Thinking about things
When I was an undergraduate I was not excitedly exploring the life of the mind. Far from it. I was studying in order to become a high-school teacher, like my parents. I was doing the subjects that would equip me in time to become a subject master, and I did whatever my teachers required me to do. It was not until my honours year (and I was lucky to get into it) that I began seriously to ask questions about life, nature and the rest. My History teachers had equipped me for such work: I was always to go to the original source, and question it. How valid are you, the source, anyway? Who says so, and how do they know, and so on? Before long I was a doctoral student, and these approaches were part-and-parcel of my intellectual life. I was creating new data, to some degree, and my work had to be as good as I could make it. Postdoctoral work, especially in the USA, intensified that priority. ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ I first heard in 1965, in Ann Arbor. Thereafter that was the way I tried to approach all issues in thought.
Perhaps that style of work brought me to the attention of elders and betters in other areas. By the time I was forty I was being asked to do things for which I had little prior experience, and each new task filled out my knowledge base, and seemed to intensify my way of doing things. In the middle 1980s I was a member of the Australian Science and Technology Council, the Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee, the Chairman of the Board of the ANU’s Institute for Advanced Studies, and involved in a number of other activities that spun off, as it were, from these responsibilities. All of them led me into new fields of inquiry, and that was exciting, because I kept on learning.
The point of the work was advice, to the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Vice-Chancellor. I soon learned that whatever I was doing, and whatever the advice we were putting forward, these were only one or two of the sources of work and advice coming to the boss. That led to another discovery — our country and our university seemed to run on committees. I was always on several, it seemed, and their advice merged into other sources of advice and ultimately to a decision, or sometimes a decision not to make a decision. One of my Ministers once said that to me, more or less as a piece of friendly advice: ‘Don’t make a decision you don’t have to make,’ and its brother, which was not to make a decision today if you could leave it till tomorrow. Who knew what might happen in the next twenty-four hours?
And all the above now merges into a short thought-piece about ‘climate change’, among other things about the ways in which organisations, especially scientific ones, have felt the need to have a position on it. The number that do so grew from none to a lot once governments started pumping money into the issue of how to deal with the twin scares of increasing global gas emissions and the change to climate thought to be resulting from the increase (always a negative effect, in this case). I know of no case where the entire fellowship of any learned body was asked to express its view. If there is one case, then someone will tell me. Very often, as in the case of the Australian Academy, a small panel was asked to write the position paper, and the panel seemed to consist only of those of the alarmist persuasion, or, if that is too strong (because there was one sceptic, if I recall it properly, who had a lot of trouble with the procedure), not to be balanced by the inclusion of an appropriate number of well-known sceptics. ‘We’ll look bad if don’t follow their [the Academy’s] example!’ was a cry voiced in another Australian scientific body, according to one of its sceptical fellows, who told me what had happened in his outfit.
Well, the Geological Society of London is having a turn about all this. A year ago, 33 Fellows of the Royal Society wrote in protest to their President about the tone of the Royal’s comments on ‘climate change’, which they saw as lacking in rigour. That protest was followed by a comparable number of Fellows of the GSL agreeing to write to their own President in similar vein. Why it has taken so long to reach agreement among the dissentients I do not know, and what follows comes from some email exchange that I have been able to read. To begin, one critical Fellow quotes two small parts of the official position, as follows:
‘the only plausible explanation for the rate and extent of temperature increase since 1900 is the exponential rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution’ and ‘this temperature decline sharply reversed since about 1900 without any corresponding change in insolation. The scientific community can find no plausible explanation for the rate and extent of this reversal in the second half of the 20thcentury, other than the increasing rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases that began slowly with the Industrial Revolution.’
The repeated phrase ‘no plausible explanation’, he says, is absolute rubbish. Because ‘no plausible explanation’ has been voiced again and again by alarmists (on this website, as well), I was interested in his rebuttal. (I’ve done a little textual editing, above and below.)
‘There are numerous potential reasons explaining the rise at the end of the 20th century:
1. Solar
2. The Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation
3. The reduction in cooling pollutants like SO2
4. False instrumentation warming
5. Blatant fraud (as shown by NASA’s changing of the 1970s cooling into what is now alleged to be warming).
Indeed, if we look at the best proxy for long-term climate-change — the Central England Temperature record — we see that the end of the 20th century is very far from unusual with several periods of similar scale change, and the 1690-1730 change being far, far bigger in scale. So, we KNOW that natural variation is more than enough to explain the temperature variation seen in the 20th century.
There is no problem finding very plausible alternatives to CO2 to explain the 20th century record. The problem is that they [the alarmists] just point blank deny them.’
There was a lot more than this, and perhaps the scathing tone of the text might help explain why it has taken a year to get the dissentients to this point. But I share some of the feeling in the letter. That at the moment there is not, according to someone, a plausible counter hypothesis to the CO2 as the villain (if villainy indeed is what we are talking about), does not mean that we are forced to accept that it is the villain, especially when there are so many weaknesses in the CO2 hypothesis.
Indeed, though it is easy enough to find examples of his ‘potential reasons’, that is not really the writer’s job. Those who say that there is no plausible explanations other than CO2 need to show that they have explored these alternatives thoroughly, and when they do they come up with a blank each time. Take solar, for example. The normal account from the IPCC and its supporters is that the change in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance, a measure of solar power over all wavelengths) is too small to have had any effect, and this is by and large correct, according to the data. But there are other possible forces, and they are referred to in peer-reviewed publications (see here for example). There is solar wind, cosmic ray ionisation (cloud formation), UV ozone, and others. These factors need the same kind of attention and funding that CO2 and methane have received before one can say that they are of no consequence.
This sort of cop-out is one of the fundamental weaknesses in the IPCC position, which starts with a finding and does its best to support that finding, rather than look at the importance of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of the natural variation in our weather and climate. It’s not the way I was brought up to think.
Oh well, another day, another vexing issue…
Don, the IPCC hasn’t copped out, it is winning the war because this has nothing to do with “Science”. This is POLITICS! This deception has been on the UN/IPCC agenda for years, exercised with misdirected money, the threat of job losses, and whatever else it takes. Thank god for the likes of Peter Ridd. And let’s not forget Bob Carter and Bill Leak (spelling?). This is the progressive politics of the Socialist Left. Just this very morning some spokesman from the CSIRO said that “by 2050 Australia will be 100% renewables and over the next decades we will see the shifts of that transition. WE KNOW THAT!” Those last three words are the dead-set give-away of a phoney scientist. A dud. This once-great institution has completely lost its way. What a crying shame. Whatever drives this at the institutional level only ever succeeds with support at the personal level, and I don’t know what drives that — money, arrogance?? Who knows.
Aert,
Wow you have a lot of accusations in there. Do you have anything to back up any of them? Seems like more of the classic reds under the beds stuff. The funny thing is that it was ultra conservatives, Reagan, Bush (the elder), Thatcher etc that were first to take up the global warming issue politically. Then something happened, the truly dark forces of corporate money got involved in deceptions aimed at delaying action. And those forces have been very successful. There has been a complete flipping of the conservative position, pure politics.
Meantime all those other factors, solar insolation etc have all been and are being researched. The bulk of money for research is not even concerned with CO2 but with examining the fact and consequences of rapidly changing climate on the biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere etc. But like many issues I expect confirmation bias will be stronger than analysis, so there you go.
Stu, your second paragraph is full of assertions, but offers no links or other evidence. Yes, solar physicists are working on all aspects of the Sun’s effects on our planet, but their efforts (and there are not hundreds of these people) don’t seem to have been taken into account by the IPCC. And note that the IPCC is bound to look at ‘human-induced’ warming, because that is part of its riding instructions. So if it’s not about CO2 then the IPCC can ignore it, and does, at least in my judgment. There’ll be a new IPCC review (AR6) out soon, and that will enable me to see if there has been any change since AR5. My bet is that nothing will change.
The starting point to find reasons for the warming is to allocate 1/3 to each of the 3 main influences- solar, IR absorbing gases concentrations, ocean currents and other natural variability.
As far as CO2 is concerned let us go back to a source documents, John Tyndell’s (discoverer of IR absorbong properties of many gases) REDE lecture “On Radiation” to the Royal Society on Tuesday 16 May 1865. CO2 is “one of the feeblest absorber..) of what he called the calorific rays (at chapter14). By the strongest was water vapour (at chap.13).. He correctly explained this was the gas that warmed the Earth well above to what it would be without any atmospheric I R absorbtion.
Look at CO2’s absorption spectra – 1.9, 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron IR wavelengths ( visible spectrum is 0.4 to 0.7 microns). First 3 are well outside Earth’s radiation out to space which leaves the far lower energy radiation 15 microns to be absorbed. A black body radiator has to be at – (Yes minus) 80 C to have a peak radiation of 15 microns which equates a1.09 watts/stq mtr. Is that it? Is that cause of catastrophic climate change? To further reduce this pathetic warming – a black body emits a very broad rage of IR radiation whereas we are dealing with an absorption line with a +/- 1.5 microns range and 2/3 rds of that is absorbed by ….water vapour which has approx 10× atmospheric concentration than CO2’s paltry 0.04%.
It is clearer by the day with pauses , failed predictions, gravy train conferences and sacking of sceptics the above reasons 4 and 5 are predominantly the cause of the warming.
Great we are officially back talking about climate.
Regarding the letter of protest to the Geological Society there were many responses including.
“Dear Editor, The controversy surrounding global warming will remain until ALL the protagonists educate themselves with ALL the information about what it is and how it works. Therein lies a difficulty for geologists: much of the relevant literature comes from the worlds of atmospheric science, oceanography, and solar-terrestrial or planetary physics. So, it is not surprising that scientists outside the realm of climate science may be less well informed than they perhaps could be about the complexities of global warming. ”
A bit of a put down for some of the signatories of that letter. The debate goes on, but that was always the aim of the antagonists patrons, sow doubt where none exists, delay policy to keep the money train moving, divert attention to alternative factors etc, etc. It is all covered in “Climate cover-up: the crusade to deny global warming” by Hoggan and Littlemore. It should be compulsory reading for anyone in this space. Read it and you will see there has definitely been obfuscation going on among other tricks. You have all been conned, read this book and you will see how and why.
Stu, I don’t read the quoted remarks as a put-down at all. I take it that the double capitalisation of ALL emphatically applies to all who take part in discussions of climate change, and that the writer is saying not only that geologists need to know what is germane, but that physicists need to know what geology has to offer — and I would agree. I’ve spent fifteen years trying to get grips with the arguments from various parts of science, and there’s more that needs to be understood.
For what it’s worth, the great majority of the sceptics I know personally, and they would amount to about thirty (a few women, the majority men), are almost without exception retired scientists, engineers, astronomers, a couple of economists, and a mathematician or two. Not one of them fits the description you set out (‘sow doubt where none exists…’). Some have had particular papers rejected by the journals they were once welcomed to, because the tone was not in accordance with the orthodoxy. All of them had distinguished careers in the CSIRO, universities and so on.
I do not know the book your refer readers to, and have little chance of getting to read it. The title does not attract me.
Here’s why their so called CAGW is fra-dulent nonsense.
1. The HAD Crut 4 data was changed after Jones’s BBC interview in 2010 and the two earlier warming trends were adjusted down and the two later trends were adjusted up. Had Crut is used by the IPCC.
Up to the 2010 interview there was no statistically significant difference in the four warming trends since 1860.
2. Tide gauge SLR is now 1 to 1.5mm a year or the same as the 20th century. See Ole Humlum’s latest state of the climate report.
3. The longest instrumental data for Greenland shows little difference in warming rates for over 100 years. The last two decades
of that Vinther study shows less warming than earlier 20 th century warming trends and that agrees with other studies of Greenland temps.
In fact the decade 1990 to 2000 compares well with some of the 19th century comparisons. Jones and Briffa were part of that study.
4. There has been no warming in Antarctica for the last 40 years and the Ant peninsula has been cooling since 1998.
5. Deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by 95% since 1920, while there has been at least a four fold increase in population. This is a remarkable statistic and proves that these events are not as deadly as they once were.
The IPCC report supports this data in reference to extreme events over time.
6. People have much higher life expectancy today and the world average is about 72 years of age. IOW people are much wealthier and healthier today.
7. Polar bear numbers are booming today and so are the once scarce hump back whales.
8. Most island countries are growing in size and this has been shown by a number of recent PR studies. See Kench, Duvat etc.
But even Dr Hansen understands that Paris COP 21 is just BS and fra-d and he also tells us that S&W are just fairy tales. I’ll leave it there for now, but this has to be the greatest con and fra-d in history and we should leave Paris COP 21 and start building new baseload, reliable coal power stations to further our future requirements.
Regarding the IPCC which seems to cop a lot of flak here, including accusations of being part of a left leaning clique with a hidden agenda, I offer the following words from an interesting publication.
“”As the Nobel committee noted when it gave the IPCC (along with former U.S. vice president Al Gore) the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, the panel is one of the most impressive collaborations in global scientific history—basically a blue-ribbon review panel comprising the very best talent from every corner of the world. At intervals of three to four years these scientists, almost all of whom are currently engaged in leading-edge climate research, pull together the most reliable peer-reviewed scientific information and, in separate working groups dealing with different aspects of the issue, hammer out reports that are written to the most exacting standards. These reports are then condensed into a Summary for Policymakers, which is subject to a review by participating governments as well as by participating scientists. The latter process is largely to be blamed for opening the IPCC up to legitimate accusations of political interference. The consensus format tends to give the greatest influence to the most resistant parties. If there is the tiniest grain of doubt in any specific piece of science, it is likely to be dismissed, either in the last scientific review or in the first political one. When you consider that among the reviewers you have the governments of oil-producing giants such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina, you can imagine a degree of foot-dragging. Add to that the fears of India and China that they will be prohibited from lifting their nations out of poverty, and, perhaps worse, the intractability over the past eight years of the Bush administration, and you have a review process that was indeed highly politicized and that strained the scientists’ ability to put a sensible and accurate document before the people of the world. In that light, it is—what’s that phrase again?—Orwellian in the extreme to suggest that the IPCC was biased toward overstating the risks of selling and burning oil, coal, and natural gas.”
Any comments?
Some good ones by Ross McKitrick in his paper; IPCC: “Fix It or Fold It”:
“Things began to change in 2009 with the leak of the Climategate emails, which prompted some observers to begin questioning their assumptions about the IPCC. Then this fall, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise released her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, a superb exposé of the IPCC that shows convincingly that the IPCC has evolved into an activist organization bearing little resemblance to the picture of scientific probity painted by its promoters and activist allies.”
SD here is Topher Field’s interview with Donna La Framboise in relation to her “Delinquent Teenager”book. She exposes some of the activists involved in parts of the IPCC reports and also quotes the Pauchauri clown before he was forced to step down following charges of sexual misconduct from a number of young women.
The IPCC is a political organization and Donna was the first investigative journalist to actually check the sources for all of their claims. Of course she was helped by many volunteers from around the world. We owe her a great debt.
Global warming, a review in Five Fits.
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/special-edition-global-warming/
I enjoyed your website, Beth! Thanks for the link.
Ditto, Don. beththelurker. )
Ah yes you have to wonder about an economists view on the subject when his position may be influenced more by religious faith in creation, than science. McKitrick signed on to the Cornwall Alliances “Evangelical Declaration on Global warming”. A facet of the climate debate we have not ventured into before, but appears to be lurking in the background. Here is the first paragraph of that declaration, “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.” In other words “no worries, she will be right mate”. I am not knocking his faith merely pointing to the not very scientific statements of his fellow travellers. And also how an unemployed journalist (Laframboise), with no science background came to be participating in a UK House of Commons committee hearing on IPCC 5. Must have been the book. And it is not ad hominem to question the credentials of a witness.
Perhaps there is a clue in the comment by one of the committee members, John Robertson: “With the best will in the world, you are one person and a lot of other people would disagree with you and you have had your chance to sell your book.” It is worth reading the transcript. Even Lindzen backed off under questioning.
Laframboise’s role there was very minimal, Lindzen had a much bigger impact. Her story about the delinquent and the whole East Anglia thing was proven by several inquiries to be a non story.
Have you noticed that the most noise comes from the fringe and non-specialists who travel the world on speaking engagements, never publish peer reviewed work on the subject or contribute positively to the debate. (Ball, Monckton etc). Compare them to the thousands of scientists working at the coal face (pun intended) who are too busy to engage in polemics. They leave that to us amateurs to engage the opposing forces. Science is hard work and time consuming.
Occasionally some, like Hansen, are dragged before committees etc to give evidence. But as in the recent past usually as the only genuine researcher among a gallery of opposing views. Such was the US system under James Inhofe. The numbers were never balanced and neither were the views. The Uk mob above seemed more even handed.
Another dead give away as to the origins of the thinking behind the Cornwall story is this statement “They could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life.“. That is right out of the US fossil fuel play book. Another example of bait and switch. If you don’t believe me please go and read “Climate cover-up” referred to earlier.
And stu gets out his gun and starts shooting people instead of the sci message.
But he denies that is ad hom.
Can you bear it?
Lots of ‘may be,’ ‘appear to be,’ ad hom innuendo from Stu but no actual evidence of AGW warming feedback processes. Re that IPCC politicised review process, Lead Authors give the Final Review and its their word -no need to include any significant review issues identified by others in the review process. Or actions to discredit contrarian arguments. https://climateaudit.org/2012/02/02/ipcc-rejects-anonymous-review/
In the above Climate Audit link: Posted Feb 3, 2012 at 11:38 AM | Permalink by Steve McIntyre.
‘Warrilow turned up in a number of emails in the campaign against Soon and Baliunas. They prepared questions to be asked of Soon at a briefing conference in Washington. Later, on the eve of the Senate committee hearing featuring Mann on the one hand and Soon on the other (see 1595), Hans Verolme of FCO wrote to Simon Brown of the Met Office and Mike Hulme of CRU, copies to Warrilow, Geoff Jenkins, Peter Stott, Cathy Johnson of DEFRA and Maria Noguer of DEFRA) telling them that an article by Brown and/or Hulme “debunking” Soon and Baliunas, “stripped of its [UK] origins”, had been provided to “sympathetic Senate staff”:
But don’t despair, your recent debunking of the Soon and Baliunas paper for the Marshall Institute has found its way to sympathetic Senate staff, stripped of its origins. Senators Jeffords and Clinton will hold their feet to the fire.’
Stu
“Have you noticed that the most noise comes from the fringe and non-specialists who travel the world on speaking engagements”
Flannery, Gore, “Patchy the railway engineer”, Garnaut, et al also?
“a blue-ribbon review panel comprising the very best talent from every corner of the world”
Laframboise documents the very questionable nature of this statement.
Dear Stu,
You request comments on factually incorrect assertions about the IPCC which you have copied from some unnamed source. I am here responding to your request by citing, referencing, linking, quoting and explaining the IPCC’s purposes, practices and policies as they are defined by the IPCC in its own official documents.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.
The facts are as follows.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8? scandal
( http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_July11_96.pdf )
so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
“4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .”
This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
“ROLE
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. “
This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
1
amendment of each IPCC ‘scientific’ Report to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
2
by means of the politicians and representatives of politicians amending then approving the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)
3
followed by the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the approved SPM.
In other words, all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e. Lysenkoism.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Huh?
“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.”
“In other words, all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e. Lysenkoism.”
Wrong. These sort of dogmatic statements tend to disqualify you.
Chris, where exactly is Richard wrong? He is quoting from its official publications.
Don,
With respect, I think you have missed the point being made by Chris Warren who is providing you with a clear demonstration of how pseudoscience has become “settled science”.
Chris Warren is saying my statement of the facts “tends to disqualify” me because I provided them. I also provided incontrovertible evidence that the facts I stated are true, but that is not relevant in the world inhabited by AGW-promoters such as Chris Warren.
In the world of AGW-promoters, facts and evidence are “wrong” when they are provided by someone who is “disqualified” (i.e. someone categorised as being a “denier”). Only views from those who are not “disqualified” can be accepted as not being “wrong”. Hence, anything which is demonstrably true is “wrong” when its provider is “disqualified” and, therefore, the pseudoscience of AGW is “settled science” because it is not “wrong”; i.e. the pseudoscience of AGW is provided by people who are not categorised as “deniers”.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Your use of the word “incontovertible” is false. Your “facts” that IPCC only exist to justify political actions, does not summarise climate science, produces pseudoscience, or justifies political actions; i.e. Lysenkoism, are all false at every point.
They are dogma I often hear on SkyNews and sock-jock radio hacks in similar terms.
You do not know what pseudoscience is. The Australian Academy of Science, the CSIRO and the ANU all endorse the work of IPCC. They do not endorse pseudoscience.
Your statement; “In the world of AGW-promoters facts and evidence are wrong”. Is a deliberate and blatant falsification.
Your final statement; ” the pseudoscience of AGW is provided by people who are not categorised as “deniers”, is fake.
In fact, the so-called pseudoscience of AGW is provided by people who are deniers.
Your statement that I demonstrated how pseudoscience has become settled science, as a malicious falsification. At no time have I every demonstrated how pseudoscience has become anything.
Chris Warren,
I quoted the IPCC. You have responded with silly rants.
I will reply to further posts from you in the unlikely event that you make a point which is in any way relevant to the facts I have presented. Otherwise, I shall ignore any addition to the twaddle you use to waste space in this thread.
Richard
Don
Which official document says “…only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.”?
Which official document says “…all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e. Lysenkoism.”
These statements are exactly wrong.
If people want to use the authority of “official documents” they should provide a reference.
Don
Is there any IPCC document (not summary) that uses the word “political” ???? In what context?
Friends, for the record I write to refute a falsehood made by Chris Warren when he claimed,
“[I] do not know what pseudoscience is. The Australian Academy of Science, the CSIRO and the ANU all endorse the work of IPCC. They do not endorse pseudoscience.”
I do know what pseudoscience is and – contrary to the claims of Chris Warren – appeals to authority have no part in the matter.
Science and pseudoscience are opposites.
Science is a method that seeks the closest available approximation to ‘truth’ by searching for information that refutes existing understanding and amends or rejects the existing understanding in response to discovered information that refutes the existing understanding.
Pseudoscience is a method that adopts an existing understanding as being ‘truth’ and seeks anything (e.g. information, consensus, celebrity endorsement, etc.) which bolsters that existing information while creating excuses to reject or ignore anything that refutes the existing understanding.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
I think you just made up your own meaning of pseudo-science.
There is no evidence for this. What is the source? You can get the true meaning here:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=pseudo+science
You have produced a fake pseudo-definition of pseudoscience.
Chris Warren,
If you had taken the time to read the link you presented then you would have seen it agrees with the more complete definition of pseudoscience that I provided.
Please do not assume that other people are as ignorant and stupid as yourself: your assumption is offensive.
Richard
Dear Aert Driessen,
My comment that explains the IPCC’s purpose, practices and policies is in moderation. I write to state the IPCC’s purpose, practices and policies are NOT, as you assdert, “the progressive politics of the Socialist Left”.
If your assertion were true then
(a) left-wing socialists such as myself would not be opposing the IPCC and its promotion of the anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW) scare
and
(b) right-wing Margaret Thatcher would not have started the AGW scare and would not have founded the Hadley Centre which to this day remains the operating centre for the IPCC.
In reality the IPCC and its promotion of AGW is supported by people, governments and politicians with every political ideology. This support from adherents to every ideology exists because the AGW-scare is a bandwagon that they can all each use for their different purposes.
Richard
Chris Warren,
You say of me,
“If people want to use the authority of “official documents” they should provide a reference.”
I referenced quoted and linked to the official statement of the IPCC “Role”. And I explained the meaning of those words. It is not my fault if you cannot read what is spoonfed to you.
Richard
Chris Warren,
You desperate attempts at nit-picking are failing.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
What you falsely call nit-picking is actually rigorous truth telling.
“Compare them to the thousands of scientists working at the coal face”
It’s fascinating how stu, with his miles of comment, has still to come up with a single word of empirical evidence from any of his heroes.
As opposed to predictions, assumptions and IPCC GCMs.
When will you be able to do that, do you think, stu?
Just because your heroes wear sandwich boards, you don’t have to.
Isn’t your daily frost enough?
Chris Warren,
Surely, you jest! What “rigorous truth” have you told?
Richard
Here’s a claim by Craig Kelly MP that was fact checked by their ABC. Kelly was correct about much higher numbers of Aussies dying of cold temps compared to Swedes.
In fact about 75% more OZ deaths than Swedish deaths are caused by cold temps in winter. But Kelly also stated that this was due to the failure to heat badly insulated homes in OZ during winter months.
He is probably correct, but there must be other causes as well. A number of countries heatwave deaths compared to cold deaths are shown in this reasonable summary. But overall cold is the big killer.
There are some surprises when you compare countries from much colder areas compared to countries in warmer areas around the world.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/fact-check-australia-sweden-winter-fatalities-heating/8780588
Here’s another study by Adelaide Uni comparing cold deaths in SA compared to cold deaths in Sweden. Amazing results that show deaths are higher in SA and the typical person is dying indoors and are elderly widows and Swedish cold deaths are typically drunk middle aged men dying in snow drifts. Just chalk and cheese.
Interesting details in this study and supports Kelly’s claim in above link that SA homes are badly insulated and would be very expensive to heat during the winter,
But in much colder Sweden homes are better insulated and 100% windows are double- glazed. But only a few percent of windows in SA have D-G. But hyper-thermia is certainly a lousy way to die in otherwise wealthy Australia.
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news68322.html
Sorry above should be hypothermia grrrr.
SD, “And stu gets out his gun and starts shooting people instead of the sci message.”. So you agree with creation theory and that all is well with the world’s systems because god says so. Very scientific message, not.
Being a true believer yourself, even you understand that faith [climate or otherwise] is the last thing you’d shoot, stu.
You much prefer rational sceptics.
Particularly when their rational arguments are much more bullet proof.
Stu,
The religious beliefs of a scientist are not pertinent to any consideration of the scientific works of that scientist. For example, Isaac Newton believed the Biblical creation stories were literally true but that does NOT mean the contents of his ‘Principia’ should be rejected: Newton’s work in that document is the basis of all the engineering which enables our civilisation.
Richard
Stu
And don’t forget to mention per capita emissions, a favourite theme of Australian alarmists trying to suggest that we are big contributors to the zombie CAGW hypothesis.
As far as I know, the climate reacts to absolute quantities of CO2, not per capita amounts.
The per capita red herring is routinely used by alarmists to attempt to claim the Australia contributes significantly to global CO2 levels. This is absolute nonsense.
“a favourite theme of Australian alarmists trying to suggest that we are big contributors to the zombie CAGW hypothesis.
Indeed. Since Australia is a net sink for CO2, perhaps we should focus on “net sink or source” rathen than “per capita” – at the very least, we should be able to offset emissions from mining operations against the end-user.
More recent alarming trends among the elderly suffering hypothermia in Victoria. It seems some elderly people can’t afford to turn on their heaters and become ill during the winter months and some are dying.
This story was reported this week by their ABC as well and some of the elderly patients body temps were very low when tested after they arrived in hospital. Why have we allowed this to happen?
At least we can thank our lucky stars that Labor lost the Fed election and we won’t be wasting 100s of billions $ on their crazy so called clean energy fra-d. The opening of the Adani mine is also a positive move , although it’s a pity we’re not using more coal and building more coal fired stations here in OZ.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/17/elderly-victorians-being-treated-for-hypothermia-as-heating-costs-bite
Thanks Don (yet again).
Richard Lindzen pointed out that the discipline of climate science was not developed enough to handle the fifteenfold increase in funding provided by the Clinton Gore administration. As Karl Popper anticipated in his lectures in the 1950s Big Government-funded Science would result in too much money chasing too few ideas, good work buried under bad, grant applications tailored to fit the fad rather than science.
And so money flowed into projects in any discipline that could dummy up a grant application with reference to climate in the title. The rest is history.
[…] Another contribution from Don Aitkin, settled into his retirement accommodation and back in the groove with his column to demonstrate his status as a National Treasure. […]
High school climate indoctrination coming to [already at] a school near you:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/06/13/high-school-climate-indoctrination-using-ap-environment-textbooks-2/
Judith Curry thinking about things like motivated reasoning:
“Motivated reasoning refers to biased information processing that is driven by goals unrelated to accurate belief formation. A specific type of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, occurs when people seek out and evaluate information in ways that confirm their pre-existing views while downplaying, ignoring, or discrediting information of equal or greater quality that opposes their views.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/climate-scientists-motivated-reasoning/
I am wondering why my comments of yesterday are still in moderation when later comments from other people have appeared.
Richard, They’re up now. The main reason is that you are, comparatively speaking, a new boy here, while others have been commenters for quite a while. And I was asleep, so unable to do the moderation, which occurs when I get up. My apologies.
Most media-quoted papers about climate change appear to be studying the effects of it.
That requires assumptions about what has happened, is happening and will happen in the earth’s atmosphere that biologists and zoologists, for example, are not equipped to study.
I work for an engineering business and am surrounded by mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, civil engineers etc most of whom have done masters degrees and reached chartered engineer (UK/Australia) or the US equivalent , Professional Engineer as well as gaining years of practical field experience in designing ,building and operating engineered solutions. It would be understating it to say their standards are high and applied rigorously.
(and they seldom refer to themselves as mere “scientists” , but rather by their specialities).
I had always accepted the default position in the media since at least the 1990s that global warming was a serious and imminent threat and we need to “do something”, particularly in relation to energy. The first critical reactions to global warming assumptions I heard were from my colleagues , back in the days when you could have open discussions about the topic without polarising insults like “denier”. Colleagues with wildly different opinions worked happily side by side.
It goes without saying that the debate has dumbed -down considerably since.
Don Aitkin,
Thankyou.
Richard
Test
> “I know of no case where the entire fellowship of any learned body was asked to express its view. If there is one case, then someone will tell me.”
The Geological Society of Australia (GSA).
Some years ago now, the Executive of the GSA brought out a public position on AGW (shrill and alarmist, of course) without polling or even advising the membership. Said Executive maintained it had the right to do so by default, as the GSA Constitution did not prevent this. The GSA Constitution was of course written and endorsed by membership in an earlier time of better manners where such a betrayal of scientific principles was not considered possible.
This caused enormous irritation and annoyance within the fee-paying membership. I personally resigned from the GSA after 30+ years of continuous membership on the grounds that while this odious public statement may have been within the ambit of the Executive, it could do so without my money.
The disagreement grew louder. In the end, to my surprise, the Executive did indeed conduct a membership poll on the issue. The results caused a change of public position in that shrill alarm was tempered by a caveat that the various scientific points to AGW were indeed still very much in ongoing debate. It is noted, however, that the Executive has constantly refused to publish the actual results of the poll, even for membership perusal. This insolence has provided good reason to remain a non-member.
Don, I don’t claim to be anywhere near as well read as you are in this field, but my simplistic understanding of the orthodox position is that they’ve discounted many of your alternative possible sources of warming on the basis that the stratosphere is cooling.
If it’s getting hotter and hotter in your sleeping bag, and simultaneously colder and colder in your tent, then you can discount the odds that direct sunshine is the cause of the warming.
Yes, I know that’s a shockingly bad analogy and as a model for Earth and its atmosphere it wouldn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny, but it illustrates that when you’re looking for the source of heating, noting the temperature gradients in different parts of the system can help you focus your efforts.
Jimbo here’s Ole Humlum’s state of the climate report 2018. Have a look at FIG 10 and note the fairly flat graph for 10 km height ( should be HOT SPOT area???) and 17km ( stratosphere) with fairly flat period since about 1994 and note the 2 volcano spikes in earlier part of the graph.
Here he uses UAH V 6 data to generate the graphs for different heights. BTW that HOT SPOT 10 km area should show a higher trend than the lower heights according to AGW theory. But the 10 km graph shows little trend over the last 40 years.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/04/StateofClimate2018.pdf
Here is Topher Field’s interview with Jo Nova. Jo was a long time true believer and even raised money for the Greens party, but she quickly reversed her position after her husband Dr David Evans asked her to carefully check some of the data.
Stu has committed several howlers about the IPCC, and been corrected (appropriately) by other commenters. I must say, as one who has participated in the process, he demonstrates a remarkable faith in a deeply flawed institution. Laframboise documents the many NGO representatives using as scientific experts – some who were yet to complete their PhDs. Greenpeace’s Bill Hare is perhaps the best example.
Climategate might have been ‘cleared’ by some rather tame enquiries (including one chaired by someone with a clear conflict of interest), but the exchanges are still damning – and have rightly been damned in the court of public opinion. The emails include such gems as CSIRO scientist Barrie Pittock urging greater alarm in a report commissioned by WWF, for fear that the public might be assuaged by a less-than-scary report under WWF auspices. I invite Stu to take off his blinkers and read them.
The Chapter 8 controversy, where Santer altered the text after plenary approval to agree with the Summary for Policymakers speaks volumes. This is all covered by Bernie Lewin in his excellent account, which includes significant interviews with leading scientists such as John Zillman.
Recall that Santer based the claim of attribution of observed change to human agency on a paper on which he was the lead author, and which was very quickly shown to omit data at the beginning of the observed period and at its end that did not suit that conclusion. And Santer was also coauthor of a contemporaneous paper that concluded it was too early to yet make an attribution. The flaws are numerous.
But the most risible statement Stu makes is perhaps: ‘Occasionally some, like Hansen, are dragged before committees etc to give evidence.’ Is he unaware of Hansen’s Congressional testimony in 1988, stage-managed by Tim Wirth and Rafe Pomeranz from Friends of the Earth – timed for the likely hottest day of the summer, during an El Niño, with the windows left open overnight by a Democratic staffer to overwhelm the air conditioning, all to create an impression for the television cameras. Recall that Hansen claimed to have been silenced by the (George W.) Bush administration, yet somehow managed to appear in the media more than 800 times.
We have it back to front. It’s the cause of the preceding ice-age, LIA in this case, that needs an explanation, not the obvious warming from that ice age, a warming that has also not recovered to the state that the Romans were growing grapes in England and France. It’s much like ice-skating on a pond, falling through the ice and then complaining, on being rescued, that you are getting warmer. (The earth’s atmosphere increases in electrical conductivity the closer one gets to the ionosphere, so any downwelling IR is more likely due to atmospheric electric currents and re-radiation by CO2. Unless one does not understand how electric heaters work).
I have been following along here for quite a while and enjoying the ride. The dystopian aspect of the argument against the evils of changing power sources from conventional to renewable continues to amuse me along with the continual contradiction of so much research.
So has anyone got a plausible explanation for why the “anti-climate change”argument continues to be so unsuccessful at persuading governments, science bodies, meteorological bodies, businesses, banks and corporate regulators like APRA of the merits of their arguments? It remains a candle in the wind.
I thought it would be obvious to you that some peoples’ brains wash easier than others and now that it seems like more than 50% are resistant, having got rid of Turnbull, we might see more govt resistance.
Just like in the US:
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/63694
Oh that really cracks me up. He is a yank and writes “Why do people now seek to push the West into a system in which government controls information? I believe it’s because of a lack of countering information that’s fair and balanced.” This guy is obviously a Trump supporter and therefore supports the guy doing more to undermine a free press in the US than anybody in recent history. That really is a bit rich, “fake news included”.
Meanwhile good luck with your shift in public opinion, tilting at windmills again. As you guys keep saying, “Australia is insignificant in this problem”, so I guess any opinion shift here would likewise have no impact on the world. LOL.
And by the way his argument, the attack on freedom in the US vernacular, is a total croc, typical of climate change opponents. It fits with conspiracy theory, irrelevant argument, misleading quotes and false expertise. The guy was a meteorologist not a climate science expert, they are not the same you know! Just like equating current weather forecasting with estimating “global average temperature” decades into the future, very different challenges.
A sceptical messenger cracks you up, hey stu?
But you can’t refute his message?
I don’t believe it!
And still in denial of the election results?
In both countries?
Oh, dear!
Stu
“The guy was a meteorologist not a climate science expert, they are not the same you know! Just like equating current weather forecasting with estimating “global average temperature” decades into the future, very different challenges.”
Perhaps you might enlighten us on, first the value of a theoretical “global average temperature” when the daily temperature range can be around 100 degrees C, then what the value might be of estimating it decades into the future.
You can ignore the statistical improbability of the estimate being correct, to save time.
BJ, “Perhaps you might enlighten us on, first the value of a theoretical “global average temperature” when the daily temperature range can be around 100 degrees C, then what the value might be of estimating it decades into the future.”.
Sorry, but that just proves you have no idea about climate science and are totally unqualified to be in this space. But maybe your PhD in statistics and climatology means that you alone in all the world are correct, but I very much doubt that.
I would hope that even your fellow travellers would see how ridiculous your statement is. But then again.
Oh and I forgot. If you think there is no value in estimating global average temperature, how are you so sure it has not increased, which you have claimed several times.
stu,
You write,
“I have been following along here for quite a while and enjoying the ride. The dystopian aspect of the argument against the evils of changing power sources from conventional to renewable continues to amuse me along with the continual contradiction of so much research.”
The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture.
All human activity requires energy supply. Prior to the use of fossil fuels the total available energy supply available to humans was limited to energy obtainable from wind, solar, animals and slaves. Human activity increased immensely when the much greater energy obtainable from fossil fuels became available to do work initially by use of the steam engine.
More than 80% of energy now used by humans is provided by fossil fuels.
Removing the use of fossil fuels would require return to reliance on the energy obtainable from wind, solar, animals and slaves together with great adoption of nuclear power. This would kill at very least 3.8 billion people (and probably many more than that).
Anyone who doubts the death toll would so high should ask a farmer what his food production would be if he had to replace his tractor with horses (answer to that question provides adequate explanation of the matter which is a little more complicated than that).
Simply, the carnage from cessation of fossil fuel usage would be so great that it would pale into insignificance the combined atrocities of Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Pol pot.
I tell all environmentalists that if they are successful in ending fossil fuel sage but they and I survive the resulting carnage then I will accept them as my slaves but I will fight to not be their slave. And many others will fight with me because in that circumstance many will join with me in shouting, “I am Spartacus !”
Richard
The answer is straightforward – Climate Change is not a scientific theory since it proposes a physical state that has yet to occur. Science only tries to explain present day observations and as global warming or climate change is in the future when it cannot be observed, it thus falls out of the scientific bailiwick.
Instead it is prophesy which relies on rhetoric to sway support one way or the other. Hence the continued debate between the two groups of believers and unbelievers, each being unable to convince the other, because both are standing on the same theoretical podium, that CO2 is the sole forcing of atmosheric temperature by definition, one side saying it does, the other that it does not.
To this writer CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature.
Stu
Remind me of the occasions when I said that global average temperature has not increased. I have said several times that I accepted that the climate changes (that is not to say that there has necessarily been a change in global average temperature, whatever meaning such a concept might have). I also accept that the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. (Or are you an LIA denier?)
The issues I have are with the extent to which the recent changes are of human origin, and are harmful. That is not the same thing.
As for your allegation that I am “totally unqualified to be in this space”, given that you seem to have no independent capability to analyse the differing positions, but rather simply fall back on the same group of alarmists for confirmation of your current opinions, perhaps you might look in a mirror.
Stu,
You seem to be unaware that there is no agreed definition of global temperature and if there were an agreed definition of that parameter then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for it.
Each of the teams that provides values of global temperature anomaly uses its own definition of global temperature and changes that definition (and, therefore, the data it provides) almost every month.
A parameter that has no agreed definition and no possibility of independent calibration can be said to have any value which is chosen by its provider: therefore, it is – and can only be – meaningless.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Luckily environmental temperatures can be measured with equipment that has been calibrated. Anyone can create their own anomaly and no matter what the baseline is – this does not change the data, just its description. this does not confuse intelligent people.
Luckily we do not need parameters that have no agreed definition and no possibility of independent calibration, because all calibration is dependent on international standards which, in fact, are agreed.
Luckily therefore environmental temperatures are not meaningless.
Chris
The discussion is about calculation of a global average temperature, not the ability to measure temperature at a specific time and location.
Again you seem to type before thinking.
Still, it is good to see that you agree about the uselessness of calculating a theoretical global average temperature.
Boambee John
Ha, ha, ha… you can easily calculate the average of anything if, and only if, you can measure it.
That is the source of global average temps now being denied by some. The only source of confusion is that you get a different global average if you measure different heights in the atmosphere or different depths in the Earth or oceans. And thy can all be cited in terms of a calibrated standard – denialists notwithstanding.
Maybe you better think twice before posting again.
Chris
Again you demonstrate your ignorance.
A “true” global average temperature can only be calculated if a network of measurement stations covers the globe comprehensively. Such a network does not exist. Perhaps the satellite data might come close for the atmosphere, but that does not seem to provide the answer sought by alarmists. Similarly, the Argo buoys do not seem to produce the desired result in the oceans.
You still beg the question. What is the value of a global average temperature?
Boambee John
Why would you try to impute ignorance on others ????
You have made a Freudian Slip.
You can create an average from just 2 measurements, or from 2,000 or a million.
Your “ignorance” was displayed by the fact that there are statistical techniques to calculate an average within a range of error – which is what is in fact done. The more measurements – the less error term.
Chris
Let me respond with Stu-like simplicity.
If you have two stations, one at the North Pole and one at sea level at the Equator, the “global average” would probably be around minus 10. If you had four stations all at sea level at the Equator, the “global average” would probably be around the high 30s. If you had six, one at each Pole and the four equatorial ones, probably in the mid teens.
What is the value of these? There is only some kind of accuracy to the “global average” if it comes from a comprehensive world wide network of stations. At ground level this does not exist. Without it, the error range is such that the result has no credibility.
And even if it did, what is the value of the result?
“You can create an average from just 2 measurements, or from 2,000 or a million.”
This isn’t about “average measurements” generally. This is about average global temperature.
Both with and without the influence of humans.
Over as long a timespan as possible.
A very complex thing to measure in order to get a scientific basis that has any certainty.
And that is nowhere near yet being achieved.
And as BJ says; “What is the value of a global average temperature?”
Particularly when on any single day temps around the globe vary by at least 100c.
And true average temp is not the average of max and min anyway.
That is only a rough average.
Our stu joins protesters who stick themselves to the road and those who argue against Adani’s (finally) approved coal mine and left-of-centre voices who re-run the arguments that the Carmichael mine is not financially viable.
Time to move on stu. Wake up, splash some cold water on your face.
Where have you been hiding lately?
“ I also accept that the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age.”
How do you accept that if you have no concept of global average temperature? You contradict yourself.
Stu
My apologies, I had forgotten that I was responding to a simpleton.
The parts of the world where records are kept seem, on the basis of those records and the lived experience of the inhabitants, to have increased in temperature since the LIA. This says nothing about uninhabited regions or those regions where records were not kept and only anecdotal statements are available.
As now, the limitations of the data preclude estimation of a global average temperature.
Simple enough for you?
“My apologies, I had forgotten that I was responding to a simpleton.”
So the polite phase has ended, at least on your part. Nasty indeed.
You are all splitting hairs. Either accept the concept, and the measurements of global average temperature or get off the pot.
And back to my question. How come, outside this little cave do your views on this subject have so little sway. At last count even the Reserve Bank is on board. Meantime the news of weather (not yet climate) events around the world keeps mounting.
And by the way you should watch this video to bring you up to speed on the significance of small increases in average global temperature. Watch it, you might learn something if you open your mind.
https://youtu.be/6cRCbgTA_78
Stu
The polite phase, on your part, ended some time ago.
It is amusing, in the same way as watching a dog chase its tail is amusing, to watch you flailing around on this subject.
You admitted previously that you have no particular scientific skills to bring to the discussion.Rather, you rely on the work of carefully selected others for your discussion points.
On an earlier thread you described to Don your process for selecting your sources. You waxed eloquent about scientific qualifications (while apparently rejecting eminently skilled authorities like Lindzen) and lack of conflicts of interest (using a very narrow definition of those).
But now your latest argument from authority is the Reserve Bank! I have not checked the composition of the Reserve Bank Board, but I am willing to hazard a guess that the majority are not atmospheric physicists.
You routinely describe other commenters as having nothing of value to add, while demonstrating your own irrelevance.
Buy yourself a mirror and look into it next time you think abiut criticising others for what you are yourself.
PS, looking forward to your response to the rest of my post, or is that too difficult for you?
stu,
You quote someone as saying,
““ I also accept that the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age.”
and ask,
“How do you accept that if you have no concept of global average temperature? You contradict yourself.”
No contradiction was provided by whomever said it.
Knowing something has warmed is not the same as knowing how much something has warmed.
I may recognise it is warmer this afternoon than it was this morning but that does NOT mean I measured the temperatures this morning and this afternoon, e.g. I may have been shivering this morning and be sweating this afternoon.
Temperature states are not only indicated by shivering and sweating. For example, areas of soil that were covered by ice in the LIA grew plants before and after the LIA.
Richard
Richard,
“No contradiction was provided by whomever said it.
Knowing something has warmed is not the same as knowing how much something has warmed.” You are splitting hairs mate, get over it.
Stu critics BJ, in relation to global average temperature:
“Knowing something has warmed is not the same as knowing how much something has warmed.” You are splitting hairs mate, get over it.”
That is the most revealingly stupid remark you have ever made here, stu.
And illustrates your climate-religious attitude so very well.
Sorry, Richard, not BJ.
This thread is growing nicely but there is a long way to overhaul the tally that was triggered by my first excursion into the debate. That was before I was far into the research:)
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/
Don
“…solar wind, cosmic ray ionisation (cloud formation), UV ozone, and others. ” cannot be considered unless there is some evidence that they have changed since the rise in CO2 from Mauna Loa.
However they seem to have maintained a relatively constant pattern associated with the Sun’s activity.
https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dn11651-2_738.jpg
Clouds have three effects – cooling by increased albedo, warming through blocking IR and release of latent heat of vapourisation when water vapour drops out of its vapour state.
The amount of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide is critically dependent on the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback, making it an area of intense research. See: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-cloudy-feedback-global.html
I am not sure how UV and ozone can produce global temperature trends.
No, you’re not sure and neither am I, and the IPCC doesn’t even try, but then it doesn’t have to, as Richard Courtney and others have pointed out, it can safely confine itself to factors producing ‘human-induced climate change’. Still, you’d think that such a great scientific body would do its best to show that CO2 and CO2 alone is the culprit (and that warming is harmful, not beneficial). Oh well…
Should Aborigines be allowed to build a new coal fired station in Qld? Ashley Dodd the head of Shine energy wants to do just that and here he is talking to the Bolter on the Bolt report.
But what will the delusional Labor and Greens lefties think about Aborigines wanting to invest and create real jobs in real base-load energy for Australia and their communities? Go Shine energy.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/black-coal-green-headache-meet-the-aboriginal-boss-of-shine-energy/news-story/f39101d7c2594798f78c055f26a787ee
Another activist IPCC LEAD author gets caught out yapping about more irrational CAGW BS and gets schooled by Willis Eschenbach. But will Caldeira understand any of this? Don’t hold your breath.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/21/lumpy-science-from-ken-caldeira/
Here are Willis’s calculations/data in response to the 2015 Caldeira study. So how much extra warming should we expect from a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere?
If Willis is correct there doesn’t seem to be much of a problem and as always he shows his maths and calculations to support his finding.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/21/forcing-and-burning-in-coal-country/
Here is the WSJ article by Dr Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue to the mark the 30th anniversary of Dr Hansen’s Washington testimony on AGW warming. This 1988 address started the AGW or CAGW claims and led to trillions $ of so called investment (????) in so called Renewable energies like S&W.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/thirty-years-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
By Patrick J. Michaels and Ryan Maue
This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on June 21, 2018.
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”
With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.
Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.
Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.
As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.
Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.
The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.
These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?
On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.
That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.
Neville
The lead author is a well known denialist.
https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels
Serious folk use materials such as:
https://media.nature.com/w800/magazine-assets/d41586-018-07586-5/d41586-018-07586-5_16306998.png?fbclid=IwAR0rXWr_B79x6SAwEjmgkzWta6xb7qasUnr_4xrykE0ON6JxTFBcJYuZ1R4
Chris
Hansen is a well known alarmist.
Serious folk use materials such as …
Is it at all possible that you coukd engage with the detail of an argument rather than simply dismiss it as the work of a “well known denialist”?
Boambee John
Hansen is a realist.
Here is some detail for you and Neville to ponder.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/slr_prediction_med.jpg
Chris
Hansen is a “realist”, defined as someone with whom you agree??
Septical Science, LOL. Almost as good as the time I asked you for your proposals to solve CAGW, and you referred me to a recent issue of New Scientist.
Stu, I wasn’t impressed with the link, which is a piece of government policy propaganda written at the end of the Obama period. The trend from 2005 to the present is actually quite flat (I wish could find the source for that, and will post it when I find it, or perhaps one of the other sceptics will know where it is).
And as to your hand wave about Willie Soon et al., I don’t think any of them has used the words you ascribe to them, like ‘forecasting’ , ‘huge cooling’ etc. If you have a link, then please provide it. My memory is that they say something like this, that to extrapolate from the present tenth future on a small trend is just silly, since there is ample evidence in the past of rises and falls in temperature, and events like the AMO suggest that cooling is possible. Pretty sensible stuff, as I recall it.
Chris, do you regard desmogblog as a balanced source? It does seem to come across as a way of smearing prominent sceptics about climate change.
deSmog is as good as its references, footnote, and evidence.
You always need to go at least one step deeper.
So far its judgements seem OK.
‘its judgments seem OK’ Really? There is not a single positive reference to anything that Michaels has written or said in the whole set of references. Let’s face it, you like the judgments because you don’t like people such as Michaels who write critically about your beliefs.
President Trump will sort you all out.
IN: Empirical evidence / Truth;
OUT: Preordained “science” / Lies.
The gravy train will be emptied.
Then again you could look at what has actually been happening. Try this site:
https://www.climate.gov/print/8430
It is an official site run by that left wing commie US government, just kidding. Actually it is from a branch of NOAA, one of the science bits of government that the Trump admin has not yet emasculated.
Amongst other observations it seems to contradict Michaels and Maue but of course the article (theirs) was in the Wall St Journal and we all know who owns that and his position on climate change.
“Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1901, the planet’s surface has warmed by 0.7–0.9° Celsius (1.3–1.6° Fahrenheit) per century, but the rate of warming has nearly doubled since 1975 to 1.5–1.8° Celsius (2.7–3.2° Fahrenheit) per century, according to the international State of the Climate in 2017 report.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and the four warmest years on record have all occurred since 2014. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the history, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.
By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows. This similarity in temperatures regardless of total emissions is a short-term phenomenon: it reflects the tremendous inertia of Earth’s vast oceans. The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn’t react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases. By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans’ thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.”
If you read on further you will find a nice explanation of the concept and calculation of global average temperature, which some folk here have trouble with.
Another factor covered in the video on the link I posted covers the issue of the massive warming of the oceans which cover 70% of the earth and have been absorbing energy at a phenomenal rate. And also shows why a small change in temperature is actually very significant. But it seems people just don’t follow the links so who cares eh?
“the four warmest years on record have all occurred since 2014”
And as they are all el Nino years [we are still in an el Nino] that is natural climate variability.
UAH lower trop temp warming this century up to the start of the big el Nino [2000-2015] is 0.01c per decade or 0.1c per century.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/half-of-21st-century-warming-due-to-el-nino/
Do you seriously believe that the “massive warming of the oceans which cover 70% of the earth and have been absorbing energy at a phenomenal rate” is coming from the tiny bit of global warming the earth has enjoyed since the LIA?
Stu, I don’t have any trouble with ‘average global temperature’ as a statistical concept. I’ve written about this in the past. What I have trouble with is what it is supposed to mean. What should I do about it? What does it tell me about climate in Australia, especially where I live? I think that the answer is ‘nothing’. We human beings live in particular places, and it is the weather and climate of those places that provide us with meaning for how we live. If global temperature is going up, and where I live is much the same as it used to be, should I be worried? Should I be worried if my weather is getting a fraction warmer anyway, since warmer is better than colder for virtually all living things, including me? How much warming is good, bad, dangerous, beneficent? Who says so, and how do they know?
And since the oceans cover about 70 per cent of the globe, and we don’t have an accurate measurement web of that 70 per cent, let alone anything of historical value, how accurate is GAT anyway?
If you can deal with those questions satisfactorily, then I might be persuaded that GAT ought to be of interest. But at the moment, no.
Yes Don, also re GAT, land surface temperature is actually land surface air temperature. Air measured at approximate 1.5 metres above ground, whereas sea surface temperature is the water temperature below the surface of the oceans. Water has much more mass than air. Water is slower to warm and cool, it has “thermal inertia”.
This makes our so-called GAT even more questionable.
Dear Don Aitkin,
In this thread you write,
“I don’t have any trouble with ‘average global temperature’ as a statistical concept. I’ve written about this in the past. What I have trouble with is what it is supposed to mean. What should I do about it? What does it tell me about climate in Australia, especially where I live? I think that the answer is ‘nothing’. We human beings live in particular places, and it is the weather and climate of those places that provide us with meaning for how we live. If global temperature is going up, and where I live is much the same as it used to be, should I be worried? Should I be worried if my weather is getting a fraction warmer anyway, since warmer is better than colder for virtually all living things, including me? How much warming is good, bad, dangerous, beneficent? Who says so, and how do they know?”
Your problem is that ‘average global temperature’ is a political tool which is not pertinent to any of the questions you pose about its possible practical application(s).
The political tool enables arbitrary targets which justify political policies claimed to have the purpose of meeting those targets.
At present the popular targets are for limiting rise in average global temperature to less than 2 K or less than 1.5 K. These targets are missed each and every year but nobody notices.
A target that is missed each and every year but nobody notices clearly has no practical purpose.
Average global temperature rises by 3.8 K (i.e. nearly twice 2.0 K) from January to June each year and it falls by 3.8 K from June to January each while nobody notices.
The annual rise and fall of 3.8 K in average GLOBAL temperature is indicated by the GISS and the HadCRUT compilations of average global temperature. It occurs because
(a) the Northern Hemisphere (NH) has less coverage by water than the Southern Hemisphere (SH),
and
(b) land changes temperature more than water with the seasons,
so
(c) the NH changes its average temperature more than the SH changes it average temperature with the seasons,
but
(d) it is summer in one hemisphere when it is winter in the other
and
(e) average global temperature is the average temperature of both hemispheres.
Average global temperature estimates have a political purpose and don’t have any practical purpose.
Richard
Don,
First your words indicate you like many others don’t see the big picture, which is that the “problem” is not here and now, except in the Arctic, it is about the future. A future we can let run it’s course or take some action to lessen the impact. In the meantime for here the BOM at least are predicting on current indicators that we are in for significant shifts in rainfall patterns going forward. Eg they say we can expect less winter rains in the SE. This is already having some effect, if you talk to the grain growers and graziers in the inland of NSW.
As for “should you be worried”. Probably not unless we both discover the anti-aging pill soon. As for the younger generations, they may well face extremes of climate that will be testing both here and in other places. Beyond that it looks a certainty. The current “weather” in India and northern europe is indicative of the need to adapt to conditions outside recent normal.
The paleo climate people say that humans have experienced a very balmy (depending where you live) climate through the Holocene era enabling the flourishing of civilisation. In this period the average was pretty stable. They tell us the LIA was miserable and while the MWP was supposed to be balmy in Europe they don’t say much about other places at that time, perhaps not too good. Prior to that, certainly during the ice ages things were apparently very uncomfortable.
The big issue to consider is that the earth appeared to be on a slow slide back to a colder state, as per the ice core data for the last 400,000 years. Such a slide was consistent with the long run cycles of the earth. Then from the late 19th century and onwards we see an uptick. Science indicates that the usual causes of a rise, solar activity, milankovitch cycles etc are not to blame and all the evidence points to CO2.
Now the knockers point out that the ice-core data shows that carbon lags temperature by hundreds of years and that is true, in the past. The evidence says that the other cycles are dominant and kick off changes from one state to the other and then carbon steps in as a positive feedback mechanism. All fine. Same story now but we have made such a jump with CO2 that we have kicked off a warming cycle when there should be none. And the main feedback (look up tipping points) has not yet kicked in. And human beings have never experienced a world with 415ppm before. It is not an issue for living and breathing etc but may have climatic effects that will be challenging.
The guys who say CO2 can’t possibly have such an effect when it is such a tiny percentage then perversely claim that it is having a huge effect on the globes plant life. Just like the ratio of a 5mg pill on a 90 kilogram human, small things can have large impacts.
Keep in mind (in terms of earth atmospheric cycles) that in just over 100 years we have burned carbon deposits that took over 100 million years to sequester. Just a bit unbalanced perhaps.
As for the oceans we actually do have quite an array of instruments to help us understand what is happening. Look up the ARGO project. It is a global array of 3,800 floats that measure the salinity, temperature and velocity of the upper 2000m of ocean. They are really clever bits of kit, the way they work. And this is how they are establishing figures like the huge amount of energy being absorbed. Do we need more and better data? Of course.
Basic physics explains why the oceans are so important. Look up the difference in the latent heat of ice, water and air. The ocean energy system is very significant. It has been calculated that the oceans are absorbing the energy equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb every second.
Also while on the subject it is why the loss of ice in the Arctic is so consequential. It takes enormous energy for the phase shift from the frozen state to liquid. Therefore once melted the water can rapidly absorb the same amount of heat again but rise greatly in temperature. Also it is why, as the knockers tell us there have not been more hurricanes, but they don’t comment on the fact that the warmer water in the Atlantic ocean seems to be causing a more rapid spin up of the storm cells and the carriage of more rain.
Finally as I pointed to in some posts earlier, the average concept for temperature is a pretty regular way of monitoring things with wide variation from place to place or over time. At a simple level it is how BOM can tell you that on this day next year Canberra will most likely have a low around 1 degree and a high around 12 with July being a little cooler at 0 and 11. In the case of global average they work more on the anomaly, ie the up and down from expected which makes it easier to look at a broader trend across all sites.
Then there are the follow on arguments, many of which are red herrings. Recently we had the people dying in Africa because of no electricity but on the other hand over 4 million die around the world from coal and diesel particulates. “Any change will up end the economies”, not so, opportunities for growth etc. Our current power system is the only way, it is also not that old, so like automobiles can and will adapt. “It is a hidden agenda for world domination” say the libertarians. Explain that to all the states of europe. “The researchers are in it for the money” etc which I guess could be true for some but on the other side we know for a fact they are trying to protect the money machine they already have by sponsoring contrarian views through front organisations. Do some research on Myron Ebell who set up the decimation of the US EPA under Pruitt. I could go on but there is enough already for the jackals to seize upon.
Don’t take my word on any of this, there is a mass of information available to back it up, check it out.
Enjoy your weekend, I hope it is better weather where you are.
Rather than getting yourself in such a stew, stu, just point to ONE thing that is happening now, climate-wise, that hasn’t happened during the Holocene when CO2 was around 280 ppm.
About the only thing you can honestly say is that we are not as warm as we were or that sea levels are not as high as they have been during the last 8-10 thousand years.
Your sort of panic is excusable in brainwashed kiddies but having mentioned the anti-aging pill I always assumed you were a little more mature.
Age-wise, at least.
Stu
” In the meantime for here the BOM at least are predicting on current indicators that we are in for significant shifts in rainfall patterns going forward. Eg they say we can expect less winter rains in the SE. This is already having some effect, if you talk to the grain growers and graziers in the inland of NSW.”
Weren’t the BOM making similar predictions around 20 years ago? I think the focus then was the SW of WA, though that well known climate scientist Tim Flummery seemed to think that the problem was more widespread. He also predicted that Perth would become Australia’s first ghost city. Top climate man, our Tim.
How did that all turn out? Makes the solar scientists look quite restrained!
Regarding your “massive warming of the oceans which cover 70% of the earth and have been absorbing energy at a phenomenal rate”, I take it you are aware that the NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomaly data show El Niño events dominated from the mid-1910s to the mid-1940s and from the mid-1970s to present.
This has nothing to do with any ACO2 warming.
Stu
Have you ever worked in a bureaucracy? They are the nearest thing to perpetual life found on earth. Once they get a bee in their collective bonnetts, it stays there for ever. NOAA is a bureaucracy. The element set up to investigate CAGW will continue to do so until glaciers grind over their offices.
“as each new year is added to the history, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record”
If the earth is in a natural warming phase, it would be fatuous to expect anything different.
Bryan R, fine, except that flies in the face of most of your climate quibbler mates like Soon, Archibald, Lindzen, Plimer, Watts, Corbyn etc who have all been forecasting for some time that we are in for a huge cooling due to grand solar minima etc. so which is it, getting naturally warmer, naturally cooler, oops, or unnaturally warmer?
Stu
As I am certain you are aware, climate is measured over decades. Early days yet for the effect of a quiet sun to become evident.
I find the vehemence with which CAGW alarmists reject even the suggestion of a cooling change quite astonishing. It is almost as if your entire being is tied up with CAGW.
“Early days yet for the effect of a quiet sun to become evident.”. Oh, but your friends have been so convinced of the currency of their predictions. Never mind. Go follow a mainstream science conversation, if you can keep up.
Stu, if you are on the top of a mountain, the only way off is down. The earth has been through this before, and it has not crashed and burnt. The idea that rats in the sewers can force the reorganisation of a city is simply ludicrous, and whatever you might like to claim, there will not be a ‘peoples revolution’ on climate change. No one, in the history of the world, has gone to the barricades to protest something that ‘may’ happen a hundred years hence.
Stu on any serious discussion of his claim that “massive warming of the oceans which cover 70% of the earth and have been absorbing energy at a phenomenal rate”:
Crickets!
Mate, you have to be kidding. You are way out of your depth. You just proved you know nothing about climate change or even the physical processes going on every day. Go do some homework and come back when you grow up. If you are trying to emulate Anthony McAuliffe you are sadly deficient and even worse disrespectful. You should apologise.
Just whistlin’ in the dark are you Stu? You have already admitted to lacking detailed knowledge of science, but presume to lecture others on your assessment of their knowledge. LOL.
You have not responded to the McAuliffe issue, or was he just being poetical?
Oh, another McAuliffe, I thought you were referring to the American general at Bastogne. Nuts!
Stu,
I write to request that you ‘up your game’ and apologise for your behaviour. The reason for my request is as follows.
You say to Boambee John,
“Mate, you have to be kidding. You are way out of your depth. You just proved you know nothing about climate change or even the physical processes going on every day. Go do some homework and come back when you grow up. If you are trying to emulate Anthony McAuliffe you are sadly deficient and even worse disrespectful. You should apologise.”
Firstly, I acknowledge that the degree of my ignorance is unbounded.
But, secondly, I assure you that I do know something about climate change.
And I recognise that my knowledge is sufficient for me to observe that if any contributor to this thread should “do some homework” and “grow up” then that contributor is you. As for being “disrespectful”, your words I have quoted here demonstrate that you merit contempt and not respect. Your demand for an apology from Boambee John is risible and itself is sufficient to require your apology.
If your treatment of Boambee John were unique then it could be thought to be ‘personal’ so should be ignored, but it is typical of your responses to people – including me – who have replied to errors you have posted in this thread.
Richard
Stu
Solar science is both mainstream and far longer established than climate science. Do try to keep up.
And, of course, you elide over the manner in which “your friends have been so convinced of the currency of their predictions.” But that is different, isn’t it?
You sorcerers should stick to burning witches, you had more success back then. Oh you make me laugh. Are you sure you are not a troll bot? You sure speak like one. I know I am out of my depth here, numerically speaking, but logic and science outvotes you many times over, time to repent your sins. But it is fun following your posts, they are a laugh a minute and I now have quite a collection. But I am still not sure what to do with the trove, but the time will come. Sadly that might be sooner rather than later.
You are not just out of your depth here, numerically speaking, you are out of your depth here. Do you deny that solar science is far longer established than climate science?
As for your collection of my posts, I am flattered that you think you have so much to learn from them.
“Solar science is both mainstream and far longer established than climate science”. So????
You were the one who suggssted that I “Go follow a mainstream science conversation, if you can keep up.”
I merely pointed out that solar science is a long established mainstream science. Do try to keep up with your own posts.
“I merely pointed out that solar science is a long established mainstream science.”. So, what is your point, what great revelation have you got to announce?
Stu
You really are a bit slow on the uptake. You asked me to follow an established science, I mentioned one, you got all confused.
Peehaps you might try following that established science for a change from your “CAGW the end is nigh” scthick?
Oh and by the way the other followers of this thread are by now probablt getting very bored, unless of course they also have a good sense of humour, BJ, Nev, SD etc. unless they are fellow travellers of yours. In the meantime if you feel like exploring some research go and check up methane hydrates. Interesting and potentially very threatening stuff but of course it will not frighten you guys.
cheers
Oh and by the way the other followers of this thread are by now probablt getting very bored, unless of course they also have a good sense of humour, BJ, Nev, SD etc. unless they are fellow travellers of yours. In the meantime if you feel like exploring some research go and check up methane hydrates. Interesting and potentially very threatening stuff but of course it will not frighten you guys.
cheers
Yes, we are getting very bored, stu, so please check Don’s intro. again. It’s called “thinking about things”, not blithering about them.
Think about the fact that we are still below Nat Var when it comes to Holocene temps and sea levels. When CO2 was 280 ppm.
And don’t forget to check the real world when you wake up:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/06/peter-ridd-the-great-barrier-reef-has-about-the-same-amount-of-coral-as-in-1985/
Lomborg ,Christy and McKitrick have a look at all the extremist fairy tales that have infested this so called climate debate and found everything to be exaggerations or false.
The idea that we could make a difference to the climate in 10 years or by 2100 is so obviously stupid as I’ve tried to point out many times on this blog. IOW their so called mitigation is just BS and fra-d. And Dr Hansen agrees. In fact he also states that S&W energy are fairy tales.
The alarmist scientists don’t think we could either. ( see Q&A for Royal Society question 20) Yet we have the DEMs in the USA promoting their GND nonsense that would costs endless trillions of $ for a ZERO return.
Meanwhile China, India and non OECD co2 emissions will continue to soar as they strive to help many hundreds of millions more people enjoy a healthier and wealthier life plus a longer life expectancy. They have achieved a lot over the last 50 and 25 years and hopefully more improvement is on the way. Just look at the HD Index I’ve linked to recently and test this REAL world data against the fantasy promoted by Sanders, AOC, Biden etc.
Here is the link to Lomborg, Christy etc DATA and many interesting graphs about the real planet earth. Definitely NOT their fantasy planet.
https://cei.org/blog/bjorn-lomborg-and-john-christy-shred-climate-alarmism
Neville
It doesn’t take long for a denialist to start flinging mud does it.
You, and your tribe, are the ones making extremist fairy tales that have infested this so called climate debate and produced nothing but denialist exaggerations or falsifications.
The ludicrous stupidity of the pause or hiatus, plus the ridiculous notion that we are about to go into a cooling phase now, are evidence of this.
Now are denialists are reduced to finally admitted that global warming is occurring, that its initial cause is CO2, and all they can argue now is about the rate of warming.
It will not be long before even this final argument gets thrown into the garbage can with the rest of Monkton/Carter/Nova rubbish.
There is light at the end of the tunnel – the radiation of every denialist argument going up in flames.
So inconvenient evidence is now “mud” hey?
[ Though it’s certainly been mud as far as your clarity of vision is concerned]
And your utter lies about “denialists” only just being aware of warming, demonstrate with even more clarity your continuing fabrication on the whole CAGW saga.
Particularly when you totally deny that, even with the small warming [that nobody denies] we are still well within the boundaries of natural climate variability.
You are in such blatant denial of the real world that you are possibly beyond salvation.
But you could start by checking the beaches at the next king tide.
Just make sure you wash the mud out of your eyes first.
Chris
“You, and your tribe, are the ones making extremist fairy tales that have infested this so called climate debate and produced nothing but denialist exaggerations or falsifications.”
That is an appalling slander on the host of this blog. Please apologise.
Chris
“The ludicrous stupidity of the pause or hiatus, plus the ridiculous notion that we are about to go into a cooling phase now, are evidence of this.”
Please feel free to correct me (with facts, not just denigration as a denialist), but didn’t the IPCC recognise the pause/hiatus in one of its reports?
I think it’s best to ignore the religious fanatics and leave them to their CAGW fantasies. BTW here is more of OUR REAL WORLD in data and showing the recent improvement to health all around the world.
And another bonus is the fact that median global income has almost doubled from 2003 to 2013. Big surprise for the extremists I’m sure but we are looking at the REAL planet earth and not the dismal fantasy that exists between their ears.
https://ourworldindata.org/selection-of-gh-indicators
More lies,
Here is what AOC said;
archive.is/0VBAU
There is no comment that climate change caused the explosion. She said nothing about the cause of the explosion.
Instead she was pointing out that these plants represent an existential threat that disproportionately impacts on the working class.
I understand that only workers were injured.
Obviously, if fossil fuel plants did not exist – they would not explode injuring workers.
AOC is definitely the gift that keeps on giving. She’ll rival Bernie and sniffy Joe if she keeps this up. What a pity she can’t run for President in 2020. SARC. Gotta love the IQ level on some of these dems.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/22/alexandria-occasional-cortex-blames-philadelphia-refinery-explosion-on-climate-change/
Neville, let’s hope the world is smart enough to weed out this crazy religion but these days in spite of the election victory it’s getting so that climate activists are the establishment, not the underdogs and just want to destroy us:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/06/17/climate-activists-are-the-establishment-not-the-underdogs/
And that business is seeing the short term money in it and wrecking the economy long term.
The growing drive to destroy the beef industry:
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/30420
More lies,
Here is what AOC said;
archive.is/0VBAU
There is no comment that climate change caused the explosion. She said nothing about the cause of the explosion.
Instead she was pointing out that these plants represent an existential threat that disproportionately impacts on the working class.
I understand that only workers were injured.
Obviously, if fossil fuel plants did not exist – they would not explode injuring workers.
I wonder what it is about this statement that indicates AOC doesn’t blame climate change?
When she says:
“This was Philadelphia after an oil refinery exploded this morning.
So… what’s that about how climate change isn’t an existential crisis that will disproportionately impact working class people & burn its way up?”
When some people are in a hole they should learn to stop digging.
But what’s new?:
“Australian officials attending climate change talks in Germany are being grilled on how the country is tackling global warming by addressing gender and indigenous issues.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/gender-issues-top-bonn-climate-summit/news-story/8957726ee0be7f190abf3d7394ee1d91
Give us more quotes or find a source not behind a paywall please. I expect it is an article by Graham Lloyd so probably has an interesting slant, but I don’t want to pay for it.
Stu doesn’t want to read anything that might challenge his ingrained beliefs. He spends an inirdinate amount of time searching for the quote or paper or yuo tube video that will instantly convert the heathen “denialists” here into true believers, but will not look at anything that he might find challenging.
Sad!
There you go again completely misrepresenting what is written. I simply requested you give me the article or such chunks as you deem relevant. I am quite happy to read it I just don’t wish to put money in Ruperts pocket as there are plenty of more balanced media outfits to follow. And so can you hand on heart swear you have read/watched the sources I have quoted? I have followed all of yours where they are accessible, as I am very open to listening to valid argument. Are you?
Stu
I did not post the article. Like Chris, you need to read before typing.
Following up on the suggestion to “think about things” on this wet and cold winters day, I went back to the hoary old issue of CO2 lagging temperature, not the reverse. Remember that one? I recalled seeing a very good coverage of the issue on youtube. So here it is. More to the story than you might think. Comments will follow I am sure.
Don, it is worth watching all of it.
https://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A
What you continually are in denial of, stu, is that stuff is all assumption, based on correlation, which as we all should know by now, is not causation.
And your worshipped science has never come up with any measureable evidence or definitive experiment to show how it could happen.
Just more assumption.
Yet still you worship it.
But what you really need to understand and admit in this very cold weather is that absolutely nothing is happening now that didn’t happen when atmo CO2 was 280 ppm.
Except that it was often considerably hotter then and sea levels were correspondingly quite a bit higher.
So the real question here is, why do you choose the doomsday scenario in preference to reality?
Did Ehrlich really influence you that much?
Mate, did you watch that video, or are you just raving over on out of spite? In other words give me some lucid and logical rebuttals to th3 content if that video.
Boambee John
Why do you keep making self-serving comments with no evidence??
It is clear your prediction was false. The Earth has not cooled and there is no evidence it ever will.
Your belief seems more religious than scientific.
It is not a case of “Early days yet for the effect of a quiet sun to become evident” because there never was a lag between solar activity and enough effect to drown out GHG effect.
The Earth will not cool even though there are cooling cycles over 11, 30 and 60 years. They have either been totally overpowered by GHG-effect or at best have been converted from a natural downward tendency into a short period of technical hiatus.
If you think the effect will become evident ?????? when will this be?
Chris
“It is clear your prediction was false. The Earth has not cooled and there is no evidence it ever will.”
Again, you do not read before typing. I made no such prediction, I simply commented on the lines “if the solar scientists are correct”. It takes a vivid imagination to convert that into a prediction.
As a gentle hint, when talking about the future, it is best to avoid phrases like “there is no evidence it ever will”, whether talking about the earth cooling or heating.
Too many alarmists have already got egg on their faces after making confident predictions that did not occur in the time predicted. I try to avoid sharing their fate.
Does “a short period of technical hiatus” refer to the hiatus which you earlier described as “The ludicrous stupidity of the pause or hiatus”?
Boambee John
So do you think that the future will cool or warm or remain unchanged?
What did you mean “early days”? if not predicting something?
Chris
I think that the climate will continue to change, as it has for millenia. Simple logic says that there is some human warming effect (even if only the cumulative effect of all the urban heat islands around the globe).
Whether this effect is significant in scale is at least debatable. Whether it is beneficial or not is also debatable. Whether it out weighs natural variation will only be seen when proper empirical data are cpllected; computer models involve too many assumptions to provide a definitive forecast.
I would have thought that “early days” would be quite clear. As CAGW alarmists keep saying, the climate changes over long periods, not overnight (that’s weather, iirc). Any cooling effect of a quiet sun will take time to show up in empirical data. Unlike far too many climate “scientists” I am not rash (or silly) enough to make hard predictions based on limited data.
PS, my firm view is that the climate will continue to change. Given the uncertainty about which direction the change will take, sensible policy would be to prepare for both eventualities, taking measures that apply in either case.
In a hotter world, reliable, continuous, energy sources will be required to provide cooling. In a cooler world, reliable, continuous, energy sources will be required to provide heating. In both cases reliable power will be essential.
In their present state of development, neither solar nor wind can meet the requirement. Nor can batteries, in their present state of development. The choices are fossil fuels or nuclear, particularly in Australia, where the options for hydro are limited.
Chris Warren,
There is one consistent theme throughout this thread, and it is that you have a complete misunderstanding of what science is. The most recent example of this is in your reply to Boambee John where you say, “Your belief seems more religious than scientific”.
There is no such thing as a scientific belief because the purpose of the scientific method is to replace beliefs and authority with empiricism; e.g. “Nullius in verba”.
As I told you above,
“Science is a method that seeks the closest available approximation to ‘truth’ by searching for information that refutes existing understanding and amends or rejects the existing understanding in response to discovered information that refutes the existing understanding.”
Scientists assess all available information and make conclusions from our interpretations of the data. The validity of any conclusion is affected by the uncertainties of the data and our interpretations. Therefore we distrust our conclusions so we attempt to determine all the uncertainties that apply to our conclusions. All our determinations are assisted by arguments about our different conclusions.
When you understand what science is then you will know that the most useful thing for a scientist is for his/her conclusion to be proved to be wrong because such a proof demands alteration the conclusion and, thus, moves us closer to ‘truth’. Beliefs cannot be proved to be wrong because they rely on faith and not evidence..
But your every contribution in this thread relies on your assertions of which authorities should be believed. We scientists refuse to believe anything or anyone (including ourselves) BECAUSE we are scientists.
Please take your superstitions elsewhere because in this place people are attempting to have scientific discussions and your superstitious nonsense is disruptive.
Richard
So do you believe in global cooling? When will it come?
Chris, thanks for your contributions, but I fear all a waste of time here. But as I wrote, discounting the crazy arguments here has sharpened my knowledge of the issues. We are in the same percentage here, like negligible, as they are in the science space, but someone has to do it, yeah.
Chris Warren,
You yet again have ignored everything I wrote to you and have responded with a daft question about beliefs.
OK. I summarised my opinion of your beliefs by presenting them in the form of a mock sermon as my introduction a lecture which you can see here. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1
Some people thought my mock ‘sermon’ was sufficiently amusing that they copied it to their own web pages to give a laugh to others. You have my permission to use it as a summary of your beliefs.
Richard
So you are an idiotic comedian? playing to your own congregation of religious nutters.
The question stands – “do you believe in global cooling” (you can pick your own basis for your belief)?
You could try science for once but please consult a dictionary first.
Fantasy!
Richard
My “fantasy” comment was a reference to Stu’s dreams of himself and Chris as noble battlers against ignorance.
Sorry for it appearing after your comment!
Boambee John,
No problem.
If you enjoy amusement then you may want to watch my mock sermon because some people say it gave them a good laugh.
Richard
Chris
You didn’t read what Richard said about belief, did you?
I am interested in what people believe that is both relevant and based on science.
Those who label science as superstition, play silly games, and do not seem to think that people have a right to believe scientific facts, disqualify themselves. – repeatedly it would seem.
There are beliefs that are based on science. Take your pick – people should believe that you cannot make gold from sulphur and mercury, that the Earth goes around the Sun, than Mankind descended from early Apes, or that 100 cents makes a dollar, or that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, or that heat melts ice and permafrost.
The proposition that “scientists refuse to believe anything” is arrant nonsense – sheer incompetance. This fellow seems allergic to dictionaries.
Do you want to be associated with such trash??????
Chris
“There are beliefs that are based on science. Take your pick – people should believe that you cannot make gold from sulphur and mercury, that the Earth goes around the Sun, … or that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, or that heat melts ice and permafrost.”
Those are not beliefs, they are provable, empirical facts (some CAGW alarmists seem to reject the concept of evolution, so I skated over that one, and the number of cents in the dollar is hardly a scientific fact).
Perhaps you should look elsewhere for trash?
Chris Warren,
Your nonsense is becoming irritating.
If you think science is about beliefs and not empiricism then look up ‘nullius in verba’.
Within seconds you will discover that your daft notions were rejected by the Enlightenment.
Richard
Jeez you are on shaky ground there. To save me lots of typing go and check this site which says it way better than I can. Unfortunately it is based on our recently re-elected senator for queensland, malcolm roberts, (what a system), but the arguments are sound. Follow the links to real scientists about “science”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk
And of course this also answers SD’s and BJ’s ongoing rant about empirical evidence. Time to move on. And by the way, the earth is moving on rapidly, time to get in tune!
You can’t be serious, stu.
This is what you are claiming is the answer to [and superior to] empirical evidence from your link:
“If all you rely on is “empirical evidence”, and reject modelling and analysis that uses that data, then you basically throw out large swathes of modern scientific endeavours.”
Do you really believe that assumption is data?
Do you really believe that modelling based on that assumption is data?
Do you really believe that “large swathes of modern scientific endeavours” based on unmeasured assumption means anything more than someone’s opinion?
Empirical evidence that Malcolm Roberts refers to is otherwise known as fact.
The assumption that you refer to is simply fancy guesswork.
Your Professor Sherwood is trying to claim facts where none exist.
And you believe him. Oh, dear!
Why can’t you answer my simple question: why is it that nothing is happening now that didn’t happen when atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm other than the higher warming and sea levels of that period?
Please stop dodging the issue and look at the facts.
“Why can’t you answer my simple question: why is it that nothing is happening now that didn’t happen when atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm other than the higher warming and sea levels of that period?”
No, you prove to me that things were the same or worse at 280ppm. And be very explicit about your data sources for the SL, temperature and timing. There are lots of dodgy charts out there written by your co-conspirators. You make a lot of noise about natural variability, show me some data.
stu,
You are claiming that something has changed. Nobody has any reason to agree that anything has changed when you provide no evidence to support your claim.
spangled drongo has made the reasonable request that you provide evidence to support your claim.
We can discuss your evidence when you have presented it. Until then, the only (yes, only) appropriate response to your claim is to laugh at your foolishness.
Richard
If you are in such denial about the Holocene high stand, stu, just tell us then how things are any different now to when we had those 80 centuries of 280 ppm CO2 levels.
You are making the climate crisis claim.
Prove it.
Stu
LOL, the Grauniad, given its propensity for typos, the story might well have been support for the senator!
Sadly for you, no, it was most definitely not support for the Senator. He remains a loose cannon, we are in for a thrilling ride and many laughs once parliament resumes. Sadly he is there for six years, but maybe he will learn something along the way. He may be the living proof that breathing high levels of CO 2 down a mine may actually be deleterious. Something has affected his cognitive ability.
Sitting near the Greens first time around in the Senate?
Not much space on the cross benches.
Hi Richard, SD and others; I see alarmist rolls still plague sites like this. It’s a waste of time discussing the scam of alarmism with them; after all there is NO evidence to support the idea human emissions of CO2 controls climate. As a point of interest Ed Berry is having his paper published in The International Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, a journal of Science Publishing Group. Ed has condensed his paper into a convenient summary for the punters:
“I am also writing versions of my paper for the public. The public argument is simple. The IPCC agrees that the total inflow of CO2 into the atmosphere is less than 5 percent human CO2 and more than 95 percent natural CO2. Simple physics shows that the percentages of human and natural CO2 in the atmosphere will equal the percentages of their inflows. Like following a recipe. You get what you put in.”
It’s a great idea that has flowed from a lot of hard yards by a lot of researchers including Salby and yourself.
The alarmists, like the flogs they are will vomit up the usual arguments about isotopes and nature being balance but all these sophistries are garbage.
So keep an eye out for Ed’s paper.
cohenite
The Science Publishing Group has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing. In an experiment, university professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication. Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, in 2014 pseudonymously published a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics. The article contained an alleged proof of Buddhist Karma.
Ed Barry’s stuff may well be unpublishable in authoritative refereed journals husbanded by Universities or other august institutions and now seems to be appearing as rubbish laundered through Pakistan.
Looks like a denialist trick of last resort.
How much did the authors pay to get their stuff supposedly published????
The comment and reply system leads to a very disjointed conversation. Perhaps we should all meet in a bar and duke it out or more likely a coffee shop and shout over skinny caps. Anyhow, the fact remains, except as evidenced by posts here, the global warmists far outnumber the laggards (slow to embrace reality, science, facts) but their cause is deep seated, even religious, so very hard to shift opinions. Of course time is on our side, but it will only be a pyrrhic victory when they finally acknowledge reality, too late. The big question remains. Some say, bugger we have a problem, others say nah all is fine. which do you reckon is the more reasonable position? Caution, cover the bases, or no, god has it covered we are sweet. Events and evidence (science) seem to be favouring the former. Or the alternative view which if correct means this is the greatest conspiracy ever conceived and pulled off. Blows the mind doesn’t it. Or then again, shows what bull shit that idea represents
Warren,
There is only one author of Ed Berry’s paper, i.e. Ed Berry, and nobody payed to get it published.
Now, have you read it, did you understand it, and can you dispute it?
If not then you have no reason to comment on it.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Junk science in a junk Journal and I take it you, who engages in mock sermons, played the role of referee after the article was rejected by professional Journals.
How would you know that nobody was paid? Was your pseudo-refereeship anonymous?
What an incestuous little echo chamber the denialists have fabricated for themselves.
Your corruption of Greta Thunberg’s cited condition of Asbergers was deliberate and malicious.
Are you corrupting science?
Chris Warren,
I write to answer your offensive and improper questions.
Q1.
How would you know that nobody was paid?
A2.
Ed told me and I have no reason to disbelieve him (although you have written sufficient here for me to disbelieve anything you say.
Q2.
Was your pseudo-refereeship anonymous?
A2.
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING.
I conducted a normal and anonymous peer review when requested to by the Editor of the journal. I review for several respected journals and I am a member of the Editorial Board of one of them (i.e. Energy & Environment which has been cited 38 times in IPCC Reports).
I don’t know what you mean by “pseudo-refereeship”. When the Editor rejected our reviews because he said “The paper does not confirm the accepted view” both I and Hard each independently emailed Ed Berry to express our dismay at the Editor’s anti-science reason for the rejection and we each – unknown to each other – told Ed that he could report our recommendations to publish.
Q3.
What an incestuous little echo chamber the denialists have fabricated for themselves.
A3.
None of which I am aware.
Q4.
Are you corrupting science?
A4.
NO! I am defending science against pseudoscientists such as yourself.
I repeat what I wrote in the post which prompted your abusive questions.
Have you read the paper from Ed Berry, did you understand it, and can you dispute it?
If not then you have no reason to comment on it.
Finally, APOLOGISE because I see no reason why I should accept such abuse from an annoying little oik like you.
Richard
Check out the denialist video here:
https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney
From your reference: “A DipPhil is a diploma in philosophy, and should not be confused with a Doctorate. [7]”
This is factually incorrect, as you can easily confirm via Google.
Dear cohenite,
I am a newcomer to this site but was induced to contribute here when some anonymous fool posted nonsense about the nature of the IPCC (see above).
I, too, am pleased that Ed Berry has at last got his paper approved for publication. I was so shocked when an Editor rejected the official peer review recommendations of Harde and I (who each recommended publication) that I posted a copy of my peer review in a thread discussing Ed’s paper on his web site.
The truth will out and science does self-correct given sufficient time. The idiocy demonstrated by alarmists on this thread does not alter the reality that AGW is – as one person called it in this thread – a zombie scare. The AGW-scare was killed by the Chinese at the Copenhagen IPCC CoP in December 2009 and it is now continuing to move like a headless chicken running around a farmyard.
Nobody will declare to be dead what Boambee John calls the “zombie CAGW hypothesis”. But the scare is dead, and being dead, it will slowly fade away as the ‘Acid Rain’ scare which it supplanted has faded away (nobody now remembers the acid Rain scare unless reminded of it). Our problem is that alarmists are using the zombie AGW scare as excuse for political actions which line their pockets from, for example, the harvests provided by wind powered and solar powered subsidy farms.
Our task is to minimise damage caused by the scare. To that end we need to promote a return to respect for science so the AGW scare fades away as fast as possible. And we must not ignore the belief in mysticism so clearly displayed by alarmists in this thread. Those beliefs are representative of the similar attitudes to the autistic Greta Thunberg (see https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg) and Joan of Arc (see https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/saint-joan-of-arc ).
Joan was burned at the stake as a witch at the age of 19. and it can be hoped such a fate does not await Greta when she reaches that age. I and all others who value Enlightenment thinking are appalled that belief in mystical powers which enabled political use of both Joan and Greta is the same now as it was in the thirteenth century. Those beliefs are overtly championed in this thread by stu and Chris Warren and they threaten the foundations of our civilisation.
Richard
Chris Warren,
I can save everybody the bother of going to your link by reporting that I am the spawn of the Devil.
Also, my evil is so powerful that there are people who write lies about me because they think that will overcome my powers.
Perhaps you can discuss the mock sermon I provided. Or can I assume your silence about it indicates your agreement of it?
Richard
“Our task is to minimise damage caused by the scare. To that end we need to promote a return to respect for science so the AGW scare fades away as fast as possible. ”. REALLY. Never mind, events, and weather, are overtaking you. BTW, are you real. It seems we have achieved a break through and unleashed the true zombie force of the internet. It will get very interesting after this wth these guys on board. Strap in for the ride of your life. Whichever side you are on, it is about to get very confusing with all sorts of pseudo science oozing out. Enjoy.
stu,
Yes, I am real. My health prevents me doing much nowadays, but opposing anonymous threats such as yourself is sufficient incentive for me to do what I can top prevent harm to my children and grandchildren.
Now, what about you? You question my reality but don’t say if you are male, female, a person or persons, etc..
My writing comments here gives anyone a right to dispute my comments here.
But anonymous trolls like you don’t have a right to question my person here or anywhere else.
Richard
Yes but I don’t post wacky troll like posts, i am with the mainstream. And to answer your questions. I am male, old enough to know bull shit when I read it, and literate enough to correspond here. And I see our audience is widening. Great. But the question is, why is this site attracting all the anti’s and not the rational folk. LOL.
stu,
The real questions – and I would welcome answers to them – are:
What deludes you into thinking your posts are not “wacky troll posts” when e.g. you write,
““Knowing something has warmed is not the same as knowing how much something has warmed.” You are splitting hairs mate, get over it.” ?
and
What makes you so stupid that you write e.g.
“why is this site attracting all the anti’s and not the rational folk.” ?
Richard
Stu
“Yes but I don’t post wacky troll like posts, i am with the mainstream”
So were those who adamantly defended the Phlogiston Theory until Lavoisier came along.
You have absolute confidence in the (relatively new) field of climate science, but will not even look at the work of those in the long established field of solar science. Why is that? Is your mind (like Chris’s) completely closed?
What if the solar scientists are correct? Which is more dangerous to life, a world 2 degrees warmer, or one 2 degrees colder? There is a good reason that more people live in the tropics than at the poles!
Cohenite is so right. If there is one thing that proves the absolute hoax of the “climate crisis” as supported by the alarmist trolls here, it is that “climate” meeting in Bonn I linked to upthread where they discuss gender and indigenous issues.
Proving conclusively “climate crisis” is all about virtue signalling and new world order but absolutely nothing to do with real climate science whatsoever.
Chris
You asked me a specific question at 2004 last night. I responded at 2046 and 2117. So far, you have not responded. Is that just rudeness on your part, or do you fully agree with all that I said?
Boambee John
Converting “early days” into “sometime to show up”, still shows you expect cooling to follow a quiet Sun.
Scientists have already measured the impact of changes in insolation on climate and their data shows this cannot counter the forcing from GHG’s.
Consequently there is only a non-scientific basis for this false belief.
Chris
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that I expect the climate to continue to change. I indicated that there might be some human warming influence. I did not discount, as you do, any possibility of cooling under a quiet sun. You, like many alarmists, love to talk about climate changing (upwards) over time, but demand immediate evidence of movement the other way.
Perhaps you might also comment on my 2117 response, which should be more in your field as a former (??) policy research officer.
Anyone can express an opinion without any factual data.
No one restricts future policy to any current state of development resources – which is as you presented.
Chris
No one restricts policy to technologies known to be inadequate for the purpose. By all means try to improve solar and wind, but do not abandon what currently works for what does not.
I specifically referred to the current state of development of solar, wind and storage. You either did not read that or you chose to ignore it.
No sensible person restricts future policy to any current state of development resources – which is as you presented.
This would be a denialist trick.
Chris
My specific words were “In their present state of development, neither solar nor wind can meet the requirement. Nor can batteries, in their present state of development. The choices are fossil fuels or nuclear, particularly in Australia, where the options for hydro are limited.”
What is it you find so difficult to comprehend in the words “in their present state of development”?
I did not exclude the possibility of future development. You, however, wish to bet everything on a giant leap into the unknown. Given your work as a senior research officer for the Commonwealth government, I am beginning to understand why we are in such deep crap.
In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010).
And so denialists – amounting to around 2-3% of scientists – are playing their part, but mostly outside reputable channels.
Chris
I see you still follow the long discredited 97% furphy.
97% of a carefully selected sample culled from a larger group of one scientific branch (or should that be twig).
So you even deny this!!!! based on defamatory dogmas.
Blimey.
So you even deny the narrowness of the sample and the manipulation used to get the figure of 97%!
All samples, by definition, are narrow, and there was no manipulation. Obviously you have not read the paper.
It was just OVER 97%.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would not make this mistake.
Hang on, you said only “around 2-3% of scientists” are “denialists”. All scientists is hardly a narrow sample.
You wriggle like a worm on a fish hook to deny reality.
Wrong.
The 97% is of the “sample”. The sample was narrow compared to the population but not narrow in terms of statistical analysis.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would not make this mistake.
Chris
You are still wriggling. The “consensus” is not of all scientists, rather it is of publishing climate scientists, and thus of a very self-interested group, and also quite a narrow one. It does not take much effort to find this out, yet you did not seem aware of it.
I note that you also quoted Oreskes in one of your earlier alarmist tracts on this thread. She is hardly a disinterested observer.
From Sceptical Science
“Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists”
Either unaware or deliberately deceptive?
“Make no mistake: without concerted action, the very future of our planet is in peril,”
Christine Lagarde (IMF)
Ah, Christine Lagarde. A lawyer, obviously the go to resource for climate science advice.
Another Christine… United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels admitted that the Global Warming agenda set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. Regarding the UN blueprint for their new world order she said :
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
beththeserf
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
DOES NOT MEAN
“destroy capitalism”
Mate, now I see where you are coming from, Agenda 21 and all that spooky stuff. Also if you check you will find she no longer works for the UN.
Here is a bit of an expose of your position.
“Green space, clean energy, increased urban density…and global dictatorship. It’s hard to see how all of these things could connect, but — according to a popular right wing conspiracy theory — a UN resolution aimed at sustainable development could pave the way.
Theorists argue that Agenda 21, a 23-year-old non-binding UN resolution that suggests ways for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development, is the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an eco-totalitarian regime. One of its most outspoken critics, American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese, has described the resolution as “a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind”. Greg Harman 2018
Nothing to worry about mate, a storm in a teacup but one that your fellow traveller Monckton quotes often and loudly. Another of the sad arguments which proves that the science side is winnIng the argument.
“…the science side is winnIng the argument.”
No wonder you are in denial of election results.
And you still can’t answer my question above, even though I’ve made it simpler for you?
If you have any doubts about that Holocene high stand, stu, here are 80 papers for you to read that disagree with you:
https://notrickszone.com/2m-higher-holocene-sea-levels/
Now, about that question you are dodging, once again I ask:
Please advise us of anything different that is happening now, with CO2 at 410 ppm, than was happening for the 80-odd centuries prior, when CO2 was 280 ppm.
If you can’t answer this in a straightforward manner I will assume that you agree that climate is not in crisis and you have become a climate sceptic.
Stu
Really working your way through that standard alarmist playbook aren’t you.
You have tried argument from authority: Professor X says we are all doomed (ignore that Prof X regularly receives large grants to confirm this, and has built his entire career on alarmism.
Then the ad hom: Professor Y might seem well qualified, but he once worked for a fossil fuel company. Or he is not a climate scientist (ignore that Gore, Garnaut and other alarmists are also not climate scientists either).
Then the “Doesn’t matter what you say, we have the numbers” line.
Then “Think of the little children”.
Now you are getting close to the bottom, deploying the “paranoid conspiracy theorist” line.
How deep into the alarmist gutter are you prepared to go? On present evidence, right down into the primeval slime.
’twas nevah about the climate. https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/55th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/
More idiocy from the con merchants and fra-dsters trying to explain how the world could rely on 100% RENEWABLES.
Here’s Roger Pielke trying to make sense of these stupid claims. Their junk science and maths would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. Every trillion dollars of this ongoing lunacy would be wasted because in wouldn’t change the temp for 1,000 years or co2 levels for many more thousands of years. That’s according to the RS and NAS report.
Also these con merchants expect the voters to line up and support this corruption and fra-d every election for the next 30 years. The voters are not that gullible. Here’s the quote and the link.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-why-the-great-fossil-fuel-phase-out-is-scientific-economic-and-political-fantasy-akin-to-time-travel
“On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.
University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years”.
I could add to the difficulties for 100% renewables by reminding every con merchant that there will be another 2+ billion people by 2050.
So the liars and fra-dsters have an even greater problem as well as the silly maths + corruption + junk science of their stupid arguments.
Neville
What is an example of someone calling for 100% renewables – I thought the need was just to balance CO2 emissions with CO2 sinks, so presumably this does not require 100% renewables?
Well, since Australia is already a nett sink, clearly we don’t need ruinables!
Another denialist lie. This is so crazy it deserves a post all on its own.
Further direct proof that some here really have no idea what they are talking about.
The Australian “sink” is described here [pg31]:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/128ae060-ac07-4874-857e-dced2ca22347/files/australias-emissions-projections-2018.pdf
and the net emissions since 1990 is depicted at page 11.
There is a haunting fascination in these debates but it is clearly a waste of time debating the hard core warming loonies. For anyone open-minded here is my latest Catallaxy post. http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/06/23/the-sustainability-of-renewable-energy-and-the-five-es/
Rafe
In theory you are correct, but if their absurd claims are allowed to stand without challenge, the innocent might be led astray.
Yes but it only takes one person per site to debate rather than a whole team, we have to put more effort into getting to the people who are undecided and not yet engaged. Rising power prices will wake them up and then we have to have well organized ideas to explain what is going on.
Dear Rafe Champion,
You say,
“it only takes one person per site to debate rather than a whole team”.
Oh! Who decides which person that should be?
Richard
People have to decide for themselves, I could have put a lot of effort into answering the alarmists but I would have added little to what you and others were doing so I put in my time elsewhere. I am writing a primer on the topic, pitched at the level of a primary school teacher (my sister) to provide information that might help people who don’t have the training, the inclination or the time to get up to speed but would like to have some ready answers to the nonsense that is circulating.
SD, people should be aware that the notrickszone site has been found to be a bit “out there” with some of its claims. One example was a claim about 58 papers concerning AGW, which was picked up by Breitbart then fact checked by Snopes. Now you may not like Snopes but the key thing is they checked back with the authors of the cited papers who were not impressed with presentation on NTZ. Here is what they said.
“On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.
The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.
The basic thesis presented by No Tricks Zone is that these graphs, which are inferred records of things like temperature and precipitation from specific localities through time, show that the climatological changes happening right now are neither dramatic nor man made. The charts highlight times from the somewhat recent pre-industrial past that were either warmer or more dramatically variable then they are now, or show evidence of change attributed to clear natural causes. As Breitbart puts it:
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.” – SNOPES.com
Perhaps your latest “80 papers” story could use a bit of fact checking also.
And still you dodge the question.
Which applies whether or not those 80 papers are correct [and you haven’t dealt with any of the detail {the message} as per your usual form, just shot the messenger, again]
And when just one of those papers states that 6,000 yo oysters are found 3.8 metres above current MSLs, that is factual stuff.
Not some scientist’s opinion of temperature based on his interpretation of a lone tree ring.
IOW, empirical evidence.
Indicating that SLs were higher and temps were warmer 6,000 years ago.
But you shoot the messenger instead.
Your cred is getting more dubious by the day, stu.
So come clean, stop equivocating and just answer the question, hey?
“And when just one of those papers states that 6,000 yo oysters are found 3.8 metres above current MSLs, that is factual stuff.“ ——— so what?
Stop with playing the fool, stu.
Oyster beds collect at MSL and if that MSL of 6,000 years ago is 3.8m above current MSL then not only is it factual that sea levels were that much higher but it would also have been considerably warmer.
I know you are desperate not to answer the question but try facing the music for once, hey?
Yes, never mind the effects of isostatic rebound etc. as for temperature what do you call considerably warmer. What we do know is that the changes back then were set in motion by planetary motion factors then amplified by other effects including CO2 leading and lagging depending on hemisphere. And of course we now have CO2 at a level not seen in 650,000 years, a reason for a degree of concern surely.
Try to stop digging when you are in a hole, stu.
Denying the well proven Holocene high stand with hand-waving doesn’t cut it.
At least 80 scientific papers supporting it plus ice cores and enormous amounts of paleo data and you can’t refute any part of it other than hand-waving.
Certainly not with any believable evidence.
But you insist that it was a hockey stick with a 10,000 year handle.
You blame a current tiny rise in sea levels on CO2 but a huge one on isostatic rebound where there was no proven rebound.
As with the rest of your “science” you simply make up your beliefs as you go.
But at least you do demonstrate your ignorance for all to observe.
And, regardless of all that, you still dodge that question.
So?
spangled drongo
You comment to stu saying, “Denying the well proven Holocene high stand with hand-waving doesn’t cut it.”
Sadly, “hand waving” does “cut it” for members of the AGW cult such as stu and Chris Warren. They are immune to facts and evidence and rely on the beliefs promulgated by their cult. This is demonstrated by the original fraudulent ‘hockey stick graph’ published in 1998 by Mann, Bradley and Hughes and purported to paleo temperatures for the last thousand years.
My criticism objected to the MNH98 ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison.
I first made that criticism in less than a week after publication of MBH98 in 1998. A later email from me about it was copied to Michael Mann in July 2000 and his email in response to it was two days later but was not copied to me: I did not learned of Mann’s response until Climategate leaked it nearly a decade later.
Both emails and discussion of them can be seen here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/
Mann’s response consists solely of personal abuse against me and, importantly, it does not address the issue which I had raised immediately upon seeing the ‘hockeystick’ graph. Hence, I am certain that the graphical malpractice of the ‘hockeystick’ was both witting and deliberate.
And Mann’s statement that “I hope does not go public w/ such comments!” seems to be a threat against me but I had already gone public (as the email he is responding shows) and nearly two decades have passed since then but I have not noticed any deleterious effects.
Importantly, – and the reason I write this comment – efluxion of time has shown that I was mistaken when I wrote in my email which I am here reporting,
“It is historical revisionism to assert that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming did not happen or were not globally significant. It will take much, much more than analyses of sparse and debatable proxy data to achieve such a dramatic overturning of all the historical and archaelogical evidence for the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Those who wish to make such assertions should explain why all the historical and archaelogical evidence is wrong or – failing that – they should expect to be ridiculed.”
AGW activists and the AGW cult DID accept the historical revisionism and some members of the cult still believe the MBH ‘hockeystick’ despite it being refuted by an accumulation over the last two decades of a mountain of evidence and a series of official investigation.
Richard SC
I think this may be worthy of a link;
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/
Chris Warren,
Your nonsense is becoming irritating.
If you think science is about beliefs and not empiricism then look up ‘nullius in verba’.
Within seconds you will discover that your daft notions were rejected by the Enlightenment.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Don’t be such a cry-baby.
Cheer-up, you do believe in the moon landing don’t you?
Running out of arguments Chris? Still, I suppose cry-baby is some sort of improvement on words like fantasy, slander, lies, denier, or denialist.
Boambee John
Science starts with arguments and in the end replaces arguments.
Denialists start with science and try to replace science with arguments, fantasy, slander, lies, religion and fabrications.
Chris Warren,
You yet again promote pseudoscience when you assert, “Science starts with arguments and in the end replaces arguments.”
It is not possible for you to be more wrong than that assertion.
Science starts with an idea about observations and seeks new ideas about the observations when arguments about the idea stop. Finding a new idea may induce a paradigm shift (e.g. Einstein’s mechanics expanded upon Newton’s mechanics by showing Newton’s ideas to be a special case).
I wonder where you have obtained your daft motions about science; does your cult have reeducation classes which have filled your head with such nonsense?
Richard
RS, “If you think science is about beliefs ”. That is really turning the argument upside down. The only belief is on the contrarian side.
So, stu, denying history and evidence with religion and hand-waving as you continually do, is not belief?
And denialist belief at that?
Give us a break!
SD I think it’s best to ignore their ignorant, religious fanaticism and just try and keep up with the latest scientific studies that support our arguments.
That’s a big job in itself and doesn’t leave enough time to chase silly trolls down every rat hole they pluck from their fevered imaginations. I haven’t got the time or interest to argue with fools and I’m still pinching myself over that relief I’ve felt since the night of May 18th.
But Labor hasn’t changed and would still take us down their idiotic path of much more S&W at a cost of 100s of billions $ striving to reach 50% renewables by 2030. And all for ZERO change to temp or climate by 2040 or 2100. Just ask China, India and the non OECD countries. Just unbelievable but true.
You’re right of course, Neville, but it is very satisfying to point out the obvious errors on which their religion is based.
E.g., I can’t believe our blith’s ignorant claim about total Australian sinks relative to emissions by simply producing a govt doc that lists additional sinks.
Even the IPCC admitted that our sinks are twice our emissions and we are a double net absorber of CO2, but if you really consider the huge areas of forest and grassland plus the area of our nationally controlled oceans, the sinks could outnumber emissions by ten times that.
Dear Neville,
I write to respectfully dispute your suggestion saying,
“I think it’s best to ignore their ignorant, religious fanaticism and just try and keep up with the latest scientific studies that support our arguments.”
Of course we need to keep abreast of recent scientific findings but it is also essential that we refute the superstitious fanaticism which, for example, is so clearly displayed by stu and Chris Warren in this thread.
Failure to refute the superstitious nonsense enables the fanatics to use the nonsense to obscure the science from public view. And, as you say, we need to ensure that damaging political actions promoted by the fanatics is avoided: this avoidance is only possible if the public are not misled by the superstitious fanatics.
Our greatest problem is not time (not even for those like me whose time is running out). Our greatest problem is difficulty obtaining engagement with leaders of the global warming scare. But we can engage with the ‘minnows’ such as stu and Chris Warren.
The ‘minnows’ are true fanatics so they really do think they are championing a cause. In reality the ‘big fish’ leave the ‘fight’ to the ‘minnows’ because they know climate realists have always won every debate. An example of this was the debate at St Andrews Uni. where Morner, Monckton and me defeated the motion, “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis”.
That debate was on Wednesday 4 March 2009 and my factual report of it can be read at e.g. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
In that report I write
“the debate was lively, informative and entertaining. It got emotional at times. Some of the contributions from the floor were of exceptionally high quality. But, it was somewhat spoiled by the weakness of the proponents of the motion. (I have good reason to suspect this weakness is because stronger speakers could not be obtained to propose the motion. If so, then it is yet another example of leading proponents of AGW fearing to face their critics in open debate). ”
and
“Prior to the debate the opponents of the motion had expected to lose the vote because the students have been exposed to a lifetime (i.e. their short lifetime) of pro-AGW propaganda. We consoled ourselves with the certainty that we would win the arguments because opponents of AGW have all the facts on our side. But in the event we won both. The motion was defeated when put to the vote.”
The three losers of the motion were hopeless. They were typical alarmist fanatics who seemed to think that turning up would be sufficient for them to win. One of them was Gregory Norminton. He was still hurting from the defeat seven months after the debate so on 21 October 2009 he provided his own account of the debate which can be seen at https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-not-to-take-on-climate-change-deniers
Norminton’s account says of my speech to the debate, “he appears to have modelled his public speaking on end-of-the-pier comedians”. I would welcome an explanation of that from anyone because there was a strict 7 minute time limit on each speech, and there was no time available for jokes and/or additions: a verbatim account of my speech is in my linked account of the debate. Perhaps Norminton is trying to say my presentation was of a professional standard but he did not like it?
All of my speech is in my linked account of the debate, but I copy to here its part that pertains to beliefs.
“So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposites of some of its predictions are observed.
But some people promote the hypothesis. They’ve several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, and…). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. So, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates. And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming they are.
Advocates promote AGW using three kinds of pseudo-science.
They use ‘argument from ignorance’. This isn’t new. In the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
Advocates rely on not-validated computer models.
No model’s predictions should be trusted unless the model has demonstrated forecasting skill. But climate models have not existed for 20, 50 or 100 years, so they cannot have demonstrated forecasting skill.
Simply, the climate models’ predictions of the future have the same demonstrated reliability as the casting of chicken bones to predict the future.
Advocates use the Precautionary Principle saying we should stop greenhouse gas emissions in case the AGW hypothesis is right. But that turns the Principle on its head.
Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.
The Precautionary Principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.”
Richard
Stu
“The only belief is on the contrarian side.”
The worrying thing about you is that you seem genuinely to believe this. Your mind cannot accept the reality that there are empirical facts that do not accord with your world view.
You are the most extreme denialist on this site, even worse than Chris.
“You are the most extreme denialist on this site, even worse than Chris.“ Wow, I thought we all agreed not to use that word, what has changed? But to invert it as you have is a true classic. On the other hand I will concede that on this site the knockers are in the ascendant number wise, so here and only here can you claim to be dominant. But that is what makes it so interesting to Chris and I and maybe a few other silent followers.
Fortunately we have other sites where science is respected, people check the facts, and come to reasoned conclusions. And we come here to find shortcuts to the best array of opposing ideas, which rarely stack up. We already knew of the standard, Whatup’s and Notricks, Nova, CATO etc but you have expanded the range. It is hard to keep up.
So now you have labelled all the government and scientific organisations working in this field “deniers” and “believers”, which is truly astounding. I am trying to establish where best to publish your words (anonymously of course) to cause the most outrage.
Stu
Like Chris, you have a problem with reading comprehension. I referred to “on this site”. You might find this difficult to comprehend, but that somewhat narrows the targets.
As for you getting huffy about having “denialist” flung back in your face, if CAGW alarmists had not chosen to try to imply a link to Holocaust denial, the term sceptic would probably have continued in use. If you and Chris had not chosen to popularise its use here, it would never have been used here.
As for your rather pathetic threat, suck it up princess.
“ if CAGW alarmists had not chosen to try to imply a link to Holocaust denial, ”. No mate it was your lot that laid claim to that linkage. Get your facts right.
No, the alarmists deliberately chose a particular term to imply a link. They were called out on it, and had to prepare a definition that obscured their nastiness.
It looks like most whale species are continuing to recover around the world and many show high numbers since the reduction in hunting over the last 40 to 100 years.
But species that were badly depleted before the start of the 20th century are slower to recover, but some have seen small increases over recent years.
https://iwc.int/estimate
More false claims about hurricanes from the US DEMS and the AOC loon. Hurricane expert Ryan Maue tries to educate these activists but will find it hard to activate their closed minds.
Pursuing data and evidence are not what these fools are interested in.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/24/house-democrats-climate-change/
Our own BoM who refuse to be audited, having made a hash of ACORN 1 with their many adjustments have now introduced ACORN 2 with even greater adjustments:
In the ACORN-SAT FAQs, in the answer to:
“Why should the adjustments change, weren’t they correct the first time?”
the Bureau says:
“… The important question is not which one (version) represents the absolute truth, but whether those estimates produce wildly different results, and whether the range of estimates provides a reasonable guide to what has actually occurred.”
By their own words they have condemned themselves- “wildly different results” is exactly what has been produced. Adjustments made in Version 1 were apparently made in error as they have been “corrected” by adjustments in version 2. Will these adjustments be in error and corrected in version 3?
The Bureau officers responsible for Acorn version 2 appear to be blissfully unaware that they have made adjustments of up to 14.6 ? to temperatures in the dataset they proudly claimed to be world’s best practice just seven years ago.
Acorn 2, as the best estimate of Australia’s temperature record, is a failure.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2019/05/20/acorn-sat-2-0-nation-wide-summary/
Don, I came across this great article by you in On Line Opinion on Richard Lindzen’s general thoughts on our climate. Some extracts:
“Climate is the outcome of turbulence between two immensely powerful subordinate systems, that of the oceans and of the atmosphere, which are unevenly heated by the sun, and much affected by land topography. These turbulent interactions have several timescales, ranging from seconds to millennia. Moreover, given the massive nature of the oceans, such variations can involve timescales of millennia rather than milliseconds. El Niño is a relatively short example, involving years, but most of these internal time variations are too long to even be identified in our relatively short instrumental record. There is a greenhouse effect, and its mighty engines are water vapour and clouds.
Consider the massive heterogeneity and complexity of the system, and the variety of mechanisms of variability as we consider the current narrative that is commonly presented as ‘settled science.’
Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance.
This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted……”
SD, Don,
“The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance.”
I don’t think that is a fair summation of the current position at all, and is a actually a massive put down of all the worlds scientists working on pieces and the whole of the problem. Also that “single variable” is the one that has been perturbed not the other factors such as solar output, volcanic activity etc.
Besides, much of the current consternation revolves not around the cause but the acceleration of change in key elements of the world’s climates and eco-systems, particularly the Arctic and the Canadian/Russian tundra. The majority of scientists are working on subsets of the issue, like oceans, ice, plankton, jet streams etc. not on the total picture. But as stated some time ago while a “consensus” may be too much to claim there is already a consensus of bad omens from many fields of research.
There is fear of a major “perturbation” caused by sudden release of the calthrates etc leading to a “tipping point”. As just one example.
It is also demonstrably true that the major output or coalescing of the information is via the IPCC reports. The problem there is that as the knockers rightly complain there is too much politics at the top. But guess what, the problem has been a diminution of the conclusions not an exaggeration. Many of the contributors express the view that things are more advanced and worse than the dumbed down (to suit the generally slow moving government sector) reports have indicated. On other hand it is also true that each report has reflected increasing alarm and reference to ever improving lines of evidence. A standard contrarian objection is to the terminology of the conclusions in the IPCC.
At the end of the day events will reveal the truth of arguments one way or the other. Although the efforts of the US government in particular of withholding information (dept of Ag, State Department, EPA etc) does not auger well. At least for the present, funding of the main research units of NASA, NOAA etc remains unaffected. And surely even you guys would want to see continued research to keep a handle on what changes are taking place in the climate sub systems.
Further “This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted……”. . In my opinion that is not too far removed from the argument that is based on magical thinking, viz that mankind is too puny to possibly have any effect on god’s great creation which is followed by more than a view.
Sadly few scientists are gifted communicators (political scientists excluded!) so it is left to the poor ones plus better communicating non scientists to carry the case. On the other hand there are the quite impressive pseudo scientists on the other side espousing the cause with much assistance from sections of the media and other vested interests.
stu,
You say,
“There is fear of a major “perturbation” caused by sudden release of the calthrates etc leading to a “tipping point”. As just one example.”
Sorry, but you are mistaken.
There is no such “fear”, there is only a suggestion which is being proposed by some of the scare-mongers who are making a living from the anthropogenic (i.e. human made) global warming scare (AGW).
The great benefit of AGW for scare-mongers is that it provides a facility to make and sell ‘snake oil’ which does not require real snakes for its manufacture. What you say is a “fear” is merely another flavour of ersatz ‘snake oil’.
Richard
Go and look up methane concentrations in the atmosphere, their source and impact. Right now the key driver of the dramatic spike in methane is the oil and gas industry, primarily in the US of late. Also there is rapid change occurring in the state of the tundra, causing major concern. Then there are the various calthrate deposits, many frozen under the shallow seas of northern siberia. As the tundra melts, which it is doing, big outpourings are possible, soon. It is true to say there is fear about it because of its potential.
Though shortlived, methane is much more potent than CO2 as a green house gas. But the conversation here so far has only been about CO2. Plenty of scope to broaden the discussion.
The only snake oil going around is that provided by the fossil fuel industries to protect their earnings, liberally spread around a sucking blogosphere and so called thInk tanks. You have been duped mate. Please go and read “Exxon knew” then come back to me. Notice how even on this little site we now have some real blog players entering the scene. Proves Chris and I must be making waves, go Chris.
stu,
Before telling me to “look up” what I know (in some detail) you should have have learned how and why methane clathrates are formed in shallow ocean shore waters. If you knew that then you would have known the “fear” of methane clathrates is another of the non-issues promoted to dupe the gullible like e.g. the ocean acidification scare (and I suppose you hide under your bed from that, too).
Richard
LOL, Stu warns us that doom approaches in the form of methane clathrates, but gets the term wrong, twice! Keep on laughing Stu.
stu,
You are making what is – even by your standards – a ridiculous suggestion when you write,
“The only snake oil going around is that provided by the fossil fuel industries to protect their earnings, liberally spread around a sucking blogosphere and so called thInk tanks.”
No, stu. The “fossil fuel iundustries” don’t provide snake oil. They are too busy producing, distributing and selling coal, oil and gas and if they stopped providing that then most people on Earth would die.
As I pointed out to you earlier in this thread,
the use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture.
Richard
SD said “Even the IPCC admitted that our sinks are twice our emissions and we are a double net absorber of CO2, ”.
Mate can you point me to the part of the IPCC report that says that. I sure cant find it
Answer my question before I answer more of yours, stu.
I am not asking a question, I am seeking the source of your astounding claim.
Power without earning it: How the Greens plan to push their extreme left-wing agendas on Australians – to ban private schools, oppose free speech and legalise drugs.
Not to mention their climate crisis craziness:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7139689/How-Greens-plotting-impose-extreme-left-wing-agenda-Australia.html
Yes, the Greens have so much power to change everything, really scary!
Stu
You seem to know even less about politics than you do about science.
Please, help me stop laughing, you crack me up.
stu,
The suggestion that you could know less about politics than you do about science made me laugh too as I imagined the possible ways you can know less than nothing.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
So you don’t know much about methane clathrates and you don’t believe in the moon landing?
Do you believe that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation?
Do you believe in science?
Do you believe lower atmosphere temperatures are rising and upper temperatures are falling?
Brother, dooo youu believe???
Gimme that old time alarmism, gimme that old time alarmism ….
But seriously Chris, your habit of asking people if they believe in the moon landings, implying that those who disagree with you are all whacko conspiracy theorists is on a par with CAGW alarmists calling sceptics “deniers” in an attempt to imply a connection with Holocaust denial.
Both are childish and pathetic. If you can’t do better, do nothing.
Chris Warren,
As I have explained to you, I am a scientist and scientists reject beliefs and develop theories.
But you address me and list a series of questions which each assume I have beliefs.
Well, I don’t ‘beat my wife’ but I choose to answer one of your silly questions because the answer may be useful to others.
You ask me, “Do you believe lower atmosphere temperatures are rising and upper temperatures are falling?”
My response is to say I accept the indications of atmospheric temperature variations independently provided by
(a) the direct temperature measurements (radiosondes) from weather balloons since 1958
and
(b) the remote temperature measurements (microwave sounding units, MSU) mounted on satellites (since 1969).
These two independent data sets each show the distribution of temperature changes in the atmosphere indicate that anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming AGW projected by the IPCC is NOT happening.
The AGW hypothesis projected by the IPCC predicts MOST WARMING of the air at altitude in the tropics. This warming is projected to be between 2 and 3 times the warming at ground level. This region of elevated warming at altitude in the troposphere in the tropics is known as the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’.
Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show COOLING at altitude in the tropics.
Well, that has got rid of the AGW-scare for you. Anything else you want me to help you with?
Richard
Richard S Courtney
The fact that lower atmosphere temps are rising and upper atmosphere temps are falling is due to extra heat being trapped by the middle layer of the atmosphere.
This is the result of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
You have admitted that global warming is a fact, is based on science, and is something the more inteligent folks should believe in.
Chris
So, are you saying that the IPCC and the models were wrong with the prediction of the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’?
Gutsy call, pretty much discredits both the IPCC and the models.
Still, if you say so.
Chris Warren,
You seem to fail to understand words you write yourself. The most recent example of this is your response to my informing you that the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’ is missing.
Your response says to me in full,
“The fact that lower atmosphere temps are rising and upper atmosphere temps are falling is due to extra heat being trapped by the middle layer of the atmosphere.
This is the result of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
You have admitted that global warming is a fact, is based on science, and is something the more inteligent folks should believe in.”
Nobody disputes that “global warming exists”, certainly not me. But, as I told you,
global warming is NOT evidence of anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) global warming (AGW)
because
evidence that the Earth warmed is NOT evidence that humans warmed it.
And you have agreed my words that told you,
“The AGW hypothesis projected by the IPCC predicts MOST WARMING of the air at altitude in the tropics. This warming is projected to be between 2 and 3 times the warming at ground level. This region of elevated warming at altitude in the troposphere in the tropics is known as the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’.
Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show COOLING at altitude in the tropics.”
Simply, you have agreed that AGW does NOT exist.
I can only repeat,
Well, that has got rid of the AGW-scare for you. Anything else you want me to help you with?
Richard
The G 20 meeting in Japan will not have coal power stns on the agenda or the use of coal. Great to see that these countries know that fossil fuels are so important to their future development.
China and India pay the highest subsidies for coal and let’s hope we can open more mines in Australia to help our bottom line and allow more developing countries to fast track their economies.
https://www.thegwpf.com/g20-nations-water-down-commitment-to-climate-change-action/
Since we are now into quoting that noted organisation, the GWPF, maybe we should look at another of the articles they carry, this one about the grand solar minimum.
“In fact, all indications are that the upcoming solar minimum may be even quieter than the last one which was the deepest in nearly a century. In addition, there are now forecasts that the next solar cycle, #25, will be the weakest in more than 200 years. The current solar cycle, #24, has been the weakest with the fewest sunspots since solar cycle 14 peaked in February 1906.”
So, quoting the amazing Willie Soon (a favourite of the contrarians) “it is the sun stupid” (That is actually paraphrasing what he says) things should get cooler, in fact should have been getting cooler for many years already. So we can all relax there is no problem with the climate, it is all just natural variability. Or could that carbon stuff be interfering with these natural processes? Hmmm.
See here for the actual article. (Direct , not the GWPF post)
(https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/2019/6/19/1030-am-now-entering-a-deep-solar-minimum-and-the-latest-forecast-for-solar-cycle-25-suggests-it-may-be-the-weakest-cycle-in-200-years
“As I have explained to you, I am a scientist”
Richard, what are your formal qualifications? It’s a question the internet seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time on, perhaps you could put them out of their misery here.
JimboR
That will not save him. If he replies, the obvious question will be; “Are you crazy scientist?”
Of course this just exposes the hypocrisy of denialists because they spend hours and hours denying the science that actually comes from scientists and pretending that one cannot use authority (which they term a fallacy).
How convenient????
Maybe Courtney has a different definition of science and could well be a Scientologist?
JimboR,
Please tell me the job you are offering which requires me to provide you with my CV.
I will consider the offer depending on the salary you are intending to pay.
Richard
Chris
“the obvious question will be; “Are you crazy scientist?”
Of course this just exposes the hypocrisy of denialists”
This just exposes the vaxuity of the alarmists, they only have insults and ad homs to offer?
Vacuity not vaxuity!
Boambee John
Please indicate where I mentioned the so-called hotspot?
Why did you try to place fabricated words in my mouth?
What an absolutely dirty denialist trick?
Warren,
I quoted you verbatim and in full so there could be no possibility of a claim that I put words in your mouth.
But you have made the claim anyway.
You have provided an example of absolutely typical behaviour of liars and AGW- alarmists like you.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
What on earth are you talking about? I never claimed you put words into my mouth?
This is the foul ploy used by Bombee John.
Is this really the level of your engagement with what other people are saying?
Chris Warren,
I know you are floundering, but it was me that mentioned the ‘Hot Spot’, you who agreed my observations about the ‘Hot Spot’, and Boambee John who commented on your agreement.
You then wrote,
“Boambee John
Please indicate where I mentioned the so-called hotspot?
Why did you try to place fabricated words in my mouth?
What an absolutely dirty denialist trick?”
Simply, you mentioned the ‘Hot Spot’ when you agreed my report of the pattern of atmospheric warming. Hence, if you are claiming a “dirty denialist trick” then it was me who provided the trick because it was me who explained the ‘Hot Spot’.
In fact, you are as confused about this as you are in your assertions that I used foul language (I did not as you well know).
Your desperate attempts to divert attention from your admission that AGW does not exist are childish. And you know that, too; it is the reason for your comments such as “juvenile prattle”.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
You are not making any sense. I was not making any point about a hot spot to Boambee John nor anyone else. I have not said the hotspot was a denialist trick.
I merely pointed out your error in quoting 1996 Santer et al. by providing Santer et al. (2013).
You have also made another error in not realising that upper cooling is caused by global warming in lower atmosphere.
As I said:
The rebound from Litttle Ice Age was not caused by CO2 exceeding 300ppm.
The issue today is CO2 exceeding 300ppm.
There has been considerable research since 1996. The anthropogenically driven rise in [CO2]atm is well established see:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576?fbclid=IwAR1yxgsidvjEMPI-w1V6pO9PTa_ZFyXGvl_0LxWiVOkcfvURVquq9QFk3us
[Unlike denialists, I post recent evidence not foul speech]
Humans influence climate directly by urban heat effect, and indirectly by GHG emissions. The recent temperature lower atmosphere increase was caused by increased absorption of infrared radiation due to GHG in the atmosphere.
The recent upper atmosphere cooling was caused by the trapping below of infrared radiation due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.
So far you have presented no scientific evidence – just words such as “radiosondes”, “IPCC”, etc without taking responsibility for such juvenile prattle.
Here is scientific evidence;
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png
Mature individuals realise that the recent spike has no natural causes. Earlier excursions of CO2 up to 300ppm (within human evolution) were caused by Milankovitch Cycles. This does not apply today.
Denialists have no answer to this?
Still no answer?
Chris Warren,
You again demonstrate you don’t understand your own words.
You say,
“You are not making any sense. I was not making any point about a hot spot to Boambee John nor anyone else. I have not said the hotspot was a denialist trick.
I merely pointed out your error in quoting 1996 Santer et al. by providing Santer et al. (2013).”
NO!! you again lie (TWICE in your few words I have quoted in this post).
You raised the issue of distributions of temperature changes in the atmosphere.
I pointed out that those changes reveal the missing ‘Hot Spot’ which demonstrates that AGW as predicted by the IPCC is NOT happening, and I explained what this means.
Simply, you WERE pointing out that the Hot Spot doesn’t exist but you were too ignorant to know you were doing that.
I immediately pointed out that you were saying the Hot Spot doesn’t exist.
Your response revealed you were too stupid to ‘stop digging’ and I explained that to you.
You admitted that what I said was right and attempted to deflect attention from your admission by making false accusations of lies and foul language.
Now you dangle the ‘red herring’ of saying I had confused Santer’s 1996 and 2013 papers. I don’t know which Cardinal of your cult suggested that you do that but he is incompetent.
The easiest way to demonstrate that I was accurately reporting Santer’s 1996 paper and its refutations is to link to the account of that scandal with (full references and pertinent quotations) provided by the late John Daly on his web site. That site was ‘frozen’ when John Daly died more than a decade before 2013.
You can read John’s succinct account of the matter here.
http://john-daly.com/sonde.htm
Richard
Chris
I did not claim tbat you mentioned the “Hot spot”, rather i noticed that you did not mention it. Since it has long been proclaimed as a key indicator, that you did not mention it was the significant point.
The dog that did not bark in the night!
Richard S Courtney
Yes, there has been a change in denialist dogmas. Some do realise that warming is occurring but then hide behind the bald-faced lie that it is not human caused. You seem incapable of understanding that upper atmospheric cooling is caused by increased CO2.
So what is the scientific basis for this? So far you have presented no scientific evidence – just words such as “radiosondes”, “IPCC”, etc without taking responsibility for such juvenile prattle.
Here is scientific evidence;
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png
Mature individuals realise that the recent spike has no natural causes. Earlier excursions of CO2 up to 300ppm (within human evolution) were caused by Milankovitch Cycles. This does not apply today.
Denialists have no answer to this?
Chris Warren,
I object to your lies.
For four decades I and many others have been pointing out that the Earth has been intermittently warming for about 300 years as recovery from the Little Ice Age, and there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – that humans are affecting this recovery in any way. But you lie that our observation is novel.
In 1996 Santer et al. published a paper in Nature that claimed to have found “a discernible human influence on global climate” but later that year Nature published two papers which demonstrated the paper by Santer et al. was either gross negligence or worse. The two dozen signatories of that paper include most of the senior members of the AGW-cult and I don’t think they could all have been that incompetent. So, which do you think, your heroes are incompetent scientists or accomplices in a deliberate attempt to deceive?
Since that complete rejection of the paper by Santer et al. in 1996, research has been conducted worldwide to seek some – any – evidence for a discernible human influence on climate. That search for any evidence of AGW has cost more than US$3.5 billion each year and has failed to find any such evidence. A tenth of that money wasted on the fruitless search would have been sufficient to provide clean drinking water and mains sewerage to every human inhabitant of the Earth.
You really are a very slimey troll. Crawl back under your bridge and don’t come back because your presence and your lies are polluting this thread.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Bad language gets you no where.
The rebound from Litttle Ice Age was not caused by CO2 exceeding 300ppm.
The issue today is CO2 exceeding 300ppm.
There has been considerable research since 1996. The anthropogenically driven rise in [CO2]atm is well established see:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576?fbclid=IwAR1yxgsidvjEMPI-w1V6pO9PTa_ZFyXGvl_0LxWiVOkcfvURVquq9QFk3us
[Unlike denialists, I post recent evidence not foul speech]
Humans influence climate directly by urban heat effect, and indirectly by GHG emissions. The recent temperature lower atmosphere increase was caused by increased absorption of infrared radiation due to GHG in the atmosphere.
The recent upper atmosphere cooling was caused by the trapping below of infrared radiation due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.
So far you have presented no scientific evidence – just words such as “radiosondes”, “IPCC”, etc without taking responsibility for such juvenile prattle.
Here is scientific evidence;
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png
Mature individuals realise that the recent spike has no natural causes. Earlier excursions of CO2 up to 300ppm (within human evolution) were caused by Milankovitch Cycles. This does not apply today.
Denialists have no answer to this?
Chris Warren,
You are failing to run away fast enough.
The issue that you raised WAS and IS the distribution of temperature changes in the atmosphere.
Those changes do not show the Hot Spot and, therefore, they demonstrated that anthropogenic (i.e. human made) global warming (AGW) is NOT happening.
I don’t know who suggested that you try to change the subject to atmospheric CO2 concentration. I suppose it was someone who knows some of my published work. But I will not swim after that red herring: you are ‘on the hook’ and I see no reason to let you off.
Richard
Given a crude denialist has spoken …. lets see;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3808612/
“Observational satellite data and the model-predicted response to human influence have a common latitude/altitude pattern of atmospheric temperature change. The key features of this pattern are global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling over the 34-y satellite temperature record. We show that current climate models are highly unlikely to produce this distinctive signal pattern by internal variability alone, or in response to naturally forced changes in solar output and volcanic aerosol loadings. We detect a “human influence” signal in all cases, even if we test against natural variability estimates with much larger fluctuations in solar and volcanic influences than those observed since 1979. These results highlight the very unusual nature of observed changes in atmospheric temperature.”
Chris Warren,
Wriggle as much as you want. You raised an issue and were shown to be wrong so have attempted to divert attention from it with lies and insults.
Keep floundering because it displays your complete lack of credibility.
Or, preferably, crawl back under your bridge until you learn to behave in a proper manner.
Richard
“The issue today is CO2 exceeding 300ppm”
Chris, you’re dealing with someone who believes natural CO2 emissions have gone up 30% since 1960 – with no supporting evidence at all. Now that’s faith!
JimboR,
I am a realist. I only deal in evidence.
You are an alarmist running around in panic at things you say you are frightened might happen.
I am glad you are aware of some of my published work but if you had read it then you would know that the work is ONLY based on available evidence and logic. You are the one who claims the trivial rise of ~0.01% in recent atmospheric scientific concentration is not natural variability. My work merely demonstrates that available evidence cannot enable determine what if any effect anthropogenic CO2 emissions have on the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
My finding is not controversial: it merely explains the reason why it is still the case that as Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR) says, “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.
But I deal in science while you and Chris Warren promulgate the beliefs of your cult.
Richard
PS I am still eagerly awaiting details of the job (especially its salary) you are offering me.
“I am still eagerly awaiting details of the job (especially its salary) you are offering me.”
You’ll be waiting a long time for that one. You claimed to be a scientist, I enquired as to your formal qualifications, you respectfully declined to comment, the caravan rolls on. Your internet fans can die wondering for all I care, I’ve pretty much drawn my own conclusions. There’ll be no job offer.
JimboR,
Oh! No job offer? Then what on Earth gave you the idea that I would share my CV with you?
I will not offer provide any personal information for no reason. Such information is not relevant and I learned decades ago that such a provision turns a thread into a surreal ‘rabbit hole’.
What gets me is that anonymous trolls like you attempt to say my work is tainted by my having been the Senior Material Scientist based at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment yet question my credentials. I wonder how you think I got, did and kept that job.
Richard
“I will not offer provide any personal information for no reason.”
Yes, we’ve established that and moved on.
“anonymous trolls like you attempt to say my work is tainted by my having been the Senior Material Scientist based at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment”
You should take that up with those that do.
JimboR,
Moved on?
Really? You have moved on?
Are we to understand you have left the cult of AGW and have turned to real science instead?
Or are you merely telling the usual cultist lies and you intend to continue to try selling falsehoods?
Richard
Moved on in the sense of “’I’ve pretty much drawn my own conclusions.” (about you). Your frothing since has only reinforced them.
JimboR,
No “conclusions” about me were necessary because I wrote above,
I am the spawn of the Devil and my evil powers are so great that the likes of you use lies (and I could have added ‘smears and innuendo’) in attempt overcome them.
The only ‘frothing’ is yours. I think you must be mistaking my laughter for “frothing”.
People can assess my works, my writings and my arguments using any references or clarifications they request from me. You hope your smears from an anonymous troll will overcome any doubts about their belief in AGW that I may have given to members of your cult. I admit I hope I have sown such doubts but I refuse to assist your smear campaign by discussing me instead of the information I have provided.
I regret you now say have failed to “move on” and your claim that you had was merely another of your continuing presentation of falsehoods from an anonymous troll.
Richard
Richard S Courtney
Bad language gets you no where.
The rebound from Litttle Ice Age was not caused by CO2 exceeding 300ppm.
The issue today is CO2 exceeding 300ppm.
There has been considerable research since 1996. The anthropogenically driven rise in [CO2]atm is well established see:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576?fbclid=IwAR1yxgsidvjEMPI-w1V6pO9PTa_ZFyXGvl_0LxWiVOkcfvURVquq9QFk3us
[Unlike denialists, I post recent evidence not foul speech]
Humans influence climate directly by urban heat effect, and indirectly by GHG emissions. The recent temperature lower atmosphere increase was caused by increased absorption of infrared radiation due to GHG in the atmosphere.
The recent upper atmosphere cooling was caused by the trapping below of infrared radiation due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.
So far you have presented no scientific evidence – just words such as “radiosondes”, “IPCC”, etc without taking responsibility for such juvenile prattle.
Here is scientific evidence;
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png
Mature individuals realise that the recent spike has no natural causes. Earlier excursions of CO2 up to 300ppm (within human evolution) were caused by Milankovitch Cycles. This does not apply today.
Denialists have no answer to this?
Do you?
Chris Warren,
You ask me,
“Mature individuals realise that the recent spike has no natural causes. Earlier excursions of CO2 up to 300ppm (within human evolution) were caused by Milankovitch Cycles. This does not apply today.
Denialists have no answer to this?
Do you?”
I answer, yes.
Your assertion about “excursions” is plain wrong. See the collation of old CO2 measuements by Beck (2008),
The present “excursion” is most probably a result of the beneficial rise in global temperature rise which is recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA). The global warming from the LIA has been happening for ~300 years, it began before the industrial revolution and there is no evidence that human activities have affected it in any way. The resulting alteration to the equilbrium condition of the carbon cycle is observed as a rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration from ~0.03% to ~0.04% (i.e. a trivial rise of ~0.01%).
These matters are covered in
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
If that is too hard for you, then watch the video I linked for you. To save you needing to find it I copy the link to here.
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1
It is only 20 minutes long and in it I begin with a mock sermon that summarises your beliefs then explains that those belied are refuted by study of the carbon cycle.
If you had watched the video when I provided it for you (above) then you would have known the answer to the question I am answering here.
Richard
When will the alarmist, climate crisis consensuals here, ever tell us what is happening today with CO2 at 410 ppm that wasn’t happening throughout the warmer and cooler Holocene when CO2 levels were below 300 ppm?
A very simple question.
Which you need to answer to maintain your credibility.
spangled drongo,
They don’t have any credibility because they are discredited by their own words and actions.
Richard
Dr Hansen and Bill McKibben tell us everything will be OK if we can just return the world to 1990 levels of co2 emissions. McKibben’s site is named 350.org because that is the level of 350 ppm that they now endorse. But I’m sure they must be having a joke with the feeble minded among us.
Chris thinks that 300 ppm is the limit we should aim for and then everything will be wonderful in his pixie, fairyland garden once more.
But if they really believe this infantile nonsense they should jump on the first plane ASAP and set up their protest base in China and India, because that’s where the ONLY growth in co2 emissions have come from over the last 30 years. Best of luck with that task, I’m sure you’ll be welcomed with open arms. SARC.
Here AGAIN is the WIKI link for all countries co2 emissions 1990 to 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions