“It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.
“But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation…
Read more here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What a whopper indeed. Has to be the turkey Xmas special.
John McLean – impartial Aussie journo.
Vincent Gray & other mate Ross. And Tim Ball too.
A big Chrissy ho ho ho.
Will 2008 bring an improvement in contrarian standards. Like no more try-ons. No skanky op-eds. Inclusivity. And getting out of the secret society, mafiaso, political mould into serious science. Not publishing in E&E. Critiquing their own side fairly – not any old iron will do. Will there be any representatives that are not retired geologists, economists? Will there be any denialist scientists under 40?
We can only hope.
“There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.”
You mean there are times when scientists don’t seriously debate what they are studying. 🙂
Good to have the truth out, and the press publish it. Funny how the truth sends the ‘Reality Deniers’ like Luke and SJT into a frenzy. And off to the altar of Real Climate they go to get ammo from the hatchet men there.Gavin must be working overtime like googleit Luke!
So the COP13 has finally ground to a halt wit a compromise of compromises. Just enough to keep the UN IPCC buraucracy salivating at the thought that they may yet get some control over all soverign nations. Just the sort of power that unelected public servants dream of.
That was a frenzy? 🙂
Oh Sid went for the world govt line – bingo….
With or without the turkey its hard to imagine Luke in a red suit, Scrooge maybe but not Santa
MERRY X-mas TO ALL WONDERFUL PEOPLE! ( Even if I don’t always agree with your opinions).
A special thanx to Jennifer who posts guests posts that isn’t always in line with the blog’s perspective. Long live FREE SPEECH!
I have been through emotional whaling threads to mining grounds ( climate posts).
A special thanks to people who have responded to my guest posts.
I have had great fun with Luke’s humorous comments, Motty’s nasty replies, Travis’ straight shooting comments, Davey’s sometimes confusing answers, the whale -eaters are now more and more like friends even if I’m opposed to whaling to Libby’s most intelligent comments. ( Yep, I know I have not mentioned all persons, sorry!).
The newspapers in Sweden told us today that there will not be a white Christmas this year in southern and the middle of Sweden this year , but I woke up this morning and it was snowing!
Oops! Wrong thread…. sorry!!!!
Luke likes to attack individual with whom he doesn’t agree.
Would he please state his own credentials in climatology, listing all his academic qualifications and all his papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
If he cannot provide adequate proof of his expertise then clearly he should be regarded as a “parasite poster” who merely lives off the research and claims of others.
How about your post yours biffo boy – I’m not writing in the foreign press ! Was it journalism ? As for parasites – check you own guts matey. Are you actually going to tell me that yourself and your listed mates are serious practising climate scientists with unqiue insights? ROTFL.
Is it actually 0.0 ….?
The test for you guys in 2008 in to get out of skanky op-eds and your little secret societies and start debating with the AGW science establishment fairly and seriously – instead of running your stinky little wars of anti-science attrition on back-room blogs and newspapers. Or continue to be ignored even further.
Does Luke have difficulties understanding my request?
I’d better repeat it… Please state your own credentials in climatology, listing all your academic qualifications and all your papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
If that’s not the reason for his failure to respond in anything other than personal attacks then I see every reason to refer to him as a “parasite poster”.
zzzzzzzzzz
Something I am curious about though – the Canadian article (and I always believe what I read in newspapers) says “John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia.”
Well gee that sounds very impressive. I was looking for someone to help me with some multivariate analysis. Do you have a large clientele for your services.
But your OLO page says “John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT.”
And your home page says “Computer consultant and occasional travel photographer”. I’m an occasional travel photographer too so look we’ve got heaps in common.
I then tried Google Scholar “Mclean John climate” and couldn’t seem to find anything that looked right. And then I tried “Mclean John climate Australia” but didn’t do any good either. But you know being unqualified and uneducated, I may be doing the wrong thing. I’m sure you can easily clear it up.
I was looking for your climate data analyst business section, but given I’m uneducated I couldn’t seem to find it either. Web sites are so hard to follow.
Was wondering if you could get clear these difficulties up?
Me well – I’m just an uneducated “sanitary engineering” consultant and parasite by your description but I’m not writing to national newspapers making big claims am I?
Just answer the question, parasite.
THIRD TIME – Please state your own credentials in climatology, listing all your academic qualifications and all your papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
For gods sake John, science has worked so well because it allows you to work on the basis of research by others. That’s the whole point. Without the scientific process we would all be living in medieval times still.
No you answer the question mate. For the 2nd time pls provide substantiation of your public pronouncement that you are a climate data analyst? Are you or are you not?
Actually Johnny boy – you wouldn’t be pulling our chain would you?
Psst John, Luke is just so easy to knock over. You see as one of those boring scientists he only ever goes with the evidence as published by peer review. That makes it easy, as you know excactly where he is coming from. All you need to do is read what he reads and get stuck into him. Bring it on, John.
Luke, I’m still waiting for you to answer the question.
You provide no evidence whatsoever of any qualifications or experience in a field in which you so sharply criticise others.
For the FOURTH TIME, Show us your credentials for your comments.
I don’t think you can. I think you’re just a parasite poster who probably gets his comments out of some book or off some web site. “The Parasite’s guide to making personal abuse” sounds about right.
Come on boy wonder, show us what credentials you have.
ooooo John I’m dying here… you’re so cruel.
If you’re waiting I’d go the loo and order in now.
I didn’t see you protesting about other blog commentators who have never expressed any climate quals – John are you victimising me – are you singling me out?
but for the THIRD time – are you pulling or chain – are you are you not – a climate data analyst like that piece claims.
I’m getting more interested by the minute that there may be an issue here.
P.S. Biggsy – sorry mate – new rules – unless you have formal post-doc climate quals and 6 Nature papers in the last year – you aren’t allowed to post anymore. So no more from you – you’re not allowed.
What would like to argue about – fox hunting – state of badgers – role of Druidism in extinction of British wildlife ? However if you have seen a computer (probably an IBM 370 or Cyber 76) and can program in Cobol, and can take holiday pictures that’s an exception.
As the NH Bali delegates return home, one wonders whether it may occur to some of them at least, the stupidity of what they’ve been on about.
‘From Bali Hi’s to Kansas lows’… Wide spread areas of Europe, North America, Northern Asia and of course Arctic regions have been experiencing an early and quite severe onset to winter. Countless new records have been set for low temperatures, amounts of snow, thickness of ice freeze-ups and cold related deaths, for December, across these regions.
Freeze for your Faith, true believer!
Well Sid if you add that to 2007 was the warmest year on record for southern Australia (says BoM) and those temperate breaking records in northern Australis just the other day (says BoM) – that would be make it about even.
So if we subtract the La Nina effect then it would be super-hot !
Sid – you have post-doc quals in climate science – should be even expressing an opinion? New blog rules.
Luke, we are all climate data analysts now. In our post-modern age we can be whatever or whomever we want. It’s called personal empowerment. I myself am a theoretical cosmologist today.
I’m very unwilling to jump into climate discussions because this is totally out of my area but since Sid mentioned temperatures in the Arctic and Europe I want to make a clarification.
There was a cold snap in Northern Europe in November ( nothing unusual) but now it’s quite warm again except in northern Sweden ( – 25 C).
In polar bear country Svalbard , this year and the last year were the first years ever when the fjords were not ice covered . Very bad for the polar bears since the ringed seals couldn’t give birth to pups. There were very few new born pups this year up in Svalbard due to poor ice conditions.
Luke, you just keep on illustrating that you’re all mouth and no credentials.
FIFTH TIME – Please state your credentials in climatology, listing all your academic qualifications and all your papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
Surely that’s simple enough request for you.
Seems like John’s practising his counting skills. He’s up to 5 now. That’s about what you need to get a statistically significant result to publish in E&E.
Given you haven’t responded John, I’m beginning to worry about your claim about being a climate data analyst? Do you have to do any courses for that or like Nexy says can anyone do it if you feel strongly about it?
Nexy I thought I might be an astronaut today – whaddya reckon? Or a space trooper. Or even a Jedi knight.
Luke (a.k.a. The Parasite),
SIXTH TIME … Please state your credentials in climatology.
What is your problem? Surely the request is simple enough.
If you have any academic qualifications in climatology please tell us what they are?
If you have published any papers on climatology – in a peer-reviewed journal of course – please tell us the papers, the journal and the date of publication.
What could be easier?
Or are you simply the parasite that I referred to earlier ???
Personally I think you are a gutless little shrill with no credentials whatsoever in this subject, but that’s only between the two of us.
Oh dear me John – I am so disappointed in you. You seem upset. So you’re not a real climate data analyst after all then. I was so hoping you were.
So John how does it feel writing these op-eds attacking the IPCC and all those professional men and women claiming to be a Climate Data Analyst – like – is it exciting for you ? I mean just between you and me – tell us what it’s like.
Now John – you see I’m in recovery after my traumatic experience at the Mottsa School of Deportment and Etiquette – and I had been doing so well with my Tourettes too – and you’re going to set me off again. So be a pleasant little chappy and put on a chamomile tea – have a lie down. Off you go now. Quietly does it.
Luke, will you just stop your pitiful attempt at diversions and provide the information that I request.
I think you have NO QUALIFICATIONS and have had NO PAPERS published. In other words you attempts to abuse people, papers and anything else in this forum are meaningless because you have no credentials.
Now what does your book of insults and diversions have to say about that ? (Now why do I suspect you will respond to this question at not the one that I have asked SEVEN times…)
John, something tells me your question, like the manner in which the IPCC calculated the 90% confidence level, is going to remain unanswered. Another of life’s great mysteries.
Proteus, my request should not be one of life’s mysteries.
Either Luke has academic qualifications related to climatology or he does not.
Either Luke has had papers on climatology published or he hasn’t it.
My request is simple … unlike the IPCC’s subjective claims 😉
John
Luke presents a lot of scientifically derived research he has found. He has made no claims as to his own qualifications, unlike you.
I am now having a detailed look now at John’s article – was going to just dismiss as one of those op-eds it but I think it’s really very very interesting.
I did not know about the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. It does seem most impressive. Their web site is really cool. http://www.nrsp.com/ Look there’s a cute little baby too. But golly gee there seems to be a big stink on a Sourcewatch about it all.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project I got really confused. So I googled some more and found http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project – but they’re probably biased.
Isn’t it funny how all the same people keep turning up around these things. Probably just coincidence.
Then I got to wondering about the original proposition and whether this was framing:
“It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.”
Well people make all sorts of ASSERTIONS – but did the IPCC actually say that? No point in arguing the rest without clearing that up.
Maybe I should order in. John has now stirred my interest in all involved. Might have to make a special study of this I think.
More to come.
Luke, your attempted diversions don’t interest me at all.
Instead of worrying about my article please answer what I’ve been asking you since 10:26 this morning (that’s NINE hours ago)
EIGHT TIME – If you have any academic qualifications in climatology please tell us what they are? If you have published any papers on climatology – in a peer-reviewed journal of course – please tell us the papers, the journal and the date of publication.
If you have none then why won’t you be a big brave boy and admit it ?
Come one, Luke – you should know you need a few peer-reviewed papers published to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of climate science. You know: the ones where you do original research, propose a hypothesis, conduct a bit of field work, write up your materials and methods and results etc.. Man – everyone’s got a few of those. John must have heaps – I just couldn’t find ‘em. I did find something in the non-peer reviewed magazine E&E, but that was just a review, not an original paper, so it doesn’t count. Maybe I’m lookin’ in the wrong places though.
I tell you what – there are some exciting adverts on that Canadian site: “Free military grade self defense course – fear no man”; “Federal debt relief system – are you a slave to your creditors”; “live in Australia – earn your US degree on-line”; and the SATANIC Little girl “asking when will you die”. CRIPES !! Don’t take you eyes off the column.
So readers you’d always have a look at Wiki and golly see that looked pretty hot too. Even Deltoid having a go. I don’t think Tim Lambert has any climate quals either so he’s in big trouble.
And again the same guys keep turning up again and again too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project
If the the NRSP need some good PR management. PR get it? eh eh ? ROTFL.
Anyway this is turning out to be quite an education. Gotta go do some more researching.
Nexy – did David Archibald ever get back to you about his E&E paper. I think you might find John might have something in E&E from memory. It’s funny that E&E is so popular these days don’t you think. I think it’s the intellectual freedom myself and you must admit – cutting edge stuff – and always innovative use of stats.
I found the E&E piece – it isn’t an original paper, it’s a (nasty) review of CSIRO climate stuff.
No, David never did defend his work. Difficult to defend the indefensible though, don’t you think?
Luke (a.k.a. Parasite), I’m still waiting ….
I don’t give a **** about your attempted diversions. Where’s your climatology credentials?
NINE times I’ve asked this very simple question… Why have you attempted to duck and weave for almost 10 hours ??
Yes Nexy, CSIRO had a good laugh about it. So we’d best continue our investigation here to the really interesting bits. Need your help below.
So …
“An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
Be good to see source for that sweeping statement.
“And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. ”
What vested interests might they be – not being stupid for example?
NOW AT THIS POINT A LARGE PIG JUST FLEW PAST MY WINDOW: Two well known “impartial” reviewers.
Ho ho ho.
I mean do we even have to really discuss this. Perhaps some of the material written by the said gentlemen might just give a little hint that may not be neutral on the subject. Just a feeling mind you.
Now I also love the term “expert reviewer” – what that someone can request to review the material. What a load of doggy doo ! I might be an expert next time – that will impress the mates down the pub.
“Oi – listen up blokes – I’m an EXPERT IPCC reviewer – cop that !” – to which will come back “Getting up yourself are you – putting on airs now – and what’s a bloody IPCD?”
So Gray is supposed to be an expert on “Greenhouse Gas Forcing”.
So Nexy – blow me down – I couldn’t find a big literature with Google Scholar on this author. Can you have a go for me. Coz I’m an educated parasite you see.
You don’t think the authors would be pulling our chain do you?
I’m starting to suspect this article might be one of them thar try-ons or puff pieces. One them darn pooh-litically motivated a-tacks.
Parasite, I see you are still avoiding the question.
Too gutless to answer it or are the answers to both parts of my question a big fat ZERO – i.e. you don’t have any credentials in climatology at all ??
Gee, if you have no credentials then your postings – including your purile attempts at diversions – are not worth much at all.
Well clearly you appear to have no qualifications so it’s just parasite-fest on some blackwater backwater blog. So tell about being a Climate Data Analyst again – it’s simple question? You’re the one endorsing your title to the Canadian public. Surely they should know who’s making such big claims – eh Johnny boy?
And if I’m just some dude – why are you getting upset. Wouldn’t have fallen on a raw nerve would I? Seem to have dug in and wasted you time – haven’t done you nana have you John? Glass jaw?
“Where’s your climatology credentials?”
That’s the point of science. No one person can even know or research all there is to know about even one topic in science these days. That’s due to the limits of us as human beings. That’s part of the reason the scientific method was put in place, to allow scientists to refer to and rely on the work of others. ALL scientists rely on this to get their work done. They aren’t leaches. Luke has made no claims about his area of specialty, or even if he is a scientist, but he knows how to find stuff that is produced using the scientific method.
Hi Parasite ….
TENTH time – what are your academic and/or professional qualifications for making comments on climatology?
I will just keep ignoring your attempts to side-track the issue.
WHY CAN?T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, PARASITE ?
Methinks the blogosphere ain’t meant to be Science or Nature —this is more about interested and informed laypersons sharing information and this should not be too jargong ridden…. just my opinion!
You want to know why John – a complete lack of respect for your fetid op-ed.
Well Ann, hopefully it will be better for the polar bears this winter. Already the arctic sea ice is expanding rapidly again and earlier than usual.
Last northern winter was milder in many regions. However the previous winter was quite severe in many places. A niece spent that winter with her boyfriend in Iceland, and sent us newspaper reports about the unusual extent of the sea ice coming in from Greenland and packing into the fjords. And with the ice came the Polar Bears, some of which had to be destroyed as they were posing a risk not only to domestic animals, but children also. the extent of the ice that winter hadn’t been seen for about 50 years.
Ann, unfortunatly most of the stories about ‘global warming’ threatening Polar Bears, comes from extremist green groups like the WWF and Greenpeace, who are very good at spreading their disinformation, even getting it into schools to brainwash young minds with such untruths.
ELEVENTH TIME – in a bit over 12 hours… Parasite Luke, please state your own credentials in climatology, listing all your academic qualifications and all your papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
It looks like you’re here on this blog under false pretences. You don’t have the faintest bit of credibility on climate matters at all.
You’re just a parasite living off websites like Real Climate and whatever slurs you can dredge up from elsewhere!
Your turn dickhead.
“The late Dr Theodor Landscheidt, a specialist in studies of solar activity predicted that solar activity will now decline until about 2030 and this will cause a mini-ice age just as it did several times in the last 2,000 years. Whether that prediction will be correct remains to be seen but just now the earth is not warming as quickly as the pundits say that it should.”
Landscheidt the astrologer is a source? Figures.
“John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT.”
“John McLean – impartial Aussie journo.”
“John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. ”
OK, which John McLean are we talking about here?
John, I have to hand it to you for pure, simple minded stubborness.
I haven’t seen a better display of stupidity on this site ever before, so hats off to you. It made me laugh this morning.
Please carry on, its quite entertaining you know
Well done John McLean,
It was a good article, and a good bit of Luke baiting. He can be very funny when he wriggles around like that. Then his offsider SJT chimes in. It reminds me of those chimpanzee Walpamur paint adverts on TV some time ago. Wally Walpamur gibbered, and his lady wife always chimed in with “Yes, and the bwushes wash out in water!”.
I am not a climate expert, but I once did a unit of climatology in a master’s degree. At that time (more than a decade ago) I think the “models” were predicting a 12 degrees Celsius rise in Antarctic temperatures over the next decade. Our professor, who had worked in the Antarctic, pointed out that since most of Antarctica is more than 12 degrees below zero, widespread melting was unlikely, apart from some sea ice. He predicted more snowfall there. Apart from the Antarctic peninsula (which I believe is warming, and has at least one nearby recently active volcano), my information is that most of Antarctica (90%?) is getting colder. Can anyone (with appropriate qualifications?) confirm this?
P.S. Luke is a computer geek with a gift for invective – beware of his statistical claims (different discipline).
P.P.S. Luke, don’t get poofy now – have a cup of Earl Grey and a lie down, with cucumber slices on your eyelids.
John – “ELEVENTH TIME – in a bit over 12 hours… Parasite Luke, please state your own credentials in climatology, listing all your academic qualifications and all your papers published in peer-reviewed journals.”
The critical difference and why Luke does not need qualifications is that he presents the peer reviewed work of other people. That is all people like myself, without qualifications, can do. I do not know Luke’s quals and I am very amused at your shrill attempts to stay on one unrelated issue to deflect questions. However Luke does not set himself up as a judge of the IPCC and the thousands of scientists that composed the reports.
As you do however, you need equal or better qualifications than the people that composed the reports.
Luke’s climate qualifications are irrelevant however yours are very very relevant and perhaps you would like to state your qualifications to be rebutting peer reviewed work in a blog.
“You’re just a parasite living off websites like Real Climate and whatever slurs you can dredge up from elsewhere!”
Yes as are all laypeople like yourself that do not do original research and do not have qualifications in the sciences. That does not stop us in engaging in conversations using what we read in the peer reviewed literature and at sites that are written by actual climate scientists. Sites written by mining engineers, for instance, if they were about mining engineering would be relevant, however such sites, as they touch on subjects that the author has no credibility on, are really meaningless rantings of an obviously sadly obesessed person. You own unqualified rantings, devoid of any real scientific content, are in exactly the same position as Luke’s – opinions of a layperson.
For once I have to agree with you Davey, a very good job of baiting, but Luke refused to bite and stuck to the point. So no cigar for you.
Yes Davey, the Prof was right about increased precipitation in the Antarctic, because it has been so cold it is the place on earth that to date has had the least precipition of all. Not much good for the penguins on the peninsula, though, where it’s getting a bit rough for them now, because that exists outside the Antarctic micro-climate.
Thanks SJT, and a Merry Christmas to you. I don’t mind about the cigar – I tried one, once, and was violently sick. Poor old Luke, try to cheer him up. He should enrol in TAFE in the New Year.
Isn’t the Antarctic Peninsula part of the subduction zone, where the Pacific plate is diappearing under the Andes? And did not the sea around South Georgia get rather warm a while back? Or am I confused again?
Those who doubt volcanic warming in the Antarctic should google Deception Island, Fumarole Bay, and Pendulum Cove, where swimming is possible without hypothermia. Heard Island is interesting too.
Jennifer, is it not too rich for you and others that Tom Harris – long-time PR hack for energy interests in Canada and now head of the “nonpartisan” Natural Resources Stewardship Project which aims to provide “balanced” information on climate change issues via “grassroots” campaigns – writes articles telling us that the IPCC results (praised by John Christy, Pat Michaels and simply amplifying views already expressed by the worlds’ academies of science) “should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest”? The man certainly has chutzpah, one might say.
Don’t your bullshit detectors give even the slightest beep?
I can’t imagine that you or Paul missed that Tom Harris is the guy who also managed the heroic letter – that you just published – by all of those heroic contrarians who have just added a fourth letter to the three that they have already written to Canadian PMs since 2002:
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html; http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-independent%20experts.html; http://tinyurl.com/2fpnsg;
Why would Tom be so busy providing PR services on this issue? Simply because he and his selfless, rent-seeking backers have only TRUE public interests at heart?
Is that why you swallow every honeyed piece he offers, without the slightest grain of salt?
So which bits did Tom Harris get wrong? I am much less interested in his motivations than what the facts of the matter are.
Gee Jen – have a look at the description of Gray’s engagement with the IPCC. Then do some research on that involvement. Are you that biased or did you come down in the last shower?
TokyoTom – what is common with most of denialist movement is that they will uncritically accept anything written by a denialist. Any old story is good enough. Doesn’t matter how dodgy. How selective. Or what’s left out.
All these mobs are simply Astroturf outfits. But frankly they only appeal to the party faithful – any critical reviewer would turn off after a few lines.
So Luke, which bits did they get wrong? How many scientists really subscribe to the IPCC’s climate crisis?
Obviously there’s a great deal of work that needs to be done in order to confirm that manmade global warming exists of a material amount. Until that happens, I suggest the US do jack shit about it. I, for one, will continue driving SUV’s and cook huge BBQ’s.
Of course, if Europe and other countries want to cut their economies to 1990 levels and export the difference to China, that’s up to them.
“Of course, if Europe and other countries want to cut their economies to 1990 levels and export the difference to China, that’s up to them.” They had better hurry, cause the US got into that game first. 🙂
Davey,
If you’d like, you may want to add this one to your collection:
ScienceDaily (2007-12-12) — Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland’s ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth’s crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice. They have found at least one “hotspot” in the northeast corner of Greenland — just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/hotgreen.htm
The story is (expectedly) a bit more complex than what appears on the surface 🙂
cheers
Jen – I’ve made specific comments above – read them.
Climate crisis – probably zero coz that’s your penchant for framing. Leading the witness and gone in the first sentence. “So you’re not beating your children then?”.
But the vast majority of scientists after participating in the process observed it be fair and positive as far as any very large undertaking with many human beings can be. And a lot would be concerned about the potential impacts of doing nothing about emissions long term.
Those scientists are not Al Gore and not green groups. Their interpretations are their own.
How many understand the greenhouse forcing science specifically – probably not many. Certainly not those listed in the article. Would you expect many scientists would understand this speciality beyond the superficial?
Do you?
The article is a piece of trash. Non-quantitaive non-substantiated unscientific pure opinion.
Do you intend to camapign to lift the quality of the contrarian debate in 2008? Or do you intend to just accept any old stuff uncritically under the libertarian ruse?
While ever rubbish like this is trotted out mainstream science just ignores any positive input that sceptics may have. Running little secret societies and secret think tanks won’t change anything except reinforce perceptions even further of denialists as fifth columnists.
The cheer squad of course loved it and had a big slice of confirmation bias for dinner.
Arnost, good job. Just don’t forget to factor in the 4 degrees C atmospheric warming over Greenland since 1991. Or is that hot air radiating upwards from the ice surface in the remote NE corner?
Jennifer, did you see what Exxon executives said publicly (as opposed to any behind the scenrs funding of others to act as mouthpieces) about the IPCC and state of knowledge back in February?
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/exxonmobil-top-executives-climate-change-policy/article-161664
Do Pat Micahels and John Christy think that the flaws in the IPCC process render the results meaningless?
Why do you suppose the heroic skeptics (like the recent letter) are turning from science to economics?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445582a.html
“Arnost, good job. Just don’t forget to factor in the 4 degrees C atmospheric warming over Greenland since 1991. Or is that hot air radiating upwards from the ice surface in the remote NE corner?”
1991…
that year sounds familiar somewhere…
ah yes
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/originals/Weber-Toba/pinatubo.jpg
So Hans exactly what effect would that volcano have had? Do you have any idea. For discussion’s sake – let’s say zero and argue back from that.
Luke
We’ve argued this point out once or twice – so to turn it around what can cause land under hundreds or even thousands of meters ofice to be warmer than the ice? For discussion’s sake – let’s say that atmospheric warming will cause zero and argue back from that.
WRT Greenland’s NE corner – well, it just happens that the mid Atlantic spreading ridge runs right past there – actually runs trough Iceland and up the east coast of Greenland passing between it and Spitzbergen.
Given that Iceland and surrounding areas are very volcanically active – is it just so difficult to accept that there may be crustal heating there?
cheers
Come on Arnost – don’t argue from some small volcanic hotspot to the general.
But anyway – I was talking about Pinatubo – 1991 …
Dirty Brown Davey ScWag/sellout loves all this stuff – but just because you find the odd volcano doesn’t mean much. Get off-shore from Deception Island and see how warm it is !!
Obviously Luke Watermelon Sneaky Red Eco-fascist Motor-mouth Nail-biting Computer Geek does not understand the subleties of Deep Green philosophy. He should enrol in summer school ‘Introduction to Philosophy’, and read some of Arne’s intriguing books. It is all about weltanschauung. Stupid boy.
Merry Christmas, Luke :).
I forgot Farty-pants and Horse-poo-breath…
Arnost,
This is number 4 so will probably be excised. However, Luke asks you not to argue from the particular to the general – i.e. the inductive route. He should be aware (perhaps isn’t) that climate ‘science’ is based largely on inductive statistics. Indeed, models are classics of induction.
Stick your Xmas Davey. Pagan rubbish. You don’t be an arsehole all year and Merry Xmas me you social climber 🙂
What Davey a couple of pimples – means you have blood poisoning – get a grip mate.
Luke,
11.32 AM – must be in Public Service hours, unless you are skulking at home on a sickie. Look up the difference between induction and deduction.
Hans, I was referring to this information:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211233433.htm
Are you suggesting that tropical Pinaturbo is esponsible for the WARMING of the arctic? Don’t volcanoes have a net cooling effect?
On leave so get knotted Dirty Brown sell-out march up the back now on demos Dave.
The reason that I appreciate Jennifer linking to an article like “The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax” is that it provides a counter to the avalanche of “non-quantitaive [sic] non-substantiated unscientific pure opinion” rubbish that is thrown at us day and night by the MSM.
Even on this scientifically oriented blog, much is made, by some, of specific weather events like droughts in the Murray-Darling system, or floods on the NSW coast etc. to fan the AGW hysteria.
The most egregious “piece of trash” dumped on the public in recent years [aside from “Sicko”} must be the Academy Award winning film by the ‘Jimmy Swaggart’ of the Church of Climate Change for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize!
“Are you suggesting that tropical Pinaturbo is esponsible for the WARMING of the arctic? Don’t volcanoes have a net cooling effect?”
nope you picked 1991 as the starting year of the comparison, which happens to be the coldest year of the last 30 due to the pinatubo sulfates.
Volcanic eruptions cool.
BTW have a look where the greenland “hotspot” is located wrt the main ice.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/animation.gif
What says who chrisgo – Vincent Gray – come now.
‘Luke’ – At least Vincent Gray is a scientist – unlike Al Gore who relies on the likes of serial data non-archiver Lonnie Thompson. Climate silence rather than climate science.
Hmmm, another interesting paper to come out of this year’s AGU:
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22C13A-04%22
Greenland offers a rather complex climate history over the last 2000 years.
Thanks for that paper, Proteus. I, too, found it interesting. You have made a number of useful posts. Keep ’em coming.
Steve McIntyre has an interesting suggestion that Lowell (AGU [American Geophysical Union] paper ..“Organic Remains from the Istorvet Ice Cap,..etc.) has been ‘verballed’ ✱ by the good folk at RealClimate.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
✱ A verbal was a contrived jailhouse confession made up by the police but is used broadly to mean ‘putting words into someone’s mouth’.
National Post (Canada) recently lists “John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia”, Marc Morano (EPW, works for US Senator James Inhofe) calls him “Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean”.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition calls him “a valued and longstanding member” and lists him recently as “John McLean, BArch (Melbourne)”.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164004
AND
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360
AND
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=32 .
PhD. I’m impressed.
Piled higher and deeper, SJT.
SJT & Green Davey:
1) A PhD in one domain is no guarantee of expertise in another, and one can certainly do good work without one.
2) However, if someone is widely listed as having certain credentials, it seems reasonable to politely inquire as to the reality of the credentials.
3) In this case:
a) Does John McLean have a PhD, from what school, in what discipline, when?
b) Is he a computer scientist? (Some {software engineers, computer consultants, programmers} are, but many are not, or at least, would not usually be labeled as such by people who are.)
For more (as 2) is a complex topic), see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch_2.php#comment-681752, which also mentions Piled higher and Deeper.
SJT & Green Davey:
1) A PhD in one domain is no guarantee of expertise in another, and one can certainly do good work without one.
2) However, if someone is widely listed as having certain credentials, it seems reasonable to politely inquire as to the reality of the credentials.
3) In this case:
a) Does John McLean have a PhD, from what school, in what discipline, when?
b) Is he a computer scientist? (Some {software engineers, computer consultants, programmers} are, but many are not, or at least, would not usually be labeled as such by people who are.)
For more (as 2) is a complex topic), see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch_2.php#comment-681752, which also mentions Piled higher and Deeper.