The effect of Climategate

February 7th, 2010 at 2:52 pm by David Farrar

Populus polled the UK on in early November 2009, before , and again in early February 2010.

The findings, and the changes from November to February are:

  • 75% (-8%) agree global warming is happening
  • 34% (-16%) of that 75% agree it is an established scientific fact that climate change is largely man-made
  • 50% (+11%) say man-made global warming is a widespread theory but has not been conclusively proved
  • 14% (+5%) say man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda with little or no evidence

Now to look at these numbers as shares of the total population, they are:

  1. 25% (+8%) say there is no global warming
  2. 11% (+4%) say there is global warming but it is natural
  3. 38% (+6%) say there is global warming but it has not been conclusively proven it is man-made, however that is the widespread theory
  4. 26% (-16%) say that there is global warming and it is an established scientific fact it is largely man-made

So this shows the magnitude of the changes. Those who say it is a fact we have man-made global warming has dropped from 42% to 26%. That is a relative decline of almost 40%, so one in three people who believed global warming is definitely man-made have changed their minds.

UPDATE: This cartoon seems topical

Tags: , , , ,

59 Responses to “The effect of Climategate”

  1. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    ““You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

    Abe Lincoln

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rod (180 comments) says:

    The UK snow storms and the exposure of the fraud reaching the MSM have had a huge impact on public opinion there – possibly more so in the US where the alarmists have had much less sway than in the UK.

    JK needs to watch closely what is happening to support for the Conservatives as they continue to pursue the AGW nonsense. The ETS needs to be dumped before the NZ public catches on to the rip off too, definitely before it starts to hit our wallets.

    And check out Aussie – in spite of the KRudd AGW rhetoric they have just signed up a MASSIVE deal to aid and abet CO2 release into the atmosphere by opening up a vast new coal export trade to China. No chance of a credible ETS there now.

    And “Africagate” is hitting the IPCC today with new revelations in the UK of how yet more errors have been included in their reports and speeches, and deliberately manipulated to mislead and scare us. The IPCC surely now has its reputation/credibility in tatters, and yet our leaders continue to tell us we should believe them and gladly pay up. There are better things JK could spend his political capital on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    I bet those in Washington are cursing AGW about now.
    Worst snow storm in 90 years – pass me the tanning lotion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    Even the skeptics’ favourite satellite data set shows susbstantial global warming. It showed strong global warming even before the recent record January temperature increase.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    More opinion against the AGW scam: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Poor old Kris K at it again – confusing weather with climate.

    I guess some people are just beyond help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    Yes, yes… public opinion CAN alter physics.

    This is a real test for politicians – hold on to votes if the public is duped into thinking it’s a scam and go into ‘do nothing’ mode… and suffer the judgement of history when it starts to bite – or put votes at (some) risk and act appropriately.

    nb: I used the appropriate word on purpose. Horses for courses and I agree with the Nat’s cautious approach so far – a very difficult line to tread but I think they’re getting it about right – cautious action without going too far too soon, while positioning well for future action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “so one in three people who believed global warming is definitely man-made have changed their minds.”

    Unfortunately, we got the other two who have not!
    The minister that gave us the ETS abomination, Nick Smith, and his boss, empty-suit Key, are staunch AGW believers, so all ETS new taxes are on track for implementation.

    Who needs enemies with “friends” like those two?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Manolo 4:07 pm,

    “so one in three people who believed global warming is definitely man-made have changed their minds.”

    Unfortunately, we got the other two who have not!

    Prior to getting to the end of your comment I thought you meant Pete George and (the artist also known as) Luc Hansen, rather than Nick and Neville.

    And Luc (3:59 pm),
    Having you fell sorry for me means a lot – I’ve come over all warm and fuzzy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Yet a European Union survey, ref #322 here (the report itself is a downloadable PDF shows an even higher level of acceptance by Europeans in general. And unlike Britain, the hacked emails episode is seen for what it, a blatant attempt to distort the work of our best climate scientists, and I doubt that more recent polls will show much change. Europeans are already experiencing the effects and governments are all making plans to adapt, including Britain.

    And public opinion does not decide the science. Polls like this simply mean that the IPCC has to lift it’s game and do more to than just present the science.

    The most recent New Scientist editorialises that the IPCC should report yearly, but I don’t think that even that is enough in this modern age. It would be relatively simple to place all working papers accepted by the IPCC into a continuously updated file for anyone to peruse and even challenge. And it should appoint “Champions” whose job would be to advocate for the scientists who always have their heads buried in their work.

    Some science lovelies would be a good start! Perhaps the IPCC could even publish a calender with a pin up of the month depicted in a situation illustrating some effects of climate change!

    Maybe I should email them with my ideas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rod (180 comments) says:

    “Perhaps the IPCC could even publish a calender with a pin up of the month ”
    Wearing a fur coat this month, I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Extract from Almora by R.K. Pachauri.

    Johnboy the cybersheep bleated folornly as his throat was cut and his CPU silenced forever. As his blood spilled onto the altarstone head priest Kristomory prayed to his God.
    “I bet those in Washington are cursing AGW about now.
    Worst snow storm in 90 years – pass me the tanning lotion.”

    At the back of the mob unbeliever Luc Handsome snarled.
    “I guess some people are just beyond help.”

    Meanwhile back at the laboratory Whoopsy the nubile, large breasted phD exclaimed as she ripped open her bodice to display her ample charms to the rest of the climate scientists.
    “Yes, yes… public opinion CAN alter physics.”

    Meanwhile up on the high sierra that had not seen a drop of rain for many a day or a sheep or two or a caribou
    Manolo the swarthy, moustachioed, but still strangely handsome (and hung like a donkey) climate change denier said.
    “Who needs enemies with “friends” like those two?”

    He then went on to say while unzipping his fly—-“Have I got…………

    Thats all folks for your free sample.

    If you want too read more of this sultry,vibrant novel of sex and global warming and the honest scientists who have taken on the evil deniers while shagging as many fools as they can buy it at your local book store only $55.

    All proceeds to the Pachauri/Jones/Mann defence fund.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Anyone interested is the current debate in New Zealand about “climate
    change” (the new cover name for “man-made global warming”), and possibly
    intrigued by the New Zealand Climate Science Coaltion’s sustained questioning of NIWA about temperature
    records, should read this account by Richard Treadgold. It sets out in
    considerable (and accurate!) detail why we think that NIWA has been less
    than open, until now, about the integrity of its temperature recording
    and archiving procedures, and why there must be full disclosure of how
    they arrive at the new records they have undertaken to “re-create”.

    Pass this URL on to as many others as possible.

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/02/niwa-loses-opts-for-fresh-start/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    Vibenna
    “Even the skeptics’ favourite satellite data set shows susbstantial global warming. It showed strong global warming even before the recent record January temperature increase.”

    Its an El Nino spike in ocean temp. Last time it happened the temps plummeted in the following months after.
    .07 rise is negligible and well outside 95% of the range forecast by the IPCC which is meant to occur. Which was 2-6 degrees in warming by now. Glad you are agreeing with us that the IPCC is wrong and their science is made up, I mean flawed.
    Where is that warming btw?
    Got a reason why its not happening according to plan Vibenna?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Nice article here on the strengths of the few and the sheepish MSM

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    This is jaw dropping stuff. Send it to your MP.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

    It opens:
    In all the coverage lately given to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its embattled chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, one rather important part of the story has largely been missed. This is the way in which, in its obsession with climate change, different branches of the UK Government have in recent years been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into a bewildering array of “climate-related” projects, often throwing a veil of mystery over how much is being paid, to whom and why.
    To begin with a small example. Everyone has now heard of “Glaciergate”, the inclusion in the IPCC’s 2007 report of a wild claim it was recently forced to disown, that by 2035 all Himalayan glaciers will have melted. In 2001 the Department for International Development (DfID) spent £315,277 commissioning a team of British scientists to investigate this prediction. After co-opting its Indian originator, Dr Syed Hasnain, they reported in 2004 that his claim was just a scare story. Some glaciers were retreating, others were not. There was no way they could disappear in a time-span shorter than many centuries.
    Three years later, however, when the IPCC produced its 2007 report, it endorsed Dr Hasnain’s claim without any mention of the careful UK-funded study which had shown it to be false. What made this particularly shocking was that in 2008 another British ministry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced that it had paid £1,436,000 to fund all the support needed to run the same IPCC working group which, as we now know from a senior IPCC author, had included the bogus claim in its report.
    But the story did not stop there. In a report to Parliament the same year, Defra stated that its funding of the IPCC working group had been not £1.4 million but only £543,816. It was also in 2008 that Dr Hasnain was recruited by Dr Pachauri to work in his Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), where his spurious claim was used to win Teri a share in two lucrative studies of the effects of the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.
    Read on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Captain Crab, yet another example of an outright lie from the deniers brigade.

    The IPCC has made no such prediction. This is from the 2007 Working Group Policy for Ploicymakers.

    For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
    about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

    Elsewhere, it reports a warming of 0.74C since pre-industrial times. You should read the report, or at least the summary, before perpetuating falsehoods.

    Sine the next two decades from 2007 have not yet passed, I fail to see how their prediction can be wrong so soon.

    So substantiate your statement, please, and not from a deniers blog, if you don’t mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Owen, you really should get out of the gutter press slime. Hasnain has not admitted any such thing. This report http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-34930.html is a more balanced description of the sorry saga.

    Hasnain actually denies giving that date, but did say that at the current rate of retreat, the glaciers could be gone in 40 to 50 years.

    Completely independently, and based on NASA’s observations, James Hansen makes a similar prediction.

    This would mean the IPCC’s conservative prediction for sea level rise would be blown out of the water, with a half metre rise by around 2050 just from melting glaciers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    FFS, another thread where Luc Hansen fails to understand the bloody obvious. The science was settled, now it’s not and worse than that – it looks bloody dodgy. Now lets try again;

    It’s not the science that most people are loosing faith in – it is the process that was not followed that is the problem.

    But oh no, Luc would believe the world is flat if all evidence saying it was round was called voodoo science by his high priest of flatness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Now to look at these numbers as shares of the total population, they are:

    1. 25% (+8%) say there is no global warming
    2. 11% (+4%) say there is global warming but it is natural
    3. 38% (+6%) say there is global warming but it has not been conclusively proven it is man-made, however that is the widespread theory
    4. 26% (-16%) say that there is global warming and it is an established scientific fact it is largely man-made

    It would be interesting where you fall into, David. (Even though you do not live in the UK)
    I always thought you you’d fall into category 3)

    Yet your posts on climate change are always ambiguous on where you exactly stand. They seem to feed towards people who deny or are strongly sceptic of climate change.

    Take this post for example. No commentary around what the consequence of such a change of opinion may be. Is this proof that AGW is not happening? Or is it that it will be more difficult politically to implement changes to combat climate change?

    After all, opinion polls do not change the science as someone pointed out.

    [DPF: I am in category four in relation to the so called direct effects of greenhouse gas emissions and category three for indirect effects]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    So Burt, do you believe that glaciers are not melting?

    Yes or no, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen

    Until last year the “all knowing” scientists told us that glaciers moved in unison world wide, that theory was blown to shit (voodoo science) and some re-thinking needed to be done.

    But to answer your question – which glaciers are you asking about? The ones that are advancing or the ones that are shrinking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    eszett,

    Yet your posts on climate change are always ambiguous on where you exactly stand. They seem to feed towards people who deny or are strongly sceptic of climate change.

    I’ve always read DPF as pro-AGW and anti-ETS, this is quite a common position I believe. He seems to have warmed to sceptical subject matter since climategate, I just hope other media sources will do the same in a convincing manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    Captain Crab – I said even before the latest record high temperature. So by all means throw out that recent high data point if it makes you feel better. The result still shows strong warming – stronger than the IPCC trend in fact.

    But don’t believe me – Roy Spencer has his data on the site. Why not download it and fit your own trend line. Examine the data to determine the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Luc

    Here is a link to support my claim about global misunderstand of glaciers only recently being sorted out;

    NZ Herald: NZ glacier findings upset climate theory – 2nd May 2009

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    So Burt, do you believe that glaciers are not melting?

    I agree that some glaciers are melting, there are over 100,000 glaciers so there are always some that are shrinking or growing. How many of these can you identify with conclusive data that are melting Luc?

    It must also be remembered that evidence of warming is not evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Catastrophe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    Greg Balco, from the Berkeley Geochronology Centre in California, said the conclusion that glacier advances in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were not synchronised was “unexpected”.

    More unexpected results in the field of settled science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Sonny Blount

    Exactly, so up till mid last year the IPCC was operating with flawed assumptions on glaciers in their global models… Oh hang on – they didn’t study glaciers did they – they just made stuff up to support the rest of their flawed model predictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    I wait for Luc to tell us all that Geologist David Barrell of GNS Science, Victoria University geomorphologist Andrew Mackintosh and glaciologist Trevor Chinn of the Alpine and Polar Processes Consultancy are all wrong and the IPCC were correct that glaciers move in synch globally….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    I think that we would mostly all agree that ” Sun Spot Activity ” has some effect on this worlds climate..

    Over the past few weeks the Sun Spot activity has erupted way beyond records for the past 100 years..

    Will the AGW’s claim the up coming changes from this occurance ( what ever they are ) be proof of their wild claims ??.

    Brace your selves for their fight back :-))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Johnboy 4:49 pm,

    Extract from Almora by R.K. Pachauri.

    Johnboy the cybersheep bleated folornly as his throat was cut and his CPU silenced forever. As his blood spilled onto the altarstone head priest Kristomory prayed to his God.
    “I bet those in Washington are cursing AGW about now.
    Worst snow storm in 90 years – pass me the tanning lotion.”

    At the back of the mob unbeliever Luc Handsome snarled.
    “I guess some people are just beyond help.”

    Thats all folks for your free sample.

    If you want too read more of this sultry,vibrant novel of sex and global warming and the honest scientists who have taken on the evil deniers while shagging as many fools as they can buy it at your local book store only $55.

    All proceeds to the Pachauri/Jones/Mann defence fund.

    ‘R.K. Pachauri’ is obviously the name you ghost write under, Johnboy.
    When this book is made into a movie (and it will be) I have a suggestion for the movie title.

    Your previous directorial debut in your 1989 movie – ‘Sex, Lies, and Videotape’ actually provided me with the inspiration for the title of your follow-up movie – which will, no doubt, be even more successful:

    ‘Sex, Lies, and Global Warming’

    I think she’ll be a real winner!

    PS Luc has mentioned to me on the side that he’s more than happy to put in a cameo appearance. Whoopsie is still to get back to me as she is tentatively booked in for additional surgery the week shooting begins. And Manalo, well he’ll be busy with his own movie[s] – a man with his ‘gift’ is in great demand – and has declined your invitation to fill the lead roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Not sure how you how you can disprove the 700 peer reviewed studies however. I know its bit hard for the human brain bought up in the savannahs of East Africa to adapt to danger more sophisticated than being chased by lions but we do have the capacity to acknowledge that the world may be different in twenty years time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    wattsupwiththat are experts in promoting invented theories ascribed to climate scientists. There are two problems with this passage from the article you quoted from (Note: why don’t you provide the source?)

    The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the Northern Hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.

    My understanding is that all glaciers behave differently, depending on local conditions. Even today, some glaciers are still advancing, but the overwhelming trend is retreat.

    Since the Southern Hemisphere lags the Northern Hemisphere in temperature rise, I fail to see why glaciers would be expected to change in tandem, and I have not read any science asserting this. Perhaps you could be kind enough to dig this up. Maybe you could ask your source.

    Or is a search for facts just not your thing?

    And something to remember is that the definitive measurement is not distance, but mass, which NASA monitors by satellite. Glaciers can actually advance while reducing in overall size ie mass. And the more mass that is lost, the faster the glacier will eventually retreat.

    This is the information James Hansen bases his predictions on. Owen, above, is just wrong when he says every glacier takes centuries to melt. That is under the natural variation, not the present CO2 forcing.

    A little more research would inform you that our current orbital settings, and the decade long sunspot minimum, are biased towards cooling, not warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kris, you provide the girl, I’ll be up for it!

    My wife said I am allowed as it would be for the greater good!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen

    My understanding is that all glaciers behave differently, depending on local conditions. Even today, some glaciers are still advancing, but the overwhelming trend is retreat.

    So if some are advancing and sore are retreating how the hell was I ever going to give you a yes/no answer as you demanded?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    Has anyone thought to send this to Nick the Twit at Parliament. It will be something else for him to ignore.

    A great move that ETS Act!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    Not sure how you how you can disprove the 700 peer reviewed studies however.

    It is not needed as the best of my knowledge there is not a single peer reviewed study that provides proof of anthropogenic climate catastrophe, or can you point me in the direction of one that does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Kris, you provide the girl, I’ll be up for it!

    My wife said I am allowed as it would be for the greater good!

    Excellent, now all we need to do is convince Luc’s wife that having the IPCC findings subject to rigorous peer review is for the greater good and Luc will stop defending the conclusions from the failed process and join the rest of us saying we need to have the conclusions validated before we act on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    There was a Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period and it ended about 1800 to 1850.
    The globe began to warm then because of the ending of the LIA.
    IT takes a while for rising temperatures to affect glaciers and so there is considerable time lag.
    Any retreating overall is almost certainly due to the rise in temperatures following the end of the LIA.
    Trouble is the IPCC tried to argue that there was no MWP or LIA – the famous flat line handle of the hockey stick.

    But glacier retreats and advances are much more short term responsive to precipitation. No snow and ice in – less ice and snow out.
    Hence the considerable variety all over the globe.
    Just as sea levels depart from the theoretical geoid by as much as 190 metres from one part of the globe to another.
    There is no such thing as a global average sea level – it is a statistical artifact. A bit like saying because the average man is 5ft ten all men are five foot ten.
    They aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Owen, of course sea level varies over the planet, but there is a global mean sea level calculatd by scientists that gives an overview. Here is a link to more information:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8875

    You really should get acquainted with the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen

    To have a global mean sea level that is anything other than a theoretical reference the land masses would need to be static.

    Still I guess if the IPCC reports can ignore solar variance as a reason for climate change then I guess it is easy to pretend land is static.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. BlueDevil (92 comments) says:

    Pick your data like the tree-rings were. Measure 252 glaciers and pick the 12 that best fit your theory!
    Works for sea level measurements just as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    No Burt, you are wrong. The science takes tectonic movement into account.

    And the IPCC does not ignore solar forcing, it is quantified and factored in. Bear in mind that the sunspot activity is at its low point in its regular cycles, and will kick in again soon. But it’s just not a major influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Blue Devil

    Have you ever looked at the Hockey Stick graph and tried to understand all the other proxies that were included? And tried to understand that Briffa’s science was excellent? Do you understand that Briffa did not do the original sampling of the trees? This was done by two Russian scientists on a completely different research project.

    Here is a link for you: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11.full?sid=7f4993da-723d-4514-998f-7c5a1aa0d16e

    It is the rebuttal by Michael Mann of the criticism of his work, published in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in the US.

    Footnote No 2 takes you to his review of his original work, which led him to actually extend his analysis even further back in time.

    Go on, be a devil – look at the science. I dare you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    Has Phil U metmorphosed into Luc Hansen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Ummm…Sonny…notice the absence…

    of…

    …?

    Tell me Sonny, what is it about climate change that makes you want to duck for cover?

    I wouldn’t want to be in the trenches with you deniers, that’s for sure! You pricks will be heads down and leaving all the fighting to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Luc Luc Luc
    you actually don’t get it? do you.
    It is the rebuttal by Michael Mann of the criticism of his work, published in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in the US.

    Which reserchers and peer reviewed journals are safe and haven’t been involved in any part of the scam.
    That’s what climategate has done, tarred everyone with the shit brush.
    Thats why the proponants in these emails need to be sacked and taken out of play.
    For the integrity of the system.

    worse still you typify the meanspiritedness of the warmists that we see in the data manipulation and emails by the insiders in league with the politicians at the top.

    I wouldn’t want to be in the trenches with you deniers, that’s for sure! You pricks will be heads down and leaving all the fighting to me.

    Wake up mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. francis (712 comments) says:

    God, who IS this Luc guy? Sounds like he’s the PR bunny for NIWA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Mike, conspiracy theories do not equate to scientific facts. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

    francis, you can send me an email via my blog. I’m happy to talk. No, I don’t work for NIWA. I don’t get paid that much in my lowly night shift position (which happens to suit perfectly for raising a child in a dual income household). I just have this unfortunate predilection for seeking facts.

    Just look at what I post compared to the mainly ad hominem attacks I endure on this site. Doesn’t that tell you anything?

    I was highly sceptical of global warming when I joined Kiwiblog. What I did was to chase down all the arguments by guys like Ian Wishart, Owen McShane and their slavering adherents and found that they just did not hold water.

    Now, I am concerned that the IPCC has understated the case so much that my little daughter is going to grow up in a much changed and more brutal world.

    I’m not happy about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    MikeNZ: “Which reserchers and peer reviewed journals are safe and haven’t been involved in any part of the scam.”

    FFS Mike, get a grip, there’s no global conspiracy of scientists, it’s all in your mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. poneke (280 comments) says:

    God, who IS this Luc guy? Sounds like he’s the PR bunny for NIWA.

    If you go to the site his name links to, you see he is some kind of raving anti-semite:

    http://kbrmrebutted.blogspot.com/

    These people buy the whole package, don’t they? I bet Mr Minto is an AGWarmist too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    So, Phil Jones considered suicide because of his belief in Climate Change has been questioned.
    Some say climate change is like a religion, I disagree, it’s more like a cult.
    He should change his name to Jim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Rod

    we could be getting on with building highly efficient and clean modern coal fired power stations to use our vast coal resources…

    No, see if we ship it to China where it is burnt in old polluting power stations then they are the nasty environmental guys. But if we burn it here we are the bad guys. You must not confuse how it looks from the outside with what is actually occurring. Never think about the fact it is being burnt one way or another – just think about the fact we can pretend to be green while earning precious export dollars from other countries doing the polluting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > I am concerned that the IPCC has understated the case so much that my little daughter is going to grow up in a much changed and more brutal world.

    Faux concern no doubt.

    One hopes that your daughter – if she is told that the world is about to end – won’t automatically believe such fear-mongering but will actually question such a statement by asking how, why, when. When you ask the AGW alarmists such questions, they duck for cover. They don’t have the answers but they sure as hell know that the end is nigh!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “Just look at what I post compared to the mainly ad hominem attacks I endure on this site. Doesn’t that tell you anything?”

    You defend your world view in much the same Kris K does, and for much the same reason. The only difference it has been a few hundred years since Kris K’s beliefs were part of the state religion and rammed down people’s throats and at the moment yours are. Hopefully we are only months or years away from the end of this particular state-enforced AGW religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg 1:29 pm,

    Greg, Greg, Greg – while the religion of AGW may be fantasy as well as fantastical, your attacking of those who generally agree with you on the AGW lie does little for your credibility, or the way others here regard you.

    Your type never “miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. senzafine (455 comments) says:

    Luc, Whether you believe that the science is settled or not is irrelevant. What is completely relevant is that the IPCC. through their shoddy scientific and political practices have tainted the AGW Phenomena in the eyes of the masses. And I believe we’re only seeing the beginning of the fall of teh IPCC.

    As such a staunch believer in AGW, you should be very, very, very concerned about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote