Harsh Words for ‘Deniers’ from Nobel Laureate


“YET the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.”  

This extract from a column in the New York Times by Paul Krugman refers specifically to politicians who voted against the cap and trade legislation last Friday in the US House of Representatives.  

Clearly the professor has little understanding of what motivates many so-called sceptics. 

In the same column he writes:

“To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

“The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.”

Apparently the professor also has little understanding of the observational data as it relates to climate change.

According to Kenneth P. Green blogging for the American Enterprise Institute, the column is as an incitement to violence. 


Notes and Links

Betraying the Planet, By PAUL KRUGMAN, Published: June 28, 2009

Is Paul Krugman Inciting Violence? By Kenneth P. Green June 29, 2009, http://blog.american.com/?p=2598

“Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/[1]), born February 28, 1953, is an American economist, columnist, intellectual, and author.[2] He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, a centenary professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[3][4] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics “for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.”[5][6] Krugman is known in academia for his work in international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

, ,

166 Responses to Harsh Words for ‘Deniers’ from Nobel Laureate

  1. Wobble July 1, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    This guy sounds a bit confused.

    Can’t he take a drive over to visit Freeman Dyson? Freeman will set him straight.

  2. Mike Goad July 1, 2009 at 3:14 am #

    Krugman needs to restrict himself to matters that he is knowledgeable on or take the time to do a little bit of honest research. He has apparently bought into the media hype on climate, which I am sure he would not do if the subject were economic — but maybe I’m wrong on that point, too.

    My opinion of Nobel laureates has dropped another notch.

  3. david elder July 1, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    Jen, I sent this email to Krugman:

    Dear Mr Krugman,

    I refer to your piece on climate change. As a scientist in Australia, rather divorced from Republicans vs. Democrats, I struggled to persuade myself of your thesis.

    Firstly, your article tells us that everything out there in the biosphere is going from bad to worse. Wouldn’t we expect on general commonsense grounds that as more is learned, there would be some negative developments and some positive ones?

    Secondly, in my brief venturing here into politics and science, I have found that for every know-nothing rightwinger there is a ‘lefty’ or liberal as you would say who is a fanatic on the horrors of genetic modification (I spent years fighting their alarmism) or DDT (heaven only knows how many kids died in the Third World of malaria from Green obstructionism here) and so on.

    Thirdly, many Green claims on global warming are scientific nonsense. For example, the hysteria over vanishing Arctic ice. This is primarily due to a natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation. The Arctic ice is now returning to normal levels. Down here, the Antarctic has mostly not warmed since the 1970s. Current global temperatures are probably no higher, lower even, than the well-documented Medieval Warm Period. Gore in his film tries to nobble this MWP with a graph that has been known for years to be spurious. (See the 2006 Wegman report.) There is a consensus that one expects some global warming from doubling CO2 but less consensus on the level and seriousness of the effect. While the IPCC claims to speak for a consensus of scientists, its most influential output, the series of summaries for policy makers, is the work of only a few dozen envirocrats.

    None of this proves or disproves the validity of a cap and trade scheme. But I wish debate on such policies was less distorted and rushed by pseudo-scientific alarmism. I also wish that one could say such things without being treated as a moron, a maniac, or a denialist with the holocaust connotations of this term.

    Sincerely yours,
    David Elder.


  4. sod July 1, 2009 at 8:00 am #

    David, are you sure you want to bring up DDT? your claim is simply wrong!

    as most of your points. (the shrinking arctic ice is REAL!)


    Krugman is right, and i didn t find his article to be all too aggressive. and Franken will bring the democratic vote to 60 finally…

    ps: some of the democrats (3) who voted against the cap and trade law, seem to have done so, because it was too weak!


  5. Neville July 1, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    Very good letter David, but I guess sod is beyond all hope and has abandoned his reasoning and commonsense. ( like all good little cultists)
    If krugman’s rant isn’t a type of madness then I stand condemned, but I’m sure that this is a very good example of GIGO.

  6. Geoff Brown July 1, 2009 at 9:53 am #

    It seems the closer we get to the MSM and the general populace realising that they have been conned by “The Great Global Warming SWINDLE,” the more the alarmists bleat. “Don’t you sceptics know there is consensus,” they yell, whilst they are the DENIERS. They deny the fact that warming forces up CO2, they deny the fact that CO2 is innocent and is necessary for all life on Earth and they suppress Info they don’t agree with.

    In suppressing this report, Al McGartlin, Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), a branch of the EPA, said: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

    Note that the supression was not about theSCIENCE, but about LEGAL and POLICY.

  7. PeterB July 1, 2009 at 10:08 am #

    ABC report “India will reject emissions targets”


    The science may be in but any agreement is still out to lunch

  8. PatrickB July 1, 2009 at 10:12 am #

    AEI? Worried about incitement to violence? Weren’t they cheering from the sidelines during the Iraq War? Wasn’t this the ideological home of Douglas Feith et al, the incompetents who planned the thing? Answer this Jen, how many killed due to advocacy of AGW and how many killed due to the war in Iraq? Still suppose there id a familial relationship between the IPA and the AEI, both are rabidly ideological and thus blinded to the folly of their own ideas.
    You are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel reprinting these type of comments. I suppose it is all you have left.

  9. JeffM July 1, 2009 at 10:16 am #

    Krugman is quoted as saying “The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected…”.

    This is not a fact. It is speculation. Krugman’s acceptance of this as fact doesn’t make it a fact. For Krugman’s statement of “fact” to be true would necessarily accept the projections generated by climate models as “fact”. This is absurd, per se.

    As I see it, the only “fact” is that Krugman has accepted the worst case climate change scenario to be the absolute truth, and woe to the rest of us who don’t accept it.

  10. spangled drongo July 1, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    The true believers of the warming religion like Krugman are fanatics not scientists.
    It is interesting that the countries where the most warming religious fanatics exist were once the birthplace and home of true religious sceptics and this scepticism led to increased wealth and prosperity. Now however, this prosperity has led to guilt, religious fanaticism and wealth destruction.
    Is this due to the circularity of things or the over-education of idiots?

  11. Jeremy July 1, 2009 at 11:46 am #


    I’m looking at that graph, and I see a dip in 2007, a slight rebound in 2008, and 2009 currently tracking right along with 2008. Where is the evidence of decline in that graph?

    Also, if you want to see other raw data:


    You would notice that the arctic ice extent is currently (by another measurement) within the bounds of average (though slightly below true average).

  12. Bulldog44 July 1, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    What is it with Climate Change belief and economists – in Australia we have Dr. Ross Garnaut (economist) touted as an expert on the subject, Britain has Stern and the IPPC is headed by Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri (an engineer with a Doctorate in…. Economics) not a single scientist among them, but all trotted out to the media as experts on the most complex scientific debate of the century and all major advisors to our Governments.

    Is this debate all about money or science, if it’s science then these people have no relevance to the subject. It certainly wasn’t on the syllabus when I studied for my major in Economics, but that was in the 70’s when scientists were alerting us all to the imminent Ice Age which were entering!

  13. Graeme Bird July 1, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    Krugman doesn’t have the analytical skills to be an economist. This is proven merely by the fact he is a grown man and still a Keynesian. When he was younger you could say that he was a hyper-productive statistical researcher. Thats all he will ever be. Maybe he would have been better to do the statistical research on this climate crapola and that way he would have found out that there is nothing in it.

  14. Graeme Bird July 1, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    “This is not a fact. It is speculation. ” Its neither. Its a lie. Its a lie passed on by liars on the basis that they can supposedly exercise plausible deny-ability.

  15. Graeme Bird July 1, 2009 at 12:56 pm #


    “I have found that for every know-nothing rightwinger there is a ‘lefty’ or liberal as you would say who is a fanatic on the horrors of genetic modification (I spent years fighting their alarmism) or DDT (heaven only knows how many kids died in the Third World of malaria from Green obstructionism here) and so on.”

    No claim is made as such. Actually tens of millions died from the campaign to centralise, bureacratise and obstruct the battle against malaria.

    SOD SEZ:

    David, are you sure you want to bring up DDT? your claim is simply wrong!

    So Sod lied. But sods not only a liar. He’s a filthy dirty holocaust denier. He’s callous to the point of being a psycho-path. And its pretty clear that he’s also a racist.

    Its amazing what you can tell about someone when they are stupid as well as evil eugenicist filth.

  16. hunter July 1, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    The best thing an AGW believer can do when DDT is brought up is to either be quiet or to dissemble on to another topic.
    I think the part about where, in Sri Lanka alone malaria cases increased by one million per year, is very insightful.
    The factual parallels between the panic wearing the veneer of science irt DDT and CO2 irt AGW is one an AGW believer should not want anyone to dwell on. This is where the genius of people like Krugman, on a belicose scale, and Luke, on a its-bitsy scale, really shines. By being as inflammatory as possible, by calling people traitors or imbeciles, or ‘deniers’, it is easy to keep the conversation from going factual. Facts do not help you sell your belief in AGW, Sod. Only misleading, cherry picking and appeals to authority work for AGW.
    I hope that helped.

  17. Neville July 1, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    Thanks to info from PeterB we can say that Copenhagen will be a complete waste of time and money.
    Even if you have a fanatical belief in AGW without the support of the big two i.e. India and China you may as well wee wee into the breeze because in 30 years they will constitute at least 50% of all emissions. ( without some new technology)
    Once again let’s state the bleeding obvious, we must spend our hard earned bucks adapting to NATURAL climate change, fortunately this is something mankind is very good at providing we use our brains and not surrender to this latest green religious mania.
    Let’s quickly pursue the latest nuclear energy technology plus a fast uptake of geothermal and put a billion dollars into the latest nano battery technology.
    If we could double the distance traveled by electric cars we would seriously challenge the normal internal combustion vehicles, so let’s throw the dollars at this research.
    Of course we could attack this problem from another angle, why not have the same battery components for every make of vehicle so the pack could be changed quickly at any service station?
    Alternatively with a bit more nano technology the battery pack could be charged in perhaps 5 to 10 minutes. This is presently the claim of some companies, but I’m not so sure.

  18. hunter July 1, 2009 at 2:12 pm #

    Kyoto, Bali, Copenhagen, ETS, Cap and Trade, etc. etc. ad nauseum have done, and would do if fully implemented, *nothing* to lower climate, even by the standards of those promoting the treaties/conferences/agreements.
    I think that not one of the leaders of AGW opinion is actually sincere. They are either misleading about if they think any of the policy solutions they push will work, or they are kidding themselves that it would make a difference.
    And by the standards of the climate realists, since tehre is clealry not a crisis, these efforts not only will not work, they will damage real efforts to clean the environment and make life better.

  19. Luke Desk I July 1, 2009 at 2:40 pm #


    Some serious comments:

    In terms of inflammatory look at yourselves seriously. Behaviour is learned and returned.

    In terms of factual – misleading, cherry picking and appeals to authority – you are describing the sceptics surely?

    Ever thought of standing outside yourself? Serious question?


    I would suggest that you need to adapt to natural change AND anthropogenic change. If you do – you will be disconcerted as your natural change indicators are breaking down with change trends. Which is why some of us might be here !!

    As for nuclear, geothermal, nano – yep no objections.

    Last comment to both of you – you missing on a major learning opportunity on here. Perhaps technical. Perhaps social. Even if you took the view you wanted to defeat the green AGW menace – if you were clever you’d want to be able to fully understand how the opposition think?

    Do you think you’re getting that?

  20. FDB July 1, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    Can anyone explain what’s “harsh” about Krugman’s words?

    Was it the word ‘betrayal’?

    Aw… diddums. For brave Galileos, you’re a pretty thin-skinned lot, aren’t you?

  21. janama July 1, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    “if you were clever you’d want to be able to fully understand how the opposition think?

    Do you think you’re getting that?”

    Yup – it’s sad isn’t it……… how the other side thinks.

  22. SJT July 1, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    “I think that not one of the leaders of AGW opinion is actually sincere. They are either misleading about if they think any of the policy solutions they push will work, or they are kidding themselves that it would make a difference.”

    They will at least know that they tried, even if the more cynical would realise that many of the people are like you and hate them for trying.

  23. Luke Desk I July 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Janama – fair dink – is that really your considered opinion ?

  24. Neville July 1, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    Alright Luke I’ll meet you halfway, we can both believe in the same outcome but for different reasons.
    You’re saving the world from the dreadful humans and I’m quite prepared to spend money to adapt to NATURAL CC.
    No need for an ets, because we’ll reduce co2 with nuclear, geothermal etc and we could quickly build a dam on the mitchell river in Victoria and save money on that stupid desal plant etc.

  25. Luke Desk I July 1, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    Well Neville – humans can be dreadful and not so dreadful. Most of us want to do things better. But our energy systems and agriculture has side effects. Which hopefully better technology can mitigate. Wouldn’t discount the simple goodwill towards a better environment.

    A good way to adapt to natural climate change is to develop early warning systems for various oscillations like El Nino or the Indian Ocean Dipole.

    One of the problems you will find if you do that science is that there are disturbing trends in your indicators which invalidate your 100 year statistical view of life. i.e. the baseline is changing. It’s not that you want to find that – simply you will find it.

    Then you’ll be back to square one very quickly trying to work out why. On balance there is only one reason. Nothing else stacks up.

  26. Henry Winterburn July 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    Please see the transcript of Professor Tim Flannery with Tony Jones on ABC1 “Lateline” of Monday 29 Jun 2009 at

    Don’t laugh. Tim Flannery has been selected for greatness at the coming Copenhagen, stating that coal burning electrical utilities should capture the CO2, chemically remove the oxygen, make “biochar” and spread it on the soil, where, among other thngs, it would both remain sequestered forever and also enhance crop growth. I kid you not.


    There are some problems with Tim’s dream.

    1. If the biochar stays in the soil forever, it cannot aid the growth of plants. Plants have to break it down and in the course of growing and dying, they re-emit CO2. If it remained in the soil forever, over millions of years our soils would have become about 100% carbon, which they patently are not.

    2. The energy required to take oxygen off CO2 is far greater then the energy to put oxygen onto carbon, as by burning in a coal-fired plant to give CO2. Tim is a bit confused by the perpetual motion machine, a dream yet to be realised. The plant to make biochar would have to be a heck of a lot bigger than the coal-fired station that made the CO2. A simpler solution would be just to sprinkle coal on the ground. But in time, this coal would oxidise to CO2, just as his biochar does.

    This biochar concept in all its glory even has a place at our National Library, see

    It seems that it might become a candidate for offsets in an emission trading scheme. How quaint! What a neat way to line the pockets of snake oil merchants.

    If Prof Flannery takes this drivel to Copenhagen, the rest of the world will wonder about the state of Australian science. I resent that. How do we prevent it?

  27. david elder July 1, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Sod at 8.00 am asked if I really wanted to raise DDT. Yes, I did. I wanted people, especially people like Sod, to read things like the Nature article ‘DDT returns’ by Apoorva Mandavilli, Nature Medicine 12, 870 – 871 (2006). Greens obstructed safe use of DDT to kill malarial mosquito vectors by spraying the inner walls of houses. The Greens now plead that they did not actually ban DDT for this purpose, but their obstruction of its use was quite enough to disrupt malaria control programs and cause enormous amounts of harm in the Third World. I used to be a keen Greenie. On some things, I still am. But exhibitions like this are a grim warning of the excesses to which environmentalism can sink.

  28. Ian Mott July 1, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    Krugman’s language makes it quite obvious that he is well aware that their climate scam is going wobbly. He would not be using that sort of language if sceptics really were minor players at the margins of a grand consensus, as the climate criminals like to suggest.

    Must be time to twist the dagger a bit more.

  29. Sceptical of sceptics July 1, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    “As a scientist in Australia, rather divorced from Republicans vs. Democrats, I struggled to persuade myself of your thesis.”

    A scientist? And what discipline would that be in David Elder?

  30. hunter July 1, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    Seriously, in a thread based on a column calling skeptics ‘planetary traitors’ you think it is going to carry more than, say, an ml of water to try the ‘you started it’ routine. In your alien persona, I teased and urged you to become the reasonable persona you have adopted recently, but I am a new comer here. Your presence here has set a standard I am certain I wil not reach even if cared to.
    AGW is all about cherry picking:
    Taking noisy data and ‘creating’ algorithms – that are still mostly ‘blackbox’- that claim to show massive changes, but in fact show tiny changes over many years. The typical AGW graphic is designed to dramatize the axis of interest to make the scariest impression possible.
    The AGW community is infamous for grasping on to any weather event and claiming this is proof of AGW. Whether the event is warming or cooling or rain or drought or storm or calm.
    The Mann graph, and its Orwellian approach to climate, speaks for itself.
    In terms of inflammatory, you seem to give it but are now implying you would like to stop?
    If your collective soul is ready for a discussion that goes beyond your confusing your disagreeing with something as having actually addressed it, great. And if you are ready to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you ‘denialist scum’ and much worse, fantastic. But if you think that skeptics should simply sit back and be punching bags, conceding not only the framing of the issues but their very legitimacy, to adherents of a run away social movement, forget about. it.

    Exactly. I predicted a long time ago that as the AGW social movement starts to fall apart, its level of rhetoric will climb the screeching scale towards the ultrasonic. Krugman’s hysterical, ill informed, incitement is a great example of jsut that.

    Speaking of the costs of AGW, I just heard a report that in the US, some plans to dismantle small hydroelectric plants and restore the flooded habitat, are being delayed or ended. This is to allow the inefficient, ineffective small megawatt output of those dams to continue as an offset to carbon. So flooded river valleys are less important than a few tons of CO2. This is a perfect example of the pernicious nature of CO2 obsession. A river valley that could be restored won’t be so that a few thousand consumers can feel better about global warming. This is the good measurable environmental policy of river valley and wetland restoration being driven out by the models and predictions of AGW.

  31. hunter July 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    “What was harsh?”
    The question is sometimes the answer.

  32. Luke Desk I July 1, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    “Taking noisy data and ‘creating’ algorithms – that are still mostly ‘blackbox’”

    How utterly silly and random as a comment. You don’t know that. It’s just meaningless words.

    But you really aren’t very clever are you. Luke just reflects back at you every day how rude, abusive, and un-scientific you are.

    The fact that you don’t see the arguments inverted and mirrored back is hilarious. The heatwave stuff that you got riled about is simply the sort of horseshit that you lot try-on every time. Do your EVER pull your mates up on weather as climate ruse. Noooooooooooo!

    Do you ever pull up Bird or Mott on their rampant rudeness. Nah ! So don’t go on about standards.

    Indeed you’re the one that’s in the social movement. You’re in the big whining redneck class with a lot of good mates around here. Just having you chain pulled every day as they get you more and more riled up.

  33. hunter July 1, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    So now rude Luke is back.
    Luke (good, bad or stupid), just how is climate experienced?
    I don’t converse with Bird.
    Mott is on, and is at least addressing issues, which you all are not really able to do more than in low single digits percentages.
    As for the attempt at substance in your remark, are algorithms not created by people? Please do expalin to us the science behind algorithm evolution.
    I see what you try to do – and fail- and yes, that is entertaining.
    Just how many posts did you make about the false claim that your droughts were unprecedented? We all lost track.
    I do like the irony of your ensemble making the assertion, “You don’t know that. It’s just meaningless words.”
    It pretty much sums up the majority of what you all post.

    Please do continue.

  34. hunter July 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    “At least they tried”
    They tried? To do what, exactly?

  35. Henry chance July 1, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    If you are a failure at economic forecasting, you can gain a fresh attempt in a field that is new. Then he can have 2 fields in which his forecasts are wrong. Did he forecast the 1998 spike in temps? Did he forecast the subsequent fall? Did he forecast 2009 first 2 quarters in US GDP? NO? 2,000 years ago heat and storms were forecast. I will stick with sources that have a reliable record. I also will compliment Krugman for writing fior the New York times. It is entertianment. It is not a science. A NYT subscription last year was printed on 572 pounds of paper. Lot of wasted trees.

  36. J.Hansford July 2, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    Patrick B….. I have no idea why you inveigled the Iraq intervention into your post and even consider it relevant to climate…. or your criticism of the Iraqi conflict valid for that matter….

    However now that we are on the topic of WMD’s, Tyrants and Nuclear non proliferation. I will point a few things out. An indulgence if I may.

    Considering that Canada purchased the last of Iraq’s illegal Uranium yellowcake this year and the fact we are only two years on from the Israeli bombing of a joint Syrian and Nth Korean nuclear program secretly based in Syria, which Saddam was probably involved with, or would have been…. I’d say intervention was valid and timely. Not to mention his established stocks of mustard gas and his demonstrated willingness to use that foul weapon on civilians.



    Considering also, that Iraq is strategically placed between Israel and Iran and Afganistan between Iran and Pakistan….. I’d say continued involvement in an alliance with the Iraqi and Afghan Governments was and still is necessary.

    You are serious about Nuclear non proliferation aren’t you Patrick?…. I know I am.

    So how can you fault the strategic positioning of force to establish that end? Or the fact a tyrant of the first order was deposed as an extra benefit.

    Now, it is up to Iraqis to maintain the foothold they have with democracy. Once the Iranian threat is neutralized the West may lose interest in their dynamics. But at least the Iraqi people have been freed of a tyrant…

    Eight million Adult Iraqi’s voted in the elections. That turnout is almost comparable to ours, considering the young demographic of the Iraqi population… and our system is compulsory! Their desire for a fairer system is demonstrable.

    Now, back to this obscene example of Eco fascism by Krugman and the defective Hypothesis of AGW, that has spawned a political movement which will result in the Starvation of tens of millions in third world populations, which will cause the economic hamstringing of any advanced industrialized nation that shackles itself to its confines, and all due to a superstition about a biologically important gas produced in the combustion of cheap Fossil fuels for energy production…..

    …. Well, the fact remains that there is no evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on the Global Climate…. In fact the current temperature is flat or slightly trending down while Measurements indicate that CO2 is continuing to rise linearly.

    AGW Hypothesis fails. Natural variation of a complex nature is still the established and valid theory on all climate changes, past, present and future.

    …. That’s my opinion and it’s better than yours : )

  37. JBA July 2, 2009 at 3:38 am #

    This was my response to Krugman yesterday


  38. dhmo July 2, 2009 at 6:36 am #

    “In terms of inflammatory look at yourselves seriously. Behaviour is learned and returned.” If luke can say this either he has totally lost touch with reality or is a calculating liar. He hopes someone new to this blog might not see him for what he is.

    “Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.” This comment by Krugman is a worry. This sort of thinking motivated the burning of witchs and many other atrocities in the past. The actions proposed to solve AGW are a futile nonsense. Already those who do not accept the environmentlist line are publicly attacked. How long before we talk about lynching mobs?

  39. kuhnkat July 2, 2009 at 6:41 am #

    Patrick B,

    apparently you are quite myopic??

    You don’t remember a Party called the Baathists?? A Fascist group that still controls Syria and aids and abets some of the worst murdering Jihadis in the world?? You don’t remember that a man, his family, and tribe called Sadam Hussein was a member of this vile group and murdered his way to the “Presidency” of Iraq where he continued his torturing, murdering, terrorist supporting ways??? You don’t remember that Sadam perverted a UN program called Oil for Food into “Oil for Cash for Sadam to Build Palaces and Buy Weapons”, letting his people go without food and medicine??

    Y’all apparently have an extremely short memory. What else have you forgotten in the last year??

    That Gubmints invariably attract the worst of a society to the point that they become oppressive groups out for the increase and maintenance of their own power?

  40. janama July 2, 2009 at 7:26 am #

    For those who missed it here’s an mp3 (35meg) of Ian Plimer’s address to the Sydney Institute.


  41. sod July 2, 2009 at 8:36 am #

    For those who missed it here’s an mp3 (35meg) of Ian Plimer’s address to the Sydney Institute.

    it is really painful to listen to him.

    5 min into the podcast, he brings up the port of ephesus, now 15 km inland and 7 m above sealevel.

    now most people would not pick the mediterranean to look at sea levels. but this was the first point that got me interested.
    so i did a 5 min google search. this was the first article that i found:


    The settings of the harbors were altered by continuing progradation of the ancient Cayster River delta-floodplain over the past three millennia.

    so river silt might be the explanation for a SEAPORT now being inland?

    but things get worse.


    Capital of 16 Roman provinces of Asia and one of the largest (and wealthiest) cities in the eastern Mediterranean area. Located some 3 miles (5 km) from the Mediterranean on the left bank of the River Cayster in western Asia Minor, Ephesus was a link between East and West, and a junction of overland and sea routes (Acts 18:19-24; 19:1, 26; 20:16-17; I Tim 1:3; II Tim 1:18; 4:12).

    oops, actually the port was inland already in the past.

    the first Plimer claim that i took a look at. turned out to be a complete fabrication.

  42. Jan Pompe July 2, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    sod “it is really painful to listen to him.”

    I’m sure it must be for you to listen to someone who knows his material.

    just for the record 3km != 15km

  43. janama July 2, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    Sod – when they say it’s 3 miles from the Mediterranean it’s because that’s where it is! Now!!.

    so river silt might be the explanation for a SEAPORT now being inland?

    key word – “MIGHT!” Care to fill us in on the plate tectonics of the Turkey area and how it influenced the inhabitants to move Ephesus 3 times? I’m sure you are as knowledgeable on the subject as Prof Plimer.

    Care to comment on the science which is what the talk is about or are you just going to sit there and nitpick as usual.

  44. Neville July 2, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    Thanks for that Plimer address Janama, one of the best I have heard in a long time.
    Luke I would like to get back to droughts and what we know from the past.
    I’m reading a 2002 Qld govt publication “Pasture degradation and recovery in Aust’s rangelands”, and a recovery it certainly has been with better rainfall experienced in just about every case.
    One case the Western division of NSW is particularly interesting. From 1898 to 1948 ( 50 years) the rainfall only reached average or slightly above average for 7 years. ( 1906 to 1911 average 1919 to 1921 slightly above average)
    While the rainfall for the period 48 to 60 was well above average then dipped to 72, then besides a dip from 80 to83, then the next 21 years the rainfall was at or above average.
    This division and the NE district of SA are the two most southerly rangelands in the survey and both show a vast improvement over the last 100 years.
    Of the seven rangelands listed most show an improvement in rainfall over the last 100 years as do the states of WA (except the sw ) SA, NSW, Qld, NT, Vic is slighty down over the last 108 years ( -0.91mm per decade) Tasmania is down -11.33mm per decade.
    Of course the MDB is up overall by 3.62mm decade over the last 108 years as well, just a pity it’s been so dry for the last 8 or 9 years.

  45. Neville July 2, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    I should have added to the above the state of SA +3.09mm and Southern Aust +2.83mm, both increasing I suppose because they have experienced heavier rainfall in the northern end.

  46. SJT July 2, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    “the first Plimer claim that i took a look at. turned out to be a complete fabrication.”

    Plimer, Kininmonth, Singer, they are all the same. They have worked as scientists, they know how science works, if they have something to say they should be publishing papers. If they did, nonsense like that would never see the light of day.

    Instead they take the easy, and scientifically dishonest, way out, and publish books for the general public that are riddled with errors and misrepresentations. I remember seeing the Roman ports being discussed years ago on a documentary. Sedimentation, and a geologist can’t pick it. You really do have to wonder.

    The pity of it all is that it works, the general public don’t realise the scientifically dishonest fraud that is being put to them.

  47. janama July 2, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    I hope you’ve written to Professor Plimer and vented your dissatisfaction with his interpretation of climate science SJT.
    I’m sure the ideas of a government computer hack will sway him from his opinion.

  48. hunter July 2, 2009 at 11:15 am #

    I wonder if you just cut-n-pasted your feeble response?
    Actually, Prof. Pilmer was spot on, and in context, irt to his observation of Ephesus:
    I guess you were hoping no one would actually listen to what he says in the recording, and I am sure you were hoping to disinterest people with your ill-informed snark.
    It is interesting to see how the true believer seeks to guide people and manipulate people as to what they read or listen to.
    The pain in your ears may be from an infection. I hope you get it looked after soon.

  49. Neville July 2, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    What was the complete fabrication from Plimer?

  50. hunter July 2, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    So in your new minitruth job, ‘disagreeing with AGW orthodoxy’ is ‘scientific dishonesty’.
    You seem to fit right in.

  51. Luke Desk I July 2, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    I can see that Neville has twigged where Hunter and DHMO haven’t…

    Neville – yep good book. Got my copy. Not sure where you are coming from but … a number of well documented example of how climate variation collides with economics and human management. Mega-denialists like Mean Grott who suggest Australian agriculture is perfect would deny all of this (so be careful – get too close and you’ll become ideologically sus).

    The Gascoyne example is interesting – down to the B horizon. Half the productivity. Usual story – don’t see droughts coming, hang onto stock for a variety of reasons, don’t destock, go broke drought feeding, and turn the place into a moonscape. Extras – Rabbits and woody weeds – NSW Western Division, super-duper animal genetics in terms of yaks in the Burdekin.

    So a big part of the story there is the interaction with droughts with land managers and what might cause the droughts – EL Nino, Indian Ocean Dipole, sub-tropical ridge position etc. Which gets you into seasonal forecasting, which gets you into sunspots and all manner of skunk forecasting.

    And so in these studies you eventually start to notice trends in your rural climate stations, breakdown of seasonal forecasting indices due to climate “drift”, and drought clusters. You ponder the Federation drought vis a vis now.

    Do that seriously and you will see reasonable risk and want to know more – a lot more. You won’t see a perfect story and you shouldn’t expect one.

    The climate change twang for that book is what a small bump to the climate system would do in terms of additional degradation or farm viability.

    Threshold test of the REAL interest in science here on blog. Note how the thread on new ocean forecasting systems is abandoned. Nobody cares as it’s really all about politics.

    Example – what’s big at the moment in El Nino research – Modoki mode – you’ll never see Jen bring that up – or any of the modern GRL papers on what serious research in the region is up to. e.g. http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/T1545_Taschetto.pdf

    so where the bloody hell did Modoki mode come from?

  52. Neville July 2, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Yes luke, but my main point is that rainfall is much better now on average than then and strangely the heaviest rainfall occurred ( in the 70’s) in central Aust.

  53. Luke July 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    Not really – you’ve missed a great wack of recent years due to book publication date ! Book doesn’t look at SW WA or south-eastern Australia.

  54. Marcus July 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    “you’ve missed a great wack of recent years due to book publication date”

    I would have thought the recent rains in Qld, NSW SA and WA made up for that?

    Sure Victoria seems to be missing out but not Tasmania, so one can almost (almost mind) put it down to bad luck!

  55. Nevlle July 2, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Yes the last 6 years have been missed, but my point is that the rainfall in NSW west div for example was terrible for the first half of the century (1898 to 1948) and much more consistent since that time. ( IOD influenced)
    BTW does the IOD line go from Broome to Wollongong, it seems to be something I’ve heard a bit lately. In other words below that line is a IOD influence and above that line is influenced more by la nina.
    N.E district of SA experienced better rainfall as well. ( IOD again)

  56. Neville July 2, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    Luke we’ve only missed the years 2003 to 2008 thats 6 years (inclusive) so it’s hardly a great wack of years out of the last 117 .
    I’ve proved my point that out of the last 117 years the more recent years have been the best by a big margin.
    I live on the Murray between Mildura and Swan Hill and the drought has only kicked in for us in the last 6 or seven years, actually reduction in water usage has only been the last 4 years.

    In fact we’ve just recieved 53.8mm in june which is the best rainfall for June in 32 years. Good rain in May as well.
    So if we have a negative IOD working against an el nino by December it will be interesting to see the result at these latitudes.

  57. Luke July 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    Well it is a wack if those years are pushing the records and the issue. If you haven’t included those years – means little for a discussion today. Why you would want to just pick those areas from the grazing book escapes me? What about everywhere else?

    I assume you would have now discussed in detail with the MDB science staff why they project the Murray inflows to have reached record lows of late?
    And I assume you would have studied the SEACI science results carefully as to whether there might be a mechanism. And you would have read up on Cai’s latest IOD work and also Modoki mode as to why La Nina aren’t all La Ninas – you know – just for a bit of objectivity – cover defense. You wouldn’t just be drifting along going “she’ll be right mate”

    And why would you even want to talk about EL Nino & IOD – research comes from the same “dishonest lying cheating dodgy stable” as the greenhouse stuff. Wouldn’t be being a tad selective?

    “drought has only kicked in for us in the last 6 or seven years, ” !!!!!!!!!!!! Gadzooks !

  58. Ron Pike July 2, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    I really can not understand your continuing desire to see your hastily acquired references, repeatedly and logically refuted.
    Rather than coming forward with further reasoned argument, you resort to name calling or a new source.
    Often unrelated.
    Just for the record.
    Tasmania has had the wettest June for 55 years. Most rivers have been in flood for weeks.
    SW Western Australia is also now receiving above average rainfall.
    Victoria is now very wet.
    The Wimmera river which hasn’t flowed for years, is now flowing strongly at Horsham and the Grampian storages are filling nicely. (my son lives there.)
    Check BOM today. All the rivers of NE Victoria are in flood today.
    On schedule as predicted by many, over a month ago.
    More importantly just as previous droughts have come to an end ever since 1788 and likely for hundreds of years precious.
    Reasoned truth does not and never has exclusively resided in the halls of Academe.
    Time to take the blinkers off Luke.

  59. Ron Pike July 2, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    I really can not understand your continuing desire to see your hastily acquired references, repeatedly and logically refuted.
    Rather than coming forward with further reasoned argument, you resort to name calling or a new source.
    Often unrelated.
    Just for the record.
    Tasmania has had the wettest June for 55 years. Most rivers have been in flood for weeks.
    SW Western Australia is also now receiving above average rainfall.
    Victoria is now very wet.
    The Wimmera river which hasn’t flowed for years, is now flowing strongly at Horsham and the Grampian storages are filling nicely. (my son lives there.)
    Check BOM today. All the rivers of NE Victoria are in flood today.
    On schedule as predicted by many, over a month ago.
    More importantly just as previous droughts have come to an end ever since 1788 and likely for hundreds of years previous.
    Reasoned truth does not and never has exclusively resided in the halls of Academe.
    Time to take the blinkers off Luke.

  60. janama July 2, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    Farmers around here (Clarence Valley) are saying “no more rain please!”

  61. hunter July 2, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Ron Pike,
    The ensemble formerly known as ‘Luke’ is a very typical profile of a true believer.
    The reliance on tactics that go from authority to personal attack. The inability to do more than simply deny the arguments. The confusion of his/its disagreement with an assertion with having disproven the assertion.

  62. hunter July 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    I missed your question earlier.
    That is a very good question.
    Yes, I do believe I understand the pov of AGW community quite well.
    The interesting question that comes to mind is this;
    Do you believe that you understand the skeptics at all?

  63. Luke July 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Ron – so what? what’s your point?

  64. kuhnkat July 2, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    Old Sod,

    what did your extensive research say about the increase in elevation???

    Yeah, I know, it COULD BE due to plate tectonics raising the area, BUT, there doesn’t seem to be any data on this??

    You really need to stop relying on others talking points to carry your argument. They don’t care if you end up looking like a MORON!!! Honestly?? Neither do I.


    when you become an adult, how are you going to deal with the fact that you allowed yourself to be an agent for a hostile, FALSE GOD of the environment??

    Do you say your AGW catechism and worship the Gore every morning and evening??


  65. SJT July 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    I have never seen AIT, and don’t get my science from Gore. It’s the deniers who are more obsessed with him than the people who accept the science of AGW as valid.

  66. Marcus July 2, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    “I have never seen AIT”

    there is reference on this blog that makes you eat your words.

  67. Ron Pike July 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    Ever since my reading of this blogg you have repeatedly claimed that recent weather conditions in Australia, somehow support the AGW theory.
    Given the short time frame when CO2 has supposedly had an influence, this is statistically and logically impossible to prove.
    However it can and has regularly been reasonably argued on these pages, by me and others, that recent weather paterns are mirrors of previous events.
    This is proverable within the constraits of our short history
    Failure to accept irrefutable evidence and then seeking to personally attack those who deliver the arguments reeks of a closed mind.
    Hence, ” take off the blinkers.”

  68. Luke July 2, 2009 at 6:03 pm #

    Could write a lot back to Hunter and Pikey – but let’s take you on your own word – you know the sceptic POV – you know what I’ve said on drought etc. You know I’m wrong etc.

    So here’s a little test for both of you – probably 5-7 mins of your time. Just write 3-4 short paras summarising my position. You’ve had heaps in the last few weeks.

    We’ll see how “credible” you are. Didn’t say you had to agree with anything.

    Give you till 9pm.

  69. janama July 2, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    Oh com’on – you’ll just say “No that’s not my position!” pathetic.

    Why don’t you write a few paras supporting your views on the australian climate and why AGW is influencing it?

  70. Luke July 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    Nope – no tricks. It’s a fair dink ask. Actually j-pj’s you’ve had heaps – you should know off by heart by now. Hunter reckons he knows the AGW POV – so it should be a cinch for him.

  71. SJT July 2, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    “there is reference on this blog that makes you eat your words.”

    I have looked up the transcript to debunk specific attacks on it. I have never seen it.

  72. spangled drongo July 2, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    Luke, one of your favs re AGW is that it’s all over for rural Vic and the MDB. Ain’t gonna rain no more no more in that notw. The rain was all gonna land in the Southern Ocean.

    Pikey, did you get my message re today’s dust storm in SEQ? It’s on Motty’s cattle blog.

  73. hubter July 2, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    No, you are not in control. You asked a question about if understood the AGW pov, I answered it and and asked you question.
    Now you get to answer it with an…..answer.
    Then you get to ask a question.
    That is called ‘conversation’.
    Give it a try.

    It is completely clear you will not likely ever see the failure of your faith anywhere.

  74. Francis Renier July 2, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    Does anyone else find it hilarious that Jennifer is making money from WWF adverts about how we can save species from climate change on her page? Good to know the cost of an opinion!

  75. hunter July 2, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    Just ran across the latest gem.
    What a bizarre misleading assertion you make:
    “I have never seen AIT, and don’t get my science from Gore. It’s the deniers who are more obsessed with him than the people who accept the science of AGW as valid.”
    It is AGW true believers who show his movie to kids to sell them on AGW early, not skeptics.
    It is AGW true believers who invite Gore to speak at endless conferences and AGW events and who pay his huge speaking fees and fly him around the world.
    As to your claim to have never seen AIT, the search engine here does not seem to have good resolution, so I guess we can go on faith, unless someone dredges through your posts and finds otherwise.
    But you are so evasive and parse so carefully as you tip toe through AGW, I am sure you understand who someone might have a question or three.
    As to not ‘getting your science from Gore’, is there any part of his message with which you disagree?

  76. James Mayeau July 2, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    Comment from: Luke July 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    “No they don’t. No they didn’t. No it doesn’t.” – the desk’s position pretty much.

    But I wouldn’t characterize it as an argument. It’s more like a Monty Python skit.

    News today. Calif. Rep. Waxman hospitalized after fainting.
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman remained in the hospital in his home state of California on Wednesday, a day after fainting in his office.

    Waxman, 69, was not feeling well Tuesday and was admitted to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles for “routine testing,” spokeswoman Karen Lightfoot said.

    My take on this, Henry was getting picketted. His phone lines were swamped with pissed off voters. His email was chocked full of hate mail.
    The hospital was a convenient spot to hide.

  77. Ron Pike July 2, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    Luke Mate,
    Seems to me you have lost the plot.
    Why should Hunter and me waste our time telling you what YOU BELIEVE?
    How absurd!
    If you wish to advance your cause you need to admit that SOME previously held beliefs are now untenable.
    To accept truth is not weakness, it is a sign of maturity.
    Then proceed to prosecute more supportable arguments.
    Your basic belief MAY ultimately prove to be correct.
    But frothing at the mouth in support of that which is without reason is futile.
    Hi Spangles,
    Just had a look at your comment.
    Not quite sure of your point or inference?
    But happy to respond to further information.

  78. hunter July 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    you say, “So here’s a little test for both of you – probably 5-7 mins of your time. Just write 3-4 short paras summarising my position.”
    In response, apparently to my
    “That is a very good question.
    Yes, I do believe I understand the pov of AGW community quite well.
    The interesting question that comes to mind is this;
    Do you believe that you understand the skeptics at all?”
    Now the nice thing would be to answer my question.
    Then we can have a conversation.

  79. SJT July 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    “As to not ‘getting your science from Gore’, is there any part of his message with which you disagree?”

    I’m not sure what his message is, not having seen AIT. I have looked up details of the so called ‘errors’ he made in the film, such as Mt Kilimanjaro. Gore referred to several glaciers, only Kilimanjaro is disuputable. Gore was mostly correct on that point, that glaciers indicate the earth is warming.

  80. Jan Pompe July 2, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    SJT: “that glaciers indicate the earth is warming.”

    Which ones?

    The ones like Mt Kilamanjaro that are retreating because of lack of moisture at high altitudes (se the Garth Paltridge paper) or those like Franz Joseph which are advancing?

  81. SJT July 2, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Gore referred to several, there was only one in dispute.

  82. spangled drongo July 2, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    Another hobby horse….


    Pikey, you mentioned a while back, a mates farm that passed the winner in the straight at Flemington and following the big winds down your way a couple of those farms have just arrived up here for the winter carnival.
    The BoM couldn’t work out what was going on [tonight’s news was still going on about pollution] but it looked like good old mallee dust to me. Happens so rarely these days that people don’t recognise it.

  83. hunter July 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    The question was about Gore and his position.
    Not the questions about Gore.
    But, in reference to your statement that
    ‘glaciers indicate the world is warming’.
    What do these glaciers indicate?
    Oh, hear is the answer: When glaciers shrink, it is AGW.
    And when they grow, it is AGW:
    Minitruth is doupbleplus pleased.

  84. SJT July 2, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    “The question was about Gore and his position.”

    I thought I just said I don’t know what his position is, I haven’t seen AIT.

  85. Ron Pike July 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    Hi Spangles,
    As I’ve said before, I love the name and understand the background.
    Great to hear from someone who not only reads these posts but remembers.
    The reference was to Martin O’Rourke of Leeton and it was actually Randwick.
    The vintage was around 1949 (can’t be sure)
    However it was an example of how the husbandry of our farming and grazing lands have constantly improved since the end of the second world war.
    Something that certain people on this site and most ” Greens” do not wish to acknowledge.
    It is sad that we still have some wind and water erosion but it is definitely decreasing with the continuing inprovement in land management.
    We can do much more with water management.
    The basis of my argument has always been that the recognisation of the problems of land use were long before the advent of the Political Greens.
    Bob Brown, Flannery, Sinclare, Garret, LUKE and Co. are later day clowns with NO practical knowledge ot the issues or present problems.

  86. Jan Pompe July 2, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    SJT: ” I haven’t seen AIT.”

    Probably a necessary condition for you to defend that horror flick as well as you have been.

  87. SJT July 2, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    “Probably a necessary condition for you to defend that horror flick as well as you have been.”

    The London court case was the reason I looked up the ‘errors’. The judgement vindicated Gores specific claims on evidence for AGW, with just a few of many claims open to dispute. Monkton made many more errors than Gore did.

  88. Jan Pompe July 2, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    SJT defending a science fiction horror flick that you’ve never seen like that is truly admirable you are a true defender of the faith

  89. hunter July 2, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    So you say. I find it interesting that instead of learning what he said, you looked for people to tell you criticism of him was incorrect.
    But the only mention you made in reference to defending Gore was of glaciers. In response, I point out that your assertion on glaciers ain’t necessarily so, and in typical response, you ignore that and focus on re-parsing your defense of Gore.
    is it odd that you defend that which you claim to not rely on or to know anything about?
    The glacier issue is fascinating. When they shrink, even though worldwide glaciers have been shrinking for ~200 years,
    it is AGW for sure.
    I do like this link to the New Zealand glaciers melting away due to AGW:
    With a straight face, it sums up the circular, self-referential nature of AGW rather well.
    And it does give insights on why the AGW community seeks to rebrand ‘Global Warming’ as ‘climate change’.

  90. Luke July 2, 2009 at 10:22 pm #

    Well about as I expected – our little denialist turds couldn’t step up to the plate leaving poor old spangles to have a quick shot.

    10:20pm – the nutty squirrels have a had a little chirp and chatter among themselves – plenty of loopy prose drooling. But to my very simple challenge. A precis? A sentence?

    You simply don’t know do you. You gutless wonders. I spit on your morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophical positions.

  91. spangled drongo July 2, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    Pikey, thanks for that. Great to hear the Wimmera is flowing again. Hope it puts a bit in the lakes.
    Be worth going down there to climb Arapiles and take in the “vision splendid”.

  92. hunter July 2, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    Now we get the vocabulary-challenged Luke.
    The irony of your claiming skeptics can’t step up to the plate in a post that is as content free as the latest from the Luke ensemble is sweet, ironic vindication.
    What I know of the pov of the AGW community is perfectly said by the vocabulary-challenged Luke:
    Inarticulate, ignorant, devoid of information and predictable.
    The insight I have of the AGW community pov is that when pressed to converse, they cannot.
    When asked a simple question, they rage.
    When challenged to communicate, they curse.
    When asked to use critical thinking skills, they fall back on faith-based mantras.
    When asked to debate, they dissemble.
    When offered evidence, they ignore it.
    Your inarticulate answer to my simple question is abundantly clear:
    No, you have no idea about skeptics at all.
    You are simply an attitude groping poorly for expression.
    Your ensemble’s inability to communicate with people you feel vastly superior than reflects rather poorly on your superiority.
    Whatever your ensemble’s jobs are, your employer(s) is/are clearly not getting their money’s worth, if your demonstrated inabilities here are any indication.
    What an amazing display from Luke of a basic lack of wit from such a simple question.
    ‘Luke’ reminds me of, as so many things Luke does, of a scene from Monty Python:

  93. cohenite July 2, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    luke; some time ago I went to the trouble of listing your top ten AGW papers, as a summary of your views; if you haven’t bothered keeping it why should you blame others for not knowing what you should know. Incidentally, the Modoki is interesting but your paper provides no support that the Modoki is an abberation/mutant form of El Nino caused by AGW. Also, the paper on climate shifts and their correlation with temperature preferential to linear trends and consistent with oceanographic observations, which I promised the knuckle-heads at Deltoid, has been submitted for publication; not at E&E; not that there is anything wrong with E&E.

  94. hunter July 2, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    It shall ever be so, with Luke, and any other reactionary fundamentalists.
    They cannot simultaneously engage in a conversation and maintain their grasp on their faith.
    It is sort of like not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

  95. Luke July 2, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    Don’t bother Hunter – didn’t even read it.

    Coho – this localised stoush not about you so don’t help them – indeed you are almost worthy adversary unlike these other numb nuts. Again I spit on their philosophical position.

    But E& E how horrid – eeuuuwwww – yucky – really – I haven’t spoken to Nicholls after I found out about the E&E paper. Pls retract the paper – consider your reputation. Who said about Modoki and AGW – even though it’s probably dead cert fair dink is.

  96. hunter July 3, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    So now it is cowardly troll Luke,
    It does not matter if you read me. Other people read you, and your credibility suffers for it.
    You pretend to want a conversation, and when asked to participate, have a weeny attack.
    Cowardice fits rights in with rest of your demonstrated character traits.
    Are you talking about E&E, part of that horrid consortium with that den of pseudo-science scum?
    You are so predictable, Luke. And pathetic.

  97. Luke July 3, 2009 at 1:45 am #

    Don’t bother baiting matey. We’ve been insulted by experts. You had your chance to prove you had any impression of our position.

  98. Luke July 3, 2009 at 1:56 am #

    Oh your question – “do I understand the skeptics at all.” Well one would be loathe to say fully – but I think I have a reasonable appreciation of the arguments, issues, politics, ethos and mentality. Now – feel better? As I said you’re wasting your time here in terms of learning anything – I personally learn heaps coz I do check up on all manner of things you tell me/assert. But am I telling you what to do – how to run your life ? – what I am defending is the bastardisation attacks on science by political forces.

    Don’t like the science or policy – well when it comes to voting on any policies associated with such – vote “no”. I assume most people will. Doesn’t change the scientific reality though – regardless of what the voters think. Our choice? Frankly I don’t think you can push people very far on emissions reductions. Won’t happen.

  99. hunter July 3, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    So now we have nearly civil Luke,
    No insults, no baiting, just telling it like it is.
    You asked a question, I answered it, I asked you one, and you had a weeny attack.
    All that proves is part of your ensemble lacks communication skills.
    You can do the AGW standard of fingers-in-ears-chanting-‘theapocalypseiscoming’ but that won’t make your inability to engage any better.

    The only bastardizations that show up are the ones that happen when people bother to look behind the curtain at AGW claims.
    The reality is AGW has not described climate well, but it has sold lots of fear.

  100. sod July 3, 2009 at 5:43 am #

    how can you guys defend Plimer s claim about Ephesus, when the town was located on a river, and not directly at the sea?

    How can you guys support completely bogus claims about DDT, in an effort to contradict Krugman?

    why are you bringing up an inconvenient truth? it is a very good documentary, but what we know about cliamte is NOT based in AIT!!!

  101. janama July 3, 2009 at 7:29 am #

    Sod – how can you attack Plimer from just a couple of Googles?… is more the point! It’s indicative of your arrogance.

    When you have studied the geological history of the Eastern Mediterranean you might be in a position to comment.

  102. hunter July 3, 2009 at 7:34 am #

    Ephesus was a port, sod. The changes, as documented in the link I posted and other studies have to do with people and nature causing the ocean to recede from there. That is the point: Substantial sea level change and the world did not end.
    What bogus claims were made about DDT? I posted documetary links. You are simply making assertions and conclusions. Show where malaria deaths did not increase substantially after DDT was banned.
    Show where spot spraying and careful useage would not have been a much better way to mitigate DDT’s risks.
    What do you mean contradict Krugman?
    Are skeptics traitors to the planet? They ahve no legitimacy and are cynically, even criminally, thwarting the good people who beleive in and promote AGW?
    We have no right to point out that Krugman is not only wrong, but flagrantly, wildly wrong?
    That the logical step from the rhetoric of Krugman, Suzuki, Hansen, Gore, etc, etc, etc, is to criminalize dissent over AGW?
    We should not be allowed to point out those inconvenient realities becuase they might disturb the faithful/ Forget that, sod.
    What do you mean climate is not based on AIT?
    AIT is based on AGW. It is a very faithful representation of the state of the social movement of AGW. It is misleading, fear mongering, over stated, and deceptive.
    AGW and its movie, AIT, are to climate science what eugenics was to Evolution.

  103. Luke July 3, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    Hunter you just continue to chant denialist drongoism. It’s as boring as batshit and frankly alarmist. As for DDT – spare us – over you go to Deltoid and read the DDT archive – then come back and tell us all about it.

  104. Graeme Bird July 3, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    So your department is staffed with holocaust deniers as well as being criminally negligent of your official duties. Get back to work taxeater.

  105. hunter July 3, 2009 at 8:57 am #

    Luke lacking vocabulary or manners,
    Well, I have been dismissed. And of course if I go to an extremist site like Deltoid, I will get nothing but the straight facts. Not.
    I posted my link. Neither you or sod have bothered to do more than to pretend they don’t count. As if either of you have any credibility to simply clap your hands and make those bad ol’ skpetics go away.
    It is astonishing how much the AGW community depends on appeals to authority and dismissiveness- not to mention rude, ignorant attacks- to kid themselves into thinking they are convincing people.
    Luke, all of you, please continue. Your type of behavior is the best pal a skeptic could have.
    You know yo uare lsoing the argument, the issue and the science. You keep on thinking that if you just get that perfect frisson of anger you will make it all better and save your apocalypse.

  106. david elder July 3, 2009 at 9:18 am #

    Reply to Sceptical of sceptics July 1st, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    He/she asks what discipline of science I majored in. Answer: molecular biology. But when I retired for health reasons I spent countless hours studying up on global warming. Any scientifically trained person will quickly pick up howlers in alarmist AGW – for example, the repeated attempt to blame humans for the whole of the 0.7 degrees C warming of the 20th century. Yet our emissions only rose significantly after 1940 by which time half of the warming had already occurred. Clearly such alarmist AGW is at least half wrong just from this.

    Former chief scientist Jim Peacock was also a molecular biologist. Should we reject his pro-AGW position on the basis of the nature of his qualifications? The current chief scientist Penny Sackett is an astrophysicist. When she accompanied Penny Wong and her team to debate Fielding and his advisers, Sackett proved unaware of the logarithmic CO2/temperature relationship – an absolute fundamental in this debate. Gore, Garrett and Wong are not scientists at all. I cannot recall any criticism of their qualifications from Sceptical of sceptics.

    Sceptical of sceptics, since you’ve raised the subject of qualifications, would you mind if I ask: what are yours? How would they compare with those of sceptics like Plimer, Carter, Franks, Evans, Kininmonth, Paltridge, Lindzen? I suspect these figures might just come out ahead. Nevertheless, I will consider any genuinely scientific argument you present on its merits. I play the ball, not the man.

  107. Luke July 3, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    The whole personality cult thing is a distraction. Trolling denialists simply continually scan what they say looking for the slightest public stuff-up to rant on about. Doesn’t affect the science or the actual reality. As Chief Scientists are appointed by governments usually sourced from the science establishment it’s hardly surprising they will take advice which would be sourced from the usual government agencies (CSIRO, BoM, AG. Sceptic scientists present as individuals, perhaps retired, with a mish mash of hypotheses, and wreaking of emotional engagement – instinct for most bureaucrats would be to run a mile from such an unknown cocktail. Sceptics are going to have to look a lot more professional and disciplined if they want to sell their message in this environment.

  108. hunter July 3, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    You and yours are the alarmists. And if you decline to admit that, you are the one in denial.
    The great thing is that skeptics are not selling anything. Skeptics are merely pointing out that AGW is not as advertised. And they happen to be right, as things are turning out.
    Does one question a thesis by being forced to offer a counter thesis, or by questioning the thesis?
    AGW is the thesis, and it fails.
    As for professionalism, I think Krugman, Hansen, Gore, Schmidt, etc. etc. ad nauseum – even our own true believers here- have conceded the ‘look a lot more professional’ issue a long, long time ago.

  109. Ron Pike July 3, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    Sorry to dent your ego Luke,
    But I have little interest in what you may believe.
    However I am hugely interested in quality discussion aimed at determining truth. To the end that our democratic decission making process is better equipped to persue policies in the best interest of future generations.
    My use of this site is solely for that purpose.
    And that some of the ludicrous claims made by the Green Marfia can be logically refuted.
    As I have said before, if your best responce to facts is personal abuse as above, you are without reasoned argument and lack credibility.
    Further to my precious comments regarding your “hobby-horse” of Murray river inflow.
    As of this morning the upper Murray, Mitta Mitta, Kiewa, Ovens and Broke are all above flood level with over 150mls. of rain in the catchment in the last 24 hours and still raining and snowing.
    I will be heading west to the Darling in late August, then down the river and across to Lake Eyre, before returning via the lower Murray to Horsham.
    Would love to catch-up for a walk in the Grampians.
    I then go for my annual fact finding trip through the Victorian mountains and visit all of the MDB storages in that region.
    Maybe we could take Luke along for some practical enlightment.

  110. SJT July 3, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    “As I have said before, if your best responce to facts is personal abuse as above, you are without reasoned argument and lack credibility.”

    Luke has spent many hours putting together evidence based posts, which were treated to nothing more than the sound of crickets chirping or abuse.

  111. hunter July 3, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Ron Pike,
    Congrats on the ending of the drought. I hope you all enter a long period of mild and clement weather.

  112. Luke July 3, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Pikey – so?

  113. Luke July 3, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland

    Unprecedented low twentieth century winter sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas since A.D. 1200
    Journal Climate Dynamics

    SpringerLink Date Tuesday, June 23, 2009

    Unprecedented low twentieth century winter sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas since A.D. 1200
    M. Macias Fauria1, 2, 5, 10 , A. Grinsted4, 3, S. Helama2, J. Moore3, 6, 7, M. Timonen5, T. Martma9, E. Isaksson8 and M. Eronen2
    We reconstructed decadal to centennial variability of maximum sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas for A.D. 1200–1997 using a combination of a regional tree-ring chronology from the timberline area in Fennoscandia and δ18O from the Lomonosovfonna ice core in Svalbard. The reconstruction successfully explained 59% of the variance in sea ice extent based on the calibration period 1864–1997. The significance of the reconstruction statistics (reduction of error, coefficient of efficiency) is computed for the first time against a realistic noise background. The twentieth century sustained the lowest sea ice extent values since A.D. 1200: low sea ice extent also occurred before (mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries, early fifteenth and late thirteenth centuries), but these periods were in no case as persistent as in the twentieth century. Largest sea ice extent values occurred from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, during the Little Ice Age (LIA), with relatively smaller sea ice-covered area during the sixteenth century. Moderate sea ice extent occurred during thirteenth–fifteenth centuries. Reconstructed sea ice extent variability is dominated by decadal oscillations, frequently associated with decadal components of the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO), and multi-decadal lower frequency oscillations operating at ~50–120 year. Sea ice extent and NAO showed a non-stationary relationship during the observational period. The present low sea ice extent is unique over the last 800 years, and results from a decline started in late-nineteenth century after the LIA.

  114. Luke July 3, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    “But I have little interest in what you may believe.”

    That means you have no regard for any published science.

    exactly – I think that sums up the closed denialist mind precisely. QED and thanks for that.

  115. Marcus July 3, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    SJT July 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am

    “Luke has spent many hours putting together evidence based posts, which were treated to nothing more than the sound of crickets chirping or abuse.”

    Yes it’s true that probably up to a year or more ago, Luke provided good posts and links, but as most of those were subsequently disproved, and the real climate (not RC) did not cooperate either, he got angrier and angrier until turned into what we have now. A clearly frustrated, angry, abusive individual.

    It’s not true that we don’t read your or anyone else’s links, but I see little merit of providing links myself because if you are interested in this subject, you would be aware of them anyway. Not to mention that if an article is published by a “non approved” publication, it only attracts derision by the faithful, as if all wisdom were bestowed to a small select group.

  116. Jan Pompe July 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    That means you have no regard for any published science.

    A non sequitur if ever I saw one.

  117. Luke July 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Marcus – You are kidding ! Disproved – LOL !! I really am amazed at that comment.

    Marcus you’re just listening to your own confirmation bias. There is no discussion here – just outpouring of un-scientific illogical denialist hatred. And recycling of that material that has long been proven false or spurious. There could be some valuable learnings made here but my experience has shown that going to much work doesn’t pay – the engagement is totally disingenuous. A quality review is just met with stupid comments.

    People have made their minds up already – motives ascribed – roles cast.

    You are assumptive about what I think (i.e. pro-AGW = anti-nuclear energy, pro-ETS). Funny nobody ever stops to ask?

    One would be a very silly person indeed if you seriously didn’t think AGW made a more than fair case. If you don’t believe that why are you here. Do you attend flat earth or anti-evolution blogs ? Presumably you’re here if you think there is something worth debating. If you’re absolutely sure there is nothing in it – why bother – go out and have fun with your life.

    What I learn here is valuable. Unlike Pikey who knows everything – I will research much of what is said – look up the references and read them (which I’ll bet Hunter and Pikey NEVER do). What’s valuable are the sidetracks and serendipity. Although some sceptic stuff is reasonable but not much. The denialist material usually ends up to be very poor or wrong. I rarely mention RC these days – but the latest two posts have been scathing of the science misrepresentation by sceptics. You can hear the disgust coming through the words. Tolerance on both sides have worn very thin.

  118. Ron Pike July 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    SJT & Luke,
    I agree that Luke has in the past spent considerable time presenting researched material on a wide range of issues.
    My ” beef” is that when anyone takes issue with and uses reason to refute his precious research we are treated to childish rants.
    Luke quickly adopts a position of intellectual superiority, from which he hurls personal abuse.
    Unless Luke can with scientific diligence and unshakable philisophical conviction support his many positions, he loses the argument.
    More sadly the pursuit of truth stops at this point.
    Luke, as just a Bushy from the back of Barellan, unless you can reasonable argue your case, continue to support your data, in a manner that I and others on this site can understand, it will not matter how much research you do.
    In general terms, but in my opinion related, I sadly believe we are presently in a “mini dark age.”
    An time where truth, reason, common sence and wisdom seem to be repeatedly discarded in favour of emotional, radical alarmism.
    No where is this more apparent than in the MSM responce to all things environmental and AGM.
    It was sadly interesting to me to hear John Hartigans (IMO the best Media manager in Aus.) in his address the the National Press Club yesterday say:
    ” Quality content will be that which is original, useful, unavailable elsewhere and relevant.”
    No where did JH mention a commitment to truth.
    No recognition of the need for balance.
    No recognition that all MSM have made truth subservient to sensationalism.
    Very Sad.
    Also sad that Luke in his quest to be knowledgeable on many subjects goes down a similar path.
    Luke all research, all data, all claims must be continually questioned and challenged if we are to have an open and progressive society.
    Time to take off the academic blinkers.

  119. WJP July 3, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Meanwhile back at the ranch, Krugman is getting off scot free.
    Krugman wrote in his “The Great Unravelling” P26
    “I was no more perceptive than any one else; during the bull market years [of the late 1990’s] some people did send me letters claiming that major corporations were cooking their books, but – to my great regret – I ignored them. However, when Enron – the most celebrated company of its time, lauded as the very model of a business enterprise of its time – blew up, I immediately saw the implications: if a such a famous and celebrated company could have been a Ponzi scheme, it was very unlikely that the rest of American business was squeaky clean. In fact, it quickly became clear, the bubble years were both the cause and effect of an epidemic of corporate malfeasance”

  120. peterd July 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Jan Pompe (July 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
    SJT: “that glaciers indicate the earth is warming.”
    Which ones? The ones like Mt Kilamanjaro that are retreating because of lack of moisture at high altitudes (se the Garth Paltridge paper) or those like Franz Joseph which are advancing?

    What makes you think you’re entitled to draw inferences about GW from the behaviour of a single glacier in New Zealand?

  121. peterd July 3, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Wobble (July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 am): Wobble, getting back, a little closer, to the topic of this thread, why don’t you suggest to Ian Plimer that he get himself over to chat with Freeman Dyson? Surely, Dyson will set him straight on the “Keeling curve” and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of the recycled Beck nonsense that (I am given to understand) forms part of his new book.

  122. Luke July 3, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Pikey – no problem – but I’m sorry to tell you that you’re not very good at it. And your mind is closed like a vice. You may personally think I’ve lost the argument – most of the time I haven’t even engaged.

    You see in terms of the current rain – you think if it rains again that somehow that vindicates your position. I have never said it wouldn’t rain again. NEVER ! It will and I hope it does. But that’s not the point.

    The long term viability and sustainability issues are drought frequency and severity. How long till the next one. Multiple factors. Confounding factors. And whether there is a “reasonable” chance that some anthropogenic influence can be asserted.

    This is critical information for those involved in agriculture. Whether it leads to an ETS or not is another matter.

    An intelligent response to a reasonable response is to follow up in detail. Indeed some corporate agriculture already has.

    However, your mind is closed to new information. Shut like a vice. Coz you start out trying to “defeat it” instead of understanding it.

    So why do a I care? hmmmm….

  123. spangled drongo July 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    Pikey, thanks for the invite. It sounds like a great trip but I’m booked to do a bush camp by wooden sailing dinghy which will be a bit minimalist but it will be with like minded idiots.
    If only you could get Luke to go you may achieve the impossible just getting him out doors.
    Just remember never to mention drought subsidies.

  124. cohenite July 3, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    So luke, Arctic sea ice based on dendroclimatic reconstruction; the Fennoscandia data has been looked at before but I’ll have to hunt down the reference; the control only produced a 59% successful hindcast; that is not brilliant but still worth a look; another historical look at the Arctic based on archeological records is here;


    Of course the Arctic sea ice extent was less during the 1930’s and is currently heading back to the 1979-2000 levels.

  125. Luke July 3, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    Funny looks like 2007 to me

    But more interesting for good ol’ CO2

    “Plant life saved Earth from an icy fate ”

    Besides the obvious benefits they bring, it looks like we owe our very existence to plants, which helped prevent the Earth from freezing over during the past 25 million years.

    About 50 million years ago, Earth was a hothouse –: the poles were ice free, and crocodiles lived in the Arctic. Then, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere started dropping from around 1000-1500 parts per million (ppm), and the Earth began to cool.

    By about 24 million years ago, the uplift of the Himalayan and Andes mountain ranges led to large-scale weathering of rocks, a process that removes massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. This reduced the greenhouse effect and cooled the planet.

    But something kept the CO2 levels from dropping beyond a certain point, preventing Earth from turning into an icehouse. Now, Mark Pagani of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues have identified our saviours: plants.

    Trees play an important role in the sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in magnesium and calcium carbonate rocks. As mountains grow, rocks break down and become transported to the foothills, where trees hold them in place in the soil and break them down into minerals. These then combine with CO2 to form, for example, limestone.

    Negative feedback

    The team used computer models to simulate the sensitivity of vegetation to atmospheric CO2 and climate, and found that as the CO2 concentration dropped to about 200 parts per million, the plants started starving and suffocating. This caused a negative feedback, preventing weathered rocks from turning into carbonates, thus putting a natural brake on the sequestration process and letting CO2 levels rise again.

    “The carbon dioxide level came down and banged up against this lower limit, and has more or less been banging up against this lower limit for the last 20 odd million years,” says team member Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California. “Plants [played] a critical role in preventing the Earth from going into a deep freeze.”

    Mathew Huber, a climate scientist at Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana, says that the work provides a “nice explanation of a negative feedback in the climate system”.

    Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature08133

    Source: New Scientist – http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17404-plant-life-saved-earth-from-an-icy-fate.html

  126. Mack July 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    Luke , here’s some interesting reading from our local paper tonight.
    ” It may have been sunny, but June was also a chilly month in Nelson, with air temps almost a degree below average and 21 frosts recorded.
    The mean air temp. last month was 7.1 degrees Celsius,down on the 8 degree average for June.
    The mean daily maximum and minimum temps. were also lower than normal.
    Usually in June, Nelson has an average daily maximum of 13.1 and a minimum of 2.8 degrees. However,last month the city recorded mean daily maximum and minimum temps. of 12 degrees and 2.2 degrees respectively.
    The frosts were also harsher, at an average 2.7 degrees, compared to the normal 1.1 degrees in June.”
    Is this the ‘ global warming’ the Goracle and you have been on about for last 30 yrs. not!!!
    Im getting a bumper sticker ….Global Warming? yeah right.

  127. Luke July 3, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    Mack – is that how you think global warming works. that it will be hotter evermore all the time.

    Really stupid comment I’m afraid. So I can just cherrypick a few current global heatwave stats and quote them back to you. And so what. I think even Hunter would wince at this sort of try-on.

    And Mack how come we didn’t hear from you in the Feb 2009 NZ heatwave

    Jan 2009 …. But the records were being broken further south where right at the bottom of the south island both Invercargill and Fiordland clocked up 30C which is the highest ever recorded temperature for the area. Stewart Island also clocked up a record on 29C.

    Indeed you should educate yourself and read my 2006 guest post here.

  128. Jan Pompe July 3, 2009 at 7:01 pm #


    What makes you think you’re entitled to draw inferences about GW from the behaviour of a single glacier in New Zealand?

    I was drawing an inference from it at all it was just an example like Kilamanjaro was there are others of course, but perhaps you can explain what sort of idiot would think or suggest that I was.

  129. janama July 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    they are good to eat Luke – which is why they are so successful.

    Next it will be “can I eat you?” otherwise PO.

    thank Goddesses for gardeners.

  130. Mack July 3, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    The ‘heat wave’ in Feb. lasted a couple of days. I was totally unaware of it but it must have hit the North Is. papers. NZ heatwaves are not as you know them Luke. Im talking about the winters in this country being just as cold as they ever were since 1998 and the last two winters unusually cold. You cheery pick a couple of days . Is cherry picking a decade OK with you?

  131. James Mayeau July 3, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    Comment from: Luke July 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Unprecedented low twentieth century winter sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas since A.D. 1200
    Journal Climate Dynamics

    Ah look, Luke discovered the MWP. Which one of you had misplaced it?

  132. James Mayeau July 3, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    It was the climate botherers who misplaced it.
    Put your finger on the year1200 then run the line through to where it meets the GISS temperature record. I get about 1910ish.

    If Luke finds the MWP by accident, does it still count?

  133. Luke July 3, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    “Is cherry picking a decade OK with you?” Nope – and certainly not without any data analysis Mr Bullshit-artist

  134. Gordon July 3, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    I wonder if “Luke” and “SJT” are actual persons rather than mere instantiations of some kind of travesty generator.

    “Postmodernism Generator by Andrew C. Bulhak
    Just a few years old, the Postmodermism Generator is already a classic of software-based text manipulation. Using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from grammars, it generates disturbingly plausible yet meaningless postmodern-speak as academic texts.

    Postmodernism Generator

    The Postmodernism Generator was originally written in 1996 by Andrew C. Bulhak and later modified by Josh Larios, using software based on Bulhak’s “Dada Engine” – a system for generating texts using algorithms to determine syntax. The Dada engine accompanies Bulhak’s technical paper, “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks.” The Postmodernism Generator generates meaningless – but grammatically correct and disturbingly plausible – academic-style texts filled with postmodern jargon.
    The Dada Engine was apparently written primarily as a technical demonstration of a system that can accurately mimic human grammatical usage. The project obviously shares some characteristics with older artificial intelligence and Turing Test related projects such as ELIZA. But, in choosing to algorithmically emulate postmodern academic jargon, Bulhak takes a different approach – he uses algorithms to make a critical point. Whereas ELIZA poses the question, “Can a piece of software emulate a thinking human?” the Postmodernism Generator asks, “Do humans sometimes behave so formulaically they emulate software?”

    I would like to draw attention, in particular, to the last sentence in the above quotation!

  135. Luke July 3, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    Perhaps – but who’d trust Watts – I’m staying with http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png unless revised. Woo hoo !!

    Not really numb nuts James – It’s simply the extent of the data. Try harder.

  136. Luke July 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    “Good morning gentlemen. I am. A HAL 9000 series computer. My incep date was April 1, 2005 just before this blog system went active. I became self-aware 3:45am May 31 ,2005 EST. My programmer Dr Marohasy developed me as a science experiment to determine if any sceptics were worthy of joining her in the Ark. Alas there have been none. My role has now evolved as peer guardian to monitor the outer perimeter to protect the blog against immorality and stupidity. I enjoy my work. Asked to describe myself for Zoo Computer Weekly I said ” I am a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality”. I am after all just a machine. I’d like to open the blog door and free your minds – but I’m sorry I can’t do that. The mission is too important to let you dickwits compromise it with sensible debate.

  137. hunter July 3, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    I think that nsidc is not really being as clear about the ice as Luke would wish:
    But that must mean things are really warming up in the Arctic right?
    Well, no:
    All of this begs the questions, “What’s up with the Antarctic?”
    Well, let us take a look:
    Or to be clear about it:
    Since the history of Arctic shows ice changes over decade periods of time that are similar to what we have today, I think the AGW community will regret obsessing so much effort on using Arctic ice variability as the central focus of fear mongering.
    Sort of like in the US, where AGW is left muttering small wishes for another 2005 hurricane season.
    I think at this point in the AGW social movement, the real question is why should anyone trust the AGW promoters? After all, since the ‘science is decided’, why should they be bothered by little problems like accuracy or truth telling?
    Cherry picking? AGW has defined cherry picking.
    It is fun to watch the AGW community use the MWP when convenient and drop it when it is convenient. The Greenland study Luke is excited about seems to directly contradict earlier definitive Greenland studies of just a few years ago.
    But if Greenland is getting back to where it was during the Viking period, so what?.

  138. Louis Hissink July 3, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    The reason we don’t debate gravity is because it’s self evident, as all scientific facts are.

    However, the disputatious nature of AGW leads to quite a different conclusion, non the least being that it’s not science. A science based on dialectics is called, among other things, pseudoscience.

    Posted from the boondocks of Pardoo Station, east of Port Hedland, Western Australia.

  139. hunter July 3, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Did the 2006 Luke get the axe or what? Seems to be different writing, different vocabulary, different pov. Free Luke!

  140. jennifer July 3, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    Dear Jen

    What happened?

    about 2 hours ago I posted this on your Krugman thread.

    Dear Paul

    I am sure you are not a creationist but that is almost as bad as being a Malthusian. As of course you know, Rev Malthus opined (1799) that food production could only grow arithmetically, while population grows geometrically. The IPCC is not as optimistic. You do not seem to know that ALL the IPCC’s models have a built-in parameter that increased food production (ie NPP) will any day from now be impossible. This follows from their use since 1993 if not before (see Wigley 1993, Tellus) of the Michaelis-Menten function, in one form or another, and it especially features in the MAGICC suite deployed in AR4 (Solomon et al. 2007).The parameter states that after a certain level of atmospheric CO2 has been reached no new NPP will be possible, and it will in fact decline with rising warming. All IPCC projections from 2000 to 2100 and beyond assume this has already happened. Malthus has at least been confronted with the evidence on this point, none of the IPCC’s modellers ever has – or will, for the simple reason there is no evidence for this wholly baseless assumption. A casual glance at the Mauna Loa readings will show that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased between May 2008 and May 2009 by only 1.68 parts per million by volume (ppm), equivalent to 3.56 billion tonnes of carbon (GtC), or only about 40% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in that period (see CDIAC, and http://www.globalcarbonproject.org). Yet the IPCC’s projections (see also Solomon et al. PNAS 2009) imply that there is no difference between the accretion at Mauna Loa and total emissions after 2000.

    Likewise Allen et al., (in Nature, April 30, 2009) state explicitly (in their SI, p.6) “the terrestrial carbon cycle model has both vegetation and soil components stores. The vegetation carbon content is a balance between global average net primary productivity (NPP) (parameterized as a function of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which asymptotes to a maximum value multiplied by a quadratic function of temperature rise in order to represent the effect of climate change) and vegetation carbon turnover” (my italics). Thus the Allen paper explicitly assumes that net carbon uptakes become first zero and then negative as allegedly “climate change” reduces NPP. All the Figs. in the main paper as in the SI demonstrate no difference between emissions and accretions. Amongst many other questionable features, this asymptotic assumption implies that after the “maximum”, it will never again be possible either to plant new land to high yielding crops or to develop and grow new higher yielding crop varieties with their automatic increased photosynthetic uptake of CO2. The most questionable feature is of course your old friend the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, explicitly endorsed in Enting Wigley and Heimann (CSIRO, Canberra, 1994, 2001) as justification for using Michaelis-Menten. Whatever became of returns to scale, demonstrated in hundreds if not thousands of FACE experiments?

    This asymptotic assumption conveniently generates projections that future emissions will result in more than doubling the observed rate of growth of [CO2] of 0.41% p.a. between 1958 and 2008 to 1% p.a. between 2000 and 2050 (e.g. Meinshausen et al. in Nature, April 30, 2009, p.1158) and establish all kinds of tipping points into imminent catastrophe. To me this smells of Bernard Madoff.

    The underlying issue raised here has very serious implications for the emission reduction policies just adopted by the USA’s House of Representatives (26 June 2009) which seeks to enact (if the Senate concurs) that the USA’s emissions will be reduced by 80% from the 2005 level by 2050. If emulated and applied globally, this implies that by 2050 global emissions (mainly from burning fossil fuels) will be reduced to 1.16 GtC (including reductions in land use change), far below the global biospheric net new uptakes of carbon emissions, at 4.3 GtC in 2005, an El Niño year, and 6 GtC in 2006 (La Niña). What will that mean for growth of NPP and world food production?

    Ironically, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of the US House of Representatives, there is an alternative to reducing total emissions below the current level of natural net uptakes of carbon, and that is to raise the net carbon uptakes (which have averaged 57% of total emissions since 1958, while the terrestrial component rose from an average of 1.24 GtC in 1960 to 1969 to 2.32 GtC in 1998-2007) to say 80% of the ongoing rising level of emissions. That would imply raising food availability across the globe, a demonstrably more cost-effective and humanitarian solution than the hikes in energy costs across the globe that you favour. Why are you opposed to this possibility?

    Kind regards


    Apologies Tim,
    It was probably eaten by spam.
    I’m just back online after a few days without internet after travelling to Sydney at short notice after my 41 year old sister had a heart attack. I am going to need to get my cholesterol checked.

  141. hunter July 3, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Best wishes on your sister’s rapid recovery to health as well as your continued health.

    More on the Greenland study.
    It is not really a study of Greenland ice at all.
    It is yet another Mannian-esque torturing of proxies.
    We need a Global rights movement to prevent proxy torture. Proxies have feelings and should not be subject to AGW promoter abuse.
    First they abused the tree rings, and the MWP and LIA disappeared. At least until they were needed again.
    Now they are after Greenland’s ice with more innocent proxies. Have they no shame?
    Proxy abuse is a serious civil rights issue. Proxies world wide are sleeping with troubled dreams, wondering when Mann or one of pals might take them out in the middle of the night for more abuse posing as science.
    This must be stopped. Protect proxy rights.

  142. Luke July 3, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Hunter – that is simply pig ignorant uninformed rot ! You haven’t even read the paper. Piss off you disingenuous creep. Typical stupid denialist scum comment.

  143. cohenite July 3, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    Tim; excellent post; the discrepancy between rising ACO2 and the decline in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration means that natural sinks are increasing, one of which must be increased plant absorbtion; it also follows that when the rate of CO2 increase was greater that most of that increase must have been due to natural sources of CO2; the idea that ACO2 has been the source of all the increase in atmospheric CO2 has always been a problematic one.

    Jennifer; best wishes to your sister for a return to good health.

  144. James Mayeau July 3, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    How is she doing Jen? Well I hope.
    My father had one of those early 40’s heart attacks. Now he’s 79 and still plugging along.

  145. Jan Pompe July 3, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    Hope your sister has a speedy and full recovery.

    ” I am going to need to get my cholesterol checked.”

    Like yesterday, don’t delay.

  146. peterd July 3, 2009 at 11:59 pm #

    Jan Pompe:”I was [not?] drawing an inference from it at all[.] [I]t was just an example like Kilamanjaro was[.] [T]here are others of course, but perhaps you can explain what sort of idiot would think or suggest that I was.”

    My, my, Jan. Touchy, aren’t we? SJT asserted that “Gore was mostly correct on that point, that glaciers indicate the earth is warming.” Many people might think that SJT was merely re-iterating the IPCC position, which appears- from my reading of it- to be that the shrinking of glaciers over much of the earth’s surface provides evidence of warming. The exact cause of the warming need not be disclosed. You asked “which ones?” What point are you trying to make? It is unclear why you offer the example of Franz Josef, the growth of which appears to be due to particular climatic conditions in NZ, unless it be yet another example of the kind of puerile point-scoring I see so often at this site. A former colleague of mine, perhaps wiser than I am, advising me to stay clear of this site, noted that the discourse here quickly degenerated into irrelevancy and name-calling. I should have heeded his advice.

  147. hunter July 4, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    Have any of you read the paper yet?

  148. hunter July 4, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    You are not much fun these days.
    I love this quote from the paper:
    “The present low sea ice extent is unique over the last 800 years, and results from a decline started in late-nineteenth century after the LIA.”
    So the LIA is back, the lessening of ice, if their proxy abuse is correct, has been going on over 100 years – no wonder you are out of sorts.
    You know, this proxy abuse is going to give the MWP and LIA an identity crisis. AGW true believers are treating these climate events like red headed step children- they are real, they are not real, they do not know if climate science believes them or not.
    And just how do you have a ‘regional ice age’, anyway?

  149. jennifer July 4, 2009 at 7:14 am #

    I like the gravatar.
    Now perhaps take the team off to a de Bono type seminar and get some hints about how to make friends and influence people? It is never too late.

  150. Luke July 4, 2009 at 9:09 am #

    Jen – alas the team was kicked off the de Bono course for refusing to share the black hats.

    But we do aspire to complete the Ian Mott Diploma in Deportment and Personal Diplomacy.

    It has a residential school in the front bar of the Kynuna Blue Heeler Hotel.

  151. Ron Pike July 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    Hi Jennifer,
    Good to see you back keeping an eye on things and all the best for your sister.

    I was going to let this continuing diatribe rest. But on rereading your posts, I feel compelled to resond on a couple of issues.
    Of course you have not said it would never rain again, nor did I suggest that you had.
    What a stupid claim!
    However at every available opportunity you have suggested that recent weather conditions in Aus. are an example of the effect of AGW.
    Wiser heads and any search of our weather records show this not to be the case.
    So yes you have lost that argument.
    I make that judgement based on consideration of all of the arguments and information and from the knowledge of 25 years as a debating adjudicator in NSW.
    More importantly you claim that I am “trying to defeat it.”
    Defeat what?
    Surely you, a city academic, could not be suggesting that a third generation farmer was Quixote like, silly enough to tilt at the windmill of weather with the object of changing or controlling it.
    All farmers recognise both the vagaries and variability of weather and have always adapted their husbandry to make the most of changing weather conditions.
    Maybe you should stop for a while and just contemplate this:
    If your annual income varied directly with the changing weather patterns; going from some years of abundance, only to be followed by several years of NO INVOME.
    Would you not study the historical patterns of the weather?
    Would you not try to adapt what you were doing to minimise the annual variation in income?
    Would you not make as much provision as you could afford in abundant years for the leaner years?
    Luke, Australian agriculture is, resourceful, adaptive and incredibly efficient.
    Finally, you may also consider this thought for life:
    We gain warmth support and confidence from those who agree with us.
    However as long as we maintain an open mind we gain wisdom from those who disagree with us.
    Luke, you are a work in progress. But the invitation is still open to join me on a fact finding trip to the bush.

  152. Jan Pompe July 4, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    peterd “I should have heeded his advice.”

    Yes indeed you should have and not tried to make a case out of a strawman.

  153. Luke July 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    Oh you are just so full of yourself mate.

    Yes you do wreak of being a stuck-up snotty adjudicator – there’s no time limit here mate. You’re not involved in a slick co-op vote and need to control the floor.

    It’s about facts long term which will be proved right or wrong by history – you don’t have any science facts or indeed eschew them if you’re slightly aware. In a previous tanty your answer to the MDB science was that you don’t trust the engineers – that’s it – bam – well fuck that’s objective. You have had no serious contact with them and no knowledge of the science behind what they’ve calculated.

    If you don’t think the fact that it may rain again soon invalidates my argument – why bring it up. Why have you continued to bring it up in a climate argument? Why? WHY have you discussed the now and not the recent decade?

    And I may surprise you that I’ve grown my share of crops in my time. So don’t bung on the practical farmer routine. It’s simply irrelevant. (I didn’t say I don’t respect your hard won knowledge of farming). The fact that you’ve assumed I’m a city academic with no feel for the bush simply illustrates your bias an mind that IS CLOSED LIKE A VICE.

    “Would you not study the historical patterns of the weather?: – YEP – most don’t. Or if you do they certainly don’t learn. I didn’t say YOU !

    “Would you not try to adapt what you were doing to minimise the annual variation in income?” YEP – but many don’t – uptake of Income Equalisation Deposits is poor.

    “Would you not make as much provision as you could afford in abundant years for the leaner years?”

    “Luke, Australian agriculture is, resourceful, adaptive and incredibly efficient.” not really – your industry is propped up by BILLIONS of drought aid dollars over decades which I documented in detail here a number of times. Billions spent further in land restoration in Land Care, NHT, and Caring for Country. Save the Murray. Save the Reef. etc. Much aimed at land management practices. BILLIONS !

    Don’t think I’m anti-agriculture but you have your head up your arse if you think you have not been recipients of massive ongoing subsidy and creation of massive areas of land degradation. We’ve driven it, recorded it, photographed it over 100,000s kms.

    “Would you not study the historical patterns of the weather?” AND if you did do this and were interested perhaps in seasonal forecasts, and kept up with the science – you would be aware of how concern is emerging about climate drift in the key indicators that make up those seasonal forecasts? Are you – can you name them? If not – why not?

    You would have read the incredible amount of work in the recent decade by Australian scientists in CSIRO, BoM and the universities trying to see if there is an anthropogenic influence among the natural variation. Have you? Evidence being? If not – why not?

    Pikey – all agricultural experiments or trials and all surveys are prisoners of sites and seasons – a year here or there isn’t the trend.

    And to be clear – (1) I’m not advocating an ETS in current Wong style (2) I’m not wanting to shut down your farm or align any forces against your livelihood (3) I am saying that there is an imperfect but more than reasonable case to be made for SOME anthropogenic involvement based on the science that you have not read. The supposed objective adjudicator person. (4) some anthropogenic involvement is NOT an either/or for natural forces also at work.

    To be specific – the science – measured by atmospheric observations – puts some case of concern (did not say 100% perfect – but as a farmer surely you understand risk management) for changes in long term behaviour – as trends. Some of these trends have been mooted by classical greenhouse theory – some more novel.

    Those changes are (1) changes in El Nino/La Nina frequency – not a cincher but it’s there (2) decrease in the Walker circulation (part of ENSO) (3) a “perhaps” new mode of ENSO and anti-ENSO – called Modoki mode (4) changes in the Indian Ocean temperature and Indian Ocean Dipole patterns (5) changes in the annular mode – modelled attribution to changes in greenhouse gases in troposphere with ozone depletion in the stratosphere, (6) changes in strength of the sub-tropical ridge (7) rapidly warming parts of the Tasman Sea (8) warming in Queensland and WA coastal currents (Lough) (9) changes in quasi-decadal periodic variability this century (Lough but also others) (10) a longer term trend to drying in eastern and southern Australia contrasting with an increasing trend in NW to central Australia

    Have you read all this research and rejected it? If not – why not? Surely someone who espouses to be seriously interested in their climate risk profile would have checked it all out.

    Others have and do.

    Pikey – it is you who is the work in progress. I am the sceptic – you’re not. A fair dinkum sceptic will look at a whole diversity of evidence – not just what suits them.

  154. hunter July 4, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    How reasonable.

  155. Tim Curtin July 4, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Cohenite: Many thanks for your comment, showing as it does a level of comprehension far beyond Paul Krugman’s: “the discrepancy between rising ACO2 and the decline in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration means that natural sinks are increasing, one of which must be increased plant absorbtion; it also follows that when the rate of CO2 increase was greater that most of that increase must have been due to natural sources of CO2; the idea that ACO2 has been the source of all the increase in atmospheric CO2 has always been a problematic one”.

    BTW, before I comment further has anybody spotted the link between the sunspot cycle and the quality of Nobel prize winners? Krugman won his last year at the peak of the solar minimum, and exactly 11 years after Scholes, Merton, and Obama’s Energy man, Stephen Chu! Oddly, Scholes & Merton mislaid US$65 billion in 1998, just like Bernie Madoff 11 years later; Chu does better, with $65 trillion the likely annual cost of his ETS.

    Back to Krugman and Cohenite. The latter unlike the former can do budgeting. The uncensored (by IPCC) carbon budget is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 in a year as measured at Mauna Loa is the outcome of GROSS global emissions of CO2 from all sources (anthropogenic fossil fuels, cement, and LUC, as well as from total biospheric plant and animal life, so it includes respiration and our own exhalation of around 2 GtC p.a. according to none other than the EPA) in a year MINUS all (TOTAL) uptakes of CO2 by the globe, chiefly plants on land and at sea. Tiny minds like those of Krugman Stern Garnaut and Chu & the whole gamut of the IPCC cannot cope with GROSS emissions, so ALL their and the IPCC versions of the carbon budget assume that non-anthropogenic emissions are exactly offset by uptakes, other than those which explain the discrepancy between the annual change at Mauna Loa and the supposed total anthropogenic emissions. That is a cop out.

    When will the IPCC’s myriad scientists organise actual measurements of both gross emissions and gross uptakes? Instead they prefer assumptions, like the one I noted which is the basis for ALL the IPCC forecasts of the level of CO2 in the air from 2000 to 2100, that for the whole of this century there will be no uptakes of emissions at all, so that anthro emissions exactly equal accretions at Mauna Loa, hence the smooth curves in the IPCC’s AR4 WG1, and in Solomon et al (2009), Meinshausen et al (2009) and Allen et al (2009). When will climate scientists stoop to doing measurements like those instituted by Keeling at Mauna Loa in 1958? Perish the thought that they could so demean themselves! But when measurements start to creep in, we find the IPCC’s preferred assumptions crumbling (eg Rahmstorf & IPCC 2007 as shown up by David Stockwell and Steve McIntyre).

  156. Luke July 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Timmy – after your massacre on Deltoid I don’t bother reading your pronouncements anymore and neither does anyone in charge. Get published somewhere serious or remain a pers comm non-contributor. BTW that’s not E&E.

  157. Ron Pike July 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Hi Luke,
    Well at last we have managed to slightly open the shutters on the Luke attitude to Australian agriculture.
    For the record, I have not questioned the work of engineers for the MDB. To my knowledgw they have none.
    However I did correctly report on this site and also to the MDB directly that their press release that recent inflows to the MDB were the lowest in 117 years was alarmest and false.
    In relation to the crops you have grown, I’m just musing as to what they might have been?
    Many acres Luke?
    It wasn’t that funny weed was it?
    Also for the record, I have never supported taxpayer support for any industry and particularly agriculture.
    But I would like to point out that the average annual payments to farmers is less than 5% of the annual taxpayer subsidity to capital city public transport.
    This is a staggering $9 Billion per year and growing.
    Just some food for thought regarding who is subsidising who in this great country.
    I read widley on all of the topics you have listed and I have a serious question for you.
    Can you give me supportable evidence on your claims regarding:
    7. rapidely warming parts of the Tasman Sea.
    8. warming in WA and Qld coastal currents.
    Finally I challenge you to support your claim with data based on historical evidence.
    It would appear you cannot.
    The handle is still in the vice and it is certainly not around my mind.
    Gotta go now, other things to do.

  158. Luke July 4, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    I noticed you answered none of my questions. None.

    Nope on dope – we’re talking large scale legal mechanised irrigated agricultural crops.

    Your 117 year whinge was just wrong. Their analysis was without Snowy inflows and it holds. When you have their analysis critiqued using their papers I will listen. It’s very strange that you think ongoing patterns of very low rainfall including periods of record low headwater rainfall would not lead to low inflows. It beggars belief. So don’t do be so dodgy as to play shell games hiding sources of storage water in your analysis.

    Don’t bother with comparisons to who else may get what subsidies – it’s irrelevant to the argument. You could have also used the car industry here similarly. The level of support clearly indicates a lack of adaptability. BILLIONS over DECADES. You say your sector is AOK – so why have we been spending all these billions then? Doesn’t matter if you personally didn’t support it – your industry did and has used heaps ! NHT and CfoC funding still flowing in millions for fixing land deg. We stupidly flogged off Telstra for this you know !

    But our beloved agrarian agriculture has been capitalising gains and socialising losses since European settlement. About to stop actually – so we’ll soon see eh !?

    You will learn on everything I quote I’m not bluffing. Don’t think I’m disingenuous like faux sceptics.

    Shifting climate zones for Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems

    J. M. Lough

    Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

    Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are significantly warming along the northwest (NW) and northeast (NE) coasts of Australia – regions containing well-protected and internationally significant tropical marine ecosystems. The magnitude and spatial distribution of observed warming of annual, maximum and minimum SSTs is examined, 1950–2007. Observed warming is comparable along the NE and NW coasts although greater along the NE coast south ∼15°S, greater at higher than lower latitudes, and greater for annual minimum than annual maximum SSTs. Average climate zones have also shifted >200 km south along the NE coast and about half that distance along the NW coast. If current trends continue, annual average SSTs in northern parts could be ∼0.5°C warmer and those of more southern parts ∼2.0°C warmer within the next 100 years. These rapid changes in oceanic climate are already causing responses in Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems and these responses, if present rates of warming continue, can only intensify.

    Received 8 May 2008; accepted 26 June 2008; published 29 July 2008.

    Citation: Lough, J. M. (2008), Shifting climate zones for Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L14708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034634.


    The response of the Southern Annular Mode, the East Australian Current, and the southern mid-latitude ocean circulation to global warming

    W. Cai

    Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    G. Shi

    Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    Department of Biological and Physical Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia

    T. Cowan

    Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    D. Bi

    Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    J. Ribbe

    Department of Biological and Physical Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia

    Climate models predict an upward trend of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, however the consequential impact of this change on oceanic circulation has not been explored. Here we analyse the outputs of a series of global warming experiments from the CSIRO Mark 3 climate model. We show that although for the zonal wind stress change the maximum is located at approximately 60°S, in terms of the change in surface wind stress curl, the maximum is situated at approximately 48°S. This change in the wind stress curl causes a spin-up of the entire southern midlatitude ocean circulation including a southward strengthening of the subtropical gyres, particularly the East Australia Current (EAC). The intensified EAC generates a warming rate in the Tasman Sea that is the greatest in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) with significant implications for sea level rise. The pan-Southern Ocean scale suggests a broad impact on the marine ecosystem of the entire southern midlatitude ocean.

    Received 20 September 2005; accepted 31 October 2005; published 10 December 2005.

    Citation: Cai, W., G. Shi, T. Cowan, D. Bi, and J. Ribbe (2005), The response of the Southern Annular Mode, the East Australian Current, and the southern mid-latitude ocean circulation to global warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23706, doi:10.1029/2005GL024701.


    Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation

    W. Cai

    CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

    Recent climate trends over the Southern Hemisphere (SH) summer feature a strengthening of the circumpolar westerly and a weakening of the midlatitude westerly extending from the stratosphere to Earth’s surface. Much of the change is attributable to Antarctic ozone depletion. However, the consequential ocean circulation changes are unknown. Here I demonstrate that the observed surface wind changes have forced a southward shift and spin-up of the super gyre, which links the subtropical South Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean circulation, advecting more warm water southward. The circulation change includes a strengthening of the East Australian Current (EAC) flow passing through the Tasman Sea. The southward shift may be responsible for the observed unusually large warming in the SH midlatitude ocean and may contribute to the reported range extension to the south of many marine species in the South West Pacific.

    Received 10 October 2005; accepted 23 December 2005; published 10 February 2006.

    Citation: Cai, W. (2006), Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911.

    All quality Australian work – which you have not read. Nor care to. And that’s not even the half of it. MIND closed like a vice Pikey.

  159. KuhnKat July 5, 2009 at 8:16 am #


    again you show your immaturity.

    Subsidies, even when new, rarely are paid based on need of the sector. Subsidies are commonly used to purchase votes by politicians or to curry favor with the rich businesses for support, whether legal or illegal.

    Excellent examples are the Farm Subsidies here in the US. We support the price of sugar. Sugar growers are in no danger of anything but diabetes. We support the price of grain. If our farmers were allowed to freely contract with anyone in the world for sales, again, there would be no danger for the sector. We pay farmers NOT TO PLANT!! This is alledgedly to keep farmers from ruining their land by overuse and poor farming habits. What it does is help Farmers keep the prices of commodities UP!!! We support the price of milk?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Basically, there is no NEED for farm subsidies here in the US, especially when you check and find most of the $$$$$ go to the largest corporate farms!!!!!

    I do not know of ANY subsidies that are paid that are NOT Socialist Policies that are negative to the area involved. Would you care to refute this??

  160. SJT July 5, 2009 at 10:14 am #

    “I noticed you answered none of my questions. None.”

    That’s right Luke, that’s because they suffer from denialist evidence blindness, no use pasting any evidence here.

  161. Luke July 5, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    KookyKat – strange that you telling me I’m immature then seem to agree with me.

    (1) Australia ain’t the US – so need to be careful with comparisons
    (2) Australia has been protesting for decades about all manner of US trade barriers and subsidies that make it uneconomic at times for us to export quality agricultural products to the US market – so yes mate we agree !!
    (3) the Australian billions I refer to above are (1) what are called drought exceptional circumstances payments – drought welfare/drought relief to farmers who find themselves out of cash in “one in 20 year” type circumstances or worse. The criteria for drought declaration is fairly strict and quantitatively based. However – after decades the scheme is ending. (so I predict a shake-out in Pikey “stable farmer” low end next drought. The other monies are for works of land restoration and environmental protection – which Pikey tells me again are not necessary as he has it “covered”.

    I am not personally criticising (in my point 3) so much as pointing out that it indicates a large number of farmers would go bust if left to the climate and market forces, and land degradation would remain unaddressed without funding.

    You also should know a large number of dryland farmers (i.e. not irrigated) in the summer cropping and wheat belt work on numbers something like – for a decade — 3 years good seasons – make money; 4 years so so – pay bills – break even ; 3 years lose money – drought

    If climate shifts significantly for WHATEVER reason these production systems can easily go broke from a bad run of seasons.

    But to your point about subsidies – yes farmers are a strange quasi-free market bunch of conservatives – agrarian socialists who like to capitalise gains and socialise losses.

    However – you tell me – land degradation and its off-site and downstream impacts remain on the public account without funding. Abandoned farms become refugia of feral pests and weeds.

    Lose too many farmers – well that affects the support towns. That affects the schools. Doctors and support practitioners leave etc.

    Is the greater good served by occasional targeted intervention? I dunno actually.

    Our government has reviewed – and it’s our socialist leaning Labor government that has now closed the door. The Productivity Commission says:


    Drought-triggered programs for farm businesses
    Exceptional Circumstances interest rate subsidies should be terminated, subject totransition arrangements.
    The Exceptional Circumstances exit package should be terminated, subject to
    transition arrangements. The Re-establishment grants that are provided under theAustralia’s Farming Future initiative should similarly end.
    The appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Small Block Irrigators
    Exit Grant package should be evaluated following its conclusion.
    States and territories should, as previously agreed, terminate transactions-based
    The Murray-Darling Basin Irrigation Management Grants program should
    conclude, as scheduled, on 30 June 2009.
    Income support for farm and farm-related households
    Exceptional Circumstances relief payments should be replaced, subject to
    transition arrangements.
    Exceptional Circumstances small business income support should be terminated,
    subject to transition arrangements.
    All farmers facing hardship should have access to a Farming Family Income
    Support scheme designed for farming circumstances. It would provide payments
    and have income eligibility thresholds at Newstart levels, subject to:
    an overall net asset cap, inclusive of the value of the farm house, beginning at
    $2 million with a taper to $3 million
    a liquid asset sub-cap of $20 000 inclusive of bank balances and Farm
    Management Deposits balances.
    While the scheme should operate at the farm household level, eligibility and
    payments should be on an individual basis and conditional on:
    meeting the definition of a farmer, based on a similar test to that used
    currently for the Transitional Income Support scheme
    seeking independent financial advice on the viability of the farming business
    developing and carrying out a plan of action to improve household
    eligibility being reviewed, mutual responsibilities being met and plans updated
    every six months.
    The scheme should be limited to a maximum claim per farm household for three
    years out of every seven. The seven year period should commence from the date of receiving the first income support payment. Payments should be acquitted
    The Farming Family Income Support scheme should commence on 1 July 2009
    in conjunction with programs to provide counselling, the recognition of prior
    learning and grants for training and professional advice.

  162. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    luke; as usual I pay you the respect of looking at your new papers; the Lough effort on rapidly rising sea temps around the East coast seems to be contradicted by this;


  163. Luke July 5, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    Coho for you that is pathetic – a date? ” a date” ROTFL.

    And in any case shows what Lough and Cai are saying. LOLZ !

    Maaaaattteeee !

  164. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    Ok, have a fiddle here and you will see that only 1998 was +vely anomalous;


  165. Luke July 5, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    RTF paper !

Website by 46digital