jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

July 2006
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Al Gore’s New Movie In Australia In September

I’ve just been sent some publicity for Al Gore’s new movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. It’s an apocalyptic tale about climate change opening in Australia from 14th September with screening times to soon be available at the films new Australian website: www.aninconvenienttruthmovie.com.au .

I could organise a group booking for Brisbane-based readers of this blog at the Palace Centro in Fortitude Valley on the afternoon of Sunday 17th September? Send me an email if you are interested (jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com).

I was also sent this poster:

AIT (Penguins) blog.JPG

Does it mean that the Antarctic could become desert if we don’t change our ways, or that penguins could conceivably live in deserts?

The Australian Teachers of Media (ATOM) is preparing a “comprehensive interactive on-line study guide” for the movie.

Advertisement

88 Responses to “Al Gore’s New Movie In Australia In September”

  1. Comment from: Ender


    Jen – its a movie poster!!!

  2. Comment from: Jim


    That’s right – it’s a movie ( not a doco Ender?)

  3. Comment from: Ann Novek


    Humboldt penguins live along the desert coast of Peru and Chile . The desert is one of the world’s driest( in some places it hasn’t rained for 20 years).

  4. Comment from: Ann Novek


    One problem with climate change, penguins and Antarctica is that climate change can lead to increased calving of icebergs leading to disruption of the regional food chain. In Antarctica calving has also cut penguin rookeries off their normal feeding grounds.

    For some years ago this lead to mass death of penguins in the Antarctica.

  5. Comment from: Ender


    Jim – “That’s right – it’s a movie ( not a doco Ender?)”

    No its a doco – and a pretty accurate one at that. Now the 3rd highest grossing doco apparently.

  6. Comment from: Jim


    Ender – c’mon have a laugh ; the weekend is only 27 hours away!!!!

  7. Comment from: Hasbeen


    No matter what else he may have done, or may do, George W saved the world from having this rat bag as president of the strongest nation on earth.

  8. Comment from: Ender


    Jim – “Ender – c’mon have a laugh ; the weekend is only 27 hours away!!!!”

    And counting

    Hasbeen – “George W saved the world from having this rat bag as president of the strongest nation on earth”

    And the 2500 American soldiers and the 30 000 or 40 000 Iraqis are cheering with you.

  9. Comment from: Paul Williams


    I bet ATOM’s study guide is a hoot. What’s the bet the good old Hockey Stick, (courtesy of “Piltdown” Mann), gets pride of place.

  10. Comment from: Ender


    Paul Williams – “What’s the bet the good old Hockey Stick, (courtesy of “Piltdown” Mann), gets pride of place.”

    The only Piltdown men you will see in this are the ones that think M&M are actually scientists doing science.

  11. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Actually, Steve McIntyre was looking at the statistics. Not promoting an anti-AGW agenda, as you so bizarrely seem to believe. He has stated that AGW is a reasonable theory.

  12. Comment from: rog


    Its an inconvenient truth that in the US the gore thing has taken $18.8M up to its ninth weekend whilst Pirates has passed the $300M mark in 16 days.

  13. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Ender, re-reading your previous comment, it appears you are unaware of the context of my “Piltdown” Mann gibe. It was one of paleontology’s greatest hoaxes.

    http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html

    Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for coining “Piltdown” Mann. That honour belongs to a commentator on Climate Audit.

    Similarities with the Hockey Stick saga are that well respected scientists bought in to the hoax, and when it became obvious that it was a hoax, Piltdown Man was quietly dropped. We see the same thing happening now, with the Australian Greenhouse Office dropping the HS in favour of multiproxie “Spaghetti” graphs, and Stephen Schneider, although he still displays the HS, now links to Mann & Jones, 2003, rather than to the discredited Mann, Bradley & Hughes, 1998.

  14. Comment from: Ender


    Paul – Yeah right. What they are doing is taking into account the latest data. Good try though.

    BTW I was aware of the Piltdown man fraud and it was brought to light by the scientific process and peer review both of which M&M refuse or are incapable of participating in.

  15. Comment from: Paul Williams


    No, Schneider had the link to MBH98 up until the Wegman report came out. AGO was a bit quicker. And M&J2003 has not suddenly become the latest information. It’s been out for three years.

    I wonder why you are so defensive of the HS. For someone who has stated they would be glad if AGW was not true, I would have thought it was good news that the current warm period could be unexceptional. (Unless you have a vested interest in AGW?).

  16. Comment from: Ender


    Paul – “I wonder why you are so defensive of the HS.”

    Because I know bullshit when I see it. M&Ms phoney swiftboat tactics really give me the you know what. I also hate totally uninformed commentators like Tim Blair, Woods and Tim Bolt spouting that the HS=AGW when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Also whether the MWP was warmer or not does not change in any way the reasons for current warming. Try this for size:
    A man arrested for murder with clear physical evidence showing his guilt tries this ploy. He states that there have been 20 murders in the last year in this area and he did not commit any of those therefore he did not commit this one. Sounds reasonable????

    You will hopefully see the analogy. The causes extent and magnitude of the MWP are irrelevant because there is clear and irrefutable evidence that we are causing this period of warming. Just because warming happened before does not let us off the hook.

  17. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Ender, you’ve lost me, I’m afraid. What are “phoney swiftboat tactics”? Is that some kind of statistical term?

    I thought MM05 engaged MBH98 on the issue of statistics and data archiving. Wegman’s report agreed with M&M, and since Mann is a lead author with IPCC, and his paper is the main piece of evidence that the current warming is unprecedented, this calls into question the IPCC conclusion that most of the current warming is caused by humans.

    After all, if the current warming is within natural variation, it is quite possible that humans are NOT the cause, and also, regardless of the cause, it is less likely that the current warming is catastrophic.

    And sorry, I don’t think gearing up for global catastrophe on the basis of computer modelling is sound policy, no matter how much the programmers tell us their models are accurate. Let’s see some independent auditing of them, too.

    Doesn’t it make you feel even a tiny bit better to think that, just maybe, the world is not going to fry?

  18. Comment from: Ender


    Paul Williams – “I thought MM05 engaged MBH98 on the issue of statistics and data archiving”

    Yes he did however he was basically wrong on both counts. M&M not having a clue how to do a PC analysis without step by step instructions is not Dr Manns fault.

    “Wegman’s report agreed with M&M” – sort of however Von Storch showed that even with the corrections of MM05 there is almost no difference.

    “Mann is a lead author with IPCC” – no he is not

    “his paper is the main piece of evidence that the current warming is unprecedented” – MBH’s paper WAS however 7 other studies have confirmed MBHs conclusions later.

    “this calls into question the IPCC conclusion that most of the current warming is caused by humans.” – no it doesn’t because the fact that warming is caused by humans does not rest with anything MBH did or did not do.

    “After all, if the current warming is within natural variation”
    So continueing the analogy the accused man states that over the last year 100 people died of natural causes so therefore there is a chance the deceased person also died of natural causes despite the sucking chest wound. In the case of AGW the sucking chest wound is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have been proven by basic physics to trap long wave radiation emitted by the Earth.

    “I don’t think gearing up for global catastrophe on the basis of computer modelling”
    Yes that would be stupid however that is not that case. We should be preparing for the risk that the climate will change based on what we know about global warming and the action of extra heat on the climate. Computer models allow us to run experiments not tell us the future.

    “Doesn’t it make you feel even a tiny bit better to think that, just maybe, the world is not going to fry?”

    Yes and if you want a warm and fuzzy feeling based on rubbish science then go ahead and listen to the rantings of the global warming septics.

    I am sure that in future some of your statements will contain SOMETHING that is approaching the facts however this one was far from it.

  19. Comment from: Luke


    Ender I wonder what the outcome would have been if MBH used Wegman’s approved statistical approach?

    Ans: No different ! hmmmm

    Paul disappears in a puff of logic.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

  20. Comment from: Paul Williams


    “Mann is a lead author with IPCC” – no he is not

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/

    Third paragraph. Whoops!

  21. Comment from: Vaskes


    This is good, it will educate many americans that do not know what is all this climate change.

  22. Comment from: Ender


    Paul – “Dr. Mann was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report.”

    This does not make him a lead author of the whole IPCC report – one chapter only.

  23. Comment from: Delicious Pundit


    Shoot, I was going to explain the poster and a hockey fight broke out.

    I think it is a reference to last year’s hit documentary, “March of the Penguins.” It’s as much a poster about the movie business as it is about climate change.

  24. Comment from: vaskes


    But of ocurse, it is not the Swedish Hockey Team(they are winners).
    I think this looks like a sad march.

  25. Comment from: Ender


    This is good too:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060727/ap_on_sc/science_for_sale_2

    “WASHINGTON – Coal-burning utilities are passing the hat for one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Pat Michaels — Virginia’s state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute — told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

    The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, Colo., gave Michaels $100,000 and started the fund-raising drive, said Stanley Lewandowski, IREA’s general manager. He said one company planned to give $50,000 and a third plans to give Michaels money next year.

    “We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,” Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to launch a counterattack on “alarmist” scientists and specifically Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”"

    No conflict of interest here.

  26. Comment from: John


    You still here spouting your rubbish Ender? What’s the problem? No-one reads you own blog?

    If you are – YET AGAIN – trying to imply that organisations associated with fossil-fuel are DICTATING the research results then YET AGAIN I ask you to prove it.

    If you can’t prove it then I think everyone can clearly label your postings as full of fictitious nonsense that you won’t – because you can’t – substantiate.

  27. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Ender, so Mann is a lead author. Why not just admit you were wrong?

    From the Wegman report;

    “• Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.
    Report: “Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake,
    academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case
    that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
    Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.””

  28. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    Ender,

    If one reads the whole article dealing with Michaels receiving funding from the coal industry one learns that the Realclimate spokeman claims, that in RC case they dont receive any money…”they do it in their free time.”
    Bollocks.. they are on the public purse as paid academics at various universities,and have a funding scheme to protect and maintain. They have as much a vested interest in ensuring that most extreme position is portrayed.

    As for your prescious Peer Review it would be a pity if the non medical scientists, worked to improve the credibility of their approach. In fact,it is so bad, and the evidence so clear that the public is not getting value its for money, that I reckon it warrants a reference to the Auditer General.

  29. Comment from: Ender


    Paul – “since Mann is a lead author with IPCC, and his paper is the main piece of evidence that the current warming is unprecedented, this calls into question the IPCC conclusion that most of the current warming is caused by humans.”

    Here is your statement. In it you are clearly drawing the false inference that Mann was a lead author with the IPCC, his work was flawed, therefore the IPCC report that he was the lead author on is flawed. The evidence that you cite to support this inference is that Mann was a lead author of one chapter. This does not support your inference as the IPCC report is made up of many chapters with many other authors. The core of the IPCC report is based on work by thousands of scientists and cannot be traced as you infer to one person.

    Sorry you have not proved me wrong.

  30. Comment from: Ender


    Mr John – “f you are – YET AGAIN – trying to imply that organisations associated with fossil-fuel are DICTATING the research results then YET AGAIN I ask you to prove it.”

    As you are shouting you must be getting a bit desperate. The disdain that the scientific community is showing, even from Von Storch, that what you thought would be a killer blow, Smokey Joe’s Wegman report, must be really getting to you.

    I don’t have to prove anything. The links are clear and documented and now here is one of the leading skeptics going cap in hand to the fossil fuel utilities for money and they are giving it.

  31. Comment from: Ender


    Malcom – “Bollocks.. they are on the public purse as paid academics at various universities,and have a funding scheme to protect and maintain. They have as much a vested interest in ensuring that most extreme position is portrayed.”

    Sure mate. Every cent of their money has to be spent on research. So they are basically doing on half of what they could recieve if they worked in industry to do basic research.

    “non medical scientists, worked to improve the credibility of their approach”
    This approach that you now have a problem brought the computer that you are typing on. Why do you have a problem with it now?

  32. Comment from: Luke


    Anyway guys – the REAL issue is what if Mann had Wegman as his statistician – what might the answer have been ??

  33. Comment from: Ender


    “So they are basically doing on half of what they could recieve if they worked in industry to do basic research.”

    This does not make sense – it should read

    So they are doing basic research on half of what they could recieve if they worked in industry.

  34. Comment from: Ian Mott


    So a skeptic’s funding constitutes a conflict of interest, Ender, but a whole conga line of global warming suckholes (in parliamentary terminology) is not?

    Smells like a double standard and has the intellectual consistency of navel fluff soaked in lard.

  35. Comment from: SimonC


    Not the hockey stick debate again. Paul – the National Ac. of Sciences have looked at Mann’s work and said, yes, it has some short comings but these do not effect the conclusions of the paper. Mann’s conclusions are consistent with the findings of other papers. There are no papers that disagree with his. Mann’s paper does not look at the causes of nor try to predict the future of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Mann’s paper is an attempt to put recent warming in the context of a longer time frame, nothing more.

    Mann was one of eight Lead Authors of one of 14 chapters of the IPCC report. He wasn’t one of the Co-ordinating Lead Authors and he wasn’t a Lead Author of the whole report.

  36. Comment from: Ender


    Ian Mott – “but a whole conga line of global warming suckholes (in parliamentary terminology) is not?”

    Except that in the whole dodgy Wegman report the social analysis was the height of dodginess. If the normal co-operation between scientific peers is now a conga line of suckholes then you can kiss the scientific advances of the future goodbye and fry.

  37. Comment from: Ender


    SimonC – yes the hockey stick debate again. Mind you it is the only thing the septics have so we can indulge them a bit.

  38. Comment from: Luke


    “a conga line of suckholes” .. .. charming

    Why would you recommend to a child to do public science given these community attitudes.

  39. Comment from: Ender


    Luke – completely agree. Ian can sound off all he likes as he is kept alive by the scientific products of the conga line of suckholes, it only reflects on him.

  40. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Nice try at muddying the waters, Ender. However, the Hockey Stick was a key plank in the TAR. The scientific consensus was for the existence of the MWP and the LIA, until MBH. Without that “unprecedented warming” nonsense, the current climate is unexceptional. Quite a few careers down the gurgler in that case.

    Do you think the MWP existed? If it did, it’s quite valid to ask what caused it, and whether or not those factors are in operation today.

  41. Comment from: Luke


    Paul – have we not been over this. MWP in Europe yes – northern hemisphere maybe – southern hemisphere unsure. Note Osborn & Briffa paper of prior thread.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/

    You need to digest the implications.

    Mechanism – unsure – solar, oceanic – you tell us.

    Existing today – possibly – so be more afraid of AGW high end.

    BUT what will drive you mad is that if Wegman was Mann’s statistician the Hockey Stick would still stand.

    Toodley loo !

  42. Comment from: Luke


    Here’s the product of a different conga line.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1

    Electric Utility Pays $100,000 to Global Warming Naysayer

  43. Comment from: Ender


    Paul – “However, the Hockey Stick was a key plank in the TAR”
    Absolute rubbish. Are you trying the John Howard tactic of if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

    “Without that “unprecedented warming” nonsense, the current climate is unexceptional. Quite a few careers down the gurgler in that case.”
    Again if you keep repeating this crap I am sure that you will convince someone. Current warming ideas do not depend on it being unprecendented, it is simply interesting that it is. If AGW is proved to be incorrect in the future apart from dancing in the street that the world is not going to warm after all the climate scientists will have long and happy careers for centuries working out all the other secrets about the atmoshpere that we do not know.

    “Do you think the MWP existed”
    Sure I do however it is not clear from any research its extent. From all the proxy studies it is clear that the MWP was not as warm as today. What is this a sort of holy trinity thing – do I have to believe in the MWP now.

  44. Comment from: John


    Ender,

    YET AGAIN … that’s at least 6 times by my counting…

    You imply that the fossil fuel lobby is dictating the results of climate research.

    Please PROVIDE EVIDENCE for your assertions or the claims will be treated like the bleating noise they are.

    Luke might like to try to help you.

    Big hint – pointing at a website that makes similar allegations but likewise provides NO proof will not be regarded as evidence.

    In other words, put up or shut up!

  45. Comment from: Ender


    John – “YET AGAIN … that’s at least 6 times by my counting…”

    Still shouting – guess what I will provide the evidence just as soon as you prove that Dr Mann deliberately committed fraud. Like you I do not have to prove anything.

  46. Comment from: Ender


    John – BTW bleating about an 8 year old study that has been confirmed time and time again really qualifies you as bleater of the century. I would have to do a hell of a lot to catch up to your side.

  47. Comment from: Jim


    Luke/Ender,
    If we have to discount all research which is paid for ( for example GM crop research by Greenpeace paid for by GM farmers )then what’s left?
    1. What’s the basis of the assumptions that;
    those who accept money for research can’t be trusted to deliver their views objectively?
    2. Does that include wage and salary earners – employees? Are CSIRO staff researchers for example not to be trusted because they’re paid by CSIRO and therefore unlikely to be objective?
    Where is the line drawn to determine objective research from influenced research?

  48. Comment from: Ender


    Jim – “If we have to discount all research which is paid for”

    We don’t – where the line is usually drawn as far as I know is that if the researcher has a personal financial stake in a company then it is usual for him/her not to peer review research or funding grants that pertain to that financial interest. It is no different in a financial advisor giving financial advise where he/she stands to gain from that advice.

    What has happened is that companies, most noteably Exxon, have for reasons best known to themselves funded think tanks that are setup to be critical of the scientific theory of global warming. Why this is a conflict is that the companies products directly contribute to AGW and reduced use of these products would hurt them.

    Public money is usually distributed on a merit basis based on peer review of the grant proposal. Reaserchers doing basic research are usually not paid very well and to do it must have a fairly high motivation when they could be earing twice what they get in private industry.

    Private industry research is owned lock stock and barrel by the companies that pay for it.

  49. Comment from: SimonC


    Paul,

    The conclusion of the IPCC TAR is that it was ‘likely’ that the 1990′s was the warmest for the last 1000 years. They said likely. Not conclusively, not even very likely. Just likely. They didn’t base the TAR around something that was just thought was ‘likely’.

    Even if Mann’s work showed that at some point in last thousand years that the temperature was equal to that in the late 20th century the conclusions of the TAR would be the same.

    The IPCC TAR would still find that the concentration of greenhouse gases is increasing due to human activity. That continued emmissions of greenhouse gases will cause the earths temperature to rise further and that rise will happen quickly. The IPCC TAR would still have the 1990′s as the warmest on record. Also the prediction that the Earth will be 1.4 to 5.8C warmer by 2100 would be unchanged.

    But as I said before, other papers have been published that support Mann’s conclusion and none have disagreed with it.

  50. Comment from: Jim


    Ender, let’s be totally clear here because it appears that this tactic of dismissing paid research from some organisations is applied selectively;

    If a researcher has a “personal financial stake” which presumably means ownership as opposed to employment then the research should be discounted/devalued because the person stands to gain personally from the research?

    Is that correct?

    How does this contrast with the scenario where organic farmers commission Greenpeace to conduct research into GM crops which turns out to reveal(surprise surprise) the GM crops are potentially unsafe and harmful to the environment?

    How does it differ from energy companies funding a scientist skeptical of AGW who could no longer resource his research?

    And how is it that publicly funded researchers are able to remain immune from the pressure to conform with the ideolology/objectives of the organisation who pays for their livelihood simply because they’re publicly funded?

    Wouldn’t it just be simpler to accept all research on face value, examine it thoroughly, criticise and overturn it if necessary BEFORE denigrating the researchers motives?

    I’m just really struggling with the inference that the private sector is denuded of good and honourable people of principle, whilst only the public sector can be trusted?

    Isn’t that bigotry of a kind?

  51. Comment from: chrisl


    Ender: Please inform us who is paying Steve McIntyre
    You have alluded to dark forces behind him
    I think you know more than you are letting on.
    Please tell

  52. Comment from: Luke


    Privately funded research may be fine and indeed very good.

    But there is a difference of donating money to “find something/anything wrong with xyz science/concept” as a broad ideological/political motivation.

    Did the donation or influence of money buy the scientists’ judgement or favour. Would they fiddle with the numbers or discount unpalatable answers simply to please their benefactor.

    The research of course should stand on its own merits at the end of the day.

  53. Comment from: Ender


    Jim – “If a researcher has a “personal financial stake” which presumably means ownership as opposed to employment then the research should be discounted/devalued because the person stands to gain personally from the research?”

    No normally a scientist with such a conflict will just recuse himself or herself from discussions or peer review on funding for that proposal.

    “How does it differ from energy companies funding a scientist skeptical of AGW who could no longer resource his research?”

    If the research is genuine and peer reviewed then this is fine. The peer review process should eliminate any possible bias. What is happening though is that energy companies are funding non peer reviewed research and using the subsequent ‘studies’ as wedges to try to discredit properly peer reviewed research in areas that affect their profits.

    “And how is it that publicly funded researchers are able to remain immune from the pressure to conform with the ideolology/objectives of the organisation who pays for their livelihood simply because they’re publicly funded?”

    Usually government research organisations strive to be apolitical. Until recently the CSIRO had a proud history of non-interference from government however there is pressure to conform. In most cases as has been seen the scientists have had to struggle against a political agenda imposed on the organisation by an idealogical government.

    ChrisL
    Never said that Steve McIntyre has been paid by anyone. Have said that if he is not he is missing out on a good living. I do know that his lecture tour tabs are or have been picked up by the Marshall Institute which has documented links to big oil and energy.

  54. Comment from: Paul Williams


    SimonC, if you’re going to quote the TAR to refute my arguments, at least get it right.

     Globally, it is VERY LIKELY that the 1990s was the warmest
    decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental
    record, since 1861 (see Figure 1a).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

    It’s on the second page. Very likely is defined as 90-99% chance that a result is true.

    Your quote is for the Northern Hemisphere, and likely means 66-90% chance of being true.

    The claim for global temperature refers to fig 1a, which is the instrumental record going back only to 1860. The only chart going back 1000 years in the SPM is the Hockey Stick. So I’m not sure why all the warmers are now trying to downplay its importance, especially as they say it’s actually correct.

  55. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Ender-”What is this a sort of holy trinity thing – do I have to believe in the MWP now.”

    Not at all, I was just trying to proceed with the discussion. For your information, nothing I have said in all this is a lie, in the sense that I am deliberately saying what I believe to be false. I could be wrong, which is a different matter.

    If you do think the MWP occurred, do you have an opinion on what caused it, and do you think those factors could be operating today? If your answer is interlaced with slurs, I will take it you have lost interest in the discussion.

  56. Comment from: John


    Ender

    …SEVEN TIMES now – put up or shut up!

    You also say “Still shouting – guess what I will provide the evidence just as soon as you prove that Dr Mann deliberately committed fraud. Like you I do not have to prove anything.”

    I have not made any such allegation. Mann may be be exceptionally incompetent for all I know. What I do know is that the hockey stick has comprehensively been shown to be false and Mann has never said “Well, maybe I made a mistake”.

    But you are trying to weasel off the point as usual – produce some evidence that the published output from climate research is being manipulated by the fossil-fuel lobby.

    I am waiting ….

  57. Comment from: John


    With a nice touch of synchronicity from else where on the web…

    “Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming: Electric Utility Pays $100,000 to Global Warming Naysayer” – “July 27, 2006 — Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming? The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit — especially if you’re in some parts of the energy business. One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.” (ABC News) – Utilities paying global warming skeptic (AP)

    Gasp, shock, horror, etc., etc.. Skeptics sometimes get money — and from people who might be better off if skeptical viewpoints are aired. I am frequently accused of receiving vast sums for my skepticism too (my wife could wish), as though that would somehow invalidate global temperature measures and trends posted on this site or magically prove causation (we all could wish, for that would resolve a great many unknowns and reduce risk of action or inaction as the case may be). Fair enough, there are always people looking for the “Evil Empire” conspiracy they are convinced must exist and nothing I say or do will convince them otherwise, besides, this site encourages skepticism which should apply equally to us.

    Just one thing — how does the amount spent allegedly “buying” global warming skepticism (variously described but collectively supposed to be at least tens of millions of dollars over the last decade) compare with the tens of billions of dollars made available over the last decade for demonstrating “global warming” to be a problem? The US alone is injecting over $2 billion a year of public monies, your tax dollars, into grant streams to investigate and “address” the dreaded warming but I haven’t heard of a single nickel of public money being available to demonstrate there is no cause for alarm. If Pat Michaels is a shill for big electric because he accepted funds from them then presumably Jim Hansen is a shill for the misanthropic Heinz Foundation who takes money to espouse catastrophic warming (I don’t know whether he is or he isn’t but he did accept a cash “award” of $250,000 from them, a matter of public record in the same way grants to Michaels are).

    If opinions are being bought then opinions supporting “global warming” are apparently much more expensive and they are being bought with both our taxes and our donations to allegedly “green” groups and foundations. Like I said, if people want to be skeptical because money changes hands that’s fair enough, possibly even warranted, but for heaven’s sake, how about applying skepticism uniformly? Sure you should follow the money — but where is most of it going?

    - Steve Milloy (junkscience.com)

    The only thing he forgot to mention was Exxon-Mobil’s large donation (IIRC, over $100 million over 10 years) to Standford University for climate research. That’s where well-known alarmist Stephen Schneider was (and maybe still is).

  58. Comment from: Ender


    Paul – “If you do think the MWP occurred, do you have an opinion on what caused it, and do you think those factors could be operating today?”

    Wiki has a good page on it. I can’t really improve on this – good list of references as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

  59. Comment from: Ender


    John – “Ender

    …SEVEN TIMES now – put up or shut up!”

    Counting now – I guess this proves at least one thing. Ok you said that posting other research on where big oil funding goes was not OK but I will post it anyway. Actually I will just post the wiki – I really didn’t know that there was a whole page of documented links so convenient.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_action_on_climate_change

    BTW you are sure that the 100 million went exclusively to climate research. I mean Stanford is a pretty big place with a large engineering departments that do a lot of oil and gas research. Perhaps you can provide proof that Exxon’s money went on climate change research.

  60. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Wikipedia would, under this thread, have to be described as a dogma, and thus scientifically questionable.

    Obviously lacking any credible argument against Wegman etc, disengenous debating techniques are employed here.

    Ender, have you ever experienced an original thought? (Just wondering).

  61. Comment from: Ender


    Louis – “Ender, have you ever experienced an original thought? (Just wondering).”

    I don’t know Louis have you ever experienced a thought (just wondering).

  62. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Ender: Thank you.

  63. Comment from: John


    Ender,

    Those are just more allegations and still no substantiation from you.

    I don’t believe you can produce any such evidence at all. You’re just a ventriloquist’s dummy. All you ever do is throw allegations and URLs around, usually from the self-serving bunch at realclimate.

    If you have no facts to present (cf. slurs and allegations) please go back to your own blog where you can entertain yourself.

  64. Comment from: Ender


    John – Ahhh abuse – the last refuge of the truly clueless.

    Actually spelling ventriloquist must have been quite a feat for you – did you check it with McIntyre before posting?

    The article I referred to is a collection of research that other people have done – to a fair minded person it would be quite compelling however I can see that you are nothing like this.

    Again at least I post references to what I say and I rarely say anything that I cannot reference. I am afraid it is you that has no facts and your continuing pursuit of an 8 year old study on the periphery of the AGW case confirms it.

    And may I remind you gently that this is Jennifers blog and who the hell do you think you are to tell me what to do. I do write a blog and if you would care to post there I have no posting rules so I could really tell you what I think of you – so go ahead make my day.

  65. Comment from: John


    Ender,

    I see you struggle to understand a metaphor even when I explained why I was using the term.

    Your refefrnece was to nothing but a collection of slurs and inuendos sadly, like your own postings on the subject, devoid of any evidence whatsoever that funding sources dictate the results of research. You are as bereft of evidence as ever have been on this subject despite all the times that you raise.

    It seems I must say yet again – put up or shut up! What is it about this expression that you do not understand?

    You say that you post references to what you say. but I can’t recall a single reference to any site that has shown independent and unbiased evidence. They’ve been full of assertions, just like you.

    Your snipe about this being Jennifer’s blog is your normal kind of non-sequitur. Do us all a favour and go back to your miserable little fan site for the AGW grifters and entertain the few people who read it.

  66. Comment from: Ender


    John – Sorry John I am sure that you get off on this sort of discussion but I do not. The references I post are from peer reviewed research wherever possible. I am sure that you would like this to be like Tim Blair’s black hole of knowledge however you do not get to tell me where I can and cannot post. I am sure your delusions of granduer and knowledge would tell you that this sort of behaviour is alright however it is not. Trying to end an argument where you have no facts with bullying. Lets see how the discussions go without my input for a while.

  67. Comment from: jennifer


    I welcome comments from both Ender and John at this blog. I just wish the discussion was a bit more civil and issues progressed a bit more.
    I also think that Jim made some good points when he suggested somewhere in the above thread, something along the following lines: that it is more relevant what people say, than who they are, what might motivate them … that we should consider the evidence/the facts on their own merit.

  68. Comment from: jennifer


    … the relevant bit from Jim:
    “Wouldn’t it just be simpler to accept all research on face value, examine it thoroughly, criticise and overturn it if necessary BEFORE denigrating the researchers motives?”

  69. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Back to the topic of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Here’s a link, (no doubt sponsored by Exxon), to some issues someone has with the book version.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

  70. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    My God Paul. Its been 6 hours and no one has given you a bollocking for daring to talk about 25 Fallacies in Gores Epistle, and its
    film version.

    How come no one has said that the Author has variously:

    1. Not published is a peer reveiwed journal
    2. Belongs to XYZ, so nothing he says can have any redeeming merit.
    3. Received money from ABC so therefore it is worth even less.
    4. Has been dealt with before by DEF and therefore it is all dismissed by the consensus (not specified)

    I am surprised it is only 25

  71. Comment from: Luke


    Thank’s Malcolm I almost overlooked and didn’t read it .. ..

    Heheheheheheeee – great stuff for a giggle. 25 fallacies – haven’t laughed at such b/s for ages.

    And the Cato Insitute too .. hoho ho ho ..

    I counted 10 crappos in just a brief skim.

    Yes Gore does deserve a bollocking. He had the chance at Kyoto to get everyone and the US in the tent and he muffed it. He should have contested that election instead of whimping out and leaving history to the system we now “enjoy”. Basically he’s just trying to redeem his soul by trying to do good. Poor bastard.

  72. Comment from: Paul Williams


    Malcolm, I think the explanation is that this thread has run out of steam, and the protagonists have moved on to the next round of discussion.

    I won’t go and see Al’s movie when it hits Adelaide, it has as much appeal as a Michael Moron movie, but just watch the “Green Left Daily”, aka the Adelaide “Advertiser”, give it top billing.

    I might get a couple of slaps over the Michael Moore/Moron slur.

  73. Comment from: Luke


    Well guys – if you want to get philosophical you might think it’s because the discussion never gets above “is – isn’t – is- isn’t”. You might find Ender a pretty smart guy even though you disagree with him. But do you engage him or move the debate anywhere? So everyone has a bit of a spit and goes home again.

  74. Comment from: John


    Jen,

    Asking Ender for a civilised on-topic discussion can be like asking a pig to sing. I came late to this discussion and found Ender thumping away on his tired old drum. His entire on-topic contribution to that time was “Jen – its a movie poster!!!” and “No its a doco – and a pretty accurate one at that. Now the 3rd highest grossing doco apparently.”. I was going to suggest that he stop posting for a week and watch for anyone saying “Come back Ender we miss you” but hopefully he’s doing that without prompting.

    I could say what I’ve read about the “science” presented in the movie but Iain Marray’s article is pretty accurate – the science doesn’t stack up and Gore has gathered every bit of meteorological variation he can think of and has labelled it “Global Warming” … or “climate change” (because they wanted to include unusually colder temperatures, variations in winds and so on).

    I see he repeats the howler about the 2003 European heatwave. Funny how the UK Met Office – very big on AGW – released a press statement almost immediately explaining that the cause was the relative position of high pressure cells and nothing to do with global warming. (I hope no-one told the Russians who were shivering in unusually low summer temperatures at the time.)

    I put it to you that Gore is trying to revive his political aspirations by leaping on the feel-good “we’re going to fry and it’s all the fault of big business” band-waggon. If he can get gullible mid-west USA, fed so long on a diet which excludes reports sceptical of AGW (witness the absence of balanced AP and Reuters reports on the Wegman report!), to support him then maybe the Whitehouse will be his.

  75. Comment from: Luke


    John – Murray’s review is out of date, one-sided and selective. That’s your problem.

  76. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Ender,

    In see here you have been Johnned!

    Louis

  77. Comment from: Luke


    Speaking of climate we need to be reminded how exposed we are to extremes of climate – 130 dead in Californian heatwave, 2 million without power.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1700252.htm

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/07/28/heatwave.ap/index.html

    (and I’m not specifically blaming global warming – just that one of the most affluent states in the USA is powerless).

    And also in Europe

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/world/europe/25cnd-heat.html?ex=1311480000&en=068f59dfddd3d945&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Nuclear reactors cutting output due to excessively warm cooling water. 80 dead.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1699132.htm

    And for teasing – does heatwave prove climate change?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/07/23/heat.warming.reut/index.html

  78. Comment from: Ann Novek


    Hey , why on earth did you scare away Ender from this blog? Hope he will be back soon, appreciate comments from both sides… I have just read a very interesting book , the original version on how the Vikings from Greenland discovered North America and the Viking settlements in L’Anse aux Meadows in NewFoundland and how the saga tells us that the Vikings found wild grapes and wild wheat…If I post this article and if Jennifer accepts it , I would really appreciate Enders comments…

  79. Comment from: SimonC


    Paul,

    I did quote the TAR correctly. It said that the 1990′s was ‘likely’ to be the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years. You’ve quoted the ‘very likely’ conclusion that the 1990′s was the warmest, globally, since 1861 when the instrumental record started. I am assuming that you agree with this conclusion.

    And also, you concede that Mann’s work doesn’t affect the conclusion of the TAR – increasing greenhouse gas emmissions = increasing temperatures with the likley outcome of a 1.4C to 5.8C increase in global temperatures by the end of the century?

  80. Comment from: Paul Williams


    SimonC, Yes, I did misquote the SPD, apologies! The point I was trying to make was that the SPD assigned a significant (actually 66%-90%) likelihood that current warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years. And that this likelihood was based on MBH98/99. And without that claim, the policy implications are much less urgent.

    The conclusions of the TAR, as far as I know, have been reached on the basis that the current warming is unprecedented. If it was accepted by the IPCC that current temperatures are within normal variation, there may well have been a very different research focus that may have reached different conclusions.

    It does raise the question, though, if the MWP occurred, and it was as warm or warmer than today, are those processes that caused the MWP operating today, and are the climate catastrophes that are being predicted likely to be catastrophic?

    I would question the TAR’s conclusions about future temperature rises because I have doubts about the emission scenarios, the effects of CO2, and the ability of GCMs to forecast temperatures. I also have doubts about the accuracy of the temperature record. But these are separate to the discussion about Mann’s work.

  81. Comment from: Luke


    Paul – if the MWP temperature is within the range of normal variation you should be more worried with ethe increasing CO2 flux. Incidentally did we not recently have a post about major desertification in the USA during the MWP. You didn’t have 6 billion people then or TV to show us what was happening. Who says it was all fun and games.

    I think essentially you’re saying we don’t know anything. But you would rather believe anecdotal and scientifically complex paleo MWP data over a contemporary terrestrial and ocean temperature record. Interesting what values you’re discounting and what you are not.

    And have you still not realised that if Wegman was Mann’s statistician you would get the same answer !

  82. Comment from: SimonC


    Paul,
    So you don’t believe anything that the TAR scientists say – 100′s of scientists research, collated and reviewed for the third time and you’re questioning the very basis of the greenhouse effect – the effect of CO2?

    The property of CO2 to aborb infrared (IR) radiation is confirmed in analytical labs the world over everyday – CO2 is a great absorber of IR and has to continually compensated for when running IR spectra. CO2 does same with the radiation that reflects off the earth – it absorbs it. It warms up, it hits other molecules causing them to warm to eventually this warms the atmosphere. The more CO2 the more warming you will get.

    Now back the Mann research in TAR – Mann’s research wasn’t available for the original IPCC report nor the second so Mann’s their conclusions couldn’t have been reached on the basis that the current warming is unprecedented. The conclusions of the original and the second report was the same as that of the third. Continued emmissions of greenhouse gases will cause temperatures to rise and that rise will happen sooner rather than later.

  83. Comment from: Paul Williams


    No, SimonC, I said I had doubts about the conclusions of the TAR, a very different proposition to not believing anything that the TAR scientists say.

    I was talking about the effects of increased CO2 on the climate, not the laboratory properties of CO2. Sorry for the confusion.

    My understanding of the Assessment Reports is that the SPMs have become more definite in blaming global warming on man-made factors. MBH98/99 obviously support this viewpoint, and the infamous HS has become an icon of the AGW=catastrophe school. Without the HS, the case for catastrophe is severely weakened, and the case for public action is less compelling, which is why Al Gore has kept it in his movie, I suppose.

    The next few years will be interesting. Would you agree that a fall in global temperature over the next 20 or so years would severely dent the AGW theory?

  84. Comment from: Luke


    Paul – if you have a look at James Annan’s empty blog they will take your wager for a bet on this aspect !

  85. Comment from: Ann Novek


    Penguins stranded on beaches of Rio de Janeiro( due to global warming?) will hitch a ride back home to Antarctica with Brazil’s air force and navy, according to Reuters.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5233312.stm

  86. Comment from: Ann Novek


    A US power group is working with energy companies and looking into possibly funding a film that would counteract former Vice President Gore’s global warming film ” An Inconvonvenient Truth”.

    The Colorado electricity cooperative is urging other power groups to support global warming skeptics and has donated US$100,000 to a climatologist who has labelled some of his colleagues “alarmists”.

    http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37444/story.htm

  87. Comment from: SimonC


    Paul,

    ‘Skeptics’ have been using the ‘what if temperatures fall in X years?’ line since the 80′s. The same line was heard in 90′s and now in the 00′s. Each time, in X years, the average temperatures have not fallen because we have AGW. As we have AGW the rise in global temperature will continue.

  88. Comment from: Alex Day


    Do you know that your Blog is being used on our GCSE Examination paper! Thanks for making our English lessons so much more interesting!!