I have just been alerted to new papers at the ‘Centre for Science and Public Policy’ website:
‘Unmasking An Inconvenient Truth’ by William Kininmonth
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_kininmonth.pdf (pdf, about 1Mb)
‘Human-caused Global Warming’ by Robert M. Carter
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_carter.pdf (pdf, about 1MB)
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“CO2 is almost exhausted as an agent for greenhouse global warming and increasing
the concentration, including doubling from its present value, will have little impact
on the earth’s radiation budget.”
This red herring has been argued for years, hence the name “enhanced greenhouse effect”. I can understand people debating the EGF, but to argue this, when it is acknowledged by everyone, is sheer deception. It is implying scientists are hiding something from us.
“Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas. Its role in the hydrological cycle is essential for balancing the excess solar radiation absorbed at the surface with the infrared radiation cooling of the atmosphere. The buoyancy of convective clouds causes overturning of the tropical atmosphere and distributes energy through the atmosphere. Convection is essential for linking and constraining the temperature of the atmosphere to the warmest ocean surface temperatures.”
Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas, but it’s not forcing anything. It is, however, a part of the feedback effect. For this rest of this statement, just hand waving.
“The ocean and atmosphere circulations transfer excess heat from the tropics to the polar regions and so regulate surface temperatures over middle and high latitudes.
More than 85 percent of the poleward transport of energy is by the atmosphere and middle and high latitude temperatures vary with the rate of transport.”
So what? There is a mechanism that distributes heat to cooler areas of the earth. That obviously doesn’t stop the earth warming, because it is. The question is, to what degree will this mechanism prevent global warming. There is no claim that this mechanism will make a significant difference.
“The oceans, with their much greater thermal and mass inertia, are the flywheels of
the climate system. Relatively small changes in sea surface temperature pattern (for
example associated with El Niño) can markedly change the atmospheric circulation
and the rate of poleward transport of heat.”
Ditto.
“Surface wind fields drive the ocean currents, including the slow meridional
overturning circulations.
· The non-linear interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere are a source of
internal variability of the climate system on timescales from years through
millennia.”
Ditto.
That is why there are models, to analyse these distributions of heat around the world. Distributing heat around the world is not going to cool it. So far, it’s still warming. The mechanisms identified that have caused the current warming, will continue to keep it warming.
Not Found
The requested URL /blog/archives/www.scienceandpolicy.org was not found on this server.
URL fixed.
Hi Jennifer,
Call me old fashioned, but when it comes to an organisation’s product I like to ‘follow the money’ before I digest their science, as it saves me a lot of time in deciding whether they are genuine in their enquiry, or not.
But only when it come to climate science, otherwise I look at the research based on its merit. This is only because of the track record of big fossil-fuel in wilfully funding dubious science in order manufacture doubt about AGW. You know the story, and I know the story.
So checking out the bona fides of the Center for Science and Public Policy I discovered that URL linked to ‘about us’ from their website links to the wankily named “Frontiers of Freedom” – who turn out to be a US Republican organisation subjected to the largesse of Exxon Mobil:
2004
$50,000 ExxonMobil FoundationClimate Change Efforts
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/giving04_publicpolicy.pdf
2004
$90,000 ExxonMobil FoundationGlobal Climate Change Outreach
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/giving04_publicpolicy.pdf
2004
$40,000 ExxonMobil FoundationProject Support — Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/giving04_publicpolicy.pdf
2004
$70,000 ExxonMobil FoundationProject Support — Science Center & Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/giving04_publicpolicy.pdf
2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil FoundationGeneral Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2005
$50,000 ExxonMobil Corporate GivingAnnual Gala and General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
Jennifer – if you do have something that is genuinely peer-reviewed and disputes AGW in the honest spirit of scientific enquiry, we all want to know about it. But why do you waste your reputation, and our time with this… this Exxon-Mobil advertorial?
I have provided my address if you prefer to answer via email.
For goodness sake, another Galileo wannabee.
Has it ever occurred to these people that those taking the ‘Galileo’ role were those who said that Global Warming would have an ‘enhanced’ effect? The sole contribution of CO2 is well known and understood, and relatively minor. It’s the complex science of the enhanced greenhouse effect that was new and groundbreaking, that is, the idea that feedback effects could make the pure CO2 drive much more potent than was at first realised.
SJT
Regarding you first point, if the impact of CO2 diminishs wouldn’t feedback effects also diminish?
Not if they are positive feedbacks. You only need a small push to get it all going. Like pushing over a domino, that pushes over the next domino, that pushes over the next.
SJT, that is just another way of justifying another outrageous extrapolation to extremes.
On one hand you try to tell us that the shift in CO2 from 190ppm to 280ppm was enough to end an ice age and lift global temperatures by 11C but when we see another 100ppm added over a century and a half all you can point to is a blatantly massaged temperature increase of 0.6C.
I have just gone over the UK temperature records from the UK Met which make it clear that the high 5 year annual moving average of 1949 was not surpassed until 1998. So after 60 years of substantially increased CO2 we only have 8 years of very modest warming to show for it.
The interesting part is that the only months to show any warming are January, February and March, all outside the growing season when all these feedbacks should be taking place. The current decadal mean temperatures for Spring, Summer and Autumn are a mix of slightly warmer and slightly cooler than the decadal means from the 1940’s.
The growing season has not lengthened over the past 60 years and the growing season temperatures are unchanged. So your “much more potent” feedbacks appear to be firing blanks.
Ian
I would seriously doubt CO2 ended the ice age, I would be looking for something more powerful as a forcing. It would have been a feedback that, once the earth started warming, did it’s bit to add to the warming already in progress. But I have already said this, as have others, and you didn’t take notice of what was said then, so I doubt you’ll take notice of what is said now.
Ian, global dimming has already been explained to you, etc, etc.
The temperature is going to keep rising, the feedback process is slow but steady, and is already evident. There are centuries of it to follow, even if we keep CO2 to current levels.
Jennifer, why did you not post my question about why you rely on material provided by an Exxon-Mobil funded lobby group, Frontiers of Freedom?
Is this not up for discussion?
Hmmnn, SJT, trying on the old “already explained” chestnut again eh? You guys really are all over the place on ice core data, aren’t you?
At first it was presented as a clear example of a forcing. And when the 800 year lag was pointed out it became a feedback that supposedly accounted for “most” of the warming. But when it was then pointed out that both positive and negative temperature changes of 6C and more took place with absolutely zero relationship to CO2 levels, for periods in excess of 20,000 years, you slither back to this “explained it all before but took no notice” line.
Yes, we know about global dimming but what you are flogging is “global dumbing”.
So can we assume that you have no explanation as to why this “global warming” could be limited to mid winter months only? And with no extension of the growing season?
Tell you what, Wadard, how about you and your mates lobby the government to provide public funding for the presentation of dissenting views on climate change so both sides of the argument can be free of private sector funding?
And when you have equal funding for both cases then come and have a chat to us about source and application of funds.
Wadard,
In the present highly charged climate of opinion regarding AGW there are very few journals willing to publish a broad review paper critical of the prevailing orthodoxy. That Exxon-Mobil contributes to the support of such a journal is irrelevant. Neither Kininmonth nor Carter receives any support from Exxon-Mobil. They publish where they can. Do you reject Science and Nature as mouthpieces for government because they receive funding from it? Do you suspect the conservation aims of WWF because they receive a contribution from Shell?
To Ian Mott,
I admire your patience in “debating” with these people and your last few comments have been spot on the mark.
No doubt the Bob Carter and Kinninmonth documents will have the alarmists foaming at the mouth, thats if they bother to read them properly at all.
Wadard,
You comment of late last night got caught in the spam filter because of all the links. I have only just now got back to checking this blog (I do have other things to do) and have just released your comment…
And as regards what I publish here, I am not in competition with the established peer-reviewed journals or the mainstream media. I go out of my way to publish perspectives that are politically incorrect, that are unlikely to be published by the mainstream media, whether the work is funded by Exxon, Japanese whalers or NSW irrigators. And I always consider the argument and evidence, independently of what might be the motivation.
What did George Orwell say about ‘saints’?
Ian – what utter horseshit. SJT – ignore him he’s just baiting by now. He’s not that stupid. RC and others had discussed the lag issue long before Ian had ever found it. It’s a good distraction and irrelevant to the current day situation.
Ian is expecting us to suggest that in the middle of an ice age that a bunch of CO2 molecules are going to get up and start bouncing around. ROTFL.
Suddenly one CO2 molecule says to another – are you bored – I am – bloody Ice Age – let’s liberate the planet. Energy is spontaneously generated from nowhere denying the laws of thermodynamics. What tosh.
And what drivel on growing seasons – plenty of evidence for decreasing frost frequency and I’ve previously documented the big changes in minimum low end percentiles. But I’m not going to restate it – go read the archives.
We could also go on about lotsa changes in flower and animal seasons in Europe but why bother. Vast hordes of pine beetles expanding their range in north America. But why bother.
As for Dad & Dave’s new pdf’s in the title post – more of the same old same old. How utterly tedious. Cherry picks galore. A very selected view if the issues ignoring anything that doesn’t suit.
Fancy putting a piccie if Galileo in your rant – what pretence.
You could drive a truck through all the arguments. And if you don’t the arguments by now you haven’t been paying attention.
But why waste the energy.
Yawn – where’s Arnost – he’s a least being interesting.
And oh yea – nobody ever changes their mind on AGW on this blog. Luke’s axiom.
The only ongoing pleasure is exposing denialist arguments for the twaddle they are.
Luke,
I think Jim started off ‘on your side’ so to speak, but has swapped over?
Anyway, instead of reading and commenting at this blog with the intention of converting everyone to your point of view, what about reading this blog to learn something … about climate change and about people.
Bob Carter on John Law’s radio show last week
http://svc028.wic002tp.server-web.com/4Vox.html
>Anyway, instead of reading and commenting at this blog with the intention of converting everyone to your point of view, what about reading this blog to learn something … about climate change and about people.
Does that apply to everyone here Jennifer, or only those who do not subscribe to your, Ian’s et al’s point of view?
Oh yes Jen – a great source of learning on climate change denialism and people power. No doubt. A vast collection of alternative theories including political conspiracies – you couldn’t find it anywhere else.
Luke’s axiom may be only valid for Newtonian mechanics not relativity. I had given up on conversions about 2 years go.
But of course your difficulty is reconciling with Jen’s axiom which is “evidence based” environmentalism. I suggest you have check-list environmentalism. i.e. if it’s on the list it’s in trouble.
Jim may wish to declare if he has “swapped” – a blow to Luke’s axiom if so.
Travis, It very much applies to everyone, me included. And Luke has contributed lots. But I reckon sometimes he just grabs a link because it appears to support his argument. It would be more useful for all of us, if he was perhaps a bit less quick to prove a point and denigrate the opinion of skeptics like Bob Carter?
Luke,
Thanks for your comment. But this blog is not called, for example, ‘evidence based environmentalism’.
This blog has the name “politics and the environment”.
I think it is ‘politics’ that interests many (not all) of the readers and commentators here… people come no doubt to read your politics and try and understand some of the science amongst the politics.
Jen – I didn’t say it had that name but you’ve espoused those values often enough e.g. the GM debate.
Of course unkind reviewers have suggested that your blog is subsersive. So obviously the topics strike a passionate accord with many. And polarise the left and right.
But anyway – no doubt Bob Carter is very good as a polished presenter. The usual themes well delivered. Must say it was sickening to see Laws fawning and grovelling. Nicely setting up for the follow through.
I wonder if he’d indulge someone like Gavin Schimdt in return. But alas I think Bob has the common touch and links well with his listeners. And I think Lawsy has his mind made up. Sort of like our PM.
Heaven help us !
P.S. I hear the degree of disbelief among Republicans is soaring. Mainly due to the strong influence of significant contrarians in the debate.
P.P.S. Alas for poor Louis, right at the end, Bob did carefully explain that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas.
Luke,
I’ve just checked the word ‘subversive’ in my dictionary:
“seeking to overthrow, challenging, disruptive”.
Well I didn’t think there was any doubt that I believe we need to embrace a whole new approach to environmental issues. …that the current approach is rotten.
I’ve written heaps on this. Here are three article, links at front page of http://www.jennifermarohasy.com
How to redefine environmentalism in accordance with modern theories of evolutionary biology and in accordance with policies that will deliver tangible environmental benefits: Time to Redefine Environmentalism, IPA Review, December 2004.
Predetermined beliefs rather than science are driving public policy on environmental issues warns Jennifer Marohasy in Environmental Fundamentalism , Policy, Vol. 20, No. 3, Spring 2004.
This report challenged conventional thinking on the Murray River and influenced national water policy: Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment, IPA Backgrounder, December 2003.
Luke, It could be worse. They could have no mind at all, to make up, & just accept the BS put out by the IPCC, as gospel.
This would appear to be the case with some of our more recently promonent pollys.
Not all of them though. The latest system must be, with at least one group, “don’t let a belief get in the way of a pronouncement, that might buy a vote”
I wonder if Gore believes his stuff?
PS Also, anyone who carefully studies my approach will see there is nothing particularly ‘conservative’ or particularly ‘right wing’ in my approach … Steve and Pinxi mislead by suggesting there is.
Jennifer: It’s extremely cheeky to even think you can rewrite environmentalism on your own. True “Environmentalism” flows willingly in the people. It’s not ever just a person or even a group.
Go up on to the steps of any big town hall during lunch hour and ask everyone you can what they value and what they expect, then help them write your policy.
True Jen “people come no doubt to read your politics and try and understand some of the science amongst the politics” ….there is more I sure. That could be our middle ground that’s swelling.
Jennifer
you are right wing and conservative in your approach. It’s why you got the job at the IPA and appear on Counterpoint. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s a free county, I’m a lefty.
If you want to disagree with the IPCC, feel free, but I do wish you would ignore the rubbish that amateurs come up with in regards to global warming. It’s all a waste of time, and it leads people to think that utter tripe could be a valid point of view.
At least Bob Carter, Lindzen and the rest agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the records of it are correct, for example. They wouldn’t go off on some nutty diversion that could suggest the ice core records are wrong. If someone can’t at least get the basics like that right, they are nothing more than a waste of time.
Although apparently Bob Carter has misrepresented himself.
“Now I’m a senior retired scientist, I’m beholden to nobody so if you ask me for a view on climate change I can give it to you.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/incon/stories/s1444123.htm
When in fact
“Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation
“The director of the environment unit of the IPA, Jennifer Marohasy was the founding Chairwoman and is listed as a Director in the organisation’s documents with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). Mahorasy is also the listed registrant of the group’s website, although the address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia. [1] [2]
In July 2005, the month after AEF’s official launch, it was announced that former television celebrity Don Burke had been appointed chairman. [3] ”
So he was a founding member, before he made his claim. He is entitle to be a member of any group he wants to be, but to say he is beholden to no-one is not quite right.
Jen – not a try-on but my commentator actually said “bloody subversive” – so it was with some passion I’d suggest.
Nobody would argue with “policies that provide tangible environmental benefits”.
Most would not argue about “evidence based” but you could get fairly hooked up in ethics. e.g. why bother getting excited about a bit of boutique DNA like a Baiji vs the distress of killing charismatic sentient being like whales.
But where does the evolutionary biology bit come in. Given we all do our best to interrupt it and fiddle with it on a daily basis. GM being the pinnacle of fiddling.
And if not aligned to the right, then you do seem to entertain a fair audience of the environmental right wing here(if there is such a thing). So do you think you can defend a proposition of this being a robust exploration of values against just this being just another astro-turf outfit.
I’m doing a John Laws interview here – on what Jen really thinks.
{playing is optional}
How does “founding member” equate with “beholden”?
When did money from Exxon become dirtier than money from Stanford? (or from the CFMEU)
You guys may be lefties but there is little evidence of commonsense.
Luke raises a very interesting issue.
Is there right/left wing environmentalism???
NGOs should be politically neutral IMO.
Though it seems like right wing countries ( except Japan) are more leaned to the anti whaling side ???
The issue of left and right in environmentalism is an interesting one. It’s also interesting that based on what you write on the intertubes, you’re often pigeon-holed into one side or the other, whether you judge yourself that way or not. Comes with blogging and having an opinion on a particular subject that aligns with what are commonly perceived as left or right positions I guess.
For instance, in the links of Jen’s site I’m described as a very-left blogger. Considering I’m pro-GM, not bothered about the role of multinationals in agriculture (I actually think Monsanto is one of the better MNs in recent times), think organic farming is a waste of valuable resources, wouldn’t be concerned if I had a nuclear power station in my electorate, and am more likely to vote for the Liberals than the Greens, I find it a strange tag. But, as I mainly write about climate change from a consensus perspective, and think that conservative ideology plays a big role in skepticism and outright denialism, it’s ‘very-left’ for me. Such is life.
I do know from meeting people I’ve corresponded with on sports-based sites that their on-line persona is often very different to their real one, whether they intend it or not.
Thanks for the links, Jen. Kininmonth throws some more earth on the A.I.T. coffin, and I’ve long admired Bob Carter’s objective work.
I don’t worry about ExxonMobil, but I am concerned about taxpayers money being spent on alarmist climate change propaganda.
Nexus,
Thanks for the note, and I’ve removed the reference to ‘very left’.
One can actually be wrongly pigeon-holed by perceptions (e.g. the organisation you work for/ your position on AGW) as much as what you actually write?
SJT
Your response to my query about positive feedbacks leaves me bemused. I would have thought that the smaller the direct warming from an additional increase in CO2 levels, the smaller the additional positive feedbacks.
That would be true, but you also forget that a chain reaction is being set in place, a “positive feedback”.
Positive feedback is an unstable state. You are setting off a change that will take on a life all it’s own. The classic microphone feedback squeal is a classic example. Once started, you don’t need to make any noise at all for it to continue, it’s reacting directly to itself.
Once the glaciers start to melt, alter albedo to absorb more heat, causing glaciers to melt even more, rather than reflect solar radiation, etc, CO2 is not a part of that change.
Thanks for the feedback Malcolm. Luke has done the classic spivs shimmy to escape a hole that he dug for himself. But I must say his switch to anthropomorphing CO2 molecules into some sort of cartoon characters is a new low in a downward spiral.
And you may be able to drum up any amount of anecdotal drivell but I have the entire UK Met temp data on spreadsheet, broken into decadal clusters, and these make it absolutely clear that the median temperature from April, right through the northern Summer to November, has shown no marked change over the seven decades of last century. All the “warming” has been by less severe Januarys, Februarys and Marches with no change to the length of growing season. So much for feedback.
I invite any other readers of this blog to carry out the same sort of examination of as many other records as possible. It would be particularly interesting to contrast Australian records going back to the 1870’s with the standard BOM series that only go back to 1910.
The most pathetic part of Luke’s response is the way he seems to believe that a bunch of guys at Real Climate with their heads up each other’s backsides represents some sort of scientific “quality circle” that resolves all the important climate issues. Clearly, fellas, you aint no such thing, but keep it up. If you keep your heads further and further up there you might form your very own black hole.
And as for SJT. If you had a handle on the latest research you would know perfectly well that many of the Glaciers that have had sudden surges have also had equally sudden reversals. Which is why only fools and shonks go extrapolating from only a few years observations.
re. Wardad
Among other suspect organizations receiving dirty oil money from those greedy capitalists at Exxon:
The Audubon Society
The Nature Conservancy
Wildlife Habitat Council
American Red Cross
American Cancer Society
World Health Organization
Ian
look at a good sized sample of glaciers here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
Yes, I know it’s a link, but that’s because I want to present evidence to you, so you will have to look at the data. Don’t take my word for it, please.
Ian – utterly pathetic – you have no answers have you?
Not one scintilla of knowledge of how solar and greenhouse interact.
Answer the question on Australian frost frequency you gimp.
Give us the analysis of movement of temperature extremes – you can’t.
No science from Ian when cornered – just bad-mouthing. Total failure to debate or enagage. NOTED !
Tell you what Ian – if you reckon you’re good – get on RC and tell them your findings. I recommend this recent post especially as relevant to your style of science. But you won’t coz you’ll be done like a dinner.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-sheep-albedo-feedbacki/
Go back to 1870s temps and make sure you adjust for different standards or we’ll be up you for the rent on any silly “findings”.
Happy to so declare Luke – three years ago I was a sceptic but was so based on;
1. the pro-AGW camp was looking decidedly familiar ( anti-free market, anti-globalisation , anti-west generally) and that camp isn’t noted for it’s honest representations of environmental disaster
2. the “villians” – the self-appointed virtuous always have to have a villian – were a dream come true ; USA , Oil companies , Republicans , mining companies , western afflluence etc.
3. Ditto for the solution – negative growth , higher taxes , more regulation , international treaties , enhanced UN capacities to override democratically elected governments etc.
4. Dissent from the party line was not tolerated. Debate and disagreement were not permitted.Dissidents were executed via character assassination.
Even though much of this still holds true , since then I’ve read more of the science behind AGW and it’s fair to say that it enjoys the support of the majority of credible , relevant experts.
As I’m certainly not an expert ( won’t touch credible ) I’ve accepted the views of those who are.
But I enjoy the quality of the debate on this site – even when the temperature goes up , some good points are made from both camps.
Jim – thanks for sharing. I actually sympathise with much or your position. So it seems you’re “still OK with the science” but “hate the debate standards, political and policy implications”.
And as for invective and biffo – both sides have given heaps.
Jen – need another category – OK with the science, but sus on the politics/policy.
Sorry Jen – I thought that something like that might have happened, because I don’t take you to be censorious.
===
Posted by: Ian Mott at April 1, 2007 10:38 AM
Tell you what, Wadard, how about you and your mates lobby the government to provide public funding for the presentation of dissenting views on climate change so both sides of the argument can be free of private sector funding?
And when you have equal funding for both cases then come and have a chat to us about source and application of funds.
===
Ian Mott – there are no dissenting SCIENTIFIC views on AGW, as established by Naomi Oreskses, and later established by Peisner after he tried to prove her wrong and failed and said so to Media Watch. The scientific consensus is 100%.
Any dissenting views are from industry, as established by Jennifer when she claims she publishes industry views from industry and is ‘not in competition with established scientific peer-reviewed journals’. Fair enough for Jennifer, it’s her blog, and more fool you if you take them to be views forged out of the rigorous application of scientific method.
Don’t you be setting the terms of how I shall come here and chat – when you don’t even seem aware you are regurgitating industry opinion, not scientific fact.
=====
Hi Nexus 6 – good to see you here – you… you… sorry-arsed lefty you 😉
If you go to this link, you can see the names of over 17,000 scientists who are sceptical of AGW. Or don’t they count?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
“Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.”
“there are no dissenting SCIENTIFIC views on AGW”
Not even 1 eh, Wadard?!!
I know you’ll groan and say “oh well he would say that”.
But really it’s not that helpful. The real science is very complex – few are really qualified to really really know. And have the petitioners researched the issue at length or just what they “feel” from popular reading.
But I’m not surprised – I have many science colleagues who are sceptical.
The difference is that unlike most of the aggro yokels here they don’t see any left wing conspiracy or want to kick CSIRO to death – they just think they’re wrong.
{I note Motty is into firing squads now he’s relaxed and has guard down}.
As I am new to this blog and to blogging in general, let me say that I wish that I had more time to spend reading the vigorous debate that I have read in this and subsequent subjects on this site. Congratulations Jennifer.
May I also congratulate the healthy scepticism that abides here without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anyone in particular.
I did want to point out an interesting irony in the Kininmonth article for anyone who is interested. He criticises Gore for spending less than 200 words in his book on the underlying science of human caused global warming and yet he spends even fewer words in his article to explain the erroneous assumption that acting to curb anthropogenic CO2 means that humanity must “discard the fundamental tools of progress” and that “the proposed alternative pathway can only lead to physical hardship, intellectual poverty, and a greater exposure to the perils of natural hazards associated with weather and climate extremes.”
It is fascinating to me that someone so obsessed with needing irrefutable evidence that there is a link between human generated CO2 levels and the hazards of climate change, would accept the populist theory that the world will suffer economic doom if we abandoned our wasteful and outdated technologies and moved towards a decarbonised industrial and economic infrastructure. There will be winners and losers obviously but like the communication revolution that has spawned blogs like this, whole new industries will be born and innovative economies will flourish.
Luke: Toby’s link takes us quickly to the John Daly, tree rings etc etc.
Good folks here should read all about Tasmania, tree rings etc over and over cause there is some more perplexing analysis still to be done. Is this where Ian got all his old stuff? (Still Waiting for Greenhouse).
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
“The Huon Pines were in the west, close to Mt. Read, in a very high rainfall region, but Cook’s three calibrating temperature records came from the warmer, drier east. While his statistical treatments were elegant and esoteric, the faulty surface records he used invalidate the whole reconstruction exercise.
Clearly, this must also be a fundamental flaw in the `Hockey Stick’ itself, since it too is predominantly based on tree rings, particularly for the first half of the millennium, the rings being calibrated against the northern hemisphere surface record of temperature, a record which is itself severely contaminated by heat islands and other local error effects [4]. A further flaw in such calibration attempts will occur due to the Fertiliser Effect of CO2 enhancing tree ring growth, thus inserting an increasing and structural error into the calibration”
I guess neither Ed Cook nor Daly lived on Mt Reid 1000M therefore they both may be excused for romancing with their tree figures. Mining operations up there (Hercules and other mines) go way back in a very different climate to towns and the temp refs used by Cook.
Given tree ring readings are like old CO2 records in terms of standards applied, ie who knows how much neighborhood shade and root competition occurred during the life of Cook’s specimens?
Growth rings in old pine logs around Duncan’s sawmill in Zeehan during my time there told us very little about global CO2 and temperature. I collected burls then.
Wadard, that bright light you are squinting at is called daylight. You could get quite used to it if you extracted your head from your own backside from time to time. It sure aids navigation.
He must have just graduated from Al Gore’s night classes.
For once I agree with Gavin. Tree rings can show the same result from a warm year with average or intermittent rain as from a cool year with above average or regular rain. They invariably mistake extended consistent rain for high seasonal rainfall totals. The former produces the widest rings while the latter often comes with a very dry season later in the year that produces thin rings. But a sample of cores from a number of trees will avaid the problems of local shading etc.
Thanks Ian: We should try to nail this tree ring thing, Cook then Daly and Co on the “Hocky Stick:” once and for all.
On my Tas map Sophia 1/100,000 1973 ed, Lake Johnson seems to be about 80 M below the 1000 M contour in a big green patch below the snow line. I was up on Mt Read in the HR (Holden!) wagon with family about 1975 near the TV tower and it’s a bleak place on a good day (a stone throw from the tiny lake). Can’t find my slides but this is a rough place with miserable conditions for any tree a thousand years old or otherwise, believe me.
Without checking the Mt Read, Mt Julia and Mt Dundas area would cop the highest rainfall in the country, (100” plus most years) and plenty of snow in season. On the far side in the deep valley under Mt Black the old mining town of Rosebery cops the highest temp in Tasmania on occasions 38C say. This all means to me at least the ancient tree growth patterns will be inconsistent all over the place.
Sure, the age of the poor things is there for all to see but how anyone can get useful historical background CO2 readings from this lot absolutely defies me.
We can ignore Daly hey Also a lot of so called science based in places like the US
Quack quack!
Should say Hi to Tim and Wadard.
Did either of you know climate change is driven today by Euclids?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_Trucks
Bob Carter’s comparing himself to Galileo reminds me of the line from that Dire Straits song.
“Two men say they’re Galileo,
One of them must be wrong”
Toby
I would really question anything that comes out of the OISM. He is just one more “one man band” nutter. His petition is a worthless piece of junk.
SJT, that is a “one man band” with 17,100 validated signatures. When you have a comparably sized and validated “piece of junk” then come and tell us all about your views on scientific consensus.
Ian
that one man band is a one man band. He runs a shoestring operation that sells home education kits featuring the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica! That’ll contain a lot of useful information for your kids.
17,100 validated signatures, my ***.
“”The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,” complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers “are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them.” NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a “past president” of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he “still has a role in governing the organization.”
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal,” it stated in a news release. “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.” ”
The petition was a fraud, based on fraud.
All he was saying is “I have a lot of signatures of people who are not experts in this field, whom I deceived by misrepresenting the petition, to counter the published views of those who do”.
Who should I believe, a nutter biochemist who was sucked in by the Y2K hysteria, or a group of rational scientists?
Yeah, right, SJT. Was he a past president of NAS or not? He was, so where was the fraud? So NAS is now captive to the CO2 Flux Clan, whats new?
So how many of the 17,100 signatures are fraudulent again? Other than the deliberate ones done by greens to discredit the petition. This kind of stunt is standard green practice, I have seen it done here so the slime-ocrats would have a pretext to ignore the views of the signatories.
Come on SJT, how about some specifics on the actual number of fraudulent signatures, you squalid little propagandista.
Its a PREDICTABLE response is it not Ian?! and one I must say I expected when I posted the petition. Irrespective however of the validity of some of the signatures, I hope it demonstrates to Wadard the foolishness of his belief that ‘”there are no dissenting SCIENTIFIC views on AGW”.
Mate even the IPCC has only 90% faith, that means there is some degree of uncertainty!
Toby: I thought you had enough sense not to be hoodwinked by any load of crap plastered on the net in the name of science when its only opinion pasted together by someone with a grudge.
We had a case on talkback today where a former head of major corp called an expert pathologist “naughty” for getting out of his depth on recycled water proposals.
fear faith and folly in public debate is so common. find your own level first then use that as a reasonable platform
Toby most of those gimps wouldn’t really know. Might as well ask you. At this stage you’re probably better briefed.
Gavin, I have enough common sense to recognise an outrageous statement when I see one. And Wadard’s “there are no dissenting SCIENTIFIC views on AGW” is up there with the best. Its interesting that rather than agree with me the statement is wrong, the AGW believers are all attacking the petition and the scientist who organisied it. Like/ believe in the veracity of the petition and its meaning by all means. But do not defend the indefensible! There are many scientists who doubt AGW. Shariv the Israeli scientist and his cosmic ray theory spring to mind (I know many of you pooh pooh his theory, but he is a scientist isnt he?!)
It amazes me that the integrity of so many individuals is questioned when they are sceptical of AGW, and yet if they are believers their intentions are always honorourable and noble. Funding from NGO’s with environmental biases is ok while anything related to business interests is likely to be fraudulent, or at best questionable?!
Toby
a dissenting scientific view, as opposed to a view by someone who may or may not be a scientist or may not even exist, is that it is put forward using the scientific process, not by signing a piece of paper.
Toby: my aim is simply to get you asking basic questions like are any of these commentators experienced in a relevant practice. IMO Your choice of “experts”, scientists against AGW was a poor one. Will any bunch of flowers do?
I quickly found one Australian mentioned on that site. Daly is a particularly controversial one hey but why go off searching the web for that crap when we have a long history of accredited climate research right here downunder?
Now when I go outside and see a cloudless sky nearly every day and wonder why water spilt on my dusty back lawn behaves like quicksilver I don’t go to some USA crackpot site looking for answers.
SJT rightly raises the question of faceless knobs behind a box of switches churning out whatever whenever they fancy.
Toby: Beware of Jukebox jockeys on the web.
You guys are proof of the religion associated with this subject!! listen to yourselves. One fool claims there are no dissenting voices amongst scientists and you guys have a go at my link showing that clearly his statement is rubbish. You can slag off the site all you like, are you right? Do you really beleieve that all the signatories are false or not really scientists? Surely among 17000+ signatories one of them is genuine? And even if the site is complete rubbish you all know there are scientists who dispute AGW, and yet you let idiots get away with outlandish statements and infer your support to his statement.
If you actually read what I said and don t understand it, then we are clearly living in a different paradigm. I despair at this new religion and the zealotry attached that seems to cloud so many seemingly intelligent peoples minds.
The ABC news ran a headline story on the radio today that 85% of the material reviewed by the IPCC supported AGW. I presume that left 15% of the material not supporting it! Any scientists in that 15% I wonder?!
Toby – I’ll accept your list as scientists.
But so what – is a geologist or a vet or a plant pathologist any more important than you or me in assessing the import of the issue.
Frankly the meteorology and physics is pretty complex stuff for those not involved. Which is why contrarians have such fun causing havoc.
As for the IPCC documents having nothing about downsides – well if you haven’t read the IPCC documents enough to know how downsides and risks are addressed, fankly your’re shooting from the hip and talking shit.
Face it – the only thing that would make you personally feel comfortable is for them to say “our opinion is that solar or cosmic rays are a strong possibility too”. We just said that to make Toby happy even though we don’t really believe it.
The zealotry comes in from rebutting the bullshit arguments put up by contrarian forces.
Anyway – all low level issues – the IPCC material is either right or wrong.
Frankly I would REALLY like it if AGW was not true.
Luke I agree with you that the opinion of a geologist or plant pathologist may be worth no more than your or my opinion. I was taking umbrage with the statement that there are no dissenting voices……and the fact that people try to defend the indefensible so blindly.
I accept that there is now a consensus and the science appears to be pointing increasingly to human influence. The last thing I would like to see is someone voicing an opinion just to satisfy someone. But I am sure it happens. I think those dissenting voices play a crucial role in the debate and prevent people getting too carried away.
I think believing that we will be capable of modifying the climate without causing severe detrimental effects in another way involves another big leap of faith. AND THIS REALLY DOES WORRY ME.
Maybe I m just a dogmatic contrarian. Like you I hope the IPCC are wrong.
I don’t doubt there are dissenting voices, but where is the scientific evidence? That’s what matters.
Toby: you must be core RC at heart.
Anybody else note the message from Sydney HQ on the TV.
Climate Change is not religion today Toby!
Oh contraire, its gonna get worse and worse and the zealotry and fundamentalism attached will I suspect make our lives increasingly harder. Climate change will be yet another way of making excuses for attempts at controlling the way we live. Its right up the europeans alley, and until they are able to tell us how to live our lives I do not think they will be happy.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Toby – at a period in history when you’ve got more personal freedom than ever?
Toby
at various times in history, we have had to act in concert to make necessary achievements. The government even compels people to go off and risk death sometimes. I can just imagine a ‘free enterprise’ response to Adolph Hitler.
Jennifer,
Just a short note to your “follow the money” pal.
Al Gore makes between 1 and 2 hundred thousand dollars per speech these days plus expenses and of course offsetting that carbon footprint!! Since that money is usually given by environmentalists does that mean Old Al is in the pay of the eco-freaks?
Australian CSIRO scientist Kevin Hennessy is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
On the contrary Toby, freedom to pollute has been the passport that enabled industry and commerce to sail straight through all religions, grab the Holy Grail, then build a mountain of dollars at the expense of the meek n humble.
Toby: The IPCC is the one and only vehicle of world government. You particularly need to afraid hey (Toby has a super packet made entirely of black stuff).
Anyone living by Adelaide can google Kevin Hennessy CSIRO / IPPC 2007 for the latest in gambling stakes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891863.htm
Meantime lets all enjoy a holiday completely free of advertising.
Answer to Tim TAm – “No”