Alarmist bullshit

March 22nd, 2012 at 9:34 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Sea levels will rise up to 22 metres even if the worst scenarios for global warming are avoided, researchers say.

An international team of scientists, which included a New Zealander, found that a 2C increase in global temperature would still cause the world’s oceans to rise between 12m and 22m.

Two degrees is the recommended limit set by the Intergovernmental Panel on . A bigger increase could lead to the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet, some of the East Antarctic ice sheet and part of Greenland.

A 22m increase in sea level would dramatically transform New Zealand’s coastal boundaries, with low-lying areas like Auckland and Wellington’s harbours swamped by ocean currents.

But lead researcher Ken Miller said: “You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years.”

That last paragraph is key, and why this is just alarmist bullshit. Some people doubt temperatures are rising at all, But I do think there is a warming trend, of which greenhouse gas emissions are at least partially responsible. However even the IPCC say that the maximum rise in sea levels by 2100 is 59 cm. This is a 2007 projection. Since then some media have quoted extreme claims beyond that, but I prefer to put credence on the IPCC projections. The IPCC process is far from perfect, but they tend to produce reasonably sane figures.

The actual increase in sea levels is around 3 mm a year currently. This will pose challenges in the future, but the future will also bring more solutions. The hysterical nonsense about increases of 22 metres is forecasting perhaps in 5,000 years time. Anyone who thinks public policy today should be based on a forecast of what the climate might be in 5,000 years is nuts. Look at how the world has changed in just 100 years let alone hundreds or thousands. Hell in 1,000 years we may be living on Mars.

The Herald should be ashamed for saying that the projected increase could “dramatically transform” our coastal boundaries. A change over 1,000 years+ is not dramatic. It’s like saying the separation of Gondwana was dramatic

Tags:

146 Responses to “Alarmist bullshit”

  1. Manolo (14,082 comments) says:

    Lies and more lies from the warmists.
    Glad there is one less in power with the departure of the incompetent Nick Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (4,232 comments) says:

    DPF….
    Yep, time to divert the ETS to debt reduction!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Roflcopter (466 comments) says:

    I’m sure they’d pin Gondwana moving, on us if they could, but more likely to blame it on excessive farting by large dinosaurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    DPF – the whole human caused warming thing has been bullshit from day 1.
    Yes the world is warming – has been for several centuries and I guess one day the complexity of the suns energy, cloud formation, energy circulation, etc will be understood.

    In the meantime things like the ETS and carbon taxes are just another step towards UN control – after all they are the ones behind the IPCC – which is based pretty much on rumours thru to outright lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross12 (1,456 comments) says:

    Of course it is crap but more importantly it’s another sign of their desperation.

    DF–” The IPCC process is far from perfect, but they tend to produce reasonably sane figures.” I think you should down load a copy of Donna Laframboise’s book ” The Delinquent Teenager –who was mistaken for the world’s Top Climate Expert” to find out how bad the IPCC really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    Inconveniently, sea level rise has recently (last 8 years) slowed or stopped:
    http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ScreenHunter_113-Feb.-08-19.04.jpg
    Efforts are being made (as with inconveniently cooling global temperature data) to introduce adjustments that alter the raw data – typically by adjusting historical data of decades past downwards to fit the thermaggedonist narrative, but these rewrites of history are becoming less and less defensible as the earth steadfastly refuses to warm further and more people investigate for themselves.

    As for 22m rise in thousands of years, absolutely no chance: After 12-13,000 years we are near the end of the current interglacial period (the “Holocene”). The previous few glacial cycles lasted 10-15000 years so in the next 1-2 millenia we are into a new iceage. It will drop sea levels by >120m and leave perhaps half the currently habitable land of the world frozen – a far bigger problem than any purported likely sea rise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The media attention given to global warming has gone a little cold lately. I guess the warming cultists feel they need to regain their rightful place and the best way to do that is to scare the shit out of people. Alas, it’s been tried before and failed. Why do they think this time will be any different? They’re making themselves look sillier and sillier. So much for science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    If they think this is bad, imagine the reaction when they find out the sun is going to start increasing its output enough to boil the oceans as it begins its journey to becoming a red giant…. in about a billion years

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    For thoise who are unaware as to why the Herald would print this whukinga alarmist bullshit, from Question Time, Parliament yesterday –

    12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by a recent report of an international team of scientists that, even with a two degree celsius rise in average global temperature, future generations could face sea levels of up to 12 to 22 metres higher than at present?

    Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Yes. The estimates of sea level rise in this report are in line with estimates from the science community over the past few years. But I note that the author himself puts these estimates in context by stating that such changes could take centuries or millennia and that “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet …”.

    Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM : In light of that reply, is the Minister concerned that the Government’s current guidelines for local councils on sea level rise for 2100 are 28 percent lower than the level estimated by the scientists; if so, will he inform the local government and environment Ministers that we have now got it wrong?

    Hon KATE WILKINSON: The current guidelines for local authorities that they consider the consequences of a mean sea level rise of at least 0.8 metres is in line with the findings of the report for sea level rise out to the end of this century. The lead author of that report just mentioned, himself said: “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is … (0.8 to 1 metre) …”. This is in line with the Government guidance.

    Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM : Working on the understanding that the guidelines actually were 0.5 to 0.8—so, not excessive of 0.8—is the Minister concerned that no consideration appears to have been given to the prospect of sea level rise in the rebuild of Christchurch, given that a city’s life cycle is over centuries, and will the Minister now act on my report of August 2011 that the rebuild should account for a sea level rise of 2 metres by 2100, bearing in mind the report of the conference in Berlin, which suggested by consensus a sea level rise of 0.9 to 1.6?
    … etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The article in the Herald says:

    “the team concluded with 95 per cent confidence that 3 million years ago the sea level peaked up to 30m above the present level…”

    Hmmm so the sea level was up to 30 metres higher than it is today. What caused the sea level to be so much higher than it is today? Was it warmer than it is today and what caused the planet to warm then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Viking2 (11,575 comments) says:

    There is always a solution. Simple really. As it gets warmer we drink more (a bit like the Aussies do) so the solution is to build more breweries and make beer cheaper so we can drink down the water level. :lol: O)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    When will these clowns learn?

    It is perfectly reasonable to not believe in AGW, when the GW advocates allow completely bullshit statistics like this to get wide publicity. It was the go to play forever; make outrageous claims to grab headlines from ignorant journalists.

    The pro-GW morons allowed this sort of shit for a decade, and it has destroyed their credibility. They might as well have said that sea levels would rise a million-bagillion miles for all the relevance of their figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. burt (8,324 comments) says:

    But… But Gore told us the world is warmer now than it has ever been …. I’m confused… I wonder how Gore’s carbon trading empire is going ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    So-called “manmade global warming” is complete crap, and the biggest bit of that crap is the nonsense about sea-level “rise”.
    The more that these alarmists squeal, the more stupid they make themselves look.
    I also agree with the commenter who said that this is all a convenient pretext to the UN trying to control the world. Remember the resolution they passed recently saying that you “mustn’t criticise Islam”? It’s all about silencing the masses and controlling them.
    They have also, of course, recruited the ultimate control-freak in the Clark-beast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    I watched question time yesterday and saw the Kennedy Graham question on this issue. He seemed like a befuddled old man, worrying about a possible 60cm sea level rise in 100 years time and demanding the government do something about it. It’s like a politician of 1910 demanding that Joseph Ward should do something to solve the problems of 2012. Does he really think that we can bind governments far in the future to policies based on this year’s popular panic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    the team concluded with 95 per cent confidence that 3 million years ago the sea level peaked up to 30m above the present level…

    I wonder if this really means that a 30m higher sea level is within the 95 percent confidence interval?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rightandleft (670 comments) says:

    This shows why the Greens are still a dangerous group to have running the country, despite their recent moderation. Using alarmist figures like this to promote policies damaging to our economy is wreckless. I dislike any policies driven purely by ideology rather than sound research.

    The warming we are seeing is not nearly as extreme as they would have us believe. During the Medieval Warm Period England became warm enough to support a wine industry that was able to compete with France. I haven’t heard of the French feeling threatened by English wine recently. People often overlook the fact that we have only just come out of the Little Ice Age on the 1600s-1800s and that period, caused by forces entirely beyond human control, was significantly more damaging to society than warming has been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tom hunter (5,095 comments) says:

    Sigh. I’ve quoted this before, most recently in dealing with the idiot ‘Freedman’. Once again, from from The Shipping News:

    Billy: It’s finding the center of your story, the beating heart of it, that’s what makes a reporter. You have to start by making up some headlines. You know: short, punchy, dramatic headlines. Now, have a look, what do you see?
    [Points at dark clouds at the horizon]

    Billy: Tell me the headline.

    Quoyle: Horizon Fills With Dark Clouds?

    Billy: Imminent Storm Threatens Village.

    Quoyle: But what if no storm comes?

    Billy: Village Spared From Deadly Storm.

    This is another great example of why the old media is dying, in that they just cannot seem to let go of the old idea of creating screaming editorial headlines to pull eyeballs, irrespective of the crap behind the headline. These morons at the NZ Herald and in much of the rest of the Old Media, have not yet figured out how much this tradition damages them. With falling subscriber numbers, circulation, revenue, readership, waves of journalist layoffs – in fact with pretty much everything failing for them across the board, they still cannot change even for the sake of self-preservation. It’s incredible. They:
    Just.
    Don’t.
    Get.
    It.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    Hell in 1,000 years we may be living on Mars.

    Most AGWers already are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Let these stories keep coming I say, because they continue to erode the credibility of CC ‘scientists’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Shock. Horror. The Herald grossly exaggerates and creates a misleading story to make it more sensational as it is.
    Never happened before.

    DPF blogs about it with a Dogwhistle!!!! headline.

    And out come crawling the head-in-the-sand, la-la-la, “it’s all just a big hoax” denialists.

    The haven’t even read the the story, judging by the comments here. Nor any of DPF comments either. All the need is the headline “Alarmist Bullshit” and they start barking as mad.

    And another lovely discussion to follow.

    *YAWN*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. OTGO (565 comments) says:

    Has anybody considered that their might be benefits to NZ (and other countries) from GW. I’m sure the good people of Invercargill would welcome a 2 deg C increase in their temps. Hell even in AKL this summer a further 2 deg would be OK. And where I come from in North Otago you can find sea shells in the limestone well up the Waitaki Valley suggesting the sea level was quite different from where it is today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tom hunter (5,095 comments) says:

    EWS

    More to the point they actually undermine the whole political-economic-religious project that is AGW. It’s now reached the stage where I want to see more such headlines because they achieve two grand results at the same time.

    First, it reduces Old Media to even more of a laughing stock and background noise than it is now, as well as causing further declines in their credibility, readership, and revenue.

    Second, it casts the AGW movement into being even more a facsimile of a bunch of brainless shock-jocks who are either idiots or liars.

    Given my background in science and my lifelong love of the subject I can’t say I’m very happy about the third result, which is that ordinary people increasingly view scientists as less the traditional type who apply the scientific method and are careful and measured in making conclusions, and more as merely another politicised adjunct to the politico-media complex of ignorant, stupid, emotive journalists, politicians and media celebrities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. burt (8,324 comments) says:

    Right, so the land has been being pushed up hence we find shells hundreds (even thousands) of meters above current sea level. But somehow we know exactly how much the land has moved and that allows us to accurately determine the mean sea level 3 million years ago.

    What a complete crock of shit…..I can’t help but think it’s like trying to blame thermal expansion for the changing water level in a spa pool ignoring that a various number of people are constantly getting in and out of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    And where I come from in North Otago you can find sea shells in the limestone well up the Waitaki Valley suggesting the sea level was quite different from where it is today.

    Scientific ignorance, FTW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Anyone who thinks public policy today should be based on a forecast of what the climate might be in 5,000 years is nuts. Look at how the world has changed in just 100 years let alone hundreds or thousands. Hell in 1,000 years we may be living on Mars.

    Too right – no human civilisation has ever endured for 5,000 years, (except for the Han Chinese…)

    Imagine if the Greeks & Romans, the Spaniards Portuguese and British hadn’t built their great trading ports, out of fear the sea may one day rise and inundate them…?

    It’s simply mad to contemplate crippling public policies based on what may happen in 5,000 years…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. OTGO (565 comments) says:

    FTW? What does that mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. holysheet (433 comments) says:

    Viking2 (6,389) Says:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 10:28 am

    There is always a solution. Simple really. As it gets warmer we drink more (a bit like the Aussies do) so the solution is to build more breweries and make beer cheaper so we can drink down the water level. :lol: O)

    Its actually really simple. If every person on the coastlines of the worlds seas and oceans took 2 x 2 litre bottles of seawater home with them whenever they visited the shoreline the seas would decline by the following amount:
    lets say there are 3 billion souls that live near the shoreline. Thats 12 billion litres a day lets say they do this 5 days a week. thats 60 billion a week = 3.12 trillion litres a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. flipper (4,232 comments) says:

    Kennedy Graham.
    Is he more sensible than his brother? One wonders.
    Incidentally, what discipline did he score his phud in?
    It is clear he is just a self important, over inflated lister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    holysheet: of course, turning that into sea level would be more interesting. My guess is < 1mm. Much much less than 1mm.

    Burt: if you had a swimming pool that was used 24×7. And people kept getting in and out of it. Would you still be able to notice that actually, your swimming pool had a slow leak and was losing water? Not saying that I'm a strong believer in catastropic AGW, but I'm annoyed at your lack of scientific method. Ways I can imagine that I could draw useful data:
    – I know there are never fewer than 20 people in the pool. I don't think that people are getting noticeably skinnier. But the minimum water level is a little lower every day
    – the maximum water level in it is now lower than the minimum water level from a few weeks ago

    Sure, it involves some calculations (and extrapolations, and maybe even models), but it can be calculated. The alternative of just saying "too many people getting in and out, no idea what's happening to the water" until the pool is empty would be a bit silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    >They haven’t even read the the story, judging by the comments here

    But I have read the article and even quoted from it. You might like to explain why the sea level was apparently once 30 metres higher than it is today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. burt (8,324 comments) says:

    PaulL

    Sure, but now imagine that the same pool has been around for a few hundred million years and the level has never been constant. Now all of a sudden we decide we know what has caused the variance and how many people have been in and out of the pool and what the ‘mean’ water level was say 10,000 years ago….. we know this clearly enough to predict the future 5,000 years ahead….

    But we still don’t know how many people were either in or out of the pool at any time….

    So, what effect did the North Island being pushed up have on sea level ? Surely it’s just a simple calculation away ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,324 comments) says:

    PaulL

    If you arrived in Wellington now (today) you might conclude looking at the land around the airport that the sea level has recently dropped….. Not fitting the current religion… OK the land went up…. and oh of course the sea level went up as well. Just as well we had pin-point accurate mean land position data to calculate what really happened…. hell without that all we would know is that stuff changes….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    More to the point they actually undermine the whole political-economic-religious project that is AGW.

    Nah you’ve got that backwards. It creates the impression that AGW is a political-econonmic-religious project. Which of course it fundamentally isn’t if you actually know anything about science.

    [Farrar:]Anyone who thinks public policy today should be based on a forecast of what the climate might be in 5,000 years is nuts.

    A half meter rise by 2100 is a worrying thing if you’re Dutch or Bangladeshi. Hey, but only a nutter would give a fuck about them eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > A half meter rise by 2100 is a worrying thing if you’re Dutch or Bangladeshi

    Yeah they’ve only got 88 years to get to higher ground. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Two links you should look at:

    The first on climate change scaremongering in the NZ media, http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2593

    And when that’s done, take a jacksy at the push for Rio 2012 to move closer to a “global governance” structure with powers to enforce global warming laws worldwide, and the “scientists” now openly pushing for such: http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2557

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Billjack (12 comments) says:

    It will be a cold day in hell before the New Zealand Herald is ashamed of anything it or any of its pathetic “journalists” or leader writers has said, not said, done or not done. What a sad, irrelevant rag it has become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. swan (665 comments) says:

    “The hysterical nonsense about increases of 22 metres is forecasting perhaps in 5,000 years time. Anyone who thinks public policy today should be based on a forecast of what the climate might be in 5,000 years is nuts”

    This isn’t hysterical nonsense. The predictions are that with a small increase in global temps we could have large changes in sea level, but it will likely take thousands of years to come about. This is simply objective scientific predictions.

    Who is talking about public policy? When scientists say the Sun will die in 5 billion years, they are not insisting that public policy be formed on this basis.

    OK if these guys are suggesting we make public policy based on this prediction, then yes I would agree that is crazy (my opinion). But presumably people are entitled to have the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. swan (665 comments) says:

    Now I have read the article, I see nothing in there about public policy advocacy. So, what are you talking about DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Sea level rise is happening….

    but its nothing to do with carbon Dioxide or any of that sort of crap.

    Since the end of the last ice age, the Canadian plate and the scadinavian plate have been rising. During the last ice age there were several kilometres of ice covering these areas – and its heavy – and it deformed the surface of the earth downwards.
    As the ice melted, the pressure dropped and these areas started to rise up. They are still doing so – at as much as 15mm a year. The seabed around these areas is also rising.

    Now it doesnt take too much brain power to realise that if these areas are rising – then the water will be displaced and has to go somewhere else – maybe into the pacific and the rest of the atlantic – even around tuvalu possibly.

    AGW – its just a rats arse claim…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    “but I prefer to put credence on the IPCC predictions”, David I doubt the IPCC could give a flying fuck whether you give their predictions credence or not. They want your cash, your credence is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. swan (665 comments) says:

    “However even the IPCC say that the maximum rise in sea levels by 2100 is 59 cm.”

    I cant imagine anyone putting an upper limit on a quantitative scientific prediction like this. I would have thought as a pollster you would have some grasp of statistics and probability DPF?

    “The Herald should be ashamed for saying that the projected increase could “dramatically transform” our coastal boundaries. A change over 1,000 years+ is not dramatic. It’s like saying the separation of Gondwana was dramatic”

    Geologically, 1000 years is the blink of an eye, so it would be dramatic. The break up over Gondwanaland took millions of years. The major extinctions in geological history are generally considered dramatic in terms of the rate of change. That is the timescale we are talking about here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    swan@125

    K Grahams question in parliament. duh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. swan (665 comments) says:

    @ kowtow

    “K Grahams question in parliament. duh.”

    Um, what? Where is that mentioned in DPF’s blog post, or the herald article. DPF appears to be criticising the herald and/or the scientists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    but I prefer to put credence on the IPCC projections.

    Yeah right, Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 35 years…..no sorry that was supposed to be 350 years…….oh, the latest and most comprehensive research is that Himalayan glaciers are not shrinking at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Fox (206 comments) says:

    It’s interesting to note that since global temperatures have basically been flatlining for the last 14 years, the so-called ‘hockeystick graph’, on which GW religion was initially founded, has mysteriously gone missing….

    Most scientists, including the alarmists, freely admit that they’ve only really just begun to scratch the surface in terms of understanding all the factors and processes that infuence the earth’s climate, whether it be atmospheric greenhouse levels, fluctuations in solar output, changes in cloud cover, or the ability of the oceans to absorb co2.

    In this context, what value does a 1000 year climate forecast really have? Or even a 50 or 100 year forecast, for that matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott Chris writes:

    “It creates the impression that AGW is a political-econonmic-religious project. Which of course it fundamentally isn’t if you actually know anything about science.”

    What passes for “science” in the West today is little more than ideological driven propaganda.

    The idea that scientists are neutral, objective and purely rational people bravely standing against ignorance is a myth, and a very useful one to the powers that be.

    As Ian points out in his links what is really driving AGW is not science, but an agenda by power mad liberals and socialists to enforce bigger government, and global government.

    It is all about power and control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. tom hunter (5,095 comments) says:

    Which of course it fundamentally isn’t if you actually know anything about science.

    That did bring a smile to my face.

    Almost as much as when you loftily proclaimed that people should not interpret the US Constitution as a conservative construct against the intentions of it’s “principle author”, Thomas Jefferson.

    You’re funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. emmess (1,433 comments) says:

    > A half meter rise by 2100 is a worrying thing if you’re Dutch or Bangladeshi

    So build a few hundred kilometers of levees. Hardly a big deal. I’m positive the Dutch can handle that and probably the Bangladeshis too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Shit lots of anti science propaganda coming out
    Still ignorance is fun to laugh at
    Did every one enjoy the summer just gone?
    How would you feel if it becomes the norm. You may get to find out will that not be fun.
    Lee01 Science and the bible go together like shit into a sandwich. yum yum.

    Sea level rise of even .5 of a meter will cause problems I for one would not be interested in investment in low lying coastal property particularly in places protected by sand dunes one storm from the right direction coinciding with a spring tide and by by investment. nature gives and nature takes

    The ipcc projections are for some limitation on co2 of course thats not going to happen in till its to late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Griff,

    Your “science” is just propaganda that you blindly follow like a good little liberal sheep.

    Baaa…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Lee01,


    What passes for “science” in the West today is little more than ideological driven propaganda.

    This from the guy who takes cues from a book of fairy tales and believes in the sky father. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Right_Wing_Dad (62 comments) says:

    A half meter rise by 2100 equates to ~5mm per year and shows how an adaptive strategy to any climate change is far more economically rational than the tens of trillions that would need to be spent to (foolishly) attempt to abate the increase. Based on the cost of the Australian ETS, the cost of abating 1°C is $1.5 quadrillion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Even better he actually talks to the sky fairy
    Much more fun to worship a large pile of spaghetti and meatballs at least if you get hungry you can eat your god
    http://www.venganza.org/flash/guidetopastafarianismpreloaded.swf
    You should have a read lee01 you never know you might be touched by his noodley appendage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    Almost as much as when you loftily proclaimed that people should not interpret the US Constitution as a conservative construct against the intentions of it’s “principle author”, Thomas Jefferson.

    Ahh, but the difference is I freely admitted my error on that occasion.

    Apart from which, the Locke inspired Declaration of Independence defines the principles upon which the Constitution is based which was essentially my point in reference to philosophical intent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    “Long-range forecasts are far from certain”……. Dr James Renwick, principal climate scientist at NIWA and alarmist, after admiting that NIWA cannot tell us what the weather is going to like in a few months (or even a few days).

    “When you talk about the future, nobody really knows what’s going to happen, not 100%”…….. Bob McDavitt, spokesman for the MetService after forecasters were so delighted that they predicted a snow storm correctly that they jumped for joy in the snow.

    These dipshits would be better off as Treasury forecasters as they have NO idea what is going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    This is a 2007 projection. Since then some media have quoted extreme claims beyond that, but I prefer to put credence on the IPCC projections. The IPCC process is far from perfect, but they tend to produce reasonably sane figures.

    DPF, I don’t know where to start with that. The catalogue of bogus, fabricated and exaggerated claims from the IPCC is breathtaking.

    For a list of just some of these check out this .

    IPCC’s 2007 Report, used as the ‘Gold Standard’ for climate related alarmism and policy making in respect of taxation and controlling populations, is filled with grey literature and the reports of tribally behaving peers reviewing each other’s evidence gathered in support of a belief.

    Read here about how an army of volunteers poured over this document to check and cross reference every citation.

    One of the more telling stories is related to the IPCC claiming the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035, knowing that claim was bogus, but publishing in their 2007 report. To wit: Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

    The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
    Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
    In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
    ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

    Most of NZ’s prisoners are more trustworthy than the IPCC.

    The head of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri is an outright liar. And they say the fish rots from the head down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “This from the guy who takes cues from a book of fairy tales and believes in the sky father.”

    This from a guy who thinks it is “rational” to discuss letting parents murder their children if they are inconveniant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    This from the guy who takes cues from a book of fairy tales and believes in the sky father

    This from the guy whose elitism suit is worn rather brazenly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. nasska (11,822 comments) says:

    Helmets on….the smiting will get serious soon!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    O/T Just for you nasska: God at his computer :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @Scott Chris – how does your so called “science” explain that sea-level rise acceleration and climate warming has stopped for the better part of the last decade then?

    Its starting to get a bit inconvenient to all the pro-AGW “scientists” out there isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. nasska (11,822 comments) says:

    krazykiwi

    Very good! I’ll definitely keep my eyes open for suspended pianos.

    Just in case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Scott mistakes the opinion of scientists for the data they collect. This is because he knows very little himself and prefers not to have to think about these things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    This from the guy whose elitism suit is worn rather brazenly.
    this from a guy that gets his science from a Donna Laframboise
    …Canada. She runs the website ‘No Frakking Consensus’ and is the creator of noconsensus.org.

    She has a degree in Women’s Studies,
    Way to go big guy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Griff, would you care to set out why you think the crowd sourced analysis of AR4 is faulty? I accept that it’s much easer to slag off the site owner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Cheery picking little mistakes in a body of work similar to IPCC reports is all well and good
    going to a blog site run by a person with a degree in wimins studies is gold :lol:

    Climate change is taken as for all intents and purposes fact by those who study it there is no debate only different views as to the degree
    all the dripple and drawl in the world is not going to disprove climate science only the intelligence of those that get there science from ALT SCIENCE blogs
    Next you will be linking to wanking on with watts or some other piece of anti science crap. why not just admit that you don’t like the proposed fixes rather than attack proven science.

    See my early post as to the weirdo bullshit you anti science nutters come out with Griff (1,721) Says:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Dyslexic dripple dribble

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    So Griff, when the head of the IPCC says that 100% of the report contents are peer reviewed, but it turns out to be a mish-mash of activist writings and cosy tribal-reviewed materials.. This is cherry picking? Ok Griff, whatever …

    I challenge you to do your own research on Pachauri… as you don’t seem to trust anyone else’s views. You’ll find this guy is a fraud. And he oversees the organisation that publishes the gold standard on which your government decides how to tax you.

    As for fixes, I’m happy with fixes if there’s a real problem, and if the fix is the least painful and most enduring way of dealing with the problem. The issue is this ‘problem’ has been sold based on lies, fabrication and deceit. . You might be ok with that. I’m not.

    Oh, and feel free to point out the failings of the crowd-sourced review of AR4. Just when you’re ready.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Fox (206 comments) says:

    See Griff….this is why you and the enitre alarmist lobby have such a major credibility issue.

    You keep claiming to represent the ‘intelligent’ and reasoned side, yet when somebody asks you an entirely reasonable question, or dares question a certain aspect of the ‘science’, all you have in reply is cheap insults and derogatory remarks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    It’s days like these I actually miss Luc Hanson. At least he would debate the science sometimes.
    Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber remind me of John Cleese in the argument clinic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    how does your so called “science” explain that sea-level rise acceleration and climate warming has stopped for the better part of the last decade then?

    The acceleration of the the sea level rise is self explanatory and the apparent plateauing of the rise in global average atmospheric temperature is simply a function of overlaying weather and solar cycles. Apart from which, the atmosphere only holds 2% of the earth’s surface heat content which is illustrated here

    Scott mistakes the opinion of scientists for the data they collect

    Err, no. I simply have faith in the Scientific Method.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    At least he would debate the science sometimes

    What, like you’re doing? Bah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. big bruv (14,165 comments) says:

    People…have you not worked it out yet?

    Only a massive transfer of wealth can stop the sea rising.

    When will you lot learn that it does not matter how much crap is pumped into the atmosphere, for some strange reason the atmosphere and a massive transfer of wealth are linked.

    Now STFU and open your wallets so the scum from the left can tax you more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Manolo (14,082 comments) says:

    When will Key and the National government do their part in the fight against the warmists by ditching the ETS tax?
    Hell will freeze over first. The spineless are as tax-hungry as the other lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    “What, like you’re doing? Bah.”
    Bah indeed. I’ve been having excellent debates lately, since I went elsewhere for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Why do you suggest that I spend the next week rebutting the load of biased crap you linked to its already been rebutted admitted or explained by actual scientist. I am not interested in the contents of IPCC reports or their proposed fixers. The science is interesting also the dynamics and source of the denial lobby.amazing to see the influence that a few oil and coal billionaires can exert on useful idiots
    As to insults hay who started that little game read the previous posts and work that out for your selfs

    entire alarmist lobby

    No the science denial side is a lobby the other side is science
    To call scientific theory an alarmist lobby is just defining the debate as a valid discussion with two equal sides. it is not its ALT science with a keep on burning co2 motive vs science. One founded on lies distortions and half truths the other founded on scientific method and transparent data.
    The alt science lobby is the one using the lies half truths and distortions.

    The world is warming get used to it the repercussions are mostly unknown but will cause many problems in the future not all will be solvable.
    The classic one is rising sea levels The dutch could build more dyke’s thats not going to stop the rise in salinity in the water table would you live in a salt marsh Bangladesh can not afford to build dyke’s that can not even feed themselves

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    So Griff, let me see if I understand you. You’re not interested in IPCC reports or what they recommend, but your’re happy that actual scientists are. You’re saying that anyone who disagrees with or dares challenge the notion of cataclysmic end of civilisation is imminently due to C02.. that these people only hold their views beacuse they’re bribed to by oil and coal billionaires?

    Griff, I was once an ardent warmist. Convinced of the whole greenhouse gas story was signalling a certain, and near end. But I researched, hunted and enquired. The more I looked, the less solid the warmist case became.

    Perhaps you could be a little more enquiring, and little less inclined to spit and hiss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    cataclysmic end of civilisation certain, and near end

    My mouth keep you words out of it they taste like shit. Hiiiiissss spiiiiit :smile:

    KK as I said there will be problems some that will be unsolvable
    I have posted on here before NZ is very fortunate as we are mountainous and have a maritime climate and are in the first world.If you understand the repercussions of even mild climate change 2-3 degrees you would also understand that the consequences are far greater for continental climates.
    Civilization with the application of science will adapt. some places presently inhabited will become uninhabitable some like Canada and Siberia will become more friendly to humans
    The third world will suffer greatly drought flood and sea level change will kill millions. as there are billions of us in the end thats a matter of no real consequence
    There are greater threats to civilization than just climate change and I defiantly do not agree with the socialist bullshit that seeks to cripple western civilizational to the benefit of the less advanced societies. Western civilization is the highest achievement of humanity so far. I do not hold that all humanity is equal. nasty right winger that I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    I had an email exchange today with the Herald journalist who wrote this nonsense:

    This message has been sent via the NZ Herald Website
    ——————————————————
    Alan Wilkinson: “he said it was well-established the sea would rise one metre this century”.

    The guy is a b.s. merchant. Current sea-level rise is 2.8mm per year, constant for the past century, so for the next century it will probably rise 300 mm. Nothing to worry about.
    ——————————————————
    Hi Alan – where did you get the 2.8mm/year figure from?

    Isaac Davison
    Environment Reporter
    The New Zealand Herald
    ——————————————————
    Hi Isaac, From here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Sea_level_rises.html
    “Right now TOPEX/Poseidon has been seeing an average yearly increase of 2.8 millimeters (0.11 inches) in global sea level,” says University of Colorado engineering professor Dr. Steve Nerem, a member of the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 science team.”

    Other sources give similar low estimates: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html

    Regards, Alan
    PS: You can generally find official data sources from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
    ——————————————————
    I’ve found wattsup unreliable in the past.
    I see the site you reference is from 2003 – there’s been some increase since then, and further projected increases:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
    My understanding is that those increases become marked if the ice caps begin to melt.

    Regards, Isaac Davison
    ——————————————————
    Don’t be silly, WattsUpWithThat just provides the links.

    The IPCC report was 2007, the Colorado chart was 2012, the sea level rate of increase has not altered (except to fall over the past two years) since 2003 – as is shown also by the page you linked to.

    The Antarctic icecap has actually grown, not reduced.

    Data trumps theory – and unproven models. Alarmist predictions should be taken with large grains of salt while the data continues to show none of the predicted acceleration is occuring.

    Regards, Alan

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    Scott Chris: “Apart from which, the atmosphere only holds 2% of the earth’s surface heat content which is illustrated here.”

    In which case the sea level rise should have been accelerating due to thermal expansion. Instead it has stalled and even fallen in the last couple of years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    “Don’t be silly, WattsUpWithThat just provides the links”

    You really think that wuwt is a valid source for climate data
    you must be kidding
    he has continuously tried to discredit the data used by nassa hut cru etc
    To the extent that BEST gave him a special mention as in his disbelief in the accuracy of climate records is a load of shit.
    WUWT is a alt science blog no wounder the journalist does not use them for research
    Go to source watch if you doubt this fact

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Alan

    “In which case the sea level rise should have been accelerating due to thermal expansion. Instead it has stalled and even fallen in the last couple of years.”

    But the computer models have shown that the sea levels are will be rising faster.
    What are you going to believe, the computer models or the data?
    And what’s more, Peter Gleick and Phil Jones are real scientists.
    Proper climatologists.
    They would never lie, falsefy or trying to hide anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Fuck you guys talk shit
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
    Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[3] an increase on earlier estimates.[4] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[5]

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

    More recent research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.[44]

    A literature assessment published in 2010 by the US National Research Council described the above IPCC projections as “conservative,” and summarized the results of more recent studies.[12] These projections ranged from 56–200 centimetres (22–79 in), based on the same period as IPCC 4.

    In 2011, Rignot and others projected a rise of 32 centimetres (13 in) by 2050. Their projection included increased contributions from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Use of two completely different approaches reinforced the Rignot projection.[45][46]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Hey Griff, that’d be this Sourcewatch?: http://shillwatch.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/sourcewatchs-left-gatekeeping-spin-on-media-watchdog-groups-expose-funders-of-accuracy-in-media-but-make-no-mention-of-funders-of-fairness-and-accuracy-in-reporting-fair/

    “SourceWatch is a front for the Shumann Center for Media and Democracy, so naturally they will be biased in favor of groups who are also funded by the Shumann Center for Media and Democracy.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    As I understand it, Schumann is tied to George Soros’ Open Society Institute, so relying on Sourcewatch is best left only to the gullible and politically naive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    You hear Alan!
    Absolute you talk absolute sh*t…!

    Like Griff you should quote from proper sources like Wikipedia where Global Warming Activist William Connolley has made sure you get the right information.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Ah….sorry I bothered. I just noticed Griff’s earlier post quoting Wikipedia as an authority on climate change. Sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    Current sea-level rise is 2.8mm per year, constant for the past century, so for the next century it will probably rise 300 mm. Nothing to worry about.

    This statement is factually wrong Alan. This peer reviewed study by Church et al (2008) shows the rate of sea level rise accelerating, simply illustrated here.

    In which case the sea level rise should have been accelerating due to thermal expansion. Instead it has stalled and even fallen in the last couple of years.

    Clearly thermal expansion is occurring. I suggest you find a more reputable and reliable source of information than the politically motivated and methodologically challenged Anthony Watts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Better than being funded by heartlands mystery doner is it not
    source watch is a quick and easy way to check funding or people You of course can do it the hard way
    At the end of the day you must check your sources somehow
    If its science i like to see a university or government research body rather than some alt science blog run out of a suburban garage by a high school drop out or run by a weirdo with a degree in wimins Studies,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Scott…try reading this then:

    RISING SEA LEVELS
    The Claim:
    “I don’t see how the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could survive this century,” wails visiting Chook-in-Chief, NASA’s James Hansen, in the feature. It’s sitting on bedrock 400-500m below sea level, so the entire thing can get into the ocean. There’s about 6-7 metres of sea level [rise] in that ice sheet.”

    But of course, in Hansen’s fantasy world, the West Antarctic Ice sheet is the least of the problems this century:

    “Sea level rise is one problem. Carbon dioxide amounts of 400 ppm (parts per million), expected in 2016 with current emissions, will cause an eventual sea level rise of about 25 metres,” Hansen wrote in a newspaper article last year.

    The Reality:
    If the Arctic and Antarctic were melting catastrophically, as the Listener claims when Laugeson writes “polar ice sheets are melting faster than expected”, you’d expect to see all that extra meltwater causing rising sea levels.

    In reality, the latest satellite measurements show the rate of sea level increase – already small – has slowed down considerably in the past decade – the opposite of what Hansen and others are predicting. In fact, there’s been no sea level increase since around 2006. Nor is sea level rise catastrophic in longer term records.

    To back this up, a just-completed Australian study of Australian and NZ tide gauges has found no evidence of rapidly rising sea levels at all:

    “The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions,” wrote Australian scientist Phil Watson in a 2011 study published in the Journal of Coastal Research.

    “These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.”

    So that’s the latest science on the issue – no massive sea level rise over the past century at all.

    Yet despite real studies of actual tide records like these, mainstream media journalists continue to fall for the slick but untrue marketing hype being fed them by people like Hansen. How else can we explain the Listener’s claim: “New scientific estimates for how much the sea will rise have roughly doubled in the past four years.”

    Really?

    Imagine what it would be like if Listener journalists actually researched stories independently, instead of relying on interviews with climate scientists. If they did, they might find more research, like this:

    “Without sea-level acceleration,” write US Army scientist James Houston and the University of Florida’s R G Dean in another study for the Journal of Coastal Research, “the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise.”

    Take note of that. Sea levels rose an average of 17 centimetres over the past hundred years, so if they are going to rise by one to seven metres in the next ninety years there should be signs of an “acceleration” in sea levels rising. There must be such acceleration, because the Listener tells New Zealanders, “sea level rise may come faster than first thought”.

    What does this next study tell us?

    “To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed.

    “In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations.”

    Decelerations? Not accelerations? More proof, if you need it, that the Listener article on catastrophic rising sea levels is a crock. To add insult to the Listener’s injury the US scientists double checked their findings against worldwide data, and again found “small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.”

    Incidentally, this study found sea level rise in New Zealand decelerating as well. So if the last decade really was the hottest on record, there’s no evidence of it in sea level data.

    from http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2593

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Griff dismisses sites that provides skeptical views on climate change, then says “you guys talk shit” before citing Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Comedy gold.

    Griff, have a read of this [Note I’ve linked to a Google search which shows up >100,000 references… rather than linking to any one site].

    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement

    Who is this William Connolley chap? Well he’s RealClimate.org co-founder, and is or was a Green politician.

    The truth stands in its own merit. Lies need increasing numbers of supporting lies to appear to stand up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    I just noticed Griff’s earlier post quoting Wikipedia as an authority on climate change.

    Wikipedia is no different from any other source of information that provides an interpretation of previous studies on any particular subject.

    If you could find fault with that interpretation, or of the previous studies themselves then maybe you’d have a point, but dismissing Wikipedia offhand without qualification is just sour grapes imo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Yeah, at least 5,428 sour grapes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Griff, your heart is in the right place, but seriously attacking someone because their career degree is different from their other outside interests is not a valid option. I’m betting you don’t have a climate degree either, but on the other hand climate science is only a couple of steps more sophisticated than reading chicken entrails. However, anyone can become informed on science or politics if they choose to read the literature. Donna Laframboise is a skilled analyst whose work is peer-reviewed by thousands, and has not been found wanting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    In reality, the latest satellite measurements show the rate of sea level increase – already small – has slowed down considerably in the past decade

    A period of 10 years is not a reliable measure of a longer term statistical trend. The same argument applies to the apparent hiatus in atmospheric temperature increase. A 30 year period is generally considered the minimum amount of time necessary in order to establish a reliable statistical trend in climate science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    but on the other hand climate science is only a couple of steps more sophisticated than reading chicken entrails

    I don’t think you really believe that. At least I hope not. Kinda thing you’d expect Sarah Palin to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    spin spin cherry pick spin

    El nina= sea level drop in the south pacific
    parts of the usa show a fall the average for the USA almost static

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
    nice graph GLOBAL sea level rise
    Global sea level is rising faster in the last two decades than at any time in the last century. this is confirmed by both tide gage and satellite records
    Fucking alt science retards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    No one is talking about long term statistical trends …. and for a start your comment begs the question by assuming there is some kind of relevant long term statistical trend.

    Fact is that we are told the ice was melting uncontrollably in this past, “hottest” decade. That “faster” ice melt has not made its way into the oceans because the sea level rise is decelerating, not accelerating over the same time period.

    By the way, if you read the East Anglia Climategate emails you’ll find they plucked that “30 year period generally considered” meme out of thin air one afternoon. Phil Jones coughed to that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Griff….you can’t read. The sea level tide guage studies were not affected by La Nina specifically, as they spanned a century and a bit…not just the last couple of years. The satelite and tide guage records are not showing massive increases in sea level rise outside past norms.

    Furthermore, there are a number of studies that indicate thermal expansion resulting from heat transfer in the deep ocean may take hundreds or even a thousand years to manifest, meaning some of our sea level increase may be the result of events set in train during the Medieval Warm Period. In other words, what you are seeing in the oceans today probably has jack squat of nothing to do with how hot it was last year and how much CO2 your uncle’s SUV belched.

    People talk about artificial human reference points like 30 year statistical trends, but a thousand years is an eyeblink in geological time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists

    Heartland Institute pays $5,000 per month stipend to Fred Singer for activites related to global warming denial.

    :LOL:

    A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake “science” designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that “the climate has been cooling just slightly.” Last year, Singer served as a lead author of “Climate Change Reconsidered” — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s scientific authority on global warming. Singer concludes that the unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is “unequivocally good news.” Why? Because “rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.” Small wonder that Heartland’s climate work has long been funded by the likes of Exxon and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife.[27]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Scott, I know this will come as a surprise but the Met Office recommended my acceptance to train as a meteorologist when I left school under the scheme they were running back then, but I chose to accept the entry into journalism instead at the end of the day.

    My comment on climate science was tongue in cheek, but based in the certainty that climate at most scales is a chaotic system where you have to look really hard for underlying factors which generally turn out to be extraterrestrial in ultimate origin as the Earth passes through various medium and long term cycles that drive natural planetary forces.

    There has been so much modern “adjustment” to previously recorded historic temperatures, to make them appear lower to begin with (and hence show the media and gullible public a steeper heat curve over time), not just in NZ but around the world, to make any claims to certain knowledge of the globe’s average temperature a century ago utterly laughable.

    It’s like the Matrix…believers keep taking the pills because it’s easier to believe the men in white coats than it is to get off their chuffs and do some genuinely independent, questioning research.

    At the end of the day, political lobby groups have nailed their colours to this mast because they can see it might reach a critical mass of public acceptance and allow them to wheel in the final solution, a solution that is guaranteed to give those lobbyists power and money.

    Why do you think Soros and co are bankrolling so many climate awareness groups? He’s angling for his family to make billions by being in the right place at the right time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    You may be able to read but you can not think can you
    I posted the sea level graph it says that the global sea level is rising
    published research says that the global sea level is rising faster than in the past.cherry picking ossie nz and the usa is a typical straw man for the alt science nutters
    You deride mainstream scientists and put forward ones paid for by the oil industry as climate experts
    I would not trust a ninety year old to drive me to the shops let alone take their view on something as modern and important as climate change
    This is so funny reading your alt science :lol:
    itil be wanking on with watts soon thats always good for a giggle I did not even bother with lumzden mind you hes distancing himself from you guys now days is int he

    How about loony lord mockenton hes always good for alt science as well come on keep me laughing this is so funny only a little bit sad that someone with your ability believes this rubbish

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    ANd for those interested…this from Air Con (updated edition):

    “CLIMATE VARIABILITY: WE KNOW F*** ALL” *490
    Publicly, the climate scientists present a united front to the world.
    Everything is certainty, everything is doomsday on a popsicle stick.
    Behind the scenes, in their candid moments in the Climategate
    emails however, they can be seen quietly confessing to each other
    that really, they and the UN IPCC know diddly-squat about longer
    term climate trends, as this email from Edward Cook of Lamont-
    Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, to East Anglia’s Keith
    Briffa in September 2003 discloses.
    “Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what

    *490 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356&filename=1062592331.txt

    I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
    show that we can probably say a fair bit about [less than] 100 year variability
    was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we
    know f***-all).”
    On the strength of that “certainty”, the United Nations wants to
    turn the world economy upside down in a massive multi-trillion
    dollar wealth and jobs transfer and social engineering experiment,
    and they want you to believe the scientists know what they’re doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Climategate
    emails

    Nine count them nine independent reviews of the stolen climate gate emails and not one found any misconduct or scientific distortion .

    Heartlands documents were not stolen heartland sent them them selfs Heartland however is being perused by USA tax officials for lying over their chartable status bye bye heartland
    Thats not counting that famous quote “dissuade teachers from teaching science”
    Dont you just love alternative realities
    by the way you will not convert scotty hes just a wee bit politer to you nutters than i am

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Lol Griff, you sure love repeating lies. “dissuade teachers from teaching science” was made up by Gleick, not written by heartland, but “true or not who cares” eh?
    Did you look at the sea level graphs at the link I posted – yep, the CSIRO website, just the same as the link you posted. Wonder why you didn’t choose those ones to post – too inconvenient for you no doubt.

    Mind you, I’m not against Heartland losing ‘charitable’ status. I think that status should be abolished for everyone including religious organisations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > I posted the sea level graph it says that the global sea level is rising

    So, what does that mean exactly? Apparently the sea level was once 30 metres higher than it is today. Why was it so much higher at time when there were no humans on the planet? It makes you think…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    You deride mainstream scientists and put forward ones paid for by the oil industry as climate experts

    Translation: Anyone who supports CAGW is obviously a mainstream scientist. Anyone who does not is obviously paid by the oil industry.

    If I thought for a second you had any genuine interest in the subject of funding of climate view I’d recommend you critique Climate Money, however I rather suspect you’d prefer to slime the author. Much easier. It keeps your world view intact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Richard C (20 comments) says:

    A change over 1,000 years+ is not dramatic. It’s like saying the separation of Gondwana was dramatic

    DF appears to be critiquing his own keyboard.

    Basic comprehension skills would indicate that the original claim is that the end result is dramatically different from the initial conditions, not that the process itself is dramatic.

    Yes David, Gondwana land was dramatically different after separation, in fact, it ceased to exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Joe nova
    Alt science aussie style
    Opened your link and wot do I find
    Gee the hockey stick is wrong because watts wanked on it
    Massive fail BEST killed that load of crap last year when they reviewed the sites listed by wanking watts as suspect, guess wot they found no significant difference as to the rise in temperature from those sites as compared to any other selection of sites.
    As to the sea level rise one minute your claiming that there has been no rise in the last two decades show you a graph that says other wise and wot happens you change the story opps last decade
    Wrong now then posts another graph from the same site and says it shows a fall did he actually read the page he linked to. see the bottom graph it explained the lack of rise in 2010 as I stated earlier el nina effect well known and well documented. wait in till the southern oscillation flips back to el nino and watch the temperature records fall and the sea level rise.

    Alt science Muppets always good for a laugh :lol:
    same old rehashed and well rebutted arguments Yet they still think that 95 % of climate scientists are wrong and a few paid nutters are right.
    Come on guys its Friday I need some more laughs got any more 90 year old scientist or other rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    Griff Says: March 22nd, 2012 at 9:50 pm
    “Don’t be silly, WattsUpWithThat just provides the links”

    You really think that wuwt is a valid source for climate data
    you must be kidding

    Are you a moron? wuwt links to the official data. It is NOT THE SOURCE. Read that ten times until it penetrates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Wanking watts has repeatedly tried to argue that said data is unreliable
    go to berkeleyearth.org/k

    An analysis team led by Anthony Watts has shown that 70% of the USHCN temperature
    stations are ranked in NOAA classification 4 or 5, indicating a temperature
    uncertainties greater than 2C or 5C, respectively. This uncertainty is large compared
    to the analyses of global warming, which estimate the warming of 0.64 ± 0.13 C over
    the period 1956 to 2005. The quality problem suggests that the instruments used to
    measure the warming may not be sufficiently accurate to yield a meaningful number.
    We perform two analyses on the USHCN stations ranked by the team. A simple slope
    analysis shows no statistically significant disparity between stations ranked “OK”
    (NOAA scale of 1, 2, and 3) and stations ranked as “poor” (NOAA scale of 4 and 5). This
    method suffers from uneven sampling of the United States land area, but it illustrates
    important properties of the data. A more detailed temperature reconstruction is then
    performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method. From this analysis we conclude
    that the difference in temperature rate of rise between poor stations and OK stations is
    –0.014 ± 0.028 C per century. The absence of a statistically significant difference
    between the two sets suggests that networks of stations can reliably discern
    temperature trends even when individual stations have large absolute uncertainties.

    Wanking with watts is a well known climate change dienial site if you want real information go to science sites like
    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    @Griff, Don’t blather. You waste your time and breath and look even more stupid. One of the links from wuwt WAS to the nasa site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I said:

    I’d recommend you critique Climate Money, however I rather suspect you’d prefer to slime the author

    And Griff, you replied right on form:

    Joe nova
    Alt science aussie style
    Opened your link and wot do I find
    Gee the hockey stick is wrong because watts wanked on it

    Setting aside your unhealthy obsession with Anthony Watts, I’ve asked a couple of times for critique and debate. Is that too much to ask?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    WuWT
    anti science blog

    You are of course just a other nutter who thinks leading edge science comes out of a suburban garage and is funded by lobbyist from heartland
    The above link and excerpt I posted was science speak for watts is full of shit. Wank on with watts all you like it just makes me laugh harder at all you idiots :LOL:

    Moon cycles and sun cycles influence the weather astrology weather forecasting for weirdos

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Griff, you’re still obsessed with Watts. It’s unhealthy. Now, you are concerned about funding. Prove you have some substance. Critique the paper I linked to
    I’ll help you – Here is a list of references. You can discount #17 on account of your obsession

    References
    1 Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet, see table page 4. http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf.
    2 Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. see page 31, Table 5-2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf.
    3 1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Appendix II page 34.
    4 OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8 and Table 7. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf.
    5 Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009 Budget, p 1. AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf.
    6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
    7 There is No Evidence, David Evans, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/no_evidence.html.
    8 Climate Audit, Hockey Stick Studies page, http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354.
    9 Steve McIntyre, Short Bio. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/stevebio.doc.
    10 Steve McIntyre, comment on Climate Audit. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=592#comment-18195.
    11 Casper and The Jesus Paper, Bishop Hill, http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html.
    12 Corrections To The Mann Et. Al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series, Energy and Environment, Vol 14, No 6, 2003. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf.
    13 McIntyre McKitrick, Critique of MBH98. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf.
    14 Hockey Sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophys Res Letters, Vol 32, 2005 http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf.
    15 The Wegman Report. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf.
    16 Craig Loehl, A 2000 year reconstruction based on non-treering proxies, Energy & Environment Vol 18 No 7+8, 2007 http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025.
    17 About, Watts Up With That: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about/.
    18 Surface Stations Project, http://www.surfacestations.org/.
    19 FY Budget Highlights, NOAA. http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/FY09_Rollout_Materials/NOAA_One_Pager_FINAL.pdf.
    20 Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable? Anthony Watts. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf.
    21 Lindzen wipes hands clean of oil and gas. http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oil-and-gas.
    22 http://www.exxonsecrets.org.
    23 http://www.sourcewatch.org.
    24 http://www.hoggan.com/sustainability/desmogblog/.
    25 http://www.hoggan.com/what_we_do/clients/.
    26 http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets.
    27 Wall St Journal “Climate Of Fear”, April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.
    28 http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets.
    29 Big Sky Sequestration Project, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2008/08059-DOE_Makes_Sequestration_Award.html.
    30 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1.
    31 The Australian: Rudd advertising campaign on climate change cost $13.9 million, 7 Jan 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24883515-11949,00.html.
    32 Exxon = oil, g*dammit!, by Geoff Colvin, Fortune Magazine. April 23 2007. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index2.htm.
    33 http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html.
    34 Environmental Groups Planning to Urge Boycott of Exxon Mobil July 12, 2005. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E4DF133DF931A25754C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&scp=5&sq=Exxon%20skeptic%20climate&st=cse.
    35 Enemy of The Planet, Paul Krugman, April 17, 2006. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407EEDD173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=Exxon%20skeptic%20climate&st=cse.
    36 Are Big Oil and Big Coal Climate Criminals? New York Times, June 23 2008. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/?scp=10&sq=Exxon%20skeptic%20climate%20royal%20society&st=cse.
    37 Letter from Bob Ward of The Royal Society to Exxon, 4 Sept, 2006. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    This is a peer reviewed paper in Geophysical Research Letters
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml

    “Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming under the Representative Concentration Pathways. Repeating our attribution analysis with a second model (CNRM-CM5) gives consistent results, albeit with somewhat larger uncertainties.”

    Settled science? no
    6 deg C rise this century? no

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    KK as I stated i open your link and lo and behold
    Its starting with the hockey stick is lies
    Why read any further when the first thing I read is that?
    Alt science is alt science its like A W instance that wuwt is unbiased its a climate science denial site
    e Ian Wishart hes even worse he is into creationism Same sort of belief as climate denial

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    When one is out of one’s depth, one tries to make big splash to gain attention. Go Griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Griff, you can state this, and state that all you like. But when invited to debate you simply huff and puff.

    This is the stuff that gives climate alarmism (or any other population controlling alarmism) a foothold – too many people having no idea, having no interest in research and no interest in challenging the motives of the ‘educated’ who direct us.

    Science is not served well by this Griff.

    Neither is humanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    Griff, I have a PhD in physical organic chemistry plus 13 years hands-on work in computing statistics. Why would I be interested in your opinions on climate science? And, given the way you “debate”, on anything else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Richard C (20 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (7,567) Says:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Griff, you’re still obsessed with Watts. It’s unhealthy. Now, you are concerned about funding. Prove you have some substance. Critique the paper I linked to
    I’ll help you – Here is a list of references. You can discount #17 on account of your obsession

    blah blah

    And then provides a link to mad Chris Monckton (Never Member House of Lords)’s website.

    What a hoot.

    Almost as bad a link to a Wishart rant.

    You lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Richard, your knowledge of climate could fit on the back of a postage stamp and still leave a square inch of space available…but just keep taking the pills…you’ll be ok

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    My comment on climate science was tongue in cheek, but based in the certainty that climate at most scales is a chaotic system where you have to look really hard for underlying factors which generally turn out to be extraterrestrial in ultimate origin as the Earth passes through various medium and long term cycles that drive natural planetary forces.

    Weather patterns are sensitive to minor variance in initial conditions but climate is not. For instance the correlation between solar irradiance and atmospheric temperature is well known, (if not fully understood) as is the relationship between the Milankovich cycle and climate change.

    And the thing about GHGs is that the effect they have on the earth’s aggregate heat content is really quite simple to quantify. As you’ll know, carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb much energy directly from the sun but what it does do is absorb energy reflected back off the earth, and this is easy to show both theoretically and experimentally. So ultimately it’s simply a matter of calculating the difference between heat in and heat out. The tricky part is measuring where the extra heat has gone and in which part of the huge heat exchange system which comprises the atmosphere, land and ocean the extra heat is temporarily residing. (as well as other factors such as what effect rising humidity will have etc)

    There has been so much modern “adjustment” to previously recorded historic temperatures, to make them appear lower to begin with (and hence show the media and gullible public a steeper heat curve over time), not just in NZ but around the world, to make any claims to certain knowledge of the globe’s average temperature a century ago utterly laughable.

    The proxy temperature record has been revised both up and down, but not as you suggest, for political reasons. The best scientists simply aren’t that amateurish. To the layperson it certainly looks suspicious, but the layperson has no idea how rigorous the peer review system is.

    It’s like the Matrix…believers keep taking the pills because it’s easier to believe the men in white coats than it is to get off their chuffs and do some genuinely independent, questioning research.

    Are you saying there are no dissenters? There are a few, mainly from outside the field of climate science and their position has been slowly eroding from one of complete denial to reluctant acceptance of the very lowest estimates.

    At the end of the day, political lobby groups have nailed their colours to this mast because they can see it might reach a critical mass of public acceptance and allow them to wheel in the final solution, a solution that is guaranteed to give those lobbyists power and money.

    Sure, but that’s simply politics for you. I don’t deny AGW suits the left and the right feel threatened by this, but that in itself doesn’t invalidate the science. That’s just the way things pan out sometimes.

    Why do you think Soros and co are bankrolling so many climate awareness groups? He’s angling for his family to make billions by being in the right place at the right time.

    I don’t buy that argument. If Soros can spot opportunity, then so can all the other players. That’s the nature of the free market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    “The proxy temperature record has been revised both up and down … but the layperson has no idea how rigorous the peer review system is.”

    Don’t be absurd. Jones claims not to even have the raw unadjusted data and is just doing adjustments on adjustments. NIWA has no details on Salinger’s adjustments and has withdrawn the entire NZ national record under pressure of a court challenge.

    Peer review never got anywhere near this stuff. But dwarfing the weakness of the data are the assumptions about cause and feed-backs and the ridiculous politicising and misrepresentation of science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    Jones claims not to even have the raw unadjusted data and is just doing adjustments on adjustments

    But presumably he would employ statisticians to scrutinize the adjustment methodology and to quantify the compounding statistical uncertainty. Believe me, there would be scores of boffins pouring over his research all arguing about the correct error margins according to whichever statistical theory they happen to favour.

    I recently read a brilliant biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Martin Sherwin, which really brought it home to me how much of a collaboration any major science project is. All the scientists were specialists of one sort or another depending on the requirements of the project and Oppenheimer was really just the conductor with the vision.

    I can’t see how climate science would be any different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Scott, if you want to see just how crappy the data is, have a look at this Climategate text, reprinted in Air Con. Apologies for the length DPF but it’s relevant:

    “HARRY – READ ME.TXT”474
    Harry (believed to be CRU’s IT go-to guy Ian ‘Harry’ Harris) was
    a computer programmer tasked with helping compile the world
    temperature database as used by the UN IPCC. Unfortunately, as he
    found, the world temperature data (despite being publicly hailed as
    pristine) was a dog’s breakfast behind closed doors, as these selected
    highlights from his file notations show.
    There were missing data problems:
    “Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud,
    because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again
    (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it.”
    There was bad documentation of what had been done with the
    data in earlier years (who had fiddled with it and why):
    “So.. we don’t have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something).
    But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW,
    UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no
    info about what they are other than their names. And that’s useless..
    take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
    directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
    is that one directory is apparently ‘monthly’ and the other
    ‘annual’ – yet both contain monthly files.”
    On the issue of trying to match temperature computer records
    with what had been previously published as official temperatures
    last century, Harry found:
    474 http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
    The Climategate Caper
    295
    “These are very promising. The vast majority in both cases are
    within 0.5 degrees of the published data. However, there are still
    plenty of values more than a degree out.”
    Given that the UN IPCC is measuring temperatures to 0.1 degrees
    and claims global temperatures rose 0.7°C last century, errors of
    more than a degree don’t provide great confidence for the public
    in the official records.
    After further experimentation, Harry throws his hands in the air,
    hampered by the horrific state of the records:
    “It’s botch after botch after botch…
    “..Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite – the experiment
    endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally
    undocumented so we’ll never know what we lost.”
    Lost?
    So just how good are the weather records?
    “It [the program] wouldn’t work, and on investigating I found
    200-odd stations with zero precipitation [rainfall] for the entire
    1901-2006 period!”
    If you believe 200 locations around the world on the UN database
    received no rainfall in 105 years, you’ll believe anything.
    In the attempt to import US temperature data, there were 210
    “duplicates” where one year’s data had been copied into the system
    twice in place of the real data, meaning exact temperature details
    for those stations in those years were wrong.
    “In fact, on examination the US database record is a poor copy
    of the main database one, it has more missing data and so forth.
    By 1870 they have diverged, so in this case it’s probably OK.. but
    what about the others? I just do not have the time to follow up
    everything. We’ll have to take 210 year-repetitions as ‘one of those
    things’,” complained Harry in his notations.
    “So, uhhhh.. what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam
    are these datasets?!!”
    Remember, you can rest assured that all of this behind the scenes
    angst is irrelevant, because the UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri has
    told reporters that the Climategate documents don’t cast any doubt
    on the data behind global warming at all.
    On further investigation, Harry found even more “duplicates”
    corrupting the temperature data:
    “So 200 duplication events are unique to the older database, and
    air con
    296
    2572 are unique to the new database – with 1809 common to both.
    A quick look at the 2572 ‘new’ ones showed a majority of those with
    the first WMO [World Meteorological Organisation station ID
    code] as -999: this is the key. The databases do not have any records
    with WMO=-999 as far as I know, so something is going on.. With
    huge reluctance, I have dived into ‘anomdtb’ – and already I have
    that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.”
    Soon after, a very chilling revelation about the true state of the
    CRU database:
    “Wrote ‘makedtr.for’ to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin
    [minimum temp] and tmax [figure it out] databases not being kept in
    step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. Am I the first person to attempt
    to get the CRU databases in working order?!!”
    All the way through, Harry is having to write new software and
    “adjust” data to make it fit what his bosses expect to see. And this,
    just to remind you, is the data being used to tell the world that
    global temperatures are rising uncontrollably. This is the data that
    underpins all that “settled science”.
    When Harry moved on to tackle Australia’s temperature station
    records, he found more dismal errors, including temperatures
    wrongly attributed to other cities and locations:
    “..so roughly 100 don’t match. They are mostly altitude discrepancies,
    though there are an alarming number of name mismatches too.”
    When Harry dug deeper, and wrote software to dump stations
    that did not have “normal” data, he got the shock of his life – more
    than 9,000 temperature stations dropped out of the records, and
    only 5,000 remained.
    “I suspect the high percentage lost reflects the influx of modern
    Australian data. Indeed, nearly 3,000 of the 3,500-odd stations with
    missing WMO codes were excluded by this operation. This means
    that, for tmn.0702091139.dtb, 1240 Australian stations were lost,
    leaving only 278.
    “This is just silly. I can’t dump these stations, they are needed to
    potentially match with the bulletin stations.”
    His proposed solutions, however, failed to work:
    “Neither give me results that are anything near reality. FFS.”
    As just one example, he found temperatures being recorded at
    one Australian weather station three decades before it even came
    into existence!
    The Climategate Caper
    297
    “Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn’t
    it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open
    until 1993!”
    Then, a further sideswipe at CRU’s “flagship” temperature calculating
    program:
    “Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship
    gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation –
    apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
    counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly
    how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective –
    since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented
    sufficiently to say that.
    “Confidence in the fidelity of the Australian station in the database
    drastically reduced. Likelihood of invalid merging of Australian
    stations high. Let’s go..
    “I’m quickly realising that the Australian stations are in such a
    state that I’m having to constantly refer to the station descriptions
    on the BOM [Bureau of Meteorology] website, which … takes
    time.. time I don’t have!
    “…Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data.
    so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references..
    so many changes that aren’t documented.”
    Some time later, as Harry begins to check other countries, the
    news is just as bleak:
    “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to
    be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if
    not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and
    one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and
    very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations,
    but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There
    truly is no end in sight.
    “I honestly have no idea what to do here. And there are countless
    others of equal bafflingness.”
    As his desperation gets worse, Harry begins to joke about taking
    shortcuts:
    “It’s not documented, but then, none of the process is so I might
    as well bluff my way into it!
    “So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master
    database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don’t have
    air con
    298
    time – but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into.
    Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable,
    except anecdotally.
    “It’s the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately
    – meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did
    no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it’s restricted to Russia!!
    “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is
    no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )”
    Reduced virtually to tears (he sometimes writes the notation
    *cries* alongside some of the worst offences), Harry ends up having
    to provide false codes to rogue weather stations:
    “You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the
    operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in
    such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database
    of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).
    “False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5
    digits) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a number is found with no
    matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as there is no
    central repository for WMO codes – especially made-up ones – we’ll have
    to chance duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases.”
    “This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master
    stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So
    with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to
    match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations
    (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It
    will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
    become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em,
    and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.”
    You can almost sympathise with Harry when he says:
    “Gotta love the system! Like this is ever going to be a blind bit of
    use… Oh, sod it. It’ll do. I don’t think I can justify spending any
    longer on a dataset, the previous version of which was completely
    wrong (misnamed) and nobody noticed for five years.”
    If you think I’ve been too harsh calling the computer models
    “garbage in/garbage out”, you’ll be interested to know Harry found
    he could only get results comparable to the official published figures
    under certain circumstances:
    “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load
    of garbage!”
    The Climategate Caper
    299
    “OH F*** THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend,
    and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem
    that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no
    uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues
    to grow as they’re found.”
    Harry would, I’m sure, have been delighted that his Climatic
    Research Unit computer system routinely signed off, in true gamerstyle,
    with the words:
    “Thanks for playing! Byeee!”
    Now, here’s the frightening thing. IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri
    has this year vehemently defended the University of East Anglia
    and its datasets:475
    “These scientists are highly reputed professionals, whose contributions
    over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable.
    “It is also a well-established fact that the IPCC relies on datasets
    – not from any single source – but from a number of institutions
    in different parts of the world. Significantly, the datasets from East
    Anglia were totally consistent with those from other institutions, [my
    emphasis] on the basis of which far-reaching and meaningful conclusions
    were reached in the AR4.”
    If CRU’s datasets are the same as the rest of those used by the UN
    IPCC and “totally consistent with” as claimed by Pachauri himself…
    well, you can do the math on how good the UN IPCC science is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, not only did Jones not employ statisticians he bitterly resented Steve McIntyre, who is a highly skilled statistician as are several others that have worked with him on his blog, from attempting to audit what he was doing – and illegally denied him access to the data so that he could do so.

    Yes, science should be done properly and openly. No, climate science wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Richard C – The list of links was the reference table from the Climate Money report. The one Griff steadfastly declines to critique, presumably because his attention is singularly, and disturbingly focused on ‘wanking watts’. Feel free to pick up where Griff won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    alan
    2.8 millimeters
    No 3.1 mm as per the link posetd above
    NIWA has no details on Salinger’s adjustments and has withdrawn the entire NZ national record under pressure of a court challenge. There is no national temperature record And the adjustments are posted on the relevant web sites from your knowledge of this I would guess you are part of the New Zealand climate science coalition. Were does your funding come from care to open the books.
    How the fuck did you do a theses across two separate disciplines of chemistry?
    If you fail to see that wuwt is a denial site you should do a reality check ion your scientific capability

    KK you do not have the luxury of defining wot I do with my time You are just muddying the water by claiming that it is happening just not as great as the IPCC claims. wait for this years IPCC report the estimates will go up. few are reducing carbon due to the denial bullshit and china and india are growing well faster than original allowed for.

    Ian you are a Cristian fundie and should just crawl up your own arse and talk to god better yet hurry up gods process and save the world from yourself. Climate gate has been Independently reviewed due to the pressure applied by your nutjob friends nine times by different bodies both sides of the Atlantic.These found no fault except for reacting to fuckwits like you so drop the cherry picked bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Griff,

    You’re giving the warming cultists a bad name with your rhetoric and insults. Can you just explain why sea levels were once so much higher than they are today when humans weren’t even around? Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Alan Wilkinson (1,901 comments) says:

    Griff, you are an A grade idiot. My last link for your sadly-lacking education:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_organic_chemistry

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Griff, there you go again… parroting the lies of the warmists without any critique. I can’t find 9 independent reviews, but the first three conducted were a complete whitewash. 

    One was commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, and surprise surprise it exonerated the University of East Anglia. 

    The second was commissioned and paid for by Penn State University, the employers of Mike  ‘Hockeystick’ Mann.

    The third supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

    No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. In December 2010, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

    Were these three reviews independent? Of course not.

    It’s impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren’t looking. And you don’t appear to be looking either Griff. You’re just being swept along with the lies. Wake up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    I must admit I am fascinated by the motives of those who continue to attack the reasonably clear scientific consensus around climate change. Just why do they think thousands of scientists worldwide would perpetrate what the ‘skeptics’ consider to be a hoax? I’ve never seen a clear answer to that question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    mm – The clear answer is this: There is money to be earned finding evidence in support of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    kk
    If I can take from that, you buy into a hoax theory right? Do you also believe the moon landings were faked, Egyptians settled New Zealand, homeopathy works, and 9/11 was an inside job?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    mm – you asked for a clear answer. I gave one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    You gave a crazy idea – that thousands of scientists worldwide are being paid to perpetrate a hoax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Mikenmild…scientists working on climate change, and associated hangers on, got to share US$79 billion in grants. The motive is usually money, power and status in virtually all human endeavours, even science.

    When I wrote Air Con, I actually found a large chunk of peer reviewed studies whose data supported skeptic positions, but whose conclusions invariably sang the global warming mantra…after talking to a few scientists I found out that’s how they got the grant money. Smart people who read the data will use it in the way it was intended, whereas those needing scientific “support” for the political aspirations of climate change lobbyists will get that support from the conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    If that is true, then I’m amazed the tobacco industry ever let us find out that smoking is harmful. But your point just leads to another conundrum – why would organizations spend billions to buy off scientists? I’m going to take a wild guess that the answer to that is a worldwide conspiracy to conquer the earth – possibly by reptilian aliens disguised as humans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Nice try MM. If you are a young scientist trying to get funding on a regular basis for new projects, do you go where the money is in the trough your colleagues are feeding in and which is regularly replenished, or do you commit career suicide by trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    mikenmild claims a “reasonably clear scientific consensus around climate change.”

    Yet (to repeat), this is a peer reviewed paper in Geophysical Research Letters
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml

    “Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming under the Representative Concentration Pathways. Repeating our attribution analysis with a second model (CNRM-CM5) gives consistent results, albeit with somewhat larger uncertainties.”

    Again to repeat, the science is not settled.

    And (to repeat again), don’t you guys ever look at the figures showing model scenarios vs observed temperatures and think “oh the observations are much lower than the model forecasts”?
    Because when I look at the model scenarios from IPCC AR4 and compare them with the observations, what I see is that the observations are even below scenario B1 that was based on reduced CO2 emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. hj (7,067 comments) says:

    The scary part here is that David Farrar is a bellwether telling us where National is heading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson (1,044) Says:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 9:09 pm
    A typical load of denial bullshit pulled from Wanking with watts or similar Alt science blogs
    review NIWA 2/2012 http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/review
    ‘Seven-station’ series
    NIWA’s ‘seven-station’ temperature series uses temperature measurements from seven ‘climate stations’. The locations were chosen because they provide a representative geographical spread across NZ and have reliable records dating back at least to the early 1900s. The trend over the past 100 years (1910-2010) is warming of 0.96 ºC.

    ‘Eleven-station’ series
    This series comprises a set of eleven stations spanning New Zealand where there have been no significant site moves for many decades. The data used in this series are raw (unadjusted) – no adjustments are required because the measuring sites have not moved significantly. There is a warming trend over the 77 year period 1931-2008 of close to 1 ºC.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
    “This is disgusting behaviour, a sad travesty of the science that Dunleavy, Leyland, McShane, Gray and their “scientific advisor” Chris De Freitas so loudly claim to hold dear. What’s worse is that De Freitas, at the very least complicit in this arrogantly erroneous document, claims to be a respectable scientist. It’s hard to imagine a more blatant academic faux pas…
    None of these cranks should be accorded any respect in future. By their words shall we know them, and their words show them to be ignorant, bullying fools. De Freitas should withdraw and apologise, or resign from his post at Auckland University, and if Treadgold, Dunleavy, McShane, Leyland,or any other member of the NZ CSC want to partake in public debate on the subject of climate science, they should expect derision to be heaped on them and their views.” As I now do after trying to debate the science with you denialist head cases in the past

    climate gate
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)[1]
    Independent Climate Change Review (UK)
    International Science Assessment Panel(UK)
    Pennsylvania State University] (US) United States Environmental Protection Agency (US)
    Department of Commerce (US)

    Verdict Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges

    In short mr wankingson you are full of shit when it comes to climate science

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    list of eight reviews red by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)

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