ON Monday 13th July [the day after tomorrow] as 1,000 invited guests attend a breakfast with Al Gore at Docklands Peninsula [Melbourne] at 7am, an expected crowd of about 50 – 100 people will protest that Al Gore should debate the science of Climate change properly before any emissions trading schemes begin.
A leaflet with 17 Questions will be given to guests as they arrive.
The message of the protest will be, since Gores movie was produced:
* Global temperatures have decreased;
* The Arctic Ice Cap has increased back to average levels;
* Sea levels have stopped rising;
* Only 5 independant IPCC scientists said they agreed CO2 was the cause of Climate change (not 2,500);
* 31,000 Us Scientists have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence CO2 causes climate change;
* The IPCC temperature predictions have been shown to be wrong; and
* The Vostock Ice cores show (in past warming events) temperature rises before CO2 does (the opposite of Al Gores claims).
The protesters conclude AL GORE IS WRONG, Climate Change is natural – not man made.
We believe the evidence is overwhelming and the world deserves a proper debate before we reverse our economies and standards of living and starve millions of third world people all for no climatic benefit.
Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Why would you debate Al Gore, he is not a scientist researching and publishing on AGW. And after listening to the debate between Gaving and Chrichton, the deniers will just use the tried and proven creationist tactics of destroying strawmen, theatricality, appeals to emotion and misrepresentation of the science.
“* The Vostock Ice cores show (in past warming events) temperature rises before CO2 does (the opposite of Al Gores claims).”
He says
“So if you look at a thousand years worth of temperature and compare it to a thousand years of CO2 you can see how closely they fit together.”
He is associating CO2 levels with warm periods, which is true. He left out the issue of if is always the forcing, which it quite clearly is not. If you want to look at historical evidence, you have to consider, we have never done this before, so this situation is unique.
SJT: “He says ‘So if you look at a thousand years worth of temperature and compare it to a thousand years of CO2 you can see how closely they fit together.'”
Eh? You’re quote cherry picking a little part? The final and crucial thing Gore says in the movie about this: “But there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature gets warmer. Because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”
Btw, even if you don’t success it’s a bit strange to see someone deny the existence a basic argument.
since Gores movie was produced:
* Global temperatures have decreased;
wow, a full two and a half years?!?
* The Arctic Ice Cap has increased back to average levels;
this is simply a false claim. 2007 (the year after IT) was the lowest arctic sea ice on record. 2008 was the second lowest.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
who prints such obvious lies on leaflets?
* Only 5 independant IPCC scientists said they agreed CO2 was the cause of Climate change (not 2,500);
this claim is so obviously false, that i am not even going to quote a source. again, which idiot decided to put something like this into print?!?
* 31,000 Us Scientists have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence CO2 causes climate change;
it is deep desperation, when you are forced to quote the oregon petition. has anyone found any climate scientists among those who signed yet?
http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again
* The IPCC temperature predictions have been shown to be wrong; and
again, simply a false claim.
Al Gore does not debate climate change because “the science is settled, the dabate is over”, simple as that. He has not debated anyone in several years now because he says the debate is over.
But continue the protest, and make sure the media is aware, otherwise the protest will be for naught.
“…we have never done this before, so this situation is unique.”
The atmosphere’s CO2 level was some millions of years ago 1000 ppm, and 2000 ppm, but there is in the data no found cause-and-effect releationship where CO2 controls temperature.
Evidence says the relationship is the opposite, which proves that the Henry’s law controls CO2 concentration. This means that if we increase the CO2 concentration the oceans will quite soon — within a few year — absorb the extra CO2.
Scientists as Bert Bolin, Roger Revelle, and lots of others has found that the lifetime of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is about (roughly average value) 5 years; see chapter 9 here:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
IPCC says 200 years (that’s dogma now) but don’t explain why 35 previous studies are wrong.
The increase of CO2 the last decades has been half the amount of released fossil CO2, so at least half of the CO2 we havve emitted has been absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere (better growing trees etc). Since we-ve had a temperature rise one must also expect that some of the CO2 increase is due to Henry’s law. Thus *less than* half of the emitted CO2 has resulted in increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. This reality is not compatible with the IPCC hypothesis and the models. Actually IPCC claims that something is happening which data says isn’t happening. There are many areas in which they claims such things, so one shouldn’t be surpriced.
It is exciting to see that Australia is committed to science and becoming aware that America is sending a politician to preech and raise money. Algore fleecing the flock.
Algore has a block on debating. He has all his junk on power point screens and how dare a scientist raise questions.
Algore brings new meaning to large carbon footprint. I am in favor of saving whales. This one? Not so much.
It looks like the alarmists are worried.
sod 1:05: “wow, a full two and a half years?!?”
dur to the RSS record from January 2001 to June 2009 there was with 95% confidence something between no change and decreasing temperatur with 0.3 C:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/rss_jan2001_june2009.jpg
That satellite data says with 95% confidence “no temperature increase since January 2001”.
sod: “The Arctic Ice Cap has increased back to average levels”
It’s like almost within the standard deviation 1979-2007:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Now the Arctic ice may go down to 2008 or 2007 levels — or not. Either way it doesn’t prove anything. The record we have is over a very short period of time. We know that there wasn’t any ice around the shores of Greenland 800 years ago, as well as lots of glaciers there didn’t exists by then. There were no sea ice in the Arctic sea about 6000 years ago (*), but on the other hand 1200 times more ice in the summer 16000 years ago than we have today!
Things are just changing.
If we shall discuss small changes the last 30 years — and they have almost no relevance in the greenhouse discussion — the Antarctica ice has increased so the amount of sea ice is like it was 30 years ago.
—–
(*) http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago
dur to the RSS record from January 2001 to June 2009
so you agree with me, that this is complete nonsense?
The message of the protest will be, since Gores movie was produced:
* Global temperatures have decreased;
* The Arctic Ice Cap has increased back to average levels;
sod: “so you agree with me, that this is complete nonsense?”
Eh? What do you mean? How can you draw that conclusion? Are you a total wacko?
You say yourself that temperature has declined the last “full two and a half years”. So in that respect the protesters are right. Right?
But you tried to dominish that temperature decline fact with the notion that it has happenned only for two and a half years, which isn’t the case, and which I showed with the sentences you now didn’t quoted to the end. Read this again: “due to the RSS record from January 2001 to June 2009 there was with 95% confidence something between no change and decreasing temperatur with 0.3 C. […] no temperature increase since January 2001.”
I’ve also a link to the statistics above.
Thus you are wrong that there’s a cooling trend only the last “full two and a half years”. The period 2001 to 2009, which had a cooling trend and with 95% confidence no temperature increase fully 8 years. The protesters are perfectly right in every way!
I can add that IPCC says temperature shall rise every decade, no matter how active the sun is. IPCC says the grenhouse gas forcing is at least +0.3 C per decade.
I hope you are happy with my answer.
It looks like the alarmists are worried.
Sure does. Look at them digging up Desmog blog. I didn’t even know Rich Littlemore had plucked up his courage enough to return to it after the beat down he took from Lord Monckton.
Sure it was only two years ago that Gore started cashing in on the scam, but it’s been ten years of cooling.
Why didn’t Gore tell us about that in his movie?
Probably the same reason why Sod doesn’t want to talk about Arctic sea ice in 2009 or Antarctica at all.
You say yourself that temperature has declined the last “full two and a half years”. So in that respect the protesters are right. Right?
even if the 2 1/2 year is right, it is still complete nonsense, when talking about climate.
the claim about the arctic sea ice since 2006 is obviously completely false. (2007 and 2008 were the lowest years on record. arctic sea ice is nowhere near “normal”.
Thus you are wrong that there’s a cooling trend only the last “full two and a half years”. The period 2001 to 2009,
a 7 1/2 year trend is barely better in climate, that a 2 1/2 one.
I can add that IPCC says temperature shall rise every decade, no matter how active the sun is. IPCC says the grenhouse gas forcing is at least +0.3 C per decade.
i will greatly enjoy, reading your links and quotes supporting this claim!!!!
I wrote: “95% confidence something between no change and decreasing temperatur”
This is actually about the same as to say 95% chance that temperature declined since 2001. (The “no-change-probability-area” is just a tiny slice of the whole probability area.)
Good luck and best wishes to the voices of reason and freedom in Australia. May Gore and his Goreons experience confusion and confoundment as they try to spread fear and enrich themselves on the backs of Australians.
AGW is to Climate Science what Eugenics was to Evolution. Gore & co. are profiteers using fear to fleece a credulous world. If the turning of the tide can begin in Australia, it is all to the good.
Best wishes on a good event. May truth prevail over hype, and reason prevail over propaganda.
Even though I am an AGW ‘denier’, I may even have to agree with some of sod’s remarks about this leaflet (I will go hang my head in shame later for admitting this). But surely there are better arguments than these you can nail Gore on?
ie Why did temperatures increase 0.5C from 1910-1940 with a minimal increase in CO2 (this mirrors about the same temp rise from 1978 to now with a 50 ppm rise)? This also happened in the 1700s in the CET graphs.
How about ‘What actual scientific proof can you produce that CO2 will lead to catastrophic CC?’ The IPCC doesn’t have conclusive evidence.
If you look at the ice core record for the past 400,000 years, we still have another 2-3C of temperature rise in this interglacial regardless of CO2. There will be bumps up and down on the way but there is another 5000-10000 years to go before we reach that point.
Alternatively, we could ‘pattern’ the period prior to that and start a downward spiral within the next 1000 years. It’s anyone’s guess but CO2 didn’t cause up to a 15C degree difference between glacial and interglacial periods. .
Hmmm we are all doomed look http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg this shows clear water at the North Pole are the warming zealots right. When was it I missed it in 2007 that year was the lowest since 1979? Ah have a look at http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm the eighth entry “Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959”! There many other photos there. Not just on this but on many other counts this whole nonsense about the poles is just so ridiculous. Before we watched the sea ice extent with satellites the detail is scant. There is a lot of historical record to show that sea ice was much lower in the past than anything after 1979. For instance during the second world war Germany sent a merchant raider from the Atlantic into the Pacific via the pole route.
Anyhow this thread is about the a demo against the Goracle. This is politics not about reality the points made are only to add weight to the demo. Attacking the points is the usual rubbish from the zealots.
“Best wishes on a good event. May truth prevail over hype, and reason prevail over propaganda” I am with you Hunter but I doubt reason will win the argument. Perhaps the electricity supply to the meeting should be disrupted I am sure it is evil electricity.
What pleases me though are reports like these http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718309166920285.html. The G8 failed on AGW and my BSM (computer model) is giving predictions that Copenhagen will also. It has a 90% probability confidence level due to reality forcing.
Report from NASA July 8th:
Satellite pics from Arctic show that the ” old ice” has decreased with 57% during the period from 2004 to 2008.
NASA scientist Ray Zwally blames this on AGW.
The old ice is important because it doesn’t melt away during summertime .
Ian unfortunately logic an reason does not win these sort of political arguments. Joe public is mainly swayed bit their personal interests. You have to show and get into the public knowledge that there is dissagreement on the doom and gloom. Once joe public gets the idea that the proposed measures will cost them dearly and that only a few countries are going to do anything about this supposed Global problem. The whole AGW movement will be in deep trouble. The myth of green jobs will be exposed soon. Let us say an industry in wind turbines is created. Who will make them cheaper than anyone else China or India, we just need to make the market bigger for them. Their response on emissions is effectively go to hell we are not that silly. The media appears to be shifting also due to the GFC funding is decreasing.
Link to my comment:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28661
One of the points in the leaflet to be handed out,
* The IPCC temperature predictions have been shown to be wrong.
sod replies,
again, simply a false claim.
Really, which of the IPCCs reports “projections” has been shown to be “correct”. ?
Not one of the four so far IPCC AR reports has “projected” any cooling whatsoever
anytime between 1990 and 2100 as far as I’m aware.
—————
GOOD LUCK with the demo Australia, the world needs some down to earth common sense,
your renowned (in a good way) for that type of approach.
I hope to see mass media coverage of the demo, and
Al Gore debating with bone fide skeptics being globally distributed on the TV channels.
I doubt such media coverage will be allowed, or such debate will happen,
but this type of demo / pressure for debate needs to happen
WHERE EVER Al Gore shows his face.
Great start Australia, I hope others follow.
OK – where’s the standards here.
“Only 5 independant IPCC scientists said they agreed CO2 was the cause of Climate change (not 2,500);”
independant is a typo
It’s details like this that undermines that denialist case.
Birdie, have you heard of the Gakkel Ridge.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/climate%20stuff%202/Map_p-small.jpg
See,
http://temp.geobio.uib.no/View.aspx?mid=1062&itemid=90&pageid=1093&moduledefid=71
Excerpt,
” we then slowly watched as the first smoker came into view and the camera started going up, up, and up, seemingly forever. We were speechless as the camera continued onto the top of this huge formation, made even more gigantic by its placement on top of a hill, and sure enough, at the top, some 11 meters (over 35 feet) up, there was an unmistakeable plume of thick dark smoke. We had found our vent!
Subsequent dives found another nearby site with four more active vents, two large and two small. Temperature readings taken from three of the vents registered in excess of 300 degrees C. And all of the vents are full of vent fauna. The beauty of the vents was particularly striking. The composite reminded this American of New England in the fall! And yes, we have found what looks to be one of the biggest hydrothermal deposits in the world! ”
End of excerpt.
I think you may well find that it is worth wider consideration of what actually did,
or contribute largely to, cause the Arctic ice to thin.
Particularly in one year (2007) compared to all the others. ?
Something that releases a lot of heat into a localised area, and varies considerably.
Hmmm, what could that be. ?
Birdie,
Be that as disturbing as it is, it happened in the early part of the 1900s as well.
The evidence from ship logs and the weather authorities of the time regarding high temps in the Arctic and loss of sea ice is undeniable.
The AGW crowd either dismiss it or deny it. Until Gore et al acknowledge this fact (and many others like the MWP and LIA) they have little credibility.
They would be on much safer ground if they just argue that we should be researching and developing sustainable (green?) sources of energy for its own sake.
SJT: “Why would you debate Al Gore, he is not a scientist”
Neither are you so should we ignore your comments?
Derek
Is this the reason for the Arctic sea ice thinning? Has the IPCC heard of this? What do they say?
SJT carelessly wrote:
“Why would you debate Al Gore, he is not a scientist researching and publishing on AGW.”
Then why is Al avoiding a debate with the Viscount Monckton,who is not a scientist either?
Who has challenged Mr. Gore for a debate for around 2 years now.But Al keeps avoiding him,why is he so afraid?
Ian – the IPCC review the relevant credible scientific literature periodically. Unlike denialist scum the IPCC they don’t dry hump any hypothesis that wanders past. As for Arctic ice – well you lot couldn’t lay straight in bed. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png What’s your issue?
Record low ice at Greenland http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701102900.htm
As for Leon’s little bit of faux scepticism – should be a hoot. I hear they’ll be now using the leaflet contents as studies in “prime denial”. The more the denialist fraternity plays it’s hand with stuff like this the better. Of course if that doesn’t work – they could start a fight at the demo.
Test
sod: “even if the 2 1/2 year is right, it is still complete nonsense, when talking about climate.”
And who mention “two and a half years”? Not me. Not the protesters. You did, in order to accuse this comment about a decade.
Now the temperature has declined in 8 years. IPCC says we should have a temperature increase each decade, so 8 years are a decade minus 2 years which isn’t nonsense if IPCC’s per-decade-increase isn’t nonsense.
sod: “claim about the arctic sea ice since 2006 is obviously completely false. (2007 and 2008 were the lowest years on record. arctic sea ice is nowhere near ‘normal’.”
The claim wasn’t that, and it wasn’t even about the ice since 2006, but the ice right now, in 2009. Stop doing kthise false accusations. So lets look at the ice 2009 again:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
The May levels was about average 1979-2007, and yet more 1979-2009. From June the levels are close to standard deviation. That’s a futile difference for Arctic sea ice, which always change and change due to currents and winds, says glaciologists, not due to back radiation.
You’re also here use a small change a few single years, despite that you unnecessarily told us that’s not acceptable (the mentioned 2.5 years, which is actually was 8 years).
Let me also repeat: There’s no normal sea ice level. There was no glaciers on Greenland and no Arctic sea ice along Greenland’s shores as it is today 800 years ago. Also there was no sea ice at all 6000-7000 years ago (see the NGU link above). 16000 years ago it was like more than 1000 times more Arctic ice than summer ice now. Ice always change. (Btw I prefer less ice, and I prefer the much warmer times with healthier people, more food, shrinking desserts etc which due to my history books occurred in the Holocene optimum, when it was about (or at least) 1 C warmer than it is today.)
Luke
“OK – where’s the standards here.
“Only 5 independant IPCC scientists said they agreed CO2 was the cause of Climate change (not 2,500);”
independant is a typo
It’s details like this that undermines that denialist case.”
I am glad he agrees with the proposition though that it was only 5.
Now everyone lets watch very carefully for a spelling mistake from Luke. Don’t let him wynne.
sod: “i will greatly enjoy, reading your links and quotes supporting this claim… [that “IPCC says temperature shall rise every decade, no matter how active the sun is. IPCC says the grenhouse gas forcing is at least +0.3 C per decade”]”
Why don’t you read IPCC yourself? I’m glad to help you. In the Technical Summary of AR4 they say “the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2 C to 4.5 C, with a best estimate value of about 3 C.” In the scenario with double CO2 concentration (sensitivity stands for that) year 2100, we have an average forcing of +0.33 C per decade. Cooling from deep solar minimum is due to IPCC smaller.
(Actual temperature change will for a time be slightly lower: “For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected…” (*) The lower value is not because of less force, but because of a delay due to ocean heat storage.)
http://www.ipcc.ch
(*) The Synthesis report.
sod: “i will greatly enjoy, reading your links and quotes supporting this claim… [that “IPCC says temperature shall rise every decade, no matter how active the sun is. IPCC says the grenhouse gas forcing is at least +0.3 C per decade”]”
Why don’t you read IPCC yourself? I’m glad to help you. In the Technical Summary of AR4 they say “the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2 C to 4.5 C, with a best estimate value of about 3 C.” In the scenario with double CO2 concentration (sensitivity stands for that) year 2100, we have an average forcing of +0.33 C per decade. Cooling from deep solar minimum is due to IPCC smaller.
(Actual temperature change will for a time be slightly lower: “For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected…” (*) The lower value is not because of less force, but because of a delay due to ocean heat storage.)
(*) The Synthesis report.
“When there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature gets warmer. Because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”
That’s right, he repeats himself. More carbon dioxide is associated with a warmer earth. He does not distinguish between CO2’s role as a positive feedback or forcing. It can be either. In this case, it is a forcing, because we are in the process of doubling it’s content in the atmosphere.
sod. Link to the IPCC’s reports I mentioned and quoted:
http://tinyurl.com/2ttmvq
One shouldn’t need to give anyone this link, but you seem to be lost since you didn’t know this basic fact about IPCC’s projected temperature increase, and not even know the existence of the IPCC reports where one easily finds it. (Also you’re lost, or just intentionally stupid, with your false accusation 2 1/2 years, which was 8.5 years, or almost a decade, as well as your incorrect strawman that the protestors mention ice after 2006, not current ice.)
I agree that 2-3 year is no time in a climate perspective, but these protestors didn’t mention that. In climate science, however, a few years, or even a month temperature variation is relevant because it may reflect the effect from a climate force factor. E g the sun minimum is interresting, as well as low level cloud cover which correlates with 99.5% significance with galactic cosmic rays, due to a study:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
Again: Why do you say 2-3 years ice change proves AGW? That’s inconsistent to your (unnecessary – since no one made any error) requirement on others. Also stop create accusations by claiming others say what they don’t say, such as 2 1/2 years, and that protestors mention ice after 2006. They didn’t and your debating style stinks.
Luke
I have no issue regards sea ice levels at present except it’s happened before.
However, your ‘Record low ice at Greenland’ link talks about the drop in ice from 1910-1920. The ice melt continued for some years after this.
Maybe the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic is the ‘smoking gun’ in all of this. Highly active vents causing waters to warm, sea ice to melt – wow. Is there a similar ridge in the Antarctic?
As I have stated above (7:16am), many of the questions in the leaflet can be refuted.
Questions for Al Gore:
Just how does the climate we have today differ from the climate we had in, say, 1979?
By what means, exactly, do you verify that the human emission of CO2 accounts dangerously for any difference?
Would a climate governed by IPCC be static – that is, how would we know when we had achieved an IPCC sanctioned climate?”
Once a supranational IPCC global climate governance is installed would further research on the assertion that human CO2 drives climate change be permitted?
I think the reason that Algore has given up his pointer and graphs of CO2 and temperature is because he’s finally realised that nobody is going to listen to science presented by a fat arsed charismatic crank with a D in science.
SJT: “That’s right, he repeats himself. More carbon dioxide is associated with a warmer earth.”
What is your problem? Can’t you decide if you shall deny Gore’s argument, or not deny it?
In your first comment, 11:57, you’re apparently try to refute this claim about Gore from the protesters:
You commented that Gore says that temperature and CO2 “closely … fit together”, which was just dusky. Why did you even respond? Since you didn’t mention what Gore explicitly said about this, did you try to say that Gore didn’t say “there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature gets warmer”?
It doesn’t seems so, so I think you‘re just dusky — that avoid to be clear about this. Since Gore say this the protesters are right, and now you suddenly defend this opposite cause-and-effect relationship. So why did you respond in first place? Why wasn’t you happy the way the protesters describe Gore’s claim about this?
You may say this opposite relationship *can* exist (Gore flatout lied it’s the strongest cause-and-effect!) — that we can’t exclude that it does exist. It’s quite inconceivable that an intelligent person can claim that something which is not appear in data both exists and is of large importance!!! Since this relationship doesn’t show up in the data it has to, if it exist, be so tiny that it’s of no relevance.
Explicitly data excludes that the opposite relationship exists when a temperature shift starts and ends. This is because at these occasions the CO2 levels goes in the opposite direction to what it should have done if CO2 affect temperature. The remaining phase, where the opposite cause-and-effect relationship may exist, is when a transition between two concentration and temperature levels, respectively, at the same time is happening. I.e. 800 years after temperature start a change and 800 years before the CO2 change has stopped. The opposite cause-and-effect direction should here be observable as an increased speed of change, which it isn’t. So the opposite cause-and-effect direction Gore suggest is refuted. It’s actually one of the errors that the British High Court decided that pupils must be informed about. It’s a lie which has fooled people in a similar way Mann’s hockey stick graph did. It’s been the new smoking gun of anthropogenic global warming, but is plain wrong.
SJT: “He does not distinguish between CO2’s role as a positive feedback or forcing. It can be either.”
If it’s a positive forcing that should be indicated anywhere in data, which it isn’t. Neither the opposite cause-and-effect or a positive feedback (which is dependent on that opposite cause-and-effect) is indicated in the data.
SJT: “In this case, it is a forcing, because we are in the process of doubling it’s content in the atmosphere.”
You’re repeating propaganda? A physical opposite cause-and-effect relationship of any relevance is refuted by empirical data. There’s consistently also no positive feedback between CO2 and temperature, so what you claim is a flat-out lie. Basically you can’t have read the IPCC on this. They don’t say there is a positive feedback in a relationship between CO2 and temperature. Instead they say that the positive feedback is caused by water vapour and clouds (which btw is falsified) when a doubling of CO2 push up temperature +1 C (*). So the idea that CO2 raise temperature which in its turn raise CO2 isn’t suggested by IPCC, but Gore and other non-scientists and/or alarmists claim this. Anything goes? 🙁
(*) RealClimate: “In the absence of any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase in global surface temperature of ~1 K.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/climate-feedbacks/
–
Let me just add that there are so many more errors in this hypothesis. The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is e g due to all recent research — about 35 studies –, only approximately 5 to 10 years (**), but IPCC invented 200 years, without any comment about what the errors of any of these empirical studies was. This also stinks!
(**) http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
As I have stated above (7:16am), many of the questions in the leaflet can be refuted.
So they need a little help. Are we not the good hands people? Someone go on over and give their presentation a little polish.
I don’t see any sharp edges or corners there though.
The beautiful thing about Albert is he isn’t going to talk to or let the press see his presentation.
What’s a reporter to do?
Hey I know. Go over and interview some of those people waving the AL GORE GO HOME signs.
That aught to fill some time.
If temp has increased by 0.7c (probably a big IF) in the last 100 years the main driver is the planet’s recovery from the little ice age because that NATURAL climate change easily accounts for that rise.
Then from 1977 to 1999 we’ve had a warm phase PDO plus higher numbers of El nino events over that 20 year period, entirely NATURAL CC once again.
Therefore no need for extremist religious fanaticism, to explain this small increase in temp and no need for the world to waste trillions of dollars trying to fix this entirely natural CC.
–“nobody is going to listen to science presented by a fat arsed charismatic crank with a D in science.”
Mack -A good point, but I believe he is only a failed highschool divinity student, who became a failure as VP, but who then went on to pull the biggest scam of all time , and thereby increase his personal wealth by 100 fold.
Not only did he con all those gullible investors, but a bevy of left wing Swedish parliamentarians, who also gave him a big chunk of someone elses money.
Meanwhile in Australia he has an adoring crowd at the CSIRO/CMAR outfit the BOM and AGO etc who had previously reckoned his AIT was as good as anything they had seen.
Not one of them criticised him, for not doing a peer reviewed paper. But the same people are quite happy to endorse his AIT as a “Prospectus” like document worthy of others punting their money on.
Nor will he debate anyone.
The continuing hypocrisy of all these people is just so laughable.
Wold love to know who else he is visiting whilst he is here –that would be rather telling, and indeed how he travelled. Private jet I bet
Malcolm Hill – yep fair critique. But Al being not the best ambassador doesn’t have anything to do with the science.
Neville: “Ice age recovery” – what utter denialist crappola. There’s no evidence of a “recovery” elastic band phenomena at all. There is plenty of evidence to show how the LIA temperature and subsequently were DRIVEN – not “recovering”. LIA itself driven by solar and volcanic effects.
Parker et al. have comprehensively shown that global warming is a global not a second order effect like the PDO. Get a grip.
When Dear Neville are you going to stop sprouting utter crap and backing up your “pronouncements” with some data or actual science studies. Scientific studies are not wishful thinking and having a little ranty tanty while having a few ales.
I think it’s about time some smart people start to look at the possibility of a legal challenge to this corruption.
In the UK the court challenge to gore’s corrupt sci fi movie definitely helped to bring about a change in the public’s support for this ridiculous AGW nonsense.
That challenge was instigated by a concerned parent and backed by a small political party, surely a similar challenge could work here in Australia?
Afterall there must be a lot of concerned parents throughout Australia who are worried about this level of fraud and corruption backed by our so called scientific institutions.
Magnus A – is there a Magnus B?
Anyhow – Gore may have some stuff arse-up but that doesn’t mean that this somehow invalidates the broad AGW position. The glacial cycles are not where you would look for CO2 as a driver of the change – why would you? Doesn’t make sense.
What does make sense is the result of a sudden injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. PETM , Deccan Traps !
OK Neville – put your full name and address – and publicly state which of our national scientists has committed fraud.
It’s also about time we start hammering denialists writing bogus editorials in our newspapers.
Or blatantly incorrect books – will you be using Plimer’s tome as your first example of academic fraud – or will you be defending his work as that of fiction or perhaps personal opinion.
Will you be defending the Bible as a work of fiction or an evil manifest designed to control people’s lives? Or will be like a big hypocritical toad swearing on the same to testify?
But legal attacks on individuals is just what you’d expect from Nazi goose-stepping denialists.
It’s about your level of morality. Denialist scum. Hurry on the Royal Commission. Bring it on !
Let’s get the denialists into the position where they will be cross-examined with no set scripts. Fund it well and take as long as they like.
Luke,
You have it back to front for the PETM – and Plimer’s book is blatantly wrong? Because it contradicts the AGW theory it must therefore be deemed wrong?
Sudden injection of greenhouse gases caused the PETM – and just what caused that? I notice Wiki has managed to make the PETM explanation AGW consistent so it’s pointless citing it, but it’s interesting seeing geology being rewritten to be AGW compatible. No wonder Plimer’s book is so threatening.
” yep fair critique. But Al being not the best ambassador doesn’t have anything to do with the science.
That is bull dust Walker.
The scientists came out strongly in support of his AIT. Not only that Gore had a gaggle of leading scientists advising him on its creation, including Hansen.
Here in Australia all the leading scientist were not only photographed at the screening but were interviewed afterwards and asked to comment.
They are rated it very highly including the ones from the CMAR.
That information is in the public domain.
Luke
“Parker et al. have comprehensively shown that global warming is a global not a second order effect like the PDO.”
I’m sorry, he did nothing of the sort, according to others, comes down to whom you believe!
———————-
“Let’s get the denialists into the position where they will be cross-examined ”
It’s not the “denialists” who assert the human induced nature of climate variation, it’s you and your colleagues, who have the burden of proof. You are asking people to shell out the cash.
I’m afraid shouting abuse or ignoring inconvenient arguments as you frequently do, just doesn’t cut it as proof.
Luke:
Global warming is global? Who would have thought…..
Luke
“Ice age recovery” – what utter denialist crappola. There’s no evidence of a “recovery” elastic band phenomena at all. There is plenty of evidence to show how the LIA temperature and subsequently were DRIVEN – not “recovering”. LIA itself driven by solar and volcanic effects.”
So what caused the LIA in the first place? and what do you mean LIA itself driven by solar and volcanic effects?
Do you actually understand what you are writing here? You are fast getting up to SJT’s reputation for non-sequiturs.
Luke said above : “OK Neville – put your full name and address – and publicly state which of our national scientists has committed fraud”.
Well I can name a dozen who have been more than economical with the truth starting with Wigley & Enting (CSIRO 1994) down to Canadell Raupach et al. (also CSIRO, PNAS, 2007) who assume that sooner or later no further biospheric sequestration of CO2 will be possible becuae all sinks will be “saturated”. There is zero evidence for this, and plenty against, like the 57% of all emissions from 1958 to 2008 (see CDIAC and the latter pair’s data at http://www.carbonprojetc.org) that has not remained in the atmosphere because it went in to the saturated sinks. Wigley & Enting invoked Malthus (if not by name) – he of the food production will never keep up with population claim (1798) , based on the same false reasoning.
I know I’m trying to explain this corrupt nonsense to a cloth eared bint but I’ll try anyway.
Firstly I BELIEVE IN CC I am not a true DENIER like luke and his cohorts who only believe in AGW, which is an easily explained fraud.
From 1300 to 1850 the earth experienced a minor ice age that reduced the temp by around 1C, when it finished a recovery allowed the planet to slowly return some of that 1C. If scientists agree that the LIA has ended the temp has to rise unless you’re a stupid fool.
Therefore this easily explains the AGW nonsense because the planet hasn’t recovered the full 1C.
Of course the temp drops and increases over the 20th century don’t follow co2 rise at all.
The planet’s temp decreased from the late 19th century to 1910 then increased to around 1945 then dropped to 1976, then increased to 1998 and dropped since.
A little over a decade after the 1970’s ice age scare hansen addressed congress to start off this latest AGW nonsense with the gore numbskull standing in the wings.
Since 1977 to 1998 we’ve had a warm phase PDO and predominantly el nino events so of course the temp would be expected to rise for that 2 decade period. So more NATURAL temp increase added to the LIA recovery.
Solar radiation has increased over most of the 20th century so perhaps another .1c increase to add to the list.
The UHI effect would easily account for a further .2c rise in temp as well.
If as the bouys are showing the oceans are cooling this corrupt AGW fraud will be in for a hard time.
But to finish add 0.4c for the LIA recovery, then 0.1c for increased solar radiation plus 0.2c for the 20 year warm phase PDO, plus 0.2c for UHI and we have +0.9c of natural CC temp increase.
Therefore unless you’re a natural CC denier just four items easily explain the increase of 0.7c claimed by the corrupt AGW fraudsters.
Neville – all you’re doing is pulling numbers out of your bum. Based on nothing. It’s unsubstantiated bunk. You’re not involved in science matey – simply fabrication. I’m utterly appalled. You don’t make up degree here and there and add it up to suit your own ends.
Don’t mince words Timmy – are you accusing them of fraud?
Tis tis’nt isn’t an argument Marcus. Grow up.
Malcolm – Gore’s movie is less than perfect. Do you think CMAR or any of the international science delegations consult Big Al about their science or science politics – nah – it’s a side show. Gives you lot something to froth on about. A distracting personality to focus the argument on as if it’s really that important.
luke
“Tis tis’nt isn’t an argument Marcus”
Just as I said, if you assert something it’s “proof” no matter if your “scientist” has been proved wrong.
If others point out that your assertion is wrong, then it’s “no argument”
This is your MO, waste of time even reading your posts.
SJT sounds good! (compared to you)
Luke I’ve shown how a 0.7C increase in temp can easily be explained without resorting to Natural CC denial.
Lindzen and Spencer have shown that it can’t be attributed to co2, so as far as I’m concerned you’re left with nothing but fraud to back up your case.
Even though I am an AGW ‘denier’, I may even have to agree with some of sod’s remarks about this leaflet (I will go hang my head in shame later for admitting this). But surely there are better arguments than these you can nail Gore on?
thanks. these claims are weak. they are hurting your argument.
And who mention “two and a half years”? Not me. Not the protesters. You did, in order to accuse this comment about a decade.
the leaflet does. it says: “The message of the protest will be, since Gores movie was produced: * Global temperatures have decreased; * The Arctic Ice Cap has increased back to average levels;”
an inconvenient truth was produced in the year 2006. so “since Gores movie was produced” is talking about two and a half year.
Now the temperature has declined in 8 years. IPCC says we should have a temperature increase each decade, so 8 years are a decade minus 2 years which isn’t nonsense if IPCC’s per-decade-increase isn’t nonsense.
the IPCC does not say anything of that sort. but let us look at another 8 year periods in the satellite record: the trend from 1980 to 1988
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1988/trend/plot/rss
according to your way of looking at the data, the very first period already shows that there was no warming.
so what does the existence of such another period tell you about the value of your “analysis”?
(the IPCC obviously was aware of this period in 2007.)
Boo hoo Marcus – you haven’t even read the reference. Tis tisn’t isn’t an answer.
Neville don’t kid yourself – you’ve just pulled numbers out of the air. No substantiating argument. 0/10 Now wonder you’re having problems with the science.
Lindzen and Spencer have “shown” nothing. It’s just all balls. And big hairy ones. Otherwise they’d be published somewhere decent on all this stuff. You’re so wrapped in conspiratorial denial that you can’t see daylight.
Luckily the science future doesn’t rely on you clowns.
The May levels was about average 1979-2007, and yet more 1979-2009. From June the levels are close to standard deviation.
scratching the lower boundary of the standard deviation interval is NOT the same as being back to normal.
(Actual temperature change will for a time be slightly lower: “For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected…” (*) The lower value is not because of less force, but because of a delay due to ocean heat storage.)
you did not fully quote this and you are misunderstanding it.
0.2°C warming per decade does NOT mean, that every decade you pick will show 0.2°C warming. the IPCC is talking about the TREND. and they were right:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2009
the increase per decade between 1990 and 2005 is 0.24°C, in the period till 2009 it is 0.17°C-
the increase since 1990 actually is “about 0.2°C per decade”, exactly as the IPCC projected it to be!
luke
how many links do you need?
this is getting tiresome.
I think I just let you have the last word, and be done with you.
Your posts are not worth the effort or the time, you are nothing but a windbag.
To Luke Walker, alias the “cloth eared bint.”
It was the leading AGW scientists who helped Gore create his AIT.
It was the AGW scientists who gathered around in adoration when it was first exposed to the public, and have aided him in defending it since.
It was these self same AGW scientists who bleat “publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal”, whenever anyone else does any sort of analysis –a requirement which they most noticeably have never required of Gore.
Nor have any of them gone public and disassociated themselves from is a blatantly opportunistic and self serving campaign by Gore.
Gore cant be the public face of AGW relating to world govts and be soliciting investment in and be a Board member of, as well as share holder, of companies that benefit directly from these activities. That would be illegal in most sensible countries, but obviously not America.
BTW when it comes to exposing fraudulent behaviour I reckon most economic Journos in Australia have published comments that refer to Garnauts stuff as a pack of “myths and lies”.
So if there is going to be an espose then let it be for the whole shebang, and in circumstances that are completely open, and allows the whole circus to be publically exposed in a full Royal Commission.
OK Marcus – start again.
Have you read my reference?
If not what’s your point – with some substantiation.
Luke,
Not many are believing much any of you have to say any more. It is all just bilge and attitude looking for data, but making much ado about very little. AGW is falling through the arc of bogus belief in a near perfect curve.
Do all of you even believe it any more, or are you just trollishly going through the motions?
Gore and Hansen helped this contrivance gain its perverse hold on the public square.
You can post all of the links in the world showing how this barely measurable phenomenon is going to kill us all, but even the insiders know it is all hocus pocus. So are you all true believers or simply deniers?
To Malcolm Hill – the nicest guy I ever met.
” leading AGW scientists who helped Gore create his AIT.” substantiation pls. What exactly does “help” mean.
“Standing around in adoration?” substantiation pls
But yes let’s go the Royal Commission. There’s quite a few green barristers who’d love to get sceptics on the the stand.
Hunter nobody believed me from day one. I didn’t expect a bunch of rednecks to start knitting cardigans either.
It’s good to see you guys not getting away with blatant bullshit and utter rubbish unchallenged. Where are you again? Sitting behind some air-con in the USA?
In fact the “insiders” are pissed off that the risks have been toned down.
i just stumbled over the homepage of the protest.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/news-edu-protest.html
The following Four Graphs will be part of the educational protest to say the evidence CO2 causes climate change is false.
look at graphs and please tell me that these guys are mainly talking about their own “education”!
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/images/protest-big.jpg
especially the last one is brilliant. while the IPCC is basing its projection on a century of data, the protestors base the “actual temp” on a single year!
i simply had to do the same with last year:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2008/to:2009/trend
dramatic warming!!!
Luke,
What is always fun is how y’alls trollishness and cynicism about AGW shows up when confronted with the reality of what Hansen and Gore have done. You always pretend they are not the leaders of AGW opinion, and that they do not speak for the AGW movement.
Yet Gore and Hansen, out saving the planet from its fever before it tips over into Venus do not speak for the community, but the insiders think (a big assumption on your parts, Luke) are pissy that the risks are being toned down. So which is it over there in the collective wit and wisdom of Luke-land? Get your heads together and come to an acceptable consensus.
And you all, government leeches in, was it Queensland? Are trying to make me look like some sort of something bad because my casa has AC? Please do not pee on my boot and call it warm rain.
To the extent that anyone still sincerely believes the world is facing anything close to what Hansen & pals have predicted, and Gore & co. have so well profited on, only shows that educational accomplishment and status does not always equate to an ability to actually think. Which, really, has been what your sock puppet ensemble has demonstrated all along.
By the way, I found an important handbook you all apparently depend quite a bit on, but obviously lost on a junket or something, from you reliance on its principles.
May I arrange to send it back to you?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Lie-Statistics-Penguin-Business/dp/0140136290/tag=bs0b-21
i am curious, what does the “How to Lie with Statistics” book say about the “actual temp” trend that is given in the “educational” leaflet?
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/images/protest-big.jpg
Here is a nice list that sort of sums up AGW rather well.
It is always fun to hunt it back down.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/laws.htm
Langmuir pegs AGW precisely on 1 through 5.
He was optimistic on the ration in #6, but the tide may be turning.
Sod,
Off the cuff I would be that “Lying With Statistics” would point out that a garbage filled, wide MOE data set like temps should be given no credibility in determining massive policy changes.
Here is what a believer in AGW, yet who is relentlessly focused on actually telling the truth, has to say about one of the basic foundations of AGW hype:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d11-Does-global-warming-diminish-when-measured-accurately-Part-5?#comments
Here is what a believer in AGW, yet who is relentlessly focused on actually telling the truth, has to say about one of the basic foundations of AGW hype:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d11-Does-global-warming-diminish-when-measured-accurately-Part-5?#comments
Fuller is a denialist and everything he wrote is false.
but let me repeat my simple question from above:
i am curious, what does the “How to Lie with Statistics” book say about the “actual temp” trend that is given in the “educational” leaflet?
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/images/protest-big.jpg
if this question is too difficult for you, just tell us!
Luke,
Since AIT is not, you imply, science based, please clarify this for us redneck troglodytes:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Come on now, no parsing or dodging, pretty please.
Sod,
You as always demonstrate that aGW true believers, when confronted with inconvenient realities, filibuster.
I am certain the book was not written with the pamphlet you are excited about.
I do like your blanket assertion that ‘everything Fuller wrote is false’.
Yet you, as always offer no evidence of your summary dismissal.
Do you say he is false when Fuller states that AGW is a real problem?
Do you say that his link to the multiple take downs of Mann’s lying abuse of statistics, and its faux-peer review is false?
Is it false that Mann’s hockey stick, so important to earlier IPCC product, is not mentioned of late?
Even if we grant that the pamphlet’s current temp graph is a dramatized point, is it more or less dramatic than the busted false claims of AGW promoters?
And remember this:All skeptics have had to do is to show AGW falsified.
That has been done.
So you can priss around all you want, and try to pick apart skeptics all you want, but that does not un-falsify AGW at all.
By the way, I was at a dinner last night and met a manger from a large wind turbine co. Pickens’ bail out on wind is a bigger deal than you imagine at this time.
Since AIT is not, you imply, science based,
sorry, but you are stupid.
you got this one completely wrong. of course AIT was based on science. but it is still just a documentary film.
and science is NOT based on AIT.
do you understand the difference?
Do you say he is false when Fuller states that AGW is a real problem?
Fuller is posting his false climate claims under the label “liberal sceptic”
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~topic163226-Liberal-Skeptic
you are trying to sell him as “a believer in AGW, yet who is relentlessly focused on actually telling the truth”
i am sorry, but it is a little tough to take the two of you seriously on this…
Sod,
Are you part of the Luke ensemble, or are you just happy to act foolish?
I know the difference. I also know when you dissemble and filibuster, which is nearly every time you type.
What parts of AIT are wrong?
Not which science papers are attributed to AIT.
Please do continue your dodge and weave. You are demonstrating just how devoid of substance AGW is, and it helps people clarify why they should increase their doubt in what you claim to believe.
Here is a nice corollary irt the bad science of AGW that Ithink is well supported by the sod/Luke/SJT posters:
1) The bigger the theory, the better.
2) The experiment may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/laws.htm (Maier’s Law)
And these sort of sum up the problems our AGW hysterics face:
Le Chatelier-Braun Principle
If any change is imposed on a system in equilibrium, the system will change in such a way as to counteract the imposed change.
The implications of that are rather devastating to this, and all apocalyptic hype predictions ever made.
To Cloth Eared Bint
For an old Google warrior surely its not that difficult to find a myriad of references that will give you all the evidence you want.
Real Climate for starters will give you heaps- then perhaps Monckton at SPPI- and then closer to home Andrew Bolt even of the last few weeks- then perhaps Climate audit
Thats a fair spread that will prove the point even to goose like you.
As a hint, didnt Big Al and the IPCC share the same platform when they were “given” the Nobel by those dopey Swedish parliamentarians — you can work backwards from that and get the same answer.
Hunter – how does it feel sucking on the denialist trough of carp. Do you enjoy the taste of bile mixed with crap. You are the epitome of lying denialist filth. No evidence. Just a parrot from blogland.
Tell us Hunter – what was the last scientific paper you read on AGW. I bet you’ve never read one in your life actually. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so tediously dim.
You morons make me laugh – you’re quoting “how to lie with stats” – you turds invented the concept.
And our South Aussie windbag is citing Bolt and Monckton. Just excuse me while I go and barf in the corner. Mally poos – the reason there are earthquakes is that there are so many denialist wankers in the world – given enough of you all getting souped up at once – there’ll be enough of a harmonic to set off an earthquake.
‘Luke’,
I can tell when you all are rattled: your vocabulary diminishes further than normal.
No, bureaucrats like y’all invented lying with stats. You call it ‘job security’.
If I am such a liar, show it, big boys.
The typical round when dealing with lazy reactionaries like you all, is for the skeptic to show links and citations of what is wrong with the latest idiotic fear mongering you all are peddling, and then the sock puppet ensemble reactionary to lose it and tell the skeptic they are really really wicked for pointing things out…..and then of course not bothering with fact ot back up.
Speaking of lying and misleading, just how many years did you pretend to be one poster?
If you want a good example of ‘lying denialist filth’, I think the best example you all will ever find is to get a big mirror and to get all of you to sit in front of it for group gawk.
Peddling apocalypse is fun when all it does bring in loads of grans money and big budgets. But then those pesky denialist scum start asking about why nothing is actually as claimed, and where is the money all off to, any way?
Here is a perfect summary of the science behind the claims of AGW:
“2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.”
Not one AGW promoter has ever offered one ‘proof’ that does not fall within that point.
Especially you foul mouthed losers.
I
So the answer is that Hunter hasn’t ever read a science paper in his life.
But is a paid advocate of the the usual US think tanks. Time to fess up Hunter. How much do you get paid for spruiking recycled denial?
sod,
In reference to Fuller, is it a lack of reading ability or character that drives you to make such stupid statements?
Here is what Fuller says:
“Global warming has many of the characteristics we see in other long term problems facing humanity, so it seems strange that we are not applying methods that have been proven to be effective in dealing with them.”
and
“I have to wonder why AGW proponents need to find political will. The U.S. has just passed the first hurdle in bringing a (badly flawed) cap and trade bill into existence. The United Kingdom where Gore was speaking has the strongest emissions reduction program in the world already in place. His army seems to be winning–for what does he need political will?
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d10-The-solution-to-global-warming-is-known-proven-and-not-at-all-new
It’s sad that a public policy issue that boils down to how we will spend about 5% of the world’s GDP should be characterised as a war. If Gore’s army wins, we will spend it on limiting emissions–and even if it’s useless at affecting global temperatures, many of the actions have merit in and of themselves, such as developing greener energy sources. If the skeptic side prevails, even if Gore’s right about global warming, we will spend slightly more money combatting its effects on short notice. ”
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d8-Gore-picked-the-wrong-war-for-global-warming
Wow, Fuller sure sounds like a denialist scum. Only to someone who can brook no variation or thought.
You absolutely prove the point that AGW belief is not about actually doing things based on climate science or reasonableness. You demonstrate, along with so many other AGW believers, that at its core, it is a pseudo-religion demanding absolute orthodoxy of belief in the central tenet: that a climate apocalypse is coming. Any wavering from that belief must be met, as you show, by dissembling, misquoting, ad hom, and repetition.
Luke,
That deductive assignment of an answer is as accurate as your representations that you were one person.- wrong and misleading and deliberately so.
So if I show you mine, you will show me yours?
What a goober you are when you have nothing to say. But then, you are always a goober, when you get down to it.
Your definition of paper is one that tells you what you want to hear.
You are a fraud. What you have been peddling is a fraud. All of your wiggling around and carping and distractive cursing only underscores that reality.
It was fun for you all to share your enlightened wisdom from on high, until the proles started actually paying attention. Now you are outed and flailing around.
I wonder how Gavin will do when people start seeing that he is in his way just as big a fraud?
And how long will Gore get to pretend he is above being questioned?
But just to show how big a phony you are, you can only answer with bile when asked to identify the science problems you imply are in AIT.
I nicely provided you a link to AIT and ask you to point them out.
You respond in typical cowardly fashion.
Those readers in Melbourne are invited by the Climate Sceptics Party to attend a protest against Al Gore’s Safe Climate breakfast next Monday.
kiped from Australian Climate Madness.
Wow, Fuller sure sounds like a denialist scum. Only to someone who can brook no variation or thought.
again: he is writing under the label “Liberal-Skeptic”
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~topic163226-Liberal-Skeptic
if you don t understand what a SCEPTIC is, please read Jenifers excellent series of articles on this topic. he is saying he is a SCEPTIC.
he is also describing himself as a lukewarmer
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Global-warming-for-a-lukewarmer
that is a person who believes that the temperature is increasing and that humans are part of the reason. while being a “lukewarmer” puts him two steps ahead of most of you, it still does NOT put him into the AGW camp!
his one major source on climate is Pielke. he is cited in basically every single article that he wrote on this topic.
you have seriously mischaracterised Fuller! but please provide some links to his pro-AGW posts and i would just love to read some quotes!
——————————-
on another topic, isee: you don t want to apply the “How to Lie with Statistics” book to the “actual temp” trend that is given in the “educational” leaflet?
at least beyond writing:
f we grant that the pamphlet’s current temp graph is a dramatized point
so let me see: if using a ONE YEAR trend is “dramatizing” a point, then what is your critisism of AIT again?
Sod,
You simply cannot give clear answers to clear questions.
AIT is played in schools worldwide as some sort of accurate presentation of AGW.
You and Luke simply dodge around a simple confirmation of whether or not that is a justified position.
And neither of you can do it.
I said, “Even if we grant that the pamphlet’s current temp graph is a dramatized point, is it more or less dramatic than the busted false claims of AGW promoters?”
And you parse my question into a misleading quote and do not answer my question.
So, as seems to be the major rhetorical skill of all of you true believers, yo simply ignore clear questions, parse what is said, and hope people are stoopid enough to not notice your weaving and stonewalling.
we are not dodging any questions. but AIT is not the topic of this blog post. the leaflet on the other hand is.
so here is my simple question:
what part of AIT is similar to the “dramatized” 1 year trend in the leaflet?
ps: AIT has been discussed to death. for a popular documentary, it got the facts astonishingly right. see for example here: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/GoreversusLomborg.htm
The question on rising sea levels suggests sea levels have been rising. They haven’t.
So Hunter can’t name a single science paper he’s read of late.
Cloth eared bint
Done your googling yet to find the abundant substantiation.?
As predicted you took the bait on the references given, and quite predictably reacted to the who the messager was, and not the message.
I assume you didnt bother looking up Real Climate either
Thats typical of the way you go about things isnt it.
Malcolm,
Sweden is not involved with the Nobel Peace Prize:
” Why Norway?
The first four prizes endowed by Nobel, a Swede, are awarded in Sweden, but he decided that the Peace Prize should be awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian national assembly, the Storting. Why did he entrust the Peace Prize to Norway? Three explanations can be given: First, Sweden and Norway were united when Nobel wrote his will and it was therefore appropriate to let the union’s other country award one of the prizes. A second theory stresses Nobel’s radical views on contemporary issues and his appreciation that the Storting had often shown special interest in mediation and the peaceful solution of international disputes. Thirdly, Alfred Nobel admired Norwegian literature and may have been influenced by the Norwegian author Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson who was devoted to the cause of freedom and peace. “
“Firstly I BELIEVE IN CC I am not a true DENIER like luke and his cohorts who only believe in AGW, which is an easily explained fraud.”
You can be so wrong so instantly. AGW is only one reason among many for climate change, no one has ever claimed other wise.
Just filing this here: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming/al-gore-carbon-bill-should-pass-20090712-dhe6.html
Thanks Birdie
I had forgotten about the fact that the Peace prize was handled quite differently to the other prizes. It was left wing Norwegian Parliamentarians who made the decision.
The same ones who gave Arafat a gong as well.
Doesnt change my point that Gore and the AGW scientific community are in lock step, both here and overseas.
“Then why is Al avoiding a debate with the Viscount Monckton,who is not a scientist either?”
I would have thought that it’s obvious. From the bottom to the top the denialist community is peopled by foul mouthed yobs with little to offer other than ad homs and jumbled collections of unrelated data. Gore won’t debate a denialist for the same reason that it’s a waste of time debating a religious fundamentalist, denialists are fanatically neo-liberal/libertarian at their core. They detest the idea of collective action on anything. This blog is littered with asides that betray this extreme libertarian position. There is a striking similarity between the quality of the discussion here and over at Catallaxy.
Gore is correct to not bother with getting into a slanging much with intellectual lightweights and fanatics.
A more thorough taxonomy of denialism is available at John Quiggen’s blog.
Patrick B says;
‘From the bottom to the top the denialist community is peopled by foul mouthed yobs with little to offer other than ad homs and jumbled collections of unrelated data.’
Unlike AGWer Luke at 11:44 with his daily dose of vitriol.
(as well as; ‘Lovely bit of dogshit propaganda. You really are a worse than usual piece of denialist scum aren’t you. Go fuck yourself.’ Luke using his persuasive charm on the previous article on this site).
“But yes let’s go the Royal Commission. There’s quite a few green barristers who’d love to get sceptics on the the stand.”
Scenario Royal commission, Green Barrister to Plimer, “How can you deny that the world is warming and mankind is guilty when:
1/ ice is melting,
2/ polar bears are dying,
3/ seas are rising,
4/ hurricanes are increasing,
5/ satellites are increasing,
6/ deserts are expanding,
7/ Al Gore is expanding.
Yr honour, this man is a traitor.”
Patrick B:
“Gore won’t debate a denialist for the same reason that it’s a waste of time debating a religious fundamentalist, denialists are fanatically neo-liberal/libertarian at their core. They detest the idea of collective action on anything. This blog is littered with asides that betray this extreme libertarian position. There is a striking similarity between the quality of the discussion here and over at Catallaxy.”
You have just proven beyond all reasonable doubt that AGW is a political issue.
Science has never been divided on a political position, though pseudoscience invariably is, and that is what AGW is, pseudoscience established by consensus.
The real tragedy is that someone as intelligent as you seem to be, can’t see it.
We all know why gore won’t debate Monckton, it’s because he would be done like a dinner.
I’ve just heard the gore idiot on the abc stating that he’s a big fan of krudd, so that gives a good example of the quality of idiot we’re dealing with.
Gore won’t even debate Lomborg who isn’t a sceptic but knows that a dreadful waste of trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet for ZERO return won’t alter the temp more than a tiny fraction of 1c by 2100. ( Lomborg’s belief not mine)
“You have just proven beyond all reasonable doubt that AGW is a political issue.”
Thanks Louie but I think we were all aware of that. And to deny that science has never been at the mercy of politics is about as accurate as saying that sport has never been subject to the whims of the same.
Personally I think that the earth faces a wide range of environmental problems some of which can only be solved at a cost to our lifestyle. AGW is included in that portfolio of problems.
I think that we have probably left it too late to do anything about most of the problems, the swing back to rational/classical economics in the late 70s early 80s meant that wide ranging environmental degradation were not included in economic assessments. This combined with aggressive consumerism and rapid technological advances in the consumer market along with an appropriation of the environmentalist message by multinationals lead to a diminishing of the urgency to address environmental concerns in most peoples minds.
History would also tend to suggest that crises are not prepared for and mitigated. Witness the people of Pompeii who sat on their arses through a number of serious earthquakes in the years leading up to the eruption of CE79
And I don’t deny that there are potty mouths on both sides, it’s just that I think the right are quicker taake that route.
Gee patrick what a brilliant analogy comparing the reaction by people to the erruption of vesuvius in 79ad to the present AGW fraud.
Obviously internet savvy people in the 21st century know what’s going on, we’ve seen all the graphs and research and can draw our own conclusions.
This sort of research and technology wasn’t available to people even 100 years ago and certainly not in the 1st century aD, so for heaven’s sake wake up to yourself and stop writing such stupid drivel.
The warmingly religious are generally happy to accept current govt proposals because it’s the precautionary principle, stupid!
At least Hansen is honest enough to condemn these proposals for what they are yet Gore just uses them to further his fortune.
The fact that the religious are happy to pay these amounts to go and listen to this scoundrel speaks volumes about the cult.
A very good interview by Fielding leading the abc’s world today at 1pm, he easily held his ground (easy when your using facts and the truth) and pressed his no warming with co2 rising argument very well.
Gore sounded a bit sick to me afterwards trying to insist that just a few naysayers are out there and it’s difficult to explain the science. ( what BS)
You’ve also been astroturfed to death. Spin you right round round. Make you think this and that.
Looks like the good senator Fielding is spreading the word. So you’re home and hosed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624157.htm
Pity the atmosphere doesn’t care either way.
Anyway – how’d the big Melbourne demo go? Did Al take a brochure? Did 100s show up?
Re Patick B’s dribbling diatribe about denialism and his reference to Quiggin just underscores what a bunch of academic light weights we have here in Australia.
Parick B was too stupid to even look up todays Australian and he would have seen adundant evidence for why there has to be denialism as he calls it. Some one has to stand uo to these clowns.
Why would 20m people responsible for less the 1.2% of the problem be required to take the lead as Gore and Wong are saying.
Why should this country put 23000 out of work by 2020, and 60000 by 2050 just to achieve an outcome of 0.003C by 2100.
Why is it that there are so many supposedly intelligent people at the forefront of the push for Australia to take the lead, are so completely devoid of any semblance of common sense,even if AGW was true in all respects.
Just filing this here:
http://www.safeclimateaustralia.org/
What Al Gore launched this morning.
Patrick B
Unfortunately the weight of evidence shows that it’s your side who are quickest with the ad hominems – Luke started it off years ago in his Ken Done mask.
As Bjorn Lomborg has shown, the belief that there is an environmental problem has been overstated – in facts things are getting better – and it is only the capiltalist system that allows us the resources to deal with it.
Historically the worst environmental degraders have been the socialists, but if you think that a totalitarian regime based on Ecomorals is the way to go, go for it, but don’t impose it on the rest of us.
And just filing this here:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,25771854-2862,00.html
It claims about 30 demonstrated outside – from the climate sceptics party
PS Well done guys!
I think comments from Neville bear out my points on ad homs, the intellectually inferior ranting against there betters with the meager resources available to them. Interestingly Neville appears to be unable to think in the abstract, specifically he’s unable to recognise an analogy.
I think Louie helps us understand the ideological nature of the denialist camp and its relationship to hard right politics.
For him it is the “socialists” who are the greatest destroyers of the environment. We may ask, what part of socialist ideology is it that brought about the alleged destruction? Are there teachings exclusive to socialism that encourage and reward destruction of the environment? I think not, but to a fundamentalist it is merely the observation that the there was (allegedly) greater environmental destruction in socialist countries that leads to the conclusion that one causes the other. Perhaps this is what replaces analysis in the world of the hard right?
Jennifer
On a slightly different track, there is a post over at ICECAP about the trials and tribulations imposed upon a Princeton Uni Professor named William Happer.
Gore had the man fired for asking questions about the ozone restrictions back in 1993.
Read about it here.
Couple of highlights.
Gore has been using the “debate is over” dodge for a very long time.
Happer’s question is worth persuing. What is the current UV-B measurement at the surface, underneath the “ozone hole”? How do polar measurements compare with the UV-B along the equator?
Maybe you’ll revisit the ozone controversy in a post sometime.
The protest went well. we had 30 walking from Southern cross station to where Gores breakfast was. For 15 minutes we had the crowd of 1,000 lined up ready to go in and we explained the four graphs and the evidence CO2 is not having any substantial effect on climate several times to them all.
Another small group of sceptics we didn`t know of prior were there as well. A couple more of our mob turned up where we were so about 40 sceptics were there in total.
Photos are being put on twitter (http://www.twitpic.com/photos/climatesceptics) very soon
We were interviewed by two TV crews
The mood was very confident. Only a couple of people wanted to debate us.
Patrick B
“the observation that the there was (allegedly) greater environmental destruction in socialist countries ”
Much like the graffiti on our own publicly owned transport, but when everyone owns it, no one owns it, and so no one cares about it.
But perhaps you should read up a little on the objects of your political hatred – calling me a “hard righter” is simply displaying ignorance. I’m a libertarian in which individual rights are paramount, which involves the respect of other’s rights, and that automatically means we voluntarily abstain from activities which may impinge on other’s rights.
The problem with collectivists is that by worshipping the idol of egalitarianism, you consume all your capital, leaving society with nothing for a rainy day. Your solution is then to borrow from the future, a giant legally sanctioned Ponzi scheme.
But the belief science is dependant on one’s political leanings should give one some pause – maybe AGW isn’t science like physics is – after gravity’s verity is NOT dependent on one’s political position. Gravity is apolitical but clearly AGW isn’t, and so it cannot be science despite the scientific method being used by its proselytisers.
Has it never occurred to you that the very fact AGW is monopolised by the socialists is the problem and why it can’t be science? That’s why we call it Lysenkoist because it is politically correct “science”.
A very good interview by Fielding leading the abc’s world today at 1pm, he easily held his ground (easy when your using facts and the truth) and pressed his no warming with co2 rising argument very well.
now if only his argument was based on facts…
over the last 15 years, all temperature data is showing the global temp going UP.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:180/plot/wti/last:180/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend/plot/uah/last:180/trend/plot/rss/last:180/trend/plot/gistemp/last:180/trend/plot/none
why can t anyone of his “science team” correct this basic error that he is stating in every speech he gives?
Down is up?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10584135
Highest-ever retail sales figures for clothing have coincided with an especially cold, wet and early winter, Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) says.
http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1652655
Farmers looking for a little heat – The Beacon Herald – Ontario, CA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146995.stm
Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.
Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes.
But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual.
ah just one more.
AFP: Brown’s climate change adviser has swine flu
LONDON (AFP) — A key adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown has contracted swine flu and was banned from attending the G8 summit in Italy, reports said late Sunday.
Brown’s senior climate change adviser Michael Jacobs is thought to have picked up the flu during a working visit to Mexico where the A(H1N1) virus first appeared, The Times said on its website.
Do viral infections type cast?
It’s Al talkin’, in depth,….” The planet now has a fever.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624511.htm
And Bill Gates is going to mess with nature….
http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/One_force_of_nature_vs_another_Bill_Gates_wants_to_stop_hurricanes_50385622.html
re; Comment from: Leon Ashby July 13th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Looking forward to seeing the pics.
Maybe you can prevail upon http://algorelied.com/ or http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/
to host them.
So we can pass them around to the crew, you know.
Well done Leon. Hopefully the first of many street protests hassling the Goracle.
Late night toofer from the Instapundit.
EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL: Potato famine disease striking home gardens in U.S. I blame Global Warming! Oh, wait: “This year’s cool, wet weather created perfect conditions for the disease.” Okay, I blame Climate Change!
EVERYTHING SEEMINGLY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL: Rain and cool weather wash away millions of tourism dollars in Northeast. “Relentless rain and cool weather since early June have sent visitors scrambling home and washed away millions of tourism dollars across the Northeast. But the first 80-degree readings this month gave a glimmer of hope Friday that summer can be salvaged.” I blame Global Warming1 Er, I mean, Climate Change!
James Mayeau,
No, no it’s climate variability that is the cause of all this – it’s still warming you know, our statistics tell us this emphatically!
Thanks Leon.
You done good.
All the major news channels carried pictures and stories of your effort and though short at least gave some balance.
And I got the impression they were looking for something to balance the BS.
Big Al , on the ABC 7.30 report, started to sweat “The planet now has a fever” when it was put to him that many scientists disagreed with several aspects of AIT and that the British High Court had found there to be errors in the “documentary”. But the Goracle that he is, waved his hand and said “pfft”, and all was found wanting was true once more.
Good show Leon. AAP’s Headline is ” ‘Junk Science’ Activists Crash Gore Party”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25772662-421,00.html
‘Junk Science’ Activists Crash Gore Party”
make it 30 ‘Junk Science’ Activists try to Crash Gore Party”, and the headline ecven got the facts right.
but that is not important in denialist circles…
WJP
Gore had the gall to try and say that the judgement in Britaan was to his favour without explaining what that was.
The Court found that he could display his AIT providing it was corrected in 9 major areas and that the British Education system took steps to ensure that all sides were explained.
Of course the ABC this evening didnt press him on his conflicts of interest, and the fact that the AIT is no more than a modern version of an prospectus, were those gullible people who have already invested may only get a return if he delivers on the major govt changes required. eg the Waxma Markey bill in USA and the ETS here.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=654
He has a clear conflict of interest.
“Gore had the gall to try and say that the judgement in Britaan was to his favour without explaining what that was.”
It was. The judge agreed that most of what Gore said was correct.
The court didn’t have the time to hear all the complaints so they asked for a representative few.
Every count heard by the court was ruled against Gore.
That’s the story I read. Tim Ball gave the details.
You want a link?
James Mayeau
You will notice that SJT doesnt dispute the fact that Gore has a major conflict of interest and that he has amassed a fortune since losing his VP job
All SJT wants to do is try and distract attention from that, by disputing something that has been well written about namely his court case in the UK which Gore may have technically won, but beyond that it was a big poke in the eye for the lard arsed fraudster.
“You can be so wrong so instantly. AGW is only one reason among many for climate change, no one has ever claimed other wise.”
SJT July 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
WTF that certainly is Worse Than Failure. I accept that the climate changes to state the damn obvious but AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn’t it? The last time I looked Anthropogenic meant caused by humans and Global Warming was what was being caused. This in turn it is argued causes all the climate change that is going to kill Gaia.
So now we should concern ourselves with climate change that humans don’t cause. I see SJT you are changing sides. So please quantify. How much climate change is caused by other factors? What percentage is due to humans? There are a myriad of other causes that is what is being argued by the side that opposes you.
Little Sod,
“over the last 15 years, all temperature data is showing the global temp going UP.”
This is supposed to prove the latest Global Climate Change pronouncements, handed down by the High Priests of GCC, that it is warming faster than projections??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So, Little Sod, SJT, Luke…
How is that tropospheric hot spot coming along???? The IPCC claim that warming from ANY source should cause a hot spot. Is their physics wrong, or, is the data showing more than actual warming???
It is really irrelevant as the warming we have seen is benign and CONSISTENT WITH natural CC!!
How does it feel to be ignorant tools of religious nuts!!
“How does it feel to be ignorant tools of religious nuts!!”
I was hoping you could tell me.
Pactrick B
Somewhere you disagreed that socialism tends to be environmentally destructive.
Here is evidence for the prosecution.
http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-of-aral.html
My case stands.
Kuhnkat
The reason SJT asks is that he is blissfully unaware of his position as a “useful idiot”. It’s these who are unaware of being used.
SJT
Thought this might enlighten you.
http://noteviljustwrong.com/blog/9-general/124-uk-lawyer-slams-gore-over-court-case-claims.html
BTW Lomborg points out in todays Australian that if all the Kyoto obligated countries did what was required, it would still only reduce the temperature by 0.22C by 2100.
Building the pyramids probably had a better cost benefit than this.
Only frauds and fools would be still persist with this nonsense.
A response to Leon Ashby’s presentation: “Why an Emissions trading Scheme (ETS) is not necessary”
Who is “Leon Ashby”? What is his education in natural sciences? What research papers has he submitted to the field?
All we really know is he is a director of the right-wing think tank “Institute of Public Affairs” and the “Australian Environment Foundation” is a front group of it.
But still he writes and distributes his opinion on climate change which i’ll discredit here.
> Is CO2 a pollutant?
What makes it, or not makes it a pollutant is whether it is a greenhouse gas and whether greenhouse gases will warm the earth. The argument presented is simply begging he question. The argument also hijacks this ‘question’ by trying to introduce what carbon dioxide can also do. To try and win the argument by convincing the reader that climate science is complicated isn’t valid.
> Only 3.4% of the CO2 is human caused
This argument disregards that there’s a required balance needed in the atmosphere and it is only that 3.4% that is the problem. To start talking about the other 96% of greenhouse gases is simply trying to hijack the argument again.
> Frontier Modelling says it will cost Australia
Who is Frontier Modelling? A company commissioned by Malcolm Turnbull. Financial statistics like this are so easy to manipulate. The cost of reducing that 3.4% CO2 follows an exponential graph. Reducing the first 1% is cheap and will cost each australia eg $20 per year, while the last 0.1% no doubt involves so many industries and methods of manufacturing that it would cost a ridiculous amount. Taking a realistic perspective: once we spend a couple of years cutting down the first percent or two of this “exponential graph” will start to flatten and innovation and economics will take over. This is very much what happened with CFCs – the original binding target was not enough to fix the problem but once it was put into place everything else solved itself very quickly.
> 31,000 Scientists saying CO2 does not cause climate change
The argument leading up to this is ridiculous. How some brain dead donkey can think a scientist not being able to give more than 90% certainty equates to saying “does not cause” is ludicrous.
All you can conclude here is:
* From 2,500 papers only 2 papers were independent, dealt with CO2 levels, made it to the second review, and did not reach a 90% certainty.
But what you can also conclude is:
* 95% of the papers concluded climate change was more likely than not affected by human activity (the main conclusion from IPCC)
* 80% of the papers on CO2 concluded climate change was almost definitely attributed to CO2 levels,
* 16% of the papers on CO2 levels gave quality to a conclusion, the others no doubt were more quantifiable research papers which in turn gave foundation to those papers which could qualify, IPCC had to review them still to check such priori.
* 50% of the papers on CO2 levels made a second review, the IPCC only took those papers it felt gave concrete or unique enough conclusion into the second review,
* 25% of the papers were on CO2 levels, climate change is a complicated science, and papers related can be submitted from any of the natural science fields.
To so blatantly twist and manipulate the IPCC findings like this in my opinion immediately discredits everything presented by Leon Ashby. This is scaremongering, not realistic scientific questioning.
The truth is that from the 2,500 papers the IPCC evaluated over 95% concluded that global warming was real and more likely than not affected by human activity. Compare this to you wont find many scientists who can give you a 100% certainly that einstein’s theory of relativity stands, and probably many that can throw doubts even on newton’s laws. Furthermore what type of scientists constitute this “31,000”? economic scientists? medical scientists? One petition is hardly comparable to 2,500 research papers.
When there’s such a large scientific consensus supporting a strong probability, especially when climate science itself is statistical mathematics and all about probability, isn’t it the public’s responsibility to fall in line and leave further questioning to the experts?
> Climate change is natural, and warmer periods occur without human CO2 emissions being the cause
Notice the timelines all vary. This line of climate skepticism always requires a precise timeline selection for each graph. Mostly it’s just manipulation of statistics again.
From the first paragraph of wikipedia’s Global Warming article:
“The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming This wikipedia entry seems the best rebuttal to “warming periods” skepticism.
> The Evidence of the Arctic Ice Cap
A lie. Last summer it was the thinner it’s _ever_ been with only 50cm thickness in places.
> list of Scientists who have found the opposite results to Miskolczi … It will mean Australia`s economy will become the
> equivalent of Cambodia`s within 10 years.
All emotive pleas with some magic number “0.33” pseudo-science in between. The fossil fuel industry is spending millions of dollars every week on creating crud around climate change.
How would you expect it to appear?
And are you surprised people want to follow this convenient interpretation?
that’s a great critique, mck – agree
point about size – venom from a funnel web spider is about 4 millionths the weight of the average adult – but is usually lethal left untreated.
CO2 in the atmosphere will become just as lethal, left untreated. By the time you can prove it to a 100% degree of accuracy – it will be too late – then what will you all do with the precious money you’ve saved?
Of what value is an economy of any magnificence – if there is no planet in which to operate it?
The risk of non-action is far greater by orders of magnitude than that of action that fails – after all, we can still rescue a stricken economy – but who’s going to build us a new planet?
Following on from Mck above, I’ve written a detailed (35 page) response to Leon Ashby’s presentation “Why an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not necessary” at http://tinyurl.com/ashby-response
By my reckoning Ashby got two things right and one half-right, against 27 wrong and 14 red herrings. What I can’t understand is how a “sceptic” could post such easily debunked material? Didn’t he check his facts?
One thing’s right though – the ETS is a great big con! The Treasury says it won’t even reduce emissions the claimed paltry 5% (see http://tinyurl.com/chart3-6). And the Opposition’s fig leaf is even worse (13% increase in emissions). Both the old parties are useless, carbon-captured has-beens.
Let’s hope the Government listens to the Greens’ suggestion (based on Garnaut) of a straight $20/tonne carbon tax for two years, with no targets initially: http://greens.org.au/node/5624