CSC v NIWA
NZPA reports:
The country’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa). …
The coalition said the New Zealand Temperature Records (NZTR) were the historical base of NIWA’s advice to the Government on issues relating to climate change.
Coalition spokesman Bryan Leyland said many scientists believed although the earth had been warming for 150 years, it had not heated as much as Government archives claimed.
He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland.
The coalition said the 1degC warming during the 20th century was based on adjustments taken by Niwa from a 1981 student thesis by then student Jim Salinger, a Niwa employee who was later sacked after talking to the media without permission.
The Salinger thesis was subjective and untested and meteorologists more senior to Dr Salinger did not consider the temperature data should be adjusted, it said.
The coalition would ask the court to find Niwa’s New Zealand Temperature Record invalid.
It would also seek a court declaration preventing Niwa from using the NZTR when it advised the Government or any other body on global climate issues. It would also ask the court to order Niwa to produce a full and accurate NZTR.
One doesn’t go to court on a whim, so the CSC obviously feel they have a case. It will be fascinating to hear the details once it reaches court.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Post-normal science to be put in the dock. Excellent.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Interesting that the coalition are not going all out for trying to prove no warming, just for a revised/reduced amount of warming.
Krazy – do you expect only one outcome? If it shows something different to what you believe would you revise your position?
It’s not a bad thing to test this in an open court. I wonder if the coalition – and a few regular posters here – would accept it if the NIWA position is largely found to be adequately supported by science.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Pete – I expect no outcome, other than increased public awareness of the widespread abuse of ‘science’ in support of a political agenda. The tide is turning.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Considering the controversy over global warming I think it is a good idea to make a scientific body publicly justify it’s evidence.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am
This is about as insane as it is to dispute the existence of climate change despite the overwhelming consensus amongst climate change scientists and despite the huge number of incidents currently occurring that show that Earth’s weather systems are in a stressed and degraded state.
[DPF: As a lawyer I expect you should know better than to think that is related to this court case. As I read it, the court case is about whether the adjustments made to the raw record of temperatures are justified or not]
August 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Silly, silly, silly.
Don’t they know the science is settled? Absolutely, definitely cannot be challenged, doubted, re-hypothesised or analysed.
The science is settled! Why can’t you hear me!!
August 16th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Ok, so you don’t have an open mind about it. Do you look at all climate information starting from the same bias?
August 16th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Quite a good report on a recent debate on the subject. A Warmist propagandist got so angry with alternative viewpoints being voiced he walked out.
But you would expect that wouldn’t you? With the media completely failing to do their job, the fascist bastards who push this farce have become extremely arrogant in their mission, and deliberately focused on silencing those who oppose them.
Great work again by Ian Wishart, one of NZ’s only real journalists.
http://www.baptist.org.nz/the-baptist/news/general/1429-clearing-the-air
August 16th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Very few people dispute that the climate is warming.
What people dispute is the extent to which man is culpable, and how much more CO2 affects warming, and whether or not it is cataclysmic or beneficial.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:21 am
CSC’s challenge to NIWA goes back to 2009. Story is here.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Some of those very few seem to blog here Don, they seem to want a particular outcome to the debate they have created, rather than wanting to keep the science going.
I think you sum it up well.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:22 am
I did some analysis a while back related to the NIWA record: http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-temps-warming-real-record-robust-sceptics-wrong/#comment-8954.
I started off on a thread asking why the majority of the corrections to the temperature record went in one direction – to increase the recorded warming – and very few in the opposite direction. And whether that was a red flag that perhaps something was wrong. I asked whether there was perhaps some correction that should be in there for urban heat island effect, and got a reasonably short answer saying that there wasn’t, since NZ is too windy, and that if I thought that I should do some analysis rather than hypothesising about it.
I downloaded the data for Kelburn and did some analysis – correlating the temperature and the wind. What my analysis showed was that for the time period 1961-2005, for Kelburn, non-windy days showed warming of 0.5 degrees, whilst windy days showed a cooling of 0.14 degrees. My theory is that there is an urban heat island effect in play, which only impacts on still days. On windy days, we effectively get the temperature from out at sea, as the air is exchanged faster than it can warm up.
As you can see from the thread above, I didn’t get too far with this. But it was an interesting exercise for me, and led me to think that perhaps the corrections to the NZ temperature record were a bit dodgy. The NZ temperature record does form part of the global record, so if it is misstated, then that has an impact on the overall record.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:28 am
You present your conlcusions based on adjusted data to suit your preconceptions. You hide your sources and prevent others from questioning your findings. You even go to the point of wanting to make it illegal to question these findings and will not even discuss them.
Thats not science, thats a theocracy.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:34 am
PaulL
Interesting you mention Kelburn.
There definetly is an Urban Heat Island Effect in play. The Temperature Measurement Station (A Stephenson Screen) is now surrounded by an asphalt car park (complete with hot cars cooling) and has airconditioning vents spewing heat out of warm buildings made of concrete and steel. Theres been photos on WUWT
Go figure the temp has risen with all that exposure to heat from unatural sources!
It was a lot more empty years ago and even the IPCC now classes the standard and accuracy of this measurement station as Class 5. This is the lowest and most inaccurate.
Back to the Court case- NIWA has adjusted the data but WONT provide the specific calculations which should be in the Schedule of Adjustments. They keep referring to the adjustments but have never provided that actual Schedule so they could be checked.
All science should be checked dont you think?
August 16th, 2010 at 9:36 am
If you weren’t a scientific illiterate, Pete George, you would realize that trying to detect a “warming signal” in the historical thermometer readings is not viable.
This is because the signal is very small and the accuracy of the instruments themselves is close to whatever that signal may be and thats assuming that the protocols for taking these measurements has been strictly followed (which is in itself highly doubtful).
Add “adjustments” into the mix and you have exactly nothing meaningful to say in regard to the temperature change over the past 100 years.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Pete – I completely agree with Don. Earth is emerging from the last ice age (long cycle) and also from the last little ice age (short cycle) so overall warming is expected. That aside, the last decade could have folks wondering if the next little ice is approaching …
Back to warming, I’m just not convinced that this natural, unalterable and incredibly gradual change is one that should have the developed nations falling over themselves to gift their wealth to the UN (or World Bank) for re-distribution. There is sufficient evidence of falsification of research data and methods to lead me to believe the truth is not being sought, more a plausible reason to push a global socialist and governance agenda. But we’ve been through all this.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Quite right andrei,
We have James Hansen from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (“we’re part of Nasa dont ya know”) telling us the the land temps in Greenland have risen 5 degrees. Thats right, 5 degrees.
How many Temp Measuring Stations are there in Greenland?
Only 1.
And its in the middle of nowhere, well apart from where they built the new airfield made of asphalt and concrete around it with lots of heat being lost in the well heated buildings on site.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:44 am
I’ve never claimed to be an expert in science andrei, I’m happy to keep an eye on what real scientists say, and I’m happy to modify my view if necessary based on the ongoing science.
Do you have a fixed view on climate science? Or will you keep weighing up the pros and cons?
August 16th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Ok, so you are not in it for the science – unless there’s a scientific theory of conspiracies.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:52 am
One.single.volcano.erupts Theory dies.
August 16th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Hmm, what’s the legal basis of this anyway? How can a court or a single judge decide on scientific findings and whether they are true or not?
All seems a bit dodgy to me.
Of course, if it wold be the other way around, someone to sue in a court to show that global warming is true and a imminent danger, there would be howls of outrage on this blog.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Volcanoes can affect climate but they don’t make any difference to the possibility of human affect or detract from the need for scientific research.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Are you implying that global warming is true and you are waiting for a natural catastrophe to occur to counteract it?
August 16th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Pete,
Sure we are affecting the environment. The heat from land transformation and the polluting influence of soot are factors in the world warming and possibly Solar/lunar influences and maybe just the natural cycle of our climate as well?
The argument is whether the heating is being caused by CO2.
Its looking more likely that CO2 is not the cause of heating
August 16th, 2010 at 10:10 am
One volcano spits out more co2 in a day than the entire country does in 100 years.
Explain how you tax a volcano?
And heys whats up with that big bright glowy thing in the sky, does that effect climate too do you think? shit we better tax that too and change the weather.
Its bloody insanity.
Not one cent on actually working out how to adapt to change and what that change could be, just chiken little panic and tide turning taxation. the last warm period was a boom time for Britain, why not take a look at that? Because Al Gore wants to sell you a fictious currency. And btw he was busted in court for lying in his documentry too.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Incorrect.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:21 am
All_on_Red: Perhaps this court case is, pure and simple, an attempt to finally get the schedule of adjustments released. If NIWA refuse to provide it to the court, then the court would have to conclude that it cannot be relied upon. If they do provide it to the court, then they’ll no longer have an argument as to why they can’t provide it to the CSC. Could be an interesting tactic.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:25 am
eszett.
You are a snarky bitch/bloke, aren’t you.
Maybe you’re both.
But all POV’s are welcome, of course .
August 16th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Here is the Statement of Claim. But of course, the Lamestream Media ignores this.
Care to wager on the outcome?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ex Climateconversation Group-
Our Statement of Claim against NIWA
Richard Treadgold | August 15, 2010 | 5:58 pm
Time for an independent judicial examination of the national temperature record.
1. NIWA has statutory duties to undertake climate research efficiently and effectively for the benefit of NZ, pursuing excellence and observing ethical standards, while maintaining full and accurate records.
2. The official NZ Temperature Record (NZTR), which is the historical base for most Government policy and judicial decisions relating to climate change, wholly relies upon a “Seven-station series” (7SS), adopted in 1999.
3. The twentieth-century warming trend of 1.0°C shown in the 7SS is dependent on the use of “Adjustments” taken by NIWA from a 1981 student thesis by J Salinger, a previous NIWA employee.
4. NIWA’s 1999 decision to rely on the Adjustments was a breach of duty as it did not:
• evaluate the thesis methodology or consider whether it needed updating
• discover that the supporting data and calculations had been lost
• undertake any check or peer review or require consent from the copyright holder
• maintain any record of the decision
5. NIWA’s 1999 decision was based on the mistaken assumptions that the methodology:
• was in accord with current international best practice
• had been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal
• could be replicated by applying the thesis to publicly available data
• could be supported by production of the Salinger thesis
• reflected an NZTR increase in 1944-60 shown by another Salinger paper
• was required to compensate for changes in the altitude of thermometers
6. NIWA’s 1999 decision failed to take account of the following relevant factors:
• the National Climate Database, compiled by the Met Service, shows no material warming
• meteorologists senior to Salinger did not consider that the data should be adjusted
• the warming trend is wholly reliant on the subjective and untested Salinger thesis
• an implausible 9 out of 10 of the Adjustments favour an upward trend
• NZ was warmer in 1867, and during 1863-1919, than it is now
• the thesis showed inexplicable and unprecedented warming of 1.42°C during 1944-57
• the 7SS warming trend is much greater than the global average
• the data was lost and the Adjustments could be neither documented or replicated
7. NIWA’s 1999 decision was influenced by the expectation that major NZTR warming would encourage funding for additional climate change research.
8. NIWA failed to observe ethical standards in delegating the 1999 NZTR decision to Salinger, who was in no position to assess the matter objectively.
9. Whilst conceding that the 7SS-based NZTR requires review, NIWA has refused in 2010 to suspend it, or stop using it. It relies on an “Eleven-station series” (11SS) of unadjusted data produced in December 2009.
10. The 2010 refusal involved a breach of ethical standards in:
• delegating to Salinger the authority to select the stations and time periods of the 11SS, when it knew that he was likely to be biased in favour of corroborating the 7SS
• allowing the 1931-55 period to masquerade as part of the 11SS, whilst knowing the requisite data was missing, and the series was unreliable
• falsely claiming that Salinger’s “ship’s paper” supported the 7SS
• continuing to promote a NZTR that NIWA knew to be seriously flawed
11. The 2010 decision was unreasonable and illegal, and made without:
• assessing the arguments put forward by critics of the 7SS and the 11SS
• checking or peer reviewing or documenting the statistical methodology of the 11SS
• ensuring that the selection of inputs was free from bias
• weighing the risks and benefits to NZ of continuing to rely upon a flawed NZTR
12. The 2010 decision ignored the following relevant factors:
• the 11SS disclosed no warming from 11 stations, and the claimed warming arose only when data was unavailable from most of its stations
• the known flaws in the 7SS; and the fact that it had not been followed by other compilers of temperature databases
13. The 2010 decision was influenced by the following improper considerations:
• repudiation of the NZTR might prove politically embarrassing or reduce confidence in the integrity and objectivity of NIWA scientists
• a planned project to review the NZTR might possibly confirm the 7SS warming trend
Therefore, the NZ Climate Science Trust seeks declarations and orders to:
A. set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon the 7SS and 11SS, and finding the current NZTR to be invalid.
B. prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public.
C. require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.
++++++++++++++++
Once more: Care to wager on the outcome????
August 16th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Redbaiter 9:16 am,
Good old Ian.
From your link:
Tollestrup has always been a dickhead! – yet more evidence to support that assertion.
Who knew that Islamic atrocities perpetrated in the Sudan were triggered by the weather? And this guys calls himself a Christian.
So true – if these guys can’t reliably get next week’s weather right, why do we place any faith in them making accurate forecasts for longer periods of time?
And the image of a scientist carrying a laptop under his arm paralleling Moses carrying tablets of stone is priceless – shame that the parallel ends there.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Let’s burn down the observatory so that this never happens again!
August 16th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Perhaps this court case is, pure and simple, an attempt to finally get the schedule of adjustments released.
Which one? The one that’s been here of quite some time?
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data
Or some other one?
August 16th, 2010 at 10:47 am
@flipper – thanks for posting the Statement of Claim. I contacted Anthony Watts yesterday (http://wattsupwiththat.com) as have others. This should be interesting to follow.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:47 am
The issue is Jim Salinger’s adjustments that created an abnormal warming trend for the seven station series. It didn’t pass the sniff test (showing warming twice the global average), and then nobody could produce the method used to create the adjustments. In this context I am suspicious of anyone who wouldn’t be sceptical of the series.
What this case will (hopefully) do is throw the whole thing open to sunlight. Probably the best result is that the adjustments are recalculated in an open manner so we can all be assured that no cheating is going on.
When adjusting temp’s I would usually expect the increase of the UHI effect to cause more recent temps to be adjusted downwards compared to older temps. That is what sticks out about the seven station series, the older temps were adjusted downwards.
August 16th, 2010 at 10:48 am
But but but, if
politiciansscientists are not allowed to make changes to records to match their desired outcome then how will they prove their pre determinedpolitical agendascientific conclusion?August 16th, 2010 at 11:00 am
The court case looks like a stunt to the casual observer. However, science is all about challenging findings and analysis, so it’s hard to argue against this challenge.
Not nice to know some of my tax dollars that might have been used for science will now be used for litigation though.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:03 am
What evidence do they possibly hope to present to the court? That you don’t need book-learnin’, or to do any amount of research to see that the temperature record NIWA keeps is “clearly” wrong?
Come on your honour, anyone can see it’s all just a leftie conspiracy.
Utterly ridiculous.
In the next session, a delegation of plumbers will ask the court to issue a very stern note to the estate of Professor Einstein, pointing out the obvious errors and political agenda in his work on general relativity.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:13 am
RRM: What evidence do they possibly hope to present to the court?
The unadjusted temperature record.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:14 am
RRM
Keep up. Einstein’s theory of relativity was hard to prove with the “current” computer model so we just modified the constant used for the speed of light… there ya go – the model and the real world now match. Just talk nicely to light will you – see if you can get it to slow down a bit so the model continues to accuratelty replicate the finding we expected.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:14 am
@RRM – The NZTS has been used to help justify a multi-billion dollar tax that impacts every single NZer. Don’t you think its veracity should be tested? Clearly the NZCSC do.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Some complain a court case is not the way to decide science, but then neither is consensus and neither is preventing one’s critics from looking at the data.
Something like 80% of the warming in the GISS and CRU data series are due to these adjustments. Given
a) the politically charged nature these adjustments were made in,
b) the failure of various bodies, including NIWA, to keep adequate records,
c) the fact that NIWA has an interest in the outcome – their funding is directly affected by the extent of the problem they are measuring,
d) the increasing discrepancy between satellite and ground based observation of temperature, and
e) the very high noise to signal ratio
we, the citizenry, have every reason to be concerned about the quality of the process and the veracity of the result. If a court case is the way to test for fraud, then so be it. None of this presumes conspiracy, which is obviously a poor explanation.
And this is quite apart from the complete illogic that sees New Zealand, which can make no difference to global temperatures under any circumstance whatsoever, lead the way in interfering in its economy to reduce emissions, all on the vaguest of theories that national reputation and political responses for non-conformance might hurt more than the medicine. Complete and utter bollocks, all of it.
Yes, the world is warming, and there is almost nothing we can do about it. Simply making ourselves poorer and appeasing the socialists isn’t actually going to help the climate.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:19 am
If UHI is a problem why don’t they move all the test sites in the country to areas where there is no problem and with radio, the info can be collected remotely anyway.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Ben
Further to what you write.
If a report is sent out, someone takes responsibility for it whether it is an individual or a group.
It makes sense that that person or persons should be held accountable.
This is public monies, so I would expect that the said people if found to have suborned the process or results or have acted unprofessionally with public monies should be charged or dealt to accordingly.
Isn’t that a logical position.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:30 am
For those that do not understand how this all works…
NIWA weill have the opportunity of pleading mea culpa or filing a response to the Statement of Claim , prob most certain course
They (NIWA) will ask for dismissal and costs
That will be rejected.
NZCSC will present expert scientific evidence (possiobly including world heavyweights) to debunk NIWA.
NIWA’s Barrister will cross examine
He/she & NIWA will be confirmed as goats – or worse
NIWA will get an opportunity to re-inforce that impression by producing Wratt, Salinger et al.
The goat-like impression will be exposed and confirmed by properly briefed NZCSC barrister
Game, set and match….at great cost to everyone (as taxpayers)
There will be no opportunity for third parties (so called Defence Society, IPCC, Min of Environmednt) to join the fray since the NZCSC action is trightly focussed.
It will not be about politics …left, centre or right.
It will be about fraudulent science
Prediction -
It will cause a major shakeup in Government from ‘crats to Ministers
August 16th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Courts test conflicting claims by scientists every day. Think Blain case and Arthur Allan Thomas.
Justice Mahon found out what really happened on Erebus.
Criminal convictions are routinely based on evidence based on DNA, blood groups and residues left behind,. (Read the Deaver thrillers.)
The Coalition is not arguing about global warming or whatever, it is simply asking NIWA to produce the methods used to adjust the temperature records. If they cannot, and NIWA claims they are lost, then the adjusted records should not be used to influence government policy until they have been reworked.
If nothing else, the court can instruct NIWA to produce the goods and if they cannot to re-work the adjustments in an open transparent and scientific manner.
What is wrong with that?
If we now move all the sites to places not subject to Urban Height Island effect then our temperature record would have to start from today. We need the old records and we need to make any necessary adjustments as best we can – and while recognising the error terms.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:35 am
MikeNZ: hard to move stations in the past. The problem is that we’re talking about a temperature record that goes back 100 years, based on data that was never intended for the current purpose. It is all the data we have without a time machine, so it is clearly necessary to process the data in order to make sense out of it. Whilst I may disagree with the nature of some of those adjustments, I don’t disagree that adjustments are necessary.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I hope the High Court is apolitical.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Disgraceful actually that it takes court action to obtain truth from a group of public servants. Where is the National Party on this, and why are they not stepping in and relieving the NZ taxpayers of the cost of defending this action?
Is it that a large part of their support (financial and otherwise) comes from the carbon trading lobby?
If this wasn’t one of the left’s pet objectives, they’d be screaming corruption from the mountain tops. Lame hypocrites.
Both parties are corrupt. The Nationals for their (probable) undisclosed connections to the carbon traders, and Labour for being unwilling to attack National on this because of the fact that the international carbon trading framework is essential to the aims of the global government zealots (like Helen Klark) at the United Nations.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Good stuff Owen.
RR – Sadly, it is all part of departmental capture that happens to every administration
August 16th, 2010 at 11:50 am
@ eszett – I understand that the Iceland volcano has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than man activities have over the last 10 years or more. As there are volcanic eruptions on a pretty regular cycle, then one has to ask what effect mans activities have really do have.
I have no doubt that climate is changing, Im not sure if thats warmer, colder, wetter, drier , etc though. As the worlds climate has varied many times previously, then I am sure that there are many influences that will lead to a change in climate. I find it impossible to believe (that scientists) that mans activities is the ONLY thing that is the cause. I am comforted by history here. The people who said the earth was round, that the earth wasnt the centre of the universe, that infection was caused by micro life, etc – were all ridiculed by almost everyone when they announced their findings. Some even paid with their life. With the noise that is coming from the AGW faction, I have no doubt the same thing is happening again.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:58 am
According to what reference? I found this on the internet fairly easily:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
August 16th, 2010 at 11:59 am
What statement are you proposing a wager over?
August 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Our NIWA folks are all part of the global group-think that is post-normal climate science. To wit:
August 16th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
You have twisted your logic barry, it’s the same sort of twist the religious antis try to put
Science generally led, and public opinion eventually followed, on all of your examples – except climate. Are you saying that with this climate blog pundits will be proven correct and most scientists will be proven wrong?
August 16th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Barry, I’m not convinced it is true that the Iceland volcano has put more CO2 into the atmosphere than man’s activities over the last 10 years. Volcanoes are a significant contributor, but I don’t think that big.
Another way to look at things is that volcanoes are part of the natural cycle, and the planet seems to deal with them OK. The extra that man adds might be enough to take us beyond what the natural system can deal with. The evidence seems to support that – the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has measurably and indisputably increased over the last 100 years, and by a significant amount. This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas suggests a pre-industrial level of CO2 of 280PPM v’s a current level of 387PPM. I don’t think there is any credible argument that most of this wasn’t human caused.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Actually I retract the comment “Our NIWA folks…”. There are only a few NIWA people who are climate science group-thinkers. I know several NIWA scientists in non climate related disciplines, each I rate as trustworthy, capable and competent. I’d guess that’s the norm.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Repton – The outcome of the Statement of Claim
NIWA is toast!
August 16th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Or from 0.028% to 0.0387% ie from sweet fuck all to fuck all even if these dubious numbers are correct. indeed during the Cambrian it was as high as 9000 ppm and the planet functioned perfectly well – in fact life flourished back then
August 16th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Pete “Are you saying that with this climate blog pundits will be proven correct and most scientists will be proven wrong?”
It depends which pundits and which scientists. As for almost everything I have seen in life, there exists a scale approaching absolutes at the ends. Somewhere in that scale invariably lies the reality. Even among sceptics there is variation as to where their opinions fall on the scale.
Deniers (those that say the world isn’t warming and/or that CO2 has no potential for warming effect) are at one end of the scale. The other end of the scale is also well populated with alarmists and scare mongers.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
And it’s many of the deniers that keep repeating the “scaremonging” lines in attempts to discredit the mainstream views.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
All_on_Red wrote
“How many Temp Measuring Stations are there in Greenland?
Only 1.”
Wrong!
According to this paper published in the International Journal of Climatology
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~werkhvn/study/Y3_05_06/data/ex6/gl.pdf
there are at least 27.
You really should fact check the rubbish you spout.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
The real fun part is…………
What’s real?
Motorola proved 30 years ago that semiconductor junctions turn on before electrons arrive there. Yet it is still taught that electrons (and holes) cause junction switching because there is no other model to use.
All sides should beware of talking in absolutes
August 16th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Just to clarify – the sceptical position is that the world has been warming, and that CO2 does have a capacity to increase warming. They take exception to the forecast magnitude of warming / sea level rise.
Frankly I think another 20 years of data will show who is right (by current observations it would be logical to project up to 1.5 deg C rise in global average temps by 2100).
There is a lot of debate about the science, particularly the Hockey Stick. A new paper with a statistical focus has shown that the hockey stick ‘handle’ (which eliminated the MWP) is statistically worthless. If I understand it correctly, the reason the handle is so flat is that as you backcast from the proxies you lose the shape (any shape – it all just gets flattened).
But things like rewriting history to minimise the MWP, adjusting temperatures the opposite way to what would seem correct to account for UHI, and losing data and methodology – all these make me want to see the science done again in a way we can see their working out.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
# Don the Kiwi (441) Says:
August 16th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Very few people dispute that the climate is warming.
What people dispute is the extent to which man is culpable, and how much more CO2 affects warming, and whether or not it is cataclysmic or beneficial.
Really??????
Bullshit and a Bible will take you anywhere.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Not quite:
“They found Fimmvorduhals was producing about 20-25,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.
Based on the relative size of the volcanoes, he estimates that Eyjafjallajoekull could have emitted about 10 times that amount per day at its peak.
But that lasted for less than a week; things now appear to be much quieter.
And even over that peak period, its daily CO2 output was only about one-thousandth of that produced by the sum total of humanity’s fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture and everything else.
In fact, the extra CO2 produced from the volcano is probably less than the volume “saved” by having Europe’s aeroplanes grounded.
But any precise comparison of those two effects will depend on the eventual duration of the grounding as compared with the eventual duration and intensity of the eruption.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8631396.stm
Also on this topic:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/correction-apology-planes-or-volcano/
August 16th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
William,
That may be , so why does GISS only use 1?
Also why is GISS steadily reducing (over 1500 deleted now) Temp Measuring sites from around the world used by the US Global Historical Climate Network?
These deletions force them to “homogenise” data from sites as far as 1200 kms away and use that made up data in their graphs.
Remember GISS Hadley CRU etc take the data from USGHCN and ALTER it. Just like NIWA have done to the NZ data. It often bears no relationship to the raw data.
Is this “rubbish”?
August 16th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
No, the CSC didn’t distribute the document in a timely manner, so no one could report on it in detail. Scoop had to copy the release from the CSC website this morning.
And I’d have to say that the CSC’s creation of a new charitable trust to bring the actin doesn’t speak volumes for their confidence in in their case. It looks like an attempt to fend off costs if and when things go poorly.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Pete “And it’s many of the deniers that keep repeating the “scaremonging” lines in attempts to discredit the mainstream views.”
I have to admit I like to point out (and ridicule the repeaters of) some of the more ridiculous claims and there are quite a few out there. I’m more than happy for the alarmists to waste their time on the deniers. It tends to support my supposition that the ‘in crowd’ (hockey team, climate cabal…) are too far towards their extreme on the scale and too tribal to maintain an open mind. Added to that the lure of funding (yes I do believe that all of THOSE scientists can be biased due to funding considerations, even if most of them think they’re not. Basically it amounts to pre-selection bias)
Meanwhile the real science continues.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“the CSC’s creation of a new charitable trust ”
So Mr. Brown, will you be making any financial contribution to the cause of truth?
I doubt it.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Actually, the CSC has made all kinds of claims — most notably that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Vincent Gray personally declared that evidence for any warming was “fatally flawed”. And now they’re saying “well, of course the planet is warming!”? Sheesh.
They’re basically just moving on to another stance now that the NOAA data makes the earlier claims untenable.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
@flipper:
So if I accept your wager, then you win only if the court agrees with everything the CSC allege, in every detail?
August 16th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Poor ‘ol Pete. These ‘mainstream view’ would be the ones promoted by Gore, Pachauri, Mann, Jones and others – yes? And if you regard my quoting prominent scientists and environmentalists as scaremongering then you need help. Seriously.
August 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
The NZCSC has created an organisation to make it clear when it is acting as an organisation and when individuals are speaking for themselves.
Until now the coalition has been no more than a group of individuals chatting on a Yahoo site. It has had no bank account and no constitution or other set of rules or even a formal list of members.
The Courts do not like dealing with such amorphous entities and understandably so.
NIWA has kept saying “we have told the coalition this and that” when all they have done is written to Vincent Gray or the late Augie Auer.
That needed to be cleared up.
August 16th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
And the EDS wants to join as a party. They are an incorporated society and are registered as a charitable trust.
So I suppose Russel’s arguments apply to them as well.
August 16th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
@andrei: so 280PPM is sweet fuck all. Yet most people (not sure if you’re included in that) would agree that without the base greenhouse effect the Earth would be uninhabitable for human life. In other words, that 280PPM makes the Earth habitable, but adding 50% to that you think would have no impact at all. I may disagree with the magnitude that some on the warming side claim, but I’ll happily accept that the increase from 280PPM to 380PPM must create some warming.
As a wider observation, as usual in this debate we see the range of views, from:
– those that insist there is no warming at all, it is all made up and doctored
– those that think there is some warming, just less than that currently claimed by some scientists, due to inaccurate data and selection bias
– those that think there is warming as claimed by some scientists, but are sceptical of some projections of future warming (i.e. of the multipliers)
– those that think there is warming and that it is going to be runaway and catastrophic
We also have a range of potential actions to take, ranging from:
– do nothing, the market and/or peak oil and/or the planet will sort it out
– we should focus on mitigating the climate change (transferring money from those whose climate improves to those whose climate deteriorates), since we have no hope of stopping it
– we should mostly focus on mitigation, but some low cost work on slowing down the change is also worthwhile
– we should impose large taxes and/or trading costs so as to try to slow down change greatly
– we should all don sack cloth and ashes, stop using any fossil fuels, and stop our current economy. The fact that most of the people currently on earth would die is irrelevant, as they’re essentially a virus on the face of gaia anyway
It amuses me when people commenting on a thread like this one posit their position as the only one – either on behalf of those on “their side” or on behalf of those on the “opposing side.” I’ll call out Don the Kiwi @ 9:16 as one.
August 16th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Some information about NOAA’s temperature record:
NOAA and NIWA – birds of a feather?
August 16th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
@PaulL – is there a ‘wider observation’ along the lines that the vast majority of warming is of natural origin and the tiny remainder is of human origin?
August 16th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
PaulL “I’ll call out Don the Kiwi @ 9:16 as one.” (to posit their position as the only one)
Don the Kiwi (441) Says:
August 16th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Very few people dispute that the climate is warming.
What people dispute is the extent to which man is culpable, and how much more CO2 affects warming, and whether or not it is cataclysmic or beneficial.
I think the only thing I can take issue with about Don’s statement is quantifying ‘very few’. Apart from that I see no problem with what he said. Perhaps the next sentence might have begun “What SOME people dispute” but even without that it’s not a logical fallacy – there are people who dispute those very things.
August 16th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Krazykiwi, you should also read the rebuttal by NOAA to get a better picture:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
Also interesting, The Climate Crock of the Week. Funny that Anthony Watts, the man fighting for transparency and openness, tried to stop this video from YouTube citing copyright infringement. Seems to me like Mr Watts does not deal well with criticism himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk&feature=player_embedded#!
August 16th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Russell Brown gets caught up in the Left’s hypocrisy. He is always quick with the nasty.
In the environmental movement it is standard practice to incorporate in order to go to the Environment Court. The sole purpose is to limit liability for any Court ordered costs.
The Environmental Defence Society is just such a beast. As Owen McShane points out they are eager to be a party in this particular case.
I cannot see what Russell’s beef is about or the rationale of his slight.
I suspect in this case isn’t much about the confidence of the Climate Sciences Coalition regarding their case (read liability issues) but rather an issue of standing before the Court. They appear to have taken the minimalist option to getting locus standi which is to form a trust. The liability of the trustees will be to the extent that the deed provides or the degree of any personal wrongdoing that leads to a loss to the trust.
The locus issue might be argued at Court but in all likelihood given the remedy sought the judge will grant them standing. What is more interesting is the cause of action. Here the Crown might argue that there isn’t one.
While I haven’t seen the full statement of claim from what appears above the case is one of judicial review. JR is a species of administrative law.
Lets assume the judge finds a cause of action (NIWA’s actions in these circumstances are of a nature that they are subject to review) the question isn’t primarily about the substantive issues of the science but rather the reasonableness of the actions of NIWA. Further clues to this are the reference to irrelevant considerations. Seeking a declaration is a lowish level remedy.
Hugely interesting case – very exciting. Be interesting to see the aggressiveness or otherwise of the Crown as respondent.
I guess NIWA will be getting ready to provide in discovery the worksheets showing the exact calculations of each temperature adjustment pre 1940’s 1 degree downwards and post 1940’s 1 degree upwards. If such detail either isn’t available or has be produced post facto then that will go to the issue of reasonableness. Pointing to a copyrighted thesis at Vic may prove problematic in terms of reasonableness.
Perhaps someone from the Climate Sciences Coalition can provide a link to the actual statement of claim. Then it can be considered like a fine red wine. Can’t wait to see the Crown response.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Very few people dispute that the climate is warming.
Like for example the people we’re talking about?
Oct ’09 “With the world cooling for the past nine years…”
Sept ’09 “whether the climate… returns to a cooling phase as it’s doing right now.”
Sept ’09 “… the cooling that has been noticeable since 2002 and the increased cooling that has been recorded over the last two years.”
August ’09 “The fundamental flaw in their whole policy is their dogged refusal to accept the obvious: global warming stopped in 2002, the world is cooling …”
June ’09 ” … while
science is re-evaluating previous projections in the light of the global
cooling over the past six years … “
May ’09 “… there has been a definite cooling trend since about 2002 … “
May ’09 ” … sunspot — and other — evidence indicates that severe cooling is at least as likely as a resumption of the warming trend that ended at the turn of this century.”
(and so on)
August 16th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
So we can all agree, thanks to Ian Wishart (who publicly lied on nationwide TV) and NZCS, that NIWA’s temperature records are fatally flawed, and overstate the warming.
And we can all agree, thanks to Krazykiwi/Anthony Watts that the US data is a crock of poo, too.
However, there are lots of countries that have official temperature records.
Here’s one, from our closest neighbour:
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-change-is-real.html
An extract:
So whats wrong with the Australian records, boys? Too many adjustments? Temperature gauges sited in car parks? Urban Heat Island effect? Too many politicians? All of the above?
As you can see, I’m having trouble taking this court action seriously. Except that it is seriously stupid.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Russell: You’re right that people dispute the extent to which man is culpable. About 70% of them say “very little” according to recent polls.
The IPCC offers very little evidence that humans have exerted any more than a trivial effect on the warming of the 20th century. Their sole argument is that warming of 0.7°C is higher than can be explained by natural variations (about 0.5°C). So, if the O.7° figure turns out to be wrong, then the case for human causation falls to the ground.
The main international record is compiled by CRU (of Climategate fame) but many national records throughout the world have been sharply criticised. A number of them will probably end up in Court.
New Zealand has a major influence on the long-term global figures. Prior to WW2, there were no thermometers in the entire Pacific Ocean except NZ and Australia.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Good sophistry, Owen. By the looks of it, EDS may or may not join the action in support of Niwa.
But they didn’t create a charitable “education” trust as a last-minute vehicle to bring the action, as the CSC has. You can hardly blame people for finding that worthy of mention. Although I do look forward to hearing about all your other charitable activities.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Lyndon, the CSC would never have sent you all those press releases if they thought you were going to be so impudent as to quote their own words back at them.
We appear to have moved beyond farce already.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Russell
“Actually, the CSC has made all kinds of claims — most notably that global warming “stopped” in 1998″
Probably because they think 1998 was the hottest year (some say 2002) and subsequant temps have been lower. The latest Temp Measurement from Nasa’s UAH Satellites show the temp anomaly (that is how much above long term average the temp is) has dropped from .65 degrees to .44 degrees.
Which is on track with the agreed view that warming is about .65 degree for the past 100 years. And the average is going down.
At that rate it will take 300,000 years for the Arctic to melt..And measurements show the sea isnt rising. In fact Arctic sea ice coverage has bounced back and there is no change in Antartica.
Eszett
Watts told NOAA that the survey was incomplete but they issued the statement anyway. His Peer Reviewed Research paper will be finished shortly. I think they have done over 90% now. Go to Surfacestations.org to have a look. Its quite damning.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Uh, right. When someone incorporates a charitable trust a few days in advance as a vehicle for a dubious legal action, I don’t think raising one’s eyebrows is exactly “nasty”.
OTOH, the CSC, which dumps innuendo all over Salinger, tried to get Gluckman removed from his job, and makes feckless allegations of fraud is … nice?
What is the stage beyond farce anyway?
August 16th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Thankfully Luc, it’s not up to you to take this litigation seriously. That is the role of the Courts.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Which really only works if you cherry-pick your period. A a long-term graph shows a clear warming trend.
And anyway, that wasn’t what they said. They said the earth was cooling and that warming had “stopped”.
Wrong on both counts according to the commies at the NOAA:
August 16th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Wrong yourself
try looking at current data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/
August 16th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Yes Luc, the Australian record is also questionable.
“As you can see, I’m having trouble taking this court action seriously. Except that it is seriously stupid.”
It is stupid, I agree, because if the methodology used for the adjustments had been made available for scrutiny rather than ‘lost’ then this could have already been sorted out.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I think NOAA has dealt and responded quite extensively to Watts claims.
He can continue to do his “research” but I doubt it will add any more value to the topic.
It continues to astonish me how anything that Anthony Watts says is taken as gospel and everything that would contradict him is conveniently ignored or dismissed
August 16th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
No-one is disputing there isnt ANY warming. Its .65 degrees per century so far. It just isnt the 2-6 degrees the IPCC have predicted with the resulting predicted melting and sea levels rising etc etc
August 16th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
For the statement of claim etc go to Not PC which has a useful post and links to the Climate Science Coalition which has several statements including the statement of claim at:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/niwa.ct.docs.pdf
August 16th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Eszett.
You “think”.
Well that settles it! Lets wait for the Peer Reviewed paper and let the scientists do their work eh.
And NOAA actually wrote to Watts agreeing with his concerns about the accuracy of USGHCN
August 16th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Russell throws around so many adjectives – “dubious claim”, “feckless allegations”, “questionable legal action” – that one might think he had read the summary Statement of Claim and enunciated a defence.
But from his own blog http://publicaddress.net/6803#post6803 it’s clear he doesn’t have a single thought on the merits of the court proceedings. He hopes that Chris Barton of the Herald (who must have similar prejudices) will analyse the case for him.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Eszett “I think NOAA has dealt and responded quite extensively to Watts claims.
He can continue to do his “research” but I doubt it will add any more value to the topic.”
Actually Watts adds a huge amount of value to the topic, unless by ‘value’ you exclude striving for better data?
August 16th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Russell
I do not know what other charitable activities of mine you refer to.
BUt many charitable trusts are registered for Education purposes. YOu don’t have to feed starving babies.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
NOt PC is at:
http://pc.blogspot.com/
August 16th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
If this year is the warmest since 1998, then doesn’t that imply that all of the years from ’99 to’09 must therefore have been not as warm as 1998?
August 16th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Luc Hansen: the Australians have substantial question over aspects of the Australian temperature record too. I’d have to go and look up the details, but the one I saw was something about a station moving to the airport somewhere up north, or a station being dropped out of the series and proxied by one that was demonstrably a lot warmer. I can’t remember the ins and outs, but if you’re relying on the Australian record then many of the same questions exist.
This is one of the things that I find fascinating here. The answer that a number of countries are giving is “yeah, sure, there are a couple anomalies in our data, but it’s all we have. But everyone else’s data agrees with us, so why do you care?” The point being that much of the data seems to have the same questions over it, so really this is a form of circular reasoning.
I’m reasonably confident that there is some warming. I’m much less confident that the instrument record as it stands is quantifying that warming in any accurate way. But the extrapolations to large temperature change are based on projecting off the small temperature change to date. Small inaccuracies in the current assessment lead to very large inaccuracies in the extrapolated result. In other words, it is important and cannot be simply ignored.
This action could provide some interesting data and discussion about the NZ temperature record, and if successful, could encourage similar action in other countries.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Why cannot people stick to the topic which is about NIWA’s refusal to give reasons for their adjustment of the data.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Yes, on some stations they agreed. And explained the reasons behind it and what they are doing about it. And then used only the data from the stations that Watts agreed were okay.
And found that even if you only use the 70 stations you get the same conclusions.
Not what Watts expected.
Have you actually bothered to read their response?
August 16th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Why cannot people stick to the topic which is about NIWA’s refusal to give reasons for their adjustment of the data.
Surely they’re allowed to argue about other topics if they’re related and equally made up.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
@PaulL – this might have been the Aussie story: Darwin Zero Before and After
@Chuck – I guess because the topic (withholding data & method) seems to be part of a general pattern now evident in the climate alarm industry
August 16th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Well, the problem is not that Watts strives for better data, he strives for data that only proves his point, while he ignores everything else.
You seem to take everything that Watts says at face value, because he says things that you want to hear.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
NOAA have been suppliying data to scientists long before their mea cupla.
Do you mean to suggest that all IPCC reports that refer to data taken prior to this time have been retracted, adjusted and re-published?
No, I didn’t think so.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Not the warmest year, the second warmest month of July since 1998 and the warmest Jan-Jul period
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100813_globalstats.html
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature made this July the second warmest on record, behind 1998, and the warmest averaged January-July on record.
The global average land surface temperature for July and January–July was warmest on record.
The global ocean surface temperature for July was the fifth warmest, and for January–July 2010 was the second warmest on record, behind 1998.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Thanks eszett, my point is that between 1998 and now there must have been at least a plateau if not a dip in the trend. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to refer to that as either ‘warming has stopped’ or ‘it is cooling’.
I’m not saying it negates a long term warming trend. However it does contradict many model projections.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“You seem to take everything that Watts says at face value, because he says things that you want to hear.”
What data are you pulling your inference from? How many things have I said (about what Watts has said) that have led you to form this opinion of me?
August 16th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Is this satire?
Are you sending up NIWA?
August 16th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
No, RightNow, only for the month of July. Not for the year or for the January-July period
It says it’s the warmest Jan-Jul period on record.
I don’t see how you can claim anything like that ‘warming has stopped’ or ‘it is cooling’
August 16th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Wussell Brown of course engages in more ad hominem regarding the Climate Sciences Coalition and its newly minted educational trust.
Such fury.
I didn’t think it possible but he is even a worse legal commentator than he is a media one.
Forming a trust (or an incorporated society like EDS) isn’t a total prolific to Court ordered costs. The Crown can raise the issue of costs: the judge can consider surety. The Court has tools to deal with the issue.
The Crown might or might not decide to go down this route. It will be an issue of Crown’s legal strategy and the tactics deployed in furtherance thereof.
What Wussell refuses acknowledge is that the simplest explanation is usually the best: it was a locus issue.
The big issue for Wussell is why when one group does it its not ok but when the EDS for entirely the same purpose does it its ok.
It seems such a childish like approach to an issue which is after all about the very survival of the planet. If NIWA’s processes are robust and therefore reasonable why kick up about issues of standing – why would that matter. If they are not robust and reasonable surely when we also want to know even if those who raise the issue are rogues. Again this isn’t an issue of science per se but rather process. Courts are perfectly able to handle issues of process with public law actors – it’s their bread and butter.
Of course it makes no difference about what side EDS is on in this particular case to the point that they are incorporated in order to provide standing and to limit liability. They too are charitable.
As it happens if the Court accepts there is a cause of action it would probably be better to have them represented than not. Likewise a number of other parties might also have standing.
Again Wussells passion makes me suspicious.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
eszett, the logic is simple. Assume 2010 becomes the ‘warmest year on record since 1998′.
That necessarily implies the years from 1999 to 2009 were cooler or of equal warmth compared to 1998.
If 1999 is cooler than 1998 then it has cooled in that interval. If it is the same then is has neither warmed nor cooled in that interval. Extend the interval out to 2009 … et voila. Warming has not increased over the 10 year period 1999-2009.
P.S. – I do understand it is only the ‘warmest July since 1998′ – I was merely pointing out the logic you questioned as if it was the ‘warmest year since 1998′.
August 16th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Yes, I do think the action is questionable, and I’m hardly alone in that. And yes, I do regard the allegations these people are happy to throw at Salinger, Gluckman and anyone else who dares raise their voice as feckless.
Sigh … this does get pointless quite quickly. Here’s an excerpt of what I actually wrote this morning:
And before you ask, Gibbs can give his money to anyone he wants, and Sean Plunket’s free to ask about it if he wants.
But Leyland claiming, as a spokesman for the CSC, to not know whether Gibbs had done so because he didn’t look after the books was just ridiculous. Do you any of you really think Leyland had no idea whether that was the case? Seriously?
August 16th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
For goodness sake, Chris, read your own post and get back to me when you’ve achieved self-awareness.
August 16th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
And it’s only relevant if you cherry-pick that one, extremely warm 10 year-period. Draw a graph that begins in 1970 and see how that looks.
August 16th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Eszett
Read this as a great example of missing data “smoothed” out by graphs
“It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data have one station. The two hottest spots on the NOAA Greenland area show 5 degrees warming and have no data.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/noaas-jan-jun-2010-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/
August 16th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Russell, while that is true, it doesn’t negate the logic, which is all I was pointing out. When some say it hasn’t warmed since 1998 the logic of their statement holds true (until 2009 anyway).
August 16th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
1970? And you talk about cherry picking..
Try looking at the raw data for NZ from 1850 and see if theres warming in that.
Try looking at Paleoclimatology data for the last few thousand years and look at that trend.
So Russell,how much hotter do you think it has got in the past 100 years?
August 16th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Poor old Wussell
Environmental Defence Society is incorporated to provide legal standing and limit liability and is charitable. Personal liability is limited by incorporation and the general law.
Who funds it? It has 15 “directors” which constitute the membership and general meetings for the purposes of the ISA1908. Any other members must be invited to join. Looks actually a bit like a Gary Taylor one man band.
Of course it’s virtuous because Wussell agrees with it.
CSC Educational trust is unincorporated but can be legally recognised has having standing. Liability is limited by deed and the general law. It too might have charitable status.
Of course it’s not virtuous because Wussell disagrees with it.
Actually what both are in fact evidence of a healthy civil society. But legally there is little difference in the two regarding Court ordered costs.
August 16th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Hey flipper, are you still interested in that wager? e.g. you could wager that the court will make both of the following orders:
If the court declines to make them both (or if the case gets dismissed at an earlier point for any reason), then you lose.
(I suppose if Niwa “surrenders” then you win.. I’m not sure if that’s possible?)
How much are you willing to bet?
August 16th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The problem the non skeptics have is that science has moved on.
The IPCC tell us that CO2 mixing with water vapour creates positive feedback and hence an amplifying effect creating heat in hotspots therefore causing temps to rise substantially.
Russell,
Do you think this has been proved?
Actually the IPCC cant prove it as even after deploying over 16,000 radiosondes they cant find the hot spots, so they were forced to use modelling to prove it. There has been a bit of back and forth but Santer et all 2008 was accepted as having the right modelling to prove it.
No one could disprove it.
Until now.
In a new Peer Review Research paper by McKittrick, McIntyre and Herman 2010.
The hot spot doesnt happen. The modelling is flawed.
CO2 does not cause warming.
This paper has been extensively reviewed by many scientists over 18 mnths of examination and now stands as being correct.
So what is causing the earth to keep warming by .45 degrees per century as it isnt CO2
August 16th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
All_on_Red wrote
“William,
That may be , so why does GISS only use 1?”
Wrong again!
You can easily check the stations they use at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Click on the map of Greenland and you’ll be presented with a list of stations within a radius of your click. I know they’re funny foreign names but it won’t be hard for you to determine more than one is in Greenland.
In my previous reply I suggested you fact check before posting, I seriously suggest you do that in future (and a link to WUWT doesn’t constitute checking or research).
snip
“Is this “rubbish”?”
Most likely yes.
August 16th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Phil Jones told the BBC (Roger Harrigan) that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. And yet there has been a huge increase in CO2 – so far so good.
August 16th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Repton -
As follows….
“Therefore, the NZ Climate Science Trust seeks declarations and orders to:
A. set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon the 7SS and 11SS, and finding the current NZTR to be invalid.
B. prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public.
C. require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.”
Sp judge matters with your brain Repton.
R Brown –
Boooo! Is there is a Climate Realist under your bed ?
August 16th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Pete George 9:44 “I’m happy to keep an eye on what real scientists say” (bold is mine)
Says it all really.
“Real scientists” = those favouring AGW, the rest are amateurs, capitalist bastards and deluded fundie christians
August 16th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
andrei wrote
“Or from 0.028% to 0.0387% ie from sweet fuck all to fuck all even if these dubious numbers are correct. indeed during the Cambrian it was as high as 9000 ppm and the planet functioned perfectly well – in fact life flourished back then”
Ah yes, the Cambrian Period. The time when Trilobites were a significant life form and the earliest primitive fish evolved. Plants? No, none of them around on land!
From a modern viewpoint hardly a perfectly functioning planet.
August 16th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
So how much are you willing to wager, flipper?
August 16th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Hansen ya prat, what did I “lie about on national TV”?
NIWA’s data is a crock. Read Jim Hessell’s paper where he quietly explains how the historical data for the years leading up to 1980 isn’t worth the paper it is written on. More to the point, because we can’t take the temperatures again retrospectively, we cannot accurately adjust for the errors that exist.
(Hessell: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf)
Most of NIWA’s seven station series is based on stations that Hessell found were unusable for climatic research purposes, and a good chunk of the 11 station series was contaminated as well.
Given that the NZ Govt takes advice from NIWA in deciding how to mitigate climate impacts in NZ, and given that the data NIWA’s advice is based on is shoddy, and given that taxpayers’ dosh has been used to finance ongoing research, I’d say an interested judge will find the case is capable of being heard.
I was at a debate with NIWA’s Jim Renwick where he conceded Hessell’s paper was ‘problematic’ but said NIWA had taken steps since then to fix the problem. He didn’t elaborate as to how, and given the obvious time-travel problems, I don’t think NIWA can fix it. I said this to Renwick at the debate.
FWIW, what Russell Brown and Luc Hansen know about climate change could be written on the back of a postage stamp with space to spare. Sigh.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Ian, so sorry I missed you.
Replay that interview with Sainsbury.
Look at the bit where Sainsbury said “But you don’t believe the science, do you?”
And you said ” Usually I do, but (climategate caused me to rethink)” Sorry, I can’t recall the exact words, but you can check, I’m sure.
Now Ian, two counts are against you:
1. We know that you deny the science of evolution.
2. Your book “Aircon” preceded “climategate”.
While you inferred that you normally believe the most prominent, mainstream scientists, the facts show that you actually adhere to the divergents. That’s OK, but you shouldn’t lie about it.
Of course, Sainsbury is so slow that the contradiction just passed him by…
And Ian, unlike you, I know my limits. I’m not interested in the science of climate change in the sense that I am happy to leave that to the scientists, as I leave my car to the mechanics and the flying to the pilots.
When only a few scientists were alerting us to the problem, I was saying…big deal. But now, it’s around 98% of the specialists, and like you, I have a toddler to worry about.
Let me close with this thought I have expressed here before: hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:06 am
And Ian, the science of climate change definitely does not hinge on a few “questionable” temperature stations.
How do you explain all the other events occurring as climate models have predicted? For example, increasingly extreme weather events (perhaps Putin is regretting his remark that a little temperature increase is very acceptable to Russia?) and the observed northward migration of stressed species who are sensitive to increased heat.
Or is that just God waving his magical wand over those he loves?
August 17th, 2010 at 12:22 am
And for those of you who put Ian on some kind of pedestal, read this:
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/wishart.html
August 17th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Well Luc here’s what some of those scientists have to say:
USA – Dr John Christy – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) UN IPCC Lead Author
“Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.”
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
“I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’”
“Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author) The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).”
“The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: ‘We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.’ We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with ‘this much is human-caused’ and ‘this much is natural”. So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
USA – Dr. Paul Berenson (Physicist), M.I.T-educated, was the executive secretary of the Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Scientific Advisor to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and Scientific Advisor to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
“Water vapor (H2O) is the primary greenhouse gas, contributing roughly 80 % of the greenhouse effect. Without the warming effect of the greenhouse gases, the Earth would be roughly 10 degrees cooler, and probably uninhabitable by humans. It has been estimated that the warming effect of CO2 is roughly one thousandth that of water vapor,” he added.
“The analytical models used to predict higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C from about 1940 to 1975. Thus they are not valid and should not be used. They are not valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc.”
USA – Dr Larry Vardiman (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming. However, in a recent article entitled “Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?” I presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause. But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun’s electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center.
New Zealand – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, specialising in coastal oceanography and a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author wrote on 23 May 2009:
“I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.”
“I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.”
“The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.”
“The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.”
Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research.
“I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics ….. After that, I changed my mind.”
“’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’.”
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas.
“I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.”
“Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”
Australia – Dr. Aynsley Kellow, UN IPCC Contributing Author, referee for the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, former professor at the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University.
“They [IPCC] really do emphasize the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this.”
“The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA experienced, I think, a nine fold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you’re questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models
“I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: There is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
“The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments.”
Canada – Dr Tad Murty (Oceanographer) adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
“Global warming is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole “
Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer
“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”
“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer , a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Dr. John T. Everett, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries”
“It is time for a reality check: warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing, The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.”
“I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated.”
“For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.”
USA – Dr Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley – NOT A SCEPTIC – gives his considered views on ‘The Hockey Stick Curve:’
Published by M. Mann and colleagues in 1998 and 1999, the [hockey stick] plot showed that the climate of the Northern Hemisphere had been remarkably constant for 900 years until it suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago – right about the time that human use of fossil fuels began to push up levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The overall shape of the curve resembled a hockey stick laying on its back-a straight part with a sudden bend upwards near the end. The hockey stick was turned from a scientific plot into the most widely reproduced picture of the global warming discussion. The hockey stick figure appears five times in just the IPCC report summary volume alone.’ The version below comes from the influential 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“There was a minor scientific glitch. The hockey stick contradicted previous work that had concluded that there had been a “medieval warm period.”
In fact, it disagreed with a plot published by the IPCC itself a decade earlier (in its 1990 report) that showed pronounced warm temperatures from the years 1000 to 1400. It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.
Then the situation became even more complex. S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed critique of the original hockey stick work. They stated bluntly that the original Mann papers contained “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.” Moreover, when they corrected these errors, the medieval warm period came back-strongly. Mann, et al., disagreed. They immediately posted a reply on the Web, with their criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis.
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.
Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.
I talked about this [the Hockey Stick Curve] at length in my December 2003 article [preceding]. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier article was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? [Sceptics may say ‘contrived mathematics’]
August 17th, 2010 at 12:40 am
axeman
Thank you for your time and effort in compiling the above post.
Like I said, you are with the divergents. That’s fine. In my family, I’m the divergent.
But now please explain why I should predicate my toddler’s future on a few divergents, whose science is convincingly debunked and who. if I follow their path, ensure that planet Earth is no longer habitable for human civilisation, other than a very, very, diminished and more brutal non-civilisation.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Hard to see what the Lefties have to complain about here. If the action is seriously stupid, as one put it, then the court will be perfectly well equipped to see that and throw it out. If it finds there is a case to answer, shouldn’t we all be relieved that an objective, intelligent assessment of process will be undertaken on such an important matter? Millions if not billions of dollrs are at stake, I for one would like to have confidence the science is grounded in sound process. What possible objection can there be to expert scrutiny of an important process, paticularly if there are safeguards against frivolous claims, as there obviously is?
August 17th, 2010 at 12:41 am
by the way, axeman, the hockey stick is mainstream science, like your cellphone.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:45 am
ben
I welcome the court case, except that it gives credence to the witchdoctors.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:50 am
You mean 1988.
Here’s an update:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
the conclusion: Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.
Go on axeman, take the time and read the link.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Luc: you’re offering a false dichotomy. The real dichotomy is between a) a future with warming and no attempt at prevention, and b) the same warming less a small fraction of a degree that may in fact be unmeasurable plus the economically disastrous policies that achieved about nothing for the climate.
The precautionary principle cuts both ways. Yes, one can imagine a horrible future with warming run amok. But one can also imagine a horrible future with governments run amok, governments empowered by those pushing climate change policy without limit. Even the vaguest knowledge of history ought to convince you there is very considerable danger in big government. Governments have killed far, far more people in the short time they have existed than has climate.
I consider this second scenario much more likely than the first, and poses more danger to human life. Governments to this day are killing their own citizens in parts of the world, and it is only 65 years since Western governments were doing the same thing.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:53 am
And the court case is bound to fail because of this:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record
August 17th, 2010 at 12:56 am
Luc
I welcome the court case, except that it gives credence to the witchdoctors.
Well that is just a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Are you saying the statement of claim is safely ignored because of who said it and what else they believe?
The statement of claim is not the climate change isn’t happening. It is based on points of law and process. Unless you think this is where the witch doctery is (and if so, do explain how), you lose the argument.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Luc,
Deny the science of evolution? A little sweeping in your generalisation, my friend. I’m absolutely comfortable with microevolutionary (ie, common or garden variety) change of the type that allows populations to vary. I’m a little bit more sceptical of the “fish to farm beast” just so stories, however, which rely on the analogy of microevolutionary change for their persuasive power to the uneducated, but whose great leaps for which random mutations and natural selection acting alone can’t account.
I found biophysicist Lee Spetner’s work on this quite convincing, among others.
If you really want to tackle my position on design or the existence of God you should read The Divinity Code, which I’ve now made available in digital form for free: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/08/free-book-the-divinity-code.html
As for your claim that you leave science to the scientists, that’s a total cop-out, with respect. If you don’t actually understand the scientific arguments or their potential weaknesses, you have no business debating them or critiquing those who do – your position is simply one of faith.
Extreme weather events? Recent research suggests no increase in major weather events, nor is the IPCC accurate in such claims: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/it-has-been-foretold.html
Or this: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/florida-state-university-coaps-update-on-global-tropical-cyclone-activity-by-ryan-n-maue/
Climate models predicted? No they didn’t. The models have been notoriously inaccurate for the most part. Give me chapter and verse of some specific predictions.
As for stressed species, bollocks: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6905082.ece
Get a grip people, stop drinking Gareth Renowden’s Koolaid!
August 17th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Luc: the hockey stick has been so thoroughly debunked, it is simply discredited, thanks mainly to McIntyre. What is absurd is that it took so long to be deunked, the method was appalling. Not even Phil Jones believes in the hockey stick any more. Andrew Montford’s book is a tour de force. Go read that link.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:01 am
As for the lying bit, rubbish as well. Talk about clutching at straws.
And Silly Beliefs? The guy actually refuses to debate, just sticks his fingers in his ears and refuses to post my detailed responses to his rants. Like I said, read Divinity Code…what I actually said, in context.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Good on you ben
But you are wrong.
The science is clear. We can prevent disaster.
But we are most likely not to.
I had an interesting conversation with my (much) younger brother just his weekend. He opined that the market would solve the problem. I replied that, as Lord Stern said, climate change is the greatest example of market failure. The market won’t change until fossil fuel is all but exhausted and by then it will be too late.
It’s almost too late even now.
Australia worries about a few refugee boats each year…soon it will be hundreds each month.
I understand your concern about governments, but we are in the now: history does not repeat.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:05 am
Well, Ian, you and I have different definitions of lying.
Just how do you explain away what you said to Sainsbury?
“Usually I do”
Ha ha ha
August 17th, 2010 at 1:09 am
ben
Regarding the hockey stick, it has been well and truly vindicated:
from Wikipedia
More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[6]
August 17th, 2010 at 1:13 am
I don’t have the ability at this time of night to play the clip without disturbing people sleeping…so can’t give you a substantive reply until tomorrow, but you come across as a pedant…I was talking in the context of having accepted at face value the scientific studies that had come out previously as being the honest work of scientists (who may or may not have been wrong). However, climategate illustrated dishonest intent in some areas of the climate science community, a win at all costs and bury the inconvenient stuff attitude. Hence, I and many others felt peer review in climate science died that day. The peer reviewed system was shown to be corrupt and incompetent. To that extent, I now have far less trust in the work of some of the main players.
One could previously disagree with their conclusions but accept the facts they presented…now I no longer trust their factual data a lot of the time.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Luc, I don’t know if you actually bother to read any of the links, but a new study has bagged the hockey stick big time:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/
And relying on Wikipedia for anything climate related is stupidity in the extreme…
August 17th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Ian
I’m sure if I read Aircon I could show you are dissembling, again.
it just seems such a waste of time, sorry.
If I have to make a choice between you and James Hansen, I would choose Hansen, and consider it no contest, sorry.
The problem you present is that you can suck in the man in the street, but you are ridiculed amongst the experts. No offence intended.
I don’t believe i am taking the precautionary principle to extremis as the evidence piles up all around us. I fear that my daughter will indeed inherit a more nasty, brutish world, thanks in no small part to people like you.
And I would have thought, Ian, that you were the last person to decry faith…
August 17th, 2010 at 1:33 am
What “experts” have ridiculed me and on what detail, Luc? Hearsay, gossip?
Here’s a little treat, when NIWA found out I was selected to debate them recently they initially told the organisers they didn’t want to go head to head with me because my arguments were “too sophisticated”. Probably some referred pain from this:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/nz-climate-scientists-run-from-challenging-questions.html
As it was, we had a good session, and I found the NIWA people totally reasonable to deal with. Unlike some of the other halfwits attending.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Luc: I’m sure if I read Aircon I could show you are dissembling, again
But Luc, you’ve already admitted you don’t actually understand climate science, you first have to have it filtered and strained through websites like Hot Topic to tell you how to think. How can I take your comment above seriously?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:04 am
Actually, Ian, I don’t rely on any single source, and I most certainly don’t visit any particular site regularly. Can you name just one government body that agrees with you? Then we will be able to judge you by the company you keep.
And I understand the scientific conclusions well, but I’m not going to do the maths myself. Just as I don’t feed in the flightpath of the planes I fly in.
Again, you dissemble and distort.
And I suggest you don’t need to take me any more seriously than I take you. I chanced upon a thread on real climate you posted to and, quite frankly, I would have been embarrassed by the replies you received.
My question to you is this: why do you feel such a driving need to be divergent to the point of being almost off the planet?
Do you come from a big Catholic family, by any chance?
August 17th, 2010 at 4:30 am
It’s almost too late even now.
For what Luc? *snigger*
On a different note – This will at least force NIWA to come up with the goodies of the what, how and why in regards to the adjustments made. Considering their general head in the sand attitude thus far I fear it will not turn out well for them.
I look forward to John Key repealing the ETS in the days that follow the judges decision, cause it’s not about taxing us poor plebs, it’s about saving the planet, right John?
August 17th, 2010 at 7:13 am
So maybe you can accept some micro-climatic changes but it would be too big a leap in faith to accept more problematic levels of partially human caused climate change could happen?
It must be difficult for people with a religious bottom line to open their minds to science. There is a real risk of starting any inquiry with at least a subconscious “as long as it fits with my beliefs” lurking thought.
August 17th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Another snide remark from the deranged pete george creep.
August 17th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Pete George and Luc Hansen reverting to the smear attack once again.
SSDD.
August 17th, 2010 at 7:48 am
It’s not a smear, it’s basic facts. If Ian Wishart rejects science as mainstream as evolution there is presumably a religious influence. If so that raises questions over whether religious beliefs also influence his position on climate science.
If someone has core religious beliefs that are non-negotiable then it doesn’t need a rocket scientist to understand that could limit their openness to the full range of scientific possibilities.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Luc – yes, other studies have have been published, and McIntyre has shot them all down by pointing out a) the high degree of re-use of data in the papers – the same few temperature series keep cropping up and, surprise surprise, the tend to be hockey shaped. Many many other series are left out by all the papers. Nobody ever addresses why, and so we can only speculate. But the measurable effect of including hockey stick shaped temperature series is to get hockey sticks. And b) McIntyre has shown how poor each of the series are. Some of the series rely heavily on evidence from a single tree (e.g. Yamal). It took years for McIntyre to get the authors of these studies to disclose this. That they have is beyond dispute. Luc the implicit mistake you are making is to assume the many studies replicating Mann et al 1998 are independent – they are not.
As I said, not even Phil Jones believes the hockey stick. It is thoroughly and completely discredited, both for its shoddy and selective use of statistics, and for using an algorithm that strongly selects for hockey stick shaped series. This is not science.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Luc says “the science is clear”
Fantastic, so please provide a link to a Peer Reviewed paper* for the evidence of actual observations of WHERE in our atmosphere that CO2 is creating a positive feedback when mixed with water vapour and is therefore the cause of our atmosphere and oceans warming.
Or to put it another way, the world is warming-ok, so where is this CO2 mixing to create the warmth. Is it over Tokyo, New York, the middle of the Atlantic, Santas Grotto at the nth pole. Just where is it happening?
Pete, feel free to help if you like.
* Please note that an article from a journalist at the World Wildlife Fund doesnt count-heh
Of course yours will be a fruitless search because there isnt any evidence.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:45 am
The Hockey Stick is a crock.
A new paper (McShane and Wyner 2010) is listed to be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics which, using the same proxy data as Mann used, shows the handle is not flat at all.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-wyner-fig16.png
August 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
For a summary of the last 38 years of climate alarmism here is a great post:
http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-climate-wars/
regarding the hockey stick – a quote from the McShane and Wyner 2010 paper:
“Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample.”
Regarding models v observations: “In this paper, the model is off by a factor of 2 to 4, and the result is statistically significant.”
From McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters. (in press).
August 17th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Given the silliness of the ETS I guess people have to continue pounding away at stuff like the NIWA data.
Fortunately the rest of the world seems to be walking away from the insanity. The following report is not from China, India or The Great Satan – but from Germany: Climate Change In Germany Has Become “A Loser Topic”
The Left has backed another loser agenda? Say it ain’t so.!
August 17th, 2010 at 10:59 am
…or McShane and Wyner haven’t got a handle on what they are doing:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php
“The funny thing is that this paper actually replicates Mann et al. 2008 without even noticing it…”
“The higher (green) curve they canonize and which is shown above is the result of an error”
“In fact, the “stick” is merely tilted and the “shaft” is actually straighter than MBH’s.”
August 17th, 2010 at 11:22 am
he Left has backed another loser agenda? Say it ain’t so.!
Of course it has. Free people use their freedom to back winners and discard losers of their own free will. The Left gets what free people discarded precisely because the idea was a loser. There is no need to coerce people into picking up good ideas.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Pete, I too can find other people’s comments to rebut your posting of other people’s comments:
“This paper is extremely important. Here’s why:
The MBH98 hockey stick provided two separate arguments for the CAGW crowd. First, it showed a recent, rapid rise in temperature [the blade], and second, it showed that no MWP occurred [the stick]. That would make the current rise in temperature unprecedented.
Both claims were based on faulty statistics used improperly, and on very carefully picked proxies, selected after many computer runs and using statistically invalid methods, until one was found that gave the desired hockey stick shape. Mann threw out the proxies after 1960 because they stopped showing a rise in temperature, and he replaced them [without the necessary acknowledgement] with an instrumental overlay after 1960.
When the statistical analysis is done correctly using Mann’s own carefully selected tree ring proxies, the resulting graph shows that the current warming has happened just like the past warming that happened well before the industrial revolution. That destroys the MBH98 hypothesis that current temperatures are “unprecedented.”
Since what is occurring now has happened in the past [and the planet has warmed even more, prior to the MWP], the null hypothesis remains standing: no one has falsified the theory that the observed temperatures changes are the result of natural variability, which fully explains the current temperature fluctuations without the need for an extraneous variable like CO2. Occam’s Razor warns against adding any unnecessary variables to an explanation that completely describes a hypothesis without the extraneous variable.
Next, this proper statistical analysis means that MBH98, MBH99, and follow-up Mann et al. papers are far from robust, and in fact are so riddled with bad statistics that they are essentially worthless; they are falsified.
Finally, Mann claims that no MWP happened. This paper clearly shows the high temperatures in the Middle Ages — verifying supporting historical documents and accounts of observations from around the world showing the MWP was at least as warm as today, and very likely warmer.
This paper decisively breaks the hockey stick by showing a clearly recognizable MWP, and by showing that current temperatures are within past parameters. Nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring, and the coincidental rise of CO2 has much less to do with the [very mild] 0.7° temperature rise over the past century and a half than the effect of natural variability.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/#comment-458426
August 17th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
RightNow – good post.
I’ll add two points to what McIntyre found.
First, he found that running red noise through the Mann algorithm produced a hockey stick 99% of the time. The reason is that the Mann algorithm would systematically add weight to series with strong deviations from average in the 20th century (i.e. hockey sticks) when computing a weighted average of proxies.
Second, he found that when negative hockey sticks would turn up in the data, the Mann algorithm would flip them to point upwards by applying a negative weighting. The famous Mann hockey stick is in part supported by temperature series that are included upside down!
A number of climate scientists have expressed a view, after McIntyre’s disclosure, that Mann’s is a legitimate method.
Given these two facts alone, the Mann hockey stick is must be bunk. What is most disturbing, in my opinion, is that these problems were not uncovered until five years after Mann’s paper was published, long after the IPCC 2001 report which made heavy use of the hockey stick. And they were not found by anyone in the climate community. They were uncovered by an unpaid former mining executive with no expertise in climate, only mathematics. This is a very major failure by the climate community. It strongly indicates the feedbacks we know exist elsewhere in science are not working in climate science. Not only did the climate scientists fail to detect these problems in Mann, the community to this day remains complicit in the cover up. McIntyre is still having his requests for data turned down. External scrutiny is therefore essential if the climate scientists, unable to police themselves, want our money. This court case is part of that, and rightly so.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Rightnow, it is just one paper. When it is published it will undergo scrutiny. It will then add to the debate.
Your quote concludes with:
“Nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring, and the coincidental rise of CO2 has much less to do with the [very mild] 0.7° temperature rise over the past century and a half than the effect of natural variability.”
Another acceptance that the temperature seems to have risen, ok.
But to claim an absolute such as “Nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring” in the scientific world.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Pete: “It’s not a smear, it’s basic facts. If Ian Wishart rejects science as mainstream as evolution there is presumably a religious influence. If so that raises questions over whether religious beliefs also influence his position on climate science. If someone has core religious beliefs that are non-negotiable then it doesn’t need a rocket scientist to understand that could limit their openness to the full range of scientific possibilities.”
Actually Pete, if you read Divinity Code, you’ll see I debate the science, on the science. You want to take me apart, show me where my arguments are wrong…I keep saying this and you keep avoiding it. And if you want to debate the existence of God, same applies. Tackle the evidence, man, instead of avoiding it with ad hominems.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
And by the way, if my “religious beliefs” influenced my views on climate change, I’d follow Sunday School teacher Bill McKibben’s “armageddon is upon us” school of alarmism. Any chance your own beliefs influence your posts?
August 17th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I hope you don’t mind me promoting it but if anyone is interested Ian Wishart is speaking at Hillside Church 75 Felton Matthew Ave 6:30pm this Sunday. No idea whether it will be on climate change or some other topic? Worth coming to anyway as he is a good speaker.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Pete, I suspect you’ve been lazy about this, you’ve googled a rebuttal (found on an alarmist blog) to the paper and cut and pasted, and now I’ve returned your serve you’ve picked the last sentence to save yourself trying to get to grips with the actual meat of the issue.
Yes the temperature has risen since the end of the little ice age around 1850. While stating ‘nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring’ is a controversial stance for the writer to take, it doesn’t negate the science at all. Given past climate variability his statement is not too wide of the mark.
That Mann and his cohorts tried to write the MWP out of history was one of the strongest indications (to me) that the hockey stick was suspect. The MWP is widely documented (e.g. this handy GLOBAL reference http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html)
I don’t disagree with the bulk of the science regarding global warming. I disagree with a) the amount of warming attributed to human CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, b) the forecast scenarios of up to 6 deg C by 2100 and massive sea level rises, c) every negative weather event being attributed to global warming.
Frankly I think we’d be LUCKY to have 1.5 deg C warming by 2100. We will need the beneficial warmth to support the increased population (and by happy co-incidence, more CO2 to assist plant growth).
Now, let’s go back to 1997
“1997: 2nd UN IPCC report – Scientists: a) no clear evidence of recent changes due to greenhouse effect b) no studies show man made climate warming c) uncertainites too big d) don’t know if/when a human effect on climate can/will be found.
Changed by UN’s IPCC scientist Ben Santer to – “… a discernable human fingerprint on Earth’s climate”.”
August 17th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
This is the first time you’ve said it to me so how can I have been avoiding it? Even if I did feel like it I haven’t time to read your “Divinity Code” right now.
“And if you want to debate the existence of God” -
I’ll avoid that, pointless exercise, a debate that has never had any evidence and has never been won or lost by anyone. Unless you want to debate whether “God” is a part of an individual’s thoughts, I understand that people can have God in their heads.
“Tackle the evidence, man,”
I suggested that someone with non-negotiable religious beliefs will not always look at scientific issues with an open mind, as they won’t want to consider anything that may threaten their beliefs. What is so contentious about that? It’s a limitation not confined to people with religious beliefs, it seems like human nature to me.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
RightNow, I’ve said this before, I agree with the doubt about the degree of human influence, and the potential degree of human influenced change, and if that occurs to any significant degree whether negative effects will outweigh positive effects.
What I question is the statement by someone purporting to be questioning scientific research and claims by scientists:
“While stating ‘nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring’ is a controversial stance for the writer to take”
…is not just controversial, it is totally unscientific. That puts some doubt on the rest of their argument, if they sum up with something like that. Surely you can see that.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Pete ““While stating ‘nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring’ is a controversial stance for the writer to take”
…is not just controversial, it is totally unscientific. That puts some doubt on the rest of their argument, if they sum up with something like that. Surely you can see that.”
As I said Pete, I don’t think their statement is wide of the mark. Past temperatures have been just as high (MWP for example) and the slope of the latter 20th Century warming is not unprecedented (an inconvenient truth sorry). In fact, if you adjusted for UHI (in the instrumental record that was tacked on to the proxy record) that slope wouldn’t be worth mentioning.
What exactly is it that you think is unusual or unnatural? The whole premise of CAGW was centred around the slope of the temp graph from 1970. That gradient is not significantly different to the slope from 1910 to 1940, a period before the attribution of increased CO2 as a driver of warming.
Frankly I believe there have been adjustments to the temps that are counter-intuitive to UHI effect. It is my opinion that the rise in temps from 1970 is more due to UHI than CO2.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Who says I’m not open to anything that threatens? I’ll go where the evidence goes. Always have done.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
I am pretty confident I agree with all the science. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more of it directly increases temperatures by a predictable amount (about 1C per doubling), catastrophe (say 6C warming) depends on indirect temperature feedback effects. I understand the mainstream scientific view is that the magnitude and even the sign of feedback effects overall (so called ‘net feedbacks’) is currently indeterminate. There is some suggestion that such feedback may even be unmeasurable, such is climate’s complexity. These feedbacks interfere with measuring man’s impact on the climate – if feedbacks make the CO2-temperature relationship impossible to measure, then man’s contribution to recent warming is necessarily indeterminate. Again, I believe this is the mainstream scientific view.
None of the claims RightNow mentions
I disagree with a) the amount of warming attributed to human CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, b) the forecast scenarios of up to 6 deg C by 2100 and massive sea level rises, c) every negative weather event being attributed to global warming.
None of these has a scientific basis. They are the product of complex models that produce results that reflect the input assumptions of the modelers. They are not tests of anything, merely complex mathematical extrapolations of priors, including assumptions about feedback effects. That is not to say they are useless – but they are non-scientific in the sense that they test nothing and are themselves untestable as forecasts, and fail miserably in out-of-sample testing, as documented by Montford and others.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
To add to my last comment, the initial projections of impending doom seemed to rely on a linear trend carrying on from 1970.
See Hansen’s projections (red line is observed temps) http://www.climate-skeptic.com/images/2008/06/23/hansencheck.gif
The climate doesn’t behave like that, it has 60 year cycles (largely due to the ENSO decadal oscillation) and has plateaued or even dipped (depending on whether you use HADCrut or GISSTemp – funny how even they diverge so much) in the last ten years – likely to continue to fall for another 20 years before returning to an upward trend for 30 years, then repeating the cycle.
There is also an underlying linear trend of about 0.7 deg C since about 1850. This is the actual warming in question.
Really the question is – how much of the underlying trend can be attributed to natural causes (e.g. rebounding from the little ice age) and how much can be attributed to human influences (e.g. CO2 emissions)
August 17th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Fair enough, that’s your opinion, you are not talking in absolutes, and you could be right, but presumably if sufficient counter evidence was shown you could be convinced otherwise?
It could also be claimed that there is ‘nothing unusual or unnatural’ about humans stuffing up their environment. It hasn’t been proven that we’re not, that’s more difficult to do than show indications that it may be.
Ben – this isn’t just about a few trend models, there are growing numbers of scientific observations suggesting that the climate could be changing.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Pete – so far very little HAS been proven. There are so many variables not currently understood or factored in. Changes in the jet stream, solar influences, etc. Whether our climate system has net positive or negative feedbacks? The GCMs basically assumed net positive feedbacks, but the observations tend to support net negative feedbacks.
I hypothesize that the earth didn’t get to today’s climate without having mechanisms to self-regulate. There have been 9000ppm CO2 concentrations prior to humans walking the earth. Yet today we have 387ppm (BTW – the projections for CO2 levels were to be at 399ppm by now).
August 17th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Sorry, didn’t address this “presumably if sufficient counter evidence was shown you could be convinced otherwise?”
Yes I could. All it will take is the observations more closely agreeing with the models to convince me.
Basically when the alarmist scientists can show they were right – hasn’t happened yet.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I don’t think there’s any doubt the climate is changing, no “could be” about it. The question is whether the change is out of the ordinary (unnatural), if so how much, and whether it is anthropogenic in origin.
Looking at the studies, there are any number indicating temps were as high or slightly higher during the MWP, and during earlier warm periods in the past 3,000 years as well. There are clear climate cycles of varying lengths, and sometimes when two strike together (like waves) they create bigger peaks or troughs.
The actual level of planetary warming (the so called 0.7C) is difficult to measure because instrumentation a century ago wasn’t really designed to the level of accuracy we are now demanding from it post facto, and as the Hessell paper shows NZ’s temp stations were hugely compromised, as were others around the world. Clearly the earth is warmer than it was in 1850, but is it 0.7 on average or 0.3? Of the 0.7, how much is human-caused? Some studies suggest less than half of modern warming trend is CO2 related.
Next question, the computer models make assumptions based on the expectations or desires of their programmers. Will rising CO2 cause runaway warming, or will warmer temps create more evaporation, more clouds, more albedo and therefore cool the system down again?
Are CO2 concentrations increasing because we’re polluting so much more, or because we ripped out most of the massive forests over the past 200 years to fuel the industrial age and a population explosion? With less vegetation to suck up CO2, it follows that more will linger in the atmosphere.
All of these issues undermine the “certainty” that die-hard believers try to preach. Climate is complex, and before we push trillions of dollars into making certain multinationals very rich we should first ascertain whether humans are really having the impact that is claimed, whether that impact is as catastrophic as claimed, and whether ETS schemes will make a blind bit of difference to CO2 levels and temperature.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
For another gripping read: Why China (and Brazil, Russia and India) aren’t jumping on the CAGW train.
“There is only one Earth, natural resources are limited. If according to current technological conditions, and Developing Countries had the same living standard as Developed Countries, then we’d need at least 3 to 5 Earth’s to satisfy our appetites. This is what Developed Countries are most afraid of, the development of the Developing Countries poses an enormous threat to their way of lives.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100050359/what-the-chinese-really-think-of-man-made-global-warming/
August 17th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
What scientists or scientific groups do that? I hear that sort of line from people who seem to want to muddy the waters, to try to create uncertainty (a similar tactic used to try and undermine the science of evolution) – but I don’t hear it from those supporting ongoing science.
Who are the “die-hard believers” you say are preaching?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
FFS, I can see why you’ve taken a bit of stick from some commenters Pete. You know who the ‘die-hard’ believers are, you copy and paste from their blogs.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Hansen can be the token die-hard blow-hard for now:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/hansen-maintains-title-of-leading.html
August 17th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Who says there is certainty in the climate?
One of the few certainties is that some people (and groups?) are trying very hard to undermine the whole issue, to try to create more uncertainty. And this campaign has similarities to others:
“There is too much uncertainty about evolution, so creation must be true”
“There is too much uncertainty about climate change, so it must be natural”
“There is too much uncertainty about the effects of smoking, so it must be healthy”
August 17th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Pete, it is common ground that the climate is changing. Virtually everybody acknowledges temperatures have increased in the last century. I think the science is reasonably clear on that, even with the serious measurement problems that are now, at last, apparent. I think you will find very little disagreement among skeptics with the objective science. Its the bit where climate scientists stray into non-scientific territory and they either speculate about man’s influence or tipping points, which can’t be pinpointed with any confidence at all on the available evidence, or into normative judgments (“we must act now”) that transparently attempts to leverage their expertise as scientists into authority for what are value judgments – this is where skeptics say “hold on – actually that doesn’t make sense”.
One thing I’ve been struck by here is seeing at least one person still claim the science is settled – after all the ructions within climate science and between scientists and outsiders in the last 12 months, we still have people saying there is no argument to see here. What exactly would it take to convince you important aspects of the question are not settled?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Ouch, nailed by Pete George’s superior logic.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Pete George
“There is too much uncertainty about evolution, so creation must be true”
“There is too much uncertainty about climate change, so it must be natural”
“There is too much uncertainty about the effects of smoking, so it must be healthy”
Source for these? None, presumably.
Not once ever have I heard any of those arguments. Probably because they are self-evidently ludicrous. Not one of the conclusions follow from the prior.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Nothing. I have said before, I doubt anything will be settled about climate in my lifetime. It is a very complex thing, and it’s very difficult to be anywhere near sure of reasons for short term fluctuations. Hence most serious scientists couch there language and talk about tendencies, adding weight to possibilities etc rather than anything like certainties. Most talk of certainties that I see are accusations and not claims.
RightNow, there is much legitimate questioning of climate science, that’s, well, it’s science. But – do you agree that there are also deliberate attempts at undermining and confusing the debate? That there are huge vested interests (presumably on both sides of the debate) that will try and steer it in a way that will benefit them?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Pete l do agree that there are vested interests undermining and confusing the debate.
Research funding is so much easier to get if the researcher is likely to reach a conclusion supporting CAGW.
Climate scientists who are part of the cabal are able to make it almost impossible for a skeptic paper to be accepted to a (formerly reputable) journal.
Accusations that big oil is bankrolling the skeptics fly all round the blogosphere while it is easy to discover that (as one example) BP contributes over 100x more to the alarmist groups than to any skeptic groups.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
“Source for these?”
There are many people and organisations, led by the Intelligent Design proponents, that believe:
“There is too much uncertainty about evolution, so creation must be true”
They try and claim “intelligent design theory purely on its scientific merits” but it has nil science, they just try to push uncertainty on the actual science. And they use similar tactics to some anti climate change proponents, like trying to label the opposing view as some sort of faith or belief system.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Forget the other countries ducking their own ETs because of economics.
The science isn’t settled and has been fraudulently played with.
The ETS has shown us that National shouldn’t be in government without a minder.
Vote ACT your PARTY VOTE next time.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Pete – nobody is making that argument regarding climate change, and frankly trying to draw a parallel between creationists and people skeptical about the quality of climate science is childish. Unlike creationists, we can point to a great deal of hard evidence of exaggeration, lying, bad behaviour, fraud and, above all, bad science by the leading lights of climate science. Now that doesn’t prove there is no problem, but it should make us reluctant to do what they suggest policy-wise without some extensive checks and balances that the books aren’t being cooked.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Natural resources are not limited.
They are infinite because, with the exception of alluvial gold and meteroric iron they are all human inventions.
There is no limit to our ability to invent.
Hence natural resources are infinite.
We do not destroy matter. With the exception of space junk etc all the stuff we take out of the ground stays right here – but somewhat more concentrated than it was.
The three earths needed theory is just religious junk.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:57 am
Well, space junk and Uranium.
The elements might all be around, but their chemical potential/configuration, location and so on all clearly come into it.
It’s quite an academic standpoint that there is still Phosphorous in the world if it is all dissolved into the oceans. Our current practice of mining it from the ground cannot be replaced by extracting it from the oceans overnight.
Oil and gas are natural resources not because they are carbon and hydrogen, but because they have chemical potential and are less energy to retrieve than that yielded from their combustion. Once they are combusted and released into the air, their constituent ingredients are still present, but the natural resource can be depleted. The actual resource – concentrated solar energy – is expended. Or perhaps you have some way of escaping basic laws of thermodynamics and reversing it that we don’t know about Mr. McShane?
If you spent the time to actually read outside of your little echo chamber, you might see that the concerns about limitations in natural resources are well founded in science. Take for instance, this New Scientist diagram on Natural Resources and Demand. It compares the US consumption with the world population, and from this you can logically infer that there are insufficient resources for the entire world to consume at US comsumption levels, without drastic changes to the way we manage our waste. You are essentially saying that recycling can meet this resource short-fall; this blatantly obvious idea is even quantified on that graph.
But you know, that’s just scientists, and those guys are all just part of some grand UN agenda, right?
August 18th, 2010 at 9:26 am
“There is no limit to our ability to invent. Hence natural resources are infinite.”
Raw materials may appear limitless (not really because Earth is finite), but their usefulness is severely limited by the cost of extraction and concentration. Mineral deposits are places where we take advantage of nature’s processes of concentration. Such places are limited because they form slowly over geologic time. In today’s world, the cost of energy is relatively cheap and so we fill our tips with discards. In the future, these may become valuable resources or cheaper alternative materials will be found. The ETS simply brings us closer to that day – and ahead of our closest competitors! Human ingenuity is indeed vast, we’ll cope, so stop the whinging.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
A quotation: “Surface temps have risen, but too few are looking at the obvious changes in land use throughout the world. Population pressure and commercial opportunity means that forests are being cut down and replaced with crops.. which means a major change in the albedo effects, flood control and drought prevalence.
We don’t need no steenking computer models to tell us the obvious.. that changing from high forest to low crops or bare ground changes the temp, the local environment, water regulation, the albedo effect, the rainfall and its consequences, patterns of human behaviour and the climate balance.. in short, too many of our so called climate scientists are ignorant of history and geography, and in willful denial of both.”
I would put much emphasis on the last sentence.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Seen this Mr. Dewhurst?
Yet more shonky GW data comes to light. Global temperatures have a ten degree error. (on the warming side of course) When will this corrupt sham be put to rest? Nothing but another leftist fraud aimed at securing financial resources for the further expansion of global socialism.
http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/?p=692
August 18th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Here is a puzzle. According to the spreadsheet on the NIWA website, our temperatures increased about 0.7° up to 1950, and then only about 0.35° in the past 40 years.
Yet the Government says that our emissions of greenhouse gases didn’t amount to much until the 1960s, and have been accelerating since 1990.
I would have thought that these NIWA figures should suit the climate sceptics very well, as they seem to show a big disconnect between emissions and temperatures.
So why are they attacking NIWA?
August 18th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Australis, it’s not a puzzle. Sceptics are seeking the truth.