A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
So began a recent opinion piece by sixteen scientists published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2011. It is republished here with permission from Bill Kininmonth…
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Available online here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m waiting to so how Luke can refute this without attacking the messengers.
I noticed on “our” ABC, The World Today in the interests of “balance” they actually feature this story and then had the timerity to get untimely Tim to refute it, taking about twice as long to do so. Following that, in case their supporters might object to them giving a groat of air time to sceptics, the came up with this crap:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3418386.htm
But John?
That’s not fair!
Luke nearly always shoots the messenger!
🙂
PS,
So does Tim
🙂
This will help Luke keep up to date
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/
And this likely his jocks another twist
“El Niño/El Niña Unlikely Caused By Atmospheric Or Solar Forces”
More at
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18003
It’s instructive to see what occupies the sceptic brain – a tired old op-ed versus spangled’s inspiring interview of new science by real fair dinkum researchers vis a vis fly-boys and administrators.
Volcanism and ENSO – what rubbish !
well done Luke – you didn’t attack the messenger – you attacked the recipient. That’s the other way to avoid the subject.
BTW – here’s the first story SD addressed
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3418512.htm
Flannery is embarrassing – please show me the temperature record of the past 10 years that shows warming!!
Don’t be obtuse, Luke. Anyone with half a brain knows that east coast currents are warm and west coast currents are cold and during la Ninas they warm even more. The reason cyclones moved out of the Coral Sea to the Arafura Sea [where the warm water had gone] was due to the big el Nino of 1976 and they returned with a bang with Yasi. Even so, when a monsoon trough forms across the top of Aus with a low at each end, the odds are that the low in the west will still become the cyclone. This is gradually changing as the cycle matures.
But to use the old hairy, hoary chestnut of the East Coast Aust current warming up is a study from ignorance [or convenience] of the bleedin’ obvious. Also with the gyres and gymbals of the ECA current, you could cherry pick whatever temp your little heart desired.
Worse than crap, pathetic crap!
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/scientists-shocked-by-tasman-seas-rising-temperatures/story-e6frfku0-1226257611991
Yes John, fancy Flannery criticising someone’s climate credentials after his brilliant predictions.
And then tonight we have SBS running a rerun of that dreadful thing with Nurse doing a promotion on global warming, & covering up the effort to some extent by adding in a few fair dinkum bits of silliness, to make it look like a real documentary.
They make you sick don’t they.
So unscientific. So inane. Such drivel SD. Your piffly anecdote versus a proper analysis. What snot.
I would say that we waste a good deal of time and money from politicians attempting to ‘do something’ about various problems in order to justify their existence when we are quite capable of solving these problems on our own without government interference. In cases such as AGW where the case is built on speculation and the speculation turns out to be fundamentally flawed (climate feedback expected to be a 3x positive when it turns out it is negative) we as a people are out billions or even hundreds of billions of our hard-earned cash that could have gone to productive use.
Government is most effective when it does not attempt to manipulate markets and sets conditions so that a fertile field exists for innovation through competition. Regulations designed to ‘protect’ us do just the opposite. These regulations act as barriers of entry to competition from sharp minds with great ideas. Regulatory compliance is additional overhead that results in the more marginally profitable players either leaving the market or merging with bigger players. This sets the stage for a self-perpetuating cycle as fewer players in the market means more regulations designed to offer yet more ‘protection’ which results in more regulatory compliance costs and even fewer players in the markets. The same people who would decry the fact that fewer large companies dominate various market segments would propose additional regulations that simply entrench the very condition they find so repulsive.
I suppose it is counter-intuitive to some that by REMOVING regulations and barriers of entry into markets, you allow new ideas and ways of delivering services into the market. Smaller companies are generally faster to adapt and are more innovative. By removing the regulatory overhead, you create a condition where less regulation is needed in the first place. If someone comes along with a great idea, they can begin to capture market share immediately. In a highly regulated environment, the backing required to enter a market is beyond the reach of most potential entrants.
This is an ‘unholy’ alliance between big government and big business. With fewer players in a market, the government needs to manipulate fewer levers to impact a market segment. Thousands of players in a market means government must attempt to ‘herd cats’ when it attempts to ‘manage’ a market.
The entire notion that it is the government’s responsibility to ‘manage’ the economy is how our media has created a fundamental socialist expectation into our psyche. It is the responsibility of the government to create conditions where the economy can flourish on its own. If government is intervening to pick winners and losers and subsidize this and penalize that, then the government is admitting failure. Too often these programs penalize success and reward failure. As anyone with any economics education knows, you get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize so when the government taxes success and subsidizes failure, it is no wonder we get into the state we are in.
It is not the role of government to be our parents. It is not the responsibility of the government to make the world “fair”. It should be the role of government to provide conditions under which we can succeed without assistance from the government but politicians don’t like the notion of people getting along without their direct assistance. If we had less ‘management’, we would have less need for ‘management’. Once you take it upon yourself to start juggling, you must never stop else balls get dropped. Government not only takes on that task, but keeps adding ball after ball to their juggling act with every passing program and regulation.
The most idiotic poll I saw in the US was one last week in which over 50% of the people thought subsidizing business would be a good thing. Think about that. Where is the money going to come from for the subsidy? From taxes. Why not just reduce taxes on them and allow them to keep more of their money which would be the same as a subsidy? Oh, that can’t be allowed! We must create a new bureaucracy to collect and disperse these taxes and subsidies and keep track of who gets what. And when some industry strikes the fancy of a politician, maybe it gets a little more and someone who falls in disfavor in the papers might get a little less. It is completely idiotic. Allow them to keep more of their own money to begin with. That is the best possible subsidy, no bureaucrats required.
My country has become an idiocracy.
“Over the weekend there was quite a lot of interest in David Rose’s article in the Mail, which addressed new figures from the Met Office which appeared to confirm a lack of any warming in the last 15 years”
More at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/30/a-rose-on-winter.html,
Including the comments
George,
It’s probably fair to say that small business and entrepreneurial spirit is the mortal enemy of the current political agenda. It regularly stuns me that when people vote for extra protection and extra government regulation that they don’t realise they will pay dearly for it.
Governments should provide checks and balances. In societies like ours they also should have ‘safety nets’ in place to help look after the elderly, those who have serious health challenges and essential services like education. Providing and encouraging national infrastructure projects is also essential.
However, when they start spending billions of tax payer money on PR campaigns that claim it is government and bureaucratic responsibilty to manage and control something like the climate and for people to believe they can, some type of insanity has emerged. Over regulation leads to ever increasing justification for more and more regulagory legislation. The mindset seems to shift from ‘equal opportunity’ to ‘everybody is equal.
History teaches us this behaviour inevitably leads to an implosion.
And amazingly, it is the very people who get hamstrung by this insane mindset who everyone turns to when the mess needs to be cleaned up!
As I’ve stated before the FACT is the greatest deception of CAGW is the mitigation lie.
As of 2009 onwards China alone is emitting one billion extra tonnes of co2 every single year, but it took the entire group of OECD countries 20 years to emit an extra one billion tonnes. ( 1990 to 2009)
Actually they achieved this a few years earlier but dropped back due to the GF crisis.
So now we have just one non OECD country emitting the same as the entire OECD group but 20 times faster. Work that out if you can, but what a pity every OECD citizen/ voter can’t be shown these numbers.
The whole mitigation mess is a gigantic fraud and con. We’ll be wasting countless billions $ for decades to come when kindy maths proves the ratio is beyond fixing.
But don’t take my word for it, look it up for yourself.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD
Welcome to the club, George.
At least the US is still trying. In Australia the only thing we manufacture these days is paper money so the GDP is all at the mint.
At least we can still do that, unlike the EMU countries.
Luke, would you like me to get you some SSTs around Tasmania that are 1.5c colder than they found 60 years ago?
Anyhow! the bleedin’ Met office even agrees, so there!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
AGW deception is a too-polite way to say it:
http://www.real-science.com/corruption-temperature-record
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/EAC.pdf
Well if you really believe the EAC study Luke you should start to demonstrate in China immediately, because alas that’s where all the increased co2 emissions are originating.
Or perhaps you’ve invented some clever new maths or clever new technology that can scrub the extra co2 from the atmosphere?
Luke, that “study” can mean just about anything you like.
I notice you didn’t comment on it.
But just remember this: The EAC is wind generated and during the reverse monsoon both the direction and temperature also go into reverse.
Heresy at the BBC!
The world’s awash with fossil fuels!
But, of course we have to leave it all in the ground:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9685000/9685024.stm
But at least they admit there are a few things they don’t know:
“Knowledge Gaps
What is the relationship of the South Equatorial Current bifurcation latitude and vertical structure with the inflow and the outflow streams into the Coral Sea? What are the dynamics associated with the temporal changes in its location?
What are the mechanisms associated with the EAC separation and reattachment, location of semi-permanent eddies, retroflection?
How are EAC eddies generated? Are they generated by local forcing or are they entering the region from the east? How do eddies interact with the mean flow and topography?
How are climate-change-related variations in the South Pacific gyre transport and density structure communicated through the western boundary via the EAC?
How are changes in the EAC at seasonal interannnual, decadal and long-term timescales affecting regional marine ecosystems?
Within the Tasman Sea, what are the relative contributions of advection and heat storage compared to the surface heat flux? How do they vary on interannual to decadal timescales? How is heat partitioned between the atmospheric fluxes and recirculated within the gyre?
Climate models need an improved representation of the EAC and its eddy field?”
No need for a question mark there.
George B,
Further to your comments upthread, here is The Great Australian Solution:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/government_stuffs_onesteels_mouth_with_cash/
SD, that’s so funny about 1934. Briffa also thought it wasn’t so hot in 1934. It seems he just didn’t know that plants grow with water as well as with warmth. I blame his parents for not giving him one of those mustard-and-cress sets when he was little.
Robert, when “the team” do that to us, how do we let ’em get away with it? Where is our investigative MSM? When there is only 0.5c per century warming with some part UHI, some part land use change, some part GHG and some part due to cooked books, it isn’t AGW that’s the problem, it’s our corrupt society.
Any’ow Viv Forbes has the right idea:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/making-things-matters/
Another face of AGW deception that the moronic “convinced” can just shrug off:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
Geezzz SD not only is China emitting co2 at an incredible rate, but they’re turning lakes into acid just to provide magnets for those useless wind turbines blotting our landscapes in the west.
But that’s the sort of outcome Luke would approve of I suppose, what a mob of idiots our govts have become, wrecking so much in all countries and the temp and climate won’t change in the slightest.
“Germany’s Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic”
http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/4867-germanys-top-environmentalist-turns-climate-sceptic.html
More about the deception from the Bolter.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_open_your_eyes_wheres_that_warming/
This shows where this deceptive garbage comes from, they’re called intellectuals but are often just barking mad, delusional loonies.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_art_of_being_intellectual/
Good to see Carter, Plimer and Archibald helping ordinary Aussies fight the SLR deception at public meetings.
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/sceptics-rebut-sea-level-rise-policy/2439352.aspx
Spangled Drongo,
“Don’t be obtuse, Luke. Anyone with half a brain knows…”
Now be fair Spangled, Little Lukey has a full brain. He just forgot what he did with it.
Neville,
“Geezzz SD not only is China emitting co2 at an incredible rate, but they’re turning lakes into acid just to provide magnets for those useless wind turbines blotting our landscapes in the west.”
Can’t wait till they trash them. Should make great magnets for slot cars, electric bicycles etc. Hmm, wonder how much we are actually losing by having China mine and process all that highly toxic stuff for us so we will have it for when we can do something useful with it.
Whether its warming or cooling http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3419860.htm
and hitherto unseen warming http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050232.shtml
and for SD http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047943.shtml
“Comment from: John Sayers January 30th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I’m waiting to so how Luke can refute this without attacking the messengers.
Comment from: spangled drongo January 30th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I noticed on “our” ABC, The World Today in the interests of “balance” they actually feature this story and then had the timerity to get untimely Tim to refute it, ”
I realize I’m being pedantic, but you’re confusing “refute” with “rebut”
Luke and Tim may have offered rebuttals but they didn’t “REFUTE” anything.
fair enough Alan. 🙂
Andrew Bolt has a very good article in the herald today.
“IT’S a bright new year, so let’s see how the great global warming scare is panning out, shall we?
First, the planet hasn’t actually warmed for a decade—or even 15 years, according to new temperature data from Britain’s Met Office.
Hmm. That’s not what global warming scientists predicted.
Or look out of your window.
The rain that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said in 2007 “isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems” any more has just flooded New South Wales and Queensland again.
The Bureau of Meteorology,which three years ago warned “we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again”, now admits last year was our third-wettest on record.
The snowfalls that the University of East Anglia in 2000 said would soon become “a very rare and exciting event” are falling as hard as ever.
The monster hurricanes we were told to expect by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore are coming no more often.
The massive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, that warmist Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg predicted would occur every second year from 2010, hasn’t hit in years.
Wherever you look it’s the same wake-up-to-yourself story.
Sea levels have recently dipped, the oceans have lately cooled, Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007, polar bear numbers are increasing, global crop yields keep rising and now some solar scientists warn not of warming, but cooling.
So how do the warming activists respond to increasing evidence contradicting their theory that our carbon dioxide emissions are heating the world dangerously?
Simple. They close their eyes.
Take Prof Naomi Oreskes, the author of Merchants of Doubt who famously tried to prove that not one scientific paper dissented from the global warming “consensus”.
Last week she complained people still “cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind”, and insisted: “It isn’t.”
To have an academic demand a closed mind on global warming is a shock. It shows she’s talking not about science but a faith.
Yet her view is depressingly echoed by much of the media, which for years has whipped up the warming scare, refusing to report on scientists who queried it, and demonising the open-minded as “deniers”.
They, too, believe a closed mind—and closed ears—is how to deal with inconvenient truths I’ve listed.
Example?
I once mentioned on the ABC TV’s Insiders that the warming had paused, only to be heckled by one panellist while the other, The Sydney Morning Herald’s David Marr, theatrically buried his head in a newspaper.
Not listening, la la la la la.
What has made the deliberate know-nothingness of such journalists so damaging is that in no other country has the media spruiked the warming creed so hysterically.
Warmist researchers from the Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder have counted how often 50 papers around the world mentioned “global warming” or “climate change” and found that in every year from 2006 to 2011 our own beat the rest.
But see how some of the most obsessed outlets—especially The Age and ABC—resist reporting evidence that the late 20th century warming blamed on man’s gases has halted, and few of the catastrophic consequences predicted have happened.
Man’s gases do affect the climate is some small way, but not necessarily for the worst and certainly not by as much as natural influences—some of which may have us heading for cooling.
Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, investigates the effects of the sun and cosmic rays on our climate, and last week said a recent cut in the sun’s output could soon reverse any man-made warming: “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.”
Who knows if he’s right? Best keep an open mind on this and on man-made warming.
Or, as Harvard University physicist Mike Stopa warned last week: “It is possible that CO2 has effectively no influence on global climate.”
And he asked: “Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the Earth’s climate.
“How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?”
Luke – those links are pathetic!!
This is pathetic – I almost feel sorry for him as his whole is collapsing around him.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/30/top-climate-scientist-on-need-for-clean-energy-action/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
Just another kind of deception from Phil Jones etc and the pathetic inquiry that let them get away with it.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/31/geoffrey-boulton-and-ipcc-secrecy/#more-15521
Sorry John – I know you only imbibe blog slops. Isn’t real science so hard for you. All you can do is quote what some denialist gimp in the blogosphere said. Most often not in the climate field – just some rightist arsehole with an axe to grind. Face it you don’t have the intelligence to even know what you’re reading. Go twang your banjo mate.
Yes Neville, blatant criminal deception! As Ross McKitrick observes:
Ross McKitrick
Posted Jan 31, 2012 at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Reply
Interesting to compare this to a pharmaceutical case. Suppose the authors of a report on drug trials claimed that no significant differences were detected in stroke rates between treatment and control groups for an anti-inflammatory painkiller, and on this basis authorized its general use. Then it turned out that the underlying papers did report significant differences, with 2 independent teams reporting significant stroke-related side effects, and the pharmaceutical company simply falsified the evidence. It is easy to suppose there would be criminal consequences. The magnitude of the contrast with the IPCC episode is a good measure of the gap between proper scientific practices and the IPCC process. Just be glad Phil Jones and Geoffrey Boulton aren’t in charge of drug approvals.
Yeah Luke, it’s too deep for us to work out for ourselves.
Trust only the experts:
http://www.real-science.com/new-hansen-study-lays-rest-doubts-sanity
Once again:
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-begins-time-1960
Anyone notice a correlation between warmist publications and energy drinks? You get the hyperbolic labelling – ‘record’, ‘hitherto unseen’ etc – followed up by lots of factoids, acronyms and techno-verbiage. Poorly understood phenomena are treated as a simple mechanisms, with appropriate referencing of “models”, needless to say. It all seems to be designed for snobbish simpletons. I wonder if warmies buy more energy drinks?
Having a bloke like Hansen in charge, we just don’t know how lucky we are.
There’s just nuthin’ he won’t do to solve a problem:
http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic
But even when we’re on 100% renewable energy we’ll still have AGW.
Doomed! I tell ya, doomed:
http://junkscience.com/2012/01/30/new-scientist-whines-about-clean-power/
“A Tipping Point Reached”
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/a-tipping-point-reached/#more-2890
Luke – as usual – attack the author (Bolt) and the messenger (me). True to form.
Gosh according to Branson we don’t have to worry about another ice age, the last glacial is definitely the last glacial.
Of course it’s all due once again to that amazing trace gas co2, but is there anything that can’t be attributed to this marvellous mixture?
Ice ages have been the normal state of the planet’s condition for all of the human/ erectus/ neanderthal time span at least.
Roughly 90% of every 100,000 years has been taken up by an ice age and only 10% of the time has been in an interglacial condition. (roughly)
But Branson knows better it seems and we can all jump for joy because our Holocene ( still cooler than the last 5) will go on forever. Yippeee.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/01/sir-richard-branson-goes-full-on-stupid-in-antarctica/#more-55777
Little Lukey,
“and hitherto unseen warming http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050232.shtml”
One incident is used?? Here and I thought you told us WEATHER wasn’t CLIMATE!!
I would laugh but this is pathetic. Where is the warming trend in OHC??
Your first link was pointless and the last one… GRL Little Lukey?? How the mighty, in their own minds, have fallen.
What he’s working round to Neville, is for govt subsidies for his airlines to permanently eco-engineer global temps.
There he is, the world’s greatest “polluter”, in Antarctica with Al ‘n’ Jimmy, reporting on the “catastrophe” he’s causing with a straight face. Of course Al, at No. 2, is there to give him some pointers. Nobody plays the system better than our RB.
Antarctica ice is increasing yet silly HIPPO Al Gore has started another scary report on his arrival.
We’ll all be flooded out it seems, but I wonder why Al bought that property on the sea shore in San Francisco?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/31/415742/al-gore-rising-seas-antarctica-to-bangladesh/?mobile=nc
Hey KookyKat – you didn’t read the Pacific paper did you.
And as for your derision on my last link. Well I used to think you might know something but hey perhaps you’re just another flake ….
“The Team” have just made a rebuttal at WSJ full of the usual non-science:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html
So that’s why the warmers have gone to the South Pole:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094230/UK-weather-London-braced-snow-Britain-shivers-temperatures-colder-South-Pole.html
Well SD – face it – sceptics are a bunch of stupid drongos up against a list like that?
Well Luke thinks that we’re stupid drongos, but how much further would he take that I wonder.
Prof Clive Hamilton thinks that we’re worse than Nazis. Are we?
Hamilton thinks that mitigation of CAGW is so important that perhaps democracy should be suspended.
Should it?
I’d just like to know where Luke stands on these two questions so we can understand and judge him more fairly or severely.
Don’t forget that both Jennifer and Joanne for example claim to be libertarians, about as opposite to nazism or communism or totalitarianism as you can get.
In other words they don’t believe in any type of groupthink at all. By comparison Hamilton etc gets extremely annoyed when we don’t agree with their point of view.
In fact many of these extremists would suspend democracy tomorrow if they had the chance to do so.
Then what would happen to anyone who complained or disagreed? I think the psychopaths Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc have already given us the answer.
From what I hear they could have just gone to the UK, & saved heaps of CO2. Apparently from yesterday, the UK, & much of Europe, are colder than the Antarctic.
Must be global warming, in the land that was never going to see snow again.
“Well SD – face it – sceptics are a bunch of stupid drongos up against a list like that?”
Well then Lovely Boy,why can’t this “list” come up with any science?
Instead of crap like “Research shows 97% of scientists agree that CC is human caused.”
and “Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter”.
Even the warmist Met Office concedes there has been no warming for the last 15 years.
I seem to remember an old song called THE WRECK OF THE 97.
THE WRECK OF THE OLD 97
The Australian has posted the same article today SD.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/expertise-a-prerequisite-to-comment-on-climate/story-e6frgd0x-1226261256819
Yeah John, how much “expertise” do ya need to make a science-free comment like that?
Luke would know, he makes them all the time.
Looking at the WSJ rebuttal article, one has to ask: are these people slobs? Certainly they are pompous, evasive, snobbish, bullying, with an uncanny ability to shift between factoid and hyperbole. But are they out-and-out slobs?
I’m no scientist, yet, even in casual talk about cricket, I would never refer to a “record” without an immediate explanation of time-frame and limitations of data. The deception is just too obvious, and an insult to the person one is trying to persuade.
It’s all aimed, very successfully, at the Fairfax-perusing classes. Warmism, like environmentalism, plays on the urban elites’ mal-de-siecle and self-loathing. The strategy of these people is to exude an overpowering sense of hierarchy and authority while resorting to the cheapest intellectual stunts. No wonder GetUp loves ’em.
More on that pathetic rebuttal by the so called real scientists from Jo Nova.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/8-reasons-to-dump-that-cheating-doctor-trenberth-et-al-are-wrong-in-the-wsj/#comment-949685
Little Lukey,
No, I do not pay for that stuff. Send me a copy if you want me to actually read something is most likely biased.
Lukey has fallen into the same trap many warmists, or maybe he’s just lying like the rest of them.
“Research shows 97% of scientists agree that CC is human caused.” This mantra is endlessly repeated. You know how they got to that number? They tallied the results of a survey that got over 3,400 responses from scientists. Then they removed responses they deemed were of insufficient merit. That left them with about 70 responses, amongst whom 97 percent were warmists.
The warmists concoct numbers all the time. Who is surprised?
KuhnKat “for that stuff.” – yea sums it up for you – so much for awareness of relevant literature
http://www.skepticalscience.com/media_v_reality.html ROFL !
SD – sideline – well I never – Copeton Dam almost full – red letter day ! rarely fills….
http://waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/water.shtml?ppbm=STORAGE_SITE&da&3&dakm_url
Yes Luke, the Copeton is like a lot of those western dams that were completed after the wet years that ended in 1976. They have had a limited and patchy water supply but are now coming into their own.
Just shows to go that you have to build dams on these potentially great water supply areas in Australia with our unpredictable rainfall patterns.
When it’s raining money you want a big bucket not an umbrella.
Just listen to “our” ABC and the rest of the MSM spouting catastrophe with all this inland rainfall. As Fred Dagg says, “we don’t know how lucky we are”.
Allah gives nuts to the toothless!
January: -0.09 and falling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Luke,
Many of us know how to use modelling. It is an extremely useful tool. We use modelling to assist with our planning.
But seriously, if we start with flawed assumptions and then refuse to recognise that, the answer is going to be flawed. If we input that a certain commodity is worth $600/tonne when it is really only worth $200 then we have a flawed result.
If we then also assume that the expenses or other inputs are less than real figures, then the result is further skewed. Many of your links provide no justification for the assumptions that are used as inputs.
The models look attractive but they are devoid of checks and balances that come from inputting real data. If they are not updated correctly they are flawed.
It is an inescapable reality.
Whether they are compiled by a scientist with a Phd or multiple degrees or not is completely irrelevant. If they’re not prepared to update the inputs correctly, the model is flawed.
It’s time to move on. The projections need updating.
“Many of us know how to use modelling” really?
” It is an extremely useful tool.” maybe — maybe not
“If they’re not prepared to update the inputs correctly” – well of course? but that doesn’t help your model necessarily. I don’t really think you know how these models work….
so how do you think they work Debs?
The map is not the territory. The same is true of models. But what’s the value of a map that’s made without looking at the territory, or a model that doesn’t look at real data?
Well of course the actual model could be deficient as well Luke.
That was not my point however.
Schiller supplies a good analogy.
And Luke, why would we be helping a projective model? Isn’t the model supposed to be helping us to make realistic projections?
I may not understand the highly complex calculations that have been used to construct a particular model but I do understand that inputs determine the outcome and that if a model is not updated correctly with real data then it will stray further and further from reality and its projective capabilities are compromised.
So the actual point is valid. If we start with flawed assumptions and use those as inputs into ANY projective model, the projections will inevitably flawed. There can also be a wide range of projections depending on variable inputs.
Real data and reality are the final judge of the success or failure of ANY projective model.
So, if they are updated with real time data and they resemble reality then they remain useful. If not. . . .
Schiller is a silly person
Debbie you are a total modelling ignoramus
There’s another problem with computer models. Computers don’t do what you want, they do what they’re told.
The output of a computer model is pre-determined.
“The output of a computer model is pre-determined.” FAIL
luke, the gift that keeps giving; his Ashok paper discusses, their own words, “a hitherto-unseen anomalous basinwide warming from May 2009 through April 2010” in the tropical pacific; fair enough; here is a chart noting the various increases and decreases in OHC in the various oceans of the world during the anomalous increase:
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zx5boi.jpg
hahhahahaha – I kacked – a few months and no tropical cut. gawd
wiggle my woggle
Luke apparently does not understand the rudiments of how computer programs work. A well-constructed program works smoothly and does what it is told to do. Sort of like the computer model behind Mann’s hockey stick. It yields a hockey stick even when given random data.
” A well-constructed program works smoothly” FAIL – why should it
“does what it is told to do” FAIL
“Sort of like the computer model behind Mann’s hockey stick” FAIL – it was a statistical analysis.
You know nothing.
Little Lukey,
would you like to explain to statisticians, who tell us that doing an analysis requires developing a model first, that there was no model behind Michael Mann’s Schlockey Schtick?
Maybe there wasn’t and that would be one more major strike against that piece of garbage. 8>)
Little Lukey,
would you like to explain to statisticians, who tell us that doing an analysis requires developing a model first, that there was no model behind Michael Mann’s Schlockey Schtick?
Maybe there wasn’t and that would be one more major strike against that piece of garbage. 8>)
“KuhnKat “for that stuff.” – yea sums it up for you – so much for awareness of relevant literature”
What is relevant about biased papers Little Lukey?? Especially when they don’t use all the data or misuse it or…? I gave up on YOUR science 5 years ago when it stopped being somewhat close to reality. You MUST stick with it or admit what a FOOL you have been!! Does it feel really good to wake up knowing how you have helped to damage so many people’s lives? Does it give you a sense of POWER Little Lukey? I am not laughing. Are you?
Little Lukey,
I would point to the same issue others have. YOUR science told us that Australia would be subject to chronic drought. FAIL!!!!!
” Does it feel really good to wake up knowing how you have helped to damage so many people’s lives?” oh do bung it on mate – you’ve never had it so good.
Australia IS subject to chronic drought – historical fact boofhead. However if you’re implying that there are journal articles saying it would never rain again in the future – well fess up. You are such a stupid little denier.
“However if you’re implying that there are journal articles saying it would never rain again in the future”
Noone is saying that; what the official position has been is that there is likely to be increased droughts; some CSIRO people have not blamed AGW for this:
http://www.csiro.au/news/SEQ-Drought
While the majority have:
“0601.txt
cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
from: “David Jones”
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: “Phil Jones”
Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out
of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of
collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer
and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the
death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average,
which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that
Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.
Regards,
David”
And:
http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-1%20Reports/Phase1_SynthesisReport.pdf
And, of course, who can forget the Drought Exceptional Circumstances report so well shafted by David Stockwell:
http://landshape.org/enm/decr-review-series/#more-1551
Well so much for Cohenite’s reading ability – unable to actually accurately report what CSIRO and SEACI research says …
And David Jones above was right on the science. And especially about “Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. ” Let’s see … ENSO causes centennial climate change and solar cycles drivel galore. It’s embarrassing. Shall we remember those lamentable papers again….?
Luke and the other rent seekers seem to be understandably up in arms over an academic and qualified challenge to their place at the public trough.
David’s triumphalism over “Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism” shows that it’s a publicity campaign, not real science.
David’s comment that “climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
meteorological data to see it” is another telltale. Same as saying, ‘We don’t need data, let’s look at the weather.’ This is further evidence of a publicity campaign, not real science.
Australia may still have problems with Gorebull Warmers, but, it would appear that some sense is seeping back into Germany. Check out this esteemed Socialist and Environmentalist slamming Gorebull Warming with support from the most popular daily paper!!
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/
It may actually end before complete destruction of our world.