76 Responses to Mutant Climate Debate

  1. janama June 20, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    I noticed he didn’t mention that China has recently declared it will NOT reduce it’s emissions and will in fact increase them. Just another example of journalists not keeping up with the subject.

    As the journalists are as miss informed as the Chief Scientist I’m not surprised there is no real debate or discussion in the MSM.

  2. Louis Hissink June 20, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    Janama,

    Most journalists are party to the political movement behind all this nonsense – It’s the political left driving this – and as one of the former environment ministers of Canada pointed out, it doesn’t matter that the science is wrong, it’s not about the science but wealth transference from the west to the rest, with, of course, a 10% cut for the bureaucrats in the UN.

    It is well worth reading what Soros and other left wing billionaires think about this – including Maurice Strong. The real problem is that it isn’t a scam per se, because they really believe in all this. And that’s why it’s so hard to counter it with scientific facts – it never was about the science.

  3. janama June 20, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    Louis – I’m sure you are right to a degree but I feel the “debate is over” factor has prevented many people, left and right, from examining the evidence and as the journalists are equally ignorant we end up with the uninformed public and journalists we currently have to endure.

    Many from the left, myself included, are equally as passionate as those from the right.

    Last night on Richard Glover’s ABC radio Drive show comedian Anthony Ackroyd ridiculed Senator Fielding’s skepticism to the laughter and applause of the audience, it was disappointing to hear. Even if the AGW science was totally discredited it would still take many years to get the brainwashing out of the system.

  4. Louis Hissink June 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    Janama

    Yes, I think you are right – the debate is over – but the system is well and truly entrenched. It’s well worth getting hold of Bernard Goldberg’s two books on Media Bias in the US. The media in general cannot help it, since their worldview is based on a very limited social mileu – as Goldberg demonstrates very effectively. It simply does not include the “red necks”. It’s very noticeable here in the pitter patter in the comments.

    I fortunately never watch or listen to the ABC, so I am not assaulted by such appalling behaviour on Glover’s Drive show, for example. (Only radio station I do listen to is Curtin FM in Perth, and occasionally ABC Classic FM). Don’t watch TV either anymore, since anything I need to know I get from the internet.

    Actually the AGW science will wash out of the system, presumably to be replaced by another pseudoscience since these theories tend to develop within the Platonic mind set. It’s the economic damage we have to suffer in the meantime that is the most pressing issue at present.

  5. April Showers June 20, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Surely those who question and inquire and seek to disturb the bien-pensant consensus are not being accused of succumbing to the lure of heresy. Just what are we to make of the bright scientific minds that now gainsay what has been presented to support global warming/climate change and its many other guises? Those scientists who now question climate change or global warming have applied the same ratiocination as their colleagues yet they have arrived at a vastly different conclusion. At one time in science one negative experimental counterexample was all that was needed to disprove a theory.

    It now appears that scientists who have been dismissed as denialists have a very strong case for receiving a full refund of all their university fees because it is quite apparent that their credentials are worthless.

    Notwithstanding the report by John De Laeter and John Dekkers showing that since 1970 there has been a decline in the number of students showing any interest in science, an ever-increasing number of the laity can now interpret graphs, charts and tables with consummate ease. Not only are these savants happy to unburden their minds in relation to climate change/global warming but they are prepared to suspend their enjoyment of Need for Speed (cyber carbon dioxide anyone?) just to inform the debate.

    April Showers

  6. david elder June 20, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    There were some criticisms of Bob Carter et al. by defenders of strong AGW in our weekend Australian. It will be interesting to see how Bob Carter et al. deal with them. My interim effort:

    Prof. Neville Nichols of Monash claims in Letters to the Editor that temperatures have risen since 1998. Most measurements find a temperature fall. And Lindzen has shown that temperatures have not risen significantly since 1995.

    Asked to comment on past warmings similar to the late 20th century 1976-1998 one, Nichols wanted to talk about a drastic warming 125,000 years ago and attendant 5 metre sea level rise. But what about the early 20th century warming 1910-1940 which was similar to the late 20th century one, yet occurred prior to major CO2 increase? And what about the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300 when the Vikings could farm in Greenland?

    Asked whether climate models correctly predicted the observed temperature trends from 1990-2008, Nichols implied that they did. So the models consistently showed something like the lack of significant temperature rise from 1995 to the present (Lindzen), i.e. for about a decade and a half?

  7. Luke June 20, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    Good stuff – the gloves are starting to come off with the denialists.

    Perhaps we can skip the tedious Vikings and get to the Medieval Warm Period mega-droughts in USA, Africa and China.

    The best qualified climate scientists have been too reserved with denialists in the debate thus far – a short sharp change would be good.

  8. Ferdinand Engelbeen June 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    Luke June 20th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Luke,

    Have a look at the evidence written in a lot of proxies all over the world of a warm MWP:
    http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

    Even for more distant history: the current deserts of the Middle East were green gardens not that long ago, long before humans emitted lots of CO2. And in recent decades, the Sahel received more rain than 20-30 years ago…

    Thus where is the influence of CO2 and what is the influence of natural variations?

  9. SJT June 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    “Asked whether climate models correctly predicted the observed temperature trends from 1990-2008, Nichols implied that they did. So the models consistently showed something like the lack of significant temperature rise from 1995 to the present (Lindzen), i.e. for about a decade and a half?”

    The models cannot, and have never claimed to be able to, model short term trends. People keep on asking why they can’t do what the people who have created them have said they can’t do.

  10. Luke June 20, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    Ferdi – maaaate !

    you’ll have to do better than John Daly (with all due respects to his memory as a fearsome advocate for the denialist cause – at least he’d rock up to CSIRO climate meetings and have a go)

    But as evidence – hahahahahaha

    Ferdi – the MWP is a mixed bag – what we get is pleasant anecdotes of Euro-centric balmy days – grape growing in England, wacking up cathedrals etc etc. The rest of the world was far from happy. See Brian Fagan’s well researched book – The Great Warming.

    And you’re not one of these crazies than can’t conceive of natural causes of warming and anthropogenic causes – maybe acting together or in opposition. Tell me you’re one of these tedious “either / or” types.

  11. Luke June 20, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    I had the good fortune some months ago to listen to someone who might regarded as one of the originators of the IPO. He said:

    Large scale natural modes of interdecadal variability exist. Likely to have substantial regional effects on climate even remotely.

    Regional effects of natural modes can produce regional climate trends.

    Regional climate variations/change must be increasingly understood as a combined consequence of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing.

  12. Jan Pompe June 20, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    Luke “the MWP is a mixed bag – what we get is pleasant anecdotes of Euro-centric balmy days – grape growing in England, wacking up cathedrals etc etc. The rest of the world was far from happy. See Brian Fagan’s well researched book – The Great Warming.”

    You miss the point Luke the real question is whether the rest of the world was cooler while such high latitude areas were warmer. You get droughts in some places while others do well. That’s how it goes.

    Now if you want to make a claim that changing the emissivity/absorptivity (e.g raise GHG gases on a planet surface) of an object will change it’s equilibrium temperature you are going to have to prove Kirchhoff’s law wrong. Do you think you are up to it.

  13. Ferdinand Engelbeen June 20, 2009 at 6:49 pm #

    Luke,

    The evidence of a warm MWP is not only from Europe, it is found in stalagmites of China and South Africa, forests of Tasmania, the ice core of the Kilimanjaro…
    Have you any indication, besides the britlecone pines (not a temperature proxy, btw) that the MWP was NOT warmer than today for the same places as in the Medieval period?

    The only objection from the “warmers” today is that the evidence is rather scattered and the timing is not synchronised. Neither is the current warming. From Esper (one of the few tree ring specialists):

    http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Esper_2009_CC_IPCC.pdf

    “heterogeneity alone is often used as a distinguishing attribute to contrast with present anthropogenic warming.”
    and
    “In their 2007 report, IPCC working group 1 refers to an increased heterogeneity of climate during medieval times about 1000 years ago. This conclusion would be of relevance, as it implies a contrast in the spatial signature and forcing of current warmth to that during the Medieval Warm Period. Our analysis of the data displayed in the IPCC report, however, shows no indication of an increased spread between long-term proxy records. We emphasize the relevance of sample replication issues, and argue that an estimation of long-term spatial homogeneity changes is premature based on the smattering of data currently available.”

    Thus how can you make a differentiation between short term natural variability (ENSO), medium type natural cycles (PDO, NAO), longer term natural cycles (like the frequent advance and retreat of glaciers in the Alps with a a period of ~1000 years) and the influence of increased GHGs?

  14. Luke June 20, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    No it’s not how “it goes” at all. Change radiation balance, change circulation patterns, change distribution of climate. That’s how it goes. Winners/losers.

    And as for parts warmer and cooler – well that’s what El Nino events do repeatedly.

  15. Jan Pompe June 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    “And as for parts warmer and cooler – well that’s what El Nino events do repeatedly.”

    Precisely natural variability.

  16. Larry June 20, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    Louis wrote:
    “Most journalists are party to the political movement behind all this nonsense – It’s the political left driving this – and as one of the former environment ministers of Canada pointed out, it doesn’t matter that the science is wrong, it’s not about the science but wealth transference from the west to the rest, with, of course, a 10% cut for the bureaucrats in the UN.”

    I’m not sure that there’s only one kind of ‘driver’ behind the climate alarmist fraud. For example, His Goreness has his own venal motives. If wealth transference to the developing countries is the 800-pound gorilla here, then why is the maize-based bio-ethanol scam a part of the climate alarmist fraud? The rising food prices resulting from it hurt everyone but farmers and the wealthy. That hardly qualifies as social engineering.

    From my befuddled perspective, climate alarmism appears to have been designed by a committee of gremlins to maximize economic damage to working-class people in the short term, and to destroy the reputation of the scientific profession in the long term. It’s amazing to me how latter-day Pol Pot environmentalists have found common ground with greedy people, like Al Gore, and with certain large corporations.

  17. Luke June 20, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Ferdi – am I arguing about temperature?

    Jan – No much more than “natural variability” – moreover a major re-organisation of the Pacific atmosphere and ocean with persistence over a year.

  18. Jan Pompe June 20, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    “No much more than “natural variability” – moreover a major re-organisation of the Pacific atmosphere and ocean with persistence over a year.”

    Gobbledygook doth not an argument make

  19. Louis Hissink June 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Larry,

    I am sure you are right – there are plenty on this band waggon – part and parcel when business gets into bed with government. Hopefully another couple of cold years might cool the ardor of the progressives who want to regulate our lives by rationing our energy consumption.

  20. SJT June 20, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    “I’m not sure that there’s only one kind of ‘driver’ behind the climate alarmist fraud. For example, His Goreness has his own venal motives. If wealth transference to the developing countries is the 800-pound gorilla here, then why is the maize-based bio-ethanol scam a part of the climate alarmist fraud? The rising food prices resulting from it hurt everyone but farmers and the wealthy. That hardly qualifies as social engineering.”

    Is going to lose either way. If he puts nothing up, people will criticise him for not putting his money where his mouth is, if he puts it up, people criticise him for setting up AGW to make money for himself.

    What actual proof do you have that this is all about him making himself rich? Anything at all? I’m betting you have nothing.

  21. hunter June 20, 2009 at 11:54 pm #

    SJT,
    In the US, ‘Gore’ and ‘hypocrite’ are synonyms.
    The proof is in his actions:
    He persists in claiming his movie was factual.
    His personal life shows how much he actually cares.
    He pushes government policies that make him very rich.
    He cannot give clear answers to somple questions.
    Is Gore still credible in Australia?

  22. hunter June 21, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    Luke,
    The gloves have never been on, and the skeptics are only winning because your side has never had a case to make.
    Only a product to sell.
    It is not so much the gloves coming off, as the used car AGW promoters have been selling being seen for the piece of junk it is.

  23. hunter June 21, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    SJT-
    “Is going to lose either way. If he puts nothing up, people will criticise him for not putting his money where his mouth is, if he puts it up, people criticise him for setting up AGW to make money for himself. ”
    Gore is only losing because he has been an extremist for much of his life and he has been wrong. His venality and profiteering off of AGW is not why he is wrong.

  24. Ferdinand Engelbeen June 21, 2009 at 12:47 am #

    SJT,

    Al Gore was in Aalsmeer, The Netherlands, a few months ago to convince bussiness (wo)men of his belief. Price per seat: 500 euro (x 1,000 seats). Gore’s fee for his traveling expenses and about one hour speech: 300,000 euro.

    I have seen his film (spread on DVD here by the utility company!) several times. Every time I discover new exaggerations, half truths and (suggestive) untruths. And worse of all, his personal energy use (even if that is “compensated” by greenwash) is enormous.

    For me such a person is not better than the TV preacher collecting lots of money, who’s personal life is something like “do what I say, but don’t look at what I do”.

    I have a lot of simpathy for people who live according to what they belief, even if I don’t agree with their belief. But I have not the slightest simpathy for hypocrites like Al Gore.

  25. david elder June 21, 2009 at 8:57 am #

    Luke, I’m shocked – shocked! – at your discriminatory attitude to ‘tedious’ Vikings!

    I have seen Vikings called lots of things, but not tedious. Or did they get that way when they decided that there was more to life than rape and pillage?

  26. Eyrie June 21, 2009 at 9:09 am #

    David Elder:

    Please whip your post into shape and send it to letters@theaustralian.com.au

    Maybe the rest of of the sane people here should do something similar. Nichols is being somewhat economical with the truth in his letter to The Australian. Classic cherry picking for his answer to question one. “So what?” might be the reaction to his answer to question two which seemed to be a non sequitur to me and for the answer to question three I doubt that the GCMs can accurately predict any outcomes over any time period you like at any future time as they are heavily influenced by random noise, integrated. (I have some nice graphs of this from outputs of inertial sensors)

    Somebody once made the tongue in cheek suggestion that all the elementary particles were the result of bugs in the Fortran compilers used in analysis of the output of particle accelerators.
    While this is fun it might actually be closer to the truth with GCMs.(truncation errors, anyone?)

    Ferdinand: Al Gore IS a TV preacher collecting lots of money. Pass the loot.
    People like him are utterly immoral. It is OK to get ahead but it isn’t OK to get ahead at somebody else’s expense.

  27. Eyrie June 21, 2009 at 9:13 am #

    David Elder: Re Vikings , you forgot the “burn” bit. Important to get the order right. “No, no Olaf, THEN burn.” Wonder if they worried about carbon offsets?

  28. Jan Pompe June 21, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    “Important to get the order right. ”

    I have a personal preference to pillage before burn. It’s not worth pillaging the burnt.

  29. Larry June 21, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    April,
    Welcome aboard, Matey! Please vouchsafe us with more postings. Thesaurus optional.

  30. cohenite June 21, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    luke, you say “Change radiation balance, change circulation patterns, change distribution of climate. That’s how it goes. Winners/losers.”

    Radiation flux and balance is not your forte but you have been full of P&V lately so give some proof of how the Earth’s radiation balance has been changed.

    Getting back to the Steketee article; he says 1998 was the hottest year since records began in 1850; this is not correct; certainly not in the US [1934], the Arctic, Canada [1937], Australia [in many regions such as the Hunter Valley], Greenland and Iceland, Russia and so on; but the real issue is the assertion in favour of AGW that its effect can sometimes be masked by countervailing natural process; that is the Keenlyside paradigm, which allegedly explains the down trend since 1998 [or at least reduction in the upward trend according to cherry-pickers like sod]; if that were the case then with natural variation, ENSO, removed the AGW effect should be apparent;

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SHLOM1k5XJI/AAAAAAAAADE/u7AlyoBk0EU/s1600-h/ENSO+Adjusted+HadCrut3v+Data.bmp

    Hadcrut adjusted for ENSO gives a 0.01C PD increase since 1998; the other indices give negative trends for the AGW effect, except, of course, for GISS;

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif

  31. Luke June 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    Well Coho – after Steve Short and others interactions with you guys – I have concluded it’s not your forte either 🙂

    I’m rather in love with Folland’s simple PC analysis – world has warmed EOF1 – temperature has to go somewhere. Just as ENSO and IOD cause redistributions of climate. Which is what I’ve been patiently tendering evidence for here over 4 years.

    Philipona more or less assures me that the basic radiation components and trend is about right.

    Unknowns – clouds, and a quiet Sun –

    Anyway all being attended to by Hadley – puts feet up – opens beer and waits. Just how think how angry you’re gonna be when the temperature starts to trend up. Think how you could have been involved instead of being secret society 5th columnists.

    And hey all of this doesn’t mean we have to have a uni-lateral ETS – another matter. Try to separate your politics on climate science from your politics on greenhouse mitigation. Linkages may not be rational.

  32. cohenite June 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    I’m sure you know that Steve’s objection to Miskolczi is not on the basis of a homeostatic mechanism which regulates and maintains radiative and energy equilibrium per se but what that homeostatic mehanism is.

  33. cohenite June 21, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    And by the way snow-white, as you travel down the golden path to the Wizard of Oz do some research on your fellow travellers; fresh off the printer;

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/seriously_inconvenient_truth.pdf

  34. Larry June 21, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    I read that pdf, and there was at least one serious error. Ken Lay did NOT serve any actual jail time. He conveniently croaked before that came to pass. As a result, the sentence was vacated, and his estate benefited greatly.

  35. Marcus June 21, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Good read cohenite,
    I am always suspicious when big business and politicians are in cohuts, quite apart from some seriously flawed aspect of AGW.

  36. hunter June 21, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    Luke,
    “Try to separate your politics on climate science from your politics on greenhouse mitigation. ”
    There may be hope for you yet.
    To take this moment of clarity and try to build on it, you might want, while sipping your cold beverage, reconsider reflexive dismissiveness of E&E.
    http://www.ccisolar.caltech.edu/files/filecabinet/folder11/CCI_Industry_Brochure.pdf
    page 16

  37. Birdie June 21, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    ” Luke, I’m shocked – shocked! – at your discriminatory attitude to ‘tedious’ Vikings!” – Eyrie

    Well, nowadays Vikings are quite timid ( except for the anti whalers;))

    They used to do the pillage because they all went crazy after eating mushrooms , then they all went berserk:)))

  38. SJT June 21, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    “I’m sure you know that Steve’s objection to Miskolczi is not on the basis of a homeostatic mechanism which regulates and maintains radiative and energy equilibrium per se but what that homeostatic mehanism is.”

    You are correct there. Since Miskolczi has not actually worked out what this proposed mechanism is, you can’t actually criticise it.

  39. Luke June 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    As Jen would say – “just filing this here” from the Australian newspaper.

    A contemptuous smackdown for our pretend sceptics.

    The Weekend Australian June 20 2009

    BOB Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth (“Wong’s silent treatment clouds emissions credibility”, Opinion, 19/6) list three questions posed to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong by Senator Steve Fielding regarding global warming.

    The questions (edited for brevity), and their answers, are:

    1. Has the world cooled since 1998, despite a five per cent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

    No, it has not cooled. The global surface temperature has increased about one tenth of a degree over the decade since 1998 (1999 2008). The warming over land areas has been even stronger.

    2 Is the late 20th century warming unusual and, if not, then why is the current warming a problem?

    There have been warmer periods in the past. About 125,000 years ago, for example, temperatures were several degrees higher than today, comparable to the warming projected for the end of this century. Sea levels then were about 5m higher than today. A sea level rise of this magnitude could be a problem.

    3. Did all computer models project a “steady” increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008?

    No computer model predicted a steady increase in temperature over this period, because models include processes that can cause cooling in short periods, as happens in the real world. But most models predicted warming over the 1990-2008 period because of increased concentrations of CO2. The world warmed about three-tenths of a degree over this period, an amount similar to that predicted by the computer models.

    Professor Neville Nicholls
    School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University
    Clayton, Vic

    Our faux sceptics might ask “Who’s Neville”.
    http://arts.monash.edu.au/ges/staff/nnicholls.php

    Take him on if you’re game ! And good luck. 🙂

  40. cohenite June 21, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    No problems luke; get your man organised, wheel him in and I’ll get a sceptic scientist to debate him.

  41. Luke June 21, 2009 at 11:42 pm #

    How crude. He’s not “my man”.

  42. hunter June 22, 2009 at 2:50 am #

    Luke,
    Your Prof. Nicholls is emblematic of AGW in general.
    The fact that warming is not significnt since 1998 is well accepted.
    But AGW is such a brittle system, its adherents seem to know that if they flinch in the least from the groundless assertions (5m sea level increases, for instance), then the whole thign falls apart.
    The facts are clear from the evidence:
    Temps are not behaving as predicted.
    Except for loame excuse rationalization no one credible is thinking stors are stronger or more frequent.
    Droughts and rainfalls are well within normal variability.
    sea levels are doing nothign extraordinary.
    World wide sea ice levels are just fine.
    While not a report about your end of the planet, the Holdren junk science report/sales tool being marketed by the US Administration this week is sort of like what Prof. Ncholls is tossing out- just make assertions from authority and hope it all goes your way.
    Well, it is not. The climate is declining to cooperate with the apocalypse.

  43. Luke June 22, 2009 at 7:21 am #

    The facts are Hunter that Dr Nicholls is one of Australia’s longest serving and highly published climate scientists – someone who has made major contributions over decades in areas such as ENSO.

    And you are again? some dude in blog fairyland who sucks on the teat of denier blogs for advice

    Temperatures are trending just fine. OHC is still upwards.
    Droughts are increasing.
    Sea levels are trending as predicted

    There is a reason that you lot are called denialist scum. You continue to deny. You alway have and always will.

    You cling to quasi-decadal periodicity in wiggles as if it is something to do with long term climate. Pathetic. Periodicity that has always been there.

    As for “apocalypse” and “end of the planet” – they’re the categorizations of denialist scum.

  44. Malcolm Hill June 22, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    Well Walker you hypocritical environmental extremist screw ball.

    You have spent years,and hundred of posts on this blog lampoonng and belittling people who reference material published in Energy and Environment, because in your view only light weights, frauds, amateurs,denialist scum bags, and posers etc use it.

    Well here is your so called esteemed scientit from Monash, Nicholls, ex BOM doing exaclty that.

    “Take him on if your game ”

    Dont have to, you have already done that.

    Nicholls, N., and Collins, D., 2006. Observed climate change in Australia over the past century. Energy & Environment, 17, 1-12.

  45. Luke June 22, 2009 at 8:09 am #

    Not bad Hillsy. Alas the facts are that for most people that’s the choice for the sole publication of their bogus nonsense. And it’s actually bloody fantastic that he could get an article published which is in direct contradiction to their other papers. So what does E&E actually believe.

    But given that you’re obviously a devotee of E&E – let’s see what the abstract says

    “Temperatures across nearly all of Australia increased through the 20th century, as did sea surface temperatures in the surrounding oceans. It seems likely that much of the warming is due to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Rainfall trends have been less spatially consistent than the temperature trends with areas of increase (especially in the northwest) and areas of decrease (especially in the southwest). There is some evidence suggesting that some of the rainfall trends are the result of human influences, but this evidence is less convincing than is the case with the increases in temperature.”

    Excellent summary. So I take it that you denialist turds will now be endorsing this E&E sanctioned position. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Oh Coho – yoo hoo ! look what Mal just found …

    So we take it then that E&E thinks climate change is and is not happening at the same time. Far out ! Can you explain this diverse policy position.

    So my little crow eating mate – exactly how am I an environmental extremist. What extreme positions have I advocated?

    But again – E&E – hahahahahahahahahahaha

  46. cohenite June 22, 2009 at 8:15 am #

    “It seems likely that much of the warming is due to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases”

    I am contributing to a paper which will address that very issue luke; try and keep your open mind; as you know even the best of them can have their lapses as Professor E&E, subtropical ridge Nicholls shows.

  47. kasphar June 22, 2009 at 8:24 am #

    The three often quoted previous warming periods (Minoan, Roman and Medieval) happened as evidenced by many temperature reconstruction studies using various proxies and archeological finds such as the siting of piers ( one just found in Italy well above current sea levels). They appear on average every one thousand years and, lo and behold – right on cue – along comes another one.
    Between these were periods of cooling (such as an ice age or smaller cooling times like the LIA) – and so the cycle will go on. The temperature also rises and falls over shorter periods within the glacial and interglacial periods.
    If we accept the ‘fact’ that CO2 didn’t rise above 300ppm in the past 600,000 years, then something else caused all these extreme events to occur. We can thus reduce CO2 as much as we like but the record shows that temperatures will range anywhere between -10C to +5C without the influence of CO2.

  48. Luke June 22, 2009 at 8:46 am #

    Coho – just don’t publish it in E&E ! hahahahahaha

  49. Malcolm Hill June 22, 2009 at 8:52 am #

    BTWalker

    Was Nicholls a member of your Monash University Fantasy group as well

    What hoot

    hahahahahahahahahh— indeed.

  50. toby June 22, 2009 at 9:05 am #

    Nicholls response shows how little the warmers have on their side. He ignores the similar warming between 1910 and 1940, the warming since 1998 is so small that the error factor is greater…and yet he says it has warmed…..he also ignores the known warmings over th elast few thousand years that clearly had ntg to do with himan co2. The models…well lets not go there, even the IPCC says they are not predictive and yet warmers rely on these models in most arguments.
    I have yet to see a decent response to fielding’s questions, that an open minded person could consider satisfactory and on which we should hang our hat and introduce an ETS.

  51. toby June 22, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    That does not mean we should not try an dreduce co2. Just this morning I was urging my students to partake in a “grenhouse” game to cut co2 emissions from their households. I stressed not because the co2 matters, but because if you cut your co2, you save money!

  52. Eyrie June 22, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    Neville Nicholls seems to have spent the last 37 years studying things that may or may not be happening, which are of little consequence or use and about which nothing can be done.

    Way to go!

    Oh yeah,

    He wasn’t a researcher for the BoM from 1970 on as he didn’t do the BoM Meteorology course until 1971.

    I note that Monash puts climate science in the arts department, not science.

  53. cohenite June 22, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    “arts department”; why Eyrie one of my degrees is in arts; it qualifies me to converse about everything and nothing in particular to a very high confidence level.

  54. Luke June 22, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Well Eyrie – I guess “an attempt” at sledging – but a cursory examination would put your “comment” in the pig ignorant fuckwit class. So how long have you been a fuckwit now? Your comparable detailed publication record specifically on Australian climate history is what exactly?

    But better still – Bob and Bill’s publication record on climate – that’s climate not geology is ….. gee is that crickets chirping again.

    At least Plimer – has got a book out. Book – get it ? hahahahahahahahahaha
    Sorry I meant science fiction novel. hahahahahahaha

  55. Malcolm Hill June 22, 2009 at 10:16 am #

    Well whacker Walker you cant have it both ways either E&E is a credible source, or it isnt.

    You were the one inviting people to take Nichols on, and I was, by using our own estimable criteria.

    All you have shown above, is that it is entirely posseble that if one takes publications on their merits rather than their mast head, there may be credible material all around, including Nichols document.

    Your previous proposition was that anyone, lets repeat that ANYONE, who publishes in E&E automatically lacks credibilty–so ipso facto….

    Also if my memory serves me correctly it was you who took McLean to task for publishng his analysys in E&E which showed what a lie it was, that the IPCC was the work of 2500 scientits. When in reality it was not any more than approx 40 who were perpetrating a fraud on the public by self referencing themselves to each other.You werent prepared to read the material because according to you it wasnt worthy of being read by virtue of it being published in E&E.

    Thats an extremist position on its own

    Now I have real work to do .

  56. hunter June 22, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    Luke,
    I am pleased as punch that your best climate scientist was able to show that in a century when temps rose worldwide according to generally accepted measuring standards, that temps rose in Australia.
    And since E&E is associated with Cal Tech, and you are a rude, immature jerk, I will stick with E&E.

  57. hunter June 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    Luke, you are also as dim as dim as you are rude.
    Your guys started calling their climate predictions warnings of apocalypse.
    Or maybe you are just an intellectual coward behind your rudeness?
    Probably both,and the net result is that you are boring, like most reactionary twits.
    For a glimmer of just how dim you are, google ‘climate apocalypse’
    You will get 1,100,000 hits.
    In fact, the first article is a pro-AGW website knocking Hadley for not being apocalyptic enough.
    Cheers, Lukie.
    We are the guys pointing out that you true believer tools are lsoing precisely because you claim an apocalypse is coming, you all are unable (as you demonstrate daily) to engage on the topic, and your leadership is calling for police state tactics and civil and criminal disruption of lawful businesses.
    That you keep, like SJT simply repeating your spew does not make you look smarter or more clever.
    It only reveals you for what you are: pathetic.

  58. Eyrie June 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Luke,

    I thought Nicholls’s letter to the Australian was piss weak. Cherry picking, a non sequitur and some arm waving are the best a a bloke who’s been working in the field for 37 years can come up with?

    Sorry Luke, I can’t take him seriously but then I was on the BoM met course with him.

  59. Luke June 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    Well Hunter – I followed your logic – if I Google “hunter dickhead” I get 52,300 hits. Surely proof beyond a doubt.

    “your guys” – just who are “my guys” mate? You’d do well verballing in a police state.

    And just who is “your leadership”?

    Gee Eyrie if you were on the course with him how come you didn’t learn anything? The problem for you denialist drop-kicks is that his letter was precisely correct.

  60. hunter June 22, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    Luke,
    You got me beat by a long shot:
    When I google, ‘Luke is a jerk’, there are 413,000 hits.
    You are an AGW true believer. That makes you part of the AGW community.
    Sort of like UFO believers are ‘UFOols’.
    The AGW community is led by Hansen, Gore, your Prof. Nicholls apparently, etc. etc. etc. They are the opinion leaders that publish nice things for you to quote and keep your faith in line.
    You rush to their defense like any well self-trained fundie true believer.
    Yet you seem oddly shy about braying out your faith. Perhaps AGW needs a Council of Nicea to stomp out a credo your ilk can memorise, and not be so shy? Embrace your profits of doom. All the AGW fundies are doing it. You do, you are just too cowardly to admit it.

  61. hunter June 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    Eyrie,
    If you haven’t noticed, arm waving, cherry picking and non sequiturs are the basis of AGW.

  62. spangled drongo June 22, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Luke,
    What? You don’t support the leading promoters of AGW?
    That’s a relief. Had me there for a bit.

    And Nicholls not one of “your guys”??

    But your mate Nicholls could have picked half a dozen warming periods closer than 125,000 y ago.
    You must have lent him your picking pole. Man, it’s a long one.

  63. SJT June 22, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    “The AGW community is led by Hansen, Gore, your Prof. Nicholls apparently, etc. etc. etc. They are the opinion leaders that publish nice things for you to quote and keep your faith in line.
    You rush to their defense like any well self-trained fundie true believer.”

    There is no AGW “community”, conspiracy, the plan to ruin the world. It’s all just a result of research into a gas that is present in the atmosphere that appeared to be totally harmless that was started by the US military.

  64. Louis Hissink June 22, 2009 at 8:34 pm #

    SJT:

    “It’s all just a result of research into a gas that is present in the atmosphere that appeared to be totally harmless that was started by the US military.”,

    Riiight………

  65. Johnathan Wilkes June 22, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    sjt
    “that was started by the US military.”

    Now I got it, poor sjt, I now of a few forums you would feel right at home!

  66. hunter June 22, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    SJT,
    You really do need to see a Dr. about your inability to admit that I have never, unlike AGW leaders, evoked a conspiracy to explain the stupidity of AGW.
    And as for your military-led research into CO2, perhaps a bit of history will help you, to the extent that you can be helped:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
    Svante Arrhenius, big Nobel insider and promoter of eugenics, was a big pusher of the greenhouse effect of CO2.
    “Racial biology
    Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology
    Statens institut för rasbiologi

    Statens institut f?r rasbiologi was a Swedish governmental research institute founded in 1922 with the stated purpose of studying eugenics and human genetics….
    in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization
    Compulsory sterilization

    Compulsory sterilization programs are government policies which attempt to force people to undergo surgical sterilization . In the first half of the twentieth century, many such programs were instituted in countries around the world, usually as part of eugenics programs intended to prevent the reproduction and multiplication of members of the…
    program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics
    Nazi eugenics

    Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s Nazism and race social policies that placed the improvement of the Race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as “life unworthy of life” , including but not limited to the Crime, Degeneration, Gleichschaltung, feeble-minded, History of homosexual people in…
    in Germany.”
    http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Svante_Arrhenius

    So from the beginning AGW and eugenics have been together like choclate syrup and ice cream.
    And here (for just how many times?) is the leader of AGW calling for the criminalization of thse who disagree with him:
    http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/23544/Hansen_Says_GW_Skeptics_Should_Be_Tried.html
    For the military part, maybe you will update Hansen’s bio?
    Here is the link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
    But please do continue.

  67. Luke June 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    Well that’s the purulent sap that feeds denialist scum. Note how Heartland adds Pol Pot etc to Hansen’s quote. Then shonky-tonks Hunter cites it as fact. Shonk Hunter personally annoints Hansen as “the leader of AGW” –

    Get off the blog you fraudulent clown.

  68. hunter June 23, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    Luke,
    You are far too entertaining to leave just because of your coping problems.
    Hansen is the recognized face and spokesman for the science side of AGW.
    You are stuck with him, unless you have another name to toss in the hat?
    In typical extremist reactionary fashion, you have to pretend that a group you dislike, Heartland, means that Hansen’s quote is not important. No one is falling for that.
    I do note that you have nothing to offer about the history of AGW, and its deep heritage with eugenics. Nor were you able to help SJT recover from his silly assertions about the big bad military being behind AGW research.
    Also, no one confusing your very good impression of a blow hard jerk with an informed position.

  69. Larry June 23, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    Hunter,
    I’m also an AGW bah-humbug, but I think that the Arrhenius-Nazi ad hommies don’t really add anything to the discussion. That’s too luke-like. For today, you’re the clear winner of the Godwin’s Law Award. Display it proudly.

  70. hunter June 23, 2009 at 4:24 am #

    While I am always happy to win awards, I would ask you to point out where I ever mentioned anything about Nazi’s? I quoted, from a cited source, what they said about eugenics. My point was not fascism. My point was how bad science attracts bad science, even if the scientists involved are, as Arrhenius was, great and accomplished. It is a very good lesson, imho, that demonstrates that ‘great scientist’ does not always equal ‘correct science’. I am not certain how quoting from a well established biographical sketch and documented history could be construed as ‘ad hom’. I am, however, open to enlightenment.
    Anything that treads into Luke-dom is to be avoided like eating with unclean hands, so I wll gladly make sure that I do not even give the appearance of treading into Godwin-land.

  71. Eyrie June 23, 2009 at 6:48 am #

    The US military did some research into the infrared properties of CO2 in the 1950s at altitudes up to 35000 feet. They did some more a few years ago. You won’t get to see the more recent stuff.
    It was in aid of infrared sensors and missile homing (or prevention of) both times.

    Comment from: hunter June 22nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
    “Eyrie,
    If you haven’t noticed, arm waving, cherry picking and non sequiturs are the basis of AGW.”

    Yeah I’ve noticed.

    What everyone needs to realize is the psychological motivations of some meteorologists and climatologists regarding AGW. In the meteorology case nobody really takes weather forecasts all that seriously as they are so often wrong even for 24 hours ahead and there is little post analysis of why. Ever notice how the forecast for 48 hours ahead gets changed suddenly when there are only 24 hours to go, with no excuses? Except maybe in the case of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons etc when the “forecasting” is largely real time tracking and linear extrapolation and even then anybody even slightly likely to be in the possible path needs to batten down as cyclone tracks can change unpredictably.
    Climatologists used to be meteorologists who weren’t working in operational forecasting. Plodders who compiled the weather data day by day into climate data by averaging it. In neither case can anybody do anything about the weather or climate. Your job and output isn’t highly regarded and nobody cares. Even so called “objective” forecasting aids such as the SOI aren’t very good.

    So imagine when an issue (AGW) arises which indicates that people might be doing something to the weather or climate. Suddenly you are important, relevant, the media and politicians listen to you. Billions of people’s lives will be forced to change as a result of your pronouncements. Imagine the improvement to your self esteem. The ego boost. Not to mention the funding increases. Dead easy to become corrupted by this.

  72. Larry June 23, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    hunter wrote:
    “Anything that treads into Luke-dom is to be avoided like eating with unclean hands, so I wll gladly make sure that I do not even give the appearance of treading into Godwin-land.”

    Thanks.

  73. david elder June 23, 2009 at 8:39 am #

    Eyrie, thanks for suggesting I forward my post on Prof. Neville Nicholls’ Letter to the Editor Australian to that same outlet. In retrospect I wish I had, but I figured Bob Carter or some other member of the Famous Four would probably respond there. But I haven’t seen anything from them there yet. It’s probably too late for me to get involved in that action, I’m afraid. So I confined myself to posting a similar comment on Mike Steketee’s website in response to his pro-AGW piece in the same issue as Prof. Nicholls’ letter.

    Sorry incidentally to Prof. Nicholls for misspelling his name with one ‘l’. We Vikings always had problems with writing things down. But we are improving. We are no longer illiterable. And I think I get the big picture of how to save the planet. Burn, then cover up carbon footprints . . .

  74. Jan Pompe June 23, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    Louis: ““It’s all just a result of research into a gas that is present in the atmosphere that appeared to be totally harmless that was started by the US military.”,

    Riiight………”

    For once Will has a point the military were interested in track aeroplanes with their missiles in order to shoot them down and also of course findings means to fool the other guy’s missiles.

    Think about it a moment!

    Tracking emissions, from a hot gas, that the atmosphere is opaque to can be a real pain. I would be very surprised given all the heat seeking missiles that they’ve built that they didn’t do the research. I don’t think however that their research was at all related to climate,

  75. Eyrie June 23, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    David Elder: LOL! Burn then cover up carbon footprints…..

    Jan Pompe: Early infrared missiles used higher frequency infrared and needed to see a hot jet exhaust or piston engine exhaust to get a lock. For the last 30 years or so the emphasis has been on “all aspect” missiles which can home on nacelle or fuselage heat (the US gave the Brits the latest model AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles for the Falklands campaign which had this capability) and don’t require you to manoeuvre into the bad guy’s “six” to get a lock.

    I haven’t seen any information on the absorption spectrum of CO2 at other than naturally occurring temperatures in the Earth – atmosphere system. It wouldn’t be smart to make your missile sensor most sensitive in an opaque region and all aspect missiles work with lower temperatures closer to ambient which might just be getting to be of interest to climate. Later missiles even use two or more “colours” of infrared to better discriminate against decoys or flares.

  76. Jan Pompe June 23, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Eyrie I was still in school when the first missiles were made it’s only much later that guidance systems became a topic on interest. My point was that the air forces research (regardless of country) will have had to do with weapons systems and defensive measures. climate change would have been of no interest. It’s my understanding that HITRAN which is a spectral database that I like to use was originally inspired by the need for such research. I don’t really know whether it is.

Website by 46digital