ROSS Garnaut made it clear in his interim report that his climate change review takes as a starting point – not as a belief but on the balance of probabilities – that the claims made in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are correct.
Had he made even a cursory examination of the integrity of those IPCC claims he would have found a very troubling picture.
The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate. It fails to clarify that the claim was made in chapter nine of the working group one contribution and that the contributions of working groups two and three were based on the assumption that the claim was correct. The first eight chapters of the WG1 contribution were mainly concerned with climatic observations and the authors expressed no opinion about the claim made in chapter nine, and chapters 10 and 11 assumed the claim to be correct. The entire IPCC thesis therefore stands or falls on the claims of just one chapter.
We are also led to believe that chapter nine was widely supported by hundreds of reviewers, but just 62 IPCC reviewers commented on its penultimate draft. Only five of those reviewers endorsed it but four of the five appear to have vested interests and the other made just one comment for the entire 11-chapter WG1 contribution.
As is the normal IPCC practice, chapter nine has co-ordinating lead authors, who are responsible for the chapter as a whole; lead authors, who are responsible for sections of the chapter; and contributing authors, who provide their thoughts to the lead authors but take no active part in thewriting.
The IPCC procedures state that the authors at each level should reflect a wide range of views, but this is not true of chapter nine.
The expansion of the full list of authors of each paper cited by this chapter reveals that 37 of 53 chapter authors form a network of people who have previously co-authored scientific papers with each other: or make that 38 if we include a review editor.
The two co-ordinating lead authors are members of this network. So are five of the seven lead authors. Thirty of 44 contributing authors are in the network and two other pairs of contributing authors have likewise co-authored scientific papers.
In other words, the supposedly 53 independent voices are in fact one dominant voice with 37 people behind it, two voices each with two people behind them, and perhaps 12 single voices. A closer check reveals that many of those 12 were academic or work colleagues of members of that larger network. One lead author was from the University of Michigan, as were three contributing authors, two of whom were not members of the network. Another lead author was associated with Britain’s Hadley Centre, along with eight contributing authors, one of whom was not included in that network of co-authors.
All up, the 53 authors of this chapter came from just 31 establishments and there are worrying indications that certain lead authors were the superiors of contributing authors from the same organisation. The very few viewpoints in this chapter might be alleviated if it drew on a wide range of references, but among the co-authors of 40 per cent of the cited material are at least one chapter author.
Scientists associated with the development and use of climate models dominate the clique of chapter nine authors and by extension the views expressed in that chapter.
Perhaps the increase in the processing power of their computers has increased their confidence in the software they have been nurturing for years. Imagine, though, the consequences were they to imply that the accuracy of the models had not improved despite the extra funding.
These models are said to require a human component to reasonably match historical temperatures and the modellers claim that this proves a human influence on climate, but the human factor is an input so a corresponding output is no surprise. A more plausible reason for the mismatch without this influence is that the models are incomplete and contain errors, but of course chapter nine could never admit this.
Garnaut didn’t need to evaluate the science behind the IPCC’s claim to find that its integrity is questionable and that the report’s key findings are the product of scientific cronyism.
The IPCC has misled us into believing the primary claims were widely endorsed by authors and reviewers but in fact they received little support and came from a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers.
We should now ask what else the IPCC has misled us about and why Garnaut, a skilled academic, so blithely accepted its claims.
John McLean is a climate data analyst and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.
———————–
Republished from the The Australian with permission from the author.
Climate case built on thin foundation, John McLean, The Australian September 9, 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Has John ever published a peer reviewed climate science paper in recognized journal or has he any qualification in climate?
No.
“Has John ever published a peer reviewed climate science paper in recognized journal or has he any qualification in climate?”
Fortunately, basic detective work and common sense is open to everybody.
” Fortunately, basic detective work and common sense is open to everybody”–as is an ability to conform to best practice standards,and operate with ethics and integrity.
But when they are all absent then one can just keep parroting the peer review mantra, as though it relieved them of the need to comply.
Pity that peer review has so much wrong with it as well–not as though it was an open and transparent process.
david asked: “Has John [McLean] ever published a peer reviewed climate science paper in recognized journal or has he any qualification in climate?” Well, Barry Brook has published dozens of peer reviewed articles but can still come up with the following (in response to my query before he banned me for being non-PC), “what do ruminants eat?”:
1. bravenewclimate Says:
12 August 2008 at 22.52
Ruminants (most common domestic species are cattle, sheep and goats) eat grass, shrubs etc. This plant material is mostly carbohydrates (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen) in the form of relatively indigestible cellulose (cell walls of plants). The cellulose is broken down by ruminants in their rumen – one of their stomachs, by bacterial symbionts. There is very little oxygen in the rumen, so the digestion is termed anaerobic. This means methane (CH4) is produced in prodigious amounts, whereas relatively little CO2 is produced by this digestion. Humans and most other non-ruminant mammals can’t handle cellulose (’fibre’) either, and so it basically passes right through us. So they are taking in carbon in the form of carbohydrates (which was formed via photosynthesis by removing CO2 from the air), and ’supercharging’ it as a greenhouse gas by turning it mostly into methane (72 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of radiative forcing over a 20-year period). It’s a ‘great’ way to make the carbon cycle more greenhouse intensive. Methane eventually breaks down into CO2 and water (over about a decade or two, so much shorter lifespan then CO2 on average).”
Here is the answer to Newton’s search for getting gold out of rubbish! Somehow our gentle steers produce more than they consume, and that is why they should be put down, according to Brook and his fellow life-hating Glikson and Russell et al et al. Like Garnaut, Brook & co cannot do basic sums. If ruminants consume say 100 tonnes of CO2 p.a. they cannot produce more than 100 tonnes of CO2e in the form of methane.
Bravo John MacLean, let’s hope other individuals and groups come forward to help explain this dirty incestuous mess.
From the day Hansen gave his report to Congress in 1988 kicking off this disgusting fraud there has been a very bad smell attached to this ridiculous AGW
scare.
When I saw this thread from the main page I assumed some Wally would say exactly what David said in the very first comment.
Way to be predictable.
Why does lack of formal qualifications preclude somebody from a valid (and researched) opinion? It certainly doesn’t stop bearded wierdies from having an opinion on toxicology (GM crops), epidemiology (GM crops, mobile phone towers, nuclear power plants), oncology (all of the above) etc etc etc.
Science was founded on the concept of the intellectual amateur in any case, so the festies are entitled to their opinion if it makes sense and seems to be supported by observation. Unfortunately it is usually neither of these things.
Ad hominem attack on the lunatic left to one side for a moment, John McLean is actually repeating here a pretty well understood conflict of interest in the IPCC process. It doesn’t fit the grand narrative so it’s ignored. Good on him for saying the Emperor hasn’t got any duds on, and thanks to the Australian for (finally) allowing somebody to mention it.
How nutty. “Somehow our gentle steers produce more than they consume, and that is why they should be put down, according to Brook and his fellow life-hating ….” – so we’re now keeping cattle as pets are we. Must remember that next time one visits McDonalds. Life-hating ? !
Tim you may eventually find out that CO2 has a different formula to CH4. hmmmm…
But anyway back to Aussie’s most famous “climate data analyst”. David – you are wrong – JM has published in E&E ! oh – sorry didn’t see the “recognised”. But anyway – this is social science so may it doesn’t matter.
“Here is the answer to Newton’s search for getting gold out of rubbish! Somehow our gentle steers produce more than they consume, and that is why they should be put down, according to Brook and his fellow life-hating Glikson and Russell et al et al. Like Garnaut, Brook & co cannot do basic sums. If ruminants consume say 100 tonnes of CO2 p.a. they cannot produce more than 100 tonnes of CO2e in the form of methane.”
That’s why you aren’t a scientist. Methane is a more powerful GHG than CO2, even if it does break down into CO2 eventually. Before it does that, it has contributed to more warming than the equivalent amount of CO2.
We note that the results of McLean’s analysis are not disputed, just his non-credentialled right to do it in the first place.
The same line of defence was undertaken against Wegman’s report on the closed circle of peer review for Mann’s hockey stick. Not the actual results of Wegman’s analysis, but rather that he was a statistician (of considerable note, however) and therefore unqualified to comment on climate science statistical practices.
The actual results of both Wegman’s and Mclean’s analyses are eerily similar. A fine pattern we have.
Trying to match empirical data with hypothesis ain’t easy, is it ?
Luke: “Tim you may eventually find out that CO2 has a different formula to CH4. hmmmm…”
Yes you are right but the molecular mass of CH4 << CO2 it makes it rather hard to produce more by mass of CH4 from a given mass of CO2.
McLean is presenting a socio/political analysis. This is not climate science, so david’s question is just irrelevant, and of course just a dumb ad hominen. Ho hum. So then Luke goes for a free kick at Energy and Environment. OK, now the first stone is cast, let’s address Nature’s role in the hockeystick scam and Science and the Orestes fraud?
Thanks, Jan Pompe! Luke and Co. are math-deficient, can we find some nutrient to help them? The same applies to Ross Garnaut.
This from my next paper (unless intercepted by Brook):
“It turns out the Garnaut Report’s prediction rests on a crucial assumption and its corollary. The former is that all global biospheric uptakes of carbon, both through oceanic and terrestrial photosynthesis and also by oceanic absorption, will cease from 2009 if not before, because the oceanic and terrestrial ‘sinks’ are already, or very soon will be, totally “saturated” (according to Canadell et al. 2007 as cited by the Report). The corollary is that with zero uptakes, the gross emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land use change will remain in the atmosphere, i.e. the “Airborne Fraction” (AF) will be 100 percent of emissions, and this results in the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 considered likely to produce accelerated global warming.
There is as yet no evidence for the claimed imminent if not already existing saturation. The latest data on the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (December 2007) shows that it still increased by much less, at 4.34 billion tonnes of carbon (GtC), than the additional CO2 emissions since December 2006 of 10.22 GtC (see Table 1 and Fig. 3 not available in WordPress). That implies the “saturated sinks” still managed to absorb an extra 5.88 GtC… Nowhere does the Report present – let alone refute – the carbon budget contained in my Table 1. The Report’s Chapter 3 (77) concedes that “to achieve stabilisation of carbon dioxide concentrations, emissions must be brought down to the rate of natural removal”, which has averaged 56 percent since 1959, yet its Chapters 4 and 5 proceed on the basis that given the projections of gross CO2 emissions in Garnaut et al. (2008), emissions need to be reduced to 40 percent of the 2000 level if the world is to avoid future “dangerous” climatic change. Consistent with the data in my Table 1, the Report should have proposed emissions reduction by only 44 percent of the ongoing BAU (business as usual) level, rather than by 60 percent of the fixed 2000 level. The difference is far from trivial. Reducing global emissions to 40 percent of the 2000 level (which corresponds to the Australian government’s target of a 60 percent reduction in the 2000 level of emissions by 2050) implies that in future global emissions should be only 3.36 GtC of the total of 8.39 GtC in 2000 (see my Table 1).
Reducing emissions only to the level of the natural uptake allows emissions to have been 5.78 GtC in 2007 (the actual Uptake that year), or no less than 72.21 percent higher than the Australian government’s nonsensical target. Aiming to reduce emissions just to the natural uptake level results in zero net emissions, and hence NO net increase in the atmospheric concentration. It may well be difficult to credit that Ross Garnaut and all his erudite Team could not work out this arithmetic, which is far from being rocket science, but that appears to be the case.
Tim: A question if I may? Won’t the oceans always be at near saturation of soluble atmospheric gases?
I would have thought Henry’s Law at least would see to that.
The irony of the Qualifications Game is that most players cannot play — for they’re not qualified to have an opinion. If you’re not a peer-reviewed expert in the field, after all, you can say neither yea nor nay to the views of a peer-reviewed expert. You just have to shut up and take what he says on faith. The progressive types who play this game are, in fact, historical throwbacks who would lead us back to the Dark Ages.
Hi Jan Pompe.
There seems to be no evidence for that pro tem, see Taro Takahashi at CDIAC. Their reluctance to publish his data suggests that they are not PC, i.e. do not corroborate AGW. The issue is the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean vis a vis that of CO2 in the atmosphere. The latter is stable, but the former variable across the globe. When the oceanic pCO2 is less than the atmospheric, the oceans take up more CO2. You can well imagine the whole IPCC “scientific” community is determined to ensure that Takahashi finds that oceanic pCO2 is more than the atmospheric. That is why his results are embargoed.
McLean piece debunked:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/09/spot-the-recycled-denial-iv-–-climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/
Try that link again:
http://tinyurl.com/6xbgww
Alan Siddons: “The irony of the Qualifications Game is that most players cannot play — for they’re not qualified to have an opinion.”
That’ll be about 6,000,000,000 of us then, who are not allowed to have an opinion, much less – heaven forbid – point out flaws in their ‘peer-reviewed’ holy scripts.
Luke,
have you published anything in the peer reviewed literature concerning climate science, as well as SJT, and the other anonymice here?
“Nowhere does the Report present – let alone refute – the carbon budget contained in my Table 1” – huh whose Table 1 – where – is this published somewhere?
Well Timmy – better not waste your time telling us – run off and publish. Oh that’s right – sceptics don’t publish. I forgot. Darn.
Barry Brook didn’t bother refuting McLean – simply listed the links of the previous few dozen arguments. Ho hum.
Wow!
All the scientific reports are by scientists.
What a scam!
This should be on the front page of every newspaper.
But it’s not just scientists who are part of an evil “clique”. I had to get the wiring in my house sorted recently and guess what? – I could only get an electrician to do it! And of course every electrician I spoke to said the same thing – I needed an electrician.
How’s that for a “narrow self-interested coterie”.
Amun
The Brooks’ “rebuttal” of Mclean’s analysis comprises 16 links, none of which actually address McLean’s detail.
Further, 8 of these links (ie. 50%) comprise wiki, gristmill and RC
Scientists have a range of views on AGW, from Roy Spencer to James Hansen. McLean has shown that the IPCC limits it’s public output to those views on the Hansen end of the range.
And it’s not the only scientifc scam in town ianl.
There’s the LHC (Large Hadron Conspiracy) starting up this afternoon.
What a joke! It’s a whole bunch of scientists who belong to a single network. They’re all worked together before, published together, they even work at many of the same universities and institutions!
Heck, you might not belieive this, but they all are getting paid to do it! That’s right, they’re just in it for the money!!
If it was a real scientific project, they’d get some architects in to give it the once over, just for balance.
david’s original question/comment clearly reveals what some “climate scientists” sneeringly suggest – that relevance to the topic concerned must still bow to the image of the false god of “peer review.”
ianl, there was a brief written debunking by Brook and then the links for details. As to hyperlinking – that is exactly his point – why continually retread old ground when the arguments are already recycled? McLean has been on this meme for a while now.
Tim Curtain, I can only conclude that you are delusional. Your arguments are about as logical as a Vulcan during the Pon Farr. I suggest you don’t try chemistry or math as a retirement hobby.
Luke, yes my Table I has been published (as Table 2b) in my first Submission on none other than Ross Garnaut’s website as well as my own; an updated version is in my forthcoming paper due out next year but not available until then unless you email me for a copy or I can get WordPress to show it and related Figs. But do the sums yourself if you can: get the Mauna Loa data for atmos. CO2 in ppm, convert to GtC; get the CDIAC data on total Anthro emissions in GtC, then see if you can manage to get the figure for the Uptakes or Sinks. Hint: if At.CO2 = a, emissions = b, then the sink = x can be calculated as follows: since a=b-x, , x = a-b. The average annual reading for a was 4.1 GtC in 2000-2006, and the average annual b were 9.1 GtC (from Canadell et al and CDIAC), so if you subtract, 9.1-4.1=5.0, the average annual Uptakes in GtC. Can you see that the Uptakes are bigger than the atmospheric additions?
Now if you are really worried about emissions, surely it is only necessary to reduce emissions from 9.1 to 5.0 GtC (45%) for zero net addition to the atmosphere. Or is that too hard for you? It is for Ross Garnaut, who refuses (in ALL his figuring and graphs) to acknowledge both that there are Uptakes and that they are growing at much the same rate as emissions, so you are in good company!
“Has John ever published a peer reviewed climate science paper in recognized journal or has he any qualification in climate?”
Look you idiot. We’ve gone over this before!!!!
PEER REVIEW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
This is just stupidity on your part. There is no need to be displaying openly your epistemological ineptitude. Keep it to yourself.
The conceptual audit of smart people is always a good thing. But this is not what YOU mean when you use the phrase “peer review.”
Now what was your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“ROSS Garnaut made it clear in his interim report that his climate change review takes as a starting point – not as a belief but on the balance of probabilities – that the claims made in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are correct.”
Clearly this makes Garnaut either a thief or a whore. A thief if we wasn’t directed to do things this way by his employers and a whore if he was.
Since the IPCC has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for their racket, Garnaut has now admitted to basing a study to do with public policy on a science fraud.
He ought to be made to pay his consultancy fees back to avoid a prison sentence. I’m serious. It is not OK to pass on lies, and build on lies, and let yourself off the hook using the excuse that they are someone elses lies.
This is not alright.
This is not OK.
And appropriate shame ought to be attached to this sort of thing. If legal action is out of the question. Sometimes you can haul people into court and even if your case doesn’t win thats punishment enough. Garnaut ought not be able to get away with this scott free.
“- not as a belief but on the balance of probabilities – …….”
This is pretty piss-weak a position to take. But fair enough if the person hasn’t really looked into the situatioin in depth.
To rely on balance-of-probabilities here means that one doesn’t really know the subject very well. But nonetheless that can be an honest position to take. Unlike Garnauts public whoring.
“McLean piece debunked:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/09/spot-the-recycled-denial-iv-–-climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/”
No in fact you are lying. But if you think otherwise, lets see you do the debunking here and in your own words. How about not relying on Mr Baldyman ever again. Unless you understand things enough to integrate what you are reading and re-explain it in your own words.
My advice is for you to find yourself a better guru if you cannot think for yourself.
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the beloved Professor Brook.
Who next?
Karoly?
You just going to trust and parrot Karoly? Trust and link Karoly for your next trick?
“I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. This is pointless, since the majority of non-greenhouse theorists (’sceptics’) blithely ignore any such counterpoints and simply repeat the same arguments elsewhere. Instead I rebutt by hyperlinking to some of the wealth of explanatory material out there on the world wide web.”
So there you have it. Amun was in fact lying as I said. The beloved Professor doesn’t debunk anything, doesn’t try to debunk anything, doesn’t understand climate science, and couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag.
He’s really just a Major-Me to Tim Lambert. But here the bigger-version follows and does not lead the irrational dwarf.
With reference to the obsession for “peer reviewed “ publications Dr. Vincent Grey of New Zealand has been a Peer Reviewer of all the IPPC reports. For the 4th. Report he submitted over 1800 edits with all the required back up documentation. Previously he had submitted his edits, then when the “extensively peer reviewed “ report was published none of his edits were included. He contacted the committee seeking a copy of all the comments but was told they were “secret”. By the time the 4th. Report came out the U,S, had passed the freedom of information act so he was able to obtain the information he had waited 10 years for. There were just over 10 000 suggested edits virtually all ignored. So just how valid is a peer review process when the editors of the paper have total control over the censorship. Dr. Greys evaluation of the IPCC’s reports and an extensive library of papers is available at icecap.us please read the following.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPINNING_THE_CLIMATE08.pdf
Tim I am not sure if you have been following previous threads but I took the CO2 cycle from Pg.514 of the 4th. AR and tried to do a mass balance, frankly it is so badly flawed that a high school student could have punched holes a mile wide in it, of course Luke et. al. can not begin to understand it but that is par for the course. So I wrote my own mass balance program and achieved a balance the results are quite interesting.
Tim; isn’t the Takahashi data here;
http:cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_088/ndp088.html
I’ve left out the double slash as it seems to be stopping the post being put up.
You say ocean PCO2 is stable, but I’ve seen a number of ocean maps showing similtaneous absorption and emission at different locations. The ocean would seem to be inexhaustible as a sink with bulit-in checks against increasing acidity; one of these is described by Craig O’Neill; this is continuous recycling of ocean water and CO2 in the form of calcite through the mantle where the calcite is deposited in vast quantity. Then, of course, there is Steve Short’s cynaobacteria with their enormous CO2 appetite.
I can’t believe this nonsense about anthropogenic CO2 bulid-up is persisting. DOE data shows that since the beginning of the IR atmospheric CO2 has increased about 103ppm (in itself a controversial conclusion); only 3% of this has been due to humanity (see AR4 Fig 7.3 p515). The annual absorption by natural sinks of the increase in CO2 is 98.5%; this means that 1.5% of every annual increase stays in the air for a year; of this amount 3% or 0.04% is anthropogenic CO2; in 2004 this was about 346MT; isn’t this what China puts out in a day or an hour?
Cohenite. The mass balance I just referred to takes into account the re-emission of CO2 from the land and ocean sinks back into the atmosphere so it is not quite as simple as residence time times emissions which would equal 1.81 X 8 = 14.48 GT of carbon at 2.2 GT per ppm = 6.58 ppm The actual number I calculated was 12.59 ppm total anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere.
Jennifer, I thought you had new moderation principles in place. Are you going to allow Mr Bird to continue to make juvenile personal attacks on Prof Brook? Or are you going to make this a respectable place in which to conduct a debate, and either moderate or ban Bird?
And why would I need to mount my own case when it has already been done by Brook, and it’s just recycled arguments from McLean anyway?
By the way Greame Bird, I see Brook posted his response to McLean before Lambert posted his, so your lost in some weird time warp with that Major Me theory of yours.
Or are you just having a laugh, which is likely considering that everything you post is a joke and just drags down the poor blog you are subjecting your deranged insights to.
Side bar guys and gals, how do you get to post those cute little pictures, I am really not as humourless as I may appear.
Cohenite,
I think you will find that carbon does not get recycled back into the mantle, but that the mantle continually exudes carbon, continuously as hydrocarbon compounds, or infrequently during the eruption of kimberlites at the earth’s surface.
It would be worth reading Tom Segalstad’s comments about the “missing” carbon sink the IPCC obsesses over – Tom’s position is that it’s an artefact.
I just reread the original article and it struck me that 10 years and $50 Billion in research grants and the IPCC have come up with nothing new, I find that amazing. I know I have been challenged on the money spent on climate research but I am talking worldwide and I know the U.S. budget has been $2.3 Billion per year so that is almost half of it. That is a lot of bribe money to keep the faithful in line. With regard to the 2500 “scientists” which we keep hearing about there were 22 authors of the 4th.AR and 630 contributors the rest are computer geeks and politicians from 3rd. world countries with thier begging bowls at full extension.
“Jennifer, I thought you had new moderation principles in place. Are you going to allow Mr Bird to continue to make juvenile personal attacks on Prof Brook?”
Who are you, you anonymous Jerk? Come in under your own name you coward. And how about not inverting reality here. The beloved Professor has made a whole swag of juvenile attacks on this blogs owner and has gone so far as to make her responsible for other peoples opinions.
Plus he’s a know-nothing jerk who has no affinity for the subject he spouts forth on.
The first question I asked of him he dodged it and he dodges it still.
You his sock puppet brother? If not perhaps you can go back to his blog and try and shake him down for an answer.
The fact is you lied and you claimed that Professor Brooks had debunked John McCleans piece. This is where the insults started. Brooks has done no such thing. Instead he made a lot of juvenile and wrong insinuations about McClean.
So you lied.
But if you don’t think you lied lets have that debunking RIGHT HERE AND NOW and in your own words.
GO!!!!!!
(This jerk isn’t coming up with anything. His whole act was to thoughtlessly defame McClean without even bothering to understand what he was saying.)
Right.
Amun.
Ready.
Set.
GO!!!!!!!!
Louis I beg to differ I have a great respect for Dr. Segalstad but the world’s vegitation absorbes about 200 GT a year most of which is either sequestered in the trees etc or is recycled by rotting vegitation. However some is returned to the humus in the soil. In addition CO2 in the oceans does form CaCO3 or is ingested and forms fish bones so eventually settles to the ocean floor, I think the White Cliffs of Dover proves this. Even the IPCC recognize that 100 GT of the 244 GT anthropogenic carbon released to date has already been sequestered in the deep ocean.
Amun, Bird actually performs a valuable public service of showing casual visitors that this site isn’t (and never will be) a “respectable place in which to conduct a debate”. He’s like the vicious, starved, mangy pit bull which lets you know that it’s probably not worth trying to get to know the people who just moved in down the street.
Nonsense Haughton. This is the best blog around. I just give a bit of cover from you lunatics.
Birdy – you’re doing an excellent job for the sceptic cause. My compliments. Hat tip. Good call shooting up your own side too. I’m so distracted by your arm flailing that I can’t concentrate on Tim’s argument.
Well done to those who continue to point out the lack of scientific publications opposed to mainstream climate science.
If the mainstream was truly scientifically controversial- then there would be many, many more papers showing that CO2 posed no danger to the atmosphere.
As it is there are no papers showing that CO2 poses no threat the the atmosphere.
And the articles put up here are almost exclusively op-ed pieces- with the odd soft publication.
This highlights the basic facts of the argument- that you need a global conspiracy theory to explain away mainstream climate science. And such a conspiracy is so outlandish it ranks with…err.. global conspiracy theories.
David- the conspiratorialists on this blog are squirming. They have to attack the peer review process to explain away the complete lack of science that is on their side. But they can’t push that too hard- because they have been busy all these years trying to prove that they are not a bunch of nutters, but rather brilliant scientific minds (albeit with no qualifications, no institutions and no publications).
The most pathetic form that this backfilling takes is the reversal of the current paradigm. That scientists are somehow non-evidence based ‘believers’, while the bloggers represent the rational and scientific.
Scientists publish science and have done for 400 odd years. Scientists put forward rational plans. The religious cross their fingers and hope.
Keep up the expose.
Barry
I am not questioning that CO2 gets deposited as various oceanic sediments, but there is a problem with what is seen in the geological record, and what is being observed, or capable of being observed today, to explain those past sedimentary deposits.
Massive deposits of calcareous sediments forming today are somewhat conspicuous by their absence – implying that older deposits of these rocks may not have been formed in the manner we assume them to have been.
As the CO2 cycle used in AGW is basically a geology-free zone, there might be some doubt that it is complete.
But the issue here is actually a bit more fundamental because the whole idea of any CO2 cycle is based on the presumption that, apart from an isolated metoeor impact, geological processes have been operating at the same rate as we observe now – Lyellian uniformitarianism.
If this understanding of the geological past wrong, and there is good evidence that it is, then any theory deduced from this uniformism of process would have be problematic.
As for Segalstad, if I recall, the missing sink he alluded to was inferred from some of the assumptions the IPCC made, but I’ll check it up later on to see what his precise point was.
That said, I see the anonymice reckon science is done by debate – obviously our mice have not had experience of the engineering or mining world in whihc debate as a method of explaining something was jettisoned centuries ago.
Just imagine them designing a new cell phone which only worked 60% of the time – (not too dissimilar to weather forecasting 1 week ahead) and then having a serious debate about whether the phone works or doesn’t.
Bird’s right about Brook. The tax eating coward went over to another alarmist site in an attempt to get people to go to his own (site) and criticize McLean. He can’t do it himself obviously because the “Perfessor” of Absolute Totally Massive Extinctions (and Climate Change) and 130,003 peer reviewed papers can’t do it himself. He needs others to help him criticize McLean. What a thorough tax eating rugless wanker.
He’s obviously a lot of time on his hands moonlighting at a supposedly full time job with Adelaide uni and trying to hack people on his blog.
Thanks Barry and Louis; the issue is how long does emitted CO2 persist in the atmosphere; the regular incremental increase PA need logically be neither entirely new or old CO2; the isotopic distinction between natural and anthropogenic CO2 seems to have met a few obstacles in the form of C4 plankton preference and Spencer’s observations;
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
That being the case how can AGW claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the one doing the damage; even if they could make a case that damage is being done?
I can’t believe Brooks still uses this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html
Its getting pretty dated. To say that the IPCC has underestimated the warming since 2001 is just………wrong.
I’ll agree that 7 years is too short a period of observation to derive climate sensitivity, but to say that the 2001 predictions are accurate based on ANY data pre 2001 is just plain stupid.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/
Irena – “As it is there are no papers showing that CO2 poses no threat the the atmosphere.”
I didn’t realise the atmosphere was being threatened?!?
But seriously, you’re probably right that there are no papers showing that CO2 poses NO threat to humanity. But there are plenty showing that the effect will be minimal. (You can criticise E&E, but you can’t dismiss GRL, J. Climate, Climatic Change, Climate Dynamics, etc., etc. If you think those journals haven’t published skeptical papers then you don’t have a clue.)
Amun is my real name. I just don’t want to use my surname for the simple reason that I don’t want looneys like Graeme Bird defaming me as he does everyone else. That is not why I visit this blog.
Oh, and Graeme Bird, please quote something, anything that Prof Brook has written about Jennifer that you think constitutes “juvenile attacks”. I couldn’t fine any. Not a one. It was all coming from her commenters over here (not from Jen herself, I might add). I’m simply asking her to moderate the more bizzare fringe of her commenters.
Amun, considering you’ve already thrown around “delusional” and “looney” in this very thread, I’m not sure we can take your appeal to moderation seriously. Unless you believe in double standards of course.
The idea that people would criticise McLean’s piece for lack of peer review brings to mind the last days of the deluded Charles I, when he said:
‘How is that you say the King can be a delinquent?’.
The next day, his head was separated from his body and the question was moot.
Getting back to John McLean’s excellent analysis of Chapter 9 of WG1 2007, I would add only that first, WG1 is by any standards a remarkable production, but second it would have been so much better if it had adopted the rule that authors of all works cited would thereby be disqualified from being Lead Authors or review editors etc. of the chapter in question. There is something called conflict of interest (Ross Garnaut – and Rod Sims in today’s Fin Review – have made it into an art). Lead Author Nathan Gillett of the UK authored 12 of the papers cited in Chapt. 9, could anyone really expect an objective assessment from him? He should have recused himself, along with Allen, Ammann (some hope!), and Karoly (even less hope!). Truly independent authors would discuss alternative views instead of suppressing them in favour of advertising their own work.
Third, the Executive Summary is amazingly bad, and lowers the tone of the chapter as a whole, unless you think that Einstein should have said that he thought it “likely”, even “very likely”, that E was possibly or even probably about equal to MC^2. We have a right to expect more precision, and if the best the Summary’s authors can come up with is sundry possibilities, then their models have much room for improvement with more rigorous testing. For example, at p.709 we are told that 3 models exhibit significant increases in ENSO variability, 5 showed decreases, and 7 show no change. No evidence is offered as to the actual observed variability, hardly difficult when scholars like Richard Grove have tracked El Nino for hundreds of years, yet models are treated as if they were evidence. Curiously, Neville Nicholls a lead author of Chap.9 did not cite his own paper in Grove and Chappell, El Nino History & Crisis, 2000, or display his graph of the SOI which showed no obvious change in variability between 1971 and 1995. He seems to have surrendered to the group think of the coterie so well analysed by John McLean. None of Chap 9 authors including Nicholls mention Schwabian sunspot cycles in connection with SOI, but there is evidence for a correlation. What are the chances of that showing up in AR5?
It’s interesting that many commenters defend the right of the non-experts to hold forth, yet John McLean seems a little uneasy about it.
I guess that’s why he has dubbed himself a “climate data analyst”.
It would make a neat new scout badge.
This is a wonderful thing to see. We now have Amun requesting moderation when he’s offending people with his own abuse.
look, you twerp, you could always go back to brook’s naturopathy, Total Massive Extinctions &climate change site and stay there. (I’m wondering if he’s going to start peddling elixirs made of brown snake oil soon).
In other words – get real, you delusional trog.
It’s interesting that many commenters defend the right of the non-experts to hold forth, yet John McLean seems a little uneasy about it.
Ummmm I just mentioned the Brook, professor of Totally Massive Extinctions and Climate Change who doesn’t have any formal climate science qualifications. His co-blogger is a zoologist also poses as a climate science expert when zoology is a few grades above animal husbandry.
You have Jim Hansen with no formal qualifications in climate science demanding people be jailed if they don’t hold to the party line.
Are you delusional Mick?
I’ve got major problem with it. Anyone can have an opinion.
But it’s pretty funny to see attached to a post where the guy feels the need to invent a fancy title for himself.
If he’s got something to say, then just say it. When someone feels to need to throw in a technical sounding label like “climate data analyst ” that is essentially meangingless, it makes me wonder.
At any rate, McLeans effort is one of the stupider I’ve seen.
Scientists talk to each other, work together and even work in the same places. Amazing.
That’s “no major problem”.
Ok
And don’t you have a problem with someone who takes the title of professor of “climate change”, who talks nonsense about “totally massive” extinctions. He runs a blog site with a zoologist that also poses as an expert in climate science and both earning their living out of the public trough using some of their time to run a blog attacking people about climate science and scaring people about totally massive” during normal work hours.
But:
You have a problem with the title McLean is given in a regular paper. A title he may not have had a hand in publishing.
As I said, you’re one delusional partisan hack, Mick.
I know I’ve plugged these links many times, but they seem relevant:
http://climatesci.org/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
http://climatesci.org/2007/07/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-ii/
The IPCC’s claim to be comprehensive in its literature review is seriously called into question when they constantly ignore peer-reviewed papers that disagree with their conclusions.
McLean has highlighted one source of this bias. No dissenting views among the lead authors. Hence, no dissenting papers.
Hey Tim C. I see you’ve set up home here very nicely on Jen’s blog … how’s the paper going?
Brook is really hurting you bad, isn’t he ra. Or should I say Graeme Bird. Or both. Or one and the same?
Oh, and where did he say “totally massive” extinctions. Since you put it in quotation marks I assume you are quoting Brook. From where?
And how do you know his work hours? Or are you so very naive that you think any academic works a 9 to 5 job, ho, ho, ho – no.
The ad hom continues; Michael and Amun are still plugging this line that McLean has no credentials; it’s a stupid line; here is the longer piece from which the shorter McLean article on this post was condensed;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf
This paper is easily a good Masters thesis standard; McLean’s analysis of the deficiencies of Bayesian statistical verification is succinct and the factual groundwork he has done would shame most so-called investigative journalists; now-a-days a contradiction terms if ever there was one. The irony of this peer-review rubbish is that it has produced papers like Mann’s, Ammann and Wahl, Sherwood and Allen, Philipona’s downward LW nonsense and the bucket case, not to mention Johnson’s now we have cooling, now we have warming papers and retractions ad infinitum. Talk about the methane calling the carbon warm.
Interesting comments.
Ho- hum…
OK- So which bit of fundamental physics do you guys dispute?
Mainstream science says-
1. That CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation. Seminal papers exist for this finding in the fields of physical chemistry, quantum physics and atmospheric science- they probably date from around the 1920s onward. If you dispute this- show us the scientific paper/s that have been published.
2. CO2’s spectral lines corresponds to incoming and outgoing OLR. Again- go to quantum physics- the spectral lines of CO2 are well established- did any of you happen to take physics in university I wonder? Can you come up with a paper that shows alternate spectral absorption lines for CO2?
3. That CO2 accounts for a significant fraction of the absorption and re-emission within the context of the incoming and outgoing radiation budget. Seminal papers exist for this too. They deal with the radiation budget of the planet. The easiest place for you guys to look for these papers is in the IPCC *bibliography*- since its online. I’m not asking you guys to burn your eyes reading the review- just the bibliography that has a long list of seminal papers for you guys to look at. Show me the journal published paper that disputes this point.
4. That increases in CO2 concentrations lead to increases in surface temperature via Stephen Bolztmann. OK- so show us the published paper that contravenes Boltzmann. Please. The first person to have predicted that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels would cause a global warming is considered to be S. Arrhenius, who published in 1896 the (peer reviewed) paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.” The literature has consistently supported this analysis from observations and modeling- again the bibliography is in the IPCC- all peer reviewed. Show me the published paper/s that contravene the mainstream.
5. That CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Again published papers from observations at Hawaii and Cape Grim- all documented in the evil IPCC. Is there a published paper that shows this is not true? Which one is that? Is there a published paper that shows the isotopic analysis is flawed- which one is that?
OK- You can pause here. Because this is the seminal, fundamental science that proves, probabilistically and deterministically, that elevated CO2 will warm the surface. So in terms of the risk of affecting climate change- the mainstream science is pretty clear.
Joel- so…, what are these papers in GRL, J. Climate, Climatic Change, Climate Dynamics that refute points 1-5? What are they period, come to think of it- even that list would be useful.
Further…
There are also no papers that carry out optimal fingerprint detection techniques to show that the Sun or other natural forcing mechanisms have had a larger impact on recent climate change than CO2 increases.
If there are such optimal fingerprinting studies- can you also provide the references for the literature?
If you don’t like optimal fingerprinting- or any of the mainstream attribution techniques, then can you propose how else you should do attribution. Or better still- point me to the published papers that show alternate methods of attribution- specifically partitioning the contribution of various forcing mechanisms. If it the oversight of the IPCC to not include such papers- then perhaps you can help by pointing them out.
Finally- there are absolutely no papers that show that doubling and tripling atmospheric CO2 will NOT lead to significant warming of the surface. There is plenty of mainstream, journal published modeling studies that show warming with increased CO2. So can yo point me to those papers? You can use your favourite hobby horse too- the glacial cycle where temperature leads CO2- can you show me the peer- reviewed, published paper that outlines how this record shows that increasing CO2 does not lead to increasing temperatures.
if someone wants to bring down the mainstream- then do some work and publish like the rest of the scientific community.
I’ll repeat again- without a weight of scientific publications on your ‘side’, you are simply relying on global conspiracy theories to support argument. As most of the post on this blog confirm.
Amunda
You’re wrong. I just mentally scanned my entire body from head to toe and don’t feel any pain, so you’re accurately diagnosing anything that is remotely accurate.
The quotation marks were stylistic reasons.
But yes, sadly the “academic” has been propagandizing totally massive extinctions with the advent of present and future global warming. In other words he’s snake oiling.
His sidekick the animal husband or zoologist has been doing the same.
It’s a WWF tag team of nonsense really as all they need is the face masks and I’m sure Vince McMahon would give them a turn match. How’s “ The totally Massive Extinguishers” sound as a ring name? Cute, don’t you think?
How do I know his hours? Well he’s been doing a lot of “research” (usually by linking to other alarmists) into AGW “denialists” during normal office hours, which can be a dead giveaway. That’s unless of course he’s doing totally massive extinctions classes at 3 in the morning – and if he is he’s being very energy wasteful.
I’m sorry if I offended your sensibilities by focusing on the totally massive extinctions expert and the animal husband, but he did run a thread on McLean, didn’t he?
Irena – “Mainstream science says-“….blah, blah, blah”
Is anyone else getting sick of this approach from newcomers? I think we’ve discussed points 1-5 ad infinitum in previous threads, so it seems like its very much derailing the current thread.
Irena, I’m not doing your homework for you. If you think there doesn’t exist one single skeptical paper then you are delusional and I’m not going to waste my time. Admit the possibillity that one exists and then we can have a rational discussion.
Irena>
Please shut up and stop using the straw man to argue your idiocy. There are numerous people at this blog that may not be skeptical of the science involved but are certainly skeptical of other issues that are just as important if not more so. The science part is actually the easy part of the entire AGW issue.
The rate of change for both the climate and the rate of technological change are far more important considerations to take into account when discussing AGW.
As for mitigation: please tell us why we need to mitigate using GDP estimates for the next 100 years along with accurate estimates of technological change and why do we even need a tax to change behavior?
He’s a few pointers.
The US was well on its way to successful, voluntary and wealth creating mitigation techniques 30 years ago that was stopped dead when the leftist inspired phobias against nuclear energy were propagandized. By some estimates the US would be 75% abated by now and wouldn’t have an issue of any great magnitude. Instead the leftist inspired phobia stopped (not slowed) the introduction of nuke reactors and technological development and we are where we are.
So please, don’t preach science when you know sweet F all about the subject.
Irena, in your latest posting (5:59pm) you talk about carbon dioxide but like the IPCC you fail to quantify its impact on temperature. That’s hardly surprising when the IPCC is very vague too, but it’s a crucial point to your argument and theirs. According to my sources, a doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to a warming of less than 0.15 degrees. Can you prove that it will be more?
Why did you also not mention that, according to current knowledge, the downwelling radiation caused by carbon dioxide will increase less and less as carbon dioxide concentration increases?
Your earlier posting also caught my eye because it talked about the relative scarcity of papers contradicting the “mainstream” view. Why did you not mention the vast sums of money that governments throw at climate research that somehow agrees with the IPCC’s claims.
The governments support the IPCC financially and with funding directed to “policy-relevant” science, which arguably means that governments have decided scientific truths before the research is complete, it is no wonder that little research outside the narrowly focused IPC-view gets done.
And when that research by some miracle is undertaken there’s the problem of publishing when several key journals, Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters to mention just a few, have publicly announced that the science is settled and action this by making it easy to publish pro-IPCC research but exceptionally difficult to publish contrary views. It’s not just the journals that are at fault because there’s a good chance that the reviewers they sent papers to are already ticket holders on the gravy train.
John mcLean.
Just to let you know what kind a of a lowlife, Barry Brook is.
He went over to Deltoid’s site to boast about how you had commented at his site and was covertly enticing people from there to go to his to abuse and harass you.
That’s the sort of low life sack of crap he is. He’s an embarrassment to academia and if I were his boss he’d be fired on the spot for that sort of nonsense.
Here, take a look and what this lowlife was doing behind your back.
John McLean decided to put his two-bob’s worth in as a comment over at my BNC posting. Feel free to come and enjoy the party…
Posted by: Barry Brook | September 9, 2008 9:07 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/09/the_australians_war_on_science_20.php#commentsArea
What a truly repulsive character.
OK- so none of you can come up with any published papers contravening the mainstream science points that I raised.
But you allude to previous discussions that occurred on this blog as some being credible refutation of these points. Talk about delusions of grandeur….
Joel- you’ve probably never even read a peer-reviewed published paper, certainly not detection attribution papers. But that doesn’t stop you providing us with your expert opinion. Quit telling me what I don’t know. And again- not a single publication dealing with those points- noted.
And Ra and John McLean- thankyou for being much more honest. Your problems are with the implications of mitigation upon the socio-economic system. This has nothing to do with points 1-5 that I raised above. Those that pretend that the mainstream science is not clear- well there is the straw man.
Scientifically, its incredibly simple. There is a massive amount of peer-reviewed published material that is documented in four big reports that outlines that continuing to put CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate will lead to significant impacts.
To dispute this mainstream science point of you need to gather together a fair number of significant peer reviewed papers with a contrary viewpoint. Or even just a couplle of significant papers.
As yet- this body of work does not exist, as you have all demonstrated. It been thirty years (those original gatekeeper editors must have indoctrinated generations of subsequent editors- sounds plausible) and squat from you guys- nothing.
Heres an interesting thought experiment:
No doubt most of you (and I say most- there are some cranks in your ranks) believe in the current paradigm of the atom- you know, electrons spinning around a nucleus? Well, to borrow a theme from Jennifer, can someone point me to the real world observational evidence that this model is reality? You cannot include pure theoretical papers or mathematical modeling.
Well, none of you are going to do that- you have already demonstrated that you do not read scientific publications. But hey- you accept the paradigm right? Probably because none of you are quantum physicists and you will accept the textbook version.
You all do this with the medication that you take at night as well- just down the hatch- no background research first. Well you are not medical researchers so fair enough.
Well, you know, none of you are climate scientists either. But in this instance- that doesn’t stop you from formulating a vehement contrary opinion.
Lets not pretend this is about evaluation of the science. As demonstrated there is precious little if any peer reviewed publications refuting the mainstream.
So why do you pick and choose which paradigms to believe in? How do you decide that you are suddenly expert enough to evaluate the range of evidence? Simple- Ra and McLean have already shown their hand.
Its either that you have a vested interest in the implications of mainstream climate science, or that you believe that there is a world wide conspiracy that subverts the truth- and is based on gravy trains and the CIA and people on the moon probably. I’m betting for most of you its the latter.
That all there is I’m afraid. I know it, you know it, and the pets know it too at this point.
And John- your ideas on mixing- sound interesting. Why don’t you write that up and get it published somewhere scientists will read it? Or do you think that is an ordinary strategy for disseminating your ideas?
Oh…I look forward to reading it.
ra,
I’m pretty sure that “zoologist” belongs in the science category and the “Professor of Climate Change” is the offical title bestowed by the University of Adelaide, a position to which he was successfully appointed.
His expertise in ecology and modelling being rather pertinent to the whole climate change thingy.
So no, I’ve got not the slightest problem with that.
However, if someone was to suggest that an Architect calling themselves (or being bestowed that title by a newspaper) a “climate data analyst”, is a like sutiation to the aforementioned, well, I’d say that they were very far out on a limb.
Possibly, even out of their tree.
I guess Irena, that the Lindzen’s, Singer’s, Dr. Roger Revelle, Vincent Grey etc do not count as scientists who publish peer reviewed material? Or at least material that is open to scrutiny by all?
Its ok however to litigate against Singer to shut him up and call Dr revelle senile for suggesting there was doubt about teh science?
Is it ok for Hansen and mann to lie and exagerate to us?
Why if teh science is so settled is there so much unceratinty about how much warming a doubling of co2 will cause?
Shoudl there be a hot spot? consensus seems to say so, but because they cant find it, they resort to manipulating the data to create what they want.
How come teh models predictions are so poor but that is ok?
How come its seema to be commonly acknowledged that the natural causes account for half of teh warming seen last century? ( see NASA for a start)
How come the sun is acknowledged as having reached a peek for teh last 1000 years, and yet it is a surpise that temps are back near where they were in MWP when the sun was last this hot?
How come its alright to remove the well documented MWP?
How come the “consensus” scientists don t pull media figures like Gore into line with their massive exagerations and lies.
How come we have threats and manipulation used to convince us of the veracity of the science?
I agree sceptics need to build a more coherent argument, but really the onus is on the concensus scientists who have all the funding, to buidl a more convincing case. Clearly they have not so far because there are so many scientists, mathematicians etc who doubt the science of climate change…they may not be peer reviewed but they are out there.
cohenite,
Thanks for the link.
It’s good to read in its unadulterated full stupidity.
Can you imagine, experts in similar disciplines can be commonly found at institutions that focus on those disciplines!
Conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mick
He’s a biologist and what’s worse is that he’s a Macquarie graduate.
It’s like saying a taxi driver could fly a 747 because after all both vehicles have wheels, take passengers and travel at a fast speed.
In any event McLean was simply talking about the shenanigans and goings on at that most political of organizations- the IPCC.
Unlike Barry Huckster, McLean doesn’t refer to himself as a professor of Climate change (and Totally Really Massive Extinctions) and doesn’t teach kids.
So unless you have anything to counter McLean’s arguments about what went on, shut the f up as this shit you’re going on about is a mere distraction.
Do you have anything to say about McLean’s findings or not? Do you?
I’m pretty sure that “zoologist” belongs in the science category
Yea, well we call it a science, but it’s really about animal husbandry- and to be perfectly honest cleaning up tiger shit and trying to get a male and female lion to mate in a zoo isn’t exactly the same as climate/fluid dynamics is it, mick?
” Is it ok for Hansen and mann to lie and exagerate to us?
Why if teh science is so settled is there so much unceratinty about how much warming a doubling of co2 will cause?
Shoudl there be a hot spot? consensus seems to say so, but because they cant find it, they resort to manipulating the data to create what they want.
How come teh models predictions are so poor but that is ok?
How come its seema to be commonly acknowledged that the natural causes account for half of teh warming seen last century? ( see NASA for a start)
How come the sun is acknowledged as having reached a peek for teh last 1000 years, and yet it is a surpise that temps are back near where they were in MWP when the sun was last this hot?
How come its alright to remove the well documented MWP?
How come the “consensus” scientists don t pull media figures like Gore into line with their massive exagerations and lies.”
Like I said. Conspiracy theories. Thats all you got.
“2. CO2’s spectral lines corresponds to incoming and outgoing OLR. Again- go to quantum physics- the spectral lines of CO2 are well established- did any of you happen to take physics in university I wonder? Can you come up with a paper that shows alternate spectral absorption lines for CO2?”
H2O overlaps CO2 in all but two of the absorption lines. That’s why H2O is the dominant GHG.
Your point 3 is pure IPCC propaganda.
“Point 4 CO2 concentrations lead to increases in surface temperature via Stephen Bolztmann. The first person to have predicted that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels would cause a global warming.”
Correct observation wrong conclusion H2O dominates.
S. Arrhenius, who published in 1896 the (peer reviewed) paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.”
IPCC deliberately overstates the effect.
“OK- You can pause here. Because this is the seminal, fundamental science that proves, probabilistically and deterministically, that elevated CO2 will warm the surface. So in terms of the risk of affecting climate change- the mainstream science is pretty clear.”
More IPCC propaganda.
Our atmosphere already absorbs all the available black body radiation.
No more work can be done.
Mick-
“Our atmosphere already absorbs all the available black body radiation. ”
Got a journal paper to back that up?
sorry- MartinGAtkins
The pleasure is all mine Michael; now, suitably refreshed, and reassured of the scientific superiority of the AGW position, you and Irena and Amun may care to cast your formidable intellects over the list of AGW seminal papers I listed above with the McLean link.
Gore is a liar, Irena. He’s so dishonest he lost the vote in 2000. The American electorate simply couldn’t trust the arrogant gas bagging dickhead which is why was never president.
Irena, the cause of the majority of the global warming in the last 30 years is the reduction in cloud cover (actually observed) that has resulted in an extra 6w/m2 (in 30 years). this is compared to the forcing of 1.7w/m2 from CO2 in 100 years (that is guesstimated in the lab) At least 80% of the warming in the last 30 years is clearly due to cloud coverage that has nothing to do with CO2. In fact the total greenhouse effect may have decreased in that time due to reduction of water in the atmosphere! Is that clear enough for you? As for physics, can you explain how a small forcing such as CO2 can produce a large effect, in violation of the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics? Can you explain how a system at equilibrium undergoes positive feedback when Le Chatelier’s principle shows that the feedback must be negative.
The fact is that to prove CO2 caused the temp to warm you have to prove that nothing else was responsible. Show me a paper than can rule out all other causes and explain the large temperature changes that have occurred over time when CO2 concentrations have been show to follow temp by 800 years, or does CO2 time travel?.
cheers
“Gore is a liar, Irena. He’s so dishonest he lost the vote in 2000. The American electorate simply couldn’t trust the arrogant gas bagging dickhead which is why was never president.”
Thanks Ra.
ra,
Yes I do.
Bollocks.
What McLeans claim boils down to is that scientists are highly linked.
Let me break this news to you and John: that’s the whole friggin idea!
That’s the purpose of publication, collaboration and conferences. Scientists must know what is going on in their realm. They need to know what others are discovering, prosposing and debunking.
We don’t want scientists emulating the mythical Japanese soldier on a remote Pacific island still fighting a long over war (kinda like here).
Collaboration across institutions is encouraged and work with the most highly regarded scientists is actively sort. Hence there tends to be a high degree of inter-connectivity between the people and groups doing the best work.
As there should be.
This is what John identifies as a problem. FFS!
Rob
“Irena, the cause of the majority of the global warming in the last 30 years is the reduction in cloud cover (actually observed) that has resulted in an extra 6w/m2 (in 30 years).”
You got a journal paper to back that up?
Bullshit he does, mick.
He’s basically getting to the same problems the guy at Climate Audit has painstakingly found out. That when there is so much money and economic policy involved things like scientific questions that co-mingle with policy and money require more than ‘ peer review”. They require full scale audits to ensure veracity.
John is taking full aim at the possibility of collusion not collaboration which is far different to your characterization.
When you have people like the extremist Hansen calling for jail time against people who disagree with him you know he’s lost the plot. Imagine Hansen ever giving fair peer review to a paper that disagreed with his. It’s a joke.
The evidence of “collusion” John provides is?………………zero.
He clearly demonstrates collaboration and adds to that some wild accusations based on his personal preferences.
“When you have people like the extremist Hansen calling for jail time against people who disagree with him you know he’s lost the plot. Imagine Hansen ever giving fair peer review to a paper that disagreed with his. It’s a joke.”
Thanks again Ra.
Thanks Tim Curtin
I have downloaded Taro Takahashi’s data there is going to be a bit of work in analysing it (there is a lot of it).
No, John provides ample evidence of the possibility of collusion with the path leading especially to the framework in which the dozen models used by the IPCC.
it doesn’t matter what you think, Mick. What matters is that at the very least these models require full on auditing.
You are expecting the world economy to transfer 1% of annual GDP to mitigation. I wonder how you or anyone else can or should expect that amount of money to be transferred without adequate audit checks.
You wouldn’t expect a firm to go out and raise money without a prospectus showing the claims made have been audited so why not for the models?
John does a fine job of presenting the holes in this hucksterism we are presently seeing.
We just had Garnaut inadvertently suggesting zero mitigation was the best option without the idiot realizing what he was doing.
Irena, you call them conspiracy theories. I call them reasons to be sceptical. Just because so many scientists say well it can only be CO2, because nothing lese fits, does not make it so. There is too much we doo not know. As I tell my students “the more you know, the more you know you don t know”The evidence is just not there to be able to blame co2 for the beneficial and mild temp rise we have seen,no matter how many times your lot shout it out loud….and that is why the electorate will not allow anything significant to be actually done about it.
Irena, you think we think its conspiracy theories, we just think its not a real science that ignores real facts and relies on models for its veracity. And since teh models have nt worked you really have little to stand on except a whole bunch of peer reviewed papers that are speculation on a theory that is not being proved by real world events makes it a shaky theory indeed. It may be right, but there remains serious doubt.
Again, whilst it is time sceptics promoted their case better.
Your mob definitely need to pick up your act cos its increasingly looking like a losing battle for you!
Mick
Have you a paper that that disputes what I said. Look for a paper that states “some blackbody radiation is immediately radiated back into outer space”.
Irena
No need to apologize. You are entitled to your point of view.
So Irena, can we start with an answer from you “should there be a hot spot or not?” are you suggesting this is merely a conspiracy theory? If there shoudl be, where is it? If its not there doesnt it make you sceptical of the theory that it will cause a dramatic increase in temp and a global catastrophe?
John would find a whole new universe of evil “collusion” should he turn his attention to the LHC.
He could become a “physics data analyst” for the Australian Physics Science Association.
What fun!
Segaldstad, in his “Carbon Cycle modelling and residence time of natural and atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” Dogma – ESEF 3 Vol 2, on page 11 writes
“8. Trouble for the dogma – the CO2 “missing sink”
The next problem is that the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 level increase only accounts
for approximately 50% of the expected increase from looking at the amount of CO2
formed from production data for the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., Kerr, 1992). This
annual discrepancy of some 3 giga-tonnes of carbon is in the literature called “the
missing sink” (analogous to “the missing link”; Holmén, 1992). When trying to find this
“missing sink” in the biosphere, carbon cycle modelling has shown that deforestation
must have contributed a large amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. So instead of finding
“the missing sink” in the terrestrial biosphere, they find another CO2 source! This
makes “the missing sink” problem yet more severe.
Trabalka (1985) summarizes the status of carbon cycle modelling and its missing
sinks (Trabalka et al., 1985) by: “As a first approximation in the validation of models, it
should be possible to compute a balanced global carbon budget for the contemporary
period; to date this has not been achievable and the reasons are still uncertain.” . . .
“These models produce estimates of past atmospheric CO2 levels that are inconsistent
with the historical atmospheric CO2 increase. This inconsistency implies that significant
errors in projections are possible using current carbon cycle models.”
Bolin’s (1986) conclusion regarding carbon cycle models is on the contrary: “We
understand the basic features of the global carbon cycle quite well. It has been possible
to construct quantitative models which can be used as a general guide for the projection
of future CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of given emission scenarios”.
This is in high contrast to Holmén (1992), who concludes his book chapter on “The
Global Carbon Cycle” with: “obviously our knowledge of the global cycle of carbon is
inadequate to get ends to meet”.
A 50% error, i.e. the enormous amount of about 3 giga-tonnes of carbon annually
not explained by a model, would normally lead to complete rejection of the model and
its hypothesis using the scientific method of natural sciences. Still the 50% inexplicable
error in the IPCC argumentation has strangely enough not yet caused all governments
to reject the IPCC model. This fact beautifully shows the result of the “scare-them-todeath”
principle (Section 2 above)”.
The missing sink derives from the model not explaining measured reality but as we have learnt here from the anonmice, modelling always trumps reality and instead of throwing the model away and trying something else, the IPCC keeps the model and assumes that the 50% discrepancy must be real.
Pure pseudoscience – the “experiment” fails (model only accounts for 50% of the data) and is accepted as true.
Mick:
So is that like Brook demanding he receive respect as a climate scientist when he isn’t one? That like Rodney Dangerfield? … “He don’t get any respect”
Toby.
“should there be a hot spot or not?”
I’m not sure? You’ll have to give me the reference for the paper.
Louis:
Segaldstad, in his “Carbon Cycle modelling and residence time of natural and atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” Dogma – ESEF 3 Vol 2, on page 11
So that would be the “The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF)”
Pretty reputable ‘journal that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
No collusion there.
Well, at least Brook is a very real “Professor of Climate Science”, and a very real and well respected research scientist.
John is an architect aspiring to be a “climate data analyst”, whatever one of those is.
Does anyone know what that is??
Toby,
I’m not sure how to interpret this statement?
Its quite intriguing.
Do you mean we are wrong and CO2 won’t affect climate? Great! That would be fantastic. I wouldn’t feel any sense of loss. Low probability though.
Do you mean that we are losing the battle against mitigating against dangerous climate change? Well, that would be bad. Wouldn’t it?
Or perhaps you mean we are losing the battle in converting the economy to a low polluting economy and an environmentally sustainable one. But thats OK, because CO2 just isn’t going to be a big deal.
Yep. I think you stand for the last one.
Dude, I’m not judging you, but thats a conspiracy theory mixed with good old fashioned hope. Nothing to do with science.
This comment specifically:
“Your mob definitely need to pick up your act cos its increasingly looking like a losing battle for you!”
Richard S. Courtney
Whaddaya know, I just found your peers in that link.
Now, why would you deliberately withhold that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
Irena; you are obviously here to do mischief; the term ‘hotspot’ has been extrapolated from the AR4 terminology of Fingerprint; as defined in the AR4 glossary;
Fingerprint The climate response pattern in space and/or time to a specific forcing is commonly referred to as a fingerprint. Fingerprints are used to direct the presence of this response in observation and are typically estimated using forced climate model stimulations.
Fig 9.1(c) is here;
http://ipcc-wg1.vcar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
This clearly shows a GHG caused ‘hotspot’ or fingerprint as predicted by computer modelling. The problem is MSU data shows no such fingerprint. You prove otherwise; or toddle back to troll-land.
ah not Mick, Brook is a professor of climate change, not climate science. Those two are not the same.
This is what a undergraduate and graduate climate science degree looks like:
From MIT
1. Convection, Atmospheric Water Vapor, and Cloud Formation
2. Oceans, Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling, and Carbon Cycling
3. Land-Surface Hydrology and Hydrology-Vegetation Coupling
4. Biogeochemistry of Greenhouse Gases and Reflective Aerosols
5. Atmospheric Chemistry and Large-Scale Circulation
Irena, ive seen and heard lindzen and singer mention the missing hot spot, i have also read it in numerous articles, whether or not i can lay my hands on peer reviewed papers is a cop out, the truth is what i would like to find out. Do you think there shoudl be…and if you do as an obvious believer in AGW, doesn t its absence make you just a little bit sceptical?
Your right at this stage I am in the boat of doing little. I am all for investing in R and D to find some viable alternative energy sources. We will need them at some stage anyway, so teh money is not wasted. But I am against a carbon tax or ETS , it will make traders wealthy and achieve no change in climate…as acknowledged by most. So why do it? So yes I am defintely against ETX or taxes on carbon.
Lets award 1 even 10 billion dollars to the group or individual who finds a way of storing alternative energy to allow it to offer base load capacity.
I say you guys are losing the battle to reduce co2 output in a significant way, because unless you can convince China, Russia, India etc to cut their own, anything the west does is irrelevant. So
if the science is that strong, build a case that does not involve lies and obfuscation.
You see whilst there is so much doubt about the degree of warming created by a doubling of co2, because we don t understand enough of teh science, you can t say we have anything other than a belief that additional units of co2 will warm the planet. All the science is , is an attempt to explain what we think is happening. The warming we have seen is nothing like what is predicted by the models….. so why believe the theory?…and it is after all only a theory, that more scientists agree with than don t.
Thx Cohenite, as usual your ability to lay your hands on the required material is exemplary.
I have just sent this message (after Brook & Russell bragged about their Joint Submission to Garnaut with Peter Singer, over at Brook’s):
Dear Peter Singer
I know you have often implied that you are the born again Jesus Christ, but that does not justify you in lending your name to the farrago of nonsense that Barry Brook and Geoff Russell submitted to the Garnaut Review. Unless you confirm to me in writing that you now resile from the garbage in their Submission, I shall write to the relevant authorities at Princeton suggesting that you be put out to graze on non-CO2 grasses (i.e. Sahara sand) with immediate effect.
Amongst many ludicrous statements you put your name to is the following: “Australia’s livestock produce about 3.5 mega tones of methane annually…” Out of thin air or by conversion from pastures that embody atmospheric CO2? If you don’t know that, you are unfit to hold down a Chair anywhere. For it is really beyond belief that you of all people is not aware that cattle graze on pastures that have converted oxygen, water, and CO2 into feed that the cattle use to sustain their lives even while producing methane and respiring CO2, just as you do, except I forgot that with your own immaculate conception, you have never breathed out a molecule of CO2 or farted a smidgeon of methane. Truly, you are as ludicrous a figure as Brook & Russell.
Regards
Tim Curtin
cohenite
Yeah you’re right, I’ve pretty much lost interest now.
Yeah- the MSU data is an anomaly in the context of the various patterns that match CO2 forced climate change with recent observations. Based on fingerprints that were taken from model phase space. These fingerprints are horizontal temperature profiles and vertical temperature profiles which have been filtered for intrinsic variability. The other fingerprints are in variables such as pressure and indices of climate.
As outlined in Chapter 9- Almost all (but not all) of the fingerprints in model space match the spatial and temporal evolution of of the fingerprints in the observations.
The upper troposphere temperatures are very difficult to estimate since there have been so many different instruments used- unlike surface temperature. Even the satellite records need careful calibration since they have had non-continuous instrumentation. Against this there are instrumental observations that show that upper troposphere is cooling- and the stratosphere certainly isn’t heating as one would expect from solar forced warming.
This uncertainty is documented in the literature. Its published. And it attenuates the probabilistic attribution that CO2 has caused 20th century climate change. But the overwhelming conclusion remains in the mainstream science. No one has published different attribution results.
The uncertainty in the MSU does not do anything to refute points 1-5 that I raised above. Nor does it remotely suggest that doubling and tripling atmospheric CO2 will have minimal impact on climate.
OK
Peace.
“ah not Mick, Brook is a professor of climate change, not climate science. Those two are not the same.” – ra
Yes, as I said earlier, he is “Professor of climate Change at Adelaide University”.
So, that should have been “at least Brook is a very real ‘Professor of Climate Change’, and a very real and respected research scientist”.
Alas, John remains an architect with an attitude.
Irena,
It is the blathering and pompus nonsense being peddled by people like you that gets up my nose.
There are several reasons why other people dont publish, one of which might just be that simple fact that real world measurements show that there is bugger all connection between C02 and temperature.
The politics of climate change is another reason.
http://brookesnews.com/080809globalwarming_print.html
The AGW position and campaiging is littered with lies, chicanery and opportunism by the main research bodies, including those here in Australia. Hansen though is in class of his own
The IPCC white coats and others, have always been very quick to try and establish a link with any level of scepticism and supposed funding by big oil,( an absolute pittance in reality), but at the same time conveniently over look the fact that the alarmist industry is funded by $bns from taxpayers all over the world.
When Al Gores dodgey doings are foisted on a gullible public, these self same people come out in support, backing the the many, many errors.
He Gore alone had made more $’s out of this scam ( $200m was the last figure I saw) than has ever been claimed to have been paid to all the sceptics, world wide.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
A Pox on your dam 1600 century closed shop secret Peer Reveiw system. I object to my tax dollars being spent on research that is in effect being audited by such a flawed system
When that gets brought into the 21st century you might start to attract some credibility.
Irena; I’m a tad curious why you don’t show up elsewhere with Google.
cold trail?
Amun
“ianl, there was a brief written debunking by Brook and then the links for details. As to hyperlinking – that is exactly his point – why continually retread old ground when the arguments are already recycled? McLean has been on this meme for a while now.”
My statement said that the detail of McLean’s analysis was not addressed by any of the papers in the links. Just ranting at his non-credentials.
The devil is not in the detail – the truth is. McLean’s analysis, and similarly Wegman’s, cannot be rebutted by calling the authors unqualified – rebuttal requires a transparent fact or set of facts to show the analyses are wrong.
The Achilles Heel of AGW is that the empirical data do not fit the hypothesis. The more “rebuttal” links supplied that ignore the detail of these analyses and instead attack the authors, the more convincing these analyses become.
Malcolm Hill
“http://brookesnews.com/080809globalwarming_print.html”
Nice link. Thank you.
Irena baby waited only a little over 4 hours (5:59pm to 10:20pm) before deciding that he’d won.
I don’t mind his 5 points (I’ve only now had time to read them) and I’ve taken a copy to analyse when I have time – I do find his silly sarcasm quite risible, though. I wonder why he thinks it’s necessary ?
ianl
“Irena baby”
This kind of address is uncalled for. Small wonder that women feel scientific study is out of bounds.
“I don’t mind his 5 points (I’ve only now had time to read them) and I’ve taken a copy to analyse when I have time – I do find his silly sarcasm quite risible, though. I wonder why he thinks it’s necessary ?”
I don’t know who you are referring too but you need to leave your condescending remarks for the street.
By all means do the science.
In the mid 19th. century there were two leaders of opposite parties in the U.K., Gladstone and Disraeli. On one occasion when Gladstone was prime minister he had droned on for about 3 hours delivering a very boring speech and at the end Disraeli rose and said “Sir you are intoxicated with the exuberance of your own verbosity”. Reading Irena’s comments reminds me of that statement. It would appear that this person has swallowed a science dictionary and now every time the mouth opens the belly rumbles.
The very foolish and childish statements regarding the lack of published papers and the constant reference to “mainstream science” clearly indicates that this person has not even attempted to research the vast library of papers, books, articles etc. which systematically and methodically expose the IPCC for the fraud that it is. In addition there have been a number of surveys which expose the claim of “Consensus” to be as idiotic as “mainstream science”. In addition petitions such as the Oregon petition have gained overwhelming support from the professional ranks. Perhaps Irena could point me to the Chapter? Page or even paragraph in the 4th. AR which refers to the evaluation, using the fundamental scientific laws, of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures, and I thought that was what the subject was all about. I have actually read the 4th.AR quite thoroughly.
I note the references to Stefan’s law, Question how can you take a fourth power law and apply it to an average global temperature. I also note the complete absence of any reference to Beer’s law which quite clearly establishes that above 50 meters from the earth’s surface all the CO2 resonant frequencies in the surface radiation have been removed from the spectrum. Just analyzing the spectrum at any point in the atmosphere is meaningless since radiation is being generated and absorbed continuously within the atmosphere so it becomes a net zero balance exchange. The only meaningful energy exchange fluxes are those that take place at the surface which includes reflection, radiation, evaporation, conduction and convection compared to what takes place at the outer limit of the atmosphere which is radiation and reflection.
Irena,
Ah, yes! Wikipedia, that great peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I suppose you also believe all the nonsense about passive smoking, or that salt kills (absolutely not a shred of actual evidence)
Irena
There is no point into referring to the junksite Wikipedia to support your ad-hominems.
I take it then you cannot refute Segaldstats point concerning the artifical missing carbon sink.
Isnt it interesting how those that call for anyone with a different view that they shoud prepare a paper and submit it to the Great Medieval Process called peer review, but they themselves have NO record of publication.
Isnt it interesting how the sources of advice to the policy process such as the BOM/AGO and the CSIRO have a very poor record of publication in the very same GMP, so they are no different to anyine else.
Isnt it interesting how the whole AGW story rests on a foundation of computer modelling, but nowhere can you find GMP published document that lays out ALL the assumptions, protocols and parametisations.
Oh no that would never do, that would telling the punters a lot more than they could conceivably comprehend.
Isnt it interesting how even a routine business analysis such as that performed by people like John Mclean’s herein, cops the call for a GMP document.
What does that say about the standard of knowledge of basic management practices by the likes of Irena and David et al.
“Isnt it interesting how those that call for anyone with a different view that they shoud prepare a paper and submit it to the Great Medieval Process called peer review, but they themselves have NO record of publication.”
I am happy to go with the science. It’s the best tool we have for understanding the universe. I am more than happy to acknowledge my lack of expertise in those areas of knowledge, and defer to the experts. I have no self delusions about taking on the scientists at their own area of expertise and specialisation. Many here do, however. So, go on, take them on. I’d like to see you do so.
SJT
Are you happy to go with the science of nuclear power or do you have a phobia?
I notice Barry Huckster, professor of Totally Massive Extinctions (and Climate Change) is now peddling vegan diets on his blog. What’s next olive oil cures to cancer? hahahahhahahaha
What a huckster.
“I am happy to go with the science.”
No you are just lying SJT. You refuse point blank to go with the evidence.
POINT BLANK.
If I’m wrong lets have some evidence right here right now.
You aint coming up with anything because I’m not wrong about you lying.
“Irena; I’m a tad curious why you don’t show up elsewhere with Google.”
Dig this. Now this anonymous jerk thinks he’s the FBI!!
Come in under your own name gutless coward.
“If the mainstream was truly scientifically controversial- then there would be many, many more papers showing that CO2 posed no danger to the atmosphere.”
Lets have that evidence then Irena. We were after evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. And evidence for the proposition that a little bit of human-induced warming is a BAD THING during a brutal and pulverising ice age.
We don’t need a great volume of stuff. Just evidence, some evidence, any evidence.
Worth a note; GB does show up on Google but whats the catch in that?
Don’t be an idiot gavin. Just make good with the evidence or the admission that you have been both stupid and dishonest.
“Do you mean we are wrong and CO2 won’t affect climate? Great! That would be fantastic. I wouldn’t feel any sense of loss. Low probability though.”
No thats NOT right. Its not a matter of probabilities at all. And you cannot make that link. You don’t have the data at all that would make that link. Accept reality and stop the lying.
Oh dear – I had hoped that in Jen’s new style blog she would do some moderation of inflamatory language and ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately it is still the same – I really don’t understand how a respectable scientist would allow this sort vitriol and venom to appear under her name. It adds nothing to the debate and merely puts off those genuinely interested in the science.
Stop being an insidious jerk, Plover.
Barry Huckster Professor of Totally Massive Extinctions and (Huge Global Warming), Macquarie graduate and 130,001 peer reviewed articles started it as a result of being a backstabbing little jerk by going over to Deltoid’s site trying to round up a posse to abuse McLean when he posted on the Mclean thread.
That’s simply disgusting behavior but it’s what one would expect from a huckster.
So go an ask the totally massive extinctions professor why he would do such a cowardly thing.
Ra/Graeme Bird(one and the same) – and you are the worst culprit with the foulest mouth – try engaging your brain before you speak. I have visited bravenewclimate.com and found the people over there were, in the main, civilised, polite and well-informed – unfortunately the same can’t be said for this blog.
Well said Plover.
One has to ask whether the purpose of this blog is to discredit climate denialists. You won’t find a worse collection of foul-mouthed deluded incompetents anywhere.
I salute all the rational people who try to educate the uneducable denizens here, but really, it is futile, isn’t it? Leave them to wallow in their own bog of Phantasy Physics and general ignorance.
So you’ve got the evidence then idiot?’
You are a moron mate. You and plover ought to be horsewhipped until you come up with the evidence.
So lets have it and we can avoid the in-betweens.
You see you and plover are just laying on the mindless bluff. Else you would have made good on the evidence already.
You don’t get it do you? There is zero point in attempting any sort of reasonable discussion with you.
There is no way of convincing someone like you of anything that conflicts with your predetermined and politically motivated beliefs, and your style here is hardly likely to convert any fence-sitters to your side.
This is what happens when you don’t take my advice. It tires me. I feel weary. But lets go over it again.
TrueSkeptic?
Did you have that brain transplant?
NO I DIDN’T THINK SO.
Did you get have that SLUT-TUMOUR -REMOVAL?
I don’t suppose so..
Well…………
Did you find that elusive evidence that you could not come up with before?
No you didn’t even try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Face it sister. I’ve got you pinned down head first. Your hair knotted in my hand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m not fussy when it comes to evidence.
Just start with SOME evidence and if you can get CONVERGENT evidence than I’ll be won over don’t doubt it.
Evidence? It is funny that you would use such a word when you have no idea what it means.
For instance, please show us the “evidence” for you apparently assuming that I am female.
Not that this should have any relevance to “discussions” here anyway…
Well- Graeme Bird – finally comes out as a mysogynist – what a surprise! Add that to the rest of the list of people/things he hates.
If people are going to be insulting than they can expect to get it back. You guys had it all one way for too long. I decided that those days are over.
When people make claims for science and they are in contempt of evidence thats heretical for me. A lot of people may have become desenstized but its objectively insensitive behaviour amongst those who hold jealously those perogatives that had in the past been accorded to science.
I know what evidence is. So this little bitch (male or female) is lying. And being insensitve. Matter of fact I’m getting all hurt thinking about it.
Now lets have your several retractions. Why are you coming here (not this blog but this entire subject-matter) to a place where some people are NOT in contempt of evidence. Don’t you know that amongst those who still believe in scientific values that you are about as welcome as a KKK member at a Black Panther meeting.
Gramscian Marxists are not at home with science. She is not for you…… this thing we call science. You don’t belong even so much as within the boundaries of the subject-matter.
Science was probably practiced a lot better in the religious age when people just thought “well if this is how God made it we are happy with whatever it is we will find…”
Now we have leftists trying to CREATE reality rather than just discover it.
This is why you are not welcome in the subject-matter. You ought to be spectators or just go away. There are those who think that the observer tries to discover reality. Whereas there are those who think that the observer creates it. The latter ought to beat it.
Everywhere we see ourselves overtaken by people not really interested in science for its own sake, as an expression of its own values. Instead they are interested only on the basis of what the “party” decision is. How it will affect politics. The Leninist concept of democratic centralism writ large.
For the communists TRUTH was by definition what the decision of the party was. For you guys its the consensus. But the scientists saw natural reality as beyond the decision-making capacity of puny humans and our petty squabbles didn’t change reality even a little bit either way.
Now the better exponents of some of the favoured tools are held up to be fine scientists but they are no such thing. Since in reality science is NATURAL PHILOSOPHY…. And maths and statistics are only tools of this discipline.
“This clearly shows a GHG caused ‘hotspot’ or fingerprint as predicted by computer modelling. The problem is MSU data shows no such fingerprint. You prove otherwise; or toddle back to troll-land.”
As fine an example of cherry picking as has ever been produced. The original claim by Christy et al was that the whole troposphere was not showing the correct fingerprint, according to their satellite data. Upon investigation, it was their satellite data that was wrong.
They came back with a revised claim, the mid level, tropical troposphere hotspot was the problem now, a vastly reduced scope from the original claim. Their graph is highly misleading, as it shows the deviation from the modelled projections. The spot has warmed, but not as much, according to their measurements. The ‘missing’ is not missing, they are displaying the deviation from the projection. That the models have hot it 90% correct is not the problem for them. As it is, the deviation is within the bounds of error, and is being investigated, just as all the science is being investigated, and re-investigated. It’s an ongoing process, because it will never be finished. That is the nature of science. Given the evidence that has been collected, the convergent streams from the various sources referred to in the reports, AGW is still mostly correct. (And for science, that’s usually as good as it gets.)
Come on SJT. You are crying wolf here. You are bullshitting us right? You read something over at Deltoid that you didn’t understand and you are running with it right?
OK. What else have you got about this? Keep going. Make your case further.