Comments on: UN Chief Misled Sydney Audience

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:47:03 +0000

Luke:

“Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone.”

Actually your tool in trade.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:08:13 +0000

Add that to A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture Relationships from an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record paper above and the review on SE Aust rainfall – same comment then you start to develop an emerging picture of major changes in atmospheric circulation – the cave data shows this to be a “one-off”. None of this cinches AGW but you’d have to be quite suspicious at this point of a theme that just keeps repeating.

Why does this matter – water resources !!! Really much more important than temperature.

As for Short – well ….. he’s a smart guy eh.

You might also look up “An assessment of relationships between the Australian subtropical ridge, rainfall variability, and high-latitude circulation patterns” (2008)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119879251/abstract

The real work continues regardless of the political debate….

By: cohenite

cohenite — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:39:45 +0000

luke; Jennifer sent me the Rayner paper on ’stilling’; Steve Short has a critique of it at 74 here;

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine-2/#comments

Any comments?

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:47:07 +0000

3 – not if you include the Arctic
4 – wrong
6 – also maybe harmful – increases frost sensitivity (await stupid rebuttal comment), and useless without adequate water, may also preference woody weeds over grasses
7 – conditional – depends – possibly irrelevant
9 – poorly constructed, fundamentally wrong
10 – red herring – not for 10,000s of years

P.S. Louis – substituting one bogus graph in critique of another is pure sophistry. Your tool in trade.

By: Bickers

Bickers — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:35:00 +0000

Let’s keep it simple:

1. Does the World’s climate change – YES
2. Did the World warm for approx 30 years upto 2000 – YES
3. Has World temperature flatlined/dropped since 2000 – YES
4. Is there any empirical evidence that CO2 has caused or greatly exacerbated past or the more recent warming – NO
5. Do we know what other factors can cause climate change – YES
6. Is CO2 beneficial to plant life and crops – YES
7. Other than the Sun what has the largest influence on our climate – The Oceans and water vapour
8. Have the computer models accurately predicted climate change over the last 10 years – NO
9. Do we know enough about the climate – a chaotic, non linear system – to predict climate change with any accuracy – NO
10. Will there be another Ice Age – YES

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:35:54 +0000

Luke: “But not quite good enough to let the substitute MWP graph slip in. Yes ,,,,,”

A classic non-sequitur – I am not sure whether you or SJT should get top prize for this category.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:24:41 +0000

Keiran,

Because the Whigs control government, the universities, and the education system.

Luke and others may well insist it is a scientific issue, it isn’t – its a political issue using climate science as the means to bludgeon us, albeit in a most subtle way by frightening the BJ’s out of us, into behaving how they want us to.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:22:01 +0000

You’d have to say the Bob is very good. Very very good.

But not quite good enough to let the substitute MWP graph slip in. Yes ,,,,,

You’d have to wonder if anyone truly objective is left….

By: jennifer

jennifer — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:16:56 +0000

Comment from Bob Carter on the UN Chief and his methods here: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9tOFoFx7S6M .
Other parts of this series can be found at the community page here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/

By: Keiran

Keiran — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:35:23 +0000

Pachauri is just a typical con artist for a religio/political organisation with little regard for the truth and operating with neither shame nor apology. The UN’s IPCC is a money-maker for India and a lever with which to obtain western technology by pointing to our excessive consumption by warning of coming doom unless we mend our sinful ways.

What is truly disturbing in this whole milieu of worship where finagling is endemic and a necessary requirement, is how could UNSW give this shonk an Honorary Science Degree?