I did a radio interview commenting on global temperatures and weather patterns last Monday which was picked up by The Australian, then the blogosphere and now Fox News.
Some people have asked me for clarification on a few points including what the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said by way of the ‘temperature plateau this century’ and also have asked for more information on my qualifications.
Let’s start by re-looking at the available temperature data, as at least one blogger, Ken Parish, seems to not understand this data.
1. Are temperatures really cooling?
Over very long time periods (thousands of years) the earth experiences cycles of warming and cooling – indeed climate is always changing. The earth is currently in what is known as an interglacial warm period with temperatures warming, and sea levels rising by about 100 metres, during the last 16,000 years.
But there have been ups and downs. For example, there was cooling for several hundred years after the medieval warm period through to about 1900. Then there was warming until about 1945 followed by cooling through until 1975-76. The United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predicted in 1990 that there would be continuous warming well into this century driven by rising levels of carbon dioxide. But in fact there has been cooling again over the last decade.
Just two years ago, the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom predicted that 2007 would be a record warm year – exceeding 1998 – but it turned out to be rather cool.
from http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
So to summarize, as I said in the radio interview: if you take 1998 as your point of reference there has been cooling, if you take 2002 as your point of reference there has been a temperature plateau. I also said in the interview that temperatures may start to rise again, or the earth could be about to enter another period of prolonged cooling – we could even be at the end of the current interglacial warm period.
2. What did the Head of the IPCC say?
According to an interview in January 2008 by Reuters:
“Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
“One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding “are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
“He added that skeptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. “There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,” he said.
“[Amir] Delju, [senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) climate program,] said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.” [end of quote from Reuters]
3. Who is Jennifer Marohasy?
I have a Batchelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland – my thesis was in insect ecology. I worked as a field biologist for many years and then in the late 1980s started critiquing environmental campaigns while I was environment manager for Canegrowers – I was concerned, in particular, that the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) was falsely suggesting science supported various unproven allegations relating to farming and the Great Barrier Reef. I then worked on Murray River water issues, again comparing allegations from environmentalists with the official statistics. I was forced to take an interest in global warming when Professor Tim Flannery made various public statements suggesting that the drought which gripped southern Australia for much of this century was unlikely to ever break because of carbon dioxide emissions. The issue of climate change now dominates much of the discussion at this weblog.
I have applied my training in the scientific method to understanding this issue. In particular I am only interested in the data – not what may or may not motivate commentary. Furthermore I am much more interested in observational data, rather than modelled output.
There are some people who may feel I am unqualified to comment in the area of climatology because my thesis topic was in ecology, however, much of my work for many years has simply been about understanding raw data/numbers and communicating this information in an honest and meaningful way – a PhD in a science discipline is a good formal training for this. I now describe myself as a biologist and a writer. Perhaps I could be best described as a science writer – but I have no formal training as a journalist, my training is as a scientist.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So, as a scientist, why did you pick 1998? Why would you pick 2002?
“The Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom had predicted 2007 to be a record warm year – exceeding 1998 – but it turned out to be rather cool. ”
This is misleading, as the Hadley Centre list 2007 as the 8th warmest on record – not “rather cool”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Jennifer
Maybe you should have put up some data from hadcrut
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
Updated weekly I think. And here is a serious statistical analysis of observed data versus IPCC predicted.. its way off even the standard deviations dont fit
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/
It hink these sites support your analysis even more
vg, the interview was about the satellite data, I was looking at the above graph of globally averaged satellite-based temperatures when i did the interview. this data is, I understand, the best available and least controversial?
Jennifer
the satellite data has had several years of problems, that are still not resolved. At first the UAH, under Christy, was telling us there was no warming, that the satellite data was right. They were wrong. The instruments might be capable of making very precise measurements, but what they are not directly measuring the temperatures, they have to derive them, and the satellites orbit’s drift, their heights change, etc.
A plot of the ocean anomolies.
I think it speaks for itself.
http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11420
Jennifer, if you were focussed on the satellite data, why mention the Hadley Centre?
Also why did you choose 1998 and 2002?
The reason why any reasonable man or woman would pick 1998 is because it clearly marks the change in a decadal trend. Looking back from the present day, over the only factual (non-modelled)record available to us, 2002 marks the start of a plateau and 1998 marks the start of a gradual decline.
That 2002 to 2008 plateau now has the same statistical weight as the temperature increase from the Mt Pinatubo induced trough of 1992 to 1998. And the decline from 1998 to 2008 now has 25% greater statistical weight than that 1992-1998 increase. Prior to 1997-98 AGW had a very tenuous relationship to the temperature record but that did not stop Bimbolopithicus climatensis from using it as the basis for their (pre-extinction) cargo cult.
I mentioned the Hadley Centre because there has been some talk about ‘everyone’ accepted that last year would be cool because of the La Nina. But that is not correct.
The Hadley Centre was on record claiming 2007 would be hot and David Jones at the Australian BOM told me early in the year it would be hot after the El Nino.
They were both wrong.
I did not use the Hadley Centre graph because I was talking about the satellite data and Roy Spencer’s work – but I don’t think it looks that much different?
Ian
“The reason why any reasonable man or woman would pick 1998 is because it clearly marks the change in a decadal trend.”
Quite clearly this is something you just made up.
Seriously though. On what scientific, or statistical, reason would you pick 1998?
Ian, if 2008 remains around in your 2002 “band” and then 2009 and 2010 are hotter, say hotter than 1998, would that be enough for you to consider AGW?
Ian, if you science knowledge was so good you wouldn’t have to resort to stupid comments like this: “Prior to 1997-98 AGW had a very tenuous relationship to the temperature record but that did not stop Bimbolopithicus climatensis from using it as the basis for their (pre-extinction) cargo cult.”
Vg: When you added the cru link you did us a favor as it shows this decade in the right context on the warming curve. The musings link and that graph with its fiddle in the middle (Orcut fit) diving into the unknown is I hope a joke, not because we can’t do with a little temp restoration along the way, but because it defies reasonable expectations.
Jennifer
Yes the Hadley Centre were wrong in their prediction that it would be the hottest, but still it wasn’t “rather cool”. The 8th hottest on record is still hot.
Why would we be at the end of our interglacial? These are governed by the Milankovitch Cycles. We still have thousands of years left.
I hope that Spencer use the corrected Loehle reconstruction in his book too.
The work was exhaustively analyzed here and critized/analyzed by I understand IPCC people/members and it was concluded that the IPCC data is falsified by recent analysis of 2001-2008 2002-2008 and even 1998-2008 temp data
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/
read for details. What is interesting is that the person analysing the data “firmly” believes in A global warming (she must be starting to have doubts you would think?)
there is a graph of all data here… satellite etc
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/ols-fit-2001-now/
They all show a decline (except GISS of course)
Even scarier in the interview they mentioned that glaciers were melting but another official IPCC source (cryosphere today) is showing the opposite) see here
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
BTW we are talking about 10 years data only (but it is a trend). What the warmist forgot, was that tempratures can actually decline and will as in the past
T don’t mention the word —- this is peddlers inc
Why pick 1998 versus 2002?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
Pretty self evident to me.
Malcolm: The midpoint of everything in your link is at 2003 i.e. + point 4 C in any context.
Malcolm,
It seems from what you resent that the reason you’d pick 1998 is because 1998 was the maximum, so anything after that will look like a fall. This is terrible use of statistics. If you observe the earlier data you would see 1998 for what it is – a spike. If you use a running trend through all the data we have (back to 1979?) it still trends upwards until around 2005.
For a scientist Jennifer has presented a pretty poor argument. All these wiffly waffly statements about how “temperatures can rise and fall” are pretty meaningless. And it’s not anything new. People already knew temperatures go up and down. In fact the exact same argument can be used to defend AGW, that this apparent cooling is no more than a minor downward trend (no different from other downward trends through the whole of last century), and that the trend that’s been evident through the last Century will continue.
“The Hadley Centre was on record claiming 2007 would be hot and David Jones at the Australian BOM told me early in the year it would be hot after the El Nino.
They were both wrong. ”
The Hadley Centre also gave their estimate that they would be correct. It was not 100%, IIRC about 60%. So they weren’t wrong. You forgot to mention that they are quite often right.
I thought the theory about AGW was that the ever increasing amount of C02 would cause an ever increasing rise in the GMT, and be also signified by a rise in the temperature of the troposphere.
Obviously from the graphs, that has not happened.
for this last decade. I understand also that if this trend continues for another 2-3 years (which appears likely) then the whole IPPC hypothesis about Co2 induced global warming will have been falsified.
In the meantime, Garnaut is producing econometric policy advice for the Govt that will in effect, destroy thousands of jobs, make us less competetive in world markets,and make electrical power more expensive, etc etc.
All for what.
A contribution to the reduction in global temperatures by us of 0.000043 C per annum.
I dont think the science of GW is going to come out of this very well at all, either way.
Malcolm,
“I thought the theory about AGW was that the ever increasing amount of C02 would cause an ever increasing rise in the GMT, and be also signified by a rise in the temperature of the troposphere.”
This is a misunderstanding on your part. Certainly it predicts a rise in GMT, but not an ‘ever increasing one’.
Gavin
What is your point about the midpoint being +0.4c.
You know as well as anybody that the base is the average of a set period of years, and what is plotted in the graphs, is an anomaly above that mean.
Of course it is a positive anomaly because of the marginal warming that has ocurred since the nominated period, and is now trending downwards. So what.
How does that change the price of fish.?
“The Hadley Centre also gave their estimate that they would be correct. … So they weren’t wrong. You forgot to mention that they are quite often right.”
What’s quite often? I had a look at the Hadley CRU / UK Met predictions and plotted them out of interest a little while ago:
http://i25.tinypic.com/2ljt1dx.jpg
They got close 3 years out of 8… But in EVERY case they overestimated the temp! And I suspect that this year will be an overestimation as well given the first three months temps, and I would not be surprised that result will fall outside of the error bands altogether.
cheers
Arnost
This is the prediction for this year:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html
The previous predictions are here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/seasonal/global/pdf/global_temp_2007.pdf
(and change the date at the end of the above link to go to the previous years prediction)
The graph above is a temperature anomaly graph where variations around an arbitary climate mean over 30 years is plotted. This technique is otherwise known as “graphmanship” to highlight insignificant variations.
I would want to see what the actual global average plot did over the same period.
In any case variations of +/- 0.5 Kelvin are basically just irrelevant numbers considering how this statistic was computed in the first place.
I doubt any of the computations would meet the rigour of QAQC we in the mining industry have to meet in order to publish mineral ore-reserve numbers according to JORC standards.
So much brouaha over such insignificant metrics.
>So to summarize, as I said in the radio interview: if you take 1998 as your point of reference there has been cooling, if you take 2002 as your point of reference there has been a temperature plateau.
There is a paper in the most recent Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society which examines this question. The finding is that it hasn’t cooled in recent years. I’m sure the journal would happily publish an alternative analysis.
We should be grateful the that UK Met Office Hadley Centre publish their predictions for each coming year’s global average temperature anomaly, because it proves how bad their climate models are. If one takes into account the fact that they almost always over-predict the temperature they are on average out by 0.06 degrees too much warming each year. That might not sound much, but over a century it would be 6 degrees of falsely predicted warming. (I am not being entirely serious there). If they had said that there would be no change in global temperatures each year then their average error would have been halved.
I know that annual weather noise is greater than the predicted long term trend, but how likely is it that this noise should always be on the same side of the trendline? Assuming as a null hypothesis that the Hadley Centre has a good unbiased model for predicting future global temperatures what are the odds that they would err on the same side (i.e. the heating side) 7 or 8 times in a row? I would suggest that this record gives us enough information to reject the hypothesis that Hadley is using an unbiased method of predicting the temperatures.
So Jennifer, then you are a direct colleague of Jeff Harvey, who is also an insect ecologist. Jeff also ventilates his opinion about climate change, albeit in the alarmist way.
AMOS is hardly an unbiased font of climate wisdom.
The Society firmly places itself in the trenches of AGW. One only has to read its ‘Global Warming is real, and is happening’ mantra.
Or go back a few months to read its nasty hatchet job on Martin Durkin, and ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
Or earlier see so many of its ‘top brass’ troop off to gaze at Gore’s AIT; like pilgrims trooping off to Mecca.
Yes, AMOS and its Journal lacks credibility and integrity.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation) in the USA states
“The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C).”
How does this measure with the assertion that the global temperature is lower than 10 years ago?
It is funny that she says “IF you choose 1998” and gets grilled for “why do you choose 1998”. There is no “right” point to chose. For some reason, the press chooses the cool sixties quite often, but rarely the warm thirties. We go back to the little ice age to start our measurment of warming, but rarely to another appropriate year, the year 1000.
Uber Warmies just can’t listen. It is sad really.
“it hasn’t cooled in recent years” – warmie commenter.
How is “it hasn’t cooled” an alternative to “it has plataued”
It is like the ocean temps which have been shown to have cooled slightly begin characterised as “less rapid warming”
What are the odds that the number of fools on this blog is greater than say three?
what’s the odds that a climate blog commenter posts ad hominem remarks?
!^!^E)*(!#(**^#@()(^
“Uber warmies” hehehehehe “say what?” ROTFL. Are denialists uber noobs – hehehehehe
Funny that Sid is the only reliable source for information. I’m starting to see the pattern.
Jen’s now a veritable Boadicea defending the freedom of western civilisation against uber warmers, eco-marxists and commies. Are we powerless to stop this blogspheric whirlwind cutting a swath through the ether, dispelling worrisome warmers with style and sheer logic?
Anyway Jen’s having a bit of punt. Might pay off. Might not. But would be wise to read the actual paper if you’re mainlining this stuff.
Let’s face it guys, one side here is going to get run out of town eventually. Bags not us.
Mr T,The 8th hottest on record is still hot.
and the seventh hottest this century
G’day Hans nice to see you here.
Hans: We could start with Moore’s paradox, the Gettier problem etc then do the circles true v belief and so on but I hardly bother with these word games.
When Malcolm asks “What is your point about the midpoint being +0.4c?” I should ignore it because a lifetime of avoidance is hard to break. Simply my thinking can be very different to yours. How many times do I have to say some practice or other is an art form, not a science?
Alternatively I can and do visualize many complex events and models but don’t have the sort of disciplines you seek for explaining these processes. Besides that, I’ve long forgotten all the math and physics repeated every time I started another career. Anyway old brains tend to resist restructuring.
What remains is mostly image processing, the sort of thing we do in dreams with practice. Dissociation from the constraints of language helps however seeing forward and backwards with images can create lots of problems when your feet are not firmly on the ground.
These days we can easily use modern technology in developing perspective through art however distortion can destroy our acceptance of certain images. Composition is one aspect of working with images, reducing it to its fundamentals is another
With a minimum of consideration that’s what happened with the above graph however using just the section 98-08 as suggested elsewhere, see Malcolm’s link. On the other hand the IPCC projection (red arrow in the lead graph) is still quite feasible given two decades of records.
How else do you get it? It’s a practical skill developed over years of working with instrument charts from various sources.
“Are we powerless to stop this blogspheric whirlwind cutting a swath through the ether, dispelling worrisome warmers with style and sheer logic?”
It might help luckless Luke’s cause were he to choose an idiom generally comprehensible within the Anglosphere. What is your native tongue anyway?
I like Gavin’s comments above “This is terrible use of statistics.”
Coming from a guy who founded a website with Michael Mann, the king of the terrible use of statistics, that comment is quite ironic.
We can play with statistics as much as one wants to in the climate science field. The key question is “How much has it warmed since CO2 started rising?” and “what does that imply for the results that climate models predict?”
The answers are that it has not really warmed that much (especially when you use the raw statistics that have not been terribly used by the climate scientists) and the models are vastly over-predicting the warming that increased CO2 produces. The models need to incorporate more variables or the assumptions need to be adjusted downward.
Joseph: Its time a few dropins got their head no, butt round the globe to see the dust & grass roots downunder otherwise we can’t be real mates
Digging past Jan above I found this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115×128414
BTW Jan there is so much on Dr Lonnie Thompson & hard working wife also some predictions
Gavin, (are you really Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt?)
I still have an axe to grind with Dr Thompson. He is working so hard that he “forgets” to archive his work.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/quelccaya.htm#Conclusions
No Hans definitly not a Schmidt. I don’t use my surname as I suspect it could compromise another hard working younger guy downunder.
BTW I noticed your request for ice core info and reckoned you should go pick on one of your own before it all turns to water. More Hans to the wheel hey.
Otherwise I’m suddenly aware of the compaction issue and guess its worth a yarn by itself.
Cheers
Mr T has managed to demonstrate the reading comprehension of an antechinus in rut. Go back and read my post on why choose 2002 and 1998 three more times so it will sink in.
Bimbolopithicus climatensis have been exposed for the temperature equivalent of assuming the stock market just goes up, and up, and up. Good one, fellas, a real class act that is sure to get the serious money beating a path to your door. Psst, ya wanna buy a bridge?
A few comments:
1. The red arrow on you graph appears to have too high a slope. The IPCC predicts 0.2`C/decade over the next few decades, and I eyeball your red arrow at about 0.3`C/decade.
2. You say: “The United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predicted in 1990 that there would be continuous warming well into this century driven by rising levels of carbon dioxide. But in fact there has been cooling again over the last decade.” Then why not compare the IPCC prediction to 1990, the year they made the predictions? When you do so, the IPCC is still right on track.
3. “we could even be at the end of the current interglacial warm period.” You base this on what exactly? The orbital forcings that cause glaciations are far away.
Right now we are at the same place on the gistemp global land/ocean temperature index as we were 10 years ago in 1998, compared to the period of 1951-1980, at +.57 C This is down from the high of +.62 C for 2005 Is this warming, a plateau, cooling, or one of the frequent dips? Does it matter what you call it? When you count it? Make the base period?
The point is that this is inconclusive if the index will continue going down, or turn up again. After all, it has been in a range from +.33 to +.62 for the last 10 years.
All this conjecture does not change the fact that the 127 year period has the index trending up about +.7 nor that the trends for the last 3 decades (going back) are +.16 +.06 +.08 and the entire 30 years is +.5 The numbers can say whatever you want to do with them; the trend for the last 127 years is .7 and for the last 30 .5, but the first 97 is .35
Does that mean the last 30 can be compared and claimed to be 30% warmer than the previous 97? Of course not.
Is it important there has been no negative year after 1976? I don’t know, is it?
What do these trend numbers reflect, what do they mean, how accurate are they, and what will they do in the future. Is the index trend being up .5 or .7 or even down by the same amount particualarly helpful, when the numbers themselves for any individual year have never exceeded the trend?
You own opinion on the answers to those questions says remarkable things about you.
How you discuss the opinions with others does also.
The most interesting is the degree to which you have fixed in your mind any causal relationship you have established to explain the index, as well as the factor(s) you attribute to doing so, and how you discuss those opinions with others.
Perhaps it might be helpful when discussing information to be discussing the same information, and to understand the various viewpoints of all involved in the discussion to come to a common frame of reference.
Shouldn’t the 7th hottest this century, read the 2nd coldest this centuary?
Sounds a lot simpler to me.
This is about anything but simplicity. But since the index is in positive territory, it is probably more correct to use words to the effect of the index’s ranking being the Nth highest, or its position in the top ten largest index years.
Sid: Shouldn’t the 7th hottest this century, read the 2nd coldest this centuary?
WE only had eight years so far so I reckon you might be right.
When we adjust for the impact of volcanic activity we find that the plateau extends back to at least 1992 and we find that 2007 is not the 8th warmest of recent record but, rather the 12th out of the past 16 years (4th coolest).
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031 (thanks again Mark)
It is also the 13th coolest out of the past 25 years.
In any event, a 16 year plateau is entirely inconsistent with CO2 forcing theory which demands a response to an additional 40ppm (200+Gt)in atmospheric CO2.
What? adjusting by drawing some lines. ROTFL and total derision.
Not so fast, boy wonder. So explain to us, Luke, why the volcanic activity did not reduce temperature by how much. No one has disputed the source papers to that graph. Even Church and his gonzo CSIRO mates agree that volcanic activity lowered temperatures. So if we are to have any solid grasp of the impact of CO2 then even the village idiot could see that we need to adjust the temperature series for the impact of volcanoes to get a clearer picture of the possible impact of CO2.
What – with a biro.
Luke: What – with a biro.
No luke with a pencil – standard graphical analysis. A lot of quantum physical calculations can’t be done any other way it’s perfectly valid scientific method.
Yes you’re correct – so you can rub it out if you didn’t quite get it right.
Luke:Yes you’re correct – so you can rub it out if you didn’t quite get it right.
Glad you agree and once it is right it can go to the publishers who’ll pretty it up some more check it with the author before committing it to the type setters.
Geeez one can only wonder how scientists did things before the advent of computer graphics.
Over Jan’s head.
Over Jan’s head.
No Luke over yours your remark was irrelevant.
Get it now?
Jan – let me refer you to a Nexus6 Type II
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html
Luke:Jan – let me refer you to a Nexus6 Type II
you are just out to waste time
It’s a worthless site at the best of times so don’t bother in future.
ooooo – Jan speaks. Back to the ward matey.
Luke:ooooo – Jan speaks. Back to the ward matey.
Nope I’m on days off.
One amusing thing that comes out a lot, and certainly in the above comments, is the constant refrain that, “The satellite data has an error” or There is a calibration problem on the ARGO buoys” and so on, when the data that is probably the worst of all, the surface readings, is treated as gospel. surfacestaions.org has an on-going investigation into the quality or otherwise of the recording sites throughout the USA which is showing up alarming problems.
When we accurately know the global average surface temperature, if there is such an animal, then we can quibble about the rest. Mind you, by that time, we’ll all be dead, and the truth known, that change happens.
gavi wrote:
BTW I noticed your request for ice core info and reckoned you should go pick on one of your own before it all turns to water. More Hans to the wheel hey.
Sorry don’t have the funds. Perhaps I could get a grant for traveling to Thompson’s freezer and photograph the original Quelccaya cores myself. Seems that none of Lonnie’s students wants to do this basic job. Busy busy busy.
Hans: Perhaps I could get a grant for traveling to Thompson’s freezer and photograph the original Quelccaya cores myself.
While you’re could you get the Bona-Churchill data too?
Now don’t avoid the issue again, Luke. If we are to assess the impact of CO2 on temperature then we must adjust the temp record for non-CO2 influences like volcanic aerosols. And that adjustment makes it clear that the current temperature plateau is from 1992 to the present, some 16 years and 29ppm (150Gt CO2) for which there has been nil temperature response.
That is 300 times greater than Australia’s annual emissions with no temperature response.
It’s sad how abusive the AGW discussion has gotten. Every insult raises the barrier to a new position.
Global Warming is a hoax
Global Warming is a hoax
“Batchelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland”
During which you obviously never learned to spell.