were not Fellows. Were the Academy’s own Fellows consulted? Was there a vote? The answer is no to both questions. What is the point of such a Statement? It is political, not scientific. As far as I know, none of these organisational statements across the world has ever been put to a vote of the members or fellows. They have been decisions of the executive, and pushed by passionate supporters of the orthodoxy. If any reader knows of an exception, I would be glad to know of it.

The Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) seems to have avoided a carte blanche endorsement, but has carried out a number of studies that accept the IPCC position and go on from there — what should be done about urban infrastructure, coastal management, and the like. I am told, by a Fellow of that body, that his Academy was pushed hard to make a global statement like that of the AAS.

Wikipedia, in this domain an arm of the orthodoxy itself, will give you a summary of scientific support for the orthodoxy, and I don’t think anyone has made a proper study of those statements. On the face of it, they endorse what governments were saying at the time the statements were made. Most of them, it seems to me, were made around the time of the Copenhagen conference of the parties in 2009. Maybe they all need revision, but these statements tend not to be revised; quiet forgetfulness is the preferred  mode. The Royal Society made two statements of its own, apparently ignoring its own motto (nullius in verba, or ‘take no-0ne’s word for it’), and the revision is not much better than the original.

In my view, all these statements are political, and intended to keep the organisation respectable in the eyes of the relevant governments. They are of no scientific worth at all, because they do not consider the issue even-handedly, and are, alas, a demonstration of how far ‘organised science’ has departed from its own scientific method.

Next: When is it ‘weather’ and when is it ‘climate’?

  • Only a few minutes after publishing this essay I came across an account of a Russian conference on climate change held in Moscow in 2004 that helps to explain the Russian position, and you can read it here.

Join the discussion 191 Comments

  • David says:

    So how does declaring

    “Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”

    an absurdity fit in with yesterday’s call for “mature discussion” ?

    I find Professor Cook to be very persuasive.

    https://youtu.be/WAqR9mLJrcE

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      I missed this gem. John Cook has a Bachelor of Science – exactly the same as the much-derided Jo Nova. He does not have a PhD, and it is extraordinary that he has been appointed as a Post-Doctoral Fellow by a reputable university. He is absolutely, unequivocally, NOT a Professor. Not an Associate Professor, or even an Assistant Professor. In fact, he is not even ‘teaching’ an accredited course.

      • gnome says:

        I didn’t miss it, but why bother. Only a drivelling idiot has ever called Cook a professor, as far as I am aware. The sort of drivelling idiot who would find Cook “very persuasive”.

        You have to draw a line somewhere (unless you’re a hard-core warmist).

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Yes gnome, I agree. But David is one of those so convinced of their rectitude that it is almost an obligation on the right-thinking of us to disabuse him. Also, he is a continuing source of amusement. “Professor Cook” – God help us.

      • David says:

        Soon-to-be-Professor Cook is the same as Nova, except for the 15+ publications. Nova was forth author on a single paper on a mouse model published in 1992, which has been cited 6 times. Nova has publish nothing of substance on climate change. Soon-to-be-Professor Cook, is one of the most influential academics analyzing climate change at the prestigious Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. Nova runs a blog.

    • Anders Valland says:

      You find Cook to be very persuasive. That’s fine, David, you like his rhetoric. How do you find his arguments and data?
      I only watched until 2:32 into this clip. He is now using rhetoric in full, comparing economic geologists to meteorologists. These are well defined disciplines. At this point he does not state anything about which of them is more qualified to make a statement. He then moves straight on to a group called “Climate scientists” which is as ill-defined as anything, but he does make the statement that they are the most qualified. When doing so he also states that some groups are more qualified than others, and the qualification can be defined by how high they score on the question of whether humans are significantly changing the earths temperature.
      He uses another trick, and that is when he is presenting the chart showing the three groups, the question has been transformed into “Percentage agreeing with human-caused global warming”. Pea, meet thimble.
      You find him persuasive. I find that disappointing.

  • David says:

    And I am only at the second paragraph.

    “The conspicuous exceptions are the Russian, the Chinese and the Indian academies, all of which seem to be somewhat undecided, with official pronouncements that seem to support the orthodoxy”

    That right because academic independence in China and Russia is a real exemplar to the rest of the world.

    • David says:

      Last time I checked neither nation was a democracy.

        • Ross says:

          Incredibly mature discussion, isn’t it? Russia, China, and India. Hmmm. Could a sceptic see any particular reason they may be ‘ambivalent’. Heavens, you’d think they would welcome global warming?
          You have to understand, David, that Don thinks Oil and Mining corporations donate money to Greenpeace and the WWF and no one else (seriously). So their hands are clean, regarding policy on Climate Change and the lack of real action.
          His link to Wattsupwiththat (who else?) starts with a graph followed by a series of the usual insults and character assassinations. Nothing’s changed. Same strategy. Same insinuations that trained scientists have now formed some form of religion (sounds reasonable).
          Everyone is wrong. Don is right. And he’s not even a scientist! Not bad, Eh?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            You really do seem to have reading difficulties, Ross. I suggested in my essay that Russia and China could have ambivalence about global warming because they could indeed be in favour of it. What point are you trying to make?

            I did not say that oil and mining corporations gave money to WWF and Greenpeace and to no one else. Reading difficulties again, or do you just like to make things up? I have no doubt that they support political parties of the right too, but I asked you for a link to your assertion. No reply.

            The WUWT link takes you to a long extract, from a book about AGW, that is specifically about the Russian view of ‘climate change’, expressed by a senior Russian. Did you miss that bit? It’s actually the major part of the essay there. I’ve re-read the whole essay and can’t find ‘usual insults or character assassinations’, and there’s nothing wrong with my reading capacity. Perhaps you could tell us what you saw and why you think it was insulting etc.

            You’re a time-waster, Ross, with nothing constructive to offer anyone. Please find something else to do.

          • David says:

            “I’ve re-read the whole essay and can’t find ‘usual insults or character assassinations’

            Yet you write,

            ” I dealt with the 97 per cent absurdity in a recent essay, …”

            Definition of “absurdity” noun the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

          • Ross says:

            Don.
            I refer to you last article titled, ‘A mature discussion in Australian Society’
            When you criticised the Paris Agreement, for having no teeth, I replied that oil and mining companies don’t donate to political parties for nothing. They expect a return.
            You replied “I am aware of oil companies making donations to WWF and Greenpeace, but I am NOT AWARE of the other. Or do you think this just happens and there’s no need to be sure?” April 27, 3.21 PM
            Rather than a link, I actually typed out two quotes from American senators explaining EXACTLY HOW their votes are bought and manipulated by major corporations. These quotes can read beneath yours on that thread. April 27, 4.22pm
            Own your quote about WWF and Greenpeace. Own your own ignorance of how major corporations manipulate government.
            You are right, that I didn’t get to the Russian View on climate change, though. I got two thirds of the way through WUWTs comedy warm up, (name calling, insults, the usual) and bailed. I’m sure it was as riveting as you say.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            When I asked for a link I was expecting some kind of detailed account of actual money being directed to political parties or politicians by oil companies. What you offered comes nowhere near that test. Do you in fact know of any such analysis? I’ll say again that I wouldn’t be at a; surprised, but it was your assertion, not mine.

      • JMO says:

        Last time I checked Russia’s 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government.

  • JohnM says:

    Unlike most, the Russian Accademy of Science surveyed its members’ views and consequently did not produce a statement supporting the IPCC position. From the US I received an email from a member of a scientific body that discussed the actions of that organization. He said the statement was written by an executive subcommittee “and you know the type of people who would clamor to be on this committee”.
    There seems to be far too many “scientists” who want to be activists and give away the notion of apolitical, thorough and accurate science. The big loser of course is science itself because its credibility is increasingly dependent on the performance of the political horses it backs.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Thanks for that insight. Is there a link you could provide? I added a bit about a Russian 2004 climate conference at the tend of the essay. But of course they turn up at CoP events and say the orthodox things…

  • JohnM says:

    A further and very important fact about climate models that never gets mentioned in these statements by academies etc is that the human influence on climate is estimated by the use of such models. They are run with greenhouse gases and without and the difference in the output assumed to be the human contribution. That of course is a farce when the models are inaccurate and even the IPCC says that “some models” – it doesn’t say how many – “overestimate” the influence of greenhouse gases. Running the models with and without greenhouse gases merely illustrates how sensitive the models are to the inclusion of the gases.
    The problem for the scientific bodies is that they can’t mention this because it will undermine their pro-warmist statements and therefore their credibility. Fancy a (formerly) reputable body getting hot and bothered about something for which there’s little supporting evidence.

    • BB says:

      I totally agree about the models but it is worse than you think they are a complete waste of time. None of them agree with the planet and that is the test. I am very appreciative to Don for going through the different academic institutions and looking at their position. He doesn’t actually say it but it’s obvious it’s about funding and opposing a heartfelt political position of those that fund you is really not smart.

      In all this one thing gets me I could imagine a Warmist who wants the world to heat up a bit. Perhaps a couple of degrees with a much increased CO2 level could be pretty good. If you look at our geological past the were such times and the world thrived. We could do with a lot less ice just think what it would do to trade in the northern if there were no Artic ice. If you ask the activist “okay you don’t want the temperature to change but what are we aiming for 2° less what it is now 2° more” you don’t get an answer. They are saying with their models (something I know a bit about) they can predict the future that is they are omniscient and what’s more it can be controlled that is omnipotent. So how dare we refute God?

      By the way I noticed some grunge comments at the top of this but I do find that only yours had any worth but then again I skipped the others. Don’t feed trolls ignore them.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      I am sure that there are Fellows who shake their heads about the way the AAS conducts itself in this highly politicised domain.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When scientists involve themselves in such obvious political advocacy in light of the huge financial rewards being bestowed by sympathetic govts of the warmist faith, they truly undermine their cred. They obviously know what they are doing in the short term but when it is at the expense of the long term authority and trustworthiness of such a necessary bit of kit as science is, it is plain dumb.

    Would CSL increase by 5,000% if it was floated today?

    These scientific orgs failure to challenge their members in the name of scientific investigation says it all about their ideological advocacy.

    • Ross says:

      Tell em, Spangled Drongo. Tell how the sea level has NOT risen.

      • spangled drongo says:

        I not only tell ’em, I show ’em.

        A lot more than your sci orgs can do.

        So get smart, rossie. If you pay attention you can cast off your sandwich boards and stop paying your Sierra Club fees.

  • Alan Gould says:

    Again, thanks Don,
    Trenchant, lucid, and unfaltering in its good nerve, for all a large portion of the substance is dismal stuff. That 3% reminds me of the old adage “The whole world’s mad but me and thee…..and I’m not entirely sure about thee.”

    • dlb says:

      If you look closely at Cook’s survey on climate related papers, a whooping 35% of scientists are unwilling to say whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. This is after they were specifically asked by Cook et.al. what their view was. This finding should be plastered all over the media.

      • David says:

        Yes I see Table 4

        Endorse AGW 62.7%
        No AGW position 35.5%
        Reject AGW 1.8%

        So would you agree looking at these data that pro-AGW out weight anti-AGW by 34:1

  • spangled drongo says:

    Would this bloke qualify as a climate denier?

    The Director of the Center for Industrial Progress, and author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” Alex Epstein, shows us in another Prager University video presentation (complete with thorough sourcing for his assertions) that burning fossil fuels has improved the lives of millions in the developed world by helping solve their biggest environmental challenges, purified their water and air, made their cities and homes more sanitary and kept them safe from potential catastrophic climate change.

    Could we have built reservoirs, purification plants, and laid networks of pipes to bring clean water to homes without fossil fuels, Epstein asks? Fossil fuels can do the same for those in the developing world, if the powers that be will allow it. More fossil fuel use equals more clean water.

    Epstein further shows that despite an increase in fossil fuel use from 1.5 billion tons in 1970 to around 2.0 billion tons in 2010, emissions dropped from about 300 million tons to about 150 million tons during the same period. This resulted from using anti-pollution technology powered by … fossil fuels.

    If CO2 emissions cause harmful changes in the environment, and if emissions have increased, then more people must be suffering “climate-related deaths,” due to things like droughts, floods, storms and extreme temperatures. But no, Epstein said. “In the last 80 years, as CO2 emissions have rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide has rapidly declined — by 98%.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s a possibility:

    “The idea that America will be 100% reliant on green energy is a deeply delusional and dangerous fantasy. Even after more than $100 billion in government subsidies over the past decade, wind and solar power are so expensive and unworkable that they account for less than 4% of our energy supply. Is America really expected to give up on the other 96%?”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s a couple of academics casting aspersions on Earth Day, Gotta be CDs:

    “Rather, disturbance and change, not balance and harmony, best describe nature. To offer but one obvious example, four of the five historical mass extinctions were the result of natural causes, not human activity.”

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=8746

  • David says:

    Don this is a really thoughtful piece on the history of the carbon tax and its political implications.

    http://insidestory.org.au/an-early-victory-in-the-next-carbon-war

  • Ross says:

    “Now NASA sounds like it is a scientific organisation of undoubted quality, and to a degree it is”
    Yeah, Don I’ve heard similar things. The moon landing was my first clue.
    “But It’s website is nasa.gov.”
    AH HA! Don has discovered that NASA is actually federally funded! You know, I always suspected this.
    And get this! “It’s findings are in accord with the Obama Administration!”
    I think you’ve cracked it Don. The government is in agreement with NASA and it’s scientific findings.
    Get it? Get it? The conspiracy is there for all to see!
    Sleepers awake!
    Try harder, Don. Much harder.

    • spangled drongo says:

      What perception, rossie. You must have remembered this:

      “The debate is settled,” says Obama. “Climate change is a fact.”

      Can’t deny sci like that!

      • Ross says:

        Uh huh. What’s your point?

        • Ross says:

          Oh, sorry spangles, I forgot. NASA say the worlds oceans have risen. This goes against your own personal observations. My bad. (Emphasis on ‘your own’).

          • spangled drongo says:

            Poor ol’ rossie don’t get that NASA, in order to avail themselves of the helicopter billions have to click their heels in unison when the above statement from Obama is continuously fired from the boss on the state of the climate science.

            And seriously thinks that I should dip me lid to them instead of believing my lyin’ eyes.

            And thinks that Don has it wrong on NASA awa the bulk of sci academies.

            And kids himself that he is a sceptic.

            Oh, the delicious hubris!!! ?

          • Ross says:

            No, spangles, you should believe what you see.
            It makes little difference.

          • spangled drongo says:

            If you really were anywhere near as sceptical as you claim about SLR you would possibly be aware that Antarctica has over 90% of the world’s glacial ice where the average temp is minus 40c so nothing is going to happen there and most of the North Pole is sea ice which won’t affect SLs if it does melt. Greenland’s glacial ice is locked in behind a wall of mountains and is growing nearly as much as Antarctica.

            We are fortunate to have this solid buffer against SLR that can withstand quite a lot of the minor climate change which has been happening during the Holocene to a greater or lesser extent than today.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Here you go again, Ross, wasting time, inventing quotations, and trying to make it all funny. Find some other activity to occupy your wit, please.

      • Ross says:

        Sorry? What quotations are you referring to, Don?
        Are you referring to your NASA revelations? Seriously, you’ve lost me.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          In your comment you have a quotation

          “It’s findings are in accord with the Obama Administration!”

          the inference being that I wrote it. I didn’t. You don’t even try to read.

  • margaret says:

    Okay that WAS immature of me – it came on a feed which was headed How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic, so the terms sceptic and denier were conflated – perception or reality?
    I haven’t read it – still tossing up whether to give my email address.

  • dasher says:

    Margaret Thatcher (prepare for howls of derision) was an early promoter of action against. Climate change but later saw the ideological zeal with which it was promoted , mainly by the left. She later said that climate change was one subject where normally sensible politicians could say the most absurd things with apparent impunity. Julia Gillard , ” the science is settled” Obama, I became interested in this subject because of my daughter,s asthma!!!!!! . I also recall KevinRudd and Penny Wong standing in a dry river bed saying we better get used to it because this is out future, we all know what came flooding along soon after. As a lukewarmer I never tire of the almost religious certainty warmest,s place on their perception of reality. I would love to hear a serious public debate on this subject (unlike Maragaret,David and Ross I don’t know but my mind is open and I have the curiosity to find out both sides of the argument) unfortunately there is now acceptable and unacceptable views and most of our politicians don’t have the ticker to deviate from the orthodoxy. It is medieval thinking.

    • Ross says:

      “Religious certainty” hmmm. That word again.
      Good to know you have an open mind on the topic, though, Dasher.
      You’ve given me a few clues as to why you think it may be wrong.
      Could you give your reasons why you think it might be right?
      I’m genuinely curious. (which is good)

      • dasher says:

        Ross I have given you any number of reasons in the past few months, specifically with invitations to read and comment, we want to hear from from you, David and Margaret, not your smug orthodoxy…..I am still waiting to hear your views on the deconstruction (Friends of Science) on the 97 per cent consensus..David cherry picks a bit here and there and proclaims QED, typical of warmists….but never answers my question, Margaret never says anything substantial and you rarely add anything to any conversation apart from puerile nit picking. Can we lift our game folks….we are happy to engage but you are collectively a perfect example of what is wrong with the public discussion in this area that you believe is soimportant. Your job Ross is not to get a giggle out of Margaret or a high five out of David, it is to convince people like me, with the weight of your argument ,why we should spent trillions on fighting this problem. So far you have failed miserably, and I admire Don for his tolerance……something you won’t get in many warmest sites.

        • margaret says:

          Oh Dasher – really, who do you think you are? Could you sit on the sceptic side of a debate at the town hall and convince me and an audience of people trying to work out why the sceptics deny that AGW is very detrimental to our future, that it ISN’T?
          Why are sceptics so obstructionist and what are you all wanting to achieve? The horse has bolted – there is greedy self-interest on both sides but I can’t call myself a sceptic even when I recognise the mischief in simplistic gifs of nuclear cooling towers collapsing and wind farms flowering in their place.

        • Ross says:

          Gosh, Sorry Dash. But just what the hell does being a luke warmer actually mean? Seriously?
          I believe the science. It’s published and it’s out there. Could be wrong, I guess. Certainly not a religious belief. But I’ve seen nothing but rubbish to refute it. Certainly nothing from your good luke warm self.
          You don’t believe the science, Dash. You believe a bloke called Don. Why? Not published. Not a scientist (not even close, but he tells us he ‘reads’. wow.) Not out there, but complains that serious scientist don’t debate him in here. Why the should they? Why would they?? Feel free to admire Don’s tolerance, Dash. But scientifically, his thoughts have no greater weight than mine or yours … or Thatchers. Enjoy your luke warmth.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Ross, You just don’t want to do any work at all, do you. ‘Lukewarmer’ is a recognised category. Look it up on Google. Or read my take on it, right here on the website.

            http://donaitkin.com/i-guess-that-i-am-a-lukewarmer/

            There’s lots of published climate science, and while some of it supports the orthodoxy or takes it simply for granted, there’s a lot that doesn’t. Which bits do ‘believe’? Why those bits?

            Your signal-to -noise ratio, given what you write here, is the lowest by far of anyone who comments — lower even than David’s, who occasionally stays on topic and provides some argument.

          • Ross says:

            Oh sweet Jesus, ‘Luke warmer’ is actually a term? Mea culpa Dasher, I honestly didn’t realise there were nuanced versions of climate scepticism (seriously, I didn’t).
            Don has touched on different ‘classes’ of scepticism in an earlier thread, but I didn’t realise someone had put them into actual classifications.
            Is it like if I say, “I’m left wing.” You say I’m a conservative. Or Centre Right. Or neo con. Or (my favourite) Non Leftist. Basically anything other than simply ‘Right wing’.
            But I digress. Again apologies for being an oaf. I see now you really are and shall remain… ‘Luke Warm’. Brilliant Don!

          • Ross says:

            Oh sweet Jesus, ‘Luke warmer’ is actually a term?
            Mea culpa Dasher, I honestly didn’t realise you, and your citizen scientist friends had such splendid categorisations. (seriously, I didn’t) I clearly mix in the wrong circles!
            But I guess what ever you choose to call yourself (‘Lord’, for example) at the end of the day you’ll always find yourself gently nodding towards Tony Abbott’s nuanced view on the topic… “Climate Change is Crap!”
            Don has touched on different ‘classes’ of scepticism in an earlier thread, ( I thought he was just being a snob) but I didn’t realise someone had put them into actual official classifications. So I am learning. How rum!
            But I digress.
            Again apologies for being an oaf. I accept, that you are now, and shall always remain… ‘Luke Warm’. Wear it with pride, tiger.

          • Ross says:

            Sorry, in my hilarity I’ve sent two versions of the same post. Apologies. Dismantle either at your convenience. (Luke warmer, sorry…chortle)

    • margaret says:

      I too would love to hear a serious public debate on AGW versus the Sceptics.

      • Don Amoore says:

        Margaret
        “I too would love to hear a serious public debate on AGW versus the Sceptics.
        So it seems you were too lazy to read Don’s last hyperlink https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/26/the-fable-of-a-stable-climate/
        Perhaps reading is not hearing?

        • margaret says:

          I meant an actual debate at a venue like the Melbourne town hall with three speakers on either side and a facilitator who introduces them with their qualifications and positions.

          • margaret says:

            As in the Intelligence Squared debates that the Wheeler Centre and St James Ethics Centre presented.
            People were polled as they entered the town hall about their opinion on the issue and then after the debate asked if they had changed their mind, confirmed their opinion or become more enlightened on the issue.

        • Ross says:

          Wattsupwiththat is paid propaganda. Perhaps reading but not thinking, Don Amoore?

      • dasher says:

        Well I guess that is progress of a kind, certainly I never heard one in Australian worth a hill of beans. Oh here is another tip you, Ross and David might be interested in. On Judith Curry’s blog Climate etc (where she presents a list of things she finds interesting from time to time..NOT a constant stream of group think like for example , the “highly regarded” De Smog) A group of Engineers from Ontario were grappling with getting the right mix of power sources…..found that the increase in wind and solar had caused a doubling of emissions…how could that be I hear you say (as I did). Apparently the combined cycle gas turbine back up (fossil fuelled) displaced the less adaptable but cleaner nuclear and hydro. Made me wonder what the true effect of our wind and solar is when the coal fired power stations are ticking over all the time together with the gas turbines in the mix to ensure uninterrupted supply…..and how much are we spending on this. A bloke wrote about this in a letter to Canberra Times on Saturday. Check out Curry’s April 16 post, scroll down to find the article…truly fascinating. Also in the Oz this weekend an editorial from a Danish newspaper complaining about the failure of wind to deliver at a reasonable cost…calls for a rethink. I wonder if we Australians are going to keep pushing the idealological barrow or pause and take stock to make sure we are not making matters worse.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Thanks Don, a fair and balanced piece, as usual, that clearly shows that very serious damage is being inflicted on the Scientific Method. Somewhere you mention the Australian Geological Society. What you refer to, I think, is the Geological Society of Australia commonly referred to as ‘GeolSoc’ or GSA. Sometime around 2010 they wrote an editorial in their Quarterly Newsletter endorsing the orthodox warmist view without first consulting the membership. After protesting to no avail I resigned after some 50 years’ membership. The editorial was a blatant piece of unscientific propaganda along the lines of what AAS put out when Kurt Lambeck was its President. In my view the premier professional association for earth scientists now is the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) which has stayed clear of expressing a corporate view and has never stood in the way of sceptics expressing their views in its various columns. The obvious difference between the cultures of these two bodies probably reflects their memberships — the GSA is stacked with university academics and the AIG comprises mainly earth scientists working their butts off in the real world trying to create wealth for the country.

    • Ross says:

      …”working their butts off trying to create wealth for the country.” Good for them, but a bit of a give away, Aert.
      You might say…”Geologists, in the pay of rich mining companies.”
      I’m sure Don would see no conflict here, as the money is corporate rather than government.
      So it’s good.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Aert, yes, my mistake. It was the GSA.

  • Ross Handsaker says:

    Perhaps the question which should be addressed is whether a cooler climate is preferable to a warmer one. Historically, it would seem mankind thrived during the warm Minoan, Roman, Medieval and current periods but has struggled when it is cooler, eg the population of Europe fell by around 30% during the Little Ice Age due to famine and disease.
    The influenza virus which kills many people each year is predominately a problem in the winter months. Far more people die from cold weather than during heat waves. Grey nomads head north from our southern states during the winter months. The peak tourist season is in the warmer months (excepting ski resorts).
    An enhanced greenhouse effect was originally supposed to cause greater warming mainly in winter and at night. While a doubling of carbon dioxide is expected to increase temperatures by a little over 1deg C in the troposphere, the additional warming in the climate models results from an anticipated marked increase in water vapour. However, an increase in humidity levels would decrease daytime temperatures, eg humid cities are cooler than dry cities (at same latitude/altitude) during the day. Singapore, which averages around 95% humidity and has a high surrounding average sea temperature of 29.21 deg C has a record high temperature of only 36 deg C. By comparison, Port Hedland WA with an average relative humidity level at 3 pm of 39%, averages 137 days each year over 35 deg C. Also, Rottnest Island WA has a lower average sea temperature of 20.6 deg C, an average humidity level of 62% but has recorded temperatures above 40 deg C in Dec, Jan. Feb. and Mar.
    Recent research papers have remarked on the greening of the planet because of the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the last glaciation carbon dioxide levels fell to 180 ppm. If the level had dropped to 150 ppm plants would cease to grow and life as we know it would die. It might be argued humans were only 30 ppm from extinction! Has there been any better contribution by humans to the welfare of the planet than the additional carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels?

    • Ross says:

      An interesting topic to explore if the climate is warming, Ross.
      But only if you agree that the climate is warming.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        And here it is again, Ross. Are you trying to outdo David inbanality? Ross Handsaker’s comment is sensible and offers another insight that I haven’t seen before here (or indeed elsewhere).

        Your comment is irrelevant, patronising and pointless.

        • Ross says:

          No Don, I beg to differ. As I said, it IS an interesting topic to explore. But a waste of time if, as YOU believe the climate is not warming. Very quick to take offence, Don. Feeling the heat?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Again, you go on making simple errors. I have stated that the earth is warming in fits and starts, many times. Sometimes it is warming, sometimes it is not. The subsiding el Nino has given us a patch of quick warming. I’ve said all that in various places.

            Your ‘as YOU believe the climate is not warming’ is wrong.

          • David says:

            Yes Don, you say that you “accept” AGW in moderation here. But on other occasions you have stated that the temperature data are not capable of being analysed, full stop. Too unreliable etc. In fact on one occasion you argued that the concept of a mean temperature was not a relevant measure of climate.

            This might be fun for a public blog. But if you want to be taken seriously by real climate scientists you would need to drop these “measurement” arguments. As I have pointed out to you before Professor Curry does not embrace these sorts of arguments. It is a major point of difference between you and her, and I think it explains why she is still “inside the tent”, and you, not so much.

        • David says:

          Don you have no filter. You have never met a denialist argument you did not like

          • JimboR says:

            It’s not often I find myself disagreeing with you David, but I think Don has developed an almost perfect notch-filter, with a very high Q factor. He can write off carefully researched papers as quickly has he can reach for his “UNCONVINCED” stamp. often without getting past the synopsis.

            I find this critique of Don’s contribution to the field as relevant today as it was in 2008: https://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-sceptics/

            Happily, it’s little more than good sport in the context of the blogosphere, but one wonders what research gems the country missed out on when Don chaired the ARC. Hopefully the scientists on the committee ruled, while the chairman busied himself with administrative tasks like deciding when to break for morning tea.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Jimbo, that’s just snark. You can do better than rustle up an 8 year old anonymous piece. Or can’t you?

          • David says:

            Don, yes an oldie, but nicely argued piece all the same. I found it very persuasive.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            JimboR, I got as far as this priceless codswallop:
            “The work of climate scientists is subject to the most rigorous testing by the peer review process before it gets the accolade of publication in respected journals… experts have exercised more than the usual scientific caution in making claims about the results of their work”. John Cook, anyone? I stopped reading.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Don, yes an oldie, but nicely argued piece all the same. I found it very persuasive.”

            Well, of course, dave. And I should know how hard to persuade you are.

            As your article says:

            “The work of climate scientists is subject to the most rigorous testing by the peer review process before it gets the accolade of publication in respected journals.”

            Like this accolade in climategate not long after:

            “At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

            Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. ”

            Just how rigorous can you get?

            But maybe you prefer Mikey Mann’s upside down Tiljander data.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yet more rigorous peer review:

            ” Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

          • David says:

            Spang here are the conclusion to the investigation of that email and others

            Conclusions
            22. The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the
            accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer
            codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate
            science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming
            more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On
            accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the
            responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)

            23. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for
            example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that
            there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the
            scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no
            reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed
            by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced
            by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on,
            the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in
            detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains
            valid. (Paragraph 137)

            24. A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the
            planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The
            challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of
            The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 51
            living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of
            decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

          • JimboR says:

            Don, I struggled to find a single item in that 8 year old critique that doesn’t apply to your 2016 essays on the topic. You’ve been banging away on that tired old drum for 8 years now and wonder why no real climate scientists will engage with you. Perhaps they long ago discovered there’s nothing new or original to be found here.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            Well, I guess you just fuck off.

          • Ross says:

            Might want to work on the art of discourse, there, Bryan.
            I suggest you come back after a course in manners…twat.

          • Ross says:

            Oh Jesus! That IS funny JimboR. He hasn’t changed a bit. Classic. Thank you.

          • Ross says:

            Referring to your New Matilda Piece JimboR. Not Byran’s sad pleadings.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Ah, yes, Caesar judging Caesar.

            And witnesses and parties affected were never called to give evidence. Just motherhood statements and a whitewash.

          • David says:

            Come on Bryan, your children might read this one day. You do not want them to realize that you were deluded and rude.

  • NH says:

    The proposition that scientific institutions change their opinions and even their published data to suit the government of the day seems easy to test.
    If you could notice a change after Rudd succeeded Howard or Abbott succeeded Rudd, then there might be something in it.
    Similarly, did NASA change its views after Obama succeeded Bush?
    I myself have never noticed anything, but I’m willing to hear any evidence.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Good point, and not easy to respond to. The AAS had no statement on climate change during Howard’s time, to the best of my knowledge. Its first was in 2010, Julia Gillard’s time, though it was doubtless written or at least worked on while Rudd was PM. The 2014 revision is weaker (more qualified) than the 2010 original, and Abbott was the PM. I don’t think I could, or would want to, argue strongly from the evidence there. Perhaps you could have a go at deciding whether or not you could detect a change in the USA.

      Incidentally the ‘proposition’ you refer to is not mine. I do think that the AGW orthodoxy has so permeated government thinking in Western democracies that it is hard for any political leader to come out strongly and say, as Tony Abbott did when he was Leader of the Opposition, that the science behind AGW is crap (I may not have the words exactly right). He did not say that after he became PM. I wrote about this dilemma in an earlier essay. After all, every government is signing the empty Paris agreement…

      • Ross says:

        Well Tony Abbott said lots of smart things, didn’t he? Usually three words long. “AGW is crap.”
        Not exactly heading towards a mature conversation on climate change, was it Don.
        Why the acres of ‘perspective’ if this is what impresses you as an argument.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          It’s so easy to check. Why don’t you do it? Here is the original story:

          The Australian’s account of it includes the following:
          ‘According to many in the room, he [the editor] left no doubt that he [Tony Abbott] was a climate change sceptic. He ruminated there had been many changes of climate over the millennia not caused by man. Finally, he said the science behind climate change was “crap”, at which stage Wilson snapped awake.
          “I think I was nodding off down at the back of the room when all of a sudden he came out with the comment that the science around climate change was `absolute crap’ and I kind of jumped back awake and wrote down his quote,” Wilson says.
          In the fourth paragraph of Wilson’s article, he quoted Abbott as saying, “The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.”

          As I wrote earlier, The Australian’s account of it is a bit muddled.

      • David says:

        The quote attributed to Abbott is “absolute crap”.

        • margaret says:

          Give the man a singlet shirt and a microphone – karaoke king

          • David says:

            🙂

          • spangled drongo says:

            But what about that foolish gaff he made when Russians shot down flight MH17 killing all 298 on board including 38 Australians, saying he would “shirtfront” Putin.

            Australian academics soon put him in his place.

            The cheek of the man.

          • Ross says:

            And what happened when Putin actually walked in to the same room as the tough talking Tony? All front, no shirt.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You mean after the “support” from the academics and the media who had been ridiculing the idea for weeks beforehand?

            And the thought that our multi-cultis could ever become part of “Team Australia”?

            What a stupid concept and boorish suggestion.

            Anything Abbott tried to do to get Australians on the same page was constantly mocked by these people.

      • Ross says:

        You probably should look into the NASA angle Don. You said it was simply a propaganda arm of the Obama Administration. If it turns out that it held the same position on Global Warming during Bush’s term in office, well….

        • Don Aitkin says:

          For readers with some reasoning power. What you see above in Ross’s comment is a nice example of what is called ‘bait and switch’.

          Ross: ‘You said it was simply an arm of the Obama Administration.’

          What did Don actually say?

          Don: ‘The particular essay I have linked to is not a scientific paper but a political statement, and one that is in accord with the position of the Obama Administration.’

          Ross likes doing this. What Ross has Don appear to say is not at all what Don actually said. Attention to detail is not one of Ross’s strengths, as we’ve seen many times before. But it does allow Ross to wander off on a track that he is happy with. The bait is the apparent quotation. the switch is the new direction.

          Conclusion: Ross is not reliable. Always check what he says carefully.

        • JimboR says:

          So Don what was your intent when you included the phrase “and one that is in accord with the position of the Obama Administration” in that sentence? Were you implying the Obama Administration gets their position from NASA, or that NASA gets their position from the Obama Administration, or perhaps you were just noting the happy coincidence that both NASA and the Obama Administration landed at the same position on this one?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Go back and read the essay.

          • JimboR says:

            Isn’t one of the great advantages of a forum like this (as compared with a novel) that we can seek clarification from the author?

          • David says:

            Guess who submitted this comment to the Garnaut Climate Change Inquiry

            “This question is essentially about measurement, ‘Average global temperature’ is a construct, not a real observation, and there is considerable uncertainty about the reliability and validity of the construct. In any case, the IPCC’s estimate of global warming in the 20th century is 0.60 C ± 0.20 C, which is unlikely to be greater than the error surrounding the measurements. It is not a large increase”

            Been conflating error and bias, for years it would seem. I wonder what Garnaut made of this submission.?

            http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0843363GeneralSubmission2-ProfessorDonAitkin/$File/D08%2043363%20General%20Submission%202%20-%20Professor%20Don%20Aitkin.pdf

          • Ross says:

            My point exactly JimboR. Your implication was quite clear, Don. You were smearing both NASA and Obama, by association. Clean it up, or give it up.
            Big shout out to my new bestie, Gnome. Respect!

          • JimboR says:

            David: “I wonder what Garnaut made of this submission.?”

            I suspect he filed it appropriately. I think Garnaut is smart enough to get his climate science from the Atmospheric Science Department, and his economics from his own department. If he wanted to know about the politics of climate change, I’m sure Don would be the go-to guy.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Since such organisations are firmly locked onto the public teat, why would you expect a change? The general public has never heard of the Australian Academy of Science, and would not care about it if it had. Its opinions are read by a miniscule fraction of the population, and ignored by government, which is probably prepared to put up with it because it would cause too much trouble in Canberra (where many of its Fellows reside) to abolish its funding completely.

    • Ross says:

      NH. Thank you.

    • David says:

      Hallelujah! A ray of sanity.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, NH. It’s called helicopter money.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    There is now a 2016 revision of the AAS booklet on climate change. A quick scan suggests that its tone is a little more cautious still, though the ‘near-unanimous’ agreement among scientists is still there, and the notion that human activities have caused most of the warming. It does accept that there was a hiatus, and it does refer to natural variability…

  • Neville says:

    Why all the science academies support the CAGW alarmism is a mystery. I still think the Great global warming swindle was the best of the videos that came out about the same time as Gore’s AIT. It was a much more sane approach and was more comprehensive than Gore’s big budget and error filled academy award nonsense.
    As they looked at the issues about climate change they used real scientists who explained their arguments properly and always detailed real climate history to back up their comments. This is the best use of an hour to get a grip on reality that I’ve seen on the subject.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Doom is certainly upon us. “For the 2003-2011 period, Greenland net annual ice loss was 234 cubic km of water. That’s enough to lift global sea levels by an average of 0.65 mm”. So in 80 years, when we’ll all be dead, the sea level will be exactly 6.5 cm higher than today. I’m speechless – paralysed with fear.

      • David says:

        That’s right Bryan, its all about you.

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          While not wishing to offend your delicate sensibilities, David, I suggest you read my comment above. You and Ross between you have contributed nearly a hundred pointless comments, most of which we have seen again and again in previous threads.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Like this guy, you’ve been studying the problem too hard, dave, and it’s affecting you.

    http://www.albanydailystar.com/science/science-guy-has-an-idea-for-isis-threat-fayetteville-tech-time-12573.html

  • spangled drongo says:

    What a brilliant article, davie!!

    “Warm air sweeping in from the south-west of Greenland had prompted more than 12 per cent of the ice sheet to register melting.”

    I better take a look outside because if the total melt will give us 7 metres as the article claims then with 12% melted SLs have just gone up by nearly a metre this year alone.

    Whoops!

    Don to davie, “QED, I rest my case.”

  • Neville says:

    Ken Stewart’s latest UAH March update still shows a pause in all the regions except the Nth extra tropics.

    Her are the Globe and regions.

    Globe a pause for 18 yrs 10 months, over half the record.
    NH a pause for 18 yrs 4 months.
    SH a pause for 20 years 9mths, over half the record.
    Tropics a pause for 21 yrs 6 mths , well over half the record.
    Trop oceans a puse for 22 yrs 4 mths ‘ as above.
    Nth ex tropics no pause, but trend of just 0.13 C per century, so no Stat significant warming at all.
    Sth ex tropics a pause for 20 yrs 7 mths. Over half record.
    Nth polar a pause for 14 yrs 1 month.
    S polar a pause or slight cooling since Dec 1978.
    USA a pause for 18 yrs 10 months.
    OZ a pause for 21 yrs 1 mth , over half the record.

    Of course there is a longer lag with Sat temps, so the pause could disappear in the coming months. But if a la nina returns later this year the pause may come back after that date.
    So far not much to show in all the globe’s regions since 1997.
    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-pause-update-march-2016-complete/

  • Neville says:

    It’s interesting to look at the 2006 Chylek et al study of Greenland temps for the two periods 1920 to 1930 and 1995 to 2005. In fact the rate of warming in the 1920s was 50% higher than 1995 to 2005. Once again zero impact from human emissions after 1950. And don’t forget that Greenland cooled from 1945 to the early 1990s.
    This really stuffs up the co2 driving myth since 1950 once again. The data is a real bummer for the extremists I know, but there it is. Here’s the abstract of the study and the link.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026510/full

    Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
    Authors

    Petr Chylek,
    Close author notes
    E-mail address: chylek@lanl.gov
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
    Also at Dalhousie University, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
    Search for more papers by this author
    M. K. Dubey,
    Close author notes
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
    G. Lesins
    Close author notes
    Dalhousie University, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author

    First published: 13 June 2006Full publication history
    DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026510View/save citation
    Cited by: 24 articlesRefresh citation countCiting literature
    Article has an altmetric score of 10

    Abstract

    [1] We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.

    • Neville says:

      Don I’m in moderation again.

      • Neville says:

        I’ll try again.

        It’s interesting to look at the 2006 Chylek et al study of Greenland temps for the two periods 1920 to 1930 and 1995 to 2005. In fact the rate of warming in the 1920s was 50% higher than 1995 to 2005. Once again zero impact from human emissions after 1950. And don’t forget that Greenland cooled from 1945 to the early 1990s.
        This really stuffs up the co2 driving myth since 1950 once again. The data is a real bummer for the extremists I know, but there it is. Here’s the abstract of the study and the link.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026510/full

        Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
        Authors

        Petr Chylek,

        Article has an altmetric score of 10

        Abstract

        [1] We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Neville,

        I’ve mentioned before that WordPress, which provides the platform for this website, seems to have a rule that a commenter can only provide one link. If he or she provides two then the post goes into moderation until the moderator has a chance to see it. I’ve been out at a concert. Hence the delay.

        I take it that the rule is there to stop spammers flooding a site with links.

        If you do put in two or more links you’ll have to wait until I see your comment in moderation, which can take some time. I have no difficulty with what you are doing, but I can’t bypass the rule. It seems to be hardwired.

    • David says:

      NASA Headquarters
      300 E Street SW
      Washington DC 20024-3210
      The United States of America

      • Neville says:

        Davy boy has no response , but resorts to his usual infantile nonsense. You’ll note that my linked study is PR and includes the temp data for Greenland over the last 100+ years. I” stick to the data and you can embrace your silly religious dogma.

        • gnome says:

          I think David might be a little higher on the autism scale than his parents’ tests indicated, and Ross is clearly just a drivelling idiot. If you stopped engaging with their unreasoned comments (which is essentially all their comments) they would either try a little harder to inject some intellectual force, or they would just go away.

          It’s funny isn’t it, how they deny they have the intellectual capacity to dissent from the orthodoxy, but claim superiority over those who do.

          • David says:

            Come on Gnome, Ross and I have only ever wished the you become the best that you can be.

          • Ross says:

            Agreed. Every one of your contributions is a highlight, Gnome. Each one a little better than the last. Keep applying yourself.

          • margaret says:

            High five! … and giggle! … cause that’s what gals do.

          • gnome says:

            Careful Margaret- it used to be said (and is well proven) that two half-wits don’t make a wit. A little extension won’t be all that hard.

  • Neville says:

    The Vinther et al study also proves that the co2 driver theory since 1950 doesn’t seem to work for the longest instrumental record from Greenland. Here’s a part of Prof Michael’s summary of the study. BTW Phil Jones was a member of this study team. FIG 1 is very interesting at the link.
    Here’s the link. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/#more-188

    “Problematic from a climate change standpoint is the fact that the two distinct cold periods that made the 1810s the coldest decade followed an 1809 “unidentified” volcanic eruption and the eruption of Tambora in 1815 – unusual geologic events that defined the climate. However, of greater importance is the fact that the researchers found the warmest year on record to be 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades on record. This represents very bad news for climate change alarmists, since the warmest period was NOT the last quarter of the 20th century. In fact, the last two decades of the 20th century (1981-1990 and 1991-2000) were colder across the study area than any of the previous six decades, dating back to the 1900s and 1910s (Table 1). When examining the instrumental records of the stations it is apparent that no net warming has occurred since the warm period of the 1930s and 1940s.”

  • Neville says:

    Sorry above should read Table 1 not fig 1.

  • Neville says:

    This 2013 Axford et al Greenland Holocene study looks at Temp and co2 correlation over thousands of years. At times temp and co2 move in opposite directions , as if to further confuse the Co2 driver theory. Here’s the Co2 Science summary of the study and the link. There are graphs at the link as well. Needless to say the earlier Holocene Greenland temps were much higher than today.
    http://co2science.org/printer1.3/print.php

    Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature
    Volume 16, Number 20: 15 May 2013
    In a revealing study published in Quaternary Science Reviews, Axford et al. (2013) describe how they examined sedimentary records from five lakes (North, Fishtote, Loon, Iceboom and Pluto) near Jakobshavn Isbrae in central West Greenland, in order to investigate the timing and magnitude of major Holocene climate changes, with their primary objective being “to constrain the timing and magnitude of maximum warmth during the early to middle Holocene positive anomaly in summer insolation,” which they did by analyzing various properties of sediment cores they extracted from the lakes in the summers of 2008 and 2009.

    So what did they find? “Based upon chironomid assemblages at North Lake, and supported by records of organic sedimentation in all five study lakes,” in the words of the six scientists, “we infer warmer-than-present temperatures by at least 7.1 ka [thousands of years before present] and Holocene maximum warmth between 6 and 4 ka,” when they indicate that “the local ice sheet margin was at its most retracted Holocene position” and “summer temperatures were 2-3°C warmer than present during that time of minimum ice sheet extent.”

    A graphical representation of this temperature history is presented in the figure below, along with the concomitant history of earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    [image:]
    Figure 1. Reconstructed July air temperature anomalies in the vicinity of North Lake, inferred from chironomid data using three different calibration formulas (1. Weighted-averaging, orange line with triangle data points, 2. Weighted-averaging with tolerance downweighting, red line with triangle data points, 3. Weighted-averaging partial-least-squares, black line with circle data points), plus the mean of the three sets of results (green line, square data points), as adapted from Axford et al. (2013). Also shown is the concomitant history of earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration, as obtained from atmospheric measurements carried out at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Boden et al., 1994), together with ice core data obtained at Law Dome (Etheridge et al., 1998) and Vostock (Keeling and Whorf, 1998), Antarctica.

    As can be seen from the figure above, there is absolutely no rational relationship between the Holocene temperature history derived by Axford et al. and the air’s CO2 content. Over the first 1800 years of the record, for example, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rose by a sluggardly 10 ppm, Holocene temperatures rose, in the mean, by about 2.3°C. Then, over the following 2,400 years, when the air’s CO2 content rose by about 20 ppm, mean summer air temperatures dropped by approximately 2.6°C. And over the next 1900 years, when the air’s CO2 content rose by some 10 to 15 ppm, mean air temperature changed not at all. But over the final 300 or so years, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by a whopping 125 ppm, summer air temperatures first declined by about 1.9°C and then rose by about 1.9°C, for essentially no net change. Clearly, the CO2 concentration of earth’s atmosphere would appear to have had no consistent impact on July air temperatures in the vicinity of North Lake, Greenland, over the past seven millennia.

    Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

    References
    Axford, Y., Losee, S., Briner, J.P., Francis, D.R., Langdon, P.G. and Walker, I.R. 2013. Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments. Quaternary Science Reviews 59: 87-100.

    Boden, T.A., Kaiser, D.P., Sepanski, R.J. and Stoss, F.W. (Eds.). 1994. Trends ’93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

    Etheridge, D.M., Steele, L.P., Langenfelds, R.L, Francey, R.J., Barnola, J.-M. and Morgan, V.I. 1998. Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

    Keeling, C.D. and Whorf, T.P. 1998. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations — Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958-1997 (revised August 1998). NDP-001. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    customize the footer from the template

    • Ross says:

      Really good stuff, as always, Neville.
      Just one question.
      Would you describe yourself as a ‘luke warmist’, like Don, and Dasher?
      Or do you have a different title?
      Myself? Alter boy to the Glorious Church of World Climate Science and Latter Day Saints.
      You see! You See! It IS a religion. You were right!!

      • Neville says:

        Ross , every sceptic expert I know believes in some AGW. This includes Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Carter, Michaels, Singer, Watts, McKitrick, Clark etc , so I think there must be some warming from our increase of co2. But I don’t see any evidence for CAGW and as I’ve shown there has been incredible prosperity and longevity for humans over the last few generations.
        Certainly in wealthy OECD countries there is now the problem of obesity to deal with and I’m afraid this will take a while to solve. Life is very easy today for the average first worlder.
        And our planet is greening and polar bear numbers are up 4 to 5 fold since 1950 , so what’s not to like?

        • Ross says:

          Fair reply, Neville. I’ll be good now.

        • margaret says:

          Very rational comment from someone who probably like any of us in the western world over the age of say, 50 and under the age of 80, have had the very best lives of any generation – excepting the Vietnam vets.

          • margaret says:

            I don’t mean that the Vietnam vets had the best lives! It reads back like that. Also within our first world continent are indigenous people who continue to live third world lives while we have the opportunity to buy more and more capitalistic treats. Why have one house when you can have two or three. Did our parents and grandparents think like that? (Here I speak as someone who has in the past owned more than one property – it was the ‘smart’ thing to do). Also I don’t have a problem with young people trying to get ahead that way but I do have a problem when people have a portfolio of investment property and then say they’re helping society by increasing rental availability.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    You were really an alter boy?

  • Neville says:

    Could we be seeing the start of a cool phase AMO ? This post via the GWPF looks at the latest data and maps, graphs etc. When the shift to warm phase happened about 1995 sea ice started to drop in the Artic and temps increased. Prof Judith Curry is an expert in this field and she expects the start of a cool phase AMO to begin by about 2020.
    The last cool phase AMO lasted from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s and so far this warm phase has lasted about 21 years. But there does seem to be signs of a shift to cool again but who knows?
    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
    http://www.thegwpf.com/atlantic-ocean-showing-signs-of-a-significant-shift-to-cold-phase/

  • BB says:

    There were 160 comments of those 25 were by David and 37 by Ross. David was referred to in 12 other comments and Ross referred to in 33 comments. This all means that 67% of the comments were either made by Ross and David or referred to them. That leaves 33% that was a reasonable on topic mature comment. That is 53 comments were worth something.

    Don’t feed them what they want to do is to harass, insult and quite often just regurgitate and supply some nonsensical link.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps we should be using only the daily high temps to check for AGW? Min temps seem to show most of the warming. Christy et al 2016 have found that Alabama high max temps have been falling since 1883. The min temps at night seem to be suffering from the higher UHI effect.
    Another graph of Las Vegas also shows no T max warming since the 1930s, yet more warming for T min. Of course data analyst Tony Heller has been rabbiting on about this for years. I wish I had the skills and brains to understand this better, but surely this can be checked without much trouble.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/29/tracking-climate-change-use-the-daily-highs/

  • Neville says:

    I asked Ken Stewart for his comment on Christy’s latest study. Here’s his reply.

    kenskingdom Says:

    May 1, 2016 at 10:28 am | Reply

    Tmin and Tmax are fine for local weather, I still think for climate trends atmospheric temperature is best. See my posts last October-November on the difference between surface Tmax and UAH lower troposhere. https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/why-are-surface-and-satellite-temperatures-different/
    There will always be differences between surface and TLT at regional level. For Australia, you cannot trust BOM’s Acorn Tmax to give an accurate long term trend. I found summer Tmax trend in Acorn to be 200% greater than in AWAP (supposedly ‘raw’ data). See

    • spangled drongo says:

      This article makes the precise point of Don’s post like no other.

      Did you notice, Margaret, that not once did either of these two sci orgs mention that these data were recorded during the little ice age, the longest cold period recorded in the history of civilisation.

      When the globe has warmed less than 1c since then, in spite of the LIA ending and the IR beginning, how much of that warming would be due to average natural climate variability and how much to both ACO2 and mankind’s non ACO2 influence?

      How could anyone not subscribe to the [very] lukewarm theory of ACO2?

      • David says:

        Spang, if they trained as a Climate Scientist, would be my guess.

        • spangled drongo says:

          You’d be right there, davie.

          Every “trained” “Climate Scientist” I’ve ever read is nothing short of a red hot catastrophist.

    • Neville says:

      Margaret the Thames used to freeze over at times during the LIA as well. That was the coldest sustained period during our Holocene, so it’s little wonder that it was colder than today. But our Holocene is much cooler than the previous Eemian interglacial and as I’ve shown above Co2 levels and temp moved in opposite directions during earlier warming and cooling.
      The Calvo , Antarctic and Greenland ice core studies show that we are still cooler today than the earlier Holocene, so I don’t understand your point. Also SLs along our OZ east coast were at least 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago at the end of the Holocene climate optimum.

      • margaret says:

        My point is that it’s a very interesting article.

      • Ross says:

        Fascinating post Margaret. Interesting observations on how the ice lake freezes have lessened dramatically since the industrial revolution. But I bet you weren’t expecting Spangles and Neville to leap into hyperdrive. Excitable, aren’t they?
        Love the woodblock ‘view of Mount Fuji’. Always takes my breath away. Beautiful art.

        • David says:

          Ritalin can be good for that.

        • margaret says:

          High five

        • spangled drongo says:

          So, rossie, you don’t think anyone who calls themselves a scientist is obliged to point out what is a very obvious oversight?

          And could you also give us your thoughts on why the earth may have warmed 0.8c after coming out of the LIA [the coldest period of civilisation]and going into the Industrial Revolution wherein most of the official thermometers were housed in ever increasing cities, industrial areas, airports etc. Hint: even in newly occupied centres in frozen climates the thermometers were kept beside unnaturally warm areas simply to make it possible to read them.

          How would you suggest we divide up that 0.8c of measured warming between Natural Climate Variability, Non ACO2 Man Made Warming and Man Made CO2 Warming?

          Seeing as knowledgeable warmists like you are so concerned about this 0.8c these are pretty simple questions.

          The last one you only need to give to the nearest one decimal place.

      • David says:

        Nev, you know the drill

        Attn: Receiving & Inspection
        NASA Headquarters
        300 E Street SW
        Washington DC 20024-3210

        • Bryan Roberts says:

          Yawn. You really are an idiot.

          • gnome says:

            Obsessive compulsive disorder or autism, not necessarily simple stupidity. David sometimes demonstrates an awareness of what it is he/she is responding to. Ross, OTOH, can read something and make it mean something no-one else possibly could. His/her misquotations are evidence of a misdirection in the mental process. He/she may or not drool, but certainly drivels.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            I don’t mind idiocy so much, but you’re also a bore.

          • gnome says:

            Ridiculing the ridiculous is one of life’s harmless little pleasures.

  • […] In fact, the notion that we already have the capacity to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind power is fanciful and wrong-headed, for all sorts of quite simple reasons (#9), and in time I expect these policies to be wound back, as is already happening overseas. The process will not happen quickly unless there is a sudden and ‘alarming’ cooling period. Politicians have convinced themselves that ’97 per cent of climate scientists’ think that humans are responsible for dangerous global warming, which is quite wrong (#10), and scientific organisations, which see the AGW as a main source of funding for science of all kinds, keep on advising governments that ‘climate change’ is a central issue (#11). […]

Leave a Reply