I’m not a “denier” – the label is stupid and offensive, and it doesn’t describe me either. I have no conspiracy theory – I simply stated that if we mistrust researchers because of their funding source, then that must equally apply to all researchers with funding sources, not only those we happen to disagree with. Or, alternatively, we could agree that the funding source is completely irrelevant and the only important question is the quality of the science.

You seem to be the one with the conspiracy theory here.

they have since stopped funding them..so paul’s ‘material’ has dried up..

he is obviously one of the few denier-believers left..

so no..he has no scientific/backing/footnotes for what he claims..

he just parrots the bullshit he’s read on those denial-sites..

and as you can see..he has a strong paranoia/conspiracy thread going as well..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

However, it should be noted that this funding process also means that someone who does achieve funding within the system has a very strong incentive to continue to produce research that support the orthodoxy. Failing to support the orthodoxy may impact their funding and their livelihood – these people have families the same as the next person, they need to make a living. I’m not suggesting that those inside the system have bias any more than I am suggesting that those outside the system have bias. I am just suggesting that if you consider one to be biased, you would have to consider the other to be biased for pretty much the same reasons.

As to whether you are, in fact, one of those people who believes that those funded by big corporates are necessarily tainted, but those funded by big money government organisations are not, I don’t know. You could confirm it one way or the other for us.

To AGW-HAHAHAHA you said: “They are hired by big RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS that want to keep on RESEARCHING” so are you saying that researching is a bad thing? This shows that they must have some evidence to back it up, because they have researched it. They are after all a research organisation. Sounds about right doesn’t it?

Perhaps I’m missing what you’re saying. If that is a claim that the method of measuring surface temperatures over the last 50 or 100 years is so imprecise that the margine of error is greater than the ~0.7C temperature rise measured, I have to disagree, perhaps you can supply a link?

I’ve seen that Jaworowski article (and others) sometime ago, read it then, skimmed it this time. Is there some point you think I’ve missed?

I wasn’t impressed with what I’ve seen from Alexander, and if King REALLY claims it’s warmer now than it has been for 60 million years, he’s at odds with the evidence I’ve seen. James Lovell is also an alarmist who has an opinion of a catastrophe way beyond what the science supports (I share this opinion with Gavin Schmidt), too much ideology, as with people on your side of the debate.

“There is not a constant stream of petitions from scientists numbering in the hundreds who SUPPORT the IPCC.”
It’s a case of the silent majority:

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf

I think what you are saying is that at some point the development and carbon per unit curves will cross, such that even though development increases, the carbon per unit is decreasing faster. For this to be true we need to show that the reduction rate of carbon per unit is more than the growth rate. So if we expect to grow at 3% or 4% per annum, we need to show that carbon per unit is dropping 4% or 5% per annum. I’m not sure that it is, although I agree that technology is likely to make that happen.

I am a strong believer that incentives are needed for that technology to come on stream faster. By that I don’t mean government subsidies (otherwise known as picking winners), but setting up the taxation and/or emissions systems such that emitting carbon has a cost. If the system is created in such a way that investors have reasonable certainty then the technology will come. At present it isn’t clear that low carbon technologies will represent a return on investment – there are too many uncertainties.

The devil with all this is in the detail. You need to not create incentives to shift things offshore, you need to recognise individual organisations or people’s personalised emissions rather than using industry averages (why farm using low carbon methods if you don’t actually get rewarded for it), you need to clearly spell out what the path of the taxes or emissions permits will be such that the private sector has reasonable certainty.

We also need to recognise that many of these technologies exist, but not yet at an economic cost. Why buy solar cells today when the ones next year will be so much better. It isn’t necessarily that people don’t want them, it is just that the innovation is so fast that there is no uptake. Conversely, the lack of uptake creates the perception that there is no market, and starves us of the investment needed to keep the innovation going.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/540061/beware-the-politician-posing-as-a-scientist.thtml

It is a question WHICH scientists are credible. Have you even bothered to read the Jaworowski report? It doesn’t sound like it from your comments above. Have you read the one from Pretoria Uni?

If anyone is now totally lacking in credibility, it is the IPCC. It is unprecedented to have so many scientists who have participated in what is allegedly a “peer-review” process, speaking out against it. What has happened is that the IPCC and other bodies that purport to represent so many thousand members, have been subverted at the leadership level. There is not a constant stream of petitions from scientists numbering in the hundreds who SUPPORT the IPCC.

Regarding the “Maunder Minimum” effect, you and I are not disagreeing on this, just misunderstanding each other. I say, though, that IF ONE STARTS (and you are saying that it has not), it will reveal the “Catastrophic AGW” scenario as the ridiculous joke that it is. But it is nice that you do not agree with the “catastrophic” thing either. Nice, too, that you too see technology as the answer. I am not just playing on words, the carbon intensivity of each unit of economic activity has been dropping for 150 years. Sure, overall emissions keep going up as economic growth occurs faster than the drop on carbon intensivity. But as nations reach a peak of development, a peak is exceeded and the TOTAL emissions start to DROP. It is only a matter of time before this phenomenon occurs on a worldwide scale.

If you agree on a lot of this, why are we arguing? Do you support the Kyoto Protocol? If you do, WHY THE……?

What I’m saying is those proxies always produce the hockey stick graph, M&M were unable to produce different results using the data their way.

It is not variation in insolation that is considered to be the primary climate driver. It is a combination sunspots, magnetic field, cosmic radiation, orbital dynamics … these are the variables now linked to climate change and with far better correlation than CO2 concentration.

“What hasn’t been mentioned in denialist circles is that the “hockey stick” graph wasn’t actually a product of the algorithms, there is no graph using the same proxies you can point to showing the difference between how Mann et al did it (producing the hockey stick) and how M&M say it should have been done (not producing the hockey stick).”

What are you saying ??? Mann provided the computer algorithm he used when forced to. McIntyre tested it using random noise data, and got … a hockey stick! If there is no other graph using the same proxies then that’s further evidence it was a fraud. In science, if no-one can reproduce your results then there’s a problem with your theory, your data, or your methods, or all three.

It’s recognised it’s less precise, also paleoclimate is less important these days, solar forcing may play a larger role than previously recognised over the longer term but there hasn’t been an upward trend in insolation over the last 50 years do attribute the observed warming to.

“McIntyre et al showed that the computer algorithm Mann used (which he only belatedly made available for others to test) would produce “hockey sticks” even if random noise data were entered!”

What hasn’t been mentioned in denialist circles is that the “hockey stick” graph wasn’t actually a product of the algorithms, there is no graph using the same proxies you can point to showing the difference between how Mann et al did it (producing the hockey stick) and how M&M say it should have been done (not producing the hockey stick).

McIntyre et al showed that the computer algorithm Mann used (which he only belatedly made available for others to test) would produce “hockey sticks” even if random noise data were entered!

The hockey stick fiasco was one of the worst scientific frauds of recent times.

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

Main points, the shape of the hockey stick graph has not changed despite the modifications made subsequent to the revision.
The main change was that the level of confidence in the graph covering the earlier part of the reconstruction was lower that Mann et al calculated, ie the error bars are wider proir the about 600 years ago.

The reconstruction was not perfect, but if a fraud has been committed it’s by those who have misrepresented the nature of the corrections.

Regarding the W. Alexander et al paper, other denialists haven’t taken any notice of it, probably because it’s so flawed, the 11 year solar cycle has a barely discernable influence on climate, the position of the planets doesn’t contribute to this solar cycle, rather it’s a product of the interaction of the suns magnetic field and the suns rate of rotation being different at different latitudes.

Solar activity is the driver of climate trends and correlates well with temperature records. CO2 conc. does not.

Have you read this paper by Alexander et al, http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ee%2018-6_alexander.pdf ?

Their conclusions:

“We believe that our studies provide solid confirmation of the view that the observed
multiyear variations in global climate are directly related to variations in solar activity.
Despite a diligent search we were unable to detect any adverse, multiyear changes in
rainfall, river flow and other hydrometeorological processes that could be attributed to
human activity. Our studies are reproducible by anybody with sufficient knowledge in
this field.
We trust that our research will trigger a fresh approach to the whole climate change
issue. It is necessary to state that neither of us has received any financial or other
assistance from any source in connection with these studies.”

Seems that way.

“Seitz is a “denier” yep. Gray is 86. On what do you base your belief that Jaworowski is credible? He’s one non-expert vs all the experts in analysing icecores.

“How can you claim that CO2 is “well mixed” in the troposphere, but turn around and discredit measurements that were taken “too near” an urban area? What about the measurements Jaworowski refers to that were taken at remote locations?”

Not me, the people who over the last 50 years have studied CO2 sampling, samples taken today in urban areas still show these elevated levels.

“The satellite measurements in the troposphere actually contradict the global warming models.”

No they don’t.

“The IPCC’s calculated increase in average temperature is actually less than the margin of error for the exercise.”

No, wrong again.

“The aerosols that might have been responsible for cooling 1940-1975, have reduced. WHY?”

Filtering of coal emissions.

“Might the same phenomenon not be about to lead to reductions in CO2 emissions; ie advancing technology, irrespective of politicians and bureaucrats?”

We agree on something, it would be great if improved technology leads to reduced emissions without the need for carbon trading etc.

“The “global warming” scare mob stressing about CO2 emissions when the CO2-intensivity of economic activity has been dropping for 150 years.”

Ahh, your playing with words, anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been rising steadily for the last 150 years, noone in the debate disputes that.

“Nice of you to recognise stuff like “Milankovich cycles”.

It’s part of the science with good evidence supporting it, of course I accept it.

“Also: “We’re not seeing a period of minimum solar activity…..” whose argument is that meant to support, Andrew W?”

That was a rebuttle of claims that solar activity showed we had entered a new Maunder minimum in the last few month, you seem to be taking it out of context suggesting I’m refering to the last few decades?

“And is a rise in “average” temperature “catastrophic”, if it involves higher minimum temperatures and nighttime temperatures? Where are the record high temperatures, and when did they occur?”

Is that addressed to me? I thought I had made my views on claims of “catastrophic” scenarios clear.

“So much bullshit, so little time…….”

You should see it from the other side of the fence…

AGW-HAHAHAHA . there’s a lot of uncertainties about the nature of the MWP and the LIA, there were variations regionally but yes, it’s likely that solar activity is a factor in long term climate trends, just as well that’s taken into account by the IPCC.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/a-linkage-between-the-lia-and-gulf-stream/langswitch_lang/sk

Seitz is a “denier”. Gray is “showing his age”. Jaworowski is “not credible”. TYPICAL. What if some of us think he IS credible? Read “CO2:The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our time”.

How can you claim that CO2 is “well mixed” in the troposphere, but turn around and discredit measurements that were taken “too near” an urban area? What about the measurements Jaworowski refers to that were taken at remote locations?

The satellite measurements in the troposphere actually contradict the global warming models.

The IPCC’s calculated increase in average temperature is actually less than the margin of error for the exercise.

The aerosols that might have been responsible for cooling 1940-1975, have reduced. WHY? Might the same phenomenon not be about to lead to reductions in CO2 emissions; ie advancing technology, irrespective of politicians and bureaucrats? Michael Crichton has some amusing things to say about this. Ehrlich stressing about the human race running out of food just as the problem is being solved anyway. The “global warming” scare mob stressing about CO2 emissions when the CO2-intensivity of economic activity has been dropping for 150 years.

Nice of you to recognise stuff like “Milankovich cycles”. Also: “We’re not seeing a period of minimum solar activity…..” whose argument is that meant to support, Andrew W?

And is a rise in “average” temperature “catastrophic”, if it involves higher minimum temperatures and nighttime temperatures? Where are the record high temperatures, and when did they occur?

So much bullshit, so little time…….

Is Professor Will Alexander of Pretoria Uni, “a denier”, and “not credible”, too?

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/Memo%203807%20Letter%20to%20High%20Commissioner.pdf

A demolition in fact.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/540061/beware-the-politician-posing-as-a-scientist.thtml

But he did know what the required “consensus” was.

Not so. Here is evidence that it was a global phenomenon http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp

Evidence is from: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, South America.

I see he also resorts to the unreliable CO2 measurements done in Europe prior to the short comings of urban areas as places to conduct such measurements being recognised.