Comments on: Global Warming is Over: Don Easterbrook

By: John G

John G — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:42:36 +0000

Prof Bob Carter also agrees with Dr Easterbrook, the evidence is more supportive of a cooling trend. Anyhow, the question most often evaded is: ‘where is the causal connection specifically between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming?’ Dr David Evans, late of the Australian Greenhouse Office for six years, failed to make a causal connection between any CO2 and global warming. Also, anthropogenic CO2 represents only 3% of all CO2 emissions, it is difficult to imagine that even if all man-made emissions ceased there would be much difference to climate change even if one could find a causal connection. Isn’t this all about new markets and more money for the seriously wealthy?

By: Cam

Cam — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:10:33 +0000

Totally agree – its amazing how the warmists get so spiteful, bitter and nasty in blogs like this the world over as soon as an alternate view is provided. The very essence of science and being a scientist is that all theories are considered and that balanced debate continues indefinitely. The day that stops is the day science dies. The ‘warmists’ have become ‘prostitutes of science’, and as an environmental scientist myself this AGW religious fanaticism makes me ill to the very core! So much so that Iam currently considering a career shift, as I no longer an proud of my profession.

Everything I was taught in becoming a scientist, is to debate, consider, re-consider and to check and double check and to consider all hyoptheses.

The very behaviour of warmists practically gives themselves away. They’re quick to jump the skeptics collective throats about being selective in their arguments – yet the very foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory is in the selective use of data. Everything, and I mean ‘everything’ that the ‘warmologists’ prescribe to is based on the selective use of available information.

Talk about the High Priests preaching “do as we say and not as we do”.

As communism was the great ideological failure of the 20th century in its attempt to repress human development, so too will ‘de-carbonism’ eventually be seen as the great ideological failure of the 21st century in trying to repress human development.

By: Chris W

Chris W — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:09:28 +0000

Hello Brad,

I think cohenite’s point was that the slidy thingo on SahulTime tells us there has been 0 metres of sea level rise for the last 5476 years … so therefore, ipso facto, QED, primo, secundo, tertio, etc ,etc, anyone in the world who thinks sea level has risen based on what the data says is completely and utterly freakin bonkers.

Hmmm, but maybe I’m reading him wrong …

Well anyhoo, it IS rather cool to muck around with.

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:34:42 +0000

hello cohenite,

from your response of January 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm:

“Brad, do you have links for your assertions?”

Thanks for the question, but I’m not sure what you mean. Are you unfamiliar with the numerous published papers that estimate the sizes of the various components of the climate system in terms of heat content? (Assertion #1)

here’s a few:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/Beltrami_et_al_Journal.pdf

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-76939-2006-AB.pdf

Assertion #2: the oceans are expanding. Jennifer posted a chart a few weeks ago:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sea-level-drop.jpg

I love how she labeled it “sea-level-drop”. She’s such a kidder. Do see on the chart how the 1998 values range from about -15 to 0mm? And the 2008 values are from about +10 to +30mm?

Is that too hard to read or understand? I thought it was pretty plainly obvious that sea level has been rising since 1998, by roughly 30mm, or about 3mm/year. Do you disagree?

Then you put up a chart showing a portion of the same data, from 2005 to 2007/early2008. Is that limited window of data relevant to the question of what has happened since 1998? Remember the OP? Waaaaaaay up top is says – and I quote:

“…and global cooling has occurred since 1998. ”

So are we discussing cooling/warming since 1998, or since 2005?

Do you agree that sea level is 30mm higher now than in 1998 (assertion #2), and that most of the heat capacity of the climate system is in the ocean (assertion #1)?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:25:56 +0000

I confess that I did not wade through all the post and the links. But what I did read had enough mantra about “cycles” without some statistical metric to make me worry. Reminds me of “chartist” technical analysis of stocks. Which any finance professor will tell you is rubish. Let’s not associate with rubish. Do better denialists! I am one of you, but I hate it when you entertain silliness. Makes me worry that we don’t have so much in our quiver.

By: Luke

Luke — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:13:42 +0000

Relevance – nil. Desperate Cohers. Desperate.

By: cohenite

cohenite — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:20:37 +0000

Oh dear, that first link didn’t deliver; well mustn’t disappoint luke; try this one instead;

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003175.html#comments

By: cohenite

cohenite — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:18:21 +0000

“climate crook”? Anyway hope this is long enough for you luke; and no, it’s not a Youtube link;

http://www.science-direct.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4RP0MR9-8&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F15%2F2008&_rdoc=14&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235801%232008%23997319998%23683218%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5801&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=28&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2fdd45939db81d7f31df7fd7ac58e71

And my old favourite;

http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html

So much for thermal swelling, or whatever you want to call it.

By: Marohasy’s Denialist Church of True Believers « The Dog’s Bollocks

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:05:04 +0000

[...] the folks at Jennifer Marohasy’s environmental blog, Anthropogenic Global Warming has been thoroughly disproved beyond all doubt, and those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this are akin to religious zealots [...]

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:21:01 +0000

Brad is spot on Cohers and you’ve just showed your hand arguing black is white for the clients. You climate crook. This is typical pseudo-scepticism. Pathetic even by your standards.

I prefer http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg

and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

But Cohers likes to present a snippet of a time series, not even up-to-date (missed today’s readings!) with a hand drawn line through it. Ask Mrs Cohers about testing the significance of regressions too. NS I think you’ll find.

WJP and Cohers – try this – will explain the details of sea level argument – http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=eDTp1TdWCQM