AP on Climategate e-mails
The Associated Press has had five staff go through all 1,073 stolen e-mails. Their conclusion is:
Emails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled sceptics and discussed hiding data – but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by Associated Press.
I don’t think there was a global conspiracy on climate change, any more than I think there was a conspiracy around the 9/11 attacks.
However enough was revealed in the e-mails, to ring some warning bells that some leading scientists have acted improperly. Some extracts from the lengthy article:
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause “that unless you’re with them, you’re against them”, said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations’.”
My worry is that there is now a mindset where only data that fits the thesis is considered.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics sceptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data were destroyed; two United States researchers denied it. The emails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.
The issue is not just whether data was destroyed, but also whether one can have any confidence in those scientists who proposed it.
When Climate Research published a sceptical study, Mann discussed retribution this way: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
That brings in a new meaning of peer-reviewed.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Given the original data was not made available, and now can never be, the biases of the “scientists” involved carries a hell of a lot more weight.
Did they fabricate data? Who can tell? But would you put it past a group of scientists who are so hostile to scientific discovery to do such a thing?
For years people who questioned their technique and their interpretation have been prevented from closely examining their work. A real scientist dedicated to expanding humanities knowledge would want those very people to have all the data and all the access they want.
If your worst enemy (as they see it) cant refute your findings, then that does nothing but make your findings more robust.
These scientists have embarassed themselves.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Associated Press is a partisan political force. Their credibility has been in question for decades.
That such a tainted source has attempted to portray itself as an objective adjudicator on this issue is just a sick and arrogant joke.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
It’s all a leftist conspiracy. /thread.
Just like all the other climate change threads.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Someone recently posted that the person who wrote this AP piece is one of the parties in the stolen emails.
This piece of journalism has to be considered highly partisan.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
APs resident alarmist Seth Borenstein and four other great scientific minds from that agency have concluded that the science is robust just a few scientists have behaved badly, they are human after all.
And they were under great pressure to prove their work was correct instead of having it taken for granted as befits their stature as leading lights in the IPCC so it is understandable if they cut a corner or two and were a little scratchy.
Nope
The work of these individuals is the foundation of “the sky is falling” theory under which the entire worlds economy needs to be restructured.
These people will forever be included in Science’s hall of shame.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I was one of the pundits wot saw it as a scratch, not the Great Unravelling some had hoped for.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cru-emails-show-fraud-yeah-right/
December 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Seth Borenstein, the AP Science reporter is comprehensively fisked. He does not know the meaning of “conflict of interest”. He ought to never report on science again.
And the NZ Herald is disgraced by running his biased verbiage.
Read the Not PC version if you prefer the local condensed version of the story.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
A far more balanced and accurate account of what all this really means from Englands Daily mail
December 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Now everyone who doesn’t accept the Word of Gore at face value is right wing conspiracy nut job.
Got any more names you want to call everyone RRM? Ever considered addressing the actual issue?
December 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Scientists who have vested interests in the outcome of their research are not scientists – they are lab technicians. Now the claims are making sense;
The results from the lab technicians are settled – as you would expect when the experiments are rigged.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Sonny, do you suspect DPF is mole considering the embarrassments of AGW that he continually highlights?
Are you bored with him being a tiresome troll?
DPF mostly posts critical of the scientists but that doesn’t usually deter you.
And Andrei the next non-troll chimes in. Etc etc. All very predictable.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Sorry Murray you’re quite right.
This is shaping up to be COMPLETELY different than all the other climate change threads. My bad.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
‘These are not the droids you’re looking for’
Funnily enough AP only went through the emails- nothing on the 3000 documents.
Seth Borenstein, the lead writer on this pap is in the CRU emails here (Jim Salinger is in the same thread) Seth knows the ‘team’ so well he calls them by their first names.
No conflict of interest here. Move on.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Newsflash, academics are petty, grudge-holding bitches.
In other news, sky found to be blue!
December 14th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Aside from questions about the AP’s bias, I wonder if they also looked at the program code that was released, as that also shows proof of adjustments to the data.
Even if the data was proven to show that catastrophic global warming is nigh due to human contribution to green house gases in the atmosphere I still hold the opinion that ETS/ cap and trade solutions are the wrong approach. The end result (as is already happening) will simply be that heavy polluting industry/agriculture will simply shift from developed to developing nations, and that no significant reduction in pollution will arise from it.
On the other hand, while I do believe in climate change (not catastrophic though) I don’t believe CO2 is a significant cause.
ClimateGate exposed behaviour that should have led to dismissals and prosecutions for fraud, and it is not doing the warmist alarmists any good to try and cover it up, it has only led to more questions being asked than answered.
If the alarmists really want to ‘save the planet’ then they’ll have to learn to swallow some dead rats. When they get some common sense and realise that they could actually get some co-operation from sceptics by focusing on solutions that are palatable to both sides then they could get some real progress. The problem is that in the main part they are being conned by the Al Gores of the world who have whipped up a global scare in order to profit from carbon trading.
You’d think they’d be at least a little bit sceptical of a guy with a private jet telling them if we don’t cut our CO2 emissions we’re all going to die.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Re: peer review, I imagine the reputation of the journal is also a part of the upkeep of proper process.
What leads to problems is not the publishing ‘dissenting’ research (cited emails show people doing this without consequence and the fact of ongoing debate is inexplicable a climategate talking point at the same time as the claim it’s being shut down). And it’s not the publishing research that serve an editor’s agenda. It’s doing so by running papers that are subsequently demolished that’s likely to destroy that reputation. I submit that is a good thing.
Loosely I’m with the BoingBoing lady’s response at the time http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/25/more-insight-on-thos.html. Except as far as the seige mentality I note the dangers but also note they *are* under seige, hence the sympathy in the scientific community for the FOIA talk.
More generally, this is the most damning-sounding stuff they could find in 2^10 emails. Which suggests to me these guys are blimmin angels.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I was in Melbourne at the weekend and global warming protest was everywhere. A group of vegetarians who want to reduce emissions through compulsory vegetarianism invited me to help them make a human sign on Princes Bridge. Some carol singers were banging on about sustainability outside the nearby cathedral. The giant TV in Fed Square was showing video blogs from Copenhagen. And there was a march through town starting from the park outside the State Library.
It’s like a frenzy of apocalyptic hysteria!
Some observations:
1. The lawn outside the state library was covered in cigarette butts after the marchers departed. I wish these filthy Greens would stop using the city as an ash tray.
2. One group marching wanted to tell us that the environment wasn’t for profit. They might have been pissed off at Al Gore, who has made over $100million from promotion of environmental hysteria. But I suspect they wouldn’t see the irony.
3. The marchers disrupted public transport all over town. The person I was meeting was late because the street was blocked to trams.
4. I estimate there were 2,000 marchers. Tops. A friend estimated “a couple of thousand”. The paper the next day reported 40,000. It looks like climate apocalypse believers exaggerate all numbers, not just those connected with temperatures and sea levels.
5. These people are completely mad. They’ll have moved on to some new hysteria in a few years time. But Nick Smith and John Key will have saddled NZ with $110billion worth of ETS that’ll have shitted all over the NZ economy. Why?
December 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Hands up those who have spent time at Uni and think researchers agree….. on anything?
December 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Where’s the data?
“Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves…………..”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-6/
December 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Aren’t the rats already out of the bag? Are you really suggesting all the skeptics want to co-operate on finding out what is happening and not just keep on acting like live rats?
December 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Sorry again, DPF. I think you are wrong. There is a vast amount of money being made, or planned to be made. There is ample evidence of a major conspiracy. Whether global or not is a matter of definition. I think Major Bloodnock has already drawn attention to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/
After looking at the issue for far too long, I don’t think the science matters any more – even though it has beyond all question been seriously “managed”. The issue now is the momentum built up for making money in many innovative ways, by many people.
Check this out and tell me again there is no conspiracy behind all of this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html
December 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/2009_temperature.html#comment-640616
Pete George (2690) Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
This is an excellent summation, it’s common sense backed by scientific facts. At least through the duration of Copenhagen it would be good to have a separate daily climate topic so that isolates most of the predictable opposition regurgitation. It gets a bit tiresome rehashing the same old obstinance.
Your endurance/obstinance is quite something Pete, given you were already tiring on Dec 9th.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Only 5? AP put 11 fact checkers on to Sarah Palins runaway best seller.
No, no bias there.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
So, we had a temperature series that is based on tree ring data, and that we’re going to rely on. And for the period where that tree ring data overlaps with actual thermometers, the tree ring data shows an unexplained dip that (according to the thermometers) didn’t actually happen. And the right answer is to just delete that bit of the data, and use the thermometers instead. So now in the period of overlap, the two look like they align, because we’ve actually used the same data in both.
Well, that clears it all up then. Nothing dodgy, not really a trick at all.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Which part of a journalist’s education makes him a scientist?
WTF?
December 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
” I was in Melbourne at the weekend ”
A disgusting communist hole and the best place in Australia to stay away from. Its no wonder they’re so enmeshed in the AGW scam. Opinion that challenges the socialist status quo in Melbourne is about as easy to find as rocking horse excrement.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Is this the same ‘AP’ which brought us all those fake propaganda pictures and stories out of Iraq?
December 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Climate myths: It’s all a conspiracy
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
December 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The last post was before I read your last post Pete, but on this: “Are you really suggesting all the skeptics want to co-operate on finding out what is happening and not just keep on acting like live rats?”
I am suggesting the bulk of sceptics aren’t denying we are polluting our air, land and water. I am suggesting that if sensible plans to reduce that pollution are put to them that even the sceptics will say that makes sense, let’s do it.
I am suggesting the main reason sceptics exist is that the solutions proposed are so egregiously wrong that if our only alternative is to derail proceedings then that is what we must do. If the alarmism industry could be paused long enough for a neutral forum to hear both sides of the case then we could actually agree on steps forward to clean up our environment.
It doesn’t require that sceptics believe in catastrophic AGW in order to get their agreement that we should reduce pollution.
If the alarmists carry on requiring the whole world to believe in AGW before any action gets taken then they’ll be mired in that argument for the foreseeable future and won’t reach any accord.
I’ll put it in a parable. A man (me) believed that it was righteous to care for the environment, save the whales and reduce pollution etc, so he signed up to WWF to contribute a regular monthly donation to assist them to do such things. The same man didn’t believe that humans contributed enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to be causing accelerated global warming, nor that climate change was unnatural, nor even that global warming was bad. When that man found out that the money he contributed to WWF to help care for the environment was in fact contributing to the AGW alarmist movement that man ceased his monthly donations.
The point is that the AGW alarmism movement is actually causing division that isn’t helping toward a ‘righteous’ goal of a cleaner, sustainable environment. If they were able to swallow the dead rat that not everyone has to believe in AGW to contribute to cleaning up the planet, then they’d have a better chance of effecting real positive outcomes.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
What puzzles me is the apparent reluctance by so many people to acknowledge that they have been conned. I read today an interesting take on this phenomenon: “Is belief in global-warming science another example of the “madness of crowds”? That strange but powerful social phenomenon, first described by Charles Mackay in 1841, turns a widely shared prejudice into an irresistible “authority”.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
December 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I’m probably pissing in the wind – but what the heck
Listen: All scientists are supposed to be skeptics Pete – that is the point and that is what differentiates scientists from politicians and marketing people who have to believe unequivocally in whatever they are peddling or at least giving the appearence of so doing.
Today is the 109th anniversary of Max Planck’s paper on Black body radiation – a paper he himself was skeptical of but he put forward to be judged by his peers anyway – and bought about a revolution in our understanding of the world in so doing. .
Scientists are supposed to put their theories up for testing not to hide behind authority and their celebrity
December 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Monckton?
Rightnow, it’s just amusing to see the flip flop. I’ve been accused of trying to shoot the messenger. The hypocrites club is out in force today. There are some genuine skeptics, I think you are and I think I am. But the bulk of the climate regulars here have no tolerance for anyone questioning their fixed stance. They are on a mission, won’t be moved, and attack anything that questions their position. They are making most of the noise.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“So, we had a temperature series that is based on tree ring data, and that we’re going to rely on. And for the period where that tree ring data overlaps with actual thermometers, the tree ring data shows an unexplained dip that (according to the thermometers) didn’t actually happen. And the right answer is to just delete that bit of the data, and use the thermometers instead. So now in the period of overlap, the two look like they align, because we’ve actually used the same data in both.
Well, that clears it all up then. Nothing dodgy, not really a trick at all. ”
That’s a good example of a half truth.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“That’s a good example of a half truth.”
Quite so – the other half is that during the Medieval Warming Period the sample of trees was selected to eliminate the historically well established warming during that time.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
DPF said:
‘My worry is that there is now a mindset where only data that fits the thesis is considered.’
David hits the nail on the head with this comment. Climate change so called scientists practise ‘anti science’. They have the conclusion already written out before the data is analysed and go back & select the data that ‘proves’ the pre conceived conclusion. A great example of this is the Yamal treerings that were done by Briffa. He selected only the trees that gave a warming trend and had a sample of under 10% of the selected trees. Results done since then by McIntyre show his methodology was at best incorrect, (a euthanism for cheating).
I have had more experience in science than most people so I do have an idea of what is going on here. I have as follows:
1. I have a MSc in Chemistry.
2. I worked in R&D for 5 years in the Pharmaceutical industry.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Charles Krauthammer is right about the AGW scam:
“Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt.”
December 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I couldn’t believe seeing all those protesters out in the streets of Copenhagen on the News. They may as well be shouting ‘heil!’. It was like watching pigs complaining that the slaughterhouse isn’t producing enough bacon and they should be doing more.
In the long run, they’re only damning themselves.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Pete, I’m of the opinion that you deliberately agitate for your own nefarious satisfaction (as I do on certain blogs myself).
I also think the biggest threat regarding the AGW hysteria is that political leaders/delegations (like our own team there) will sign up for the wrong solution, and that the winners will be the carbon traders etc, and I doubt any real reduction in emmissions will be made regardless of what targets are agreed to (just like NZ over the last 12 years).
As I said before, sceptics are likely to support initiatives to clean up the environment, but if that isn’t good enough for alarmists who seem to buy in to a global ETS, then the only option for sceptics is to fight/derail the global ETS.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Are you referring to the anarchists who disrupted the otherwise peaceful protests Fletch?
RightNow – I’m a major skeptic of the “global” ETS (with all it’s local discrepancies) – fighting that is one thing.
I am also critical of the methods used by some of the climate scientists.
I also agree with Lazybum, to an extent at least it looks like some scientists are finding science to fit their theories, that’s not a good approach.
But I also happen to be skeptical of the motives of the small group who regularly attack and discredit the whole of climate science. They seem to want it proven wrong, by any means. If questioning them is seen as deliberate agitation then so be it.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Thats a little unfair Fletch. I thought that the fellow on section B of the Dompost with the rings through his nose and lips looked damned intelligent, probably has a couple of doctorates in science under his belt I should think.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Why is it that media always qualifies violent protests with ‘it was mostly peaceful’
1000 violent protesters arrested out of 40,000 FFS – that’s a huge proportion
I bet they’d still say the same thing if it was 19,999 out of 40,000
I haven’t heard of a single skeptic throwing a brick and they equate us with ‘Holocaust Deniers’
Also, you’ve got to wonder how many of those Anarchist pricks actually believe what they are protesting about. Exactly the same thing was happening about 10 years ago with the ‘Anti-Capitalist’ movement.
Good thing is though, they didn’t last much longer in that form.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
It concerns me a little, while Copenhagen blunders on, that Tony Blair is trying to explain the real reasons, apart from weapons of mass destruction, that took the UK into Iraq.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
What about all the data the CRU dumped as they didn’t have the storage room, lefty con artists of the highest order. What fucking ideological mongrels these pricks are. And Shonkey and idiot boy are brain dead dropkicks who have lost the ability to gauge world opinion. Gee the bastards only have to log on to the net to see the revulsion many hundreds of thousands have for the fast that is Carbonhargen, then again I guess they have painted themselves into a corner and their ears and eyes are firmly shut and they go “la la” every time someone questions their motives. These fools are suppose to be our leaders, there are not leaders arseholes.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
SSB – I understand that some of the data that they claimed to have dumped 10 years ago was discussed in the climategate emails as recently as this year. So who believe these guys? Not I.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
RightNow make some very good points. The scientists who have held out their hands and recieved billions of dollars of funding whilst telling their politcal patrons what they want to hear have been exposed. the Politicans who have sponsored the scientists have until know obtained the “knowledge” they sought so they could con the weak minded and guilible into believeing that paying more taxes was going to save the planet.
Big business has made and will continue to make ‘super profits” by offering up goods they say are good for the planet and charging the guilible a fat premium to buy them Think Toyota Prius or Pious as its known in the States.
All this to take money off the dumbarse rich folks and out of the pockets of the poor folks. Not to mention killing millions in poor countries with the mad bad ‘food miles’ bullshit that takes away the opportunity for these folk to grow low Co2 food and export it to countries that now grow high Co2 food.
And so the madness of the new religion called AGW grows day by day with the usual suspects as we saw in Copenhagen demonstrating.
Good grief Those people are professional demonstrators. They would demonstrate against anything.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
RIGHT NOW said”ClimateGate exposed behaviour that should have led to dismissals and prosecutions for fraud,” “………………………..and he is Right on. It seemed to me from my reading of the reports on the emails that all the elements needed to establish a case were present, Documents altered, intent to deceive,intent that they be acted upon as genuine,and intent to profit by the deception. Yet now we have an avalanche of justification from all the powerful players who continue to act as though the documents were genuine. Only the power of the internet has enabled this colossal scam to be exposed and I can only wonder how many such frauds have been inflicted on society in the past.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Speaking of Copenhagen…
Who else was pissed off to hear that among the huge NZ delegation to the Copenhagen farce is a group of “Iwi”
WTF does this have to do with Mowree?
December 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
BB – it has to do with baubles from the ETS vote-buying charade a month ago.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Yvette has made me think.
What was it that made the lefties so sure that their were no WMD’s in Iraq prior to the invasion? All the official intelligence and scientists said WMD’s existed, all the political leaders said WMD’s existed. Turned out they didn’t exist at all and the “experts” were either mistaken or making it up.
I can see some parallels between that and the nonsense that is the climate change debate.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
British experts defend climate data
More than 1,700 British scientists have signed a petition insisting that global warming is man-made…
“We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.”
December 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
But I look out my window Pete, and the global mean temperature is still within normal historical bounds.
Luckily those 1700 British Scientists (none of them experts on AGW as there is no such thing) are unable to dictate the fate of the world with the stroke of a pen.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
All the official intelligence and scientists said WMD’s existed, – wrong
all the political leaders said WMD’s existed. – wrong
and the “experts” were either mistaken or making it up. – and wrong again, the experts who knew most about it (Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors) were right and were ignored or overidden.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I would perhaps have some respect for those 1700 Pete if they included in their statement somewhere that those responsible for the wilful destruction and withholding of scientific data were dismissed and that the data be reexamined to put any doubts to rest.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You mean like Richard Lindzen?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Pete “But I also happen to be skeptical of the motives of the small group who regularly attack and discredit the whole of climate science. They seem to want it proven wrong, by any means. If questioning them is seen as deliberate agitation then so be it. ”
A small proportion of the whole I think, and you’re welcome to keep questioning them. More debate should lead to more people understanding the issues rather than following blindly the cause de jour.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ok, I’ll pass a message to Copenhagen that Sonny “I can see it from my window” Blount should be respected and 1700 “experts” (relatively) shouldn’t be listened to until, well, until its to late to do anything regardless of whether there is a risk or not.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
The conclusion is obvious: The AP is as politicised and corrupt as the scientists.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Pete, that doesn’t include these 31,000 scientists then, or THESE ones, (including David Bellamy).
December 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
If you asked me to sign a belief statement that there is ‘evidence for global warming’ I’d do it without question. The world has probably been warming since the coldest point of the Little Ice Age circa 1650.
The relevant question, and one that’s conveniently omitted by the warmist/alarmists is has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt that humans are causing part of this warming.
I say this hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If it could be so proven, then there’d be no need for the falsification of key data on which so many other scientists rely.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
By the look at the immediate dismissal of anything threatening the groupthink here does not suggest there will be much understanding going on.
I must admit RightNow, I have been putting on a few provoking test posts checking for patterns of responses and karma voting, it’s quite interesting.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Pete,
No need to use my name, just tell them facts said so.
Facts like you produced today, that at current rates of increase, the sea-level in Dunedin will rise 12cm by 2100.
Considering that we could have sun blocking ‘umbrellas’ in space within a couple of years of giving the go ahead, as well as many other mechanisms. When is ‘too late’ for you?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Have you got anything up to date Fletch? That petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 and does not guarantee any knowledge of climate science, or science for that matter.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Gee Pete, you would sign any petition to if your livelihood looked like going down the long drop. Besides what about the thousands of scientists who have signed a petition calling this a crock of crap. Ha ha Pete we have more scientists on our side, your call, do you want to raise the pot?, I really think it’s time for you to fold.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
What do you call the following Pete, groupdodge?
I said:
You replied:
Do you notice the way you fail to respond to the point made and instead justify the unethical behaviour of others?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Refer to my post above Bob. Here is the text of that petition:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Isn’t it a little out of date?
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”
December 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.
Pete, couple of quotes from the Times article on the Met Office petition dated 10th Dec.
Edit – Sonny -is Pete – Lynn from the Stranded?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Pete,
Did the random sample use the same techniques used by Briffa to select the 12 trees from the Yamal peninsula?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
(including David Bellamy)
It’s worth noting Bellamy kind of seriously and objectively emabarrassed himself in ’05 with “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980″ in a letter to New Scientist.
Firstly, didn’t notice he’d missed the shift key. He meant 55%. Secondly, he got that number from some guy on the web.
Surely we can all agree that’s a bit sad?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“I have been putting on a few provoking test posts checking for pattens of responses and karma voting, it’s quite interesting” Wow didn’t know we were in the presence of an intellectual giant, and here I was thinking that you must get off on collecting negative karma.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The problem Pete is that the establishment have been seen to be in collusion with fraudulent scientists. I haven’t seen any independent inquiries so I don’t trust anything that comes from IPCC, AP, ’1700 UK Scientists’. I agree the climate is changing, but until there is full and open investigation I simply do not trust a word from AGW jihidists, including the CRU scientists and the IPCC.
In the mean time I’ve researched enough to accept the following:
Climate changes naturally
man contributes 0.117% of the CO2 in the atmosphere
water vapour is responsible for more of the greenhouse effect than CO2
CO2 rise follows temperature rise not the other way around
The MWP was warmer than today and sea levels have been much higher also
We are coming out of a little ice age so our temp should be rising
Global warming is better for us than global cooling
December 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Speaking of karma, it’s interesting how shocked – shocked! – the kiwiblog community is at the accusation some people somewhere disregarded opinions that didn’t agree with their preconceptions.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
lol Associated Press.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
RightNow, do you trust any word from McIntyre, Monckton, Plimmer?
I agree there should be a full and open inquiry, it would be good to fully test the facts and separate the bullshit from both sides of the argument. I’m not sure if an independent inquiry or the separation is possible now though – that is one of the tactics proving successful. Because there is actual science involved here it has been easy to create confusion and doubt, in contrast to the Intelligent Design experiment.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Holes in the Ozone layer. AIDS. Nuclear Holocaust. Y2k bug. Killer bees. Swine Flu. Bird Flu. Global Warming. Asteroid collision. Just a selection of the real or imagined boogeymen the media uses to scare the public into a state of compliance. Who benefits? Follow the money.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
And while we’re on the subject of corrupt leftist journalists:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I see your David Bellamy and raise you a David Attenborough.
See, our experts in TV climatology have a much more esteemed career than yours.
Seriously, why do you think adding David Bellamy to the list gives it more credence?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
LiberalismIsASin, is there was a disaster that had been known was probably going to happen but the public hadn’t been told so they wouldn’t be scared who would you blame?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
It looks like the alarmist warmists have lost the propaganda war. That war should have brought thousands in to our streets clamouring for action on climate change. It hasn’t worked. “12 Days to Save The Planet !” it says on page 12 of my paper. What a laugh…People are waking up to realise that Mencken was correct; “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”
2010 is very likely to see an Australian election primarily based on their ETS. The whole issue, including the phony science as exposed by Climategate, will be scrutinised internationally.
The next P.M. of Australia, Tony Abbott, has this to say…”When Winston Churchill drove to Buckingham Palace in the dark days of 1940 to accept the king’s commission, he felt that his whole life had been but a preparation for this moment, or so he recounts in his memoirs. This is not wartime Britain. And I am certainly not Churchill. Still, I feel well equipped to take on the leadership of the party in what are testing times for the conservative side of politics…”
Bring it on !
December 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Very sensible suggestion, follow the money.
I followed it to the Fortune 500 Global and found that out of the top 10 richest companies, seven of them were oil companies. I followed it further and found that the list is dominated by oil, gas, banks, insurance, mining, food, agrobusiness and food. None of which exactly have a reputation for producing green technologies as their market leading positions.
You have to make massive leaps of logic to go from actual share prices and actual profits of the leading companies to “Al Gore sold some books and that’s why global warming is a scam.”
Can y’all do that? I’m sure you won’t disappoint.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Love your comment:
Isn’t that exactly the mindset that a lot of people that comment on here against AGW have?
Any argument against global warming, no matter how obscure, obstruse and devoid of logic is taken as gospel, while any argument pro global warming is a consipracy, a lie, a biased and leftish plot to rule the world.
A significant conclusion in the article you did not quote:
But of course that wont cut it with any of the deniers. AP is just controlled by Gore, Greenpeace and Area 51.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Excuse the naked link whoring, but these AGWarmists have even taken over Wikipedia. writing the article on Climategate their way and blocking anyone seeking to insert an inconvenient fact:
http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/wiki/
December 14th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
What the fuck? You’re shocked by the fact that Wikipedia isn’t all that independent and isn’t all that trustworthy and is subject to NPOV opinion-barging?
Sorry, when did you start using the internet? Saturday?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Chris C, I can assure you the fortune 500 companies, including big oil, already know how to make money from carbon trading. That’s the laughable part of the assertion that big money is behind the sceptics, big money won’t lose, big money adapts. The true polluters get big subsidies courtesy of the taxpayers.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
RightNow:
Yep, agree.
I think you’ll find that’s 0.117% of the CO2 in circulation. Atmospheric CO2 has pretty much doubled in the last 100 years, and almost all that doubling could plausibly have come from man’s actions.
Water vapour definitely follows temperature rise, not the other way around.
At some points in the past CO2 rise seems to have followed temperature rise. I’m not convinced that it always does though, as this would imply a positive feedback that would lead to a runaway warming effect. I don’t find that to be plausible.
Yes, but did those two things happen at the same time?
Maybe. The earth’s long run average temperature is considerably cooler than our current average. I don’t think this assertion holds as I’m not certain that there is a fixed immutable cycle of climate. The climate may have been warming naturally and therefore there is little human impact, equally it may have naturally been cooling into the next ice age and man has thankfully stopped that.
Fully agree with this. Ever notice how newspapers are very quick to report number of deaths from heat waves, but almost never report deaths from the cold? Far more people die of cold every year than die of heat.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
mikh: sorry, I doubt Abbott will be next Australian PM. First couple of days he impressed me – he got on to talking about whether the ETS would work, what it would cost, who was exempted, instead of wasting time arguing about whether we’re warming or not.
But then he appointed Barnaby Joyce as his finance spokesperson – this is the guy who suggested last week that the Federal government should start to regulate what interest rates banks could charge, and what fees they could charge. He’s a clown.
Then he let Malcolm Turnbull start white anting him from the back benches, and did nothing.
Finally, he blundered around painting himself into a corner where he labelled the Labour policy “a great big tax” without thinking about what his alternate policy might look like. It will almost surely be a great big tax of his own, maybe a bit smaller, but hardly going to differentiate is it. Even worse, the best policy he could choose is an actual tax (a carbon tax) instead of an ETS, so he’s really creating problems for his future.
Unfortunately I don’t think he’s going to cut it. He’s better in some ways than Turnbull, but in other ways he’s going about it all wrong.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Except the ETS is just a plan to subsidise change in behaviour on the part of industry – or rather, to subsidise industry to carry on doing things exactly the way they have done.
The ETS isn’t designed to tackle climate change. It’s designed to meet arbitrary targets in emissions, and it’s designed to maintain the status quo of business and keep those companies at the top of the Fortune list at the top. The ETS has nothing to do with trying to change the behaviour of big companies, and everything to do with a lip-service sign-off to carbon targets.
ETSs won’t change ground-up behaviour, which is where those companies make the majority of their profits. Settled facts will change ground up behaviour, changes in consumer behaviour and consumer demand will affect profit margins, and that’s why there’s a benefit in obfuscation – far greater immediate benefit from a current customer base than any sabre-rattling or scaremongering on the part of environmentalists could muster.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Now I think we’re approaching some common ground.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I don’t really care how you spin the contents of the emails. The fact remains that data was doctored under scientific methods that now appear insufficiently peer reviewed or critiqued. The apparent loss of the original data makes the whole ‘settled science’ claims made by Gore et al even more spurious than they were at the time he was making them.
It appears to me there is no option but to re-wind the scientific debate about 3-5 years before we start putting plans into action which were concocted in the great AGW swindle. We need to ratify the conclusions, have the peer reviews and have the models and the input’s peer reviewed as well.
How could so few fool so many for so long ?
December 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Burt, are you suggesting this happens for all sets of data? And review all observations and measurements such as icecaps, glaciers, frostlines, and moving migrations and seasons?
December 14th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Pete George
Yes Pete – if the original data is lost and all we have is ‘adjusted’ data then we have no choice – throw that corrupted data away where we can re-gather it do so, otherwise call it lost forever.
What else do you suggest, each scientist put forward a list of numbers that makes pretty graphs in their own models and we choose the one that makes the best pattern ?
If we have genuinely lost temperature readings taken over time then that is very unfortunate. The fact we haven’t lost the adjusted series as well adds an odorous note to this debate.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
That’s one set of data you are talking about. What about all the other sets of data? And observations?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Ah Pete, I said it earlier. Open the models and the input variables up for robust peer review. Allow open discourse and critique to play the role it has played throughout history – enabling science to advance because it is not bogged down in mistakes or hung up by bad assumptions any longer than necessary to prove them wrong.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Pete
If it wasn’t so readily apparent that Al Gore and his ‘majority of scientists concur’ was BS then this entire debate would have taken place 10 years ago. Had Al Gore not been a vapour wear salesman he would have already made his billions by being at the heart of Enron style trading scheme by now…. Oh hang on…..
December 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Pete George
Failing that – Just find a few trees in a remote location and use them to plug all the holes in the data…. Worked for Al Gore.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Pete, why do you waste your time arguing with people who are so committed to their religious beliefs that they’re incapable of objective thought?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Andrew W
Are you saying not believing the science is settled is a religious view point? If you are then I’m absolutely stunned at your religious position that it is wrong for people to question science that cannot be reproduced.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
No burt, I’m saying that none of your arguments address either the theory or the observations behind AGW, let alone refute it. When you and your ilk start to actually question the science (that means addressing the science with science) rather than limiting yourselves to this ideologically motivated BS, I’ll be keen to see how supporters of AGW theory address those questions. So far all I’ve seen from you lot is crap.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Andrew W.
Scientists predicted an impending Ice age in the 70′s – lucky we didn’t just stop reviewing the models then eh. If you can find one shed of religious argument in my position that without strongly peer reviewed science we have nothing more than a cult – then you my dear friend have the religious blinkers problem.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Take Rightnow’s 4:35 comment for instance, his points have all been addressed again and again and again, the denialist arguments are all discredited recycled nonsense, tedious and boring.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Andrew W.
Saying I don’t address the theory or the observations of AGW is a pretty weird angle to put on me actually. The observations have been corrupted and the theory has been shielded from strong peer review. What more is there to address? All I have said is we re-wind the conclusions until such time as we know what we are basing the conclusion on – I bet you are incapable of explaining why that makes me the enemy of science you cast me as.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“Scientists predicted an impending Ice age in the 70’s”
Yet another piece of recycled nonsense that doesn’t address the science. Next you’ll be telling me that Greenland was green during the MWP, or that since climate is always changing the current warming must be natural.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Even Economist is part of the left-wing conspiracy— when will it end???
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1496
December 14th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
They’ll go through the issues raised by the climategate emails and documents, and they’ll find that some scientists acted improperly, but they’ll also find that the science stands, not because it’s all a huge ~200 year old conspiracy, but because climategate is a minor piece of the total AGW science picture.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Andrew W
Still waiting for why I’m the enemy of science apart from the fact I recalled some scientific articles that were authored over about a decade into the mid 70′s. I never said these scientists were right, I did say it was lucky we didn’t stop our research and review then though. Are you scared of a robust review process for your beliefs ?
December 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
“I bet you are incapable of explaining why that makes me the enemy of science you cast me as.”
How have I cast you as such??
You and I are irrelevant to the science.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Andrew W.
So you are backing down from this comment then ?
Interesting now you say we are irrelevant to the science when in that comment you were challenging me to argue it?
WHAT DO YOU WANT OTHER THAN TO PEDAL YOUR AGW RELIGIOUS VIEWS?
December 14th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Natures been duped :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
December 14th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
No its not it goes right to the heart of the claim that there was unprecidented warming during the latter half of the 20th century and the protagonists in this sorry saga are amongst the leading lights of the IPCC.
You use the word denier to describe those who are rightly imho skeptical of these claims but you yourself deny or at best minimize the MWP, for example, something that was well established in scientific literature long before these people wiped it out and the only evidence for eliminating it comes from these very same people.
The thing about any scientific theory is that the proposers of it have to demonstrate its validity.
In the case of AGW this has been turned ass about face – the theory is assumed accurate and it is up to the skeptics to show its failings and flaws.
Which are manifold.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
A lot of that validity has been demonstrated. Some of it has been nit-picked to death, with many old fallacies repeated to try and make them sound like facts. There have been failings with some of the scientific process but that is minor compared to the failings of the skeptics to show significant failings and flaws.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Pete George
AGW Chaper 17 verse’s 24-32: Only a few minor aspects have been found to be junk. The rest is intact and as the high priest of Enron style trading schemes intended it.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Burt: “you were challenging me to argue it?’
Challenging you, or more realistically your ilk, to make yourselves relevant.
Andrei, the existence of the MWP has never been denied by AGW supporters, the claim that it’s existence is denied is just more of the nonsense.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Andrew W
My ilk, what a twat. I don’t need to be relevant – the science behind AGW does. It is not as long as it can not be demonstrated to be of a standard that stands robust peer review. It has not done that – it is not relevant and you are still failing to point out how you who is just following on faith should be taken seriously when you call people asking for an open and transparent process religious deniers. You lost it big guy, your denigration talking points from the script became invalid the day we all got to see just how manufactured that script was.
Open the models, re-open the debate and get the religious zealots who believe the personalities rather than science the hell out of the future of our understanding of the world we live in.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
People like Andrew W and Pete George would have been killing people a few hundred years ago if they said the world wasn’t flat. They would be saying that their scientists had done the calculations to prove it was flat and the fact that their scientists wouldn’t disclose their calculations was justified because people couldn’t understand them anyway.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“When you call people asking for an open and transparent process religious deniers.”
How do you do it? Create your own reality in which to live? Is it hard to ignore what I actually say, so that you can construct your strawmen, or does it come naturally to you?
The scientists, especially Jones, who as I said “acted improperly” should go down, nowhere have I called “people asking for an open and transparent process religious” “deniers”, if that was what a “denier” is, I’d be a denier, you’re another step away from reality, that’s another strawman you’ve built for your ideologically based fantasy.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“People like Andrew W and Pete George would have been killing people a few hundred years ago if they said the world wasn’t flat. ”
Get a grip Burt.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Andrew W
Yes, you are right – it is hard to ignore what you say.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Sounds like a standard stalling tactic Bert. Let’s just confuse the issue, discredit all those who have actually worked on the science and start again with the “right” people.
And you even keep trying to reverse the arguments.
eg those supporting the science are “religious” about it.
Do you forget that the science of astronomy is what was ostracised?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Andrew W
The science saying it was was as valid at that time is as valid as the AGW science is now – what part of “junk unless robustly peer reviewed” is beyond you?
I get that you want to believe it – I have no problem with that, it is your right. However don’t come on here standing up for something that has been demonstrated to have been propped up by non-typical scientific process by calling people calling for robust peer review religious followers – so far all you have done is demonstrate that you cannot stand up for your belief with full scientific backing, that makes you the zealot.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Pete George
You are right, people who fight for a scientific cause that has limited scientific backing are either following on faith or just following because it is trendy – which one are you – a follower or a fool ?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“The science saying it was was as valid at that time is as valid as the AGW science is now – what part of “junk unless robustly peer reviewed” is beyond you?”
You refering to your comment about scientists believing in a flat Earth “a few hundred years ago”?
When are you planning to return to this planet?
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/contra-mundum-the-flat-earth-myth.html
December 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Andrew W
Interesting. Makes no difference to the assertion that poorly reviewed science (and scientists deliberately avoiding reviews) is probably junk science.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
That’s a nonsense question Burt. I’m not fighting for any scientific cause. I question the climate science, I’m sure it’s not all right but probably not all wrong either. I’m questioning the tactics and the motives of those who call themselves skeptics as a mask for opposing everything and wanting to delay and confuse as much as possible. And I question the campaign to manipulate and take over the debate on Kiwiblog, there are trademark signs of that being overdone.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Pete George
I’m glad you also think we need to have valid reviews and proper process. Without that to back up our understanding we would all just be following on faith. You wouldn’t want to just follow what has become a political agenda because you didn’t think it was polite to ask for a robust peer review of the facts would you. That sort of behaviour is not to be expected from intelligent people is it.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
What proportion of climate science do you think has been poorly reviewed?
What proportion of climate scientists have deliberately avoided reviews?
Why do those two faults “probably” make it junk science as opposed to improperly conducted science?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Yep, reviewing known issues is proper process. Reviewing everything because some has potential process (rather than science) problems is ridiculous.
If everything had to be reviewed and fully proven before advancing we would not advance at all, we would be like a government that keeps calling for reports with which they can procrastinate.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
“Makes no difference to the assertion that poorly reviewed science (and scientists deliberately avoiding reviews) is probably junk science.”
And that’s perhaps a major reason for our divergent opinions, I don’t think the peer review process is broke, 99% of claims that it’s not working haven’t themselves stood up to scrutany. Of the 1% of times where it’s been shown the review process hasn’t been as good as it should have, most of the substandard papers are ones sceptical of AGW.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Pete George
There you go again. There isa no cover up… nothing to see here, don’t you denigrate my religion… sure we can’t explain how Jesus walked on water but we know he did even if we lost the data we once used in a model to prove it.
Give up Pete, it’s all under a shadow now because there are not one of two things that we can say ‘ooops’ about – there is a culture of spinning the facts and that is the domain of politicians not scientists. Scientists let the facts speak for themselves – that is not what has happened in the AGW debate. I don’t care if the research to date is 99% valid – the conclusions cannot be demonstrated to have been made without bias – FAIL !
December 14th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Pete George
Listen to yourself, you are arguing that we don’t even need to have faith in the science -just faith. Amen !
December 14th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“Listen to yourself, you are arguing that we don’t even need to have faith in the science -just faith. Amen ! ”
That’s not his meaning and you know it, yet another strawman fantasy.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Andrew W
OK, what do you think “If everything had to be reviewed and fully proven before advancing we would not advance at all, we would be like a government that keeps calling for reports with which they can procrastinate.” is saying if it isn’t saying we don’t need to wait for the science to be settled before we act on the advice of the politicians ?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Newton’s laws of motion were being taught in schools before they were absolutely proven, and guess what, Einstein demonstrated Newtonian motion doesn’t always apply.
Darwinism was taught long before evolution by means of natural selection was definitively proven, and in fact, it still isn’t definitively proven. Should we go back to creationism?
In the current AGW debate I think we can be 95%+ certain that AGW is occurring, much less certain about it being “catastrophic”.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Sonny Blount (451) Says:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Pete,
Did the random sample use the same techniques used by Briffa to select the 12 trees from the Yamal peninsula?
***********************************
Sonny, don’t you understand?
The trees are in on the conspiracy!
They deliberately grew rings to give the opposite readings to all the other trees in the forest AND put their hands up to make sure Briffa took the chainsaw to them, and them only.
Ah, such sweet, successful conspiracy.
By the way, here’s some more tree rings data and just look at the hockey stick from about 1300AD to present…
Here’s an extract:
[blockquote]
Statement of the Problem.
A strong upward trend in the ring widths in most upper- treeline bristlecone pines has existed since the mid-19th century. It is important to understand the extraordinary nature and potential causes of this trend to use bristlecone pine ring widths most effectively as a climate proxy. How unusual is this modern elevated rate of tree growth at high elevation? Is this rate of growth unique in a multimillennial context? If so, it would suggest a relatively recent, dramatic environmental change in the mountainous regions of western North America. Additionally, what are the causes of the trend? A non-climatic cause would suggest that calibration of these tree-ring records with instrumental climate data may not be possible. Potential causes of the increased growth rate are discussed in the following sections.
[/blockquote]
And not a Briffa in sight!
December 14th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
burt, kudos to you for the evening’s effort.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Andrew W
If you propose an evolution tax creationists will fight you. Likewise the other way around. But you know what, in this example knowing the outcome of the riddle is of no consequence to the operation of the mechanism in action – Life. Life will go on as it does with or without our understanding. As will climate. Do we have an impact, most likely. Is that impact a governing factor? – This is still a question of faith.
Sadly the scientist involved have left a paper trail that illustrates a culture of expediency. Expediency has not traditionally been linked with solid science and so even if the AGW theory is bang-on it is tainted. It must be openly validated, if that takes a few years then so be it.
Lets globally spend a few trillion and a few years on that and get this BS behind us. If we have a model that any respectable climate research authority rates as credible then we have a starting point. Currently we have a debacle and a polarized society developing while the climate continues to do it’s thing like it has always done – what have we achieved above awareness that justifies pushing on with only belief.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Andrew W said: In the current AGW debate I think we can be 95%+ certain that AGW is occurring, much less certain about it being “catastrophic”.
******************************
I think that “catastrophic” is a subjective term that depends on one’s perspective. If you die, or lose your ancestral home and your livelihood as a direct result of climate change effects, you may agree with the use of that term.
But the planet will survive until the sun inevitably swallows it up.
So it’s all OK then, isn’t it?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Luc Hansen
The tree ring example is interesting in that it is a single region. It is a good climate proxy for that region, as ice gain in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is also a local proxy. Come on the whole IPCC push is don’t use local examples this is a global phenomena then it bases it key finding on a few localised proxies. No wonder the muppets wanted to select their reviewers.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Like preventing road deaths, it’s cost/benefit, mitigation/adaptation.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Burt, the East Antartica ice growth is well understood and does not conflict with AGW theory and observations.
The bristlecone tree data is just another of the hundreds of lines of scientific inquiry that contribute to the worldwide acceptance of that theory.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
The warmists should focus their proselytizing on Edmonton about now.
Last year these stoic folks endured a low temp record of -36deg. This year they broke that record by 10 degrees… a bone-chilling -46deg.
“To break a temperature by 10 degrees is very exceptional” said Environment Canada meteorologist Pierre Lessard. Sunday also marked the coldest Dec. 13 in Edmonton’s history.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
There is only worldwide acceptable of this theory where you look for it Luc. That seems to be the CRU scientists problem too. Must be catching.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
getstaffed
That’s not inconsistent with AGW. The model predicted that – I can’t prove it but I have lots of people who will back me up.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
Iowahawk provides a step by step guide to the ‘hockey stick’ graph
December 14th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html
“In fact, there is a large body of highly-respected academic experts who fiercely contest this thesis: people such as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a disillusioned former IPCC member, and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of geology at Oslo University, who has stated that ‘most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible’.”
December 15th, 2009 at 6:09 am
An interesting paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
December 15th, 2009 at 6:44 am
And on cue we have:
getstaffed wade in with an example that ignores the fact that AGW models predict an increase in the number of extreme weather events – more energy in the atmosphere means more winds dragging cold arctic air down to lower latitudes.
RightNow pointing to a blog by a self confessed “crazed” person that he thinks refutes a scientific paper, while he ignores the most thorough review of a scientific paper ever conducted by an academy of science.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
And then going on to champion sceptical scientists who have plenty to say on AGW, just not in the scientific literature.
And Fred, with one of those examples of a paper by authors sceptical of AGW that’s been thoroughly refuted
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
December 15th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Did you not read that properly? it marked the coldest Dec. 13 in the city’s history.
But that is just one day of the year. The coldest overall Edmonton temperature recorded was −49.4 °C (−56.9 °F), recorded on January 19 and 21, 1886.
And funnily enough the warmest day ever recorded was in 1998.
The year 2006 was a particularly warm one for Edmonton, as temperatures reached 29 °C (84 °F) or higher more than twenty times during the year.
This proves nothing, as Burt says three posts above yours “Come on the whole IPCC push is don’t use local examples”. But then, I’m sure you know that.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Burt: “I don’t care if the research to date is 99% valid – the conclusions cannot be demonstrated to have been made without bias – FAIL !”
On that basis you would have to discount all science?
December 15th, 2009 at 8:20 am
More sweeping ignorance from Andrew W.
Hurricanes etc a are result of the temperature differential between the poles and the equator. AGW has a stronger effect at the poles and should therefore result in a milder pattern of extreme weather events. And in fact the second half of this decade has seen a marked reduction in hurricane activity.
The worlds foremost expert on Atlantic hurricane activity and former contributing author to the IPCC, Chris Landsea, has stated that there is no signal for global warming in the hurricane record. He in fact resigned from the IPCC when Kevin Trenberth made false claims about Katrina being due to global warming and refused to correct them.
If the above statement refers to the following by Rightnow:
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Lindzen & Choi paper released this year.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Luc,
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
For your reading pleasure.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
“Hurricanes etc a are result of the temperature differential between the poles and the equator.”
Hurricanes are powered by vertical not latitudinal temperature gradients, which is why they occur over warm seas.
Popular sceptic Roy Spencer addresses the Lindzen & Choi paper here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
He’s not impressed. It’s probably too soon to expect a scientific paper to be out tackling it.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Check this out –
Source: http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/copenhagen-carbon-footprint-biggest-ever-3293546
December 15th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Sonny, for your reading….
The Bishophill piece on the Yamal implosion is months old (29 Sep). It stated “Without an explanation of how the selection of this sample of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of `cherrypicking’ would linger over the study” but Steve McIntyre has said “I don’t wish to unintentionally feed views that I don’t hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.”
December 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Here’s a good read, speculating that perhaps Briffa is actually the CRU whistleblower. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861
December 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Andrew W, did you actually go and read the Ioawhawk article, it was very good and articulates clearly why the science is suspect. I suggest you also read that article speculating Briffa could have been the whistle blower, very insightful.
If you’d prefer not to read them that’s fine, don’t waste your time if you don’t want. I have a question for you though, do you think if we look at a hockey stick graph that it’s useful to only look at it from 1300AD or if we should look at a longer historical record? Why wouldn’t we consider looking back a few thousand years, since we know humans have survived with lesser technology for that long?
December 15th, 2009 at 10:01 am
What’s the bet that if these Carbonhargen clowns get their way and we are sold into bondage for the rest of our lives the global weather will remain relatively stable. Of course there will be joyous cries from noddy’s like Pete, Luc & Andrew, they will shout at the top of their voices “oh look we have saved the world, if you unbelievers had had your ways we would all be screwed by now”. Yes, I can see it now.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:03 am
It is an interesting read RightNow, pure speculation on the whistleblowing but it has some interesting views. He does reveal his position: “It is more than the fact the Earth is not warming.” This is a valid concern “It is about the bastardization of science.” But it is only part of the science.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Pete George
Must fight logic and reason – faith is all you need…
You keep fighting to have the scientific conclusions that will be used to form global policy shielded from robust peer review – It’s only a conclusion that the believers want the entire planet to respond to so why risk allowing the conclusions to be proven wrong – faith is all you need, deniers are traitors…
Tobacco companies once marketed cigarettes as being good for the respiratory system then some Tobacco benefit deniers reviewed the science and found otherwise – such a shame for the Tobacco companies that their research and
scientificconclusions had to be peer reviewed – Hell if the peer reviews could have been avoided smoking could have been legally made compulsory by now and scientists could have shared secrets about how to hide the decline in human life expectancy studies.December 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Pete, it may only be part of the science, but that comes back to the question of how much of the science can we trust? Given that the scientists who have been shown to be untrustworthy form the core ‘cabal’ of the AGW scientists, how do we really know what other parts of the science are tainted or not tainted?
December 15th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I don’t, but then you either know that or choose to ignore what I say.
That’s nonsense (speaking for myself), but then you either know that or choose to ignore what I say.
Same old approach. RightNow, it is this sort of crap that clouds the legitimate debate that you sometimes seem to want to do. But that is what they want, they don’t want to examine the science, they want to confuse it, wipe it altogether or postpone it. Because they do it so much their slips start to show and they keep voting for obvious nonsense regardless.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:40 am
re: Hurricanes –
Hurricane expert Chris Landsea withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because people from the IPCC were making statements that connected hurricane activity and global warming when there wasn’t any evidence and he didn’t want to be part of it.
Read his entire letter as to why he left:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
December 15th, 2009 at 10:42 am
That is a real issue that needs to be addressed (I’d say that it is a core cabal, not the core cabal). It needs a proper examination as soon as possible. That would determine whether all the science should be discarded, or some needs adjusted or clarified (that’s normal in science), or it makes little overall difference.
Those that are determined to find a smoking gun that discredits everything are far more abusive (or absent) of scientific process than the CRU indiscretions.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:55 am
RightNow, I confess I had only skimmed the Ioawhawk post, I’ve since gone through it more thoroughly, the points it raises are those that were addressed in the NAS report I linked to – which you obviously haven’t read.
“do you think if we look at a hockey stick graph that it’s useful to only look at it from 1300AD or if we should look at a longer historical record?”
I believe that the resolution that can be achieved using current proxies is too low to build useful climate reconstructions going back further than Mann et al did, in fact, that was the main criticism of the hockey stick, the resolution was too low to claim with certainty that current temperatures are higher than they were during the MWP, though it can still be claimed that temperatures are probably warmer now.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Well for myself I try to examine the information and keep an open mind about it. This graph is apparently the recommended one to look at to get a clear picture of climate trends http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg
On the face of it you would have to accept that warming accelerated in the latter 20th century, according to the HAD and CRU instrumental records. My problems with simply accepting that is the case are:
1) What adjustment has been made for urban heat island effect in the instrumental records?
2) Why only have a graph to 2000 (when it was produced in 2008)?
3) What correlation do the CPS (and EIV) values (which are based on tree-ring proxies) have to the instrumental records – i.e. if the tree-rings were used to depict the 2000 temperatures would they be the same as the instrumental records, and if not why can you just graft the instrumental record on the end of the graph and say it is congruous?
Basically I doubt the accuracy of this graph. Principally that steep red line at the end which indicated accelerating warming is suspect. If the trend continues why not show it for the 8 years between 2000 and 2008? My guess is that it reached an apex and reversed.
This is a very good analysis of IPCC prediction versus actual for 2000-2008 by someone clearly suited to to the analysis.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/
The comments include debate from both sides of the AGW issue, and from what I understand the best interpretation of the results (best from the AGW side that is) is that the observed temperatures could possibly fall within a margin of uncertainty of the IPCC predictions, if you believe they intended to have an extra margin of uncertainty that they didn’t include in their original prediction.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. … It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming.”
The hurriance issue is probably the best example of why the AGW proponents are losing their arument. They are making statements that are not supported by actual scientific research. Thats not to say that nothing they are talking about is backed by research, but it doesnt take much to destroy your credibility.
Every time an “expert” warns that sea levels are going to rise 100 metres in the next 50 years, their case is weakened.
What we are seeing today, the slow but steady defeat of the AGW thesis, is not so much the result of hard toil by sceptics (not to disparage their contribution) as much as it is a result of the absurdity of the claims of the AGW proponents.
It is their own advocacy which is killing their argument. People are getting sick of hearing things they know are exaggerations. It was only a matter of time before the cries of “Wolf!” from the AGW proponents made their position untenable. It wont be long now until stating that you believe in AGW will be enough to exclude you from grown up conversation.
The ironic thing is it wont be science that defeats the AGW idea, just like it wasnt science which caused it to become the issue it still is today.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Andrew W, I also confess I haven’t read the NAS report, but will do over the next couple of evenings so I can get a decent understanding of it. On the surface it seems to me that tree ring proxies and instrumental records can’t simply be overlaid, so an explanation of that will certainly be enlightening.
A question that was asked (I forget where, didn’t bookmark it) strikes me as pertinent: at what point (or what criteria do we use) do we look at the IPCC models and predictions and say ‘these don’t agree with our real world observations’?
A question of my own is, at some time in the near future will there be new tree rings that can be looked at that give a new view of temperatures and will these proxies agree with the instrumental record?
December 15th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The exaggerated claims problem Kimble, with nutters and the media that sort of thing is inevitable. But should that doom any major controversial science to failure?
There are more nutty, exaggerated or false extremes claimed by those opposing climate change, they tend to add to the confusion and can also defeat the science. Like this:
MT_Tinman: Given that the whole man-made climate change fiasco is a proven fraud and that scientists have been saying for at least a year that on the very slim chance that it will happen it is too late for anyone to prevent it, yes.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/the_tv3_poll.html#comment-642594
December 15th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Kimble: “Every time an “expert” warns that sea levels are going to rise 100 metres in the next 50 years, their case is weakened.” and “a result of the absurdity of the claims of the AGW proponents.”
But no experts have ever claimed “100 metres in the next 50 years”, I guess you’re joking, but it’s so often that denialists make such nonsense claims in all seriousness about what AGW proponents are actually saying, that it’s not easy to tell when you people are serious and when you’re joking, as you say “People are getting sick of hearing things they know are exaggerations”.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:57 am
We can conclude that Al Gore doesn’t count as an expert then.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Even Gore has never claimed “100 metres in the next 50 years”, he gave an impression of immediacy in AIT that I think was misleading, but never put a time frame on his 6 metres of SLR.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
No, I am sure the ’100 metres in 50 years’ wasn’t a serious comment though. Gore has just claimed that polar ice will disappear within 5 years though http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/3161868/Polar-ice-gone-in-five-years-Gore
I haven’t looked in the last few days but I’m sure I saw that ice has actually stabilised. I’ll have a search later to see if I’ve missed something but on the face of it I have to think Gore is off the mark (although if the earth’s core is really millions of degrees perhaps that would melt the ice, among other things).
December 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
A question that was asked (I forget where, didn’t bookmark it) strikes me as pertinent: at what point (or what criteria do we use) do we look at the IPCC models and predictions and say ‘these don’t agree with our real world observations’?
Do these ‘hindcasts’ help at all?
December 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Andrew, Kimble was being sarcastic and making a point as to how AGW proponents are exaggerating away their own credibility.
He/she wasn’t trying to quote statistics.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Gore has just claimed that polar ice will disappear within 5 years though
Is that a bit different from the quote: “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,”?
December 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Thanks for the link RightNow, but as Stephen points out, you’ve provided yet another example of a denialist misrepresenting what was actually said.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Just on a general note, I sometimes wonder why the denier-a-listas don’t argue amongst themselves more – surely they can’t all be right?!
December 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
stephen
Probably because without solid scientific evidence for AGW claims the AGW claims are always changing. The denier-a-listas will never appear to be coordinated while the AGW high priest is still editing the contents of his bible.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Andrew W, “But no experts have ever claimed “100 metres in the next 50 years”, I guess you’re joking, ”
No, I wasnt being sarcastic, nor was I joking.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm#transcript
“Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question…”
Robyn Williams is a great example of what I called an “expert”, as in not really an expert in the field, but he assumes the mantle of an expert by hosting a Science Show.
“but it’s so often that denialists make such nonsense claims in all seriousness about what AGW proponents are actually saying”
And your response is to say that it is the SCEPTICS that are exaggerating! IT IS NOT US!!!! Your side is putting this bullshit out there.
People are being told that 100 metres is possible when it is actually a physical impossibility. If people dont know that the claim is ridiculous they are going to get a little worried and support the idea of AGW just for safety’s sake. And when they find out that the claim is idiotic, well that is just one claim isnt it? They have heard a dozen other people saying not as silly but still alarming things. It wont be 100 metres, but it could be 10 metres, or even 5. When they find out that ALL those claims are bullshit, they begin to think that everything being said on the AGW side is just as tainted.
Regardless of what the truth is, the absurd claims of a huge number of AGW proponents is killing your cause. But you refuse to see it, which makes you as stupid as them, and makes you just as responsible for killing the cause you think you are championing.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
But the point Stephen is making that the denier-a-listas seem to be singing the same tune and backing/voting each other, even when it is obvious crap. It is more like a co-ordinated campaign as they try to score points without caring about facts and common sense. They never seem to debate amongst themselves as if everything they say is the full facts which is usually isn’t. They seem to cheer any perceived victory as if a war has been won. It just doesn’t add up.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Spose it depends on who you count as a *serious* denier-ist-er (not anonymous blog posters, serious or semi-serious scientific background) and those who just run around the internet spouting off about amateurs on blogs who ‘discover the truth’ every few weeks. I would guess the latter will probably be trying sunspots again in a year or two, interspersed with the odd ‘what about 1998?!’, or volcanoes, or the stuff that Andrew scoffed at up top. My perception is that the ‘serious’ ones are a little more consistent.
Vaguely recall ‘serious’ Fred Singer running a workshop at one of the Heartland Institute’s gatherings on the ‘right’ points to question, while trying to crush the stupid ‘wrong’ ones which keep circulating, can’t ref it at the moment though.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Back to crap Kimble?
the absurd claims of a huge number of AGW proponents – a few, amplified by the media and particularly amplified and repeated and exaggerated by opponents
But you refuse to see it – who refuses to see it? It can be difficult to sort the real bullshit from the anti promoted bullshit
which makes you as stupid as them – why? Are you are as stupid as all the anti stupids?
you think you are championing – correction – get accused of “championing” despite the facts
This is just a typical attempt at a putdown, with virtually nothing of substance to back it.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
As I said above, I’d like to see the stats from 2000 onward. I’ll be blunt and state I think the IPCC predictions from 2000 are wrong. The hindcasts seem to match up until 2000, but I think it’s odd that they chop their graphs at 2000. If you can point me to more recent hindcasts that show I’m wrong then that would be most helpful.
Andrew W “Thanks for the link RightNow, but as Stephen points out, you’ve provided yet another example of a denialist misrepresenting what was actually said. ” – which link are you referring to, the only one I can see recently is to the Stuff article.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
As I noted at 12:18, admitting something is possible is very different from claiming something *will* happen.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“a few, amplified by the media and particularly amplified and repeated and exaggerated by opponents”
And not corrected. Never corrected, by the AGW scientists, and sometimes it IS the scientists making the claims. Where is your moderate voice? Where is the prominent guy saying, 100 metres is BS? You dont have one because you all have to stay on message. Anyone that disagree or talks down the absurd claims gets labelled a “denier”.
Bjorn Lomberg is a great example. Here is a guy that actually believes in AGW, but has been villified because he disagreed that Kyoto was worthwhile.
“This is just a typical attempt at a putdown, with virtually nothing of substance to back it.”
Piss off, George you troll. I backed up what I said with proof that an “expert” had been telling porkies, that is all the substance I needed to provide. Your response is nothing but a childish tantrum, so just piss off until you have something decent to add.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I’ve rounded up a handful of alarmist claims. Some are laughable, others are built using the general form ‘[insert alarmist claim] may happen if [insert exotic/unquantifiable event]‘
These were compiled from a quick Google search, but I would like to deepen this into IPCC and UN publications.
● 7m Sea level rises
● Tuvalu to vanish
● 150 million ‘Climate Refugees’
● Polar Bear Extinction, and another million species
● Dramatic shift in rotational axis of the earth
● Increased prostitution
● Cannibal polar bears
● Increased obesity
● Economic chaos
● acne
If being called a denialist (notwithstanding the slur of association with holocaust denial) means rejecting the nonsense above then I’ll get my denialist t-shirt printed immediately…and just hope summer is warm enough to wear it!
December 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Now your true colours Kimble.
I was referring to a specific quote of yours and didn’t refer to the 100m claim. And anyway on that it seems like Andrew Bolt dealt with the 100m claim right there in the interview. What more should be done? Obvious crap, move on.
I don’t see you criticising or even voting against many of the many regular porkies on this blog. Where is your moderate voice? Or do you either believe it all, or believe that any tactics that might work are all that matter?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Andrew W and stephen, let’s say everyone was to agree (for arguments sake) that the climate is experiencing accelerated warming due to anthropogenic causes, so we can get past that stumbling block and to what I consider to be the real debate: firstly is CO2 the real problem? secondly is a global cap and trade scheme a wise course of action?
I’ve said this already (including earlier in this thread) but there doesn’t seem a lot of point to the alarmist vs denialist arguments if the end result is a non-effective solution anyway. I wouldn’t be so sceptical if the stakes weren’t so high, but if we end up with a ‘solution’ that ultimately sees polluting industry shifted from developed to developing countries, and no overall reduction in emissions, then who wins?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
…firstly is CO2 the real problem?
I assume you mean, ‘should slowing or halting this process be a priority?’
December 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
So others must have what you fail to demonstrate?
Kimble – I’ve become completely bored with Pete. He trolls relentlessly on this subject, knocking back all/any AGW doubters and then, when pushed, claims to be an impartial commentator… undecided but trying to bring balance. Pffft. Push the subject too convincingly and he’ll jump in a smear you with suggestions of you having ‘backing’ and a ‘playbook’. That line of attach usually raises my own suspicions.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
getstaffed. Pot.
Have you counted your posts on this? Have you trolled on this relentlesly? Have you counted your “knockbacks” yet? Have you counted your smears? No, you don’t need to count them, do you.
getstaffed, I can understand you wanting to remain anonymous. But can you answer one thing – do you post here independently?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Yeah you’re right getstaffed, Pete doesn’t know if he is Arthur or Mathur. In reality he is just a little socialists/commie tosspot that would love dearly to see the advancement of big government and totalitarianism. He couldn’t give a fat rats arse about the climate this is simply a means to an end. The pricks in Carbonhargen are desperate to assert control and wallow in their ill gotten gains. Climate change, blah, what fucking lies, socialism yes, communism yes, one world government, most definitely.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
…firstly is CO2 the real problem?
I assume you mean, ’should slowing or halting this process be a priority?
Actually you even forget the question re CO2. The real question is the other one, will a cap and trade scheme make any difference? To my mind it doesn’t really matter if AGW is real or not, I’m all for cleaning up the atmosphere (and land and waterways).
Frankly I’m ok with only the wealthy being able to afford to drive, or buy imported goods (when huge carbon tariffs are introduced at port of entry). It’ll be just like the 70′s without the flairs (unless I have my way and then everyone will be envious of my bell-bottom jeans).
And in all seriousness what about the real problem – doubling our population (by about 2055 if I recall correctly).
If AGW is real, I’m guessing within the next decade the new ‘Copenhagen’ will be about limiting population growth, with the ultimate aim to reduce population below 1990 levels.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Obviously your “expert” is not an expert. Googling for “100 metres sea level rise” and similar only gets hits on the Bolt-Williams discussion, so it’s not a common exaggeration, unlike many memes from the denialist camp, (try googling “hockey stick fraud”).
December 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Pete – That’s the second time you’ve suggested I’m on someone’s payroll. The last time you asked thus:
… to which I responded:
.
But you have no interest the truth, so you’ll simply ask again in future in another desperate attempt to smear and discredit. It is pitiful, shameful behavior.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
RightNow, I’m pessimistic that Kyoto type agreements will achieve anything worthwhile, I think with a world population headed towards 10 billion by mid-century, declining water supplies, and oil on the way out (even the optimists expect it to be past peak by mid century) , other matters may impact us to such an extent that AGW will be having an effect decades after humanity has exhausted the capital to address it.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“Obviously your “expert” is not an expert. Googling for “100 metres sea level rise” and similar only gets hits on the Bolt-Williams discussion, so it’s not a common exaggeration, unlike many memes from the denialist camp, (try googling “hockey stick fraud”).”
Did IQs drop severely since I have been away? I never said he was an expert, I said he was an “expert”. As in someone who, if you didnt know any better, you would assume knows what they are talking about. 100 metres is not a common exaggeration, and I never said it was. It was an example only. You lose this point.
There are hundreds, thousands, of different exaggerations that you cant easily aggregate in a google search, but that doesnt mean they dont exist. In fact, it is that very diversity of the claims that helps to undermine the AGW case.
The funny thing is, if you morons had actually approached AGW in a grown-up way there wouldnt be these problems. If you had shouted down all the idiots claiming that sea levels will rise by tens of metres with all the effort and anger with which you have shouted down scientists with genuine, legitimate concerns about the science of AGW, then your case would be much stronger.
As it stands, your side has deliberately set out to panic the worlds population by proclaiming scarier and scarier outcomes and by attributing every last thing to AGW. Drought? AGW. Flood? AGW. Hurricane? AGW. Even earthquakes. No fucking shit, EARTHQUAKES. AGW. And you have the temerity to complain that there are a growing number of sceptical people when your scare story is as absurd and as flimsy as The Core, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012 combined!
December 15th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Away from my precious computer for a while, so will just blurt out the following for now:
I assume you mean, ’should slowing or halting this process be a priority?
Actually you even forget the question re CO2.
I interpreted this as meaning perhaps money should be spent on AIDS cure, curing nutritional deficiencies and the like. I don’t believe cap/trade or ETS is the best – the Greens’ ‘carbon tax + income tax rebates’ model looked pretty good to me and a lot of other people, but wasn’t to be.
To my mind it doesn’t really matter if AGW is real or not, I’m all for cleaning up the atmosphere (and land and waterways).
If those were the aims, i think the solutions would be quite different, so any ‘clean up’ would not necessarily result from an effective AGW fix.
We may need a bell bottom jeans fix if what you said transpires, god help us all.
And in all seriousness what about the real problem – doubling our population (by about 2055 if I recall correctly).
If AGW is real, I’m guessing within the next decade the new ‘Copenhagen’ will be about limiting population growth, with the ultimate aim to reduce population below 1990 levels.
Peaking at 10 billion by 2050, a bit short of doubling our current 6.5. Efforts have been ongoing in that area for a long while, and I don’t think anyone needs convincing about the need to do so – not so much reducing population as reducing growth rates though.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I didn’t say that, you did, why?
I have never mentioned payroll. I just asked if you are acting independently.
You often arrive with the swarm. You rally the troops like last night “burt, kudos to you for the evening’s effort.”
You could be acting completely independent of anyone here, one name, one vote. All you have to do is confirm it rather than avoid the question and that’s the end of it.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I have never mentioned payroll, you did, why? I just asked if you are acting independently.
You often arrive with the swarm. You rally the troops like last night “burt, kudos to you for the evening’s effort.”
You could be acting completely independent of anyone here, one name, one vote. All you have to do is confirm it rather than avoid the question and that’s the end of it.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I have never mentioned payroll, you did, why? I just asked if you are acting independently.
You often arrive with the swarm. You rally the troops like last night “burt, kudos to you for the evening’s effort.”
You could be acting completely independent of anyone here, one name, one vote. All you have to do is confirm it and that’s the end of it.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I have never mentioned payroll. I didn’t say that, you did, why? I just asked if you are acting independently.
You often arrive with the swarm. You rally the troops like last night “burt, kudos to you for the evening’s effort.”
You could be acting completely independent of anyone here, one name, one vote. All you have to do is confirm it rather than avoid the question and that’s the end of it.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Sorry, it didn’t seem to be saving messages but obviously was.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Pete – I have twice answered you in good faith, and yet you continue to repeat your smears. Disgraceful.
Back on topic, the press love printing climate alarmist stuff. It helped sell ads then, and it helps today. This New York Times article from 1895 is full of carnage: Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Stephen, I just read back my post where I said “Actually you even forget the question re CO2. ” What I meant to say was you CAN even forget the question re CO2. My apologies for the error.
The reason I suggested we can even forget that question is that it would go hand in hand with hypothetically accepting all the AGW arguments. The main thrust of my point was are we looking for the right solutions? In that respect even James Hansen is saying it’s the wrong solution.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
You have avoided answering the question again getstaffed. That’s your choice.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
No Pete, I have responded to your repeated smears here, here and here.
Against my better judgment, and perhaps because of your unnatural fixation on this, let me repeat that I represent no one’s views other than my own. I am not paid to hold these views, neither am I paid to undertake any research, or to respond to the accusations of trolls as I am doing now. I am currently unemployed and have plenty of time to research and comment on a subject that interests me.
I await your apology for continually questioning my motives and besmirching my character.
Back on topic (well closer to it), it’s interesting to see the alarmist MSM start to bite the hand that’s been feeding them: Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Will you apologise for any of your frequent besmirching? You have questioned and blatantly misrepresented my motives a number of times. I’m not sure why you are so sensitive to feeling the besmirching is being returned.
All I asked you was if you acted independently here, one name, one vote. That wasn’t besmirching, it was asking for an assurance. You didn’t answer that.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Pete – You don’t want assurance, you want a platform for your continued trolling. I have outlined my independence multiple times. I have never ‘questioned’ nor ‘blatantly misrepresented’ your motives. Get over it.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Climategate litigation to start?
DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”
December 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Another lie today from al pinocchio gore………. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
December 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Breaking Climate News from Wellington: http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/2/d/8/63987/coldagain-0.jpg
December 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Yeah it sure is. I like this one.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
http://www.moonbattery.com/Animal-Kingdom-in-Uproar.jpg
December 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I am sure somebody else has already said this in this thread, but, does anybody else get the feeling that the so called developing countries have all rushed off to Copenhagen with the idea that they see this as their chance to win the lottery?
Never have I seen such naked greed.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Look guys, let’s just face facts. If climate change was all a hoax, why would Obama be on his way to Copenhagen? And if it is all a plot towards a single world government, why have over 100 world leaders rushed to Copenhagen to give away the spoils of their hard won gains – the reins of power.
Mind you, on second thoughts, Obama-as-a-Born-in-America is a well proven hoax and we all know how stoopid our leaders are!
I better go take another look at that junk science I keep hearing about.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:40 am
BB, absolutely, that’s the sole reason they’re there – to get money out of it.
100 reasons climate change is natural: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
The media is slowly beginning to turn.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Angus – that’s a great list. Certainly a must-read for any <25 year old who has grown up through an education system infused with AGW religion.
Here's an interesting letter. A senator writing to the president of Pen State University (Home of the Fraud of Mann). The money quote is this:
.
I say ‘money quote’ because the letter alludes to the Uni’s appropriation being in jeopardy unless the scientific fraud is investigated. Good to see a financial blowtorch being applied to the Y-fronts of the dodgy ones.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Angus – that’s a great list. Certainly a must-read for any <25 year old who has grown up through an education system infused with AGW religion.
Here's an interesting letter. A senator writing to the president of Pen State University (Home of the Fraud of Mann). The money quote is this:
.
I say ‘money quote’ because the letter alludes to the Uni’s appropriation being in jeopardy unless the scientific fraud is investigated. Good to see a financial blowtorch being applied to the Y-fronts of the scientific community.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:17 am
100 reasons climate change is natural:
Someone should tell the geniuses at the Daily Express/Euro Foundation that ‘Wind farms don’t work’ is not a reason.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Here’s an interesting letter. A senator writing to the president of Pen State University (Home of the Fraud of Mann). The money quote is this:
I say ‘money quote’ because the letter alludes to the Uni’s appropriation being in jeopardy unless the scientific fraud is investigated. Good to see a financial blowtorch being applied down the Y-fronts of the scientifically dodgy ones.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Some if it is about money, some power, but a great deal of it is about political correctness and pressure. No Govt or leader wants to be seen to be doing “the wrong thing” for our planet, so they’ll all chime in and agree. And no country wants their trade to be affected, so it’s also about fear.
I know the example has been used many times here, but it’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes (interestingly, that fairy tale comes from Denmark!) Perhaps it’s worth printing here –
December 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I think that’s a reasonable letter from Jeffrey Piccola and the right way to address things. I note that he says allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud so he appears to be taking a fair approach rather than having already made conclusions like some.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Here it is for all to see.
http://www.cfact.org/a/1652/Monckton-names-names-on-Climategate
Now we need to follow the money as the climate warmers do.
They state that if a denier has recieved money from a corporate then they are tainted forever.
So it should be for warmers too.
lets see how they like it!
and lets stop the gravy train while we are at it.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:32 am
What if it turns out you have been backing the wrong clothes horse Fletch? The current climate is far from certain, both ways.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I’d be more than happy to accept money from corporates, another taint can only add to my already motley complexion.
Pete, what if the Christians are right too? You want to make this a Pascal’s Wager debate?
December 16th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I was talking about science RN.
There has to be a scientific gravy train, just need to keep the drivers on the track.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I will reluctantly accept gravy in lieu of cash, but it has to be in a plain envelope slipped discreetly into my pocket.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Leaving your pants with a delicious aroma for weeks.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
And making me super attractive to cats and dogs!
December 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Pete George
No you weren’t – you were talking about AGW.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Look this is all really simple. The AGW chaps took some basic CO2 facts and contemplated this little law of physics.
Follow the prep school logic; If CO2 is a greenhouse gas and enormous quantities are locked up in cold oceans then warming oceans will release more, producing more greenhouse effect and we will have a catastrophic runaway effect. Hey look if we model this with all the unquantified feedback and control systems set to neutral we can prove it can happen.
Muppets.