Chinese Academy of Science Open to Skepticism

IN Australia and other so-called developed Western nations there is very little tolerance of contrary opinion when it comes to one of the biggest contested scientific issues of our time – climate change. Indeed the mainstream research community is closed to skeptics and skepticism. Climate Change Reconsidered

Not so in China, however, where on Saturday June 15, 2013 an International Workshop was held in Beijing to launch the publication of a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered. This is an abridged version of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s (NIPCC) 2009 and 2011 reports.

Four members of the NIPCC were in Beijing for the workshop and launch of the publication, Australia’s very own Bob Carter with Professors Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Madhav Khandekar.

This new volume, all in Chinese, was translated by a team of scientists from the Chinese Academy of Science to promote scientific dialogue in the debate over potential CO2-induced global climate change.

For more information visit…

The original NIPCC reports from which the Chinese translation was prepared can be found at


For a very good reference document on climate change that is in English read Professor Carter’s new book called Taxing Air… All you might ever want to know about the science and politics of global warming…

For Why China might be a better superpower read Murtaza Hussain…

The following photographs from Professor Carter show delegates at the workshop, and out-and-about in China. For a better view and to see the entire photograph click on each image…


128 Responses to Chinese Academy of Science Open to Skepticism

  1. cohenite July 9, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

    You’re damn right Australia has no tolerance of scepticism of the biggest scam of all time, AGW; just ask Salby or Carter.

  2. Luke July 9, 2013 at 11:17 pm #

    What a try-on.

    How pretentious.

  3. Dennis Webb July 9, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

    “Firstly, the translation is organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published by Science Press as a product of science communication aiming at introducing diverse academic arguments.”

    That means that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has supported the publication of a document by sceptics to introduce diverse argument. That means they are open to scepticm. Well done to the academy.

  4. John Sayers July 10, 2013 at 12:22 am #

    Funnily enough today I had a personal message from Feng from China who is a member of my Studio Design Forum. He told me that my site was banned by the Chinese authorities and he has to access my site via proxies.

    My forum is the leading forum on Recording Studio Design, it has over 15,000 members and is nearing 120,000 posts. It’s been online since January 2003. It’s a huge resource of pictures and plans covering all aspects of soundproofing, acoustics and studio construction.

    Yet for some reason the Chinese authorities want to ban it.

  5. Graeme M July 10, 2013 at 7:08 am #

    Speaking of Salby, you’ll no doubt have read the post at Nova’s. If Salby’s allegations are true it’s pretty poor on the part of MU. Whatever happened to open discussion. After all, there are other academics who are able to publish prolifically for the pro side of the argument with no problems…

  6. Neville July 10, 2013 at 8:25 am #

    I think we would be fooling ourselves if we think that any of this was possible without the full POLITICAL support and encouragement of the ruling Chinese commumist party.

    But it does show up our hopeless western govt’s and the closure to any real paid ongoing research allowed by the leading Unis into crticism of CAGW. Just look at the treatment of Carter and Salby plus many others over the last 20 years.

    Lindzen, Carter, Singer, Michaels etc have all spoken about this for years. This promotion has occured because it suits firstly the Chinese Govt and secondly the CAS.

  7. Luke July 10, 2013 at 8:52 am #

    Dream on !

    The Academy was so miffed as to issue a clarification. Extraordinary stuff.

  8. Luke July 10, 2013 at 8:59 am #

    Jen seriously needs to confirm her sources – The decision to translate Climate Change Reconsidered was made by the National Science Library, not by Zhang Zhiqiang, the library’s deputy director.

    What team of scientists?

    Explicitly the CAS does NOT endorse the NIPCC’s findings.

  9. Neville July 10, 2013 at 9:15 am #

    Luke I’ve read that before and it’s called covering your backside, or having 2 bob each way. IOW the CES will do whatever the communist party dictates, day by day.

  10. Jennifer Marohasy July 10, 2013 at 9:49 am #


    Clearly there are those within the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) not happy with their involvement in the official translation of the work of the Western skeptics.

    But this translation nevertheless went ahead, as did the workshop and launch of the translated document.

    The translation apparently involved 20 CAS scientists.

    All, or none of these scientists, might have agreed with the document they were translating. But the Chinese scientists nevertheless took the trouble of not only reading the work of Bob Carter and others, but also translating it. Thus making the work of Prof Carter and others, more accessible to other scientists in China.

    This would suggest that there is much more opportunity for open debate and discussion on issues pertaining to the evidence and theory of AGW in China… than in any Western democracy.

  11. John Sayers July 10, 2013 at 9:53 am #

    All bluster Luke – does anything you wrote, or Heartland wrote dispute what Jen wrote:

    “This new volume, all in Chinese, was translated by a team of scientists from the Chinese Academy of Science to promote scientific dialogue in the debate over potential CO2-induced global climate change.”

  12. Luke July 10, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    Jen – the Chinese translate lots of documents. And I don’t have any issue with debate and distribution of alternative views. They can stand on their merits (which are normally flimsy).

    The problem with the material is that its more often than not not published in serious journals, not modern meteorology and much of it is bunk.

    So I hope the Chinese don’t get a poor opinion of western scepticism.

    “IOW the CES will do whatever the communist party dictates, day by day.”

    Neville – do tell – you wouldn’t know. Go back to inn keeping.

  13. John Sayers July 10, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    “The problem with the material is that its more often than not not published in serious journals, not modern meteorology and much of it is bunk.”

    care to substantiate that claim? That’s pure assumption on your behalf.

  14. el gordo July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    ‘They can stand on their merits (which are normally flimsy).’

    You are clutching at straws, the Chinese are naturally sceptical and recognise that temperatures are no longer moving upwards.

    While at the same time they are quite happy to introduce a tax on a harmless trace gas.

  15. Luke July 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.

  16. cohenite July 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

    Maybe the Chinese will translate the reasons why Salby and Carter lost their jobs; oh wait, there were no reasons.

    Really luke is Archibald’s paper on solar cycles the best you can do? How many bad pro-AGW papers have there been; all of them.

  17. Neville July 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    Fair dinkum Luke I’m sure you must be taking the p–s most of the time. But if you think that the Communist party doesn’t run China anymore, you really do need help.

    In case you’re not aware they kill quite a number of their citizens every year because they run foul of the party’s rules. Some are just political activists, not always murderers or rapists etc.
    They even harvest some of the body parts of some of the executed prisoners, or didn’t you know that either?

  18. Neville July 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    Bill Illis is a graph and data expert at WUWT and he’s supplied a few trends over different periods.

    Bill Illis says:
    July 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    I’ve taken the UAH lower tropospheer temps and averaged them with RSS and then appended the HadAT (weather balloon) temps which are equivalent to the lower troposphere measure. This allows one to extend the record back to 1958.

    Here are the temps then back to 1958 and my model of them.

    The warming which is left-over after one accounts for the ENSO, AMO, Volcanoes and Solar influences is just 0.057C per decade.

    And then the daily UAH version 5.6 temps going back to September 11, 2001. You are supposed to remember where you were when you saw the second plane arrive on the scene. This was nearly 12 years ago. The UAH trend since is a measely 0.024C per decade or just 10% of that forecast.

  19. Neville July 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

    Sorry, that last link from Bill Illis is here.

  20. Luke July 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    Neville is now a China expert as well as an inn keeper. Good lord. So why has CAS issued a clarifying statement. Don’t be so dense eh?

  21. John Sayers July 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    There statement isn’t a clarification Luke – it’s just spin.

    The National Science Library is affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They embarked on translating the Heartland publication and used 20 CAS scientists to perform the task.

    At no stage has Heartland said that the CAS endorses the content of the book other than CAS’s desire to have alternative scientific views on climate science available to it’s members.

    Now what don’t you understand about that?

  22. Neville July 10, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

    Well Luke I’m about as much of an inn keeper as you are a scientist. And I know who the dense one is at this blog.
    So you don’t believe the communist govt of China holds the whip hand within all its institutions? If that’s the case then I don’t think your opinion is worth the time of day.

  23. maurie July 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm #

    jennifer, here’s a very clear case of simple laziness by the lefties who devised the Scam Tax.
    It’s quite clear that the lazy watermelons should have been in China a few years back explaining how easy it is to create a pool of funds without risk as a means of buying favours, which even in a country with a command economy is never to be sneezed at. Even Obumma is now apart from side tracking voters on equal rights, considering how he can formulate a plan to apply his own scam tax. He would be saying to himself if those bloody thuggish Australian union puppets can so easilly do it why not him? After all by freely handing out citizenship papers in return for votes, he’s almost a permanent president, so a little more effort & he’ll be there. Well he taught the ALP how to reach peak welfare dependency & so its only fitting that he steal their idea in return.

  24. jennifer July 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm #


    I wouldn’t be so sure the Chinese government holds the whip hand with its institutions. On what basis do you make that claim? Then again, what exactly do you mean by whip hand. I know some Chinese academics and some within the Chinese leadership are concerned about the speed of decline of the West.

    It is certainly increasingly obvious that in Australia, most environmental and climate science research is government funded, and that you will only be funded if you subscribe to the official party line that is endorsed by both sides of Australian politics and all key scientific institutions. In short, the situation in China may be better than in Australia, but certainly in Australia there is only room for science that accords with government policy when it comes to the big issues like Climate Change, The Great Barrier Reef and Murray Darling.

  25. Luke July 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    I find myself in strange agreement with Jen.

    The 3 big issues she has has mentioned are big ticket big management science. But hey don’t the public want the public service to be accountable? How do we you know you’re getting the right science? Is it correct? Is there value for money?

    So “process” is invented – chains of command – performance agreements based on not screwing up – and opinions are sought from many – committees and expert panels. All of which I know Jen well loves and may have even been associated pre-maverick status (if there ever really was a “pre” status since age 3).

    So do expert panels get it right or dumb it down? Does dissent get squashed? Well yes and no. Usually the universities can afford to go a bit feral to get their own ways. But the system is treacle. Perhaps a few government scientists can go feral if they are a protected species, have a 007 licence or an on a black op. But not for long.

    Despite all this achievements can be made and if Jen revisited the reef agenda I think she would find a more conciliatory response with stakeholders, some good technology deployed for quality environmental and economic advantage, but nevertheless a bigger bureaucracy than ever.

    But blame Harvard – the disease of managerialism is now global.

    Big science needs big bucks which is surrounded in accountability. Surely you all want accountability?

    What’s the solution – go feral? Anarchy? Blog dissent? Employ a B team to take on the A team?

    Maybe should get Jen to give us a seminar on the solutions? “Integration of dissent in the adaptive response”? “Agile anarchistic research methods”? “Chaotic colleagialism”?

    Of course we could sack the management layer but you’d have to trust the scientists to be accountable.

    And as we found to our mutual disgust on the whale thread – science is set in a political, social and ethical milieu.


  26. Neville July 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm #

    Jennifer I don’t know where to start, but I’ll try to keep it brief. I agree that many of our research facilities have behaved badly over recent years and a number unis as well.

    I’ve complained often enough about the behaviour and statements of people like Flannery, Karoly, Steffen, Gergis etc and the biased coverage from their ABC and so much of the MSM.
    Some of the nonsense from those above is laughable when you consider they are supposed to be some of our top scientists. Like spurious garbage about Oz’s hot angry summer, dams never to fill again, but now much more flooding expected in the MDB, a one in 2 chance that humans will be extinct by 2100 etc ( Steffen etc stood there on the same stage and said nothing about this idiocy)

    But seriously China is a one party state and the communist party has a finger in every pie. I don’t care whether you want to refer to the CAS or education or the army or building practices or literature/ books or films or plays or censorship etc etc, in every case you’ll find a party operative taking notes and reporting back to the party.

    This is the way it is and OZ isn’t anything like that at the moment. But give these Labor people enough time at the helm and we could start down that path. They tried the censorship route just recently thanks to Gillard, Conroy and cabinet.

    Can I just say that I haven’t had personal experience dealing with China but I know people who have and believe me the party rules and you don’t want to cross a certain line when doing business in that one party state.
    But just read more on China and watch some of the docos and everything I’ve said can be tested.

  27. Neville July 10, 2013 at 10:55 pm #

    Models fail again when tested against global ocean and land precipitaion data, 1979 to 2013.

  28. Luke July 10, 2013 at 11:39 pm #

    Sceptic excellence on display – Neville’s heroes –

  29. Debbie July 10, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

    What is your definition of accountability in this context?

  30. Luke July 11, 2013 at 1:14 am #

    A variety of indicators perhaps – relevance, efficiency, funding auditability, high science/admin ratio, timeliness, science quality, review, reporting

  31. Luke July 11, 2013 at 1:20 am #

    So once the process/machine is in place where do dissenters, contrarians and mavericks fit.

    Anyone can have a go? – neurosurgery? let the little guy have a crack at it? Every child player wins a prize.

    You can’t have it both ways or you’ll risk the wrath of the accountability gods.

    So Debs design a better system !

  32. John Sayers July 11, 2013 at 1:52 am #

    The system is fine Luke. It works in all the sciences, except climate science where a group of scientists have abused the system to feather their own nests.

  33. John Sayers July 11, 2013 at 1:52 am #

    The system is fine Luke. It works in all the sciences, except climate science where a group of scientists have abused the system to feather their own nests.

  34. Luke July 11, 2013 at 7:52 am #

    “It works in all the sciences, except climate science ” hmmmm

    so that system if globally corrupt – pan institutional – 100s of individuals – whole journals – TV networks, newspapers all simultaneously have gone crazy eh? wow – only in it for the gold – no moral compass

    and these 100s of people are so evil (not that you’ve ever really met any) – so evil – that Neville screeches fraud, corrupt, criminal, ponzi scheme (not that he ever does anything about it) every day

    There are no other grant systems in science that would induce scientists to “feather their own nests”? hmmmm

    Jen would also add reef, MDB, and I suspect almost the rest of Australian environmental or conservation type science

    Gee maybe the Ledipotera experts are evil too? Have you ever thought about possible Ledipotera taxonomy fraud. Maybe they’re misidentifying whole genera for personal gain? Could it be global? We need a to carry us against such evil.

  35. Ian Thomson July 11, 2013 at 8:03 am #

    Hi JS, We can’t discount the effect of Kevin Rudd’s first budget, where he effectively tore the CSIRO nest to bits, leaving scientists in the nasty position where if they wanted a job , it would be on Government terms. Some of them saw the bait available and got rich and famous, by “studying” what the Govt wanted ” studied ” then telling us the right results of those “studies”. The rest will probably speak out upon retirement, as some around the World already have.

    By the way very impressive , your web forum , I have some offspring who are among that stuff and will pass it on.

    I don’t think we can ever guess the extent of Party control in Chinese science, but there is an obvious resentment by China and Russia to the Western “climatologists” , who have treated Chinese and Russian records and studies as second rate , adjusting them accordingly.
    A Russian conference 3 years or so ago , about exploitation of Arctic Shelf resources, heard some very scathing assessments of US climate predictions. With Russian weather experts advising their Govt to go cautiously for 15 years or so, because the Arctic would get cold and nasty for a period.

    However , I don’t think that turning up for uni in China dressed as a Tibetan monk would be very safe this week. BUT, any one who can advance reliable weather forecasting, which can help with food production , will be a Chinese hero above all others. So the mixing of ideas means more to them, than just how much air we can tax here.

  36. Luke July 11, 2013 at 8:08 am #

    “and got rich and famous” wreally?

    So Ian rattle off the top 6 climate modellers in Australia then? given they’re famous and all. No Googling now !

  37. Ian Thomson July 11, 2013 at 8:16 am #

    Hi Luke, The whole objection to the MDBP is that there is no science.
    Environmental science unfortunately is funded to “save ” something. How much show would there be of getting any funding for a study into why redgums have so successfully colonised large parts of the Murray Valley since white settlement ?
    It is an ongoing problem and fencing them into National Parks will just exacerbate it.
    Meantime people ARE being funded to ” save” them.

  38. Neville July 11, 2013 at 8:30 am #

    Luke I repeat you’re not worth the time or effort. The fraud is so obvious and some of the players
    so blantantly ridiculous that only a fool wouldn’t understand.

    I mean so much of the mitigation rubbish just defies all logic and reason. Just using simple maths proves this beyond any doubt.
    Why pursue and complete a tertiary education but then claim you can’t understand kindy maths, or understand the ice core data?

    How can your fraudsters scream co2 pollution for the Aussie audience but work overtime to increase coal, gas and iron ore exports year on year?

    You must believe that atmosheric co2 doesn’t mix or what’s emitted in China, Japan, India, korea, EU etc just remains in a trapped state above those countries? Is that your position?

    Your/ Labor / Greens argument that this is “the greatest moral challenge of our generation” is shown in practice to be the greatest fraud and con in recent history.

    Your side has condemned themselves by their own stupidity and lack of logic and reason and inability to understand simple sums.
    We all know you can’t honestly answer any of the above and just use abuse to try and cover up the issue, but don’t think we haven’t woken up to your nonsense years ago.

  39. Luke July 11, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    Thanks for proving my point Neville. More rabid screeching. But you won’t do anything about it. You’re just the paperboy having a sook. Having a daily feast on tea party disinformation. Slurp slurp. But you can’t afford to be here – shouldn’t you be bringing fraudsters and criminals to justice?

    So Ian can’t name any famous climate modellers eh? hmmmm so famous too

  40. Neville July 11, 2013 at 9:15 am #

    Heck Luke you’ve certainly proved my point, but alas I can’t explain this obvious con and fraud any better so that even you could understand.

    BTW Mac Uni has responded and given the reasons for Murry Salby’s sacking. I think we will be hearing a lot more of this in the future.

  41. Ian Thomson July 11, 2013 at 9:18 am #

    Hi Luke, My idea of a “climate modeller” would be someone working at the desk next to the bloke who designed fjords in “Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. They would work hand in hand for the right outcome.
    An example of the ‘rich and famous’ would be Karoly , whose pearls of scientific wisdom are priceless.
    The faceless 40 or 50 who traipse off to the UN climate conferences are certainly not eating stale bread and dripping either. You may well be able to real off their names, they are your rock stars .
    To me they are hypocritical pigs in a trough , burning thousands of tons of jet fuel to save the world from us .

  42. spangled drongo July 11, 2013 at 10:53 am #

    The Chinese are sceptical because their system allows them the luxury to confront the facts, unlike western scientists who sadly have to market their theories to politicians.

    They, as do all scientists, know that the oldest records show around 0.25c warming per century for the last 350 years. Before that from proxies ~ 350 years of similar cooling during the LIA and before that ~ 350 years similar warming during the MWP etc so they are rightly sceptical of the AGW theory.

    They are even more sceptical when they see that during those last 350 years, the recent 30 years cycle of warming that has created the AGW scare, is not unusual when compared with some of these much older 30 year periods:

    1691 – 1720, 5.039 °C/century
    1978 – 2007, 5.038 °C/century
    1977 – 2006, 4.95 °C/century
    1690 – 1719, 4.754 °C/century
    1979 – 2008, 4.705 °C/century
    1688 – 1717, 4.7 °C/century
    1692 – 1721, 4.642 °C/century
    1694 – 1723, 4.524 °C/century
    1689 – 1718, 4.446 °C/century
    1687 – 1716, 4.333 °C/century

    When the “concerned” scientists who are the self-proclaimed experts, will not consider natural variation as a likely probability because of the way they choose to do business, the Chinese have to tread carefully to get the right answers.

  43. Debbie July 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    Aren’t you being just a little tetchy Luke?
    Perhaps you could reread your comments at the open thread and consider those pots and kettles?
    I was interested in your definition of ‘accountability’ because you often make claims re agriculture about individuals being ‘accountable’ yet seem to have a blind spot when it comes to bureaucracy and ‘accountability’.
    I actually agree with you that most people are doing their best to fill their job descriptions and that many negative results were not the actual intention.
    However, I also think that defending poor policy that delivers unintended poor results is highly counter productive.
    The system is not broken. . . but it is far from perfect and needs to be flexible and dynamic when dealing with Natural Resource Management.

  44. Luke July 11, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

    I’m always tetchy so what else is new 🙂

    Well policy can in part derive from large expert panel and working group processes. Your solution is? I’m trying to get an actual discussion going here.

  45. Luke July 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    ” My idea of a “climate modeller” ” says Ian – yes exactly – your idea.

    “You may well be able to real off their names, they are your rock stars .”

    The point is Ian that you seem to know exactly what motivates these people and yet you don’t them at all. I know some and you are 1000% wrong in your summation of their motivations. And they’re hardly rock stars.

    So it’s interesting that we can slag off these people yet have no real experience of them.

    What is that?

  46. el gordo July 11, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    I agree with spangles on this, the Chinese have a long history and understand the term ‘mass starvation’ caused by climate change.

    At the same time they are heavily involved in the solar panel market …neo-capitalists need ‘to tread carefully to get the right answers.’

  47. el gordo July 11, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    ‘I’m trying to get an actual discussion going here.’

    While you’re there, should we replace the Climate Commissioner with Carter and the army man with Salby?

  48. Debbie July 11, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

    Gotta call the pots and kettles again!

    ” So it’s interesting that we can slag off these people yet have no real experience of them. ” 🙂

    You ask: ‘what is that’?

    I think the environmentalist movement and the animal liberation movement have got that one down pat….it’s why they think they can say they like farmers and then continually slag off at Agriculture and attack the reputation of Agriculture.
    For example….
    As they are often very pleased to do….they find one individual farmer who has done the wrong thing and then put that up, very dramatically, as the ‘normal’ example.
    The other added benefit is that ‘environmentalism’ is fashionable and thrives on controversy…so anyone who happens to cross their path inevitably finds themselves on the ‘back foot’ in the media and in the court of public opinion.
    It allows the AGW celebs like Flannery and Gore and even the wannabe AGW celebs like Lewandowsky and Cook to say some completely outrageous stuff and then have it viewed as ‘fact’.
    So it makes me think of pots and kettles and goose and gander and heat in the kitchen and so many other clever little sayings/epigrams/idioms etc.
    To pretend ‘one side’ is purer than the driven snow….is totally counter productive if you really want to start a discussion here (IMHO).

  49. John Sayers July 11, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    Yesterday I got into a pretty heated discussion on facebook over a poster posted by one of my friends. The poster was in black and white and depicted spewing smoke stacks and read:

    Explain to future generations it was good for the economy
    when they can’t farm the land
    breathe the air
    and drink the water.

    They were all into it and the ‘like’ button was flashing.

    So I made the comment that farmers today are environmentalists too and agriculture has come a long way in the past 40 years. We’ve cleaned up the atmosphere, modern cars, trucks and trains are 95% cleaner than they used to be, scrubbers have cleaned up the boilers and our rivers and lakes have also benefitted by the reduction in pollution over the past years and you can still drink the water.

    After a few angry retorts a few started to agree with me and soon I was getting thumbs up etc.

    We live in very depressing politically correct times – everyone appears to hate mankind and will put mankind down at the first opportunity. The environmentalists are still pushing the old broom of 40 years ago and are ignoring the huge strides we have made in cleaning up our act.

    I pointed out to them that I have a friend in the Riverina who grows rice and her farm is a thriving ecology, the frogs croak all night and the birdlife is greater than it ever was prior to her agriculture yet she grows rice more efficiently and productively than any farmer in the world. I got thumbs up for that one. 🙂

    In retrospect I realise I should have said – and she’s a vegetarian!

  50. John Sayers July 11, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    Debbie – you may be interested in this article by this mob

  51. Debbie July 11, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

    Thanks for the comment and the link John.
    It’s amazing how alarmist that article is.

  52. Neville July 11, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

    Luke here’s a few questions for you.

    1. If the entire OECD signed up to Kyoto (then) and now Kyoto2 what would be the impact on temp and climate by 2100?

    2. If the OECD copied Germany 10 years ago and installed solar and wind ( at that rate) what would be the impact on temp now and by 2100?

    3. What percentage of world energy is now generated from solar and wind?

    4. What is that percentage ( wind and solar) likely to be by 2035 and 2100?

    5. What would a difference of 1% in cloud cover make to the world’s temp by 2100?

    6. What would the impact be on cold deaths in a 2c warmer world?

    7.What will SLR be by 2100— 17 cm, 30cm, 1metre, 6metres, 25 metres or 100 metres and why ?

    8. Why is the southern ocean cooling so much and what will be the resultant rainfall impact from that cooling trend?

    9. Why were humans almost reduced to extinction only 70,000 years ago?

    10. The average life expectancy in 1900 in OZ, Britain or USA was only about 47 and much lower in poorer countries. Today the first world has an average life expectancy of 78 to 80 years and developing countries about 60 years. WHY is that so much better for the seven billion alive today and not the 2 billion alive in 1900? Remember this is only a little over one century.

  53. Graeme M July 11, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    JS, I agree largely with what you say. It’s the same argument I have with my catastrophist greenie friends – they seem not to recognize the many improvements and broad progress we have made in the past 40-50 years.

    That said though, it’s worth considering that many of those improvements came about because of the environmentalists and other concerned folk who fought the entrenched views of the times. Especially those who fought for the right of workers and citizens to have clean air and water, to not be exploited by short-sighted and profit-based business practices and for the idea that earth’s resources should not be plundered indiscriminately.

    In other words, while those you decry may often over-egg the pudding, it is partly through their efforts that progress happens. That and better and more informed choices by farmers and other production agents, often based on the learnings and advice from science, perhaps even the environmental scientists that cop more than their fair share of criticism.

  54. Neville July 11, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    More under representation of UHI in the temp record. They must think we’re as silly as they are?

  55. John Sayers July 11, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    I accept what you say Graeme but those environmentalists of the 70s, like me, that instigated all the changes in action and attitude are all grown up. It’s the new generation of environmentalists I’m referring to, most are still living in the 70s using our slogans and protests when we have moved on from there.

    The classic example is the Byron Bay anti coal seam gas protest movement who are now considering forming an anti CSG political party. The irony is that this is no CSG below byron bay and no one is intending to extract what’s not there. Santos checked it out and withdrew their licence. All the CSG is in the Richmond and Clarence valleys.

  56. Debbie July 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

    Yes Graeme,
    As with other things like the Union movement in its infancy, there was definitely a place for much of what the environmental movement did.
    Unfortunately, as John has highlighted here, it has morphed into something else (once again not unlike the union movement). 🙂
    We have moved on from slave labour and highly unsafe workplaces too.

  57. Graeme M July 11, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    Yeah… you maybe right. There’s a weird overly ‘correct’ thing happening these days. Even in politics, or maybe especially in politics. Some of the stupid knee-jerk reactions are over the top. Like the ruckus about the Libs ad of someone stumbling on their words and allegations that’s offensive to stutterers or the rubbish about Rudd ‘patting’ a disabled lady. FFS!!!

    And that same thing with so many bleeding heart greenies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-green or whatever as you can tell from the whales thread, but some of the rubbish you see and hear is just nonsense.

    I’ve mentioned my pet hate being young people who now actually seem to believe that the past had some kind of benign climate where there were never hot days or storms, and who also think AGW causes everything from earthquakes to ingrown toenails…

  58. Ian Thomson July 11, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    Hi Debbie, I think you perhaps should read John Pilger’s “A Secret Country ”
    Give you a shock about Unions and a lot of other Aussie stuff , ( including Bob and Simon).
    I ask this with no malice.

    BUT, did the people who paid the Chinese ringbarkers more than the Govt did , to leave Islands of remnant vegetation , do it because scientists advised them ? NO they did it because they knew better.
    I had a friend , who in his 80’s said ” We used to go to town , in the 50s and 60s and get told, ‘You should have your land taken off you because you don’t clear it enough.’ ‘ Now we go to town and get told ‘you should get your land taken off you because you cleared it’ ”
    ALL sponsored as usual by amazingly, scientifically enlightened, State, City based knowledge

  59. spangled drongo July 11, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

    Even when sceptics are 100% right, they’re wrong:

  60. spangled drongo July 11, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

    The Chinese wouldn’t be blocking Keystone XL:

  61. Debbie July 11, 2013 at 8:13 pm #

    Spot on Ian!
    Of course the ‘over clearing’ was ‘legislated’ by the fore runners of exactly the same suspects. 🙂
    My own family had water entitlement confiscated because they flatly refused to clear a low lying box swamp.
    Now they’re trying to make us join it up to a ‘wildlife corridoor’ with no fire breaks.
    NOPE!! ! Not gonna happen.
    Silly billies!
    Thank goodness that at the very least they no longer have the power to ‘confiscate’. . . mind you . . . if you happen to have a bore license that is not the case.
    The Federal based, scientifically enlightened, city based are proving to be no improvement. . 🙂
    It’s mostly political nonsense unfortunately.

  62. spangled drongo July 11, 2013 at 8:13 pm #

    Matt Ridley responds to Phil Plait:

  63. Luke July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    Debbie – nice try on. Add salinisation of the WA wheat belt due to disturbing the natural water balance. Try clearing SO MUCH of eastern Australia that many ecosystems reduced to endangered status.

    But anyway, a diversion I see no one has any ideas for improving big science.

  64. el gordo July 11, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

    ‘But anyway, a diversion I see no one has any ideas for improving big science.’

    It might be improved if we dismantle the Klimatariat piecemeal, let’s start with this lot.–Atmospheric-Research/Aspendale.aspx

  65. Debbie July 11, 2013 at 9:39 pm #

    Luke, 🙂
    Go back to the previous page, you seem to have lost your way.

  66. sp July 12, 2013 at 12:09 am #

    sd – your link:

    Matt Ridley responds to Phil Plait:

    leads to:

    which states:

    “Folks, let me give you a very useful piece of advice: When you hear a claim that goes against the consensus opinion of climate scientists, type that claim into Google followed by the words skeptical science. Because the website Skeptical Science is very thorough, and it rebuts both claims by Ridley.”

    Yup – Skeptical Science, says it all

  67. Luke July 12, 2013 at 1:25 am #

    “It might be improved if we dismantle the Klimatariat piecemeal, let’s start with this lot.–Atmospheric-Research/Aspendale.aspx

    OK – rightyo – so that kills off about 4 generations of climate research.

    And Bob and Davey will be replacing them eh with Plan B? You truly are a trucking barbarian aren’t you? I assume you have a serious alternative or are you just not going to bother.

  68. Ian Thomson July 12, 2013 at 7:15 am #

    ” focussing on policies, actions and methodologies for the responsible use of the atmosphere
    understanding and predicting climate change impacts
    climate processes and model development.”

    Luke, replacing them with any plan is not required. 4 generations of computer models and they still cannot get anything right.
    It is not a responsible use of the atmosphere to pay 150 fourth generation modellers to blow it through their wind tunnel. It is certainly not a responsible use of taxpayers’ money- unless it is used to justify air taxes . Nah, they wouldn’t do that would they?
    I see where the lying con artists at NIWA in NZ are probably going to get the Met office merged into them . I guess that is what will happen here . Hundreds of years of careful weather observation and analysis will get thrown into a back room under the control of the 4th generation computer modellers.

  69. Luke July 12, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

    “4 generations of computer models and they still cannot get anything right.”

    Yes there’s obviously been no progress at all has there. Weather forecasts no more accurate. No more knowledge of any processes.

    What stupid drivel Ian – moronic in fact. Are you really that much of a hick?

  70. Johnathan Wilkes July 12, 2013 at 2:31 pm #


    “Weather forecasts no more accurate?”

    Apart from getting the daily temperature in summer mostly right I’d say no!
    Not more accurate or reliable than fifty or even more years ago.

    Remember the invasion of Normandy all those years ago?
    The near accurate weather forecast made it possible.

  71. spangled drongo July 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

    If you ever depend on weather reports to survive you may occasionally wonder why they are so wrong.

    How about those unknown unknowns which they don’t want to know about:

    “In the latter part of the 20th Century, the models took in only data from a sparse network of upper-air stations, which send up balloons that transmit weather data back to earth and, when put together, form a 3-D picture of the current state of the atmosphere (called the “Initialization.”) Then they work from there to apply algorithms to predict how that atmosphere will behave. As you’ll see below, a bad initialization can ruin the forecast. This is what’s known in the computer industry as “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Sadly, the “upper-air” network of balloon releases hasn’t improved much over the years, but models now also take surface mesonets, satellite data, airport observations, and more into account when trying to put together the Initialization.”

  72. spangled drongo July 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

    Who are the barbarians?

    Climate expert Clive Spash ‘heavied’ by CSIRO management

    A CSIRO economist whose research criticising emissions trading schemes was banned from publication said last night he had been subjected to harassment by the senior agency management.

    Clive Spash also accused the agency of hindering public debate and trampling on his civil liberties by preventing the research being published in British journal New Political Economy.

    Dr Spash defended the paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, saying it was a dispassionate analysis of ETS policies and was not politically partisan.

    He was told in February he could publish the work if it were peer reviewed. But in July, CSIRO management said it could not be published after it was cleared for publication.

    This month, he was informed he could not publish it even in his private capacity, because it was “politically sensitive”. Within 24 hours, he also received a letter outlining a list of trivial instances in which he was accused of breaching CSIRO policy, for example not completing a leave form properly.

    Dr Spash said he believed the letter was intended to, and did, intimidate him and denied him due process. None of the matters were raised with him prior to the letter being sent and each of the alleged misdemeanours could be explained.

    “We are not members of the Defence Department, we are scientists who are supposed to be discussing research in an open forum. How do you advance knowledge if you stop people from publishing their work?

    “I am totally happy to have my work criticised and debated but I’m not happy to have it suppressed.”

    Dr Spash said it was impossible to publish research in his field that did not have an impact on government policy. “The idea that you cannot discuss something like ETS policy when you’re working on climate change as a political economist seems ridiculous,” he said.

    The gagging of Dr Spash’s work is embarrassing for Science Minister Kim Carr, who defended academic freedoms in opposition and last year trumpeted a new CSIRO charter he said would give scientists the right to speak publicly about their findings.

    Yesterday, Senator Carr told The Australian he supported the publication of peer-reviewed research, even if it had negative implications for government policy. He said he had not tried to gag the research.

    Last night CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said the organisation would work with Dr Spash on his paper.

    “There is some important science in the paper and we will now work with Dr Spash to ensure the paper meets CSIRO internal review standards and the guidelines of the Public Research Agency Charter between the CSIRO and the federal government,” she said.

    “I encourage CSIRO scientists to communicate the outcomes and implications of their work and one of the underlying core values of CSIRO is the integrity of our excellent science.”

  73. el gordo July 12, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    ‘And Bob and Davey will be replacing them eh with Plan B? ‘

    Now you’re talking.

    ‘Weather forecasts no more accurate. No more knowledge of any processes.’

    The models work well a week in advance, but beyond that its chaos. The Klimatariat could easily be dismantled, leaving only a skeleton crew to play with the long term.

    Years ago you told me the systems are different for climate and weather. Is that still true?

  74. Johnathan Wilkes July 12, 2013 at 4:08 pm #


    “Weather forecasts no more accurate?”

    Apart from getting the daily temperature in summer mostly right I’d say no!
    Not more accurate or reliable than fifty or even more years ago.

    Remember the invasion of Normandy all those years ago?
    The near accurate weather forecast made it possible.

  75. el gordo July 12, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

    Here’s some overseas characters trying for long term modelling.

    With a classic quote: “The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive.”

    ‘I assume you have a serious alternative or are you just not going to bother.’

    A global recession looms and politicians are going to cut the bureaucracy, which undoubtedly will involve scientists and whole departments stacked with political watermelons.

  76. el gordo July 12, 2013 at 6:30 pm #

    This whole Department can be sacked, in a cooler world we have no need of them.

  77. spangled drongo July 12, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    John, as a young feller in the bush I always found the CSIRO to be very highly regarded by all as they championed the primary producer to ever better standards but sadly these days they mostly seem to be a self-serving, grubby lot.

  78. spangled drongo July 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    Meanwhile, in the land of midsummer snow:

  79. Debbie July 12, 2013 at 8:35 pm #

    Even more sadly. . .
    most of them are not in the regional areas anymore. Our CSIRO facilities in the MIA are all but empty.
    Even more sadly. . . many of them are now working OS where their expertise is actually appreciated.
    You can find them in places like Pakistan and Indonesia.
    We are indeed left with the more ‘self serving’ types.

  80. spangled drongo July 12, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

    And the land of the endless, infinite, academic grant:

  81. John Sayers July 13, 2013 at 2:10 am #

    But that’s academia today SD – you have to educate them to all the possibilities.
    I’m sure they can handle it.

  82. Ian Thomson July 13, 2013 at 8:39 am #

    Hi Luke,
    My whole point is that those 150 climate modelers are not involved in weather forecasting at all. They are involved in “climate modeling”, which they have , laughably, got embarrassingly wrong .
    Don’t you people keep telling us that climate and weather are different things ?
    If they really believe their own predictions, what is the long term plan for relocating the facility to higher ground ? These things don’t happen overnight and all that sea level rise isn’t going to wait until December 2099 to happen is it ?

    ON the bright side they do have the Murray barrages 15 meters under, so why not just open them
    now ?
    Mate, the only thing they are doing to justify the expense is providing new disasters to study and tax.
    They are beavering away keeping the ACT at the top of the economic growth table .

  83. Johnathan Wilkes July 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    Ian Thomson

    ” ACT at the top of the economic growth “

    don’t you mean top of the ’employement’ growth?

  84. el gordo July 13, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

    ‘ON the bright side they do have the Murray barrages 15 meters under, so why not just open them
    now ?’

    We could start a campaign in that direction.

  85. sp July 13, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

    Still no answers from Luke on Neville’s questions. I’ll take a stab:

    Q1. If the entire OECD signed up to Kyoto (then) and now Kyoto2 what would be the impact on temp and climate by 2100?

    A1. 0.005C (or in non-scientific terms – bugger all)

  86. Ian Thomson July 13, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    Yes JW, it is employment growth, but it is always referred to as second only to WA in ‘economic growth’.

  87. Luke July 13, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

    sp – no the answer is 0.5C – substantiate your argument

  88. Debbie July 13, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    No offense or malice intended. . . but. . . as a global average. . . 0.5C is likewise ‘bugger all’
    Why would we be spending that much time and money on ‘mitigating’ or ‘preventing’ 0.5C global average temp increase?

  89. Johnathan Wilkes July 13, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    I had heard of the 0.005C being quoted but not the 0.5.

    Waded through a lengthy PDF to find it but and all they talk about is the 2C that we have to avoid at all costs. No mention of what happens if we follow all the recommendations.

    So the ball on the 0.5C is in your court Luke you put it forward you prove it.

  90. Johnathan Wilkes July 13, 2013 at 9:52 pm #

    On second thought don’t bother Luke.

    This whole thing about 0.5 or .005 at the end of the century is just a load of crap, nobody can prove it or disprove it.

    And I’m absolutely sure it won’t matter either if it does.

    One thing is for sure I certainly won’t be here despite my best efforts

  91. spangled drongo July 13, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Neville asked and sp reiterated, if the whole OECD “signed up”, not conformed.

    So Luke is probably right, only with a positive [increase], not a negative, on past performances.

    Arse-up again, Lovely-boy!

  92. Neville July 14, 2013 at 1:16 am #

    Steve McIntyre responds to Gavin and other assorted donkeys at RC. Geeezzz what a clueless mob thay are.

    These fools have been caught out using data upside down in the past yet they have no shame and consistently stick their chin out for more.

    Seems they must have their daily dose of fantasy.

  93. Neville July 14, 2013 at 8:55 am #

    The Krudd govt will ditch the co2 tax in preference for an ETS. That’s if they’re not lying again.

    Will cause a budget blow out of about 6 bn $ to be funded by cuts to same budget???? Geeezzzz Krudd cutting spending, that’ll be the first time ever. What a hoot.

    Change to weather/climate/temp? Zip, zilch,zero. Please tell us Lukey how you calculate that 0.5c reduction by 2100, I need a giggle.

  94. Luke July 14, 2013 at 9:07 am #

    You guys advanced your number – substantiate it ! Not my problem if you can’t.

  95. Neville July 14, 2013 at 9:20 am #

    Very remiss of me not to include those thriving Polar Bears in that list above. PB population 50 years ago about 5,000 but now about 20,000 to 25,000.

    But we’ve all been told how the lack of ice would cause a big drop in PB pop, even leading to extinction.
    Stupid Gore and his CSIRO ( Pearman) and Hansen advisors have shown us fake photos of PBs stranded on icebergs, not able to find food anymore.( but don’t tell the bears.) What a joke, yet these people still have credibility throughout the scientific????? community.

    But the Inuit have been complaining of the blowout in PB numbers for years, but what would they know?

  96. Luke July 14, 2013 at 9:20 am #

    Debbie and Johnathon well illustrate the totally clueless syndrome “- um let me – um did I read somewhere – um I think – um …. errr”

  97. sp July 14, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    No Luke – I said I would take a “stab” at it and proposed a number to represent “bugger all”.

    You came back with 0.5, still bugger all: as if it is possible to calculate the temperature in about 100 years time.

    It is up to you Luke to substantiate your number and present your methodology.

    In the meantime:

    “Endorsing and promoting integrity in science should be the goal of anyone practicing or teaching science at any level. Yet we appear to have the blatant politicising of science by vested interest groups such as the CSIRO, the IPCC, various environmental groups and, of course, individuals such as Al Gore.

    A relatively small group of individuals has exerted a disproportionate amount of influence to promote alarmism about unsubstantiated catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Presumably, if the alarmism were to disappear then so might their funding.

    Shame on any scientist who places self-interest above the integrity of science.”

  98. Neville July 14, 2013 at 9:45 am #

    Thanks for that link SP, I always enjoy Quadrant. But don’t worry about Lukey’s estimate of 0.5c by 2100, he can’t verify it and won’t try .

    Like everything else along his well trodden mitigation path, he’ll drop it and run a mile. BTW Willis has a good post at WUWT on the Canadian hockey stick.

    It just proves what a mob of whackos these silly fools are and he just uses good graphs and available history and numbers. Once again just another con and fraud.

    BTW if I lived there I’d be filling up in the USA as well, just like these canny people.

  99. Johnathan Wilkes July 14, 2013 at 10:06 am #

    Luke I’m not your researcher or librarian.

    If you can prove your claim about the 0.5C do so.
    I simply cannot imagine how you can do it?
    How would you know what will happen in 50 years from now?

    All you have is computer models and since nobody has a complete knowledge
    (heck not even a decent partial knowledge!), of how climatic variables interact, you
    programme in what YOU think should happen and lo and behold the outcome matches your expectations.

    CRP in CRP out, that’s all you got Luke.

  100. Ian Thomson July 14, 2013 at 11:04 am #

    Let us pray for 5deg warming in 2030 . We according to THREE scientific studies will need it.

  101. el gordo July 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm #

    It does in fact appear to be the case.

  102. Neville July 14, 2013 at 1:27 pm #

    Bolt provides an update listing all the garbage by the Labor liars about why we needed a co2 tax.

    Just fancy voting for this Krudd mob again, when this stupid tax has come and gone in such a short time and found to be such a hopeless idiotic disaster.

  103. el gordo July 14, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

    June saw a reduction in sunspot numbers and SC 24 is shaping up similar to solar cycle 5.

  104. Debbie July 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

    Takes me back to that ‘accountability’ question.
    Would you care to be ‘accountable’ for that 0.5C?

  105. el gordo July 14, 2013 at 2:38 pm #

    Channeling GWPF

    “It is the smallest solar maximum we have seen in 100 years,” said Dr David Hathaway of Nasa. “We are currently in solar cycle number 24 which is about half as active as cycle 23, but cycle 25 is likely to be smaller again due to changes in the magnetic flux on the sun’s surface,” he said.

  106. Luke July 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

    So you clowns are so pathetic and so brain dead that you can’t substantiate your 0.005C

    You utter frauds. Just cruisin around disinformation sites and parroting crap.

    So here we have the biggest threat to the entire planet and all you can do is cut and paste. Debs isn’t even sure if 0.5 is big or small.

    Democracy is a problem isn’t it.

  107. Luke July 14, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    As for all this Maunder Minimum drivel Paul Charbonneau and Giuliana De Toma think not. But you clowns would know better wouldn’t you. It’s just the Gleissberg cycle.

  108. John Sayers July 14, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    “So here we have the biggest threat to the entire planet and all you can do is cut and paste”

    you are pathetic!

  109. Luke July 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    Matt Ridley – hahahahahaha – good one

    And why do you think it’s low sensitivity? a touch of decadal variation and you’ve changed your mind. And fancy quoting a paper you hadn’t even read. If you had read it you would know

    “According to the paper, global average temperatures are predicted to rise about 20% more slowly than expected over the coming decades, but in the longer term, the authors say their work agrees with previous estimates, such as the IPCC’s, that climate sensitivity is in the range of 2-4.5C”

    Little has changed ! Out of your league John boy. Time to put your Mum on.

  110. Luke July 14, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    What a great site.

  111. Debbie July 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    I guess that means no?
    Can somebody remind me what the deniers are denying?
    What is your definition of ‘denier’ Luke?

  112. Luke July 14, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

    Definition here Debs –

  113. el gordo July 14, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

    Roy Spencer is actually a luke warmer.

  114. John Sayers July 14, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    So who is Desmogblog eh Luke?

    Jim Hoggan, is one of Canada’s most respected public-relations professionals

    Brendan DeMelle, a freelance writer and researcher specializing in new media, politics, climate change and clean energy.

    Ross Gelbspan, has contributed to DeSmogBlog since its inception, following his 31-year career in journalism.

    Richard Littlemore, o-author (with Jim Hoggan) of the award-winning book Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming

    Not a scientist amongst them – all climate activists.

    And they have the audacity to tell Richard Linzden and Roy Spencer they don’t know what they are talking about!

    pathetic Lukey boy!

  115. Luke July 14, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    Yep and the rest to the science community (ahem)

  116. Luke July 14, 2013 at 9:16 pm #

    Didn’t read the paper eh John? Caught with pants down.

  117. spangled drongo July 14, 2013 at 9:22 pm #

    If you want a real denier Luke, try Sir Paul Nurse, head of the RS.

  118. Debbie July 14, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    Crappy and meaningless rhetorical definition Luke, 🙂
    But I found the comments amusing.

  119. Luke July 14, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    No really Debs – very straight forward really – simply shows the level of your denial. Crappy coz truth hurts.

    But anyway more interesting is your ongoing assumption as to what “scientists” think – an interesting part of a series on climate communication from none other than Gavin Schmidt – I think many will be surprised at this comments and conclusion

  120. John Sayers July 14, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    “Didn’t read the paper eh John? Caught with pants down.”

    no I didn’t as I’m not prepared to pay for research papers cos as you know, this is not my field.
    But I am therefore prepared to take the word of Matt Ridley, who is a scientist and a esteemed science writer which why I posted his remarks.

    Now – care to dispute Matt Ridley’s analysis?

  121. Luke July 15, 2013 at 6:29 am #

    You could have at least emailed the author for a pdf reprint or searched for an online pdf. Lazy and sneaky technique John. Paper’s conclusion doesn’t suit your argument.

    Ridley is a zoologist and it shows. He’s on about TCR. I’ll take the published paper. In which equilibrium climate sensitivity hasn’t really changed.

  122. Debbie July 15, 2013 at 8:42 am #

    What scientists think?
    You’re kidding aren’t you?
    It’s bleeding obvious from the plethora of contradictory information that Scientists THINK all sorts of different things about all sorts of different topics.
    Your last comment was a very thinly veiled appeal from authority and/or the much quoted ‘consensus’ Luke.
    Poor form.

  123. Luke July 15, 2013 at 9:49 am #

    You don’t read or listen do you Debs. Engage brain last.

  124. Debbie July 15, 2013 at 10:01 am #

    LOL! 🙂 🙂 🙂
    How on earth could you come up with that comment from what I just posted?
    What do you think I’m not reading or listening to Luke?


  1. Australia-China scientific collaboration productive « Smart Societies - August 18, 2013

    […] Chinese Academy of Science Open to Skepticism ( […]

Website by 46digital