ABC Home | Radio | TV | News | Local | Environment | More Subjects… | Shop

Unleashed

Robust Community Debate

22 July 2009, 13:30

Warming earth

Andrew Glikson
Andrew Glikson

Is Australia threatened by the climate outlook?

Inherent in any attempt at challenging published scientific theories is the need to conduct research, or advance discussions, submitted to the peer-reviewed scientific literature: the core of the scientific process allowing discrimination between credible scientific work and ambit claims.

While many papers do not succeed to be accepted, serious scientists proceed with further research which, when found consistent with measured data and with basic physical and chemical principles, constitutes a contribution in the respective discipline.

Not so the so-called "climate change sceptics" who, rather than follow scientific procedures, mostly publish in politically friendly media channels.

"Climate change sceptics" scan the field for real or imagined, major or minor errors, inferring such errors undermine major databases, theories, or even an entire branch of science.

A classic example of this approach is the eternal search for errors and gaps in Darwin's evolution theory by creationists, based on their belief in a supernatural creator.

In a similar vein "climate change sceptics" make the assumption climate change either is not occurring or, alternatively, is of a natural rather than anthropogenic origin, repeating long-discarded arguments indefinitely.

To explain their reluctance or inability to publish in the peer-review scientific literature the "sceptics" invoke a conspiracy theory on the part of journal editors, reviewers, climate research organisations, the IPCC, indeed of the entire scientific community.

Some specialise in ad-hominem expressions. The "sceptics" commonly use qualitative or semi-quantitative expressions, avoiding up-to-date data-based arguments.

In an article A new trend in climate alarmism David Evans claims "global cooling" from about 2003, implying errors in earlier measurements of ocean and land temperature, questioning the role of infrared absorption/emission resonance of well-mixed long-lasting greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, O3, CFC) [2] and the role of human emissions as triggers of climate change.

Below I indicate these arguments are incorrect.

(A) "Global Cooling": The article claims the earth has been cooling since 2003, overlooking the role of the ENSO cycle (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and of the 11-year sunspot cycle and aerosol albedo effects which are superposed on the overall warming trend since about 1975.



Figure 1 Correlation of mean global temperature changes from 1975-2008 with the ENSO cycle, showing close relationships between warm peaks and the El-Nino (red) and cool periods and the La-Nina (blue) within an overall global warming trend.

Prior to the mid-20th century the CO2 greenhouse effect and enhanced solar radiation effects almost coincided, but from about 1975 the trends are decoupled.



Figure 2 1885–2000 global land-Ocean temperatures (NASA/GISS) and total solar radiation (Max Planck Institute) [4]. Note the decoupling of the solar effect and the land-ocean temperature anomaly from about 1970-1975.

Solar effects continues to oscillates affecting about +/-0.1 degrees C changes, whereas the greenhouse effects results in global temperature rise of near +0.5 degrees C. Additional warming by near-1.2 Watt/m2 due to fossil fuel-emitted sulphur aerosols mask further committed warming.

Further, yet unspecified, warming ensues from albedo loss due to ice melting and infrared absorption by exposed ice-free water, in particular the Arctic Sea ice. The 1998–2008 period (Figure 3) represents peak temperatures over the last two millennia (Figure 4) and since the early Holocene about 10,000 years ago.



Figure 3 Mean global surface temperatures. Black line - meteorological stations; red dots – satellite land-ocean temperature index.



Figure 4 Mean global temperature reconstructions using multiple climate proxy records reported in the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report. The HadCRUT2v instrumental temperature record is in black.

(B) The Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Climate change sceptics often refer to qualitative rather than quantitative observations, for example warm Greenland climate during the MWP. Evans's article claims: "once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in the medieval warm period".

However, multiproxy-based paleo-temperature evidence for the Northern Hemisphere for 700–2000 AD (Figure 4) indicates MWP temperatures were lower than 2000 AD temperatures by at least 0.4 degrees C (Figure 4). The LIA (about 0.3 – 0.5 degrees C cooler than mid-20th century) correlates with low sunspot activity.

(C) Validity of ocean temperature records. Evan's article claim's that ocean temperature measurements by XBT bathythermographs prior to 2003 (sunk to depth of up to 2000 metres), were less accurate than the current Argo network (sunk to depths of 1000 metres or more), dismissing pre-2003 ocean temperature data. However, this claim is refuted: As shown by the NOAA/AMOL report comparisons between ocean and satellite-based measurements of ocean heat storage to 400 metres (1997-2005) are in close agreement (correlation coefficient of 0.9; RMS difference of 0.04 1010 J/m2) (Figure 5).




Figure 5 Comparison between in situ-based and satellite-based estimates of time series of heat storage in the upper 400 m of the ocean. In situ observations (red); satellite altimetry (black). 5° by 1.5° box centered at 27.5°W, 5.25°N. The correlation coefficient between the two time series is 0.9 and their rms measurements (Figures 3 and 6) and the global distribution of weather station (Figure 7).




Figure 6 Comparison of 1982–2006 ground-based (blue) and satellite based (red) temperature measurements. UAH - University of Alabama. RSS - Remote Sensing Services [10]



Figure 7 Global distribution of weather stations.


(E) The carbon dioxide – temperature relationships. The article states "...there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming — it's only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback".

Here the article denies the overwhelming evidence for cause and effect relationships between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, demonstrated by numerous experimental studies and paleoclimate observations.




Figure 8 CO2 and climate correlations. A: Comparison of model predictions and proxy reconstructions of CO2. B: Intervals of glacial (dark blue) or cool climates (light blue; see text). C: Latitudinal distribution of direct glacial evidence (tillites, striated bedrock, etc.) throughout the Phanerozoic (Crowley, 1998). A (right hand) Proxies used in CO2 estimates. After Royer [13].

Water vapor, which constitutes powerful feedback effects in the tropics, are of low concentrations over deserts and near-nil concentrations over the poles – which constitute the loci of fastest warming, up to 5 degrees C since about 1975.

Earlier Evans questioned the greenhouse effect due to an alleged absence of a tropical troposphere "hot spot", the loci of rising warm air plumes, stating "If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming".

Not so. First, the hotspot is not a signature of the greenhouse effect but of warming from any source. Second, a hot spot has been reported.



Figure 9 Radiosond (weather balloon) measurements and models of the equatorial troposphere hot spot trend, seen to intensify from 1959-2005 to 1979-2005 [15].

Evans's arguments do nothing to disprove the evidence of the effects of more than 310 billion ton of carbon emitted by human industry since 1750, near half the original CO2 inventory of the atmosphere and raising the levels to 388 ppm by 2009 – near 40 percent higher than levels recorded for the last 2.8 million years. CO2 continues to rise at a rate of 2 ppm/year, faster than at the last glacial termination by two orders of magnitude, endangering the climate conditions which allowed the emergence of large mammals (34 million years-ago), humans (5 million years-ago), and civilization (about 7000 years ago).

Comments (761)

Add your comment

  • David :

    25 Jan 2010 12:00:33pm

    I can't see ANU's credibility being assisted by mindless alarmists like this.

  • David :

    08 Jan 2010 2:12:40pm

    Is this really a scientist? All I read is hypocrisy. I obviously, can't cover all of the ridiculous claims and scientific flaws, however, just a few points;

    He claims that 'sceptics' manipulate out of data information. However, I notice that whilst his superficial analysis of solar activity vs. temperatures, uses an extremely short time period and relies on old data, it also tells us nothing about whether or not human emissions of carbon dioxide is better correlated. In fact, subject anthropogenic or even global aggregate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to the same test of correlation. It fails without a doubt, even over a long scale glacial-interglacial period.


    This is not to say however, that carbon dioxide cannot cause warming; just because there is weak correlation doesn't mean that there is no causation. When considering as he asks us to, the most recent data and science, is this Andrew Glikson aware of the recent paper published by world renowned atmospheric scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen (On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 16, August 2009) - Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi) which, using direct measurement shows that computer models are in conflict with observational evidence, and more importantly, climate sensitivity. Suggesting that sensitivity is more likely around 0.5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Thsi is also supported by a host of other papers.

    As to figure 9 and the analysis presented with it. A desperate argument.
    1. Your statement is premised on the fact that real observed evidence supports the theory that carbon dioxide emissions are a serious climate forcing. This is false. This is precisely what Mr. Evans was demonstrating.

    2. You have presented, once again, models rather than observational evidence of an equatorial troposphere hot spot. Have you checked to see what the observed data shows?
    d
    3. whilst you are right to assert that 310 billion tons of carbon dioxide is emitted by human industry since 1750, once again this tells us nothing about the cause of climatic changes. Moreover, I refer you to the latest science regarding its impact on the atmosphere, "Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121, January 2009) - Tom Quirk". Indicating that most or all of the carbon dioxide emitted by human sources is likely to be sequestered locally, having little impact upon atmospheric concentrations.

    4. There is for example, the paper by Beck E.2007: 180 years of atmospheric co2 gas analysis by chemical methods, published 2007 in Energy and. Environment. http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Climate%20Change%20-%20II.pdf. The Antarctic has a potential bias when considering its validity as an indication of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This paper con

  • Zibethicus :

    05 Aug 2009 8:45:45am

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804071400.htm

    Earth's Biogeochemical Cycles, Once In Concert, Falling Out Of Sync

    ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2009) - What do the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone," global climate change, and acid rain have in common? They're all a result of human impacts to Earth's biology, chemistry and geology, and the natural cycles that involve all three.

    On August 4-5, 2009, scientists who study such cycles--biogeochemists--will convene at a special series of sessions at the Ecological Society of America (ESA)'s 94th annual meeting in Albuquerque, N.M.

    (snip)

    Now, with global warming and other planet-wide impacts, biogeochemical cycles are being drastically altered. Like broken gears in machinery that was once finely-tuned, these cycles are falling out of sync.

    (snip)

    The study of coupled biogeochemical cycles has direct management applications.

    The "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is one example. Nitrogen-based fertilizers make their way from Iowa cornfields to the Mississippi River, where they are transported to the Gulf of Mexico. Once deposited in the Gulf, nitrogen stimulates algal blooms.

    When the algae die, their decomposition consumes oxygen, creating an area of water roughly the size of New Jersey that is inhospitable to aquatic life. Protecting the Gulf's fisheries--with an estimated annual value of half-a-billion dollars--relies on understanding how coupled biogeochemical cycles interact.

    A better understanding of the relationship between nitrogen and oxygen cycles may help determine how best to use nitrogen fertilizers, for example, to avoid dead zones.

    Adapted from materials provided by National Science Foundation.

  • Zibethicus :

    04 Aug 2009 10:42:19pm

    "Greig :

    04 Aug 2009 1:26:27pm

    Zibethicus, you are apparently unaware that the statement you have quoted is acually false, is not supported by the facts of the situation, as my link proves. Lindzen has never made a direct public statement about the link between smoking and cancer. You have repeated the fallacy, but that does not make it any more true. Repeating a lie does not necessarily make you a liar, but it has proved that you are an idiot."

    So I'm an "idiot" and /Newsweek/ is 'lying' when their interview says that "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772

    Isn't /this/ getting /interesting/ now?

    So /Newsweek/ is lying and I'm an idiot, eh?

    How about /this guy/, Greig - he says the same thing as me and Newsweek. Is /he/ an idiot and a liar, too?

    www.griffith.edu.au/griffithreview/campaign/webarticles/williams_ed12.pdf+lindzen+lung+cancer+tob&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a

    I interviewed Lindzen in Boston and was impressed by his assurance as well as his
    cheerful chain-smoking and delight in being contrary. He is known to dispute links
    between cigarettes and lung cancer.

    (end quotes)

    And if I've got this right, that's Robyn Williams, presenter of the ABC Science Show, amongst many other worthy things.

    I'd love to have you commit unequivocally to something for once, Greig, and this would be /perfect/. A nice, plain, BS-free (sorry, "ambiguity"-free answer is now required of you:

    Are you willing to claim, on an ABC website, that Robyn Williams is a 'liar' and and 'idiot' for holding the same views as me and a reporter from /Newsweek/ whom you are also calling a liar?

      • Greig :

        05 Aug 2009 8:22:58am

        Zibethicus,

        The Newsweek article does not actually quote Lindzen. Williams comment states "he [Lindzen] is known to dispute links between cigarettes and lung cancer". So what exactly was Lindzen saying when he was supposedly talking "on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."? For example, Lindzen may well have been discussing passive smoking, which I am sure you are aware is indeed linked to cancer, though weakly compared to the link between smoking and cancer. So Lindzen may well have been making an accurate point, but we don't know because there are no quotes.

        The fact is, Lindzen is not on record as having ever stated that smoking and cancer are weakly linked. Anyone who says he is, is lying. And Ratty, quoting a Newseek article which does not publish the quotes is not proof of anything except that you are an idiot.

        And Robyn Williams is also an idiot for making the unqualified statement "he [Lindzen] is known to dispute links between cigarettes and lung cancer". He is not lying, but he is certainly getting very loose with his words considering the fact that he is making public statements that may be considered a criticism of the Lindzen. I have no respect for Robyn Williams, after I heard an interview on JJJ where Williams defended Al Gore's presentation of the Vostock ice core data in "An Inconvenient Truth" as an appropriate representation of how CO2 causes warming.

          • Zibethicus :

            05 Aug 2009 9:01:25pm

            "The Newsweek article does not actually quote Lindzen."

            It is an interview with him and there is no sign of any retraction having been printed of the statement that "[h]e'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."

            This says /nothing/ about passive smoking, your immediate next port of call in your private ocean of shame and desperation;

            "For example, Lindzen may well have been discussing passive smoking,"

            http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lindzen

            Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, are overstated.

            (end quote)

            "The fact is, Lindzen is not on record as having ever stated that smoking and cancer are weakly linked. Anyone who says he is, is lying."

            (with infinite weariness) ...I see...so we come down to the usual Deniosaur crap, after all this weary mileage; "ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH *ME* IS WRONG!!!"

            Newsweek, Robyn Williams, me...could be a hundred others. Makes no difference. A regiment of sources is lying in concert, and only The Noble Greig is telling the truth.

            Yeah, that /must/ be it, mustn't it? After all, your record is so /good/ in that field...

            "He is not lying, but he is certainly getting very loose with his words"

            ...wriggle, wriggle, squirm...oohhh, I'm not gonna call HIM a liar...he might /fight back/...

            Oh, you /really are beneath contempt/...go away and experiment with cigarettes in suppositories...maybe that's what Lindzen was talking about...watch out for an increased risk of oral cancer, though...

              • Greig :

                06 Aug 2009 8:09:23am

                Fascinating.

                So Zibethicus argues that there is no retraction, therefore all accusations against Lindzen are true. Even though he has never publicly stated his opinion. Our Ratty would have done very well in Nazi Germany. He certainly doesn't let facts get in the way of demonising people.

                And quoting wiki as if it is fact? [groan]

                The fact is Lindzen has never made any public statement on the subject of smoking and cancer. All we have is second hand hearsay. Yet this is sufficient evidence for the AGW advocate. Hmmm. Telling isn't it.

                But, more to the point, what on Earth has Lindzen's opinions on smoking have to do with Andrew Glikson's inability to recognise the difference between correlation and causation, and that his figure 9 is wrong? Answer: NOTHING, it is just Ratty showing us how AGW advocates manipulate information to make their case.

                In this thread, the aim is to demonise and discredit (by fraudulent means if necessary) anyone who is sceptical, or comes to this forum to debate AGW. This illustrates how weak some AGW advocates are in terms of their ability to technically understand the issue. So many people have formed an opinion on AGW based on their ideological or emotional disposition, and then will defend it, facts be damned.

  • ilajd :

    04 Aug 2009 7:14:15pm

    Wait for it climate models predict lots more rain for Australia.... and lots less rain for Australia. A coin flip would be just as reliable as this rubbish.

    "One Japanese model predicts 149.7mm more rain by 2099 across Australia and one German model predicts 128.1mm less per year. Australia's long-term, nationwide rainfall average is about 450mm a year. "

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25877361-11949,00.html

  • Zibethicus :

    04 Aug 2009 1:34:47pm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration

    Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide

    Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating


    Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide

    Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating

    * Suzanne Goldenberg and Damian Carrington
    * The Observer, Sunday 26 July 2009

    Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.

    The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week.

    (snip)

    The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic. More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year.

    Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse.

    (end quotes)

  • fine+dandy :

    04 Aug 2009 7:08:19am

    Did anyone catch the 7.30 report last night.

    I think they should try to be more honest with Australians who are not part of the international mercenary brigade. If they wish us to become partners in the new coal plants. I ask why they have not already made the move since the technology was available for over 30 years now.

    As for sequestration its just going to end up as a unregulated pump of just about anything, sweeping under the carpet more toxins and new one's never dared before.

  • Ahem :

    02 Aug 2009 10:00:08pm

    Well it would help if we switched all the lights off, every night.

    It might be easier to get International agreement.

    Light police could make it work!

      • Alicej :

        03 Aug 2009 11:33:36am


        I did write to the Mayor of Sydney to ask whether, instead of all the offices/buildings etc being ablaze with electricity at night , perhaps they might use Solar instead. My note was passed on and nothing more came of it. Perhaps the power companies thought they might use too much revenue.
        We once did have a power free night but nothing seems to have happened since!

  • Plebusphere :

    02 Aug 2009 6:09:21pm

    There is no doubt that gases and particles in the stratosphere do hang about, do have world wide effects and do raise the temperature. They may do other things-combine in unpredictable ways with each other under the direct unshielded influence of the sun's radiation.

    It is ,incidentally,this uncertainty over cumulative effects of CO2, particulate matter, vapor and gases in the atmosphere that has led some scientist to advocate caution in any massive development of supersonic transport. But virtually all scientist would agree on two proportions. Industrial man, by using the air as a giant sewer, can have profound and unforseen effects on the earths climate and thus the possible consequences will be borne not simply by the polluting agencies, but by the biosphere as a whole.

    'Only One Earth'

  • Groucho :

    02 Aug 2009 4:41:54pm

    The first paragraph of the flyer covering this blog says it all,and the climate change deniers have played right into the crux of its allegation.
    Hook,line,sinker,rod,reel and angler.

    "Climate change sceptics manipulate media opportunities and hunt for loopholes in recognised science to make their case."

    Glickson has proved his point emphatically.The game is getting more and more predictable. Aunty should refrain from more sceptic comeback blogs until they offer up some real proof.

    Hey,who am I kidding,a working perpetual motion machine is closer than that.

  • Plebusphere :

    02 Aug 2009 2:21:04am

    The fundamental point in the relationship is, quite simply, the ability of the planet to develop in slow stages mechanisms which protect it from the destructiveness of solar radiation yet enable it to use its life giving energy. Billenia after Billenia, there poured down on the earth through unimpeded space a whole spectrum of solar radiation. But progressively defences and mediations arose to permit the emergence on a lifeless planet planet of the covering of living things for which the soviet physicist, Vladimir Ivanovich, invented the word 'biosphere'.

    'Only One planet' ISBN 0 1402.1601 4
    Purchased from OXFAM book store

  • Greig :

    01 Aug 2009 10:21:08am

    Figure 9 purports to show intensification of the tropospheric hot spot from 1959-2005 to 1979-2005. Look carefully at the graph, and note that it demonstrates the exact opposite.

      • Plebusphere :

        02 Aug 2009 4:20:08am

        During about 90 percent of its stable existence, our planet appears to have had no ice at all at the poles. But we know from the evidence of geology that it has undergone some five or six periods of glaciation. We appear to be in the tail end of the latest-Pleistocene Ice Age, which lasted over a million years and brought the glaciers to the Mediterranean. Today, the ice has retreated, but is not quite 'back to normal'. Yet so great is the immediate effect of the ice caps on our global climate that 'normal' - in other words, no ice caps - could mean a catastrophically different topography, with some land masses under water and others indescribably hot.
        Clearly man has had nothing to do with these vast climatic changes in the past. And from the scale of the energy systems involved, it would seem rational to suppose that he is not likely to affect them in the future. But here we encounter the other facet of our planetary life:the fragility of the balances through which the natural world that we know survives. In the field of climate, the sun's radiation, the earths emissions, the universal influence of the oceans and the impact of the ice are unquestionably vast and beyond any direct influence on the part of man. But the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation, the interplay of forces which preserves the average global level of temperature, appears to be so even, so precise, that only the slightest shift in the energy balance could disrupt the whole system. Scientist are therefore,turning their attention to the points at which human actions, however minuscule their effects may seem when set against the total scale of the planets energy system,may nonetheless trigger of one of those small but fateful changes which alter the balance of the seesaw.

        'Only one earth' purchased from OXFAM book store for $1

          • Greig :

            02 Aug 2009 7:05:09pm

            Thanks Plebusphere, but I think I'll keep that $1 in my pocket. The above paragraph is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "normal" state of climate on Earth, it is always changing. Glaciation is natural, and it is currently the dominant climate state on Earth, we are currently merely in a brief (~12,000 year)interglacial warming which is certain to end within a few millenia by natural means. And the idea that humans may be the instigator of exceeding a climate "tipping point" is fiction and not supported by science.

            Note that the above publication is available for all to read, is clearly a substandard piece, and yet unlike Plimer's book will not receive any substantive public criticism. This illustrates the degree of bias in the community toward the concept of environmental alarmism.

              • Carolus Linnaeus :

                03 Aug 2009 10:27:30am

                Cherry picking and media manipulation has produced so much garbled language:
                "And the idea that humans may be the instigator of exceeding a climate "tipping point" is fiction and not supported by science", should read:
                Research leads to the conclusion that: Humans Cause Anthropogenic Global Warming.

              • Greig :

                03 Aug 2009 6:20:49pm

                CL, your comments are correct:

                "Cherry picking and media manipulation has produced so much garbled language" Yep.

                "Research leads to the conclusion that: Humans Cause Anthropogenic Global Warming." Yep, that's true too.

                However that does not invalidate my comment: "And the idea that humans may be the instigator of exceeding a climate "tipping point" is fiction and not supported by science", which is also a true statement.

                The problem is a lack of quantification. CO2 almost certainly causes SOME warming, this has almost unanimous support amongst scientists. But that does not mean it has caused all observed warming, and it certainly does not mean we face a climate catastrophe, or that we should urgently dismantle our energy infrastructure in a panic of precaution.

                Sceptics do not deny that CO2 may cause some warming, few scientists deny that AGW is real. They question the degree of observed warming, and the assumption upon which predictions of future warming are based. For this they are accused of "denialism", and yet sceptics are equally convinced that climate change alarmists are in denial of the scientific facts. There are extremists in the debate, and both are almost certainly wrong.

                In my opinion the answer lies somewhere in the middle, CO2 warming is real, but not very urgent, and best policy may be a "no regrets" embracing of energy conservation and cost effective, low emissions technologies like nuclear power. For this I am accused of denialism. It is sad there are so many extremists unwilling to balance the alternative view, and measure out a compromise.

      • Greig :

        03 Aug 2009 6:22:10pm

        Why are none of the climate change advocates here willing to defend the conclusions drawn by figure 9 in the above essay?

          • Groucho :

            03 Aug 2009 11:38:08pm

            Greig
            Answer these ongoing queries first;

            1.)Why do,
            "Climate change sceptics manipulate media opportunities and hunt for loopholes in recognised science to make their case."

            2.) What science degree did your four years HARD SLOG study deliver to you, which gives you superior status on the subject of AGW, above and beyond other posters. ?

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 1:12:14pm

                1) True climate change sceptics do not engage in manipulation, nor do they need to exploit loopholes, because they are arguing from a base of solid and accepted science. Manipulation is what extremists do, on both sides of the debate. Zibethicus for example persistently manipulates media opportunities and hunts for loopholes in recognised science to make a case.
                2) BE (Mech) Sydney University 1984. This included tertiary level studies in Physics and Chemistry. Electives included Fluid Dynamics, Thermodynamics and Environmental Engineering amongst others.

                Now, Groucho, that is my end of the bargain. Now answer my question: Why are none of the climate change advocates here willing to defend the conclusions drawn by figure 9 in the above essay? When you examine the diagram, the conclusion is obviously false as it shows that the equatorial tropsopheric hot spot is not there.
                As a sceptic, I consider this a perfectly valid question. And yet not one climate change advocate here is willing to discuss. Why is that?

              • Groucho :

                04 Aug 2009 8:12:09pm

                Greig
                Congratulations on Point 2 (I think "amongst others" doesn't ring a bell,though.
                So you are an engineer-no ?
                Do you work in environment or climate areas ?

                My end of the bargain is this,I have no idea why people are ignoring your "challenge".
                Maybe you set the bar too low.

              • Greig :

                05 Aug 2009 8:25:15am

                So Groucho, are you unable to look at figure 9, and notice that the conclusion is completely wrong? Or can you see the discrepancy, and deliberately avoiding discussion?

              • Groucho :

                05 Aug 2009 9:06:24pm

                You have stumbled upon the secret the worlds scientists have tried to supress for so long.
                I don't know how you did it Greig,you engineering genius,BUT,run like the wind buddy.
                I am sure the dark forces are seeking you out- to silence you.
                Who'd have thought an exhaust fitter would unravel the greatest conspiracy since the shroud of Turin,or the kidnapping of Ronald MacDonald?
                Well done,spanner man.

              • Zibethicus :

                04 Aug 2009 11:54:30pm

                "Zibethicus for example persistently manipulates media opportunities"

                And what precisely is /this/ rubbish supposed to mean?

                You don't mean things like my audacious posting of peer-reviewed science and expert opinions which happen to contradict your opinions on climate science, which it now transpires that you don't have /any/ qualifications in?

                Well, it's not /my/ fault that /you don't have any science/ to /post/.

              • Greig :

                05 Aug 2009 8:28:09am

                Zibethicus, you post news articles, all of which are written with a slant. The fact that you think they are peer reviewed studies shows how stupid you are.

                And I am far more qualified than you to discuss scientific matters, because I have a tertiary degree in a scientific discipline, and you don't.

              • John :

                05 Aug 2009 11:49:11am

                Greig, on the subject of posts concerning articles that are written with a slant, can I invite you consider the earlier post about the release of NASA data by President Obama?
                Part 1.
                First, consider where it arose. The Guardian is a self-avowed left-wing organ. The Guardian's features editor Ian Katz stated in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper" and that "The paper's comment and opinion pages, dominated by centre-left writers and academics like Polly Toynbee …"
                Second, who wrote it? Damian Carrington is described as the paper's "Eco Editor" and is a self-described climate activist. Suzanne Goldenberg is an American writer closely aligned to The Democratic Party.
                Third, what is this "secret evidence" all about? NASA is an appalling shambles of incompetent administration and leaks like a sieve:
                "The intrusions haven't ceased. In 2007 the Goddard center was again compromised. This time the penetration affected networks that process data from the Earth Observing System, a series of satellites that enable studies of the oceans, land masses, and atmosphere”. Inspector General Cobb, Security Analyst.
                Cobb issued another report, this one public, on Nov. 13, 2007: "Our criminal investigative efforts over the last five years confirm that the threats to NASA's information are broad in scope, sophisticated, and sustained." The leaks have included fighter aircraft specifications, satellite programming, rocket launcher specifications, and even data sophisticated enough to allow the Russians to sabotage a NASA probe by turning it in orbit so that it faced the sun and burned out. Its computers have even been extensively hacked by a British "flying saucer" freak, looking for information that NASA has covered up invasions from space.
                Because of this track record of leaking information, everything from NASA is classified "not for release" until it is later cleared. This includes even the most mundane matters such as staff levels, Annual Leave applications and the list of persons authorised to use the car park. The release of photos by The White House has nothing to do with a George W.Bush cover-up but is a standard process that has been in effect for years.

              • John :

                05 Aug 2009 12:00:29pm

                Part 2:
                Third, what of the photos themselves? "One particularly striking set of images - selected from the 1,000 photographs released - includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow ... was released". Why only one out of a 1,000?
                Fourth, how valid are the photos anyway? NASA admitted that β€œour sats [satellites] were not working properly and not showing an area the size of California as being ice”. Moreover, the NASA satellite readings cannot ascertain the depth of water recognised. This has led to further error because of the "melt pond" factor. The loose snow melts and forms a shallow pond on top of the ice because the water cannot drain away through the ice. These ponds can sometimes be hundreds of square kilometres in size. NASA take these "melt ponds" as open sea and report them as ice free.
                The same NASA report also cites climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune's moon Triton and even Pluto. They didn't mention the CO2 emissions on those worlds.
                Fifth, the Challenger disaster caused NASA to shift emphasis and create its "Mission to Earth" strategy to shore up its operations. With that in mind, does this have a familiar ring to it?
                "The latest revelations have triggered warnings from scientists that they no longer have the funds to keep a comprehensive track of climate change. Last week the head of the US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Professor Jane Lubchenco, warned that the gathering of satellite data - crucial to predicting future climate changes - was now at "great risk" because America's ageing satellite fleet was not being replaced".
                It seems suspicious to me that whenever the NASA satellite system is under threat a cranking up of the heat around climate change scenario seems to appear.
                Finally, if anyone is interested in seeing how the ice actually does ebb and flow, as opposed to the fear being spread that it is vanishing, this is quite a fun thing. Not much difference over the last 30 years.
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk

              • Greig :

                05 Aug 2009 3:25:11pm

                John,

                I am rather suspicious of the claim that GW Bush was covering up the photos. I am certain that Bush could not give a s*$t about the photos. And there is not a shred of evidence to prove a deliberate cover up. All that the comments prove is the the author of the news article has a pro-Democrat leaning, and that the editor of the Guardian is similarly biassed.

                US politics aside, there is definitely evidence that summer sea ice in the Arctic has declined for the last two years. And this is proof of what? Weather events? Changes in ocean circulation?

                Global temperatures have been nearly static for the last decade, yet we are told that 10 years is insufficient to demonstrate a climate trend. This has not stopped alarmists, with only one (or two?) years of Arctic sea ice decline somehow predicting that there will be no summer sea ice less than 10 years from now. Ridiculous.

                This should be weighed against the evidence that exists which suggest that Arctic teperatures in the 1930s were similar to current. Of course there is no satellite imagery to prove it. But this only highlights the lack of observational evidence that exists regarding Arctic sea ice.

                Predictions of catastrophic Arctic sea ice decline are ridiculous of course, and no real scientists would put their name to such nonsense. It is fluff for the alarmists. I note Al Gore's speech at Safe Climate included a reference to this, embellished with the scientifically unsupported assertion that this may represent a positive feedback mechanism (climate tipping point). And If Al Gore highlights it, then as far as I'm concerned, it is confirmed as bullshit. :-)

              • Zibethicus :

                05 Aug 2009 9:06:08pm

                "John,

                I am rather suspicious of the claim that GW Bush was covering up the photos"

                Yeah, that famously trenchant team of objective and honest media analysts, Honest John and Greig.

                /One/ has an imaginary 'interview' in /Time Magazine/ with Dr Joanne Simpson which they won't even post an issue and page number for.

                The other says that /Newsweek/ is lying about Lindzen and Robyn Williams is an "idiot" for disagreeing with /him/ in stating otherwise.

                He also says that Flannery's book is full of errors, but the huge amount of errors in Plimer's book are due to subediting, or where even /that/ is clearly impossible, they are "ambiguities" and 'coloured language'.

                /Very/ convincing, fellas! Keep up the (coughs) 'good' work...

              • Zibethicus :

                04 Aug 2009 11:57:35pm

                "and hunts for loopholes in recognised science to make a case."

                On this thread so far, as /one/ example of "recognised science', we have:

                Zibethicus: about fifteen reports of peer-reviewed science from experts in relevant fields as reported by Science Daily.

                And what has the noted climate scientist Greig brought us as an alternative?

                Greig: /Heaven and Earth/ by the noted climate scientist Prof Ian Plimer.

                Now, this /could/ all be down to the Sinister Machinations of the International Communist Climate Change Conspiracy, I suppose, if such a body actually existed and was powerful enough to influence the editorial policy of /every relevant scientific journal in the world/.

                On the other hand, it could /also/ be possible that the noted climate scientists, Greig and Prof Plimer, ARE DOWNRIGHT PLAIN WRONG and climate science as it has been reported here, by for example Dr Glikson, is RIGHT.

                And such an astute logician as Greig can't fail to have noticed the most common formulation of Occam's razor, being something like 'do not multiply entities beyond necessity'.

                Communist Conspiracy or a silly book full of major errors by an non-expert in almost all of the fields he chooses to write about, defended here nastily by an aggressive serial liar and scientific fraud.

                In other words, Conspiracy versus Ol' Plain Vanilla Folly, Pride and Stupidity.

                Any takers on the Conspiracy?

              • Zibethicus :

                05 Aug 2009 12:00:05am

                "As a sceptic, I consider this a perfectly valid question. And yet not one climate change advocate here is willing to discuss. Why is that?"

                When you were young - as I presume you were - did your parents never read you the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

                Well, similarly, when you lie about Yucca Mountain, when you like about what Semenov said, when you lie about Lindzen on cancer, when you lie about THIS and you lie about THAT, everybody knows what's gonna happen if they bother engaging with you.

                Even /I/ can't be bothered.

  • ilajd :

    31 Jul 2009 7:34:51pm

    I guess Tim Flannery and Al Gore can keep their coastal abodes for some time to come. Climate alarmism...perhaps it's all part of an elaborate real estate scam?

    Fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements have been used to place better constraints on future sea level rise, and to test sea level projections.

    The results are published today in Nature Geoscience and predict that the amount of sea level rise by the end of this century will be between 7- 82 cm – depending on the amount of warming that occurs – a figure similar to that projected by the IPCC report of 2007.


    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/new-study-agrees-with-ipcc-sea-level-rise-projections/#more-9709

      • DavidR :

        01 Aug 2009 11:36:56am

        ilajd,
        What you and Wattsup neglect to mention is that both the IPCC and this paper point out that their estimates ignore any impacts from the ice sheets which they are unable to model.

        So yes the paper agrees with the IPCC predictions, however it does not 'nail' the outcome as WattsUp proclaims. There is nothing conclusive about the paper as there are no accurate estimates of the effects from the arctic and antarctic. Sea level rises of several metres in a century are still possible and have occurred in the past.

  • Plenair Plectrum :

    31 Jul 2009 8:37:10am

    So far in the discussion on plant enviroment temperature has been considered primarily as it affects plant development during the growing season, showing how by the influence of it mainly at night it acts as a main regulator of growth in the plant and largely controls its reaction to the enviroment. But for optimal growth and development, plants have a certain temperature requirements not only in the growing season and as between day and night, but right round all the year as well.

    The part played by low temperature in the life cycle of all plants and trees in many cases is equally important, for without experiencing this chilling process many trees and shrubs would remain dormant in spring and would be unable to flower at all.

    Although photosynthesis can take place only in the presence of light, respiration by the plant proceeds continuously day and night. but the net rate of photosynthesis is on average, about five times greater than that of respiration. The carbohydrates produced in the plant by day are transformed by respiration into proteins, fats,Resins and other substances needed to build the plant and sustain growth

    Too high a night temperature will be indicated by a tendency towards weak growth, and faded colour of foliage and flowers.

    When carbohydrates are limiting, elongation takes precedence and in extreme cases of very low light and high night temperature, all the carbohydrates could become exhausted and the plant would die.

    "Enviroment and plant life" S.A. Searle 1973 Faber ISBN 0-571-10168-2

  • Dr. Susan Crockfrod :

    30 Jul 2009 9:44:51pm

    Go ahead, sequester Co2.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/07/11/1683532.htm

      • Jenny :

        31 Jul 2009 7:56:48am

        The article is fine in raising the issue of the extent to which a compressed GAS will stay underground but it does not even begin to consider the sheer fantasy involved in presuming that a significant proportion of global CO2 emissions even from fixed power stations could be captured, liquefied, transported and buried.

        At the moment Australian power stations alone generate in excess of 300 million tonnes of CO2. Carbon capture and storage involves an additional energy penalty that also has to be drawn from the coal so lets have our "ball park" figure up to 500 million tonnes and growing.

        After that there is the little matter of transporting the CO2 to burial sites. The quantity we are talking about 1s in excess of 16 million 30 tonne truckloads or a massive new network of high pressure pipelines or possibly some combination of the two. And just remember the we have to find a place to squeeze in excess of half a billion tonnes year after year after year securely underground -- at least until we run out of coal.

        After all of this there is the minor little detail of getting the carbon capture technology working at an industrial scale. Despite people talking about this vapourware technology for 20 or more years this remains some indeterminate time in the future.

        This technology currently contributes as much power to the global electricity supply as cold fusion. By contrast solar thermal is industrially developed and robust technology and feeds baseload power 24/7.

          • Greig :

            31 Jul 2009 9:40:21pm

            Jenny,

            We currently extract oil for deep under the ocean, transport it to land, refine it and deliver it to individual vehicles at a price per litre less than beer.

            CCS is the same process in reverse. It is not impossible, it is just a challenging engineering exercise. Its viability is one of economics, not technical viability.

            And then you declare the capture of diffuse and intermittent sunlight for use as baseload power as "industrially developed and robust technology", and yet fail to mention that unlike oil) it is enormously expensive, and not getting cheaper.

              • DocMercury :

                31 Jul 2009 11:32:21pm

                Greig, the beer analogue to fuel by pricing could as easily transfer from street violence to transport fatalities, and suggest entirely the opposite yo may prefer.

                You know, there would be fewer hoons on the roads if fuel were $5 per litre, fewer people on the roads period, and TAC casualties would plummet.

                Except for side-effects.
                Like petrol of car theft, to prohibition and incentive to crime.

                We could be better served by "Jetson" vacuum tube, when apparently, lack of remaining free land space (and Jetsons never quite indicate what is left on the ground, do they?) requires building vertically.

                Might do better subsequent to a Borg Invasion, I reckon (as euthanasia to a personal limbo, as opposed to Jetson enslavement to a system), and relief follows me out well before this planet is trying to cope with 20 or 40 billion people.

                Somehow, I suspect the natural laws of supply and demand will supersede the equivalent in economics, and when it is all over and the dust has settled, if will be proven that it was easiest just to go shoot someone. Again.

      • Plebusphere :

        02 Aug 2009 2:38:51am

        Perhaps we should consider on site capture and solidification into a monolith shape using zinc as a catalyst plus bonding material....the isotopes should react readily.

        We could paint them white and use them as a platform for the polar bears.

        Arthur C. Clarke may be right eventually place them in orbit.

          • Ootz :

            02 Aug 2009 1:55:11pm

            Hey Pleb,

            Fantastic idea, can I get the movie rights, now that Arthur and Stanley have vacated the building? I could hire a few of Zibs denyosores and some IPPC scientists to do the dance around the monolith tossing oil barrels, coal dust and white lab coats.
            Lights - camera - (cue) Also sprach Zarathustra ....

            Joke aside, it is not that we should give up the stuff entirely yet. I actually use coal, to be precise brown coal, to ameliorate and reactivate 'clapped out' soils. Does wonders to soil biota and structure. Petty that they insist to burn the stuff first and then bury it again. Poison - medicine, a matter of quantity and application. Although I have not found a responsible use of Pu-94 yet.

            Gottogo ....

            Hmm, HAL... now I need a new HAL ...

              • Plebusphere :

                02 Aug 2009 6:16:30pm

                Picked a couple of books on the topic from OXFAM.
                Appears many options could be available including solidifying and burning again.

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 3:40:51pm

                Gday Pleb,
                Where you get the Oxfam books from, can you get info online. I am out in the sticks, well relatively.
                Re many options - what co or pu?

                cheers

  • ilajd :

    30 Jul 2009 6:57:18pm

    Cloud Study Claims Unsuspected Positive Feedback

    Comment on one of the articles Ratty mentions below.

    "Modelers continue to tune their software playthings to match the last century's ups and downs, all the while ignoring the fact that their models are wrong."

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/cloud-study-claims-unsuspected-positive-feedback

      • Zibethicus :

        31 Jul 2009 6:49:57pm

        The Deniosaur Shuffle, or How To Deal With The Potential Consequences Of An Accumulated Mountain Of Data Contradicting Your Own Opinion.

        1) Take any data set which troubles you; say a sequence of reports from /Science Daily/ which show a huge accumulation of scientific research showing that the effects of AGW are real and already manifesting in ecosystems world-around, and these effects are almost always highly deleterious.

        2) Comb said data set until you have found some quibble posted against /any one/ of such studies.

        3) Post said quibble immediately without attribution or explanation.

        4) Hope that nobody asks you about /all the other studies/ which you've attempted to ignore.

        5) If nobody asks you about /those/ studies, bellow 'THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED!' as loudly and as often as you can.

        6) Hope that you don't get caught.

        7) Repeat 1-6.

        8) Repeat 7 until utter ecotastrophe ensues. Die horribly with everyone you've deceived, leaving the planet scoured of much of its beauty and its mystery for an indefinite period.

        8.1) Don't forget to pat yourself on the back...

      • Plebusphere :

        02 Aug 2009 5:06:29am

        Another range of risks is incurred by industrial man's increasing emissions of dust,soot and gas which combine with each other and with droplets of vapor to thicken up the atmosphere and increase the earths cloud cover. The higher the altitude of these concentrations, the more lasting they appear to become. Particulates which would vanish in a few weeks in the lower atmosphere region can last from one to three years in the higher altitudes. There is already evidence that cirrus clouds are increasing along the most used air routes of the northern hemisphere and that the earths cloud cover as a whole is showing some signs of deepening. The difficulty is to know what effects such changes might have. If they effectively reduced the passage of the sun's radiation, they might lower the earths temperatures. If, on the contrary, they reflect back the earths own emissions and slow the earths release of heat, they reinforce the 'Green house' effect.

        'Only one earth' Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos 1973
        ISBN 0 1402.1601 4

      • Plebusphere :

        03 Aug 2009 7:59:20am

        Air. There will be feedback effects in the atmosphere itself. Clouds, for example, may turn out to provide some of the most powerful feed-back in the seven spheres. They cover about half the planet at any given moment, and they bounce away a great deal of sunlight before it ever has a chance to warm the planets surface. So they cool the earth.
        On the other hand, the bulk of every cloud is water vapor, and water vapor is a greenhouse gas. So clouds also warm the earth. Anyone who has felt a cloud pass overhead on a sunny day has felt their cooling effect. Anyone who has camped out on a cloudy night has felt their warming effect.

        The greenhouse effect may make Earth cloudier, because the warming will heat the upper skin of the oceans [sea surface temperatures rose sharply in the decade of the 1980's as measured by satellites]. That warming is going to cause more water to evaporate, and should load the atmosphere with more water vapor, perhaps making more clouds.

        On balance, will the new clouds tend to cool the planet or warm it?

          • Groucho :

            03 Aug 2009 11:39:17pm

            Warm.

            Period.

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 1:14:48pm

                Actually, the answer is "both". The real questions is: "How much warming/cooling?". But questions of quantification are apparently too difficult for your average AGW advocate to comprehend.

              • Groucho :

                04 Aug 2009 8:15:01pm

                I'll stick my neck out and say warmer and wetter,then probably colder.
                Some places will cook,shrivel up and die.
                Others will drown.
                Which is why climate change sucks.

              • Greig :

                05 Aug 2009 8:34:51am

                Groucho, still no quantification? Just alarmism.

                Climate change always bad? You obviously don't read the base IPCC technical studies, which show many and significant positive benefits from global warming.

              • godzilla :

                05 Aug 2009 7:00:12am

                Lets not forget that the major component of increased evaporation will be the increase of humidity. It has been found that humidity increases the atmospheric temperatures very noticeably during those frequent inversion periods.

                As for the increase of cloud cover, this should also reduce photosynthesis capacity suggesting the carbon absorption by the forest may decrease.

                The clouds effect on temperature will depend upon the type and at what height. However humidity will play a more significant role in the temperature in an atmosphere loaded with pollutants due to the absorption and slow release of infrared from the planets surface.

                Creig have you ever seen the French movie "delicatessen"

  • Zibethicus :

    30 Jul 2009 1:01:51pm

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728102301.htm

    Extinction Crisis Looms In Oceania

    ScienceDaily (July 29, 2009) - Governments must act urgently to halt loss of habitats and invading species that are posing major threats to biodiversity and causing species extinctions across Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, according to a landmark new study.

    Published in the international journal Conservation Biology, the report is the first comprehensive review of more than 24,000 scientific publications related to conservation in the Oceanic region. Compiled by a team of 14 scientists, it reveals a sorry and worsening picture of habitat destruction and species loss. It also describes the deficiencies of and opportunities for governmental action to lessen this mounting regional and global problem.

    "Earth is experiencing its sixth great extinction event and the new report reveals that this threat is advancing on six major fronts," says the report's lead author, Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales.

    (end quotes)

  • ilajd :

    30 Jul 2009 10:53:09am

    Climate-Change Controversy hits the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY --MEMBERS DISSENT

    An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor in chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established."

    The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members.

    The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change."

    Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

    The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word "deniers" because of the terms "association with Holocaust deniers." In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: "disgusting"; "a disgrace"; "filled with misinformation"; "unworthy of a scientific periodical" and "pap."

    One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."


    read more at http://www.climatedepot.com

      • Zibethicus :

        30 Jul 2009 1:46:50pm

        I just went to the trouble of going directly to the source;

        http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.html

        I quote the closing sentence of Dr (?) Baum's editorial:

        Sow doubt, make up statistics, call for an "open debate," claim that you are being "silenced and ignored by the media and politicians," claim that your opponents are just a "few bureaucrats and environmental activists," not real scientistsβ€”those are the tactics that will be brought to bear in the coming months by the CCDs in their attempt to derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.

        (end quote)

        He might have been describing any climate change thread on /Unleashed/, mightn't he? No wonder the native Deniosaurs at the ACS started howling...

        *

        "The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views."

        I just subjected this claim to a quick empirical test by examining the online letters page of the ACS which deals with this matter, available at:

        http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html

        At the time I accessed this page, just now, there were a total of 27 letters published. I ran through them quickly, classifying them (admittedly somewhat arbitrarily) by the main tendency found in each letter.

        These are my necessarily sketchy findings:

        Commie-calling: 3
        'The science is unsettled': 12
        'Human emissions are miniscule': 1
        It's a political campaign: 4
        Acceptance that the science is valid and GHG emissions need to be cut: 4
        Pro-nuclear: 1
        Other: 2

        *

        Accepting, for the sake of the argument, that those claiming that the science is still unsettled were actually endorsing Deniosaur arguments - and you can check the link to see this isn't true - we see that four correspondents were willing to accept that "Baum's climate science views" were basically correct.

        Four out of twenty-seven is about fifteen per cent.

        If you think that one hundred percent minus fifteen percent equals "[v]irtually all" of one hundred per cent, then can you please write me a cheque for fifteen percent of the money currently in your bank account?

        After all, you've still got "[v]irtually all" of your Money left, haven't you?

        *

        Read the letters yourselves, people - make up your own minds.

          • Carolus Linnaeus :

            31 Jul 2009 4:18:00pm

            Well done Zibethicus,
            Once again you conduct the thankless task of exposing all the half-truths, distortions mis-quotes, omissions and outright lies.
            The claims of 'climate sceptics' can surely now be seen for what they are: dishonest, disingenuous, un-reasoned and mentally light-weight.

              • Zibethicus :

                02 Aug 2009 10:40:36am

                Thank you, Carolus.

                As often as not, the claims of the Deniosaurs are exaggerated in this manner. As you say, they are "dishonest, disingenuous, un-reasoned and mentally light-weight."

                The question arises once again - if they have to make up stuff like this (and other, more ludicrous examples like the 'non-volcanoes' on Mars or the numberless 'global cooling' graph), how can their case be as rock-solid as they constantly claim?

  • Blzbob :

    30 Jul 2009 9:03:27am

    How many Climate Change Deniers does it take to change a lightbulb?
    They would never do it, because they cant see what was wrong with the old one.

      • OFistFullOfDollars :

        30 Jul 2009 12:56:04pm

        What is your understanding of climate science based on Blzbob?

          • Blzbob :

            30 Jul 2009 5:14:03pm

            What is your lack of understanding of climate science based on OFistFullOfDollars?

              • OFistFullOfDollars :

                30 Jul 2009 8:02:28pm

                Now,now Blzbob. No obfuscation, just answer the question.

                As it happens I have been reading to my horror the reports of the IPCC since the early 1990's. And it so happens that my background in the "hard" sciences is enough for me to understand that I shouldn't have the hubris to make dogmatic statements in areas of science that are complicated.

                So Blzbob, don't tell any lies now, what is your understanding of climate change based on? I hope you have not fallen into the trap of just taking things on faith. Have you done that Blzbob?

              • wave function :

                31 Jul 2009 1:18:50pm

                Blzbob,
                Don't waste your energy arguing with these news-article based 'experts' found at this forum. The reality is that in the genuine scientific community, denialists are very, very few indeed. The majority of them have no real understanding of the situation and do not have any solid foundation on which to make their claims. That is why they are more common in locations like this: they get laughed out of any true scientific debate. The vast majority of denialist comments here, and indeed in many places, have zero credibility.

                No doubt this post will attract several more baseless denial responses, but it means little when the most cutting edge science, researched by the best and most credible scientists world-wide all clearly support the reality of anthropogenic climate change. If real, objective science miraculously debunks AGW, then we will listen. Considering the massive weight to the contrary, this is most unlikely.

              • Ootz :

                31 Jul 2009 3:36:54pm

                Wave Function,
                As a genuine concerned fence-sitter, agnostic or skeptic all round, could I ask you:

                1. on what grounds do you stake your 'reality' that " in the genuine scientific community, denialists are very, very few indeed."?

                My limited experience in Earth science was that it is rather blessed/plagued in many ways. First, with, how shall I say, wide range of idiosyncratic members. Further, weather and climate by its nature is particularly complex field with challenging methodological problems. As well as I believe rapid development of new sensing and data processing/modeling technology. So my second question is (not having read/analysed the IPCC report in detail):

                2. On what do you base your confidence level that
                a) yes, there is a significant probability the planet is warming independent to its 'normal' cycles.
                b) yes, there is significant probability the warming is related to CO2.
                c) yes, there is a significant probability that a and b are related to human activity or agents thereof.

                Supplement question: are there several independent strains of evidence to above questions?

                Hope I am not asking too much.
                Much obliged
                Ootz


              • wave function :

                03 Aug 2009 7:55:41am

                Hi Ootz,
                I will not answer your questions, as unfortunately it would appear you are not involved in academic professions. I am, and the information I access is entirely peer reviewed and exquisitely lucid. Virtually all my colleagues associated with climate sciences agree on the overwhelming science of AGW. When researching papers on AGW, again, the best science, prepared by the best scientists, all point to the same conclusion. I invite you to do some serious research on work produced by world leading scientists and come to your own conclusion.

              • Groucho :

                03 Aug 2009 9:37:14am

                Well said wave.
                The same cannot be said of old Greig though.
                He refuses to read anything but Plimer.He has turned it into his gospel.

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 2:15:17pm

                Hi Wavefunction,
                I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to communicate on a personal level with someone that is working at the core of the issue, thus thank you and the ABC.

                Working at the core of an evolving issue that includes complex science and large social implications has got inherited problems embedded in its nature. Particularly when consequences thereof have to be communicated and addressed in the public sphere as well as on individual levels. Therein lies my academic expertise, albeit to a limited degree, as well as concern in this debate. My impression is, following the debate in both David Evans and Andrew Glicksons contribution, that attitudes are well entrenched, very little room in the middle to move and no prisoners taken on either side. Further, there appears to be a lot of vested and/or personal interests involved. Not that they shouldn't be involved, not at all, to the contrary. However, for these to 'play out' in a progressive and constructive way we need all to β€˜play the game’, including you and your fellow climate scientists.
                Please don't get me wrong I do not question your scientific credibility and integrity nor that of your science. I have followed your measured and insightful contribution here with interest and respect your contributions. Contrary to your assumption though, I have studied several subjects in Earth science, including Geomorphology where I had to produce a synopsis of Quaternary climatic conditions in Australia, with particular focus on the Holocene Period. Though my academic qualifications are in a quite different field. Hence to my point, which lies in my rather loaded question to you above as well as your and Bizbob’s reply to it.

                My point is two fold, we should move-on from the debate on β€˜who’s science is right and who’s wrong’ as well as bring the arguments to a level where constructive debate can occur.
                I would argue that there is common assumptions among the general public that science can provide absolute prove. Some scientists themselves also sometimes implicitly or deliberately allude this too. I think it was only Jenny, to her credit, who was making the point somewhere in this discussion, that this is not possible in any scientific field, apart from mathematics. Though K. Goedel would have something to say about that too. So why this obsession on - my science is truer then yours, more peer reviewed and modeled to the nth degree, with more gadgets thrown at the quest then in Starwars - therefore it is true. It is fruitless and helps to enforce the current polarisation of the debate, which has degraded into a public spectacle. Wherein various colourful characters on either side use for their own aggrandisement and respective wheel barrow. It presents us with a dilemma, which particularly for decision makers has a zero game quality. What ever they start doing about it or not doing anything about it at all, they can’t win.

                (End of part

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 10:44:46pm

                (Part two in respond to Wavefunction)

                My question is, if there is almost universal consensus amongst the science why is this not better communicated. Because, as far as I can see, there is no consensus in the public, that scientific consensus exists. While it is easy to just blame the usual suspects for this situation, is this good enough given the gravity of the situation? I am aware you are a climate scientist and not a public relation expert. I am not in that field either, but I do know we somehow have to translate the level of confidence of the findings in your science into a language that the person on the street understands. For example, most people accept the level of confidence that engineers have in, say the structural integrity of the Sydney Harbour bridge, in fact they do generally not even question it. An approved medical prescription might be more contentions, side effects, integrity of manufacturers research and so on, but still most people can perform some sort of risk assessment by which they will live. Which brings me to another point; most people cannot distinguish between a low risk with high magnitude consequences and a high risk of low magnitude consequence. Shouldn’t we be more careful to elaborate with simple examples the subtle difference without hectoring? Perhaps we could use some gambling analogy to convey the risk and consequences of the AGW into a scale that is easily comprehensible. I would argue the scaremongering argument into which many people retreat is a comfortable way of coping, with coming to terms with the risk and the magnitude of the problem. And finally one of the most convincing arguments is personal action. I would have loved to hear from you, wave function, what personal action you and your science buddies are taking. As it is, Jenny, by simply disclosing the fact of the changes in her lifestyle and the minimal impact it had on her life, combined with the integrity and decorum of her argument in the debate was the most persuasive on the AGW side on this forum to me.

                Hope it helps

                Ootz

                Small disclaimer, English is my second language and I have a chronic health issue that gives me problems concentrating and pain. Might have to take a break for a while.

              • Greig :

                03 Aug 2009 10:53:09pm

                Ootz,

                It is very clear that whilst wave function may have credibility as a scientist, the way he/she provides a black and white all-or-nothing answer, that "AGW is real because everyone agrees", has me very suspicious. And I have a right to a position, as I am trained at a tertiary level in a scientific discipline. It is my experience, that scientists don't argue with the lack of humility expressed by wave function unless there is a substantial degree of faith behind their views.

                Stay sceptical, keep asking questions. Don't let them wear you down.

              • John :

                04 Aug 2009 9:14:37pm

                Greig, I agree that it is very clear. wavefunction adopts the dismissive "you're not good enough to have the information" attitude espoused by Hansen when he claims that democratic rights should be abandoned in favour of decision making by experts. Self-proclaimed experts, that is, such as he and wavefunction.
                Fortunately, democratic societies don't allow this kind of Stalinistic grab for absolute control much traction.

              • Blzbob :

                31 Jul 2009 5:45:16pm

                I figure that if anyone hasn't seen the available evidence by now, then they never will. there is plenty of it around.

                Some people when presented with 2+2 don't see 4, all they can see is a 2 and another 2.
                presenting them with anything is pointless.

                I guess as far as having faith goes, if you don't have faith that the data you find is correct, then you would never believe anything.

                "I think therefore I am!"

              • Greig :

                03 Aug 2009 10:38:46pm

                wave function,

                Like most extreme AGW advocates, you have entirely misunderstood the sceptics position. Nearly all informed people agree that CO2 causes some warming of the atmosphere. The argument is about how much warming. Will GHG emissions cause "dangerous" climate change, or is the matter less urgent. And is the negative impact of climate change worth the price we must pay to reduce emissions. There is a LOT of valid argument amongst scientists on that point, and you know it.

              • Zibethicus :

                04 Aug 2009 2:04:45pm

                "Nearly all informed people agree that CO2 causes some warming of the atmosphere."

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

                Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[

                (snip)

                * Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."

                (end quotes - for now...)

                For once I'm glad to agree with Greig on something! I think that these two gentlemen - as well as the myriad of other Deniosaurs who trundle in their wakes - /are/ uniniformed! That's precisely the problem here!

                But why our beloved Grieg should suddenly direct the fearful artillery of his rhetoric upon his own trenches is beyond /my/ capacity to nut out.

                ...unless, perhaps, the pressure of having his own lies so comprehensively exposed on this thread has caused him to reach a 'tipping point' where he is now swinging over into runaway and catastrophic (for Deniosaurs and Isotopians) /truth-telling/...

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 8:59:02pm

                There are many reasons why global temperatures change - solar output, ocean circulation, air pressure variations, volcanic activity. Natural factors (not GHGs) were responsible for climate change that caused the The Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and the Roman and Monan Warmings.

                Now as Arrhenius pointed out, adding CO2 to the atmosphere as has occurred in the late 20th Century should in theory cause warming, if all other factors are static. But were they static? Or was the observation of climate change caused by a combination of the above factors, and possibly others yet to be quantified?

                So whilst CO2 may cause warming, there are other factors that may dominate the process of climate change. In other words, when it comes to predicting future climate change, the mere qualitative statement that "CO2 is causing warming" is utterly meaningless.

                Ratty just hasn't figured this out yet. Perhaps it will dawn on him soon?



              • Zibethicus :

                05 Aug 2009 9:12:03pm

                "Or was the observation of climate change caused by a combination of the above factors, and possibly others yet to be quantified?"

                'Can I pull something out of my arse in haste in order to explain something away with it? Of course I can! It needs no positive properties except explaining away the presence of some troubling data which I can't explain away without it. I think I'll call it a 'fnord'.'

                'So-called 'anthropogenic' global warming is, in 'reality', caused by fnords. Their fnording contributes to 5258% of observed average global land and sea surface temperature increase since whatever date I find it most convenient to commence my data set from.'

                'This is proven by the Bird-Greig-PseudoCelsius (et al) Method; /I/ say so, and I'm a 'scientist'.'

                Fnords; fnord, fnord, fnord, fnord, fnord.

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 9:19:45pm

                "But why our beloved Grieg should suddenly direct the fearful artillery of his rhetoric upon his own trenches is beyond /my/ capacity to nut out."

                There are so many things that you struggle to understand, eh Ratty. So let me help you out here.

                I am a sceptic. That means I question EVERYTHING. I question the views of extremists on both sides of this debate. I am not "in the trench" with anyone, but standing in the intervening wasteland copping shots from both sides.

                I am of the opinion that the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that AGW is real, and humans are causing some climate change. I am also convinced from my reading of the peer reviewed literature that the effect that humans are having is relatively trivial, and unimportant compared to other environmental issues ; that those who believe we face a "dangerous climate change" are the denialists.

      • John :

        30 Jul 2009 1:23:01pm

        We don't need to change it, Bob.
        Because you would have us depending on erratic wind or sun-generated electricity, we'd all be sitting in a permanent brownout.

          • Blzbob :

            30 Jul 2009 5:20:14pm

            john
            You have just proved my point.

          • Ootz :

            31 Jul 2009 4:00:27pm

            I thought I might just share this one with you.

            I had just 6 hrs of black out courtesy of my state energy supplier. Of course the PV system shut down too because the inverter could not find a grid to feed into.

            To top it all off, had a phone call yesterday from I believe Community Liason officer of above supplier. Apparently they have a new meter reader and they cant find my street location on their data base! (new suburb 2 years old)
            I refrained of making a snide remark but I did remark that I was rather surprised not having an upto date GIS system with asset location. After a rather sheepish response and several first left then right then..... hang I email you the streetmap out of the local telephone book with my location on it. He said, great idea.. hang on what is our fax number is .. wait .. yeah 405.. I say 'email address'..... yeah is 405.... no EMAIL adress.... oh, ok it sometimes doesnt come through though .....

            Today the reader turns up and of course no power hence could not read it, so he has to come back.

            Anyone out there wants to trade 'Green' power with me. It is a free market, so they tell me.

              • John :

                01 Aug 2009 8:24:02am

                Get used to it, Ootz
                If we close our coal fired power stations, that'll be an everyday experience.

              • Ootz :

                02 Aug 2009 9:09:32am

                Gday John,

                Today I am wearing my "Reality is in the eye of the beholder" tshirt. So,wipe the coal dust of your glasses and have another careful look at what I wrote above.

                MY INVERTER SHUT DOWN (I could not produce power) BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GRID TO FEED INTO.

                Might have to look into a cute little pump storage Hydro electric plant.

                And don't even get me started on the creative accounting of power suppliers that Jenny was talking about. Desperate corporate mugs they are.

                BTW the contractor that came to TRY to read my meter said that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. As he was leaving I heard him talking on the mobile " ...... not possible to come back in time unless you want to pay me overtime..... O well it has to wait till next time then."

                I dont know whether I should laugh or cry? On the upside they cant bill me till "next time" on the down side it does not give you much confidence in the reliability and sincerity of our major energy suppliers.

                And here a bit of recommended light reading

                http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=2003-blackout-five-years-later

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

                Cheers Ootz





              • John :

                02 Aug 2009 11:57:20am

                Hi again, Ootz. A few thoughts:
                1) "MY INVERTER SHUT DOWN". If your problems was an inability to feed power INTO the grid, then you should not have suffered a power loss. Isn't it the surplus power you feed into the grid? That is, after your own needs are met? If not, what's the point of having it?
                2) The "green power" rip-off is true enough, but that's because the power purchasers, like you and me pay a premium to supposedly purchase "green" energy. It doesn't exist and there is little or no credible alternative energy infrastructure for the funds so raised to be invested in. The rip-off exists because the suckers fall for it.
                3) The administrative failures of your power supplier don't have much relevance to the feasibility of, say, wind power. What guarantee have you got that alternative power will be supported by better administration?
                4) Do you blame him for asking for overtime? Why should he, or you, or me or anyone else subsidise the power supplier? While you are pondering on that, you might also ask yourself why he, or you, or me or anyone else should subsidise solar or wind power suppliers.
                Cheers.

              • Inquisitor666 :

                02 Aug 2009 8:24:01pm

                Question 4) John
                Given that the Rudd government is throwing many millions more at the unworkable fantasy of sequestration, (than at green energy solutions) may I ask you the same question of coal fired power.

                "....why he, or you, or me or anyone else should subsidise coal miners or coal fired power stations,and dirty energy suppliers."

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 8:06:11am

                We don't subsidise coal or coal miners. What those industries collect is a partial refund of the taxes and charges that they have previously paid.
                On the principle involved, however, I fully agree with you. We should not subsidise anything - except, perhaps, the purely investigative science and technology.

              • Jenny :

                03 Aug 2009 8:03:33am

                Grid interactive inverters all shut down when there no power on the grid connection. It is a required automatic safety measure so the people repairing the power interruption don't get zapped.

                If you wan to run on solar power off the grid the inverter is different and you need a large bank of batteries -- expensive and high maintenance. On a smaller scale a friend who lives on a boat runs on almost 100% renewable power from a combination of solar panels and wind turbine with a small generator as a backup. It runs refrigeration, computer, television, stereo, lights and all the navigation electronics.

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 11:16:31am

                Jenny, we have a friend who lives permanently on a yacht. It was pretty well all he had left after a very bitter divorce, and the quietness and solitude seem to help him greatly. He has a small wind propellor and several solar panels, but he also needs a diesel generator to keep up an adequate power supply, even for his very minimal needs.
                However, he regularly visits us to have laundry done, to collect his mail, to have supplies of food delivered, and for general support.
                It suits him, but it would be an awful life for a family with two or three children. The sheer logistics of getting my three kids to different sports venues, music lessons, school functions, birthday parties and so on has taught me that living on a boat or relying on that source of power would be a nightmare..

              • Jenny :

                03 Aug 2009 12:58:24pm

                His boat must use a lot of power or his solar setup is seriously inadequate. We couldn't manage it with to teenage kids with their associated electronics either. We have managed however to draw a quarter of the average Queensland household electricity consumption with solar hot water, PV power and energy efficiency practices. It's not that difficult unless the lack of a air conditioner or plasma screen makes you feel destitute.

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 3:07:04pm

                Jenny, in our house we have no air-conditioning. Our TV is about six years old, and we do not use electric radiators. We are careful to close the refrigerator door, but we do not stint ourselves on web access, computers, radios or all the other electrical items. Our power bill is about $90-100 a time.
                Over 25 years ago we disconnected our house from the reticulated water supply and the sewerage system and we rely on harvested rainwater and on site enviro-cycle disposal of waste. Grey water is pumped under the lawn and around the fruit trees. We have low flow shower heads and dual flush toilets.
                All these are important things over which we have some influence and where we can do some good.
                Carbon emission/AGW is a furphy and we should simply ignore something which has virtually zilch effect on our world while we concentrate on the good things we can do.

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 9:39:20pm

                Jenny,

                I lived on a yacht for 10 months when I was first married. It was fun, a great adventure, but I can assure you, living of batteries with a solar/wind trickle feed is a spartan existence. You don't get any heating, cooling, cooking or hot water with such a system. No washing machine, electric kettle or toaster. And an hour or two of TV is a nearly unaffordable luxury.

                Gas is a critical component in living this kind of life. Gas is a fossil fuel, and it emits CO2. And the reality is that the diesel engine is needed to run the windlass and to generate hot water efficiently. Diesel is a fossil fuel too.

                You didn't read Plimer's book, yet you hold a strong view on it. And now you have an opinion on renewable energy which you also have no direct experience with. You are clearly an ideologue.

              • Ootz :

                02 Aug 2009 11:14:43am

                Oh and John,
                now that I had my muesli I just remembered this little beauty that I would like to share with you and fellow unleashers. I am pretty sure all of us are tired of scaremongering by now.

                http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/did-hackers-cau/

                As I said before, I did put a PV system on the roof and the sky or roof has NOT fallen in. But it does STOP working when the power fails. I dont know about everybody else, I do get tired of obvious obfuscation and as I said before it does the relevant side of the argument no good. Unless you are batting for the other team of course. In any case consider the seriousness of the consequences that is under the debate and behave accordingly.

                Now back to my freshly laid breakfast egg.

                Ootz

              • Ootz :

                02 Aug 2009 7:33:33pm

                correction to above, should read

                The PV system switches itself off when there is no 240 Volts supplied from the grid side. Hence I am not capable of supplying power to the grid and no power to the house all together.

                Sorry got to go back to Garrison Keilor's Radio Show on RN. Gee, dont you love the ABC.

              • Plebusphere :

                03 Aug 2009 8:06:37am

                Where I live, I can only recall a single outage in the past 18 months that lasted only two hours I calculate I lost about 30 cents of solar electricity. It must be terrible where you live Ootzie.

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 4:22:09pm

                Hi Pleb,
                No the outages on grid are no bad where I live now.
                In Cyclone seasons we have sometimes the power off for several days up to week. Most people have genis or like us, just get on with it like camping .. candles etc and gas cooking ... easy when you have no kids, fridge can be problem, like when C Joy hit I think it was Xmas eve.

                My ranting was more in relation to Johns comments/scaremongering? above about getting used to brownouts when switching coalfired el plants off for carbon reduction. Must remember to take my medication :p
                I agree with John we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. coal has a place in elgen but it should not stifle other technologies to develop and to use our energy more efficiently. In fact if I would be in that game I would get into it, as in total energy management. However I question their corporate ability to adapt to changing markets and technologies. Hence my rant about not having GIS system to manage their assets. I wish they would though and not going the way of TELSTRA where in my opinion everyone is a loser in this sad state of situation.

                cheers mate

      • Michael :

        30 Jul 2009 3:51:17pm

        Nope, it's got more to do with what's wrong with the NEW light globes. They take ages to "warm up" to full brightness, they fail early if switched on and off too often and their colour is terrible. They are OK for areas where the lights are left on for long periods, which we don't do in our house at all.

        The new LED lamps are much better, and I'm planning to replace our halogen downlights with "warm white" LED lamps. Should reduce fire risk as well as save money.

          • Blzbob :

            30 Jul 2009 5:18:57pm

            Michael
            You planning on replacing your halogen down lights with "warm white" LED lamps, why, because you can see that they are an improvement on what you have.

            Common sense prevails!

  • Mr Universe :

    30 Jul 2009 8:27:42am

    Can anyone on this forum who agrees with the human climate change theory are actively practicing what they preach.The only person on this forum who I know of, is Ootz.If this is the case,are the others on this forum who believe in the human climate change theory, are all sitting on their hands waiting for the world to end within the next 100 years?.This is the major issue with this flawed theory.Almost everyone who believes in it are doing nothing to stop it.Is this part of the human climate change doomsday theory too.Say alot & do nothing?
    Another problem with the flawed theory is that,I have seen posters of charties looking for donations. Oxfam are using scare tatics like,DONATE TO OXFAM-STOP GLOBAL WARMING.Is this another spinoff on the doomsday theory?Maybe fighting malaria & poverty isn't scary enough.Is this another way of getting money fraudulently like the so called climate change scienctists.If they can keep the lie going,it will mean endless amounts of funds & so secure their financial future.It would be better spent on research on pollution,wildlife habitat protection & over population.Real issues need real solutions,not imagery human climate climate theories & predictions.Think about it people

      • Jenny :

        30 Jul 2009 10:41:51am

        At a personal level our household has sought to radically reduce our CO2 emissions by avoiding power hungry electrical gadgets such as air conditioners and plasma screens, growing some of our own food, installing solar power and solar hot water, rainwater harvesting, using public transport or walking or using a bicycle as much as possible, planting trees, buying locally produced produce and generally reducing consumption. The list goes on. Our power and water consumption is about a quarter of that of an average Australian household and involves no significant sacrifice of comfort.

        At a political level we support and participate in political process that will address climate change, social injustice and environmental degradation more broadly.n I'm not sitting my hands waiting for the world to end but rather trying to secure a future for my children's generation.

        Wherever we have lived we have left the environment around us improved -- healthier soils and more trees and shrubs to provide habitat for wildlife.I will be dead before the worst effects of climate change kick in but to me it is an ethical responsibility to contribute to a sustainable future.

        BTW we donate to Oxfam as well.

          • wave function :

            31 Jul 2009 2:46:48pm

            Agree with all you say here. But society is severly addicted to convenience and are deeply apathetic where pulling their own weight is concerned. I enjoy my comforts, but counter them. I do have a large plasma, but I pay for 100% renewable energy.

              • Jenny :

                01 Aug 2009 7:11:39am

                it is not inconvenient. We watch television, listen to music and use the computers as much as most households. The house is warm in winter because its well oriented towards the sun and well insulated and still comfortable except for the worst of summer. We have abundant water for the garden all of which we collect from the roof. We have abundant hot water half of which we collect ourselves and 90% heated by renewable energy from our solar collectors. Even now in the middle of winter the booster is switched off and won't be needed until we get two days of rain. The solar power collectors just sit there powering the house during the day and feeding the excess into the grid.

                We also buy "green power" but are very cynical about the amount of creative accounting involved in this "product". Carbon offset schemes have been well described as a modern form of medieval indulgences -- you pay money to a recognized authority to atone for your environmental sins.

                However we know that more than 50% of our household energy consumption comes from renewable sources because we collect the solar energy.

                BTW economically solar hot water is an absolute no brainer if you have a roof.

              • Ootz :

                02 Aug 2009 9:21:06am

                Good on you Jenny,

                I have alot of respect for level headed people like you.
                Re solar hot hot water, I suspect many of rusted on non solar hot water consumers are either renters or comfortably numb, lulled in by off peak tariff.
                re "Green Power" exact my sentiments as well as not happy with related current arrangement with net feed in tariff.

                May the POWER be with you.

                Ootz

      • Ootz :

        31 Jul 2009 4:48:04pm

        I must insist, I am a concerned agnostic, fence sitter or call me true skeptic. I have more than just thought about it, trust me! That is the lot of an agnostic.

        No I have not donated money to Oxfam or any other organisations ever, but considerable time to communities here in Oz and overseas and the benefit was mutual.

        Oh and as to what are the benefits of being an 'Agnostic' or 'all round skeptic'. Well, I attribute the rather substantial but ethical gain I made out of the GFC to my skeptism and risk management practise. Where as on one hand the 'Nihilist' in the way of "the boiled frog syndrome" burned substantial parts of her/his stash. And on the ohterside the 'Absolutist', as in 'I am right and you are wrong' had to gamble the way through it and/or sell his/her soul as well as our Kids and Nations future.

        Now back to the issue at hand.
        Ootz

      • Plebusphere :

        31 Jul 2009 8:39:55pm

        Nowhere is the vulnerability and interdependence of the total biosphere more evident than in the envelope of the atmosphere upon which more and more of industrial man's activities are beginning to impinge. It is, of course, alien to our thinking that the firmament itself could be vulnerable to our intrusions. Yet there can be a useful corrective to this kind of thinking in a return, for a moment, to our knowledge of the alphabets of space and time-electromagnetic spectrum and the earths evolution through the billennia. Let us recall again the solar shield effect of the earths atmosphere. Over the ages, the general level of heat in the planet has been maintained with fair uniformity by a critical balance. In comining solar radiation, coupled with the earths own re-absorption of heat it gives off itself, just about equals the amount of radiation that is blocked en route from the sun or sent from cloud and earths surfaces back into space.

        Different parts of the planet are, obviously, warmed and cooled in different degrees, and their interchanges- through the winds and in air currents and the universal mediations of the ocean - make up the whole, totally interdependent climate of our planet. In the tropics, more heat is absorbed than in the highly reflective polar regions. The heat generated in the centre tends to flow to the poles and their cooler air is drawn back towards the centre. The general effect is to mitigate extremes of temperature.But this relative straightforward motion is immensely complicated by the spinning of the the earth on its axis, by the massing together of land in some areas, of water in others, by high mountain ranges and the distribution of rain forest and deserts. With so many variables, it is not surprising that the local weather system exhibit very large variations round expected norms.

        'Only One Earth' ISBN 0 1402.1601 4

        purchased from OXFAM book store today for $1-00 thanks for the tip.

  • Zibethicus :

    30 Jul 2009 8:03:59am

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728123047.htm

    Scientists Expect Wildfires To Increase As Climate Warms In Coming Decades

    ScienceDaily (July 29, 2009) β€” As the climate warms in the coming decades, atmospheric scientists at Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and their colleagues expect that the frequency of wildfires will increase in many regions. The spike in the number of fires could also adversely affect air quality due to the greater presence of smoke.

    The study, led by SEAS Senior Research Fellow Jennifer Logan, was published in the June 18th issue of Journal of Geophysical Research. In their pioneering work, Logan and her collaborators investigated the consequences of climate change on future forest fires and on air quality in the western United States. Previous studies have probed the links between climate change and fire severity in the West and elsewhere. The Harvard study represents the first attempt to quantify the impact of future wildfires on the air we breathe.

    "Warmer temperatures can dry out underbrush, leading to a more serious conflagration once a fire is started by lightening or human activity," says Logan. "Because smoke and other particles from fires adversely affect air quality, an increase in wildfires could have large impacts on human health."

    (end quotes)

      • Adz Inc. :

        30 Jul 2009 1:14:56pm

        "Expect"

        I like that.

        Just more 'faith-based' science designed to incite hysteria.

          • Zibethicus :

            30 Jul 2009 7:17:52pm

            "I like that.

            Just more 'faith-based' science designed to incite hysteria."

            This statement about "'faith-based' science" has been brought to you by one of the leading 'lights' of a group of people who maintain that the sun is similar in composition to a meteorite, that there are no volcanoes on Mars, that global warming does not exist, and that every science academy world-around is united in a Communist conspiracy to prevent the propagation of these intriguing 'scientific' findings...

            (Cue faint strains of /Entry of the Gladiators/...)

  • DocMercury :

    28 Jul 2009 9:53:02pm

    Avoidance is preferable, but I'd like to know well in advance of the time it becomes necessary to add to the genetic diversity of polar bear in zoos.

    In some places, it is already too late to prevent hungry polar bear coming into conflict with humans, and their mostly isolated life-style makes the polar bear a bit different to the average forest bears raiding picnic baskets and making convertibles out of cars in parks.

    They're bigger, just for starters.

    It should not be necessary for the Palins of the world to use them for shooting practice.

      • Michael :

        30 Jul 2009 8:20:01am

        As I'm sure you well know, polar bears are doing much better now than any time in the last few decades. Their numbers continue to increase, and Al Gore's dishonest "documentary" used them purely for propaganda.

          • Zibethicus :

            30 Jul 2009 7:22:32pm

            "As I'm sure you well know, polar bears are doing much better now than any time in the last few decades."

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825210415.htm

            ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2008) - An aerial survey by government scientists in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea has recently found at least nine polar bears swimming in open water – with one at least 60 miles from shore – raising concern among wildlife experts about their survival.

            Geoff York, the polar bear coordinator for WWF's Arctic Programme, said that when polar bears swim so far from land, they could have difficulty making it safely to shore and are at risk of drowning, particularly if a storm arises.

            "To find so many polar bears at sea at one time is extremely worrisome because it could be an indication that as the sea ice on which they live and hunt continues to melt, many more bears may be out there facing similar risk," he said.

            "As climate change continues to dramatically disrupt the Arctic, polar bears and their cubs are being forced to swim longer distances to find food and habitat."

            Scientists say the Arctic is changing more rapidly and acutely than anywhere on the planet, noting that 2007 witnessed the lowest sea ice coverage in recorded history.

            Satellite images indicate that ice was absent in most of the region where the bears were found on August 16, 2008, and some experts predict this year’s sea ice loss could meet or exceed the record set last year.

            (snip)

            Professor Richard Steiner of the University of Alaska’s Marine Advisory Program said: "While these bears are swimming around in an ice-free coastal Arctic Ocean, the only thing the State of Alaska is doing is suing the federal government trying to overturn the listing of polar bears.

            "The bottom line here is that polar bears need sea ice, sea ice is decaying, and the bears are in very serious trouble. For any people who are still non-believers in global warming and the impacts it is having in the Arctic, this should answer their doubts once and for all."

  • R G Hay :

    28 Jul 2009 7:51:06pm

    Well, this debate seems likely to go on for a long time, though with more evidence accumulating.
    Just make an estimate of when it seems likely that global annual anthropogenic GHG emissions will peak, and then of when they will be reduced by the 80 or 90% deemed necessary for stabilisation, and I think you'll see that interested folk can look forward to arguing for many years yet when each year's global mean surface temperature is announced, and it's higher, or lower, than the previous one, and each five or six years when the IPCC issues their reports. And much more will come to be known about the performance of various alternatives to fossil-fuelled energy, and no doubt there'll be occasional extreme events like wildfires and floods and droughts and massive storms whose connection to GHG's or other human activities can also be debated at tedious length. Some extremists might even get eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis into it.

  • ilajd :

    28 Jul 2009 7:23:03pm

    Reading the quote below I get the feeling the word "unprecedented" is a tad over used these days. How about you?

    "It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."

    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.

    From http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

    via WUWT

  • ilajd :

    28 Jul 2009 7:23:03pm

    Reading the quote below I get the feeling the word "unprecedented" is a tad over used these days. How about you?

    "It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."

    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.

    From http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

    via WUWT

      • John :

        30 Jul 2009 1:21:03pm

        Ilajd, fear promoting words like "unprecedented", "extinction crisis", "catastophe" and similar are the stock-in-trade of the global warming protagonists.
        One only has to look at the comments made by Landsea's supervising scientist at IPCC who justified fraudulently misrepresenting Landsea as having claimed something while he actually claimed the reverse by arguing that "it is more important to get the message out". More important than telling the truth is what he is actually admitting.
        The same "shock and terrify" trick is used by Al Gore in his movie.
        You have to admire the AGW proponents at their very speedy recognition and exploitation of what is known in scientific circles as "the impact factor". As Monastersky has pointed out, the shock and impact content of a paper is now paramount. "The impact factor, once a simple way to rank scientific journals, has become an unyielding yardstick for hiring, tenure, and grants".
        You may care to read the work of Eugene Garfield on this point.

          • Carolus Linnaeus :

            31 Jul 2009 4:43:04pm

            "unprecedented", "extinction crisis", "catastophe" are not inaccurate, unless you are 'sceptical' about science...

          • Zibethicus :

            31 Jul 2009 7:23:23pm

            "Ilajd, fear promoting words like "unprecedented", "extinction crisis", "catastophe" and similar are the stock-in-trade of the global warming protagonists."

            *

            Free-Market Superhero Denounces 'Communist "Extinction Crisis" Plot', Collides With Skyscraper

            PseudoScience Daily (Confusion 66, 3175) - A study recently published in the international journal Conservation Biology warning of 'an extinction crisis' occurring in Oceanic regions including Australia was vehemently denounced as "a Communist plot" at a news conference held in Sydney today by the 'free-market superhero' Captain Capital and his 'sidekick' Little Laissez-Faire .

            Captain Capital, who attributes his 'superpowers' to an unfortunate incident in which atoms of his body became mingled with those of a copy of /Atlas Shrugged/ left behind unnoticed in an experimental matter transmitter of his own design, was angry at reports that the study, (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728102301.htm), in which fourteen scientists synthesised the results of more than twenty-four thousand scientific publications, recorded such severe environmental degradation that the report's lead author, Prof Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales, spoke of a "sixth great extinction event".

            "What would a mere /professor/ know about this stuff?" Captain Capital enquired rhetorically. "They're all a bunch of Pinko eggheads in those ivory towers, anyway! But /some day/ we'll expose them to Market Forces, and /they'll/ be sorry!"

            "The world is cooling!" added Little Laissez-Faire, standing on his head, apparently by way of adding emphasis.

  • Plenair Plectrum :

    28 Jul 2009 6:06:55pm

    Much favored has been the idea that the polluter should pay for the harm he does. To do this there are several overriding objections. Firtsly if the polluter is allowed to pay he can have the right to pollute, and he not society will decide whether the pollution is stopped.

    Second, if he decides to pay, he will pass on the cost onto his customers: we are not dealing with rich people who buy the right to engage in a form of luxurious indulgence and so, since society will pay anyway it might well subsidise directly the cost of abating the pollution. There is much merit in the arguement that if it is going to be sudsidise the operation society should take control of the buisness in question at the same time, and if this were accepted by the majority we would be saying 'stop polluting or be nationalized'.

    pollution in the air R.S. Scorer

    Good on the recent liberallie utility sell off neuron power at work.

  • Ilajd :

    28 Jul 2009 4:26:43pm

    Happily, Nature just published a letter from six members that informs that the APS is currently reviewing its 2007 statement:

    Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change

    By S. Fred Singer, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, Roger Cohen & Robert H. Austin

    We write in response to your issue discussing "the coming climate crunch", including the Editorial "Time to act" (Nature 458, 10771078; 2009). We feel it is alarmist.

    We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society (APS) who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change (see open letter at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u ; APS statement at http://tinyurl.com/56zqxr). The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.


    From WUWT

      • DocMercury :

        28 Jul 2009 9:42:54pm

        Seems like a "prude" response on their part, Ilajd, and they've a right to it, and to a point I agree.

        However "alarmism" is the only kind of shock & awe which can convince a cynical mass media to make any news of it at all.

        If this might be an exaggeration for the media, it isn't as much an exaggeration for the mob-mind of the common human.

        Al Gore is media-savvy, and consequently words of choice are 'emergency' 'crisis' and 'crunch'.

        This does not reduce the 'urgency' or we'd be sitting on our hands doing nothing, growing fat and unhealthy, and fed electronic soma until we're rolling down the desired mind-control path toward appropriate industrial zombies.

        I can imagine how someone in 1650 would have been accepted by the masses if they'd run around shouting "clear out all of your rat!s"

          • EdwardW :

            29 Jul 2009 8:43:44am

            They did run around shouting "clear out your rats" Doc. They had a good and well founded suspicion that rats were connected with the plague. The trouble was that they also thought that dogs and cats helped to spread the plague too, so they killed all of them off and thus allowed the rats to spread because the dogs and cats weren't there to kill them.
            Of course, the density and appalling hygiene of the housing in London made the situation many times worse there than it was in some other parts of the country.

              • DocMercury :

                29 Jul 2009 2:04:29pm

                Even today EdwardW, 450 years later, New Yorkers are inclined to treat their rat population with mirth and boast that some of them are as big as cats.

                This would cease being funny as soon as the humble rat's fleas start carrying something in the order of hemorrhagic virus in their saliva.

                On Murphy's Law.

              • EdwardW :

                29 Jul 2009 3:14:38pm

                Doc, I don't know whether to say thank you for the information, or I wish you'd kept quiet.
                I've never seen a New York rat (well, not the four-legged kind) and now I certainly don't want to.

  • Zibethicus :

    28 Jul 2009 1:30:07pm

    GREAT MOMENTS IN DENIOSAUR β€˜SCIENCE’ #565

    Anders Celsius :

    23 Jul 2009 6:53:04pm

    Venus also has massive volcanic activity and Mars has none.

    (end quote)

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_vulcanism_041222.html

    Mars Volcanoes Possibly Still Active, Pictures Show
    By Robert Roy Britt
    Senior Science Writer
    posted: 22 December 2004
    1:00 p.m. ET
    Images from a European space probe reveal recent glacial deposits and lava flows on Mars that suggest the red planet is more active than many scientists had thought.
    The European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter photographed lava flows that must have occurred within the past two million years and imply, scientists say, that volcanoes on Mars might still pump molten rock to the surface now and then.

    (end quote)

    I wonder who’s gonna break the news to all the volcanoes on Mars? Might come as a bit of a shock to suddenly learn that you don’t exist after all these millennia...

    ...funny how there are all these 'expert' geologists in the Deniosaur camp, and they /still/ can’t stop themselves from pulling howlers like this one...what’s /even funnier than that/ is that PseudoCelsius posted it right after calling an AGW link from the American Institute of Physics "little more than a propaganda piece chock full of factual errors."

    Keep it up, Deniosaurs - the world /needs/ the laffs you furnish us with so copiously!

    After all, according to a review by Prof Michael Ashley published in that infamous red rag The Australian, the 'magnum opus' of that 'genius' and 'polymath', Prof Ian Plimer, /Heaven and Earth/, contains the claim that "the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite."

    (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html)

    Apparently utterly and wildly falsifying earth science is no longer enough to contain the ambitions of the Deniosaurs. They are expanding their ambitions into 'revised' planetary science. Next thing you know they’ll be self-publishing works of 'capitalist cosmology'.

    Stand by for the 'revelation' that the Universe is in the shape of Ayn Rand and Earth exists in its very centre, at her navel...no jokes, please...this is /serious/ to them...

  • Nidor :

    28 Jul 2009 11:50:54am

    "All temperature and weather observations indicate that the Earth isn't like a greenhouse and that in reality no 'natural greenhouse effect' which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a 'global warming effect'. With or without atmosphere every body loses heat, gets inevitably colder....the most perfect thermos flask can't avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold. The hypothesis of a natural and man made 'greenhouse effect' like eugenics, belongs to the category 'scientific errors."
    Wolfgan P. Thuene, former analyst and forecaster for the German Weather Service, German Environmental Protection Agency.

      • Ootz :

        28 Jul 2009 1:49:27pm

        Excuse me, it's been awhile since I did physics. What ever happened to the atmosphere on Venus?

        Sorry Nidor, just name dropping by cut and paste from from
        http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html
        will not convince me as a fence sitter and does your side of the debate no good. At least in future google up and post the rebuke as well, saves time me doing it and makes for a more educated debate here. Or if you are not sure about it ask on the forum or your science teacher. The seriousness of the consequences of the debate at hand deserves it, I would suggest.

        Look forward to more original comments from you in future thank you.
        Ootz

          • Nidor :

            28 Jul 2009 6:21:51pm

            If the suns energy lessened, do you think that we could heat the Earth up by pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

              • Groucho :

                28 Jul 2009 11:52:04pm

                Nidor
                We could run a really long extension cord from the moon you reckon hasn't been walked on,and plug in a big heap of bar heaters and fire up a big heap of them cigarettes you reckon are so good for us.
                Problem solved.

                Are you planning on being around "if the suns energy lessened"?
                What's you secret?

              • Ootz :

                29 Jul 2009 10:12:58am

                Nidor, I am glad I have not discouraged you to participate. Although not quite sure how to answer the way you formulated the question, but I assume it is in relation to your posting above which questions "natural and man made 'Greenhouse effect'" and figure 2 in the above article by Andrew Glikson. BTW thank you Andrew for giving us the opportunity to debate.

                Well, the way I see it, we have a credible example of run away greenhouse effect in our planetary neighbour, which I understand used to have a similar atmosphere to Earth, although of smaller size and closer proximity to the sun. From memory, present reported surface temperature is above 500oC. What happened, could it happen here too since we have the same major energy source? To me these are reasonable questions.

                In relation to your last posting, I understand planetary energy management is an extremely complex field, multitude of feed back systems, cycles and agents. Their understanding is plagued/blessed with all sorts of methodological problems in measuring and determining changes thereof. Thus, you find probably most disagreement in the science community is based on the later. And that is really the concerning bit to me, it establishes the fact how little we know!

                You did ask me what I think, so keep in mind I am only a concerned amateur, with a humble but reasonable stake in the human enterprise.

                Oh and if you are interested and want a detailed scientific skeptical debate check below link and enjoy
                http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=513&&a=18

                Cheers Ootz

              • Ootz :

                29 Jul 2009 9:51:00pm

                Correction to above

                I understand Global Climatology to be an extremely challenging subject. Complex by its nature as it involves enormous and various scales of space and time as well as some pretty interesting characters, and we/science have barely scratched the surface.

              • John :

                29 Jul 2009 10:46:16am

                Nidor, perhaps the sun's energy is increasing, not lessening:

                "A person wouldn’t notice it by looking up in the sky, but the sunlight hitting Earth today is slightly brighter than it was a decade ago, according to a study of satellite instruments that monitor solar radiation. This discovery, if confirmed, raises the possibility that solar variation has caused a portion of the global warming detected in recent years and could either exacerbate or mitigate future climate change predicted as a result of greenhouse gas pollution.
                Between 1986 and 1996, the intensity of solar radiation increased by 0.036 percent, reports Richard C. Willson of Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research in Altadena, Calif., in the Sept. 26 SCIENCE.
                To put the change into perspective, Willson notes that the extra solar radiation absorbed by Earth over the last decade would equal roughly 70 times the amount of energy produced by all nations in 1990.
                Science News, Vol 152, No. 13, page 197
                I can't find any updates on this research, but as there has been a steady decline in world temperatures in the decade since 1996, perhaps we are seeing solar fluctuations.

              • graeme :

                29 Jul 2009 9:47:57pm

                Citing data from 1986 to 1996, and published in an artcle from 1997, "if confirmed" seems less than likely, since you can find no updates, but you fail to cite when it was published. It would lessen your argumentism.
                So why do you try the obfiscation John?

              • John :

                29 Jul 2009 11:29:00pm

                Graeme, it was published in 1997. I didn't say that there was no updated research, merely that I couldn't find any.
                We've had cooling in the decade since.
                The only obfuscation is in your attempt to discredit evidence contrary to your pre-conceived position.

              • graeme :

                30 Jul 2009 8:49:22am

                Oh, it was published in 1997 was it? Why didn't you mention that?

              • John :

                30 Jul 2009 10:52:05am

                What's that got to do with the validity or otherwise of the science?
                Even James E.Hansen acknowledged the relevance:
                "By itself, it would not be a significant source of climate change, but the question is whether there are changes on the century time scale. There, the changes may be significant. His measurements are the first indication that there is long-term change."

              • Plebusphere :

                02 Aug 2009 2:47:01am

                A clarifying detail for others to place correct perspectives, that sort of thing......

              • John :

                02 Aug 2009 12:07:33pm

                Hello Plebusphere.
                From the period of about the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the IPCC and AGW supporters pointed to an increase in CO2 emissions and rising temperatures, and claimed a link.
                From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, we observed a further increase in CO2 emissions, but a decline in temperatures, and the IPCC and AGW supporters sought to dissociate themselves from the link.
                The "clarifying detail" seems to be that in the first instance there was an increase in the sun's intensity, which might well have accounted for the increase in temperatures totally divorced from CO2 emission influence.
                As I said, the fact that it was published a decade ago does not detract from the scientific finding.

              • Plebusphere :

                03 Aug 2009 8:19:39am

                With more Carbon in the air the atmosphere has, greater potential/capacity to absorb heat when the sun flare's up. What is so complicated about that John. You don't like all the other complicated interactions and the simple one liners from people who advocate pollution reduction.

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 11:29:42am

                Plebusphere, is this in fact so?

                "With more Carbon in the air the atmosphere has, greater potential/capacity to absorb heat".

                I've read some papers that state that the absorption capacity of CO2 expands geometrically, not in a linear fashion. Here is one, for example

                "As the natural processes of the climate system are non-linear and non-ergodic, small variations may result in large changes. There are negative and positive feedback loops. There is randomness in the system. As a result, the simple deterministic computer simulations on which all climate change projections are based will have little to do with the real world".
                Richard Mackey
                Regards.

      • Blzbob :

        28 Jul 2009 7:06:20pm

        Nidor
        Are you saying that if you put cold drink in a Thermos flask it never warms up?
        Try putting your coffee in a tin can and see how long it stays warm, of course it will depend whether you are in the Sahara or at the Antarctic, but the same applies to the Thermos.

        Your examples are meaningless.

  • OFistFullOfDollars :

    28 Jul 2009 11:05:59am

    The human population will inevitably stop growing at some point in the future. What will happen after this point?

      • wave function :

        28 Jul 2009 7:55:00pm

        Considering it is human activities which have accelerated the background extinction rate to between 100 and 1000x the natural rate, what biodiversity is left at such a time will probably rejoice.

          • Harquebus :

            29 Jul 2009 10:57:21am

            One of them will be the ancestor of our replacement just as we replaced the dinosaur.

              • wave function :

                31 Jul 2009 2:27:07pm

                We didnt replace the dinosaur. Surviving dinosaurs evolved into avifauna and hence are still with us today.

              • Harquebus :

                01 Aug 2009 12:39:02am

                Could it be that dinosaurs will someday rule the world, again?

              • Carolus Linnaeus :

                31 Jul 2009 4:44:56pm

                Oh yay, that's wonderful. shall we share a noose?

      • mr bighed :

        28 Jul 2009 10:18:40pm

        simple answer, if our population does not grow, it shrinks.

  • DocMercury :

    28 Jul 2009 10:36:04am

    I'm repeating myself, but I don't care.

    If the records were more clear and complete, and our observations more precision than guesstimate, then probably the best data for climate change ('global warming' is a misnomer, with ex-Gulf Stream possibilities of cooling at latitudes closer to the Tropic of Cancer) would come from paleontology.

    For example, climate change could hold an explanation as to why the sole remaining species from the once prolific genera of externally shelled cephalopod is the nautilus, in the anti-calcium carbonate acidification of oceans by CO2 and the nautilus primary habitat of deep ocean, or the generation of algal blooms and 'dead zones' through both excess CO2, temperature and nitrogenous runoff from primordial giant moss and fern forests and marshlands.

    Of course, it is also possible that the nautilus evolved independently more recently than 250 million years ago down the line of squid or octopus, and whilst that seems unlikely we also do not know with certainty without any DNA from the ammonites.

    What did cause the mass extinction of these many species of ammonites and the trilobites?
    Does anyone really know, apart from suspecting another earlier impact event?

    Further to this, in almost all sciences except those defined with precision by basic arithmetic, similar questions of can be asked of the accuracy of their contentions.

    After all, decoding the human genome didn't mean we also knew what every sequence of base pair, and combination of sequences does, how they manifest phenome or if they manifests things like personality as much or more than nurture.

    We're still very largely ignorant.

      • Ootz :

        28 Jul 2009 2:18:23pm

        "We're still very largely ignorant."
        Delighted to see some critical thinking in the tradition of Socrates. After all wasn't he the original skeptic?

          • John :

            28 Jul 2009 3:58:52pm

            No.
            He was a sceptic.

          • DocMercury :

            28 Jul 2009 5:18:59pm

            A skeptic given a drink of "winter rose" (aka hellebore) to prevent him from being skeptical any longer. Skepticism wins almost as many popularity contests as cynicism. ;)

          • Ootz :

            28 Jul 2009 9:22:36pm

            Oi,
            I didn't expect a bite on this :)

            John, your background must be from the States? Wont hold it against you as long you don't mind that mine is Swiss ;). Thus, don't be surprised that I am obliged to point out, the print in my trusty old "The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" reprint 1996, clearly states 'skeptic'.

            Hey Doc, you know something about Socrates! What a great man, what a hero. I kind of think our churches got the wrong guy to worship. Don't get me wrong both died for the humanity they gifted us with. What guts it takes to stand up and give us the keys to safe our selves from ourselves and probably knew very well that it is not going to be popular in the short term!

            Hence, my cross that I go to pray or meditate on in times of 'great troubles' is basically what you were saying "WE ARE STILL VERY LARGLY INGNORANT". Back to basics, kind of hitting the epistemological reset button and then establish some clarity by questioning in a deliberate way.

            So let me ask two questions, in the hope I wont get slaughtered here.

            First I am right to assume that the argument as presented by the IPPC is a consensus and Andrew Glikson's case above in principal in agreement with the statement that the Earth is heating unsustainable with a high probability caused by human activity or agents thereof.

            Second, I am right to assume that the skeptic/sceptic argument against above argument is not clear. I am genuinely puzzled, what assumption are the skeptics/sceptics skeptical of?
            - Is it the anthropogenic aspect only
            - Is it that earth is warming
            - Is it that it is an important and highly relevant issue to humanity at all.
            - is it the speed of the warming.
            - is it that the proposed abatement strategies are genuine.
            Or is there any other issue to be skeptical about that I am not aware of?

            I would genuinely appreciate clarification as I am concerned that there is quite a large wager at stake or is that a false assumption too.

            Your's in sceptism/skeptism Ootz



              • Zibethicus :

                29 Jul 2009 8:09:40am

                "Hence, my cross that I go to pray or meditate on in times of 'great troubles' is basically what you were saying "WE ARE STILL VERY LARGLY INGNORANT"."

                Education, /n/. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.

                - Ambrose Bierce, /The Devil's Dictionary/

                "So let me ask two questions, in the hope I wont get slaughtered here."

                Perhaps you'll allow me...

                "First I am right to assume that the argument as presented by the IPPC is a consensus and Andrew Glikson's case above in principal in agreement with the statement that the Earth is heating unsustainable with a high probability caused by human activity or agents thereof."

                Correct. Anyone who is interested in informing themselves of the facts of the matter may find them for themselves at: http://www.ipcc.ch/

                http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

                Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
                (Figure SPM.1).

                (end quotes)

                "Second, I am right to assume that the skeptic/sceptic argument against above argument is not clear. I am genuinely puzzled, what assumption are the skeptics/sceptics skeptical of?
                - Is it the anthropogenic aspect only
                - Is it that earth is warming
                - Is it that it is an important and highly relevant issue to humanity at all.
                - is it the speed of the warming.
                - is it that the proposed abatement strategies are genuine.
                Or is there any other issue to be skeptical about that I am not aware of?"

                The self-styled 'sceptics' are all united against the above consensus. Other than that, they have a wild variety of views which contradict each other and, quite often, themselves.

                Almost all of the Deniosaurs (by which I mean aggressively irrational anti-AGW ideologues) ultimately reveal a hard- or extreme-Right political orientation sooner or later. There are certainly a handful of genuinely sceptical scientists, but many of them are commenting on areas outside their area of expertise. The concerns of others have been addressed. Still others, such as the distinguished meteorologist Dr Joanne Simpson, are quoted only partially and out-of-context by Deniosaurs with an agenda.

                Some Deniosaurs, such as, say, PseudoCelsius/Faraday/Jupiter/Genome/etc etc etc, like to preserve a veneer of the prestige of 'science'. We have recently seen a fine example of /his/ expertise in Martian volcanism... But ultimately, presented with a vast quantity of peer-reviewed evidence which contradicts their position, the Deniosaurs will dismiss the concept of peer review in favour of changing their own position under the weight of evidence.

                Basi

              • Zibethicus :

                29 Jul 2009 1:31:15pm

                Basically, the Deniosaurs are responding in a variety of ways to the incontrovertible evidence that their own favoured laissez-faire way of life is destructive to the planet and thereby to our survival as a species.

                Because they are unwilling to accept this conclusion, they /must/ challenge the evidence supporting it. Because the evidence is as solid as any scientific matter ever has been, they /must/ clutch at whatever straws they can find.

                Because there is such a paucity of straws, they must necessarily use fragments which don't agree with each other - particularly since their 'theory' has no actual predictive power. In fact, they are not attempting to /prove/ a theory of their own - they /have/ no competing theory.

                Their efforts are entirely focused on /disproving/ a theory they dislike, and in that pursuit, apparently, the end justifies just about any means - look at Plimer's repetition of the claim that the composition of the sun is similar to that of a meteorite, as just one single example.

                It doesn't matter in the slightest that there is no rational basis whatsoever for the claims of the Deniosaurs, because their position was never based on reason in the first place. It is merely a desperate desire that the truth should not be true. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times they are refuted on a basis of clear reasoning and scientific research; if they are forced to jettison one of the silly claims by the weight of facts, they can always afford to let it go and make another one up. We often see this here on /Unleashed/, in fact.


                I hope this helps you arrive at an answer which you find satisfactory.

              • Ootz :

                29 Jul 2009 10:20:35pm

                Thank you Basi.
                interesting read - if you don't mind I would have some more questions.

                How do you think education would solve the current log jam in make sense out of this. Establish once and for all yes there is a problem or no there is no problem and then to get on with it?

                How well can we trust the data, methodology and integrity of all the IPPC scientists involved, indeed the IPPCs ethical integrity particular in relation to politics and commerce?

                How do you know that "The self-styled 'sceptics' are all united against the above (IPPC) consensus. "?

                And finally, what would it take for a Denyosore to evolve? :)

                Illuminated Pumpkins
                Ootz

              • Zibethicus :

                30 Jul 2009 12:14:41am

                "interesting read - if you don't mind I would have some more questions."

                (bows) ...always happy to help polite posters to the best of my limited abilities...

                "How do you think education would solve the current log jam in make sense out of this. Establish once and for all yes there is a problem or no there is no problem and then to get on with it?"

                I am very much afraid that the majority of the damage - and it may well be devastatingly terrible damage - has already been done. There are signs reported from /real/ scientists nearly daily of what may only be the beginnings of great and unprecedented changes to what are ultimately extremely fragile ecosystems, world-around.

                I have posted some of the stories lately to try to keep the record straight. You might like to refer to them.

                It gives me very little comfort to speculate that our children and their children might consider us, as a generation, to be the most appallingly selfish and misguidedly, wilfully ignorant people in the entire history of civilisation. The time to begin to act was, as somebody pointed out recently (I believe it's Monibiot in that infamous Commie rag /New Scientist/), over forty years ago when the scientists were warning US president Johnson that this would happen.

                Now it /is/ happening. The emissions which have occurred already are enough to do severe damage to the ecosystems which we rely on for our own survival without realising it - because we take them for granted.

                All that can be done now is to act to preserve whatever we can, if only for the sake of the future of civilisation. If you like an analogy, the lunatics have well and truly set fire to the library, and the blaze is unstoppable. We must try to salvage what we can.

                Nothing will convince the maniacs that they're mistaken. Every desperately irrational contortion they undertake is done to /avoid/ their realisation of the gravity of the situation. My self-appointed task here is to expose them to the undecided as the maniacs they are. Their lies and errors are so blatant, particularly when they are challenged, that I /may/ be doing /some/ good through my efforts, as others certainly are.

                All we can do is penetrate the thin veneer of scientism which conceals a vast reserve of irrational hatred in the Deniosaur. Note the strong tendency to descend to infantile Commie-calling whenever they are presented with data which they don't care for. Expose them, and see if they can make a better case with cleaner means. So far their record isn't too good, you may agree...

              • John :

                29 Jul 2009 11:29:41am

                Hello again Ootz,
                My racial inheritance is a mixture of Scottish and English, but my education is Australian. Hence the "English" spelling rather than the "US" spelling. The word "sceptic" is derived from the Greek root, and you are probably closer to the truth than me because modern English sometimes incorrectly replaces the hard "k" of Greek with a "c" in English. A Greek name such as Alcibiades, for example, should properly be pronounced "Alkibiades". The differentiation in English between the "hard" c as in "school" or the "soft" c as in "schedule" depends on whether the word originated in the Nordic/Viking or Indo-European influence.
                However, I use the English format as something of an antidote to the creeping Americanisation of our language, which, unlike the sceptic/skeptic matter, is actually creating linguistic errors. I get upset by "talk with" instead of "talk to", or "appeal the decision" instead of "appeal against the decision" or "he wrote Thursday" instead of "he wrote on Thursday" or "I will be back momentarily".
                As to your queries, I can only comment from the point of view of one sceptic - me - and I can let you know my feelings:
                1) Yes, it is the anthropogenic part of the scare mongering that I doubt;
                2) No, I do not dispute that we are seeing a warming. I do dispute the claim that this warming is not natural, that it has not occurred before and will not recede, or a claim that it will not cyclically occur and recede again in the future;
                3) No, it is not particularly important for humanity in the sense that we should be trying to reverse it. It is important that we should understand its inevitability and modify our world to live with these inevitable fluctuations;
                4) The alleged speed of the warming is irrelevant because we can do nothing about it;
                5) No, all the claimed antidotes and abatement strategies are tinkering around at the very tiniest of edges, and will have no effect other than giving a warm inner glow to the participants.

              • Ootz :

                29 Jul 2009 11:21:36pm

                Good evening John,

                Well I did get UK -US wrong about! Sorry was not intentional. Understand your point though, it has been pointed out to me that we non-greek emhasise it wrong too. It is "Alkibiades"with emphasis on -des. And I too make a point in changing my language and dictionary setting to UK or OZ on my MacBook.

                I appreciated your frankness in expressing your feelings and I have a few more questions if you don't mind?

                1) How do you know that it is just "scaremongering"?

                2)How do you know that humans have no hand in it and there is absolutely nothing we can do?

                3) How do you know we have the capacity to ".. modify the world to live with these inevitable fluctuations.

                4) Could it ever affect you in your lifetime.

                5) What is your interest/motivation in following this discussion.

                Thank you Ootz

              • John :

                30 Jul 2009 8:12:48am

                Morning, Ootz. Hello and welcome to another Macbook user.
                I'll do my best to answer your queries:
                1) Scaremongering.
                It is scaremongering because we are being attacked by lunatic claims such as 70 metre rises in sea levels, by allegations that Antarctica is disappearing, by claims that an atmosphere of 350ppm of CO2 is the maximum we can safely tolerate, that temperatures in the late 20th Century are historical highs, that carbon emissions account for the greater part of the heating effect and many similar. It is scaremongering because Hansen tells us that trains carrying coal are like the trains carrying Jews to the gas chambers, or that all democratic processes should be abandoned and decision making should be left to experts (like him, of course), and that sabotage and civil disturbance are not only to be condoned, but encouraged. And it is scaremongering because as soon as someone queries either the science or the conclusions he is howled down with "Oh, he's a well-known denier in the pay of big oil".
                2) Human contribution.
                I don't think I said that humans have "no part in it". If I did, I apologise for my error. What I meant was that the contribution from anthropogenic activities is so miniscule that any removal or diminution would have no effect overall. Professor Wayne of Oxford University has shown that if all CO2 disappeared tomorrow, the world would cool by about 12%. Our contribution to that 12% is too small to be measured. The driver of change is the normal, observed and irrefutable natural cycle over millenia.



              • John :

                30 Jul 2009 8:13:36am

                Part 2
                3) Lifestyle modification
                Human beings are infinitely adaptable and ingenious at living on this planet. We have adapted to living and thriving at temperatures of 40C in the deserts of the world and at -20C in Siberia and similar places. It's not by choice, but we have done it before and we will do it again. What we should be doing is concentrate on those things that do make a difference - things like better house climate control through insulation and architectural design, water conservation and pollution control, re-afforestation, modifications to agricultural processes to avoid salinity and changes to animal husbandry procedures.
                4) My life
                No, it won't affect my life, or that of my children or grand-children. The planetary processes swing from warmer to cooler over a period of 1,500 - 1,800 years, and there's no way to get off the roundabout.
                5) Motivation
                I have followed this, and other similar discussions, because I am really disheartened by the whipping up of a frenzy of fear for no good reason other than to support a very dubious claim. Reason and logic are disregarded. The "end of the world as we know it" scenario is always framed in a destructive way, designed simply to frighten people into accepting the dogma. The imminent ice age promoted in the 1970s is one such bit of dogma, as was Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" and both turned out to be fallacies. Fortunately, there is a very discernable and growing trend for reputable scientists to reject the global warming argument, so sanity is prevailing.

              • Adz Inc. :

                30 Jul 2009 11:39:43am

                Hi John,

                I just thought I'd intrude into the conversation here because I was very impressed by your rational explanations.

                The AGW doctrine is becoming a state religion; it's unchallengable and absolute. One only has to witness the political rhetoric emanating from Mr Rudd and Senator Wong and their followers in demonising parliamentary sceptics, and even those who have questions over the (obvious) futility of the Government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Sceptics are ruthlessly traduced and marginalised in the decision making process. Why is this? Scepticism has always- and should be- a vital component of scientific debates.

                You see, it's the politicisation of this issue which concerns me most. The debate has been hijacked by some extreme elements in the political sphere who're undoubtedly utilising the hysteria to launch an attack on the economic, democratic and social paradigm, and fundamentally the principle of liberal freedom. I understand there are many who are genuniely deceived by this fraud are also genuinely working within the democratic process to concoct 'solutions' to this fraudlent 'problem'. This is admirable, but their policies can only be destructively regressive.

                It is very appropriate that you would mention Paul Ehlrich and his abysmally inaccurate work 'The Population Bomb'. I know I have many times in these debates. Ehlrich's work has been so totally, comprehensively and utterly debunked and proven redundant that I wonder how he has ever dared to show his face again in public. He is the embodiment of the enviro-fascist: hating of humanity and prone to hysteria. Despite Ehlrich's intellecutal self-destruction he has received every imaginable accolade and award from every environmental organisation imaginable. It seems incompotence and failure is celebrated by these people. It is this type of fanatacism that we're up against. It will be a struggle.

              • John :

                30 Jul 2009 6:55:06pm

                Hi Adz.
                Thank you.

              • Groucho :

                30 Jul 2009 9:18:40pm

                Good evening Adz,how are you this fine evening.Mind if I slip a question your way old bean?
                (I would hate people to get the false impression you could behave civilly,for more than one post.)

                Why do you insist on labelling anyone who discusses human population levels,as Death Cultists?

                Why will you not admit you were wrong and were in fact interpreting data that you quoted ,in an upside down position?

                And as I asked previously,can I use your dummy spit threatening legal action (here on Unleashed) in other places?

              • Adz Inc. :

                31 Jul 2009 9:20:59am

                Good morning, dear Groucho.

                I'm in a rather radiant mood this morning so I'm more than happy to reply to your 'civil' posting.

                Firstly, as I remember it, it was my old mate Zibethicus who threatned to 'sue' me for reposting his own words. But I'll leave it at that, I don't want to offend the ol' boy again.

                I expect that your comments about overpopulation were pertinent to my criticisms of Mr Ehlrich. Am I correct? I will assume so. If you'll indulge me, Groucho, I'd like to introduce you to a few random quotes and facts from Ehlrich's 'landmark' work 'The Population Bomb'.

                "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

                Did that happen? The green revolution occurred and malnutrition deaths decreased significantly.



                "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980"

                False.

                And this little gem, as I found it on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb):

                "The leading critic of Ehrlich was Julian Lincoln Simon, a libertarian theorist and the author of the book The Ultimate Resource, a book which argues a larger population is a benefit, not a cost. To test their two contrasting views on resources, in 1980, Ehrlich and Simon entered into a wager over how the price of metals would move during the 1980s. Ehrlich predicted that the price would increase as metals became more scarce in the Earth's crust, while Simon insisted the price of metals had fallen throughout human history and would continue to do so. Ehrlich lost the bet. Indeed such was the decline in the price of the five metals Ehrlich selected, Simon would have won even without taking inflation into account"

                Is this the type of intellectual incompotence you wish to associate yourself with, Groucho?

                History has a habit of never smiling on fatalists, indeed it almost, without exception, shows them to be sadistic fools.

                If you'd like to have a similiar long-terms wager relating to global warming, Sea level rises for instance, would you be interested, Groucho?

              • Zibethicus :

                31 Jul 2009 8:18:20pm

                "Firstly, as I remember it, it was my old mate Zibethicus who threatned to 'sue' me for reposting his own words. But I'll leave it at that, I don't want to offend the ol' boy again."

                Well, now - ain't it odd that you should remember it that way?

                Remember how you accused me of - what was it - 'slanderous defamation' for pointing out that the Isotopian intend to force Australians to die from the toxic effects of commercial nuclear power generation so that they can profit from it?

                Remember how I responded by posting one single example of your own endlessly repeated, gibbering denunciations of what you yourself call 'the enviro-socialist death cult', accusing it of planning to cause millions of deaths through some imaginary process of your own febrile concoction?

                Remember that? No?

                Shall I re-post it, ol' buddy? Especially how /you/ threatened /me/ with legal action and then ran away crapping yourself when I said I was more than willing to take you on, anywhere anytime?

                ...we can merrily discuss that while we're waiting for you to furnish us all with the 'temperature readings' from your upside-down 'global cooling' graph...

              • Adz Inc. :

                31 Jul 2009 11:11:02pm

                Nah, ol' boy, you threatned me with legal action.

                Go and read it again. I made so such threats, you did in one of your regular gargantaun dummy-spits.

                Why the projection?

              • Zibethicus :

                02 Aug 2009 10:41:20am

                "Nah, ol' boy, you threatned me with legal action."

                I challenge you to prove that claim.

              • Adz Inc. :

                04 Aug 2009 11:26:00am

                Groucho and you are the ones making the false claims, big fella.

                You prove that I threatened you with legal action. You know it was quite the reverse, that's why you won't.

                Your limited credibility has just taken another monster hit.

              • Groucho :

                31 Jul 2009 10:05:42pm

                Master Adz,
                A very interesting(yawn) post you make.
                No relevance to anything now or before , but interesting (yawn-politely,patronising comment).

                How about a straight answer.

                You have accused directly,(and indirectly) anyone who agrees with the conclusions of the IPCC panel on climate change of being complicit in a Death Cult, should they question population sustainability.

                I can play your silly word games forever if that's your behest, but try cracking your mould and venturing an honest answer,for once.(On the grave of Michael Jackson - perhaps---if that's what it takes)

              • Ootz :

                31 Jul 2009 10:19:20pm

                G day Adz,
                They did say you always come in late for, what was it, easy pickings?
                Some questions if you dont mind.

                I tend to agree with you here "utilising the hysteria to launch an attack on the economic, democratic and social paradigm, and fundamentally the principle of liberal freedom."
                Does "Be alert but not alarmed" "War on Terror" and "WMD" ring a bell?

                Further, how does the following statement of yours fit with the previous one above "History has a habit of never smiling on fatalists, indeed it almost, without exception, shows them to be sadistic fools."?

                Finally Re Ehrlich, I ask you, have you ever plowed a field, planted a spud or grown a crop, milked a cow or harvested a grain of corn. And I mean you personally, not owing shares in a vertically integrated Agri Business?

                I suspect not, otherwise you would realise it was not a 'Green' rather than like a 'Black' as in fossil fuel revolution. If ever, god forbid, we have to pull the plug and close the tap on that one for reasons under current debate, then ironically or more so tragically Ehrlichs predictions may still hold true and some people may have to go on a diet of humble pie.

                Sorry got to go and clean the chooks out to make some more compost.

                Cheers Ootz

              • John :

                01 Aug 2009 6:54:49am

                Sorry, Ootz, but you're dead wrong on this one.
                The "revolution" was green all right. Norman Borlaug developed wheat, and later rice, to produce many multiples of the previous crop levels, and has been personally responsible for feeding thousands of millions of people all over the world, and has saved millions of lives in the process. He won the Nobel prize for his work, and is almost certainly the greatest benefactor the world has ever seen.
                Fossil fuels had nothing to do with it.

              • Ootz :

                02 Aug 2009 2:03:21am

                Back from the chooks again, where were we.

                'Dead wrong' you recon - these are strong words.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security#Risks_to_food_security


                http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4400e/x4400e10.htm#TopOfPage

                http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/ai481e/ai481e03.htm

                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/2008/costoffood/default.stm

                I like the game of chess, do you? It taught me an important lesson.
                One should never make an important decision based on emotions or feelings before one has really thought about it, weight up all the different pros an cons of relevant propositions and has done some extensive research in the consequences thereof.

                "John : 29 Jul 2009 11:29:41am
                ... As to your queries, I can only comment from the point of view of one sceptic - me - and I can let you know my feelings:"

                I know it is hard, I fail often too. But we cant fail on this AGW question until we really KNOW and fully understand it is not so and not let our personal feelings get in the way.

                Have a good day
                Ootz

              • John :

                02 Aug 2009 12:33:18pm

                Ootz, you're indulging in diversionary tactics.
                First, the "green" revolution had nothing to do with fossil fuels. If you read Borlaug's work you will see that the agricultural revolution he started was implemented by what he called the "chip and turn" process. This was the laborious hand cultivation of the ground by hoes and trowels. No powered facilities were available. His rice strains were cultivated by the old fashioned method of hand planting in the paddy fields. No fossil fuel used there either. The explosive increase in agricultural production in some countries, such as India or Pakistan, is because Borlaug's principles have been augmented by agricultural machinery, but that does not bear upon the main principle.
                Second, the sites you quote refer to the possibility of food shortages and have no bearing on the "green" revolution.
                Third, the FAO has recently published a report showing that there is a huge land area available for food cultivation, watered by natural rainfall, that could feed the populations of sub-Saharan and South American countries with abundance.
                Fourth, because of the work of Borlaug, nations such as Mexico, which at the turn of the century imported the majority of their foodstuffs, are now nett food exporters. The world's food supply is increasing.
                Personal feelings are fine until they are manipulated by the AGW zealots to attain an end by guilt blackmail - The Arctic is melting, the polar bears are drowning AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT say Gore and his followers.
                If we've got this AGW thing wrong - and I think we have - all we are doing is condemning future generations to a lowered standard of living, reduced opportunities and a diminishing world economy for no good reason.

              • Inquisitor666 :

                02 Aug 2009 8:27:22pm

                "Personal feelings are fine ...."
                Boy are you going to cop some flack fella.

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 3:13:13pm

                I did say that it is hard to keep feelings out of it and I struggle too in an emotive issue that has potentially such repercussions for everyone of us one way or another. Ask your self, can YOU do it all the time. John was honest enough to lay his feelings on the line for the debate and I did say I have alot of respect for that. So come on no cheap shots, the seriousness of the debate demands it. If you have something to say stand up and say it.
                As it happens John has a point, why should we trow away an energy resource that has served us well and still has potential to do so in future. I think it is a relevant question that needs debated. It just happend that I played the devils advocate in a bad way and never intended to hurt John in me doig so. I must say Adz comments got under my goat and I lost it abit, but that should in no way reflect on John, rather then on me. So my sincerest apologies to John.

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 5:53:04pm

                Ootz, I've got no idea why you are offering me an apology. I'm grateful for your input, I appreciate that you have thought about what I've offered, and I'm very conscious of the points you've made.
                You've made me think and that's always the very best outcome.
                Please don't stop chipping away at anything I or anyone else says if you disagree or disapprove. That's what freedom of speech means.

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 10:33:57pm

                Thanks John,
                sound advice, might have to hop of the fence for awhile.
                Cheers

              • Plebusphere :

                03 Aug 2009 8:36:32am

                Its a shame they removed the lead content out of fuel all those years ago. People had to fight hard for that to happen and you are we are the beneficiaries. Growth requires cleaner choices to enable more growth. Have you noticed the cancer rates at all.

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 1:20:51pm

                Oh, come on, Plebusphere.
                We've known that lead was toxic for 2,000 years or more. Ask the Romans - or ask Ootz.
                And we didn't fight for lead-free petrol because we had it available for some time. What we fought for was to compel the engine designers and manufacturers to supply us with engines that would perform adequately without the "pinking" problem that lead-free petrol caused.
                And it must be close to eighty or a hundred years since we abolished lead in domestic paint.
                Hardly the same thing as sending a five-year-old home from school saying "Daddy, we mustn't turn on the heater because if we do the baby polar bear will die".

              • Ootz :

                03 Aug 2009 3:35:42pm

                John,
                Yes I agree with you, the Romans made a deliberate bargain with the devil. So did we.

                We are only just waking up to it and by this I mean all of us, including me. We may had an inkling that there is no free lunch in the universe, but hey, why stop while the honey still flows. BTW I think carbon is only an aspect of the bargain and we still happily continue on with the others. I think Reg said it well below:
                "Why did our 'maker' (God or Evolution)creat such an advanced species then expect it to live like a Gorilla?"

                While we may question the sincerity of industries, we should also question our own complicity in going along with it.

                Hope it helps
                Ootz

              • Adz Inc. :

                04 Aug 2009 11:39:05am

                Ootz,

                I have a few simple questions for you:

                Do you think the work of Norman Bourlag and his contemporaries in enabling the green revolution and the exponential increase in agricultural productivity/output and the subsequent production which provided nourishment for a drastically increasing human population to have been a negative achievement?

                Do you think these achievements which averted Ehlrich's vision of a Malthusian catastrophe to be harmful?

                Are you an admirer of Ehlrich's 'work'?

                Why do you consider this monumental achievement to be a 'black revolution' instead of a 'green revolution'? Would you prefer all agricultural labour to be performed by break breaking physical toil instead of efficient and productive machinery?

                I just don't understand how you can consider the achievements of the green revolution to have been negative. I don't get the logic, and I don't understand your penchant for fatalism.

              • Plebusphere :

                03 Aug 2009 8:24:41am

                Mozilla firefox has a USA spell checker.

              • Groucho :

                03 Aug 2009 9:43:00am

                Aaah yes,but you can add an Australian/English dictionary via the add ons.
                The way to go.

  • Early Grayce :

    27 Jul 2009 10:55:08pm

    My single greatest concern with "Global Warming" is if it is undeniably proven to be wrong.
    Does that mean the sceptics with a vested interest in pollution can turn around all of the work in reducing pollution.
    Personally I would rather people and Governments reducing pollution for the sake of our quality of life rather than something else that may yet be proven undeniably wrong.

      • prof :

        28 Jul 2009 11:51:35am

        Early Grayce:

        Most of what you see as pollutions cools the atmosphere not warms it.

        That is why some right wing lunatics have suggested putting pollution in the upper atmosphere to counteract greenhouse warming.

          • Michael :

            28 Jul 2009 1:55:51pm

            Actually, it isn't "right wing lunatics", but your fellow AGW nutters that are suggesting such a crazy thing.

            This includes the eminent kangaroo evolution expert Flannery:
            http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/19/2249568.htm

          • Ootz :

            28 Jul 2009 4:03:14pm

            Sorry guys but I am getting confused here re pollution. I thought Lindzen was a skeptic but one of his references in the Quadrant article says this

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/nature06019.html

            Could someone please enlighten me.

            Much obliged Ootz

  • Groucho :

    27 Jul 2009 9:47:56pm

    NEWS HEADLINES
    (Just In)

    Climate Denier Proud To Be Extremist Nutcase.

    Quote;"Jupiter :
    23 Jul 2009 3:29:14pm
    You are obviously a fellow extremist nutcase."

      • Mr Universe :

        28 Jul 2009 6:27:36am

        Groncho,in regards to your extremist rants,it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

      • Michael :

        28 Jul 2009 9:30:54am

        Groucho, he was clearly referring to "prof" being a fellow "extremist nutcase" with Glickson. Why do you insist on quoting people out of context?

          • Groucho :

            28 Jul 2009 2:53:51pm

            Michael
            Why do insist?
            I guess I love to pursue the truth and highlight injustices.

            Thank me later.

            It's Ok for someone from Denier Central to call a poster a "fellow extremist nutcase",and you claim the ACCUSER is NOT one.
            Coming from Jupiter?
            You're kidding!

            As for Mr Universe,any comments such as you direct at me are confirmation that I am indeed on the side of good and right.
            Thanks for your endorsement.

              • Mr Universe :

                28 Jul 2009 3:45:12pm

                On the side of good & right?.Shouldn't it be truth,justice & the American way superman, errr I mean superdud.Why don't you use your powers of goodness to to stop human climate change superdud.Because this is an imagery crisis,you can use your imagery powers.Ranting does not make you an expert.Facts please.Oh,I forgot,you've got nothing.

              • wave function :

                28 Jul 2009 8:01:28pm

                Mr universe, what is an "imagery crisis" and "imagery powers"? Is this the technology used by sceptics to blind themselves to scientific 'images' clearly explaining climate change?

              • Michael :

                28 Jul 2009 5:32:19pm

                So you knowingly quote people out of context to "pursue the truth and highlight injustices"?

                Anyone else see the contradiction?

              • Ootz :

                28 Jul 2009 9:37:08pm

                No.

                Mmmh, maybe if Groucho is intoxicated as in 'In vino veritas'(Naturalis Historia (XIV, 141) But then again the old Pliny maybe had another truth in mind.

              • Blzbob :

                29 Jul 2009 6:44:58pm

                I thought Groucho was just reading between the lines.
                Often the truth is not in what people say but in what they have carefully neglected to say, especially when it comes to Climate change deniers.

              • Groucho :

                03 Aug 2009 9:43:45am

                Bob,
                or put another way..

                "Climate change sceptics manipulate media opportunities and hunt for loopholes in recognised science to make their case."

  • Greig :

    27 Jul 2009 8:07:10pm

    Andrew Gliksen,

    In high school I learned that correlation does not mean causation. From the above article, I can only deduce you must have been wagging when that subject was taught.

    Also, your figure 9 purports to show intensification of the tropospheric hot spot from 1959-2005 to 1979-2005. Look carefully at the graph, and note that it proves the exact opposite.

    If I was marking this essay as a year 11 physics or chemistry teacher I would give it a B-.



      • Zibethicus :

        28 Jul 2009 8:12:32am

        "If I was marking this essay as a year 11 physics or chemistry teacher I would give it a B-."

        Yeah, but you're the self-proclaimed 'energy expert' who said that nobody had ever died in reactor accidents in 'the West', who concealed from the /Unleashed/ audience the fact that the Obama administration has announced that the Yucca Mountain 'waste depository' will not proceed to open, who claimed that a statement made by a high official of the IAEA prior to the Chernobyl disaster that "[t]he safety of nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union is assured by a very wide spectrum of measures" is somehow 'technically valid' today...

        ...if you /were/ a high school physics or chemistry teacher (shuddering appreciatively), I'd be more worried if you gave this work a B- than if you gave it a fail. But what would /really worry me/ was the plain fact that /you/ were /teaching at all/...

          • Greig :

            28 Jul 2009 9:37:37pm

            Zibethicus thinks he is proving a point by posting news articles from slanted sources, as if they are fact. Zibethicus is very stupid.

            "who said that nobody had ever died in reactor accidents in 'the West'"

            Actually I correctly this to state the fact that nobody has ever died in a Western civil nuclear power reactor. Yet Zibethicus believes nuclear reactors are FAR more dangerous than automobiles which kill 1000s of people every year. This is because Zibethicus is very stupid and cannot make a simple quantification to assist in understanding relative risk.

            "...who concealed from the /Unleashed/ audience the fact that the Obama administration has announced that the Yucca Mountain 'waste depository' will not proceed to open"

            Zibethicus is a liar, since I "concealed" nothing of the sort. Obama's actions are not going to prevent Yucca Mtn from opening, and I predict confidently that after Obama has had his little inquiry into the future of nuclear power in the US, he will mandate the opening of the repository. Zibethicus is very stupid for failing to underatnd the simple machinations of populist politics.

            "...who claimed that a statement made by a high official of the IAEA prior to the Chernobyl disaster that "[t]he safety of nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union is assured by a very wide spectrum of measures" is somehow 'technically valid' today..."

            Zibethicus thinks that the use of a single word "assured", gleaned for an ancient IAEA report, proves categorically that nuclear power is unacceptably dangerous.

            Zibethicus is very, very stupid.

              • Zibethicus :

                29 Jul 2009 12:23:18pm

                Zibethicus thinks he is proving a point by posting news articles from slanted sources, as if they are fact. Zibethicus is very stupid."

                My, my! Aren't we in a /temper/ today! Stamping our little feet, an' all...

                Nevertheless, I'm used to the tantrums of two-year-olds. I'll play. From the top then:

                So I'm "posting news articles from slanted sources, as if they are fact", am I?

                Which source of mine are "slanted", then, and in which direction? I want something specific, not just vapid ideological foamings. Pony up with some specifics, if you've got 'em...

                ...this oughta be good...remember the time you claimed /Scientific American/ was a newspaper?

                "Actually I correctly this to state the fact that nobody has ever died in a Western civil nuclear power reactor."

                If by "correctly" you mean "corrected", then you have made a factual statement for a rare wonder. Once /I/ had pointed out that you were in error in one of the most basic matters in your own self-proclaimed 'area of expertise', you then fell over yourself to qualify your statement.

                Here is my original post in full:

                http://abc.com.au/unleashed/stories/s2484303.htm

                Zibethicus :

                16 Feb 2009 11:29:54pm

                "In other words, the technical safety of nuclear power has already been proven categorically by examination of the history. No deaths in any western designed and run reactors … that is an extraordinary record."

                It would be if it were correct. Three dead operators of SL-1 say you're wrong; especially the guy they didn't find for three days 'cos he was pinned to the ceiling by the control rod which went through him.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

                Truly an "extraordinary record". Extraordinarily /wrong/.

                "And with "constant vigilance" of all factors, this record will be maintained."

                Can we take your comments on fatalities above as generally indicative of the reliability of your expert 'assurances', Grieg?

                (end quotes)

              • Zibethicus :

                29 Jul 2009 12:47:57pm

                "Zibethicus is a liar, since I "concealed" nothing of the sort. Obama's actions are not going to prevent Yucca Mtn from opening,"

                If you ""concealed" nothing", then why was it necessary for /me/ to point out the Obama administration's declaration that Yucca Mtn would not proceed, months after that announcement had been made and while you were still claiming the contrary?

                I challenge you to produce a post of yours from /Unleashed/ which contains that information and which predates my own. For once, let's see you /prove/ one of your claims...otherwise, I expect an apology from you...as if...

                *

                "Zibethicus thinks that the use of a single word "assured", gleaned for an ancient IAEA report, proves categorically that nuclear power is unacceptably dangerous."

                Greig thinks that by attacking me he can exculpate himself. Not so.

                /Greig/ is full of claims of the 'safety' of nuclear power. Here is what he /claims/ was said:

                http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2484303.htm

                Greig :

                15 Feb 2009 11:00:17am

                β€œIn 1983 the head of the IAEA's safety division […] says that the reactors in the Soviet Union are 'assuredly safe'.”

                No, Semenov didn’t say that. Nobody with his qualifications would make such an asinine statement.

                (end quote)

                And here, ONCE AGAIN, is PRECISELY what B. A. Semenov, the head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Energy at the IAEA at the time, DID say in the IAEA bulletin /three years prior to the Chernobyl disaster/:

                http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull252/25204744759.pdf

                Nuclear power in the Soviet Union
                by B.A. Semenov

                (snip)

                The safety of nuclear power plants in the Soviet
                Union is assured by a very wide spectrum of measures

                (end quote)

                As anyone can see, unable to explain this statement away, Greig resorted to falsely denying its existence. After pursuing him for weeks over the issue, Greig refused repeatedly to explain what the statement was supposed to mean other than what it clearly /does/ mean, which is that the most senior officials in the most significant nuclear engineering body world-around are completely incorrect in their analysis of the risks of commercial nuclear power generation.

                And Greig, the 'energy expert', just tries to pretend that the statement was never even /made/...and /he/ calls /me/ a liar...

                *

                "Zibethicus is very, very stupid."

                Greig is very, very angry. And very, very aggressive. But that doesn't make him very, very /right/...and he certainly isn't very, very /honest/...


              • John :

                31 Jul 2009 2:41:10pm

                Greig, I am not fully familiar with the Chernobyl incident, and I have been trying to track down a report that stated that the accident occurred because a non-scientific Communist Party official instructed that all the safety controls and fail-safe mechanisms should be turned off, as an experiment.
                Do you have anything on this, please?

              • Greig :

                31 Jul 2009 10:05:00pm

                John,

                I am unaware of a report that laid blame on anyone outside of the reactor maintenance crew and chief engineer. They were conducting a experiment, yes, but the ordering of the experiment was not the cause of the accident, as such experiments are reasonably common. The cause as outlined in the IAEA INSAG report (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf) lays the blame on the combined effects of:

                - A plant which fell well short of the safety standards in effect when it was designed, and even incorporated unsafe features;
                β€” Inadequate safety analysis;
                β€” Insufficient attention to independent safety review;
                β€” Operating procedures not founded satisfactorily in safety analysis;
                β€” Inadequate and ineffective exchange of important safety information both between operators and between operators and designers;
                β€” Inadequate understanding by operators of the safety aspects of their plant;
                β€” Insufficient respect on the part of the operators for the formal requirements of operational and test procedures;
                - An insufficiently effective regulatory regime that was unable to counter
                pressures for production;
                - A general lack of safety culture in nuclear matters, at the national level as well as locally.

              • John :

                02 Aug 2009 6:47:31am

                Thank you Greig.
                I'll check that web address and read it up.

              • Groucho :

                02 Aug 2009 12:36:07pm

                "John :

                02 Aug 2009 6:47:31am

                Thank you Greig.
                I'll check that web address and read it up."

                cont.."after which, if bits of what I read support my weak position in any way, I will post the edited version.
                (I may enlist the help of my imaginary friend Stuart also,it beefs up the numbers)"
                Unquote.

                By the way apparently according to John carp are a MARINE species.

                (Please don't dummy spit about this statement John.YOU used fish farming in FRESH water to justify your false claim that pumping Co2 into the OCEAN would dissipate it without causing environmental harm.)


              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 1:59:00pm

                You are a shameless liar.
                I said no such thing.

              • John :

                03 Aug 2009 4:05:55pm

                "imaginary friend"
                Absolute lie No 1;
                "according to John carp are a MARINE species".
                Absolute Lie No 2;
                "YOU used fish farming"
                Absolute Lie No 3;
                "claim that pumping Co2 into the OCEAN"
                Absolute Lie No 4;
                "would dissipate it without causing environmental harm".
                Absolute Lie No 5.
                Five in one short post.
                Even by Groucho/Mulga Mumblebrain's Gold Medal standard of dishonesty, that's a big achievement.


              • Groucho :

                31 Jul 2009 10:08:45pm

                John.
                Greig may not,but I am sure you can work as a team and come up with something made of words to fit the bill.

                Failing that..........

                Email the IPA, I am sure they can flick you a statement to fill the gap.

              • Zibethicus :

                31 Jul 2009 11:33:11pm

                "Failing that..........

                Email the IPA, I am sure they can flick you a statement to fill the gap."

                Even better still: just make up some crud or other to suit the purpose at hand, claim it was published in /Time Magazine/, and then refuse for months to provide quotations, references or even issue or page number to back up that claim.

                It 'worked' before, didn't it, Honest John?

              • Plebusphere :

                02 Aug 2009 3:13:04am

                There was a documentary on channel 7 about 3 years ago 'Zero Hour' Disaster at Chernobyl.

                The accident at chernolbyl occurred during a safety testing prompted by fears of future scenario event of enemy attack during a future war. "How safe were the reactors"

                The chief engineering during the testing to save time and cooling water modified the procedure conducting a portion of the test at a lower reactor power output then the test required. Apparently the reactor had a fatal flaw of instability at this low operation range. A sequence of events that followed led to the catastrophe.

                This should be available on DVD a U.K program perhaps BBC not sure?

              • John :

                02 Aug 2009 12:36:02pm

                Thank you Plebusphere, that's good advice. I'll try to find the BBC programme.

              • Zibethicus :

                03 Aug 2009 8:00:56am

                Isn't it interesting how this 'revisionist' discussion has conveniently veered away from the original fact at hand; that Greig, famous scientist, ethicist and logician, falsely claimed in an /Unleashed/ post date 15 Feb 2009 that B. A. Semenov had /not/ stated prior to Chernobyl that "[t]he safety of nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union is assured by a very wide spectrum of measures"?

                Now I wonder why /that/ would be?

                Surely such a distinguished 'scientist' as Greig welcomes open discussion of his own prior claim that "[n]o, Semenov didn't say that. Nobody with his qualifications would make such an asinine statement."?

                After all, we /are/ involved in a 'scientific' search for the truth, here, aren't we? It's not like any of us have anything to hide, is it?

              • Greig :

                03 Aug 2009 5:55:15pm

                Hello Ratty

                Thanks again for another few line of off-topic lies intent only at discredit, and not vaguely to do with this debate. I love it when you do that, it illustrates to everyone how utterly out of your depth you are on this topic.

                And by way of response, I have never denied Semenov's statement, you have deliberately quoted me out of context. Your attempt at deception is clearly deliberate. This makes you a liar. How does it feel to have your dishonesty exposed? How do you sleep at night?

              • Zibethicus :

                05 Aug 2009 12:04:04am

                "I have never denied Semenov's statement, you have deliberately quoted me out of context."

                Greig :

                15 Feb 2009 11:00:17am

                No, Semenov didn't say that. Nobody with his qualifications would make such an asinine statement.

                (end quote)

              • Greig :

                05 Aug 2009 1:04:36pm

                Zibethicus. You are quoting me out of context. Deliberately. That makes you a liar. How does it feel to be exposed for what you are?

          • Greig :

            28 Jul 2009 9:48:44pm

            "But what would /really worry me/ was the plain fact that /you/ were /teaching at all/..."

            I have a tertiary degree in a scientific discipline from Sydney University.

            What are your qualifications Ratty?

            C'mon, share with us. Tell us what gives you the right to call people "Deniosaurs" and presume to know so much about climate science.

              • Groucho :

                29 Jul 2009 9:22:12am

                Greig,
                Whoa-you got some paper!
                Big deal,most people can spot a phoney, a liar or a thief.
                Most people without paper that is.
                While you were kicking back at uni,ogling the locals,we got on with it.
                University of life etc.
                Stop condescending.You don't get to make the rules.You don't get to say unqualified people wait outside.

                The trouble with the denier camp is you think you get to say,who says what and what science counts. A mere hint of that in return and you sook.
                The big problem for you is all the REAL science is pointing in one direction,and that p*sses you all off.Never mind there is another conspiracy just around the corner made for you guys.Just be patient,and keep your eyes on Nidor and his multi-id's.

              • Greig :

                29 Jul 2009 4:30:12pm

                Groucho,

                Yes a I got some paper which required 4 years of hard slog, far from sitting around looking at "the locals".

                Now, do you not realise that by saying I am in denialist camp, it is you who is being condescending?

                If you are not qualified as a scientist, then you don't have the training (as I do) to read and understand the peer reviewed literature. You do not have the knowledge (as I do) to deem someone like me to be denying the science, or that sceptics like Plimer and Kinninmonth to be wrong and AGW advocates like Flannery and Asten to be right.

              • Zibethicus :

                29 Jul 2009 1:22:24pm

                ...continued from above, re. falsification of abstract of Spanish cancer study...

                In other words, Greig old son, you misquoted the abstract by omitting the opening words of that sentence in order to attempt to make it read in the opposite sense to that intended.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

                The U.S. National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.[16][17] Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

                (end quote)

                That's "omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record".

                Tell us, Greig - did you accurately represent the abstract of the Spanish study?

                You went awful quiet the last time I brought this up, didn't you?

                Perhaps that's because you know - given your "tertiary degree in a scientific discipline from Sydney University" - that if you'd been caught doing this in an academic context in the Good Old Days you'd've been up before the Head of School in the Great Quadrangle. The graduate students would be arranged in ranks to witness the amputation of your brown knitted tie, the tearing-off of your lab coat, and finally the shame of the Head of School breaking your slide rule over /his/ knee and dashing the pieces in your face...

                *

                "What are your qualifications Ratty?

                C'mon, share with us. Tell us what gives you the right to call people "Deniosaurs" and presume to know so much about climate science."

                In your case, your own track record, as reiterated above, gives me that right.

                I have never claimed any science qualifications. You, on the other hand, claim such qualifications while failing repeatedly in matters which ought to be general knowledge, not even matters of your self-proclaimed 'expertise'.

                I do have qualifications in other matters, including bush regeneration and permaculture and media studies. They are not directly relevant to this issue, and I have never claimed they are or mentioned them before this silly challenge of yours, but I have seen perceptible changes in my microclimate in the last decade. They were one of the factors in my decision to inform myself about the science of this matter.

                My media qualifications perhaps give me a little special insight into the wretched and paltry tricks you Deniosaurs and Isotopians play to attempt to bolster your supposedly iron-clad cases. I check your claims, and post my results. It's not ultimately my fault that your case

              • Greig :

                29 Jul 2009 4:19:16pm

                So Ratty has no scientific qualifications, and yet he lectures to people with far more knowledge of science, that they are denialists. Ratty denies the right to express a scepticism that is inherent in the philosophy of science.

                What a hypocritical idiot.

              • Zibethicus :

                30 Jul 2009 7:25:36pm

                "Ratty denies the right to express a scepticism that is inherent in the philosophy of science."

                You don't mean your falsification of the abstract of the Spanish cancer study by misquoting a key sentence to make it read the opposite of the clear intention of the authors, by any chance?

                That isn't "scepticism" inherent or otherwise. It is scientific misconduct, pure and simple - besides an implicit confession that your case cannot be defended by more ethical methods.

              • Groucho :

                30 Jul 2009 9:31:01pm

                Greig
                "What a hypocritical idiot."

                Very scientific.
                Humour a person unworthy of participation in debate due to lack of paper,and your stringent guidelines,by dumping the bragging rights,and pinpointing exactly WHAT degree you four HARD grinding years gave you,oh wise one.

              • Greig :

                01 Aug 2009 10:19:08am

                "They were one of the factors in my decision to inform myself about the science of this matter."

                But you are not "informed", Ratty, you don't have the basic education to understand the issue, as you have admitted. Rather, it is clear from your copy/pastes and wild ad hominem rantings you have made up your mind based on your political ideological bias, and fitted the facts to your preconceived position.

                And when challenged on this, you instantly drop the topic, and dredge up old posts by your detractor, distort them with fabrications, and then make wild claims about that person's honesty. Such hypocrisy!

                I must have you feeling very insecure, for you to put so much effort into denigrating my character. Keep it up, it amazing watching you prove to everyone how stupid you are. No really, don't stop, post another 300 lines of nonsense about me, I love it!

                And, Ratty, have you even bothered to address the topic of this thread concerning correlation and causation, and the erroneous conclusion in figure 9? Read back through your posts. Have you contributed anything?

                "I do have qualifications in other matters, including bush regeneration and permaculture and media studies."

                ROTFL. Is that what you did as your little contribution for Work for the Dole?

                "I have seen perceptible changes in my microclimate in the last decade. "

                ROTFL. Is that your scientific analysis of the issue of climate change? That's hilarious.

      • Jenny :

        28 Jul 2009 9:25:07am

        it just goes to show you don't always get or understand the whole picture in high school.

        Correlation can substantiate a causal relationship where there are cogent theoretical reasons for a causal relationship. In the case of CO2 and atmospheric temperatures the greenhouse effect has been understood in principle from the nineteenth century and with a great deal more sophistication now. In the case of current climate science there is not merely one correlation but a enormous weight of evidence from satellite data to retreating glaciers pointing in the same direction.

        Correlation definitely does not deny causation.

        If I was marking this as an an exam answer in a first year university research methods course I would give it a bare pass.

          • Greig :

            28 Jul 2009 9:20:10pm

            Jenny,

            Firstly satellite data and retreating glaciers are OBSERVATIONS of warming, not proof that CO2 is causing it. An observation alone is not proof of a theory.

            Nor is an observed correlation between two observations.

            Certainly, correlation can add weight to the veracity of a theory, but it is not proof in itself. The problem is that Andrew Glikson's essay above relies entirely upon correlation to demonstrate that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

            More importantly though, he presents an observation (see figure 9) which he declares is additional proof, but on closer inspection it actually falsifies his claims. Oops. Very sloppy.

            And Jenny, you get an F for

            a) failing to fully understand the topic of correlation and causation in science, and

            b) ignoring figure 9, and so neglecting to answer the entire question.

            There are natural forces that caused warming in the early 1800s and 1900s, that resulted in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warmings and the Little Ice Age. We do not have any quantification of the forces that caused those observed natural changes in climate. Therefore we cannot know the degree to which those same forces are at work in the late 20th Century, and so it is not possible to quantify the amount of warming that CO2 has and will cause.

            There is, as yet, insufficient data to conclude that greenhouse warming is an important issue for humans to address, relative to other issues. The science is not settled.

              • Jenny :

                29 Jul 2009 7:38:25am

                FF for your complete lasck of knowledge of science. The only field of knowledge where there can be proof is in mathematics because it is a self-contained universe. In the physical sciences all we can ever achieve is a hypothesis substantiated by the weight of evidence and not falsified by relevant and credible counterfactual evidence.

                The issues you cite are either irrelevant because they are outside the time frame of the industrial revolution, lack credibility because they depend on cherry picked data or ar not actually counterfactual because they are still consistent with dynamics of climate change.

                I repeat my point. As a general principle the "scientists" who are climate change denialists have little or no track record in peer reviewed climate research. An exemplary example is Ian Plimer. In his review of this book Michael Ashley (he is a professor of Astrophysics rather than a climate scientist so he has no pecunary interest in climate research funding) puts it nicely:

                "Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken."

              • Greig :

                29 Jul 2009 5:07:48pm

                "The issues you cite are either irrelevant because they are outside the time frame of the industrial revolution, lack credibility because they depend on cherry picked data or ar not actually counterfactual because they are still consistent with dynamics of climate change."

                Jenny, that is complete rubbish. Previous observations of natural climate change are entirely relevant to the current debate. The natural climate change associated with the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age were caused by natural changes, not humans. What was the cause? The answer is: we don't know. And so we can't be sure that the same unknown forces are not at work now.

                Now you are correct that there is no such thing as categorical proof in science, of course. But you must acknowledge that the reason why there is little debate amongst climate scientists over AGW, is that there is no alternative hypothesis to GHG warming being considered. Alternative theories exist and have substantial support (see Spencer, Lindzen and Svensmark/Friis-Christensen). Yet the conservative consensus position prevents these hypotheses to pass into the mainstream via the peer review process, which as you well know is not a perfect process devoid of subjectivity and political corruption.

                "As a general principle the "scientists" who are climate change denialists have little or no track record in peer reviewed climate research. An exemplary example is Ian Plimer."

                Plimer's book Heaven and Earth is footnoted with over a thousand references to peer reviewed science. Most of his conclusions are well supported by valid scientific study.

                The same cannot be said for Tim Flannery in "The Weather Makers", or Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" which were replete with unsubstantiated howlers. And yet these publications have not been subject to the same scrutiny in the science community. Why is that?

                Have you read Heaven and Earth? If not, you are in no position to post opinions on it.

              • Zibethicus :

                29 Jul 2009 10:03:38pm

                "Plimer's book Heaven and Earth is footnoted with over a thousand references to peer reviewed science. Most of his conclusions are well supported by valid scientific study."

                Uhh, /riiiiiight/...

                And would your mighty scientific brain care to associate itself with Plimer's citation of a paper which claims that the sun is similar in composition to a meteorite, by any chance, Oh Great One?

              • Jenny :

                30 Jul 2009 7:41:05am

                Thanks for making the same point I would have made. I did skim through Plimer's book in the library. The same line of tedious b******t that I have already heard ad nausium. I have better things to spend my money on than this piece of pulp fiction. I prefer a more credible plot. At least Erich Von Daniken had a lively imagination to my adolescent brain so many years ago.

              • John :

                30 Jul 2009 11:09:01am

                Jenny, all you did was "skim through Plimer's book in the library" and on that basis you dismiss it? Have you simply followed the criticisms other people have made about the book without reading it carefully and submitting it to your own critical analysis?
                This is sadly reminiscent of all the "ad hominem" attacks.
                By the way, the tag is "ad nauseam".

              • Jenny :

                30 Jul 2009 1:36:48pm

                I skim all books before I decide they are worthy of further attention. In this case I have seen and heard it all before. I'm not sure if I would bother if I was paid to review it. Other reviewers with greater scientific expertise describe it as junk science or perhaps more kindly in some places as good geology and lousy climate science. I saw nothing in the text inconsistent with these descriptions. i must say I was completely gobsmacked by his eccentric assertions about the composition of the sun. I have better things to do with my time and money.

                I am not attacking the person. For all I know he is kind to dogs and loves his family. I even tend to agree with his views on religious fundamentalism, but in the case of his interventions in climate science I think they are more connected to his association with the mining industry and sheer cussedness than any commitment to "scientific truth". he is engaged in political rhetoric not science.

                BTW I'm not necessarily impressed with the number of references in a text. It may or may not evidence scholarship but at best only has an elective affinity with incisive argument. Its easy to pad out the citations and bibliography of an average PhD thesis that far if you are not too concerned about the critical scrutiny of your supervisor and the examiners. However, its usually better to stick to stuff that is pertinent and relevant to the question you are setting, and that the sources actually substantiate your argument.

              • John :

                30 Jul 2009 4:46:24pm

                Jenny, that is so sad.

                "I skim all books before I decide they are worthy". How do you know they are worthy or unworthy if you don't read them? Rely on the blurb?

                "Other reviewers with greater scientific expertise describe it as junk science".
                That means that you don't think about it but just accept someone else's opinion.

                "his interventions in climate science I think they are more connected to his association with the mining industry". Have you any evidence that he has twisted or corrupted his research because of his mining associations? Or is this simply a "smear by association" dismissal?

                "I'm not necessarily impressed with the number of references in a text".
                Of course not. It's the value of the citations, not the number that deserves attention.

                I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it, but I can say that I value my own interpretation and analysis of anything I read, and only later do I compare my conclusions with what others say. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I don't. But I always get the information first.

              • Jenny :

                30 Jul 2009 10:05:35pm

                In other words I have more familiarity with the book than you.

              • John :

                31 Jul 2009 5:59:27am

                No you haven't. You have admitted that you skimmed it. That gives you little information and no right to comment on it.

              • Zibethicus :

                31 Jul 2009 11:36:46pm

                "No you haven't. You have admitted that you skimmed it. That gives you little information and no right to comment on it."

                So let's see now; Jenny has read the book and you haven't, but you know more about the book than she does.

                I'd like to present you, in advance of the actual ceremonies at the end of the year, with the most-thoroughly-earned-ever annual Rooney Award for the Most Utterly Absurd Statement Made On Unleashed, in the special one-off category of Logical Pinnacle Of All Time.

                But the problem is that the hand holding the award statuette refuses to penetrate the Looking-Glass so that it can get to where you're at...

              • Zibethicus :

                30 Jul 2009 7:36:29pm

                "At least Erich Von Daniken had a lively imagination to my adolescent brain so many years ago."

                Actually, the /real/ irony is that as none of Von Daniken's rather vertiginous works contain a claim that the sun is similar in composition to a meteorite - as Prof Plimer's work does and no Deniosaur has yet ventured to deny, instead opting for a desperate attempt to ignore the fact- his works are, to that extent, more scientifically correct and consequently more 'scientific' than Prof Plimer's contribution to this debate.

                I would say that, judging by the reviews I've read, /Heaven and Earth/ bears more resemblance to the collected works of the so-called 'Doctor Tuesday Lobsang Rampa', the one-time plumbers' assistant from Plympton in England who claimed that he was actually Rampa, a Tibetan Buddhist monk who had 'transmigrated' into the body of the Englishman when his own body was damaged beyond repair in wartime.

                The 'operation' was performed by Tibetan medical lamas on the 'Astral Plane'. It apparently involved the connection of the 'Silver Cord' extending from the 'astral body' of Rampa to the 'physical body' of the Englishman, who had grown disgruntled with life and was granted an early mark to Nirvana as a result of his agreeing to facilitate Rampa's 'mission' of bringing 'enlightenment' to 'the West' in this way.

                When challenged by a sceptical publisher who produced a native speaker of Tibetan, who spoke a few words in Tibetan which 'Rampa' freely admitted he was unable to translate, 'Rampa' explained that when he was taken prisoner by the Japanese in China in WW2, he was obliged to 'telepathically' delete all knowledge of Tibetan from his mind in order to avoid revealing Tibetan state secrets under torture.

                'Dr Rampa' wrote about fifteen books on this and other 'New Age' themes. Like Prof Plimer's book, they became best-sellers, and like his work, they are not always classified under 'fiction'.

                The primary difference between the output of Prof Plimer and 'Dr Rampa' is that 'Rampa's' works are often extremely entertaining in their ramshackle way...

              • Jenny :

                31 Jul 2009 7:29:47am

                Guilty again! Oh my misspent youth!!! At least I was not tempted by some of the surgical procedures described. I also plead guilty to reading Carlos Casteneda.

              • Zibethicus :

                31 Jul 2009 11:40:33pm

                "Guilty again! Oh my misspent youth!!! At least I was not tempted by some of the surgical procedures described. I also plead guilty to reading Carlos Casteneda."

                Ah, well...(shrugs)...at least the works of Castenada, 'Rampa' and even Von Daniken (at a pinch) can be read for amusement provided one keeps tongue firmly in cheek.

                To that extent they are profitable to read, as they are entertaining, and at least they do no real harm.

                If only one could say these things about the pernicious ravings of the Deniosaurs...

              • Greig :

                31 Jul 2009 10:41:07pm

                Zibethicus, you have taken one comment by Plimer about the Sun's composition (which BTW is based on 4 peer-reviewed references), and you have used that to demonise Plimer's entire work, even illustrating this with a idiotic parallel to Dr Rampa.

                "his [Von Daniken's] works are, to that extent, more scientifically correct and consequently more 'scientific' than Prof Plimer's contribution to this debate."

                How the hell would you know, Ratty? You have admitted you don't have any scientific qualifications, so you don't have the base knowledge to make this claim. And I am willing to bet you haven't read Plimer's book. So how on earth do you arrive at your conclusion?

                Is this the level of diligence you apply to every issue you express an opinion on?



              • Zibethicus :

                31 Jul 2009 11:42:47pm

                "Zibethicus, you have taken one comment by Plimer about the Sun's composition (which BTW is based on 4 peer-reviewed references), and you have used that to demonise Plimer's entire work, even illustrating this with a idiotic parallel to Dr Rampa."

                OK, Greig - we'll sort this one out /right now/...

                Is the sun similar in composition to a meteorite, or is it not?

                Get your Great Scientific Brain working on /that/ one, son...and I'd appreciate a straightforward, honest, plain and unequivocal yes-or-no answer, if you are still capable of delivering such a missive to the world...

              • Greig :

                01 Aug 2009 8:19:11pm

                Z,

                It is generally accepted that the Sun comprises of approximately 98% H and He. The other 2% comprises of heavier elements, as you would find in meteorites - oxygen, iron, magnesium, calcium, sulpher, nickel, strontium, etc.

                Plimer's use of language in H+E in describing his view is ambiguous. Does he mean:

                1. The Sun comprises of the same elements as meteorites, in the same form and relative amounts.

                2. The Sun comprises of the same elements that you find in meteorites, but NOT in the same form and relative amounts.

                On referencing H+E p166, and scanning his four references, it is clear he means the latter.

                Of course, Ratface, you wouldn't spot the ambiguity and immediately assume that he means the former, because you are determined to find fault in Plimer because you have already arrogantly determined that he is wrong, even though he has vastly more knowledge and qualifications in science than you.

                What is more, you want to argue a single point, with the intent of once proving Plimer wrong on that one point, in order to conclude that he is therefore wrong about everything. Of course, anyone with half a brain would know that such a conclusion does not follow logically.

                But logic, quantification, science and understanding the colours of the English language are not your strong suits, are they Ratty?

              • Groucho :

                02 Aug 2009 1:05:46am

                "Of course, anyone with half a brain would know "

                Greig now we have a measure of you mind can we have some feedback on exactly which degree your four year hard slog gave you please?

                You continually bag Zib for his "lack of", so put up.

                I guess you could just continue to ignore me, and I could just keep hassling you-but that would then indicate you have something to fear or be embarrassed about.
                Now that COULD be the case- (because you have a degree in glockenspiel tuning) but I sense a little more than that.
                Care to divulge your forte Dr/Professor ?

                And on the subject of debate you said," It is generally accepted..."

                Would you extend the same principle to accepting therefore that with AGW "It is generally by science."

                Or does YOUR science selective principles?
                If it does, it explains why deniers are the laughing stock of the scientific,political and real world.

                And on skimming through books, just as judging smut by its outside covers is achievable,I think it entirely plausible (given the crap Plimer spews forth)that his books could be deemed as being scientific porn with a quick drive-by with the eyeballs.
                If you are saying YOU have always read every word of every article or book before passing any level of judgement,methinks you be dreaming.

                In the end I guess some of us have more highly developed brains than others.
                But then anyone with half a brain would already know that.

              • Zibethicus :

                03 Aug 2009 6:13:18pm

                "you are determined to find fault in Plimer because you have already arrogantly determined that he is wrong, even though he has vastly more knowledge and qualifications in science than you."

                http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

                RAPID ROUNDUP: New book by Ian Plimer doubts human-Heaven and Earth by Professor Ian Plimerinduced climate change – experts respond

                In his latest book, "Heaven and Earth. Global warming: the missing science", Professor Ian Plimer from the University of Adelaide questions the science of human-induced climate change. Here a range of Australian scientists respond to the book.

                Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.

                Professor Colin Woodroffe is a coastal geomorphologist at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, and a lead author on the IPCC AR4 chapter on coastal systems.

                It is an impressive treatise; it meets the first criterion of good scholarship in that it is based on a very broad and up-to-date range of scientific papers, referring to almost a couple of thousand references in the extensive footnotes. Whereas assertions in the text are supported by references, the source of data in the diagrams is frequently not cited. But the next criterion for good science is peer review (the process whereby scientific writing is critiqued by acknowledged experts in the field who scrutinise it for its integrity and veracity before publication), and the content of this book has not been independently reviewed and remains the view of Plimer himself, however omniscient a polymath he is. As a consequence, Plimer’s book has many errors in it.

                Professor Matthew England is an ARC Federation Fellow, and Joint Director of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre.

                Ian Plimer’s affectionate recollections of past warm and fertile times are dangerous. We can go on and warm the planet to levels of those past eras, but there will be profound payback, via sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change that is of an unprecedented scale since civilisation began.

                Dr Graeme Pearman is Honorary Senior Research Fellow at Monash University in Melbourne and Director of Graeme Pearman Consulting Pty Ltd.

                Perhaps an even more disappointing aspect of the book is the use of misleading argument in which literature appears to be selected to support a position, rather than to expose the uncertainties. I find this particularly disturbing with the Figures, where it is often unclear as to the source of the information, the averaging periods in time and geographically, and the errors in the data presented.

                Ian Lowe is Emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University,Qld and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

                I have also twice debated climate change in public with Ian Plimer. His position is a

              • Zibethicus :

                04 Aug 2009 7:59:48am

                (continued from above)

                I have also twice debated climate change in public with Ian Plimer. His position is a combination of sound geological knowledge which is irrelevant to the debate about climate change, and a wilful misunderstanding of recent climate science.

                His book will be applauded by those who are desperate to find some pseudo-scientific justification for their unthinking rejection of the reality of climate change, but it is not a serious contribution to the debate. The harsh reality is that the probability of dangerous human interference to the Earth's climate system is now alarmingly high and the survival of civilisation demands urgent concerted action.

                (end quotes)

                Anyone checking the website of the Australian Science Media Centre will find a range of other comments which I have not troubled myself to quote.

                These comments have been made by a coastal geomorphologist, a physical oceanographer and a marine biologist, among other people.

                According to Greig's cookie-cutter view of what he calls 'science', the test of truth is whether the speaker has "vastly more knowledge and qualifications in science than you."

                Since all those scientists above assert that the book of Plimer - a professor of mining geology without discernible climate science qualifications - contains "many errors", we must conclude by Greig's own comic-opera standard of assessing 'science' that they are perforce correct and Plimer is not.

                Furthermore, from Greig's own standards we must further necessarily conclude that, in arbitrarily dismissing these and other criticisms without the slightest reference to science or anything other than his own opinions, he is either a coastal geomorphologist AND a physical oceanographer AND a marine biologist - or else he is a hypocrite with less than no credibility, as he clearly doesn't even adhere to his own wonky 'standards' of proof.

                I'm taking bets, if anyone cares to put a little something down on this...

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 1:46:43pm

                Zibethicus,

                I completely agree with the views expressed by Colin Woodroffe and Graeme Pearman - as I have already said, the book has faults, and Colin and Graeme describe them well. But simply because it contains errors, does not mean it is entirely wrong.

                Matthew England also makes a good point, the issue of net negative impact of a changing climate is an important question which Plimer does not address. Nor does Matthew conclude on the subject, so he is guilty of his own critique. The fact is, this is an issue that is yet to be quantified well in the scientific literature.

                I disagree vehemently with Ian Lowe. His view that Plimer has a "wilful misunderstanding of recent climate science." is in my opinion not correct, and is not supported in his critique. It is a personal opinion. So too is Lowe's assertion that "the probability of dangerous human interference to the Earth's climate system is now alarmingly high and the survival of civilisation demands urgent concerted action." It should be noted that Ian Lowe's involvement with the ACF makes him less than impartial on this subject.

                Ratty, you continue to try to prove that Plimer is entirely and fundamentally wrong on climate change, because his book is not perfect and contains some errors. This is of course a ridiculous argument.

                If you want to make a point, pick a conclusion that Plimer draws, and debate it. The fact is, you can't because you have never read H+E. And yet you hold a strong opinion on it. You are a fool.

              • Zibethicus :

                05 Aug 2009 12:07:23am

                "If you want to make a point, pick a conclusion that Plimer draws, and debate it. The fact is, you can't because you have never read H+E. And yet you hold a strong opinion on it. You are a fool."

                Why should I 'debate' with you?

                You call me a liar, a fool and much, much worse that even those. Unlike you, I have PROVEN YOU TO BE A LIAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN, as well as a scientific fraud who falsified the abstract of the Spanish cancer study.

                A detected scientific fraud has NO scientific credibility to offer any such "debate".

                You want to "debate" some more? Fine. Tell /Unleashed/ about why you falsified that study, admitting it clearly for the first time.

                Then we'll continue from there.

              • Greig :

                05 Aug 2009 8:39:31am

                Ratty, thanks for demonstrating that you are not intersted in debating the subject matter, and engaging only in ad hominem attacks. I'm sure everyone knows this is what to expect from you, but it's good that you have now admitted it.

              • Zibethicus :

                05 Aug 2009 5:55:12pm

                "Ratty, thanks for demonstrating that you are not intersted in debating the subject matter,"

                Oh, that's not true at all!

                You call yourself, over and over again, an 'energy expert' and a 'scientist'. I have shown, quite definitively and without your daring to contradict me, that you have committed scientific misconduct in falsifying the abstract of the Spanish cancer research study.

                A 'scientist' who has been caught committing scientific misconduct is rarely given further credence by the scientific community, as the names of Summerlin and Schoen should remind you.

                When you claim, as you have over and over again, some sort of privileged status for your ravings on the basis of your supposed qualifications as a 'scientist', it becomes a matter of significant public interest as to whether you have committed scientific misconduct or not. After all, the matter has great bearing on your /sole/ grounds for making most of your assertions on /Unleashed/, your alleged 'scientific knowledge'.

                If it can be shown, as I have, that you have to resort to fabrication to make your points, then you /have/ no special status of the sort you pretend to.

                Completely contrary to your claims, I am /extremely/ interested in 'debating' the subject of your falsification of the abstract of the Spanish cancer study, an issue highly relevant to this thread, but you attempt to avoid discussing it at every turn.

                (shrugs) ...not my fault...but rest assured; as long as we're both posting here, I'll never let anyone forget about it...

                *

                "and engaging only in ad hominem attacks."

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

                An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

                (end quote)

                So. A working definition of an /ad hominem/ attack.

                Now let's look at some of your own words: "ROTFL. Is that what you did as your little contribution for Work for the Dole?"

                Kindly inform the audience just what this little sally of yours has to do with the science surrounding climate change. That way, you /might/ have a slim chance of looking like something other than one of the grossest and most abject hypocrites to ever disgrace this board.

                Good luck...

              • Greig :

                06 Aug 2009 8:24:41am

                Ratty, thanks for demonstrating that you are not intersted in debating the subject matter.

                Please keep up that rant about how unworthy I am. I love it. It shows everyone here how disinterested you are in discussing the subject, and how threatened you are.

              • Groucho :

                01 Aug 2009 11:03:14am

                Oh very tarty Greig,
                now you need a science degree to read a book,or make a deduction.
                Boy that sure is a totalitarian snobbery you have going there bro'.

              • Plenair Plectrum :

                31 Jul 2009 9:40:45pm

                Crieg I have earth without heaven but with all those references included I estimate it could require 10,000 pages of reading that could take me 10 years to di-sect and understand the publication fully. How is it that you have been able to sift through all that information in so short a time since its release and be so sure... faith.....Zeal...Desperation...?

                Zib don't look into the sun

              • Zibethicus :

                31 Jul 2009 11:43:30pm

                "Zib don't look into the sun"

                According to the Deniosaurs, if I look into the sun for long enough it'll improve my vision...

              • Greig :

                01 Aug 2009 8:32:34pm

                Plenair,

                I actually took me about 3 weeks to thoroughly read H+E. Of course I only checked the references on his more contentious conclusions, that didn't take too long, you can source most of the abstracts online without too much trouble. Most of Plimer's conclusions are not contentious at all, he has a brilliant understanding of geology, paleontology and paleoclimatology which is the focus of the book. I would challenge anyone to fault him on those subjects.

                I also read Ian Enting's critique which I recommend, it is very thorough, to the point of nitpicking. Most of Enting's concerns are over semantics and sourcing of graphs which in my opinion were not important to Plimer's thesis. I tend to agree with the view that H+E is a little sloppy in parts, it seems a bit rushed, it apparently wasn't properly proofed.

              • Plebusphere :

                02 Aug 2009 3:31:47am

                You have me thinking I should purchase a second copy, just in case. I have noticed Dymocks have recently dropped the price to just $33-00.

                It really is a sign of the times that the book has been written the way it has. I suspect it could become a case study. Not of the subject but the complication of litigation and media gone out of control.

              • Greig :

                02 Aug 2009 6:26:57pm

                Dymocks is a rip off. My copy cost $30 from A&R, purchased immediately after release.

              • Groucho :

                02 Aug 2009 12:48:18pm

                Greig,
                (I believe Plimer groupies are known as "Plimates".
                Congrats,was that the mystery ticket you got after four HARD years of slog.)

                Quote;
                ".......it apparently wasn't properly proofed."

                Then I guess that would make it SOMEONE else's fault eh Greig ?
                How convenient.

                Maybe Plimer is not the genius you say.You have just peer reviewed it and said so yourself.That he let it go to print in such a sloppy state says a lot about his judgement,it's plainly flawed. Not the sort of person most people would consider a leader,in any way shape or form.Yet you and a lot of sceptics do.

                "...H+E is a little sloppy in parts, it seems a bit rushed.."

                No wonder people skim through it,he skimmed through when he wrote it.

                ROTFL..TINTU

              • Greig :

                02 Aug 2009 6:45:36pm

                Groucho,

                No book is ever perfect, least of all on a contentious issue. Plimer's is not perfect, but it is an interesting read nevertheless. And it is mostly accurate in supporting it's conclusions. It's strengths far outweigh it's failings, yet these few failings are endlessly touted by climate change advocates of proof that everything that Plimer says is wrong, which is of course ridiculous.

                Compare this to Flannery's "The Weather Makers" which was brimming with unsubstantiated nonsense. And yet he is awarded the honour of Australian of the Year. Or Gore's silly film, which has already been proven in a court of law to be unfit for educational purposes due to its scientific inaccuracy, and in my opinion will, 20 years from now, be presented to students as an illustration of late 20th century propaganda. And Gore won a Nobel prize.

                Welcome to the world of politics and media manipulation. As Richard Lindzen says, " ... the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well."

              • Groucho :

                03 Aug 2009 9:49:12am

                Greig,
                your last quoted paragraph describes the behaviour of CCD perfefectly. Or put another way.

                "Climate change sceptics manipulate media opportunities and hunt for loopholes in recognised science to make their case."

                Now-any chance you could throw some light on exactly what scientific field you are trained in, which gives you the intellectual superiority you repeatedly claim to possess?

              • Zibethicus :

                03 Aug 2009 6:06:10pm

                As Richard Lindzen says, " ... [omit loony rant]."

                AS Richard Lindzen says, the link between smoking and lung cancer is 'weak'.

              • Greig :

                03 Aug 2009 11:09:42pm

                Zibethicus, once more in your zeal to argue by ad hominem, you have failed to properly research, and so not only is your argument scurrilous, it is also a lie.

                From http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Richard_Lindzen

                "A 1991 article in Consumers' Research entitled "Passive Smoking: How Great a Hazard?" is also sometimes used to characterize Richard Lindzen as a tobacco spokesperson or expert. That article says, "Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave society with a resource of some importance diminished. The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies." The article concludes with the statement, "Such has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke." However, Lindzen is not being directly quoted in the article, and the pro-tobacco views in that case are those of the article's authors, not necessarily Lindzen."

              • Zibethicus :

                04 Aug 2009 8:13:02am

                "Zibethicus, once more in your zeal to argue by ad hominem, you have failed to properly research, and so not only is your argument scurrilous, it is also a lie."

                http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772

                Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.

                (end quote)

                How'd you like to withdraw the claim that I'm a "liar" and apologise, Greig?

              • Greig :

                04 Aug 2009 1:26:27pm

                Zibethicus, you are apparently unaware that the statement you have quoted is acually false, is not supported by the facts of the situation, as my link proves. Lindzen has never made a direct public statement about the link between smoking and cancer. You have repeated the fallacy, but that does not make it any more true. Repeating a lie does not necessarily make you a liar, but it has proved that you are an idiot.

              • Groucho :

                29 Jul 2009 9:23:17am

                Wrong,YOUR science is not settled.Catch up,we aint going to wait for stragglers.

              • Jenny :

                29 Jul 2009 10:12:25am

                I never argued the science was settled. However basic conception of AGW is not a mater of significant debate in climate science.

          • John :

            05 Aug 2009 8:51:21am

            You "don't always get or understand the whole picture in high school" seems to be correct.

            It's just as well that you are not marking it.

            "If" is followed by the subjunctive "were", not "was".

  • ilajd :

    27 Jul 2009 5:04:57pm

    For all fans of Richard Lindzen you can read his latest effort in Quadrant online. The title is "Resisting Climate Hysteria". This might be too late for many here who have already assimilated by the GOREB.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

      • Blzbob :

        27 Jul 2009 5:51:31pm

        I read both his opening and his closing sentences, which was enough to indicate the guy doesn't have a clue about the issues involved, I immediately knew that all that would be written in between would be no more than moronic drivel, so I chose to save myself a lot of time and ignore the rest of the article.

          • ilajd :

            27 Jul 2009 6:21:43pm

            It's too late, you've been assimilated!

          • John :

            27 Jul 2009 8:45:24pm

            Come off it, Bob. You're usually better than that.
            A blind refusal to listen to or read the words of someone who you dislike is simply the tired old "ad hominem" attack of the AGW activists - and it strongly suggests that you simply don't want to be informed about anything that might clash with your preconceived ideas.
            Not your usual cool approach.

          • R G Hay :

            27 Jul 2009 10:34:15pm

            Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

            You might see flaws in his argument, but I don't think, given the position he holds, you could assume that he hasn't a clue. He does provide footnotes, unlike many here who cite some article they claim to have read which agrees with their views.

              • Ootz :

                28 Jul 2009 8:15:07am

                Credibility and Quadrant you say?

                Do I really need to remind you?
                http://www.theage.com.au/national/conservative-bible-falls-for-furphy-20090106-7b6m.html

                I am a fence sitter, so if you want to convince me, please provide me with more relevant and reliable sources then Quadrant.

                Thank you Ootz

              • Greig :

                28 Jul 2009 9:40:30pm

                Ootz, you are rejecting ideas based on your pre-conceived view of the quality of Quadrant?

                You have been assimilated. Resistance is futile.

              • Ootz :

                29 Jul 2009 11:56:05pm

                Assimilated to the growing realisation that Quadrant is not a reliable source of information? I can live with that - can Quadrant?

              • Blzbob :

                28 Jul 2009 8:56:48am

                "The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope".
                Of course it is, only a fool could disagree with that, but it shows you the angle that he is going to take with the article.

                "Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence".
                Well I'll be! another pointless statement which is perfectly true, once again skirting around the real issue, and all the stuff in the middle, is no more than a smokescreen.

              • John :

                28 Jul 2009 12:19:17pm

                Not good enough, Bizbob.
                You've just told us that you refused to read "all the stuff in the middle".
                Now you're telling us that "all the stuff in the middle is no more than a smokescreen".
                Care to advise us how you came to know that without reading it?

              • Ootz :

                28 Jul 2009 3:43:21pm

                Ok John and Bizbob,

                I did a bit of critical analysis of 'the middle bit' by random check on one of the claims and reference to it.
                "...a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool..."
                For a start it wasn't a submitted paper rather then a letter to the editor. And I'll paste you the first and last two sentences of the abstract

                "Atmospheric brown clouds are mostly the result of biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption..........
                atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers. "

                The warming and cooling bit was taken totally of context.

                I mean really, the title of the letter as referenced in Lindzens piece in the Quadrant says it all. Again Windschuttle has not crossed his t,s and dotted the i's. What a hypocrite, someone ought to take him on for that. This issue is far to critical to let such hoodlums loose on it.





              • Blzbob :

                28 Jul 2009 7:24:00pm

                John
                I merely "browsed" the bit in the middle to confirm my suspicions, it didn't waste time "reading" it.

              • John :

                29 Jul 2009 11:38:58am

                Oh dear, Bizbob.

                "I merely "browsed" the bit in the middle to confirm my suspicions".

                I have to break it to you gently, Bob, but that is a pretty good definition of a closed mind.

              • Blzbob :

                29 Jul 2009 6:48:58pm

                John
                I did the same thing with the bible.

              • Ootz :

                30 Jul 2009 8:54:34am

                Agnosticism is tiresome, you have to cover all tracks.

                Have another look Bob, Genesis 6 makes for some interesting and surprisingly topical reading. Trouble is people (including Plimer) take it literally. I'd say it is more like a Shakespearean play. What you recon?

              • Groucho :

                01 Aug 2009 11:05:07am

                Ootz,
                the Genesis chapters are where Marvel Comics got most of their ideas.
                Or was it the other way 'round?

      • godzilla :

        28 Jul 2009 8:37:51am

        Has anyone seen any ranging estimates of how much of the oceans water is between zero degrees and 4 degrees C at any one moment. The anomalous expansion of ice water at this range when heated actually contracts before expanding.

  • DocMercury :

    27 Jul 2009 4:27:50pm

    An addendum to the ammonites point.

    If dissolved CO2 in the oceans was a contributing factor to their extinction, and if cold and deep oceans existed with warm shallow seas, and if the behaviour of the descended nautilus is slightly different to that of their extinct ancestors, it may well be that the reason this species out of all other external shelled cephalopod mollusc survived, was their habit of living at great ocean depths and coming to the surface at night to feed.

    I'm not sure how CO2 dissolves in very cold water at extremely high pressure, but I don't think it would dissolve very well due to the pressure.

    Might be wrong, but I would guess that the depth of the ocean is an impediment to dissolved gases, and in high CO2, protective of species which live down there most of the time.

    Another explanation for the mass extinction of the trilobite and the ammonites is an impact scenario about 250 million years ago, but no one knows the facts with certainty better than a guess.

      • Michael :

        27 Jul 2009 9:25:59pm

        "... I don't think it would dissolve very well due to the pressure"

        Wrong. Higher pressures allow MORE CO2 to dissolve, as does lower temperature.

      • godzilla :

        27 Jul 2009 10:25:14pm

        I think i read somewhere that the ocean water molecule cycle from top of the ocean to the bottom has been calculated approximately 200 years at traditional ocean flow rate. Obviously this rate has been slower in the past when the earth was warmer.

  • Plebusphere :

    27 Jul 2009 2:25:56pm

    According to the Climatologist Herman Flohn of the university of Bonn, ' A unipolar Earth could occur after a short transition period [probably on the order of a few decades only]

    Slight changes in the ice have the power to alter winter weather as far away as the Aluetian Islands, on the other side of the world.

    What happens if there is no sea ice? the impact on global circulation of air and sea would be immediate,extensive and completely unpredictable as the planet becomes aberrant asymmetric, with huge and growing icecap in the south and a vanishing chip in the north, even the southern hemisphere will feel climatic change.

    What is more the water wheel in the sea might slow down if there is no longer the huge annual growth of the sea ice to drive it. A large part of the marine biosphere might be starved of nitrogen and phosphorous.

    "The next one hundred years shaping the fate of our living earth" Jonathan Weiner 1990
    CIP 89-28108

  • Nidor :

    27 Jul 2009 1:33:09pm

    "'Scientific' computer simulations predict global warming based on increased greenhouse gas emissions over time. However, without waters contribution taken into account they omit the largest greenhouse gas from their equations. How can such egregious calculation errors be so blatently ignored? This is why man made global warming is 'junk' science."
    Michael J. Myers,analytical chemist,specialises in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing.

      • mr bighed :

        27 Jul 2009 4:53:41pm

        of course Nidor, why didn't all the scientist's see it before. WATER, how could they have overlooked that, man your so clever it makes me wonder how the scientific community gets by just doing their observations without having you to tell them the obvious.

        I dont think you realise the irony of your comment on Junk Science.