First casualties of climate change
August 18th, 2011 at 3:36 pm by David FarrarGavin Atkins writes:
Tim Blair recently posted this list of things that the media have trumpeted as being the “first casualties of climate change”.
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to check the veracity of each story – but what I was not expecting is that every story up until 2010 (after which some of the claims are too recent to verify one way or another) has either been completely debunked, or has since had some serious doubts placed on it.
So the following examples have not been cherry picked – it’s a quick analysis of every claim made about “the first casualty of global warming” up until 2010.
Here are the stories that Tim gathered together, followed by the latest information about them:
The claim:
The golden toad was the first casualty of global warming
The reality:
“There is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming. Rather, the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad (Bufo periglenes) appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986–1987 El Niño event.”
The claim:
Tuvalu: Global Warming’s first casualty. Ten thousand people, Tuvalu’s entire population, are packing their bags as their homes among nine low level atolls are being swallowed by the rising sea.
The reality:
The last census shows that Tuvalu’s population continues to grow.
The claim:
Polar bears are set to become the first casualty of global warming.
The reality:
The total number of the world’s polar bear population is still thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000.
The claim:
The first casualty of global warming is India’s mangrove island on the Bay of Bengal, Lochachara ~ it is now gone.
The reality:
The loss of the island was almost certainly caused as part of the natural erosion of an island in a delta.
The claim:
The Maldives are the likely first casualty in any serious increase in global warming.
The reality:
The Maldives population continues to increase.
The claim:
Water could be the first casualty of global warming.
The reality:
Not in Australia it ain’t. Also, the argument that smaller glaciers means less water is pure illogical claptrap as explained eloquently by Jennifer Marohasy.
The claim:
Australia Could Become First Major Casualty Due To Global Warming.
The reality:
People in Sydney and Melbourne have wasted millions on desalination plants because of false predictions about water shortages.
The claim:
Losing winter: as climate change takes hold, North America’s coldest season is the first casualty.
The reality:
North America has experienced some of its biggest snow seasons on record.
The claim:
First Casualty of Global Warming? Rare breed of possum may be extinct.
The reality:
Live possums were discovered four months later.
The claim:
The Alaskan village of Newtok is the first casualty of climate change.
The reality:
The town of Newtok is still exactly where it always has been.
The claim:
UNEP had also recently declared that coral reefs, which support the majority of marine life, will be the first casualty of climate change.
The reality:
The reefs are doing fine.
The claim:
Brunt of climate change perceived in India; small Himalayan glaciers first casualty.
The reality:
UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning
The claim:
In India … agriculture is the first casualty of climate change.
The reality:
India produces record wheat and pulses crop.
This sums up for me the reason so many people disbelieve climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The media, many politicians and even some crusading scientists have published so many scare stories that have not eventuated, people naturally turn to disbelief.
As I have said many times before, the basis science is very sound that the more greenhouse gas emission there are, the warmer it will be. There is less certainty over what the extent of any warming will be. Some say only a couple of degrees, while many say the indirect impacts through water vapour will magnify the direct effects.
But as I have said many times, the assorted hysteria about 10 metre sea level rises, blaming all unusual climate events on greenhouse gas emissions, and assorted doomsday predictions are what have turned so many people from concerned to sceptical.
Hat Tip: Whale Oil
Related posts:
- Climate Change Scepticism
- Contraception to stop climate change
- NZ Herald Editorial on Climate Change
- Lomborg on Climate Change
August 18th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I think the first casualty of climate change was reasoned debate.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Here we go again
Vote:DPF’s Kiwiblog – Fomenting Happy Mischief
August 18th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I agree with Pete.
As for CO2 and water “amplifying the effect”. all proven garbage by history and continued existence of the oceans.
If as some claim there was indeed a positive feedback mechanism (in purely engineering control systems terms), then back when CO2 levels were way higher than they are now, and the Earth’s temp was hotter than it is now, we would have had a runaway chain reaction resulting in all the worlds water being evaporated into the atmosphere.
Well last time I looked out the window I could still see water in the Waitemata harbour.
Therefore, there’s no overall positive feedback (unstable) system, but a stable negative feedback system which the programmers need to take account for in their computer models.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I agree, PG. The problem I have is that the media, many politicians and even some scientists insist on using the term “global warming”. Even DPF referred to it here.
Simply put, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than any other time during this period of glacial-interglacial cycles since the continents have been in their latest configuration – about the last 5 million years. Note the provisos! We cannot compare, as some of my colleagues have, episodes from 10′s to 100′s of million years ago because the continents were in different places and the oceans could flow unimpeded, for example.
So we are contributing significantly to CO2. _We_ are. Now yes there is a _broad_ correlation between CO2 and temperature, but I prefer to point out that we are simply trapping more energy, so the system becomes more energetic. It will NOT be smoothly spread out! We can expect higher highs and lower lows, more big storms, more droughts, more floods, etc. For example, the year Katrina hit New Orleans, the Gulf of Mexico had a record number of category 5 hurricanes. The next year? None!!
It is not going to be nice and simple and smooth. And the problem is that a lot of my colleagues painted it that way because to try to explain the complexity was not so much too hard for them, but too hard for the media reporters, most of whom have had no science whatsoever.
So the blame needs to get shared around.
And adc – no serious scientist would have suggested that. Cranks and extremists, yes, urged on by silly reporters who want conflict and aggro! not facts.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
If there are any alarmists around who have finished wiping the egg off their faces after reading DPF’s list they could carry on to:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
That’s the problem with this religion, its prophesies can be audited.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
How about so tiny as to be smaller than the uncertainties in measuring it!
And even more so given the demonstrated fluctuations in climate throughout the life time of the planet that are clearly nothing to do with humanity.
Why have you fallen for 21st century shamenism DPF?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
The problem is that the “prophecies” are rarely pulled from an actual scientific paper and more often some idle speculation urged on by some reporter wanting some outrageous headline.
Ultimately, we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the planet. We do not know what the result will be. And THAT is what worries me. As an observational scientist, I have always had what I consider to be a healthy skepticism about models and modeling.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Years ago when Global Warming (since renamed Climate Change) first reared its ugly head here and elsewhere I and many others opined it was all about the money, Always follow the money See who has to gain by the pronouncements.
Governments. More Taxes. And not only more taxes but the ability to denounce anyone who objects with the frothing emotion about robbing our children adn grandchildren and denying them what we had.
The Scientists. Funding. there guys and gals need bucket loads. So if they spout the Gumint line they get the funding. Stand up and question No funding.
Big Business. Profit opportunities to jump on the GREEN wagon and attach the most spurious claims to your product to increase market share selling price and margins.
The Feel Good Philinthropics. A cause to give money to and feel good about it.
fact is the climate changes and scientists have shown over hundreds of years before the automoblie etc that climate changed.
This little lot is as set out above a scam of gigantic proportions. One that future generations will regard as we regard ‘The earth is Flat”
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Oh goody
Both sides with closed minds arguing. By gum your pansies if you listen to those over on the other side.
Bout as much fun as listening to stainless steel being milled.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
David
Good on you for having a go. I wish you luck, but you’ll have some die-hard deniers to contend with.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Years ago when Global Warming (since renamed Climate Change) first reared its ugly head here and elsewhere I and many others opined it was all about the money, Always follow the money See who has to gain by the pronouncements.
Follow the trial of the denilist were does it end oil money
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I’m not sure about the Indian claim. apparently Monsantos has really stuffed up the Indian agricultural sector with their ineffective seeds. A lot of Indian farmers have apparently committed suicide due to very poor growing seasons dues to Monsantos.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Life is an uncontrolled experiment – you have to live with that and make the best you can of it.
The climate will change regardless of what we do or don’t do and we cannot predict what those changes in the long term will be – although it is fairly certain that there is another ice age sometime in the future when the glaciers will advance and the breadbaskets of the world, Ukraine and the American Mid-West in particular will be under ice again.
And how humanity copes with that ?????????????????????????????????
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
New Research paper out by Professor Lindzen. Looks like even if we double CO2 then the temp would only rise 1 degree.
We have had rises in CO2 (now up to 392 ppm) over the past 20 years yet the temp has risen negligibly (statisically insignificant).
Observation of actual temps is not following all the modelled predictions.
Also DPF, as a “greenhouse gas” CO2 only causes about .3 of a degree of warming. The rest predicted (2-4 degrees) is from the hypothesis of “forcing” and “positive feedback” which is not being observed in any of the 17 million radiosondes sent into the troposphere in the last 20 odd years…
The reality is that the Planet is pretty much insensitive to the CO2 increases we have seen and ironically warmer temps and more CO2 would aid production of food.
With sunspot activity really low I’m inclined towards the prediction of cooler for the next 15-20 years.
[DPF: My understand is that the direct impact of greenhouse gases i around 1.5 degrees, and then after that it is positive feedback]
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Yep, what David in ChCh said.
I got stuck into the Polar bear story when it was released in late 2009. It’s not that I’m a GHG skeptic, it’s that it wasn’t actually supported by polar bear numbers. The reports took a long term threat identified in the IUCN species assessment and invented some evidence to conform to it (cannibalistic behaviour by adult males- which is actually normal). The science really said it was going to take a longer time frame than ‘now’ to confirm that.
That gets mixed up with the climate change message. The predictions are for increased volatility in the shorter term with longer term warming trends emerging. Nobody reputable is predicting a smooth and uniform increase in warming- many of the effects will take a long time to play out. You won’t be able to identify them from single data points.
Extreme preidctions- the excited confirmation by media or NGOs that every global event is now linked to global climate change, doesn’t help get the scientific message across.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
It’s not hard to believe climate change could be catastrophic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
” if a writer could infuse a “human interest and a semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative”
And this:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#more-45262
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
all you need to know is here: http://climateaudit.org/
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
And cutting through the double talk that means that any anomalous weather event cf this weeks snowstorm, can be claimed as evidence for climate change.
Which of course is exactly the same techniques used by witchdoctors as they screwed virgins at mid winter to make the Sun come back again and the days grow longer
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Be sure to tune in next week, to see a long list of claims made by scienticians about the purported “Moon landing” in 1969, versus what we’re going to say is “the reality”…
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Its pretty amusing given we have recently experienced one of our coldest periods ever – kind of blows the muppet Greenies arguments out of the water. I read a few years back that by 2020 Dunedin was going to have the climate of Queensland – yet its still frickin’ cold as hell.
Anyone who believes the shit science behind global climate change is nothing but a mug – you are no better than Scientologists – i.e. you are believing in a religion that is only a few years old, has no historical events as a basis and requires blind faith to believe in it.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
DPF: There is less certainty over what the extent of any warming will be.
I can help you out there with a recent paper:
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Sean – not sure what you mean. Dunedin has had a mild winter with a low number of frosts and it was looking like an early spring starting in July until this week’s cold snap. But that’s all just short term weather.
Scientific investigation into climate change, into the human effect on the environment including climate, and into whether we can do anothing to change it will no doubt carry on for decades.
The oddest part of climate debate is those that have already made up their minds, one way or another.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Call me a mug then Sean – I’m pretty satisfied with the scientific arguments about climate change, which are basedon historical data.
As Chthoniid and David pointed out above, some scepticism about climate change is fuelled by sensationalised reporting. That’s inevitable – there is no reason to suppose climate science would be immune to media hype when nothing else is.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
berend
Lindzen’s (contested) opinion doesn’t actually provide any certainty.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
…”Which of course is exactly the same techniques used by witchdoctors as they screwed virgins at mid winter to make the Sun come back again and the days grow longer”…
It would be more fun than listening to Al Gore & the Chorus of the Paid Off Scientists giving their renditions of global catastrophe.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
mikenmild
I think you’ll find a lot of that “historical data” has quite a few question marks over it.
Invariably this data has been massaged. Even the base temperature record (from all the terrestrial temp stations) has a lot of questions over it. check the climate audit site under the station data section. The proxy data section is also very interesting (where they try to infer temp or CO2 levels from some other measurable thing).
Calculating an overall statistical baseline for temp of the earth is non-trivial. So I don’t even know if we even know what the temp even is overall. Let alone whether it is changing. It’s certainly of dubious accuracy if you go back a few decades. This is why when they invented the hockey stick, they had to do so much fudging of it.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
[DPF: My understand is that the direct impact of greenhouse gases i around 1.5 degrees, and then after that it is positive feedback]
That is probably all “greenhosue gases” – CO2 is a small proprtion of that. And it looks as though the “positive feedback/forcing” is actually negative as plants consume more , and oceans release less.
DPF – have you ever read the Redme.txt file from climategate? it’s vailidity has never been challenged, and the enquiries into “climategate” were stacked with their terms of reference and also panels with conflicts. Once you read this you’ll realise how worthless the “facts” are. It’s documents a poor programmer trying to do the best he can with rubbish data, and the wild manipulation to make things work…….it’s a raw honest insight into the warmists and IPCC process.
This isn’t about science being “settled”, the basic theory of how CO2 works maybe – but this is really just about how you create a “model” ie a big spreadsheet! and that’s where 15 yrs and current trends go against the models – so how long do you keep believing the model? when that belief is in the face of actual facts it becomes AGW to the extent predicted becomes a “faith” based religion!
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
abc – the existence of a positive feedback does not necessarily imply a runaway effect. Radiation from the planet increases proportional to the fourth power of temperature so a positive feedback has to be very strong in order to induce a runaway effect.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
How did that famous shampoo advert go….?
“It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen”
Obviously the extinction events can’t be linked to AGW, and are far more likely to have been caused by habitat loss. With sea levels rising 4mm per annum, low lying areas are not immediately threatened, but they are probably living on borrowed time.
Of course, we Warmists know that these silly claims were put out there by the oil companies in order to discredit our cause, and to try and thwart our plans to take over the world and install a socialist global government. But the skeptics will fail, as we have the MSM and academics under our sway. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I don’t believe there is one, its something that varies continuously in a fashion we cannot fully grasp (except perhaps glimpse through chaos theory) let alone predict
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
It’s quite possible we are having bugger all effect on climate, and/or there is bugger all we can do to affect and changes.
But it would be a bugger if we followed the advice of the ostriches and ditched all climate science, and relaxed IF a cycle of reduced sun activity counteracted any possible greenhouse warming for a while, and then the sun burst into greater activity (which it will some time) and the combined effects precipitated a rapid climate change period of sigificantly greater volatility and possibly warming.
Surely we should at the very least continue science to learn what we can about it.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Pete
Of course you are right – the scientific questions are by definition never settled. Evidence is gathered and compared against hypotheses. The present scientific consensus is pretty well settled, and as time goes on there will be more certainty attached to predictions of the actual effects of climate change and better estimates of what can be done to mitigate risks arising from such changes.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Thank god for global warming.co2, and all the other shit, THINK HOW COLD IT COULD BE IN THE DAMN SNOW, if we were not been ripped of by key and the rest of the rat nest and the rort called the ETS or , what key calls his NEST EGG, MONEY FOR NOTHING
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Its so funny reading the denilist grasping at straws. Its not belief Andrei. It is not god its science. We will of course see and then what learn to swim?
Vote:This post is paid for by the socialist global government we will rule MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
August 18th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
David in ChCh, your simply making up scare stories like all the best warmenistas do. For your information, the overall number of hurricanes (a good sort of extreme weather event I suggest) is at an all time low and has in fact been drooping for years. It is simply another myth and a dangerous one spread by alarmists. It may be that the number of such events will ramp up in the future, and the number may also reduce, the scientific evidence, not the anecdotal stuff you’re pushing, is that the number has reduced so far.
This is precisely why a sensible discussion on AGW (or however one wishes to call it), the alarmist side will simply make up facts that suit their cause and blindly propagate these. And when one tries to point out the real facts, one is smeared, labelled a denier, accused of taking money from “fossil fuel interests” (or the Koch brothers).
The one thing the whole field lacks is a good dispassionate view of the facts as they actually are, not as the climate extremists want them to be. And that does go for both sides, but just as the huge sums of money and academic egos are behind warming, so is the hyperbole and deceit in the same proportion.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The direct impact of a doubling of CO2, not considering feedbacks, is warming of 1 degree C. The “consensus”, or IPCC position, after considering feedbacks is 2-4.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2, and very likely to be less than 1.5 degrees C. 3 degrees C is given as the most likely figure for climate sensitivity by those who accept the mainstream view.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
The IPCC actually provides the ‘good dispassionate view of the facts as they actually are’ sought by Ed Snack.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Griff – the “aether” was science once upon a time. That didn’t mean it was correct and, as we now know, it wasn’t correct.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
‘This post is paid for by the socialist global government we will rule MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!’
We are run by socialism from both sides of the house. Key supported Clarke’s bid for the UN and much more.
Look how far Mike Moore has gone.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
@Andrei
Nope, that’s just a straight up misrepresentation of my post. I never said the cold snap was evidence of climate change or volatility. In fact, I said that one-off data points aren’t evidence of anything.
Volatility in weather can be measured in ways that don’t depend on anecdotal argument.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
For DPF’s point to show anything about the debate, I think we need to compare a list of ‘proofs human activity is not causing the climate to warm’ and see how well that stands up.
Some say only a couple of degrees
And that would be fine, would it? Dude, that’s a lot.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
oops.. my post above I obviously meant very UNLIKELY to be less than 1.5C for a doubling of CO2.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
lyndon, the ‘couple of degrees’ is from the pre-industrial baseline – we’ve had 0.7 of it already remember. So another 1.3 would actually be very good.
In the interests of making a balanced assessment, have you ever seen a list of the benefits of 2 degrees warming from the pre-industrial baseline? Perhaps you should research that, because IMO when someone only presents one side of the story they’re usually pushing an agenda.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
mikenmild – Given that the IPCC is an organization created to address the preconceived idea that man is affecting climate in a significantly negative way, can we really assume it is a dispassionate source of information? The notion that man isn’t affecting climate in a negative way calls into question the very need for such an organization to exist.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
And here I thought stoking the Christian fire (the fires of hell not withstanding?) was enough warming for today DPF
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I say thank god for global warming. Imagine how much snow we would have received if there had not been global warming.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I don’t give a fat rats arse if the chicken Littles kneel before the altar of Climate Change what fucks me off are the same scum who happily put their hands in my pocket on the pretext they are saving the world, what utter and total bullshit. Follow the money, it’s going to thieves, count the weasels in our government in this category. Socialist one world government promoters, UN and other useless wasters. Paid government lackeys, there to push the doom and make the spin cycle go faster. Bullshit carbon markets, collapsing because they trade in nothing. Hypocritical climate Gods like Al Gore who live the high life while raking in the millions pushing lies and telling us we must cut back.I could go on and on, it’s a fucking con and I despise the arseholes hiding behind this crap.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
The first casualty of the climate change fiasco was the trust many of us once had in science. The UN, via it’s IPCC has seen to that.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Oh dear
Vote:School must be out with this latest crop of mindless rantings.
@ Dougal, plebe and seanm…
Hush the grown ups are talking.
August 18th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Ed Snack – you didn’t actually read what I said, did you. I did not say the number of hurricanes was increasing (or decreasing for that matter). I said that the year Katrina hit New Orleans, a record number of category 5 hurricanes occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The next year – NO category 5 hurricanes.
Now how does that square with what you claimed I said? No wonder this whole business goes to shit.
Please actually read and try to absorb what I and others, such as Chthoniid, are trying to say. I know of no credible scientist who claimed that polar bears would die out. The only discussions I have heard from those who study polar bears is that they will have to alter their behaviours, and that numbers _could_ decrease if the Arctic pack ice changes dramatically. That then may lead some reporter to make up a headline “Polar bears may disappear”. It is such bullshit!
It is the same as Greenpeace. I actually do some environmental work, but I would not trust Greenpeace as far as I could throw them. They distort the evidence to suit their purposes.
I was once interviewed about some work I had done. The reporter seemed to listen and wrote things down, but when I asked to check the story for accuracy before it was published, they invoked “journalistic independence”. When the story appeared, black had become white, and very few facts were correct.
So you have to be very careful to sort the wheat from the chaff. There is SO much chaff out there.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
RightNow says:
“In the interests of making a balanced assessment, have you ever seen a list of the benefits of 2 degrees warming from the pre-industrial baseline?”
The willingness to risk evoking the catastrophic consequences of even a 2 degree shift for the sake of a milder climate strike me as hubris of the highest order. There are organizations such as the Heartland Institute who are AGW skeptical, but have hedged their bets by advocating the notion of ‘beneficial AGW’ , which is just plain ga-ga loonytunes crazy.
Worst case scenarios are not alarmist, merely pointing out the Russian roulette we are playing with our one and only precious planet. What foolish arrogance would claim we have the right to gamble away billions of unrealized future lives?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Someone mentioned polar bears. I commented on the origins of this ‘story’ the other day.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
I agree that activists, journalists, politicians and a whole host of other scientific illiterates with influence have played a bad role in stuffing up climate science.
But there are more than a few scientists who must shoulder responsibility for either allowing the screamers to hold sway or directly contributed to them.
For example, anyone still trumpeting the scientists at the heart of the CRU or Real Climate, needs to watch this video from Berkeley physicist Richard Muller. Phd of course, peer reviewed papers up the wazoo, published books and so forth. He even accepts the basic theory that more CO2 should equal more heat – as do I since it’s fairly simple physics.
However, he’s not keen on the rest of the causality daisy chain, and he’s especially not happy about what so-called “scientists” have done in the name of science when it comes to the temperature data. Key quotes about “hiding the decline”:
The “people” whose papers he won’t read anymore are people like Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt – the prime movers behind Real Climate. Hansen is mentioned also but more as an aside joke. And then of course there’s Professor Stephen Schneider, Phd, peer-reviewed papers etc, etc. Someone you peons should not argue with in other words:
These people have seriously damaged a subject I’ve always loved and respected. It’s going to take a long time to pull this back.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Claiming we’re playing Russian Roulette, yet the worst case scenarios are not alarmist?!?
Scott, the earth has been much warmer and worth much higher Co2 concentrations that today. This happened naturally and gradually.. and one of nature’s best tricks (not the ‘hide the decline’ variety!) is adaptation. We’re very good at this, and we’ll continue to be good at it in future. There is no imminent disaster. There is no need to panic. There is no need to pay any organization lots of money to assuage our guilt. Keep calm, and carry on. Until the next global eco/bio scare is conjured up.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Funny coincidence. I was just talking with a few colleagues about a different topic, but the terrible job done by some ‘journalists’ cropped up. To them, creating conflict is what is supposed to represent “balance”.
To illustrate what “balance” has come to mean, if you have a story about a murder victim, then you must now go interview the murderer for their point of view, so as to have a “balanced” story. Balance has nothing to do with facts or, in fact, balance. And some reporters take small differences between what two people say, for example, and blow it out of proportion to make it appear to be in conflict!
And I always always always tell my students to let the data tell its story. Do NOT try to make it fit your hypothesis. Do NOT edit the data to remove the bits that don’t “fit”. The most exciting science I have ever done was when the data revealed something totally unexpected. That is what almost every scientist I know wants – something new and different and not previously observed. We do NOT want to be on band wagons. That is for the weak minded at second rate institutions.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Scott Chris : “the catastrophic consequences of even a 2 degree shift”… FFS a 2 degree shift from the pre-industrial baseline has no catastrophic consequences you moron.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
As I have said many times before, the basis science is very sound that the more greenhouse gas emission there are, the warmer it will be.
Not so. What you are presuming to be the science is in fact a minute portion of the science but once the supposition of the science being fact was spread like a rumour and no one dared to deny it for fear of losing jobs and funding then like all good stories it built upon itself until the pollies got on the bandwagon and made it worse.
Vote:Most of the world are now waiting for the apologies and people who did this to fall on thier swords.
But wait they have the money and have run to a sunny clime top retire.
August 18th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
krazykiwi
…the earth has been much warmer and worth much higher Co2 concentrations that today. This happened naturally and gradually.. and one of nature’s best tricks (not the ‘hide the decline’ variety!) is adaptation. We’re very good at this, and we’ll continue to be good at it in future. There is no imminent disaster. There is no need to panic. There is no need to pay any organization lots of money to assuage our guilt. Keep calm, and carry on. Until the next global eco/bio scare is conjured up.
———————————————
While the Earth has been much warmer with higher CO2 concentrations does the fact that it is natural make it desirable? The Earth has also been frozen over before, but again could we survive in such a world?
Species do adapt, but how do you think they normally adapt? They die of course! And those who survive pass on their superior genes. Is this a good outcome? Moreover, this process normally happens over a long period of time, not in the space of a couple hundred years.
On the other hand we have technology which may help us, but is it a good idea to bet on technology saving the day? (if we assume that the day does in fact need saving)
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
kk
Sure, climate has varied greatly. The carboniferous era which laid down most of the coal seams was markedly warmer than it is now, but the change happened, as you say, gradually. Life can adapt when change is gradual. When change is abrupt, you get an extinction event, such as the extreme cold caused by a catastrophic meteor impact.
I’m in favour of emphasizing the AGW threat, because I really don’t believe people realize how high the stakes are, so preoccupied as they are with the day to day travails of getting ahead.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Viking2 – while I would agree that the issue of climate sensitivity seems uncertain, it is nevertheless true that the more greenhouse gases there are the warmer it will be (other factors remaining constant). The question is “by how much will it warm?”
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
I’m looking forward to the repeal of the ETS and a refund to all New Zealanders of the money stolen from us since 1st Jul 2010 by our own Government.
I’m also fairly sure that AR3 and AR4 were written by the IPCC and, what was it?, a couple of thousand of the worlds most expert scientists, so blaming the media for over hyping is a load of crap.
Mikenmild – Lindzen’s (contested) opinion doesn’t actually provide any certainty.
So you’ve read the paper then? Since it hasn’t been published yet except as a pdf I’m assuming that you are the one ‘contesting’ Lindzen and Choi. Please enlighten us with your criticisms.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
RightNow Says:
“Scott Chris : “the catastrophic consequences of even a 2 degree shift”… FFS a 2 degree shift from the pre-industrial baseline has no catastrophic consequences you moron.”
How can you say you know that there won’t be catastrophic consequences? A 2 degree shift is a conservative estimate anyway. I’m talking about risk management.
BTW, I’m not a moron. Why do you feel the need to be abusive?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Scott Chris – I think it’s a reasonable position to say the stakes are high given the subject matter. But I also believe that it is fair to say that the science of climate sensitivity is not settled and as such people are reluctant to accept remedies if they are skeptical that there is even a problem (despite the stakes being high).
As such I think it makes more sense to emphasize the fact that green energy is a good idea anyway, regardless of climate change. It could enable us to rely less on Arab states for oil and long term it can only be good for the environment. It’s a wonder then why nations do not come together to fund serious research and development rather than continue to fund various pointless wars around the world like Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“I’m also fairly sure that AR3 and AR4 were written by the IPCC”
Who the hell else would have written the IPCC 3rd and 4th assessment reports?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Weihana – so blaming the media for over hyping is a load of crap.
Don’t happen to work for MSNBC do ya?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Scott – sorry about the abuse, it was a bit knee jerk of me and I regretted it soon after. My point however is that all the catastrophic scenarios are based on much more than 2 degrees warming, in fact I seem to recall AGW activists calling for action to limit warming to 2 degrees (from present time rather than pre-industrial baseline too) not so long ago.
Whether or not 2 degrees is a conservative estimate is actually the bone of contention. While I (and many others) accept that increased CO2 causes warming, I don’t agree with the high-side scenarios.
But my initial question remains, have you ever seen a list of the benefits of a modestly warmer climate?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
“BTW, I’m not a moron. Why do you feel the need to be abusive?”
Because when it comes to Climate Change everyone suddenly becomes an expert scientist and anyone who disagrees is obviously brain damaged.
There is no shortage of people who have absolute certainty about a subject in which they have no particular expertise.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Chicken Little – That doesn’t look like a quote from me
???
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I think this is a very good shakedown of Gavin Schmidt:
Vote:http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/sciam-gavin-schmidt-despise-climate.html#more
August 18th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
thank goodness for the Co2, let me tell you, snowball earth is a place we want to revisit.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“sorry about the abuse, it was a bit knee jerk of me and I regretted it soon after.”
Geez, you people are too reasonable. Name calling is supposed to be met with more name calling and then it progresses to threats of violence. Don’t you guys know anything about how internet debates work?
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Actually that’s going directly against one of the fundamental principles of science – that anybody can ask to see the scientific theory proven by repeatedly demonstrating that the predictions match the observed reality.
It’s that, rather than “expertise” that marks science as different from religion, philosophy, politics and a whole host of other areas of human thought.
The reasons of the theory will likely require expertise (and very specific expertise, as Wegler demonstrated years ago with his analysis of the Phd scientists having little expertise in statistics), but that’s the black box. Even a peon is being “scientific” when they ask for the black box to turn out the same results every time. If it does not then it’s time for the experts to tweak the black box – or replace it.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Weihana – I’m too old for flame wars and too young to pass off insolence as dementia.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Weihana – It’s a quote from ME. Some posters here are trying to blame the media for over hyping the situation, whereas AR3 and AR4 plainly show that the IPCC and their thousands of experts are the master propagandists here.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
You all should read ‘all the trouble in the world’ by P J O Rourke. It was written a few years ago now, but is hilarious. He makes a great point that everything said about ‘global warming’ was previously said about ‘global cooling’, and by the same people.. He proves that overpopulation is over-emphasised by comparing population densities of cities in America to population densities in populous countries, so a doomsday world would look something like New Jersey. He also makes the point that the people talking about over population have an easy solution to put a dent into that population.
Vote:He makes hilarious points about species decline and the environmental friendliness of things like plastic styrofoam cups and plastic bags. He points out just how impolite and horrible nature really is. He gives the philosophical beginnings of ‘nature appreciation’ with the German romantics and French philosophers (he notes only French people could come up with this). He finally makes the point to all the people who are anti-growth and anti GDP that you can three times. Once at child birth, lowest GDP. Once of typhoid in world without oil aged 7, once at 78 in a world where GDP grows over time..
August 18th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Looking through the thread, some quite different opinions. I think DPF has it broadly right though:
1. More CO2 does cause warming. This is basic physics.
2. This warming causes feedbacks. Some feedbacks are positive (lead to more warming – say for example melting ice, which then results in less sunlight being reflected), some feedbacks are negative (lead to less warming – say for example, more clouds in the tropics, which reflect sunlight)
3. One clear negative feedback is that radiation of heat into space gets higher with increasing temperature (i.e. the warmer the planet is, the more heat it radiates). So runaway warming is unlikely
4. The question is what the net feedback is. If the primary warming from CO2 is 1 degree, then my best guess is that the overall feedbacks should be somewhat negative, including the feedback of radiation into space. The models seem to imply a range of results, none of which look to reflect the reality that the planet hasn’t driven off into runaway warming or cooling in the last million or so years. Flipside, the world has shown a propensity to quite large temperature swings, particularly ice ages
5. The question is adaptation or prevention. Or a bit of both.
6. A cold planet is far worse than a hot one. Many more people die from cold than from heat.
So, if I were global dictator, other than requiring all eligible virgins to be directed to my bedchamber, I’d:
a) Err on the side of things being warm rather than cold
b) Seek to take steps that reduce CO2 emissions with no significant costs. For example, convincing some Asian states to stop subsidising the cost of petrol
c) Invest in any and all technologies that show promise in eventually reducing carbon emissions at economic prices. This includes nuclear technologies as well as solar, wind etc.
d) Invest in adaptation to warmer temperatures (for some in cooler climates, this may involve buying a pair of speedos)
e) Invest in contingency strategies. There are a number of “terraforming” technologies that seem to offer last ditch ways to cool the climate if things go wrong. Pumping sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere is one I’ve seen – relatively inexpensive (measured in billions of dollars, not trillions), and pretty much everyone agrees it would cool things
My combination of actions is relatively inexpensive, and I think offers a reasonable policy prescription (except perhaps that virgins thing, but you have to take the bad with the good in these things).
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Would this do?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Well he might not have been as thorough as some:
Vote:http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
August 18th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
PaulL
I think you are right on the money. What are the practical steps that can be reasonably undertaken while we wait for more certainties about the effects of warming? It certainly seems highly unlikely that international agreements to limit carbon emissions will be successful – there are just too many incentives to cheat.
If we are lucky, the right technological solutions will emerge in time.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Weihana
Certainly climate science is no where near settled, I agree. It doesn’t help that the modeling involved is highly complex and esoteric, so it is pointless debating the facts without a high degree of specialization.
It doesn’t help that the consequences of reducing carbon use has a cost which, for a society addicted to wasteful consumption, is a heavy cross to bear.
Couple that with the inherent difficulty of hammering out an effective and binding international agreement, so I don’t hold out much hope that anything more than token gestures will be made.
Petrol really needs to be $5 per litre worldwide before alternatives become economically viable. I’d be willing to pay that, but I’m in a minority.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
RightNow
Thanks, no probs. No I haven’t seen a list, but I imagine food production would be projected to increase. But the idea is anathema to me.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
stephen @ 6.51pm, it might help spread some alarm, but it’s clearly missing any definition of how much warming.
I’ve only looked at a couple of the papers they link to back up the ‘negatives’ and here’s some of my immediate criticisms:
Health
Increased deaths to heatwaves – 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
The abstract of the paper linked to says nothing about temperatures so is hard to assess. I offer this in rebuttal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332343/Nine-pensioners-died-cold-hour-winter-prices-soar.html
As energy prices rise so will deaths from cold, and a carbon tax is only going to exacerbate this, which probably isn’t included as a factor in any study about effects of climate change.
Arctic Melt
Vote:Loss of 2/3 of the world’s polar bear population within 50 years (Amstrup 2007)
I probably don’t need to point this out, but that is now completely discredited. Let me know if you need clarification, it’s a funny story.
August 18th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Scott Chris, I’m not sure exactly what definition of anathema you intend, but modern usage usually means loathed. I’m hoping that’s not in reference to increased food production.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Its a scam.
Vote:If they take out the redistribution of OPM then we can talk about the science.
But they won’t as it’s not about the science and never has been.
August 18th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Exactly Mick Mac, as said by Edenhofer of the IPCC:
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz1VMfW7sOu
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
RightNow
Oops, no the idea of intentionally allowing the planet to warm is anathema to me. The risk, even if there was only a 5% chance of miscalculation, is too great.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
But this common attitude towards risk is just as bad as the attitude towards “experts”. Perhaps you should read this article on The Problems With Precaution:
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
tom hunter – While I acknowledge that science doesn’t recognize authority, that’s not really what I was getting at. I’m questioning the certainty people have about their beliefs on climate given the very complex nature of the science and the vast body of knowledge one has to be familiar with in order to have an informed opinion. I think for most of us what we don’t know about climate science is much greater than what we do know and our attitudes towards the subject should reflect that.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Thanks Right Now
Vote:read same and similar over the last 5 years.
A Prof Fred Singer put me onto the science a few years ago and then I read Dr Reid Bryson before he died in 2008.
Every time one of the alarmists start complaining about no one of any significance is a denier, I think of them and stop listening.
August 18th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Excellent Weihana – and in the entire AGW debate over the last decade, which side do you think is most accurately reflected by your description?
I should warn you that you’re well on your way to being a sceptic!
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Well in the current solar cycle 24, the recorded data leads scientists to conclude that the Sun is slowly going into a quiet period. The last time was the maunder minimum between 1645 and 1715 when sun spots were at their minimum. It may not last as long this time, thank goodness, but the northern hemishere is hardest hit with a short growing season and wide spread crop failures.
Vote:This solar cycle 24 is expected to last until at least 2030, by then it will be very hard to find any climate change disciples. Well maybe Al Gore.
August 18th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
tom hunter – initially I would say that attitude was overwhelmingly with the Greenpeace types. In the last couple of years I think it has evened out.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Tom Hunter
Certainly the open market is no place for the risk averse, yet capital is expendable and recoverable. Gambling with the possibility of further irreversible extinction events in what is already being labeled the anthropogenic 6th extinction event (due to homo sapiens’ ruthless expansion and encroachment on competing species’ habitat) for the sake of unrestrained economic growth may be a risk you are willing to take. I place more value upon this stake than you, and unlike capital, once it is lost, it is irrecoverable.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
There is an upside to leading the world in reducing carbon emissions which could work towards a longer term economic advantage. Whether that would involve manufacturing synthetic hydrocarbons or increasing our hydro-electric capability is moot, but there would be benefits.
I can see two major advantages in generating all our own domestic power needs. First, there would be thousands of jobs in a more intensive power generation industry, and secondly there would be a marked improvement in our balance of trade, without having to import oil.
It would also give credibility to our somewhat tarnished ‘clean, green image’. With many consumers resistant to produce laden with ‘carbon miles’, generating clean energy would add immeasurable value.
Perhaps grasping the nettle and going green isn’t as dumb as it may seem. The downside, of course, would be more expensive energy.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
The media is a major problem. Because so few media outlets have scientifically literate staff, they tend to ignore well balanced research in favour of sensationalist press releases. And organisations on both sides of the debate are guilty of making spurious claims just to get a few newspaper column inches.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Meh, it was genuinely the only list I’d ever seen, so thought I’d post it. I remember it being updated every now and then when I watched that site more last year, but perhaps that part of it has fallen off the host’s radar.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
David in ChCh, yes I did read what you wrote, that’s why I called it alarmist rubbish. You do realize that the 2005-2006 pattern was nothing extraordinary, unusual yes, but so what. these things happen and one needs to treat them appropriately with statistics (something climatologists seem particularly bad at doing) to tease out the significance if any. Cat 5 hurricanes only occur about once every 3 years but when the conditions are right multiple ones can form. But note that the total time that those 4 storms were at Cat 5 rating was only a few hours longer than the single storm in 2006 lasted at the same level. The observations too are badly contaminated, a Hurricane stays at the Cat 5 level for a relatively brief time typically (as little as a few hours up to several days) and before widespread aircraft monitoring and especially satellites, the evidence simply wasn’t collected. There may have been more Cat 5′s but we will never know.
The best we can do is to try to compare like with like over a period, like landfalling hurricanes which are better observed in general. And there the evidence is pretty clear, the trend is for a reduced number. Worldwide the evidence supports the same conclusions; and there is no evidence for greater variability. This is the dispute that had Chris Landsea resign from the IPCC over, the IPCC insisted on claiming the opposite of what the evidence showed.
I’ll be more polite then, I suggest that your anecdotal observation of greater variability based on a single “event”, is unscientific and of little value. It is however good fodder for the scare machine, just like the list repeated above by DF
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
David in Chch – if I understand what you wrote, it isn’t cranks that cite positive feedbacks: the case for catastrophic warming *depends* on positive feedbacks. Doubling CO2 with neutral feedback gets about 1.5 degrees of warming, give or take. Anything above that necessarily requires net positive feedbacks, and the evidence for their existence is weak (caveat: it is v difficult to measure). Net positive climate feedback is the mainstream view in climate science, and is *the* essential component of the alarmist story.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Good to see the religious freaks out tonight with their “litreature”, no worse I supose than the Mormons knocking on doors.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Andrei wrote:
Why have you fallen for 21st century shamenism DPF?
What, as opposed to first century shamanism? Nobody likes competition, eh.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
One way to think about the veracity of climate science is to look at the research process. It is plainly compromised by politics and funding made implicitly and sometimes expressly conditional on certain outcomes. That is not to say there is conspiracy. But if governments are interested in climate change being a problem, then funding will systematically be directed in a repeated game towards those saying the things government wants to hear. I will bet good money Richard Lindzen receives much less in grant money than James Hansen, because nothing Lindzen says directly or indirectly enhances the prestige or power of any public body. Hansen, on the other hand, is, I suspect, flush with research grants. Not a conspiracy, simply a case of government picking its winners in a systematic way – and its those winners we hear from in the news hour.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
The statistics clearly support climate change. NIWA publish annual exceedance probabilities (return intervals) for things like rainfall data based on historical records. And they are changing, with more higher intensity events. All the drainage works and flood protecton carried out in NZ are based on the NIWA data. And these statistical records around the world show change.
And all these jokes about the snow ‘proving’ global warming; NIWA wrote this before the latest snow event:
“Since 1895 (the start of records), 41 snow events have been recorded which damaged property, infrastructure, livestock or resulted in human deaths.
Four of these events occurred before 1945.
Three occurred during the 1970s.
One occurred during the 1980s.
Four occurred during the 1990s.
27 snowfall incidents have been recorded since 2000.”
Things are changing, and the scientific concensus is that it is being cause by humans. There is still room for skepticism , but we should be making plans.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“In the name of the Father, the Son and Al Gore”. There, I’m repented for driving a 2 star car. But you can shove your taxes up your holy trinity.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
As soon as the models start accurately predicting behaviours (without being trained) then we can believe them. Until then it’s the most expensive forms of mental masturbation around.
Ignore all the crap about theories and predictions – to date the accuracy of the models just isn’t there.
And please don’t give me the story about timescales required to confirm predictions, we have 10s of years of historical data that cannot be reasonably matched to a model without jumping through some ludicrous hoops in terms of training the model.
Vote:August 18th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
slijmbal, where I live “models” have big hooters and serve beer. They are better than the models you hope for. And are quite possibly more reliable and more fun. Leave the climate nut-jobs to their bankrupt religion and don’t tithe to them either, they are worse than the Mormans.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:46 am
Rich Prick going nananana
Wont chance science never has never will. all gore was johnny come lately. Warmest decade now next warmest last decade
you are sucked in by approximately one dozen nut jobs and the oil industry. who spend lots to disprove the theory
ALL major science body’s in the world support the warmest the last to change its tune was American society of oil engineers even the oil scientist support the theory so you are the Luddite
alarmist mental masturbation climate nut-jobs master propagandists shit science
Vote:shows the deinilst thought patterns aptly
August 19th, 2011 at 7:48 am
Wow Griff, you spill all that on your keyboard?
Still you seem as coherent as most other warmists.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 7:50 am
@ Scott Chris So the nub of your idea is to trade the possibility of some jobs and feeling good about being “green” against the certainty of higher power prices?
No thanks.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:27 am
opps to much of a hurry change not chance
Vote:the last line kiwi greg was cut and paste from the previous posts by denialist you have again resorted to insults not debate
August 19th, 2011 at 8:30 am
As my sons snowballs which they made on Monday are still there on Friday I don’t feel very much convinced about global warming. Indeed it is instructive they are now talking “climate change” rather than global warming.
Look the thesis was that the earth is getting warmer because of greenhouse gases from man made pollutants and if we don’t do something drastic like return immediately to a pre-industrial existence then the consequences will be disastrous.
Well the earth is not warmer,it has just been snowing in Auckland and even north of Dargaville. So look that’s OK-it was a scientific thesis-its been disproved-that’s fine-its how science is supposed to work. Lets move on shall we.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Scott – snowballs on Monday prove that it snowed on Monday, that’s all. “It” hasn’t been disproved. Climate science will be ongoing, and new things will be theorised, researched, observed and learned. Get used to it or ignore it.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:54 am
DPF: I don’t agree – the first casualties of climate change have been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The truth has been covered by mounds and mounds of vested interest propaganda, coupled with equal amounts of unadulterated bullshit.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:58 am
This week’s snow is hardly ‘proof’ of anything. Although, now thatI think of it, the meteorologists were bang on with their forecasts, so maybe there is something in this science stuff after all.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Having been fully enlightened about global climate on a politics blog discussion thread, I’m now off to the GNS lunchroom where I expect to have Labour’s campaign strategy fully explained to me.
Then I’ll go off to the NIWA lunch room, and (making sure I don’t take anyone’s personal cup) I’ll find out everything useful about New Zealand’s fiscal policy.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Wait, New Zealand has a fiscal policy?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:27 am
WWe have experienced a major false alarm here in NEw Zealand.
ECan’s Regional Policy Statement (RPS), is where you would expect to find ECan’s policies regarding natural hazards, and earthquakes in particular. Chapter 16 begins with some promise:
Chapter 16 – Natural Hazards.
Natural hazards in Canterbury can be ranked by the potential damage that could result, for example, taken on an annual basis. Limited information suggests that the most severe regionally significant natural hazards in the region are, in order of importance:
(1) Large magnitude earthquake affecting Christchurch.
(2) Extreme drought.
(3) Waimakariri River flooding of Christchurch and Kaiapoi.
(4) Major tsunami affecting southern Pegasus Bay and Banks Peninsula, or Timaru coastline.
So earthquakes at the top no mention of sea level rising on the list.
Remarkably, or unremarkably, the Christchurch City Council’s translation of the Regional Council’s policies into their District Plan turns the ECan’s risk rankings on their head.
The Plan’s section on Natural Hazards reads:
CCCDP 3.4 Natural hazards
Within Christchurch there is risk from a number of natural hazards including:
• possible sea level rises;
• erosion of the coastline and rivers;
• erosion of the Port Hills;
• flooding from the rivers and the coast;
• damage caused by high winds;
• earthquakes; and
• fires in rural areas….
The Plan tends to dismiss earthquakes on the grounds that they “hardly ever happen”, while floods are frequent. Furthermore, a recent Plan Change deleted the section requiring a 50 metre setback from the Heathcote river to “minimize the risk to buildings and infrastructure from liquefaction.”
Someone got that really wrong. The circumstances leading to the Pike River disaster are being subjected to rigorous examination. Will Canterbury’s local government actions and decisions be subject to the same scrutiny?
These are the hidden costs of Climate Change hysteria.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Peter and Griff
The CW is that the science is settled – it clearly isn’t. Too many experienced climatologists and modelling experts who are nowhere near the pay of any oil company are expressing doubts about too many of the previously unchallenged assumptions AND about the research quality and tactics of some of the big hitters in global warning (Mann et al). The sheer volume of scientists who say they support the IPCC is merely a fact that almost all scientists regardless of their field have assumed that because a fellow scientist says this stuff is true then it must be true and they’ve put their name on the list and then we’re told – see the consensus amongst the scientific community is overwhelming.
The reluctance of key warming advocates to debate skeptics and the excuses given seem pathetic. If Lord Monckton is as misguided and selective as his critics say then get on the stage and debate him. Yes he’s a formidable debater and yes he’s threatened to sue but there were several fora offered where there was plenty of time for an expert to make their case and rebut his points but the common response was – well the science is too settled for us to even bother debating him. That is supreme academic arrogance and it does those who believe in the cause no good whatseover to be so reluctant to press their case.
I am not an expert on this subject and I’ve tried to be objective and non-ideological and read the claims of the skeptics and read the material of those who try to rebut them and all I can conclude is that the science isn’t settled and that both sides tend to have their protagonists who do their cause harm. Having followed closely the issue of NIWA struggling to show its rationalizations for its upwards adjustments to the raw NZ data I think that of all the institutions in NZ who should be able to prove global warming without equivocation it would be this.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Scott
As my sons snowballs which they made on Monday are still there on Friday I don’t feel very much convinced about global warming. Indeed it is instructive they are now talking “climate change” rather than global warming.
Look the thesis was that the earth is getting warmer because of greenhouse gases from man made pollutants and if we don’t do something drastic like return immediately to a pre-industrial existence then the consequences will be disastrous.
Well the earth is not warmer,it has just been snowing in Auckland and even north of Dargaville. So look that’s OK-it was a scientific thesis-its been disproved-that’s fine-its how science is supposed to work. Lets move on shall we.
—————————————————————————————
Scott, weather is not the same thing as climate. Probably why they started calling it climate change because people became confused because they expected that rising average temperatures would mean the end of cold weather.
So the fact that it’s been snowing in Auckland proves nothing about average global temperatures.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
kiwi in america
“The sheer volume of scientists who say they support the IPCC is merely a fact that almost all scientists regardless of their field have assumed that because a fellow scientist says this stuff is true then it must be true and they’ve put their name on the list and then we’re told – see the consensus amongst the scientific community is overwhelming.”
In my view the issue of climate sensitivity remains uncertain, but to say scientists just accept what other scientists say without question is bullshit.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
kiwi in america
“The reluctance of key warming advocates to debate skeptics and the excuses given seem pathetic. If Lord Monckton is as misguided and selective as his critics say then get on the stage and debate him. Yes he’s a formidable debater and yes he’s threatened to sue but there were several fora offered where there was plenty of time for an expert to make their case and rebut his points but the common response was – well the science is too settled for us to even bother debating him. That is supreme academic arrogance and it does those who believe in the cause no good whatseover to be so reluctant to press their case.”
Indeed Monckton is an “advocate”, much like Al Gore, he isn’t a scientist who has published material in the field. I have watched plenty of debates between AGW proponents and skeptics who are actually qualified in the field and are published. Yes science can be done by anyone regardless of what certification they have or whether they are published, but why should a qualified expert waste his time debating any random nut?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Weihana – perhaps you could take a little time to watch and find out – even if you don’t have any regard for him, it’s not a bad way to pass some time.
He’s a fascinating man, among other things inventing the ‘eternity puzzle’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_puzzle
PS- he is published (although not peer reviewed)
Vote:http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
August 19th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
as Andrew Bolt noted…we have gone mad…from the Guardian…”It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim…”
WTF..even ET is in on the scam…
…just wish the bugger would phone home and fuck off.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
RightNow – Thanks for the link, I might watch it later.
I agree he is a fascinating man, and I respect the fact that despite lacking formal expertise he is interested enough to try and find things out for himself. But I don’t think it is unreasonable for qualified and published experts to decline to debate him. On the other hand, given that Monckton is a prominent figure in the public arena perhaps that status gives Monckton reasonable cause to expect to be debated.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
If it aint about the money as I and many others reckon it is how come all the fixes involve money. Like taxing the citizens to within an inch of their lives.
Vote:And charging a premium for supposed green products.
August 19th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Weihana-look the world is supposed to be warming up. It’s snowing in Auckland. It’s snowing in Wellington. Record levels of snowfall not seen since something like 1937. There was a climate change conference due to be held in the United States — Chicago I think from memory — it was cancelled because of snow. If I remember rightly they had record levels of snow in China last year.
The thesis is that the earth is getting warmer. It clearly is not. Remember it is global warming. That is the prediction — the world is getting warmer. It isn’t getting warmer. Don’t be put off with bollocks like climate change. That just means any change is predicted by our model. That explains nothing.
The world is not getting warmer. Global warming was a good theory, but has been shown to be unproven by the facts. So that’s okay — let’s move on.
What we should not do is spend millions of taxpayer dollars on this unproven theory. I understand the government in Australia is wildly unpopular right now because of this very issue. If even the Australian public can understand it so surely can we.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
To be absolutely fair Weihana, nobody is actually stipulating that his debating opponents need to be ‘qualified and published experts’ .
Vote:Personally I’d prefer political proponents of AGW to debate him as they’re the ones pushing for the massive tax increases. Perhaps Nick Smith, or one of the Green MPs.
August 19th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
The world is not getting warmer. Global warming was a good theory, but has been shown to be unproven by the facts. So that’s okay — let’s move on.
That’s like saying “God is unproven by the facts. So that’s ok – let’s move on”.
Ok, that’s a bit unfair, it isn’t the same, there are zero facts about God and there are many complex, sometimes conflicting facts about climate. What is likely to be the same is we’ll still probably be arguing about both in fifty years.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Scott – You really do need to understand this one very simple point: weather and climate are not the same thing. Climate is long term changes in meteorological statistics, weather on the other hand is the present meteorological conditions and the short term variation thereof.
The prediction that global temperatures will rise refers to the AVERAGE global temperature. It does not mean that there will be no snow. Average temperatures have in fact risen over the past 100 years and have been rising fairly steadily since the Maunder Minimum. This is an observed fact that is demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence from direct measurement, (including satellite based measurements) to proxy reconstructions.
Extremely hot summers or extremely cold winters are largely irrelevant in proving whether long term trends are up or down. Any particular season only constitutes are small data point amongst a much longer time series from which trends are derived.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
RightNow – True, though that’s a bit unfair. I suspect Monckton is a fair bit more knowledgeable on the subject than your average political advocate.
Actually, in retrospect I think I’ll concede the point and say that Monckton should have been debated when he was here in New Zealand. Especially considering that he was joined by Geoff Austin of Auckland Uni I’m sure they would’ve been a tough team to argue against. Not that I don’t think Monckton is a bit of a nut, but that’s just name calling I admit.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Reply for Scott:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0
And to further that; weather events are short term and climate averaged over many years:
Vote:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-25-2011/extreme-weather-hotportunity
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5079432/May-was-warmest-on-record-Niwa
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1107/S00009/3rd-warmest-june-on-record-and-very-gloomy-niwa.htm
http://www.niwa.co.nz/node/102312
August 19th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I think I may have made the point before that no one in NZ wanted to debate Monckton because (perhaps thankfully) we have no one like him here. He is not a scientist, so why would a scientist debate him? He is not a politician (despite his best efforts), so why would a politician debate him? Not to mention there would only be a down side for a politician engaging in such a farce. Maybe there’s a self-proclaimed expert or media personality that would have been suitable, but I can’t think of one. He might have been a suitable guest on 7 Days.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Monckton is a mathemetician with a specialty in modelling and much of what he targets is what he sees as faulty modelling so he does have some credentials in this discussion. If he’s wrong then he’d be an easy target to debate.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
scientist: A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.
What you probably meant, mikenmild, is that others have decided he isn’t suitable to meet their definition of scientist.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
mikenmild – he may not be a politician per se, but that doesn’t mean he is politically irrelevant. Also given that he was accompanied by a qualified expert it’s hard to dismiss the entire thing as a waste of time.
I don’t think any good comes from other scientists refusing to debate this subject. If anything it only reinforces the view that there is some sort of closed minded conspiracy with regards to the science of AGW and I think you’ll agree with me that that’s generally not true and that is a perception that should be discouraged. Refusing to debate in this instance appears to encourage that view in my opinion.
I personally do not like Monckton for his politics, but he does appear to have a good understanding of the issue and Geoff Austin certainly does. I think those two could reasonably expect a debate from other scientists who accept the “consensus” view and if Monckton has any serious flaws in his thinking then they could be exposed by such a debate.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
It’s not surprising that this steaming turd of cherry-picked non-science is picked up by avid Tea Party supporters. After all, it’s the favoured tactics of that lot.
It’s easy to say, for example, that the population of the Maldives is increasing, but ignore the fact that more and more locals are moving to the main island to escape a combination of erosion and outright sea level rise – they generally go hand in hand. And I believe they (sans rugby world cup) still have sex there, so it’s not surprising the populaton is increasing.
Similarly, I’ve yet to see scientific reports of imminent danger to polar bears; concern, yes – but I quite liked the reported comment of James Lovelock who said polar bears will just become brown bears again.
And I think it’s safe to say that some reporters can get carried away with making headlines – heck, some even hack mobile phones for that purpose! Oh yes, that happens to be the same crowd leading the charge for climate change denialism: funny that.
But I note the lack of provenance to peer-reviewed science, you know, the sort that gets Monckton’s eyes twitching and his rubbery mouth frothing http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/1/rizvaJyA-GM
By the way, Scott, the science of global warming is that increased water vapour leads to more, not less, snow. But do remember that climate science is about long term trends, not specific events, but there is little doubt that there is now a climate change fingerprint in every extreme event, and this fingerprint will become increasingly discernible over time.
Pete G, your enthusiasm for objectivity leads you into black holes – check the credible peer reviewed journals for debate about the science. You won’t find much, because there isn’t much, amongst the scientists. That debate is reserved for FauxNews and blogs.
You will, however, find energetic debate about the uncertainties inherent in predicting the consequences of climate change, and this is because this kind of forcing, the injection of a huge carbon slug into our atmosphere, simply hasn’t occured for a very long time.
Check out greenman3610 on youtube – entertaining AND informative!
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
kiwi in america (1,393) Says:
“Monckton is a mathemetician with a specialty in modelling”
That is irrelevant. Unless you have a deep knowledge of physics and chemistry, especially in relation to the highly specialized science of meteorology, you won’t know how to apply the maths. You might be able to check the algorithms and sums, but climate scientists already employ Phd Maths students and Phd computer scientists to do that.
Moncton is way, way out of his depth, as are you KIA.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
He is a classics graduate who went on to journalism school. His “modelling” was with the forerunner to excel – ie spreadsheeting. He’s a liar and a fantasist.
But he is very difficult to debate because he employs the Monckton Method: start with a lie and build upon that with more lies!
Checkout the greenman3610 vids and the Monckton Files at Skeptical Science.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
kiwi in america
Monckton Is a lair in the pay of the oil industry
Monckton claimes that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed an application to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2009.
Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton / from uk parlement telling him to cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords for the third time
And you belive what this guy says ?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Scott, I have yet to read a thread where KIA has been “way out of his depth”. And I’ve been here a while …
I did wonder when “Luc Hansen” would appear on this thread, to sling casual smears around while hoping the evidence against CAGW would just go away. Quite funny to watch the flapping.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Checkout the… Monckton Files at Skeptical Science
That’s the best oxymoron I’ve seen for ages. Thanks Luc. If you’re so skeptical how come you don’t see all the trappings of the propaganda arts that wrap around AGW like an alien on a face?
They are that obvious, to those of us who are objective.
What’s the matter? Can’t stop thinking about “we’re talking about the planet!?”
Yes, that’s what a lot of alarmists can’t seem to get past. Funny. Woulda thought intelligent people like you who see straight through stuff like Israeli propaganda, woulda seen straight through this as well.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
krazykiwi
If KIA is specialist in any field, then I will readily defer to his knowledge in that field. That is the nature of specialization. Clearly though, he is no scientist.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
temperature graph compared to modeling including values for all major Known affects on climate
published list of methods for deriving these models
Ammann, C. M., G. A. Meehl, W. M. Washington, and C. Zender, 2003: A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett.,30, 1657, doi:10.1029/2003GL016875.
Broccoli, A. J., K. W. Dixon, T. L. Delworth, T. R. Knutson, R. J. Stouffer, and F. Zeng, 2003: Twentieth-century temperature and precipitation trends in ensemble climate simulations including natural and anthropogenic forcing. J. Geophys. Res.,108, 4798, doi:10.1029/2003JD003812.
Cubasch, U., and Coauthors, 2001: Projections of future climate change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 525–582.
Dai, A., T. M. L. Wigley, G. A. Meehl, and W. M. Washington, 2001: Effects of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 on global climate in the next two centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett, 28, 4511–4514. [CrossRef]
Folland, C. K., and Coauthors, 2001: Global temperature change and its uncertainties since 1861. Geophys. Res. Lett, 28, 2621–2624. [CrossRef]
Hoyt, D. V., and K. H. Schatten, 1993: A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700–1992. J. Geophys. Res, 98, 18895–18906. [CrossRef]
Meehl, G. A., P. Gent, J. M. Arblaster, B. Otto-Bliesner, E. Brady, and A. Craig, 2001: Factors that affect amplitude of El Niño in global coupled climate models. Climate Dyn, 17, 515–526. [CrossRef]
Meehl, G. A., W. M. Washington, T. M. L. Wigley, J. M. Arblaster, and A. Dai, 2003: Solar and greenhouse gas forcing and climate response in the twentieth century. J. Climate, 16, 426–444. [Abstract]
Santer, B. D., and Coauthors, 2003a: Influence of satellite data uncertainties on the detection of externally-forced climate change. Science, 300, 1280–1284. [CrossRef]
Santer, B. D., and Coauthors, 2003b: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483. [CrossRef]
Stott, P. A., S. F. B. Tett, G. S. Jones, M. R. Allen, J. F. B. Mitchell, and G. J. Jenkins, 2000: External control of 20th century temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings. Science, 290, 2133–2137. [CrossRef]
Washington, W. M., and Coauthors, 2000: Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Climate Dyn, 16, 755–774.
after you have read these papers and completely understood them. you then have to read and understand their references THEN you might be able to refute the graph
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Griif are you one of the world’s top climatologist’s?
No?
So what do you do? Work in an office somewhere?
Really?
Let me give you a hint.
The answer to AGW is not in the science it’s in the politics. It’s not a scientific phenomena so much as a political phenomena disguised to look like a scientific phenomena.
You look at all the human behaviour on AGW around the world and what you see overall is lefties and all governments both conservative and lefty are for it while conservatives are against it.
Thus proving by that division this is not a scientific argument it’s a political one. As with all propaganda, it distracts. It waves a big red flag in your left field of vision all the while vigorously doing absolutely nothing on the other side, letting the tide of the red flag draw in the big idea, as if it is a natural consequence of grass-root thinking.
The point is Griff, the more you look at the science the less you look at the politics and that’s exactly what the people running the scam would want you to think, were AGW one of those.
If you doubt this is a political movement, look what’s happening in the world re: AGW. What is that, if not a political movement?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
A well known leftie.
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
As you like to call me alarmist you should find out about my views on ETS. Yes its stupid for NZ to have a ETS as India and China produce 23% of the worlds co2 and will double that in less than 7 years. Aussie and the USA burn more coal and oil than we do per capita. We produce 0.02 percent of the worlds co2.
Vote:On electric cars and alternative energy. Cost to much and not particularly green in most cases. Far better to dam a few more rivers which idiot greens will not allow us to do.
The major problem for us is unknown affects on the el nino cycle and our weather patterns however there is nothing we can do about that except adapt .Which being a relatively advanced nation when it comes to agriculture I am sure we can cope with.
August 19th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
reid – “Thus proving…”
Sorry there was no proof, or logic, in what you just said. A political division implies nothing about climate science.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Christonastick, even the beasties are outing themselves as lefties.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Griff – “On electric cars and alternative energy. Cost to much and not particularly green in most cases.”
This sort of thinking seems too short sighted to me. The problem is that there is no real incentive for the private market to develop the technology that could replace what we presently use. Oil is economically viable and what do they care that the taxpayers fork over billions upon billions to fight wars to protect our economic interests? And, if we assume the warnings of the IPCC, what do they care that we might be harming our environment?
This is where government can play a role by providing the capital investment to undertake the research and development necessary to try and reform our economy to use alternative sources of energy. The United States decided it would put men on the moon before it even knew how they would do it. Why is it in today’s world no one has any vision that great things can be accomplished simply because it is necessary and we are determined?
Countless billions are wasted on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, the drug war etc. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable proposition that we may just be able to accomplish something of significance by diverting those funds towards more noble pursuits.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
cha
“A well known leftie.” “outing themselves”
No harm in a little social engineering eh?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
As you like to call me alarmist you should find out about my views on ETS.
As you like to call me denier, Griff. So there.
It’s nothing personal, just my own little counter-propaganda against all the alarmists, alarmists, alarmists…
(You should repeat it often, you see Griff)
Sorry there was no proof, or logic, in what you just said. A political division implies nothing about climate science.
Yes of course Weihana, political divisions and acceptance of “genuine” scientific phenomena mirror themselves all the time, don’t they. I mean, look when mankind discovered space technology and how political that was. Conservatives would have none of it, as we all recall, don’t we.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Countless billions are wasted on alternative energy fuel cells, hydrogen power, electric vehicles have had mega spent on them
Vote:1st one to come on line is the electric car. Costs lots, limited range ,need to generate electricity to use, most countries burn coal for extra demand. batteries are dirty as hell to manufacture and dispose of also expensive
hydrogen. When Bill Reinert, of American Toyota’s Advanced Technologies Group, was asked if hydrogen-powered cars would replace petrol-powered cars, he replied, “If I told you ‘never,’ would you be upset?” this is because Its way to expensive hard to store and explosive
fuel cells, are the same expensive complicated limited life etc
that leaves petrol and Diesel As the cost of oil increases cars will get smaller, lighter and use more technology such as hybrid , more Advanced forms of injection, turbos, electronics, etc to squeeze more per liter.
There are some interesting ways to make diesel such as algae and from coal its all so about 25% more efficient than petrol so I believe that’s were we will be going for at least the next thirty years
August 19th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
reid – the fact that there is a political division with regards a scientific issue doesn’t necessarily imply anything about the quality of the science. Given that the public is often ignorant of science, such divisions more likely reflect bias and prejudice amongst the population and with regards to the Tea Party types their skepticism is based more on an aversion to paying tax (“socialism”) than a genuine consideration of the science behind the mainstream view.
On the other hand the Greenpeace types often have a prejudice that human development is invariably evil and harmful to mother nature (or something to that effect).
But neither prejudice tells us anything about the science.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Sea level rise in the Maldives? Thanks for the laugh Luc
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/20/maldives-president-all-wet-on-sea-level.aspx
It’s another fraud http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/maldives3.jpg
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I agree with Weihana.
Reid: you reject skeptical science without one reference to the peer reviewed science utilised by that site, yet another run be actual scientists.
Similarly, you baselessly smear our best scientists who put themselves out on a limb to bring us bad tidings. You react in typical human fashion – shoot the messenger.
And you also make baseless claims against people who simply want to ensure we hand on the planet to future generations in a reasonable state. We are failing in that. You and the deniers don’t care. Most of us do, which is why action will eventually get done. The earlier, the better for mankind and other species.
And no, that does not mean destroy the village to save it. We leave that trick to the Americans.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Countless billions? I believe the US invests about 20 billion a year in green technology (less than China). Contrast that with the War in Iraq which is estimated at a cost of 3-4 trillion dollars.
http://costsofwar.org/
Which effort is more worthy of that money?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
As to alternative electrical generation
Vote:hydro is the cheapest. Geothermal is cheap as well. the best options for us renewable cheap and relatively abundant in this country
Oil and Gas is going to be more expensive also imported.
Wind only works sometimes.
Solar is to expensive. only works sometimes.
Tidal is interesting. but is only at the mark one stage and has lots of problems to over come
Coal We have lots of So we should not let the green lobby lock us out of it long term.it can also be converted into oil
Nuclear is next to impossible in this country.
don’t know of any other technology that’s viable
August 19th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Dear Luc, Weihana, Griff.
Unless any of you are world-ranked climatologists, there is little point discussing science for you’re unlikely to offer insight. I can if you like offer you dozens of calculations but I suspect you just wouldn’t, on reading them, know if you were looking at the statistical probability of a squirrel making his nut allocation for the winter or something complicated re the climate.
That’s why I suggest we look at the politics, for that’s all we know.
I’m sorry if that sounds sensible.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
RN, did that take you long to google?
The Maldives are desparate to keep the global average warming to less than 1.5C. We are not there yet. So don’t panic.
In the meantime, as in most low lying islands, rising seas are causing many problems even at the current, seemingly miniscule, rate of rise.
But like reid, you just don’t care. You don’t want anything to interfere with your view of how the the world should be, and bugger the facts.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
reid, we are not arguing with the science.
We are listening to the scientists.
So stick your copout where the sun don’t shine.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Eyes, scales, drop, Luc.
And watch out for that nasty cognitive dissonance.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Actually Luc – it’s because I care about how the world is going to be for my kids that I have taken the time to seek out the different information out there, because I see how politicians have seized on what I assess as incomplete science to create a new global tax on the premise of saving the world. When I see billions wasted on subsidies for energy sources that are next to useless, when I see a new market for carbon trading developed that will be extorted by bankers, when I see the cost of energy rising so high that the poor and the weak can’t afford to get out of bed in winter, when I see billions spent on grants that lead to a circle jerk of confirmation bias, when I see unpaid citizens volunteer their time to audit weather stations that don’t meet siting standards, when I see economy decimating taxes levied in countries that don’t even contribute 0.1% of human CO2 while their manufacturing moves to the big polluting countries, I feel outraged.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
reid
Vote:I don’t give a flying pig for the politics of the the USA they are at best sick at worst an abomination and I can not do any thing about that.
New Zealand politics I have pretty much summed up my view I support act even though they take your side, So its not a deal breaker for me
August 19th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
And why do they blame a short period temperature spike (which is now turning downwards) on CO2? Because they couldn’t think of anything else to blame it on. Here’s a dollar, buy a clue – increased population, urbanisation, and irrigation. Go and google moist enthalpy.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
“Incomplete science”
Is there another type?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Luc’s version of “the facts” is found in the IPCC Climate Bible, a publication now so discredited that respectable scientists are distancing themselves from it in droves. The beauty of the internet Luc, is that your flapping can be referenced in years to come. I have a good cache of your dire prognostications which will make for delicious recall as the sub-prime science of global warming unravels.
Global warming, climate chance et al is a scam. Pure and simple. Just follow the money, and it leads to layers of vested interests all dependent in the ignorant guilt of middle class westerners, and harnessed so cleverly by those who seek to rule us more universally. The scam takes in millions is innocent foot soldiers, advocates believing they’re acting in the interests of a better world. Fools.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
You can show a man the science but you can not make him think!
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
“…the IPCC Climate Bible, a publication now so discredited that respectable scientists are distancing themselves from it in droves.”
lol. Droves? C’mon, I see the same scientists in the skeptic camp that I did 2,3,4,5 years ago. Where are these “droves”?
I’m not saying these scientists are not credible or should be disregarded, but the only thing that has really changed in the last couple of years is public attitude based primarily on the “Climategate” e-mails. The scientific discussion seems remarkably similar. The consensus is that climate sensitivity is between 2-4.5 degrees C and very unlikely to be below 1.5 degrees C. The skeptic position is that there is more uncertainty and that climate sensitivity may be significantly lower than the consensus estimate.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
So the politics and commercials of all countries on Earth having an ETS are what?
What happens, after the myth has taken its alien hold on our collective face?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Weihana – 5 years ago I was a global warming believer. However any credible, honest search for the truth turns up so many holes in the overall belief system that no sensible person could continue believing. This was my experience. I repeat, Global Warming et al is a scam. A multi-layered scam to be sure, but still a scam. The highest level of certainty is that left unchecked, you and I will be required to dig into our pockets to solve a problem that does not exists. The people are waking up. It’s about time.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Look here for some of the droves. Many were IPPC contributors.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Weihana – I’ll give you one (not that there isn’t droves, but that I’m getting sick of this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
In a 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote: “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” [12]
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Mind you (picking the low hanging fruit now) there is also this
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
And this
Vote:“close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html
August 19th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
RightNow, this is one of my favouries – UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card. Open methodology, crowdsourced volunteers, most IPCC favorable score adopted. And it still fell flat on its face. Grey literature, false claims, conflicted interests. And yet AR4 was used to justify our ETS. Stinks? Oh yes …
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
List of authors whose surname starts with A
responsible for from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
there is of course 25 more letters to go
Krishna AchutaRao Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory USA
Vote:Robert F. Adler NASA USA
Lisa Alexander Hadley Centre UK, Australia, Ireland
Hans Alexandersson Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute Sweden
Richard Allan Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading
Myles Allen Climate Dynamics Group, Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford UK
Richard B. Alley Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University USA
Ian Allison Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre Australia
Peter Ambenje Kenya Meteorological Department Kenya
Caspar Ammann Climate and Global Dynamics Division, NCAR USA
Natalia Andronova University of Michigan USA
James Annan Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Japan Agency for Marine- Earth Science and Technology Japan, UK
John Antonov NOAA USA, Russian Federation
Julie Arblaster NCAR and Bureau of Meteotology Research Center USA, Australia
David Archer University of Chicago USA
Vivek Arora CCCma Canada
Raymond Arritt Iowa State University USA
Vincenzo Artale Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment (ENEA) Italy
Paulo Artaxo Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de São Paulo Brazil
Ingeborg Auer Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics Austria Austin NOAA, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory USA
Kristen Averyt NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory USA TS
August 19th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
kk, stinks stinks and stinks some more. The comments of the Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore:
Vote:Key Excerpts of Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and its not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
August 19th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Griff – have you read any of their papers?
Shall I post the 31000 names from the oregon petition project?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Scientists are getting desperate to retain their flow of public ‘research’ funds
Aliens taking drastic action?!? Quick .. a create a tax..!!!
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
kk – it’s the Triffids we need to worry about, they’ll thrive with the extra CO2
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
RightNow
John Christy is an example of a scientist who demonstrates a reasonable skepticism, and who believes the burden of empirical proof is presently insufficient to conclude that AGW will have catastrophic consequences.
However, John Christy’s position has evolved as the scientific community has gathered more evidence. First, he denied that global climate change is really taking place. Then, he had to admit that global climate change exists, and so denied that the observed global climate change was the result of human activity. Now, it seems, he has abandoned that position too. At present, Christy’s position is merely that global climate change will not be catastrophic.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
For Griff: let me know if you want me to do the other 25 letter of the alphabet…
The petition they signed is here http://www.petitionproject.org/
Petition Signers A
917 Signers out of 31,487 Total in US
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Carl M. Abrams, Robert C. Abrams, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., B. Steven Absher, Sally Absher, Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Joseph P Accardo, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Daniel T. Achord, PhD, Ernest R. Achterberg, Ava V Ackerman, DVM, Gene L. Ackerman, John R. Ackerman, William L. Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry D. Ackman, Donald O. Acrey, Lee Actor, Humberto M. Acuna Jr., Robert K. Adair, PhD, William G. Adair Jr., Brian D. Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, Anthony F. Adamo, Albert H. Adams, MD, Ann S. Adams, Anthony W. Adams, MD, Audrey W Adams, Brook W. Adams, Bryan C. Adams, Bryant L Adams, PhD, Charles K. Adams, Daniel B Adams Jr., Daniel Otis Adams, PhD, Dell H. Adams, Donald Adams, Dwight L. Adams, MD, Eugene Adams, Gail D. Adams, PhD, George Baker Adams, PhD, George F. Adams, Gerald J. Adams, PhD, Gregory A Adams, Harold Elwood Adams, PhD, Henry J. Adams, Howard J. Adams, James D. Adams, James William Adams, Jim D. Adams, John Edgar Adams, PhD, John Adams, Kent A. Adams, Lee A Adams Jr., Leonard Caldwell Adams, PhD, Lewis R. Adams, Louis W. Adams, PhD, N. Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard Ernest Adams, Richard L. Adams, Richard W. Adams, MD, Roy Melville Adams, PhD, Roy B. Adams, Stanley D Adams, Steve W. Adams, Steven W. Adams, William W. Adams, William P. Adams, MD, William M. Adams, PhD, William John Adams, William D. Adams, Wilton T. Adams, PhD, Verne E. Adamson, Wayne L. Adamson, Karlis Adamsons Jr., PhD, George Adcock, Robert E. Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel Paul Adda, PhD, Ben J. Addiego, Albert W. Addington, Tim Addington, William H. Addington, Paul Bradley Addis, PhD, Marshall B. Addison, PhD, Winford R. Addison, Joseph E. Adducci, MD, John K. Addy, PhD, Wayne F. Addy, C. William Ade, Albert H. Adelman, PhD, Barnet R. Adelman, Gary N. Adkins, L. A. Adkins, Michael F. Adkins, Ronald R. Adkins, PhD, T. Adkins, Wilder Adkins, Perry Lee Adkisson, PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Jacques J.P. Adnet, Eric R. Adolphson, John H. Adrain, MD, Anthony J. Adrignolo, PhD, V. Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A. Adsero, Steve E. Aeschbach, Stanley P. Aetrewicz, Stephen B. Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack G. Agan, Frederick A. Agdern, Larry Delmar Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, David Agerton, PhD, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark R. Agnew, Nathan Agnew, Robert F. Agnew, MD, Sean R Agnew, Thomas I. Agnew, PhD, M. C. Agress, John Aguilar, Jorge T. Aguinaldo, Aida M. Aguirre, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip S. Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Richard G. Ahlvin, Edward J Ahmann, MD, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert A. Ahokas, PhD, H. William Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W. Ahrens, PhD, Robert M. Ahring, PhD, John J. Aiello, Robert P. Aillery, Brian R. Ainley, Alfred Ainsworth, Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD, Steven L. Ainsworth, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, John W. Ake, John Hvan Aken, Arthur W. Akers, David J. Akers, Stuart R. Akers, Gary L. Akerstrom, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Munawwar M. Akhtar, Frank Jerrel Akin, PhD, Thane Akins, Frederick I. Akiya, MD, John S. Akiyama, M. H. Akram, PhD, Philip R. Akre, MD, Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD, Zaynab Al-Yassin, PhD, G. James Alaback, Lloyd Alaback, John A. Alai, Robert J. Alaimo, PhD, Rogelio N. Alama, Greg Alan, Janet Alanko, Randy A Alanko, MD, Vincent M. Albanese, Henry Albaugh, Grant Alberich, Daniel C. Albers, Kenneth O. Albers, MD, Timothy A. Albers, Arthur Edward Albert, PhD, Edward G Albert, Eric K. Albert, PhD, James T. Albert, Tom J. Albert, William L. Albert, James L. Alberta, Leland C. Albertson, Roy A. Albertson, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, Allan J. Albrecht, Robert M. Albrecht, Rudolph C. Albrecht, Fred Ronald Albright, PhD, James C. Albright, PhD, Jay Donald Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, William D. Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Evelyn A. Alcantara, PhD, Ernest Charles Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D. Alcorn, John C. Alden, PhD, Ronald Godshall Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Ben Alderton, Franklin Dalton Aldrich, PhD, Harl P. Aldrich, PhD, Reuben J. Aldrich, Richard John Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Roy Aldrich, PhD, Robert Aldridge, Gabriel C. Aldulescu, MD, Perry Baldwin Alers, PhD, Alex F. Alessandrini, Steven J. Alessandro, Andrew J. Alessi, Stephen R. Alewine, Joseph J. Alex, Danrick W. Alexander, Dave Alexander, Dennis J. Alexander, Fred Alexander, George C. Alexander, DVM, Harold R. Alexander, Ira H. Alexander, James B Alexander, James F. Alexander Jr., John C. Alexander, Kelsey Alexander, Kevin Alexander, M. Dale Alexander, PhD, Michael L. Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Igor Alexeff, PhD, Charles D. Alexson, Rodolfo Q. Alfonso, Jennifer M. Alford, Mary E. Alford, Rex Alford, Robert L. Alford, Luis A. Algarra, Roger C. Alig, PhD, Mark J. Alkire, MD, R. Allahyari, PhD, Louis John Allamandola, PhD, Roger L. Allard, Joel W. Alldredge, William David Alldredge Jr., Fred A. Allehoff, John F. Alleman, Ben C. Allen, PhD, Charles W Allen, PhD, Charles M. Allen, PhD, Charles C. Allen, Christopher G. Allen, Clayton H. Allen, PhD, David M. Allen, David J Allen, PhD, Emma Allen, PhD, Eric R. Allen, PhD, Gary L. Allen, PhD, James L. Allen, PhD, Jason D. Allen, John L. Allen, Joshua C. Allen, Kenneth L. Allen, Kimbol R. Allen, Kristin L. Allen, Levi D. Allen, Madelyn H. Allen, DVM, Marvin E. Allen, Merrill P. Allen, Paul W. Allen, PhD, Randall Allen, Robert K. Allen, MD, Robert G. Allen, DVM, Robert C. Allen, Roger B. Allen, PhD, Stewart J. Allen, Thomas Hunter Allen, PhD, William Allen Jr., Robert T. Van Aller, PhD, George L. Allerton, Carl J. Allesandro, Robert Q. Alleva, Ernest R. Alley, Jonathan Alley, MD, William Edward Alley, PhD, George L. Allgoever, Robert H. Allgood, Robert W. Allgood, Richard Alan Alliegro, Mike E. Alligood, Craig Allison, Gary L. Allison, Kevin R. Allison, Randall W. Allison, Ronald C. Allison, MD, Terry G. Allison, Charles E. Allman, George J. Allman, Philip D. Allmendinger, MD, John J. Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Bruce W. Allred, Ivan D. Allred, Victor Dean Allred, PhD, Gary W. Allshouse, Arthur W. Allsop, R. A. Allwein, Ronaldo A. Almero, Frank Murray Almeter, PhD, Anthony H Almond, Kent A. Alms, Richard E. Almy, Jorge L. Alonso, Ramon J. Alonso, PhD, James A. Aloye, Ali Yulmaz Alper, Reevis Stancil Alphin, PhD, Allen A. Alsing, A. Frank Alsobrook, Robert C Alson, Albert W. Alsop, PhD, John Henry Alsop, PhD, Randy J. Alstadt, Sally S. Alston, Charles Alt, Greg A. Altberg, Vincent O. Altemose, Nicholas A. Alten, Frederick C. Althaus, George A. Alther, Howard W. Althouse, Timothy L. Altier, Ashton Altieri, Martin E. Altis, David Altman, PhD, Larry W Altman, Melvyn R. Altman, PhD, Ronny G. Altman, Peter Christian Altner, MD, Herbert N. Altneu, Sidney J. Altschuler, Edward E. Altshuler, PhD, Burton Myron Altura, PhD, Patrick Aluotto, PhD, Raul C. Alva, Anthony B. Alvarado, Antonio R. Alvarez, Raymond Angelo Alvarez Jr., PhD, Virgilio E. Alvarez, Dayton L. Alverson, PhD, R. Byron Alvey, Stephen Edward Always, PhD, Vern J. Always, James I Alyea, Bradley A. Aman, Farouk Amanatullah, Larry C. Amans, James L. Amarel, Charles David Amata, PhD, Carmelo J. Amato, Paul Gerard Amazeen, PhD, Ronald F. Amberger, PhD, Leonard Amborski, PhD, Joseph R. Ambruster, Donald Ford Amend, PhD, Marvin Earl Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Edward J. Ames II, Lynford L Ames, PhD, Martin R. Ames, Donald R. Amett, Michael R. Amick, Wayne P. Amico, Dean P. Amidon, Pushpavati S. Amin, Duane R. Amlee, Kenneth S. Ammons, Moris Amon, PhD, Richard D. Amori, Lee Amoroso, PhD, Bonnie B. Amos, PhD, Dewey Harold Amos, PhD, A. Amr, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Robert L. Amster, DVM, Thomas A. Amundsen, Adolph L. Amundson, Keith L Amunson, James P. Amy, Barry M. Amyx, MD*, Raymond J. Anater, Sal A. Anazalone, Kenneth L. Ancell, Melvin M. Anchell, MD, Ernest J. Andberg, Kenneth J. Anderer, G. Anderle, PhD, John P. Anders, MD, D. Andersen, Donald A. Andersen, PhD, Donald R. Andersen Jr., Doug E. Andersen, Gene P. Andersen, George H. Andersen, Lawrence D. Andersen, Terrell Neils Andersen, PhD, Torben B. Andersen, PhD, Wilford Hoyt Andersen, PhD, Robert W. Andersohn, Alan J. Anderson, Albert S. Anderson, MD, Amos Robert Anderson, PhD, Amy L Anderson, Andrew S. Anderson, PhD, Anita Teter Anderson, Arthur G. Anderson, PhD, Arthur E. Anderson, Arvid Anderson, Barry D. Anderson, Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD, Bruce Martin Anderson Jr., C. M. Anderson Jr., Charles R Anderson, PhD, Chris Anderson, Christopher Anderson, Conrad E. Anderson, MD, Corby G. Anderson, PhD, Craig A. Anderson, David W. Anderson, David Robert Anderson, PhD, David O. Anderson, PhD, David B. Anderson, David A. Anderson, David Anderson, PhD, David Anderson, Donald Anderson, PhD, Donald Heruin Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer A. Anderson, PhD, Eric Anderson, Fred G. Anderson, MD, Gerald L. Anderson, Glenn L. Anderson, Greg J. Anderson, H. C. Anderson, Harrison Clarke Anderson, MD, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J. Hilbert Anderson, James R. Anderson, James R. Anderson, James P. Anderson, James K. Anderson, James Anderson, Jane E. Anderson, Janis W. Anderson, Joel Anderson, John C. Anderson, PhD, John O. Anderson, Jon C. Anderson, MD, Joy R. Anderson, PhD, Julia W. Anderson, PhD, Keith R. Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E. Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Leif H. Anderson, Leslie Anderson, PhD, Louis Weston Anderson, Lowell Ray Anderson, Lynn C. Anderson, DVM, Mark Anderson, Mark A. Anderson, Mary P Anderson, Mike E. Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson Lamar Anderson, PhD, P. Jennings Anderson, Percy G. Anderson Jr., R. L. Anderson, Randall H. Anderson, Reece B. Anderson, Richard Alan Anderson, PhD, Richard C. Anderson, Robert Anderson, Robert E. Anderson, Robert J Anderson, MD, Rodney C. Anderson, PhD, Roger O. Anderson, Roscoe B. Anderson, MD, Ross S. Anderson, PhD, Roy E. Anderson, Russell Anderson, Theodore D. Anderson, Thomas P. Anderson, Thomas F. Anderson, PhD, Thornton Anderson, Tom Anderson, Tom P. Anderson, Walton O. Anderson, Warren Ronald Anderson, Wilbert C. Anderson, William L. Anderson, Karen Andersonnoeck, Charles S. Andes, David J. Andes, Mark J. Andorka, Robynn Andracsek, John Robert Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, John Andrako, PhD, Ivan J. Andrasik, Peter R. Andreana, PhD, Gilbert M. Andreen, Eva Andrei, PhD, George Andreiev, Richard M. Andres, PhD, Douglas R Andress, Steven M. Andreucci, James F. Andrew, PhD, James M. Andrew, Felixe A. Andrews, Frederick T. Andrews, Harry N. Andrews, John Stevens Andrews, PhD, Marion L. Andrews, Mel Andrews, Raynal W. Andrews, Russell A. Andrews, Russell S. Andrews, PhD, Scott Andrews, PhD, Timothy Andreychek, Lois Andros, Edward A. Andrus, M. B. Andrus, PhD, Walter S. Andrus, Robert E. Angel, Ernest F. Angelicola, Vincent Angelo, PhD, Francis M. Angeloni, PhD, T. Angelosaute, Steven T. Angely, Claude B. Anger, Robert H. Angevine, Ernest Angino, PhD, Keith Angle, Walter C. Anglemeyer, Howard P. Angstadt, PhD, Micheal J. Anhorn, Kevin P. Ankenbrand, William D. Ankney, William L Anliker, Stuart H. Anness, MD, Stig A. Annestrand, Edward J Annick, B. M. Anose, PhD, Mohammed R. Ansari, Gregory W. Antal, Bradley C. Antanaitis, PhD, John Allen Anthes, PhD, Elizabeth Y. Anthony, PhD, Jack R. Anthony, Lee Saunders Anthony, PhD, Robert D. Anthony, Charles H. Antinori, PhD, Achilles P. Anton, MD, Herbert D. Anton, Nick J. Antonas, Dan Antonescu-Wolf, MD, Rolando A. Antonio, Wilfred L. Antonson, Stephen P. Antony, Mary J. Anzia, PhD, Clarence R. Apel, MD, Henry W. Apfelbach, MD, P. J. Apice, Carl Apicella, Bruce W. Apland, David R. Appel, Kenneth P. Apperson, Norman Apperson, W. H. Appich Jr., Lynn Apple, Alan Appleby, PhD, Robert H. Appleby, Donald Applegate, DVM, James K. Applegate, PhD, Lowell N. Applegate, John K. Applegath, Herbert S Appleman, Douglas E. Applequist, PhD, Morris Herman Aprison, PhD, Charles Apter, PhD, Richard Apuzzo II, J. B. Aquilla, MD, Arturo Q. Arabe, PhD, Ara Arabyan, PhD, Steven B. Aragon, MD, Orlando A. Arana, Eric C. Araneta, Jonathan Arata, PhD, Howard Arbaugh, Anatoly L Arber, PhD, Harry D. Arber, R. Kent Arblaster, Jaime Arbona-Fazzi, PhD, Earl F. Arbuckle, John Arcadi, MD, Antonio E. Arce, Ed Arce, James R. Arce, Frank G Arcella, PhD, Byron J. Arceneaux, Leon M. Arceneaux, Webster J. Arceneaux Jr., John Arch, Diane M Archer, Donald Archer, William W. Archer, Patrick J. Archey, Philip Archibald, Robert L. Archibald, John L Archie, Angela N. Archon, William Bryant Ard, PhD, William Ard, Richard J. Ardine Arthur, Joe R. Arechavaleta, Christopher Arend, Robert W. Arends, Elton E. Arensman, Vittorio K. Argento, PhD, Harold V. Argo, PhD, Guvenc Argon, John W. Argue, Lawrence Ariano, MD, William J. Arion, PhD, Gary Arithson, Zaven S. Ariyan, PhD, Alfred Arkell, PhD, Raymond D Arkwright, Giacomo Armand, PhD, Gertrude D. Armbruster, PhD, Thomas G. Armbuster, MD, Bradley Armentrout, Richard W. Armentrout, PhD, Lew Armer, Joseph S Armijo, PhD, Ralph Elmer Armington, PhD, Bobby M. Armistead, William E Armour, Robert L. Arms, Baxter H. Armstrong, PhD, Clifford B. Armstrong Jr., Desiree A. Armstrong, PhD, Glenn M. Armstrong, James E. Armstrong, James R. Armstrong, DVM, Lou Armstrong, Lowell Todd Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Marvin D. Armstrong, PhD, Melvin B. Armstrong, Robert L. Armstrong, PhD, Robert Lee Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Dana Arndt, Harold H. Arndt, Jerome C. Arnett Jr., MD, Ross Harold Arnett, PhD, William S. Arnett, Charles Arney, Philip J. Arnholt, PhD, Aaron J Arnold, Charles W. Arnold, Charles Arnold, PhD, David Arnold, Edwin L. Arnold, Gregory B. Arnold, Herbert K. Arnold, Jack N. Arnold, John K Arnold, DVM, Lance L. Arnold, Marcia L. Arnold, R. Arnold, PhD, Randall W. Arnold, Robert Arnold Jr., DVM, Stephen Arnold, Timothy D. Arnold, William Archibald Arnold, PhD, John H Arns, Jr, Lester C. Arnwine, James T. Arocho, MD, Sidney O. Arola, Casper J. Aronson, Seymour Aronson, PhD, George V Aros Chilingarian, PhD, Joseph Bartholomew Arots, PhD, Adrian Arp, PhD, Charles Hammond Arrington, PhD, Dale E. Arrington, PhD, Donald R. Arrington, Clement R. Arrison, Rhea T. Van Arsdall, John V. Artale, James S. Arthur, PhD, Charles G. Artinian, MD, Robert Artz, Jaime N. Aruguete, MD, Delano Z. Arvin, PhD, Joseph J. Arx, Goro G Asaki, George J. Asanovich, Charles H. Asbill, Bob J. Ascherl, Alvin G. Ash, Michael W. Ashberry, Edward V. Ashburn, Joe E. Ashby, PhD, Kenny Ashby, Randolph W Ashby, PhD, Raymond A. Ashcraft, Charles R. Ashford, A. Ashley, PhD, Doyle Allen Ashley, PhD, Edward E. Ashley, Holt Ashley, PhD, Maynard B. Ashley, Warren Cotton Ashley, PhD, Wayne A. Ashley, William M. Ashley, Alvin Ashman, Jerome P. Ashman, Abhay Ashtekar, PhD, Philip T. Ashton, Romney A. Ashton, MD, Walter R. Ashwill, Bob Ashworth, Jim F. Ashworth, Monroe Ashworth, Robert A Ashworth, Robert S. Ashworth, Victor Asirvatham, PhD, Orv B. Askeland, Ann Askew, B. Askildsen, Charles W. Askins, Philip R. Askman, Tom Asmas, PhD, Robert C. Asmus, Erik Aspelin, Winifred Alice Asprey, PhD, Don O. Asquith, PhD, Mike Assad, Andrew P. Assenmacher, Orazio J. Astarita, Jacob F. Asti, Everett L. Astleford, Eugene Roy Astley, R. Lee Aston, PhD, Raymond J. Astor Sr., Otilia J. Asuncion, MD, Charles E. Atchison, James Atchison, Curtis L. Atchley, Greg J. Aten, Robert Aten, PhD, James Athanasion, Michael J. Atherton, PhD, William J. Atherton, PhD, Robert D. Athey Jr., PhD, Arthur C. Atkins, David C. Atkins, Larry P. Atkins, Mark D. Atkins, D. O. Atkinson, Erika J Atkinson, John P. Atkinson, MD, John R. Atkinson, Keith Atkinson, Larry N. Atkinson, Lynn A Atkinson, Matthew R. Atkinson, Stanley L. Atnipp, Richard Attig, Leonardo D. Attorre, William J. Attwooll, Jerry C. Atwell, Mark Atwood, PhD, Robert C. Atwood, Luben Atzeff, MD, Jerry Y. Au, Lester C. Auble, Darrel D. Auch, James C. Auckland, Walter Auclair, PhD, Daniel J. Aucutt, Bryan Audiffred, William H. Audley, Louis A. Auerbach, Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD, Keith H. Aufderheide, PhD, William R. Aufricht, Dale A. Augenstein, PhD, Owen H. Auger, Dustin M. Aughenbaugh, Gregory S Augspurger, Joe Augspurger, PhD, Brad August, James K. August, Mike August, Brian Augustine, PhD, W. David Augustine, Frederick N. Aukeman, J. Todd Aukerman, C. Mark. Aulick, PhD, Luther Aull, PhD, Neil N. Ault, PhD, Kathi A. Aultman, MD, John B. Aultmann Jr., Thomas E. Aumock, Bob J. Aumueller, Henry Spiese Aurand, Richard A. Aurand, Richard Aurisano, PhD, Joeseph D Aurizio, Brian E. Ausburn, Kent E Ausburn, PhD, Kenny Ausmus, Kurt L. Austad, Alfred Ells Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, Carlton L. Austin, D. Austin, D. Austin, PhD, Harold T. Austin, Lloyd H. Austin, Michael N. Austin, Paul E. Austin, Robert L. Austin, Robert H Austin, PhD, Roger J. Austin, PhD, Ward H. Austin, Edward T. Auth, Donald W. Autio, Amalia R. Auvigne, MD, Andrew B. Avalon, William E. Avera, Mark Averett, Jon R. Averhoff, Frank Averill, PhD, Rosario D. Averion, MD, Alex Avery, Donald Avery, Nathan M. Avery, Philip J. Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Arthur J. Avila, Luis A. Avila, Teresita D. Avila, MD, Joseph Avruch, MD, Theodore C. Awartkruis, PhD, Steven G. Axen, M. Friedman Axler, PhD, William P. Aycock, Jessica Ayers, Robert C. Ayers Jr., PhD, Bruce D. Ayres, PhD, T. G. Ayres, Wesley P. Ayres, PhD, Dany Ayseur, Alison M. Azar, Max Azevedo, Azizollah Azhdam
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
RightNow – It’s ok. I’m cultivating a few, and have programmed with Luc address in Northcote. Nick Smith is next.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Scott Chris – which is the same position I hold. I’m inferring that you’re suggesting his position may change again. I posit that that is the very nature of science – as more evidence is considered the conclusions are likely to change. If the temperatures since 1998 had continued their upward slope I’d believe climate change would likely be catastrophic too.
Vote:But they haven’t, and sea level rise is (still rising but) decelerating. I’ll reconsider my stance if the evidence warrants it.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Why would I have got more interesting things to do with my time than do a phd in climate science. Though I have read their report they are after all the experts. They are eminent scientists as you can see feel free to Gogol them and find out about their peer reviewed papers in scientific journals.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
You mean the increased Co2 has caused the current global cooling? Or more that the near zero arthopogenic Co2 could have lead to Greenland being warm and green several hundred years ago? Damn the MWP, the little ice age, and the Manuder Minimum. So inconvenient.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
A 2007 editorial from John Christy. As I said, the same scientists as 2,3,4,5 years ago. Where’s the droves?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
This list doesn’t seem all that more expanded since a few years ago.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Griff – never mind.
Scott Chris – I expect scientists to change their conclusions if the observations warrant it, and this seems consistent with what Christy has done. Given observations aren’t matching models, why wouldn’t other scientists change their conclusions?
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
This doesn’t look like global cooling to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_Ocean.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_Land.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg
August 19th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Weihana – Read my 9:56. Droves. Yes, droves. And citing Wikipedia for anything in relation to climate science?!? I suggest you research William M. Connolley, and learn his flagrant abuse of Wikipedia to advance Global Warming hysteria. Wikipedia is a ‘no reference’ zone for anything even slightly controversial. Once again, read my 9:56 if you’re looking for the source of my ‘droves’ comment.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
A organization such as this is suspect when it comes to climit science
Current projects include work on the deamidation of peptides and proteins as it relates to fundamental biochemistry and to protein aggregation diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease; research on improved techniques for medical diagnosis; improvement in precollege education curricula, especially in the sciences; and improved civilian emergency preparedness.
“By supporting scholarship relevant to intelligent design (ID), the Center seeks to encourage a rigorous critique of scientific and philosophical materialism and to promote non-reductionist study of the natural world.”
Your petition is by the same group
There is no debate about evolution either project Steve counters these loons.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
About William Connoley, the Wikipedia vandal:
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
You cannot debate Science with someone who believes in Conspiracy’s Continuously shifts the goal posts, Posts non scientific links, Never refutes any thing, and does not understand the basics of Scientific method.
Vote:But hay its fun trying.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
cf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
An extract:
Pants on fire stuff again, KK.
Vote:August 19th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
MWP was a localised climate anomaly. There is no evidence that it anything other, which does not prove it was not more widespread, but there is evidence of cooling in other areas of the globe which contradicts any belief (as that is all it can be) that it was anything other than localised.
Another Monckton Method argument: no matter how often your claim is debunked, just carry on repeating it ad infinitum.
There is a range if indicators backing up the AGW theory.
Instead of flailing around with ad hominems and lies, you should win a Nobel prize by finding an alternative explanation.
Failing that, you are fucking with our childrens futures. You should be ashamed of yourself.
By the way, Birkenhead is closer to my home than Northcote.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 12:27 am
http://rt.com/news/shark-attack-russia-pacific/
Gnash your teeth, CWM.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 12:57 am
I hope you are all up to speed with the latest from Murray Salby:
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/2011/THE_SYDNEY_INSTITUTE_MURRY_SALBY_2_AUGUST_2011.mp3
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 1:12 am
krazykiwi – Sorry didn’t see your link first time.
Remember that the Wikipedia article I cited contained only those scientists who are famous and notable, so of course it doesn’t mention all scientists. Indeed I see, in the list you provided, names like Roger Dewherst and Geoff Austin. Yet I’ve known their position on this issue for many years now. So the fact that these people are on this report does not indicate to me that there is a trend in scientific opinion overall or that “droves” of scientists are changing their opinion.
Another point worth mentioning is not all these people have any particular expertise in climate science. Monckton, for instance, is included in the list as a “climate researcher” yet he has no formal training and has no published peer-reviewed material. It would be like compiling a list of “scientists” supporting the consensus and including Al Gore in the list.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I think the above constitutes a better examination of the “consensus”.
Also, in my other post I cited UAH, RSS, NASA and the NOAA. I don’t think it matters that their data is included on Wikipedia.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 1:31 am
“MWP was a localised climate anomaly. There is no evidence that it anything other, which does not prove it was not more widespread, but there is evidence of cooling in other areas of the globe which contradicts any belief (as that is all it can be) that it was anything other than localised.”
Given that there is evidence of it in New Zealand, China, Europe and North America, how widespread does it have to be? Granted that’s not proof that, globally, climate was approximately as warm as it is today, but the point is that we simply do not know one way or the other. As the National Academy of Sciences report into the “Hockey Stick” found: we can have a lot of confidence that the globe has warmed over the last 400 years, yet we have less confidence about globally averaged temperatures before that.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Amusingly enough, climate change warming predictions are localised as well.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 8:15 am
How sad – the same old alarmists keep adhering to the Al Gore theory of propaganda and whenever someone says something different, the fingers go in their ears and they all chant “I can’t hear you”….
But citing entries in Wikipedia takes this debate to a new low…. vested interests anyone?
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Chris Scott is right – I’m not a scientist and I don’t claim to be one. I don’t know if or what Monckton says is true or false but if he is a liar as AGW adherents claim then he will be very easy to debunk on a public stage. My point was not debating him looks petty and that you can’t defend your position. Christopher Hitchens is an avowed athiest albeit a more gracious one than Dawkins and he loves the chance to mix it on stage with Christian apologists no matter how much be thinks Christianity (or religions in general) are pointless and silly. Hitchens is so confident of his position that he is never threatened by any apologist no matter how formidable a debater they are. People should treat Monckton the same way and take him on even if you feel it is beneath your dignity.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
…
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Speech this week by Dr. Art Raiche, Retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, ASEG Gold Medal in July 2006, “For exceptional and highly significant distinguished contributions to the science and practice of geophysics…”
Principal scientists contractor to CSIRO in the geophysical Electromagnetic Modelling Group for exploration and environmental applications.
“Management learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independently…as long as Management approved of it.
We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy.If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.”
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
It’s not a matter of dignity. It’s a matter of denying oxygen to a charlatan and liar.
As soon as he opens his mouth I can pick up on the talking point. I know he has been thoroughly rebutted in the past, but that doesn’t stop him.
Like I say, he layers lie upon lie, misinformation upon disinformation and is so well practised it’s impossible to reason past the bullshit on the spot. Hence the Monckton Files on Skeptical Science.
And videos like this. http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/45/XjhTrCgVb5U
Go on folks, view the vid: it’s fun and enlightening!
But, just to prove there is a sucker born every day, he pops up on Leighton Smith’s show as well, promulgating the same crap over and over and over.
I don’t listen to Newstalk, so can anyone tell me if Smith actually had a separate session with a Monckton debunker?
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Weihana, you can’t cherry pick individual tree rings or whatever proxy without context and hold it up as proof of anything. An Antarctic proxy would show snowball earth, if viewed in isolation.
I saw a report that glaciers in New Zealand were extending during this time. Counterfactual but meaningless without context. Even the Northern Hemisphere series don’t pick up much, if anything, of a Medieval anomaly, let alone sparse southern hemisphere proxy information.
The Hadley Centre estimates 200 modern stations can represent the global average. One proxy doesn’t say much.
Anyway, the MWP is a red herring. The natural forcings that the planet has responded to over billions of years are completely apart from the huge carbon slug humans have injected into the atmosphere since 1850. Changes that used to take place over thousand of years are occurring quick fast compared to the paleo record.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
RightNow
I clicked on your link as I was interested in what Art had to say, especially in light of the fact that until 2007 CSIRO was locked in a battle of wills with a denialist prime minister, John Howard.
In the video, Art went through the usual smear tactics but I pricked up my ears when he mentioned Isaac Asimov as someone who thought increased CO2 would have a negligible effect on temperature. I went back to YouTube and found this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/o6tSYRY90PA
And this at Wikipedia:
And really, Lindzen and Pielke Jr, also mentioned by Angry Art, are not denialists either. They quibble around the edges of the science, or, rather, the policy.
Policy is a subjective debate, all are welcome, boots and all, in my view.
The science should be debated energetically within the science fraternity, especially through publishing peer reviewed papers in credible journals.
Can anyone point me to any climate science papers these two have published that actually does contradict the mainstream view? I read Pielke’s latest book and finished wondering why he is labelled a skeptic!
On the basis that rants bore me, I stopped watching your video at that point.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Luc,
If you weren’t such a bald faced liar people might actually engage with you.
As it is, people are left wondering why, if the science is as sound as you claim, you need to resort to bald faced lies and spin.
Perhaps if you stopped lying people would engage with you.
Just a thought.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Back up what you say and point to a lie, wat.
Otherwise your post is just yet another gutless smear from just yet another gutless, anonymous Kiwiblogger.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Luc,
“he layers lie upon lie, misinformation upon disinformation and is so well practised it’s impossible to reason past the bullshit on the spot.”
Clearly you were referring to your own posts on Israel and the ME. Congratulations of your self-assessment. Surely your self-actualization is on the way.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
“you need to resort to bald faced lies and spin.”
Funny thing is the their standpoint changes from no such thing to just a conspiracy to yes its happening but its going to be good. Most of their links point to or originate from web sites that openly take part in the things they accuses of. We continuously point to real science done by real scientist and how do they reply personal abuse and yet more spurious links last one http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hxCzW6RWoLg is not a denial of climate change just its effects
Endless circles with a hollow center
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
bhudson
same challenge to you.
Point to a lie.
Make my day.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Oh dear
bhudson is just another gutless wanker…
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Luc,
Let’s see… How about your continued assertion that Israel rejects Palestinian self governance. The UN proposed (that Israel agreed to, albeit reluctantly) a dual state approach back in 1947. It was rejected as the Arab forces in opposition to Israel were convinced they could wipe them from the map (history paints a slightly different picture.)
You were challenged months ago Luc and could not rebut the challenge – you tried to claim that the vote was marginal and passed only by bullying from Israel and Western allies, yet the vote tally suggests (very strongly) otherwise.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/cartoon_of_the_day.html#comment-794825
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/02/cartoon_of_the_day.html#comment-794848
Luc, keep on layering upon layers. At least you have found something you excel at…
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
1947!!
WTF?
Is that the best you can do?
That’s why 5 million human beings are kept in nothing much better than a concentration camp?
Can you come into the modern times, please
Maybe fast forward to UN resolution 242? The international consensus.
Oh, that right, you don’t like the “c” word, do you?
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Sorry Luc?
You claim that Israel are the cause of the problem, yet you conveniently ignore that fact that they (reluctantly) agreed to a dual state proposition back in 1947 that (surely) would have avoided the troubles of the past 40-odd years, while the opposition rejected the resolution in favour of warfare to wipe them from the face of the map. And the fact that that didn’t work makes it all Israel’s fault?
As I noted Luc, layer upon layer… Your self-actualization will come in time…
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
I don’t say Israel is the cause of the problem.
Israel was created by the western imperialist states. We caused the problem.
You say Arabs should have agreed to forced dispossession, but why should they? And records show the Europeans always only wanted all the land, empty of the indigenous Arabs.
But that’s all in the past.
Today, what matters is millions of people, Palestinians, who are descendants of the indigenous people of the region who were forced out by the European invasion.
Today, the descendants of those Europeans live in splendid, US financed, luxury while there are teeming slums just over their back fence.
The future lies in UNGA 242.
Or one state for two peoples.
Vote:August 20th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Luc,
“You say Arabs should have agreed to forced dispossession, but why should they? And records show the Europeans always only wanted all the land, empty of the indigenous Arabs.”
No forced dispossession – the Jews and Arabs were equally dispossessed under the Ottoman empire. There is no long ranging Palestinian state for the Palestinian people to be dispossessed of.
The resolution had nothing to do with Europeans – it was a solution for the Isrealis and Arabs.
That could be all in the past, but it would be like saying that the Europeans took advantage of Maori but “that’s all in the past.”
In any case, my point was not about the myriad of resolutions and what the future might look like for the ME, but a response to your challenge regarding layer upon layer of disinformation, dissembling and disingenuity. That is a charge which (I believe) can be legitimately leveled at you. This was an example of that
Vote:August 21st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
bhudson
1. I never said there was a Palestinian state prior to 1948. Palestinians were dispossessed from their land. This is simply not in dispute in any credible forum.
2. The Ottoman Empire was not a colonising or land appropriation force. They mainly ruled their conquered lands for tribute. Many Palestinians can prove ownership under Ottoman title, which was accepted as valid by the British under the mandate. To try to make that equivalent with Israeli ethnic cleansing is plainly ridiculous.
3. To say UN resolutions had nothing to do with the European powers is risible. In fact, in 1948 the wishes of the indigenous population were simply ridden roughshod over. You should go to the UN papers on the Question of Palestine.
4. As regards the comparison with Maori, the situations can be compared in that Maori did draw a line under the vast majority of dispossession and agreed not to seek to overturn that. Resolution 242 also draws a line: the Green Line.
It appears you inhabit some kind of fantasy world where “facts” are invented out of thin air.
Vote: