Lovelock says global warming slower than predicted

April 24th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

is a well known environmentalist, and has been a loud voice proclaiming that the impact of man made global warming would be massive. In 2006 he said:

billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable

He was referring to the year 2100 – just 88 years away. He said that 80% of the world’s population will have perished due to , and by 2040 parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe, and there will be almost no food grown in Europe.

In 2010 he said “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

He is quoted on the Green Party website 24 times, including blog comments.

MSNBC reports:

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared. …

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

I’ve often said that the “alarmists” are significantly responsible for the huge levels of disbelief in greenhouse gases causing global warming. There is little dispute that increased greenhouse gases has a direct impact on the average temperature, but what is unknown is how other factors either multiply this impact, or reduce it.

Tags: ,

77 Responses to “Lovelock says global warming slower than predicted”

  1. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Oh dear. A trillion dollar taxpayer-funded industry going down in flames. How sad.

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

    At 92 this is probably something of a deathbed confession from Lovelock. He can see the writing on the wall, and none of it bears even a passing resemblance to the apocalyptic future he dreamed of.

    You can read more about the Gaia enviro-religious  cult here. Note the strong connection with UN’s Agenda 21 and Earth Summit events.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Oh shit!

    Cue: The usual (alarmist) suspects in 3…., 2…., 1…… :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pongo (372 comments) says:

    Thank god Key brought in the ETS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Guys of that generation were born in an era when horses & carts were still economic transport, and they saw the advent of radio, TV, a world war, atomic bombs, the moon landings and the internet.

    So I would have more time for the doomsday predictions of someone of that generation, than I would have for a lot of other people’s doomsday predictions.

    But yeah, apparently apocalyptic global warmings in the mirror are not as close as they might have appeared…

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

    Lovelock is a post-modern religious nutbar and an eco-fascist (It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while).
    He and his followers have been wrong every time.
    Wrong again and again and again and again…………

    – There is no catastrophic global warming.
    – There is no linear or accelerating rate of global warming compared with increasing levels of CO2.
    – The Himalayan glaciers are not melting.
    – It still snows in winter.
    – The Arctic Ocean is not ice-free.
    – There is no acceleration in sea level rise.
    – There is little (if any) change in the Ocean temperatures.

    But it will all happen very soon.
    Why don’t you believe it?
    Why don’t you want to hand your sovereignty to the UN and pay your extra taxes to be distributed to the global warming prophets and the deserving such as third world dictators and UN bureaucrats?
    Deniers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    “There is little dispute that increased greenhouse gases has a direct impact on the average temperature”

    There is alot of dispute over this. There is plenty of data that shows it is the other way around — CO2 increases follow temperature increases. But the alarmists coveniently foreget this.

    [DPF: Sorry but no scientist really disputes the direct impact. It is very basic science. The disputes are over the indirect impacts]

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

    There is little dispute that increased greenhouse gases has a direct impact on the average temperature, but what is unknown is how other factors either multiply this impact, or reduce it

    The alarmist have told us ad nausium that increased Co2 will result in catastrophically increased temperatures, increased sea levels, climate refugees, natural disasters and eventual aniliation of the human race. And further that nothing remains unknown, the debate is over, the science is settled and anyone who questions this assertion or, worse, provides contrary evidence should be ostracized or prosecuted.

    All this can apparently be averted by massive global taxation. Never mind the evidence that CAGW is a complete crock.

    Lying, thieving megalomania on the part of a few, preying on the apathy and/or ignorance of the many. 

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

    DPF – you say……
    “…There is little dispute that increased greenhouse gases has a direct impact on the average temperature, but what is unknown is how other factors either multiply this impact, or reduce it….”

    The is a LOT of dispute that increased greenhouse gases have any impact on average temperature. The CO2 thing is still but a theory – there has been no experiment to show that the miniscule influence of CO2 is even measurable compared to the effect of water vapour.

    There is another theory that even more than 100 years laters is still being worked thru. When the early astronomers and physicists worked out the formulae for gravity they thought “Great – now we can measure the mass of the universe. We KNOW that if we know the mass of one heavenly body and its orbit then we can work out the mass of the universe”

    Trouble is it isnt working like that. They cant find enough mass – in the form of stars and planets – to fill the formula. So then they went onto ‘Dark Matter’. And sure there is some out there – but still not enough. Currently they are looking for ‘Dark Energy’ And Im sure they will find some – but there will still be a shortfall.
    From the certain position they had over 100 years ago – its now apparent that the theory they had wasnt actually very good and its taken lots of research to fill the gaps – sorry – some of the gaps.

    Climate will be the same.

    I will send you separately a scan of the cover of Time magazine from April 8 1977 – its says “How to survive the coming ice age – 51 things you can do to make a difference”.

    Of course climate changes all the time – only 40 years ago some of the same people who are now crying ‘Hot wolf’ were then crying ‘Cold wolf’. Dont get sucked in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Australis (101 comments) says:

    What a relief! There will be huge celebrations in the Green Party, and all the others who have been so dreadfully worried.

    It’s well into wind-down time now. The Kyoto Protocol is history. If anything comes from the Durban Platform (very unlikely) it won’t be until 2020. Spain, Germany, etc are closing their renewable subsidy programmes. Solyndra and scores of other ‘clean tech’ start-ups have gone to the wall. The EU won’t be increasing its emission targets.

    No country anywhere is still considering introducing an ETS. Australia’s carbon tax will be gone well before it is due to convert to an ETS. New Zealand, the last loneliest outpost of empire, is the only place on earth about to double its (unique) energy tax.

    The sage James Lovelock has followed the maxim of Maynard Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    David

    I’ve often said that the “alarmists” are significantly responsible for the huge levels of disbelief in greenhouse gases causing global warming.

    I don’t think this is quite right. I think most people accept greenhouse gases are increasing and some mild warming has occurred as a result, and the science on the idea that at least some warming will occur as greenhouse gas concentrations increase is pretty uncontroversial.

    What I think is widely disbelieved is the idea of catastrophic warming, which is a quite different theory that depends on heretofore unobserved strong positive climate feedbacks. There is to my knowledge no evidence in favour of such feedbacks.

    And, by the way, notice the trick that Gore etc use. They take the noncontroversial argument above, that warming is caused by greenhouse gases, and pass that off for non-controversy on the completely different idea of catatrophe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Update: I see David has addressed my point already in the comments. My mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    Correction, if you do a search on google for site:greens.org.nz lovelock, then you get FIFTY TWO results!! (as I doubt any of them are referring to the runner! Although I did a quick look through)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,573 comments) says:

    Ben: I think you are far closer to the mark than most comments here.

    that depends on heretofore unobserved strong positive climate feedbacks. There is to my knowledge no evidence in favour of such feedbacks.

    That could be a dilemma. Is there any way of knowing for sure unless it can actually be observed?

    I presume it would be possible, if evidence exists, to show that gradual increases (or decreases) in temperature have suddenly changed to far more significant changes. But even then, with so many variables, it would be extremely difficult to know at what point in a particular set of circumstances the triggerring would take effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,573 comments) says:

    Also, I wonder if there’s an inclination for some scientists to think that “The Trigger Effect” will occur in their lifetime, just as some people think the Mayan Calendar will end this very year, and some have thought the second coming will happen in just about every year for the past two millenia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    ben…

    “I think a small but vocal minority of people accept greenhouse gases are increasing and some mild warming has occurred as a result that may yet prove to be utterly unconnected, and the science on the idea that at least some warming will occur as greenhouse gas concentrations increase is pretty uncontroversial, if you ask that same, vocal minority.”

    There, fixed that for ya :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    There’s a parallel here with peak oil. I imagined we’d be out on the Lyttelton Heads waiting for the oil tanker and people would be arming themselves against marauders. I did have doubts though as people seem to be able to scratch something together in a scarcity situation. Peak oil though seems to play out like a person with angina: he runs along gets a jab and slows to a walk; feels better gets going and wham-o!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Toad?…..Luc…?

    Where are you guys???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    DPF –your reponse to my comment @ 3.43. It might be a matter of semantics but work done on the Vostok ice core data bought into question as what comes first –temp increases or CO2 increases.
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

    So I repeat my comment that there are disputes about it. ( who is right might be another matter) Also by simple observation –we are told CO2 increases have continued over the past 10-15 years but there has not been corresponding temperature increases which the alarmist models predicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    When i want information on global warming, I aways go to my local property developer. They’re the boys!!
    http://books.google.co.nz/books/about/The_Greatest_Hoax.html?id=Ry7SygAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    The usual scenario here a statement by Lovelock is misinterpreted and the light-weights attack. The heavy artillery* will be along soon to drive them off.

    * Gareth Renowden

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    Even Al Gore doesn’t believe all of the carbon hype now. In 2009 he admitted that CO2 does not cause all of the global warming.

    This is big. Al Gore is now saying carbon dioxide isn’t actually to blame for most of the warming we saw until 2001:

    Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_clears_carbon_dioxide_of_most_blame/

    On top of that, Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange went under in 2010 –

    Global warming-inspired cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies of the past 15 years. But it is dying a quiet death. In a little reported move, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading – the only purpose for which it was founded – this year.

    Although the trading in carbon emissions credits was voluntary, the CCX was intended to be the hub of the mandatory carbon trading established by a cap-and-trade law, like the Waxman-Markey scheme passed by the House in June 2009.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252703/rip-al-gores-chicago-climate-exchange-has-died-greg-pollowitz

    If even the Godfather of Climate Change does not believe carbon is totally the cause, why should we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    hj, you mean that renowned truffle grower and MA will teach us true science?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. billr (21 comments) says:

    hello. I just laugh when I hear the self congratulary denialist support that you’re all giving each other.

    The simple fact is that CO2 output is going up, see this to have it confirmed: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/2011-temperature-roundup, where you will find graphs that show when the current downward pressure from el Nino, aerosols, and solar variations are removed, it’s all going up.

    Sure the last 15 years have plateaued but they also contain ten of the hottest years since records began. It’s very likely that the sun will come out of it’s 11 year ‘cooler’ period this year. We could be in for a rocky ride.

    This is the graph of the adjusted data with the sun output, el nino and aerosols removed.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/adjusted.jpg

    I can’t paste images in here.

    I hope that you find this of interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    billr, is el Nino a forcing or not? If it is, then we don’t know how what drives it so Tamino’s analysis is just hind-casting without predictive value. If it isn’t, then it is invalid to use it as a temperature offset.

    Likewise, chances are that the sun will not oblige you with activity for some time. I think it is the alarmists who are in for a rocky ride. And so long as we keep burning lots of coal the aerosols will keep cooling us. So tamino’s theoretical warming may remain his impious hope while the happy old world keeps turning at much the same temperature as it has been for decades.

    And by the time there is any real warming we will know a lot more about how it works and how we can manage it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    I might consider the alarmists positions if the redistribution of wealth was off the table.
    As long as it is there, Global warming is not a science but political control via alarmed science daat that is being shaped by people and organisations for their purposes.

    I note that some alarmists are now calling for sanctions and penalties against deniers when GW is proven!
    I think that is a great idea and look forward to the reverse happening to them.

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

    @billr

    Another ‘green’ activist?
    Calling people who don’t ‘tow the line’ deniers?
    Why deniers bill?
    Like holocaust deniers, extreme right wingers?
    Sounds a bit desperate and over the top.

    By the way, you sound a bit like one of those ‘deniers’.
    Remember the IPCC mantra?
    “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.”
    So anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of global warming.
    The problem is of course that according to the computer models the global temperature should have been rising more than twice what it actually has.

    The sceptics agree that global warming is real but anthropogenic CO2 has little to do with it.
    The data shows there is no accelerating rate of global warming, not even a linear rate when compared with rising CO2 levels.

    You now concede that natural climate cycles (El Nino) and the Sun affects the climate?
    You sound like a heretic.

    This is what causes climate change….

    11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
    21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
    41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
    100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

    This in turn effects:

    Heat retention and Solar reflectivity. Resulting in the seasons, changing ocean currents, quasiperiodic climate patterns, cloud formation, the disappearance and formation of glaciers and ice formation.

    And you call us deniers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Environmentalism, like socialism, is just another branch of pessimism.

    The politics of pessimism has been very costly, but at least one 92 year old serial exaggerator has the courage to admit he got it wrong.

    The ghost of Thomas Malthus might care to do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Morning Mr Ansell.

    Well done on Close up last night, it is about time somebody stood up to the politically correct brown racists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    In fact, when have the pessimists ever been right?

    Even against the handbrake of pessimist politics, the optimist problem-solving geniuses at the other end of the human spectrum ensure that our species continues to accelerate.

    When we encounter a problem, we fix it.

    Hundreds of years ago, the Dutch had a little water problem. They fixed it with dykes.

    By 2100, Bangladeshis will be as rich as today’s Dutch.

    If the warm-mongers’ predictions of massively rising tides should buck the trend and actually be correct, then the Bangladeshis of 2100 will find a way to fix the problem.

    We should not be wasting precious money trying to fix a non-problem now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. billr (21 comments) says:

    hello y’all

    that got you all frothing at the mouth didn’t it.

    Tamino, for those who don’t know, is a statistician. The page that he wrote is based on a paper written by Foster and Rahmsdorf, you can find it here, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf, he extended it to cover 2011.

    heres the summary.

    We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

    to answer a point made by Alan Wilkinison, el nino, is weather. see above.

    as for the other andy who writes thus

    11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
    21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
    41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
    100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

    the above is all true, but is a mere piss in the ocean compared to the heating caused by the excess CO2 that humans are pumping out.

    he also makes comments about computer models not matching reality, this is patently wrong, have a look at this one site for example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm, there are more if you would only care to look.

    anyway, you are all arguing as if this was a political debate: it’s not.

    here’s some more things to consider, http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

    also that, http://hot-topic.co.nz/down-by-the-seaside/, This year’s NZ Climate Change Centre conference, to be held at Te Papa in Wellington next month, focusses on sea level rise, and how communities can adapt to the inevitable encroachment of the ocean. The organisers have laid on some excellent speakers, include Aussie oceanographer and sea level expert John Church, as well as many directly involved with the issues raised by sea level rise in New Zealand.

    why don’t some of you go to that and try your luck there!

    as for the other andy, is accusing someone of being green meant to be an insult? why do you assume such a thing? does one have to be green to have a care and concern for such matters? I don’t think so.

    I don’t expect any of you to read any of the links i’ve posted as you are so all utterly convinced you are right, and like those of faith, unnerring in their devotion to the unbeliveable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    harawira pretty much ‘had’ you..eh ansell..?

    ..time and time again..

    watch it and cringe..

    http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/race-debate-ansell-harawira-godfrey-video-4849501

    are you sure you aren’t redbaiter..?..you sure do talk like him..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Billr…

    Tamino, for those who don’t know, is a statistician

    And he’s not a physicist either! I can probably coach Tamino on the shortfall/weaknesses of statistical algorithms because the guy simply uses numerical software tools. Yep, tools that have been developed for users like him by those who understand numerical algorithms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,573 comments) says:

    billr – thanks for that, some interesting stuff on what is very much a work in progress.

    There’s a devout bunch of religio-politicos here who are very vocal, and proclaim every anomaly posted on any blog proves their own absolute position. But there are many more that read and stay mostly quiet. It’s easier to do that and avoid yet another round of name calling and futile slanging.

    Extensive science will continue to try and determine how much humans have an significant effect on the planet’s environment. Degree, timeframe and reversibility are the only real arguments. Except that we can’t do much to reverse released emissions back to stored hydrocarbons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Billr, did you read the paper of Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf which you enthusiastically cited above? If you have, did you pay close attention to the statistical algorithm/method that they used?

    They used ARMA. They treated the noise as an AR(1), ie, auto-regression of order 1 and also they treated the underlying process that has driven the global temperature oscillation/fluctuation, as an ARMA(1,1), ie, auto-regression of order 1 and moving average of order 1. They didn’t explain why they chose those parameters, which to any one who knows time-series & signal processing analysis, Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf’s chosen parameters looked simply like a guesswork. This means that the mechanisms that driven the process could have been an ARMA(1,2), ARMA(1,3), ARMA(2,1), ARMA(2,2) process and so forth. They simply picked ARMA(1,1) out of many parameter-spaces and assumed that the underlying physical process/es that has driven the the global temperature fluctuations.

    Besides, the signal/statistical argument I have stated above. ARMA is a linear process. Climate system is a non-linear process, so one cannot apply a linear method to a non-linear system. ARMA is known for its inaccuracy when applied to complex system as climate. Just ask any economists/financial-analysts if she/he had made money on the stock market by using ARMA to forecast and do trend-analysis. Here’s what you expect to hear. They will tell you that you can probably toss a coin and come up with the same predictive capability that an ARMA model tells you. In short, ARMA is pretty useless if one tries to apply it to model complex system be it biological system, climate system, economic system, etc…

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

    It should probably be remembered that we are a small island nation in the south Pacific whose total emissions are only a fraction of what the world emits each year. If the world is going to seriously do something about climate change, it needs to be a GLOBAL effort. No point in busting our boiler trying to clean the mess up, only to see a much bigger polluter – China, India, U.S., Russia among others – wipe it out with their ineptitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    I think this is a religious debate.

    billr: Will the NZ Climate Centre conference be the usual Te Papa eco-socialist echo chamber, or will sceptics be invited to present their side?

    Your answer will determine whether it will be worth my while attending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    big bruv – thanks.

    philu – appreciate your giving people the link. Let’s see if they agree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Billr, if El Nino is weather then it is a response to other forcings and therefore a negative feedback which can be expected to continue. As will generation of aerosols by burning fossil fuels.

    Therefore Foster’s theoretical warming will not happen as it ignores the real negative feedbacks that operate. And I was already familiar with Foster’s claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. wreck1080 (3,918 comments) says:

    92? I’d say cognitive function is declining fairly rapidly by 92.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. andretti (130 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link Phool.
    ansell IMO came across as resonable and sane.Hone as always came across as the radical that he is.
    I read your post the other day Phool about you thinking George W flattened the WTC,best laugh I have had for a while,im sorry but the drugs have simply fucked your little brain,i hated reading your previous posts with all the ./,** in them but now cant wait to read the complete crap that you are capable of coming out with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. billr (21 comments) says:

    hello

    john Ansell: this is not a religious debate, it’s originally science, which has been taken up by people who don’t like the consequences of the science, ie. changes are coming that they don’t fancy as they percieve that it impinges on their ability to do stuff. So what they do, rather than determine a way through to resolve or mitigate the consquences, they attack the science as if it is some political cheap points scoring game – it’s not. What’s stopping you going to the te papa thing? I don’t know how to obtain tickets, if i had the time i would go myself. No one’s stopping you.

    to alan wilkninson, what i have read of el nino/la ninia it has to do with temperature being raised/lowered above normal for three months, or rather that an el nino/la ninia phase has occurred when this happens for three months at a time. Here’s an interesting link by John Nielsen-Gammon who is the Texas State Climatologist and a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/04/24/the-lack-of-recent-warming-canard-no-cigar-but-thanks-for-playing/

    he’s charted the recent el nino/la nina temps over the past few years, they’re all pointing one way, upper right quadrant, in fact this recent el nino is the warmest on record. here’s his closing para:

    But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

    So, Falafulu Fisi, if you think that you are so right, and Foster and Rahmstorf so wrong [it also appears that Foster is Tamino, google is your friend remember] then why don’t you take it up with them directly? You can email them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Billr, your problem is that you act like 14 year old virgin girl. Your uninformed virgin mind, was violated by Tamino’s simpleton auto-regression analysis and you simply fell in love with it. I bet that you don’t have a background in science? Now, be careful not to just stormed into a crowd (like you do here) and start acting as if you know because you don’t know if the crowd has got science/physics PhD qualified people in there.

    I had debated with the warmists at RealClimate including Gavin Schmidt, Tamino, et al a few years back on exactly the same topic (even though not on the paper you cited) of auto-regression. I was banned for calling Gavin Schmidt a blind faith in taking the AR(1) process without explaining why order 1 and not order 2, 3, 4, etc… I pointed out to Prof. Schmidt that he was simply guessing because he simply assumed that it was AR(1) from the beginning, with no justification given. He in fact learnt something from me. I told him that had he used System Identification (or SysId for short), then he would have come up with a different order, based on BIC (Bayesian information criterion) fitness model identification. It turned out that none of RealClimate professors had head of SysID?

    Anyway the debate at RealClimate involved skeptic’s paper at the time, Dr. Stephen Schwartz on:

    Stephen Schwartz on climate sensitivity

    The warmists at RealClimate attacked Dr. Schwartz’s paper and I went in there to defend it. Their attack was based on using an AR(1) model of theirs which they used to dismiss Schwart’s work based on their model. I have pointed out that their analysis was not only wrong, but inappropriate. I told Prof. Gavin Schmidt that he (& his authors) are blind believers in statistics and I was banned. I’ve never been back there since.

    Again, if the AR or ARMA model shows an increasing trend, then it doesn’t show tell one, whats’ the cause? AR and ARMA model is not a causal model, since it is not based on physics, its pure statistics. Do you understand the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I said…
    had head of SysID?

    meant to say…

    had heard of SysID?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Matthew Hooton (131 comments) says:

    Lovelock, Gore and the Greens are absolute nut cases and/or liars on this issue.

    Even the UN’s IPCC (hardly an impartial body on this issue) says that the MAXIMUM sea level rise it thinks will happen by 2100 is 59cm over 2000 levels. That is less the two school rulers. The IPCC says the rise may be as little as 18cm, so that is a midpoint of 38.5cm. See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html#table-spm-1 What’s more, in every IPCC Assessment Report since 1990, the sea-level rise forecasts have fallen and it is expected they will fall again when the next IPCC report comes out in a couple of years.

    Of course, a 59cm sea-level rise would no doubt be very bad news for the Maldives and Tuavlu but the vast majority of the world, including NZ, wouldn’t even notice (especially as this happens over 100 years, or 5mm a year!) Never has there been so much passion over something so irrelevant, one way or the other.

    It is disgusting that greenies would call people “deniers” for making the case there is no need to panic over the issue, when they deny what even their own precious IPCC has to say.

    From personal experience, the greenie commentators attacked me as being part of, for example, being part of an “agenda of denial … not backed up by evidence” when I quoted the IPCC reports in a recent NBR column at http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sanity-prevail-climate-change-policy-115955

    And, of course, the ETS is completely loony. It is interesting, though, and welcome, that DPF now seems to be changing his position on these issues after being an ETS supporter when Nick Smith was Climate Change Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. billr (21 comments) says:

    Hello again falafulu Fisi, nice of you to stoop to the insults so quickly. So what you are saying is that you also insulted the people on Realclimate and they kicked your arse?

    do you deny then that there is global warming? and that it is caused by man’s consumption of fossil fuels, a straight yes or no will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Matthew Hooton (131 comments) says:

    billr

    Questions for you:

    1. do you think the IPCC forecasts here are wrong: See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html#table-spm-1

    2. Will the Te Papa conference discussions you mention be based on these forecasts or on other ones?

    3. If the conference discussions will be based on other forecasts, what happened to the “global scientific consensus”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    billr, global warming isn’t something you believe in (if you are a scientist). It is something you measure. There are a variety of ways of attempting to measure it. (Since it is a global average it is a statistic not a direct observable.) The results show a range of behaviours in which some decades warm, some don’t and some even cool.

    I don’t know what you believe, nor do I care. I only care about facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Billr, there is warming that’s caused by man’s activities (CO2 emission), even skeptics like Prof. Richard Lindzen and others agree. The disagreement is whether man is the main culprit or not. Most skeptics including myself, because that we (man) is not the main culprit even though we do contribute to the warming of the atmosphere. I deny that man is the culprit something else is.

    Take a look at the following paper by skeptic Dr. Nicola Scafetta:

    Testing an astronomically-based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models

    Pay attention to his model/s on reconstruction and prediction of global temperature. It trumped all the IPCC various models.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    do you deny then that there is global warming? and that it is caused by man’s consumption of fossil fuels, a straight yes or no will do.

    Global warming? Hmmm, maybe
    Caused by man? No. I do not believe that.

    Check out the Global Warming Primer from National Center for Policy Analysis.
    http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

    * Greenhouse gases make up 1% – 2% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
    * Of that 1 or 2% of “Greenhouse gas”, 95% is water vapour, and about 3.62% is CO2
    * Of that 3.62% that is CO2, humans cause approx 3.4%
    * So, the total human contribution of CO2 is approx 0.28%

    In other words, negligible. It wouldn’t matter if we were here or not. The carbon trading thing is a huge scam.

    *

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,573 comments) says:

    Fletch – I presume you know National Center for Policy Analysis is a free market “think tank”? Funded by private foundations established by wealthy conservative business families.

    Science is not their primary aim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    April 25th, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Conoco plays down plans to expand Gladstone LNG

    by: Matt Chambers
    From: The Australian
    April 25, 2012 11:49AM

    A SECOND oil major has toned down its Gladstone LNG expansion plans, with ConocoPhillips now saying it may not expand beyond two trains already expected to go ahead at the site.

    Conoco, who with partner Origin has previously flagged a four-train project at their Australia Pacific LNG project, told US investors it was unsure if building a third train was the way to go.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/conoco-plays-down-plans-to-expand-gladstone-lng/story-e6frg9df-1226337898611
    Too much oil being found to justify gas trains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Pete – so what’s the primary aim of all the institutions who’s non-private funding is dependent on them agreeing with the government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    Pete, this is the data the NCPA references.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    You can see that in order to artificially increase the amount of CO2 present in “greenhouse gas”, the official researchers rather deceitfully leave out water vapour (a key component in greenhouse gas). You can see tables of data with and without taking water vapour into account.

    When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

    From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

    Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

    Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

    Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. billr (21 comments) says:

    fletch

    you merely echo the point that i made earlier, you don’t like the ‘cures’ to the problem, so you attack the science, and you clearly demonstrate that with you one liner on carbon trading. we should be getting on the programme now, trying to work out ways to ameliorate the distress that is coming our way, and if we start now, then it will be easier. If we don’t it wont.

    It does not matter that greenhouse gasses are 1 or 2 percent of the atmosphere, that has nothing to do with it, it’s not a proportional game.

    here’s a light heared look at this myth that CO2 is a trace gas. http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2_is_a_trace_gas.html

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

    [Q1] do you deny then that there is global warming? and [Q2] that it is caused by man’s consumption of fossil fuels, a straight yes or no will do.

    Q1: The earth’s climate has warmed and cooled for eons. It has been warmer than today with lower Co2, and cooler with higher C02. The MWP and LIA were global events, well recorded in modern history. Care to hazard a guess at anthropogenic C02 emissions then?

    Q2: Yes, I deny that assertion

    Separately, have you done any research on solar cycles c.f. the Maunder Minimum? The National Astronomical Observatory Of Japan suggest that World May Be Entering Period Of Global Cooling after detail and peer reviewed analysis of historical solar cycles. It makes interesting reading.

    billr, You’ve been duped. Pure, simple, and probably a tad humiliating. I guess there are millions like you, and it’s going to be interesting to watch the psychosocial consequences for you all as the Church of Climatology disintegrates

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    billr, I’m saying, that our human contribution is so small, that whatever we do to ameliorate what we consider to be a problem will have no effect whatsoever on the climate, and we are foolish if we think it will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,573 comments) says:

    Fletch: I’m saying, that our human contribution is so small

    With what degree of certainty do you say that? There is far more scientific research saying otherwise, do you regard all that as worthless?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    Pete, according to whom? The so-called scientists that the IPCC employ? Many of whom are trainees and never wrote a paper before being employed to write on the climate?

    The former president of a Commission on Sea Level Change, Nils-Axel Mörner, also addressed the House of Lords committee. Mörner, who has 40 years experience in his field, called attention to the disparity between what genuine sea level specialists think and what those who write IPCC reports believe. Those in the second group, he says, lack hands-on expertise.

    Instead, they attempt to predict the future via mathematical formulas that have been fed into computers (computer modeling). Mörner told the House of Lords that, between 1999 and 2003, genuine sea level experts held five international meetings to discuss the available real-world evidence. They concluded that sea levels are unlikely to increase by more than 10 cm (4 inches) by the year 2100.

    Mörner says the claim that sea levels are rising quickly – or that entire island nations are in imminent danger of drowning – are simply not true. Dr. Gray, the hurricane specialist, resides in America. Dr. Reiter, the malaria expert, works at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Dr. Mörner is the former head of a geodynamics unit at the University of Stockholm, in Sweden. Each of them possesses highly specialized knowledge. Each of them is a seasoned professional with long experience in his field. They are, in other words, exactly the kind of people you’d expect to find at the heart of an organization comprised of world-class scientists examining one of the planet’s most important questions. But they are all IPCC outsiders. This suggests the IPCC defines top scientists and best experts differently than do most of us.

    ——————-

    So if malaria experts aren’t writing the section on malaria in the Climate Bible and world-renowned sea level experts aren’t writing the section on sea levels, who is writing IPCC reports? One group consists of graduate students. Typically these are individuals in their twenties.

    Their experience of the world is neither broad nor deep. If they were merely performing administrative tasks that would be one thing. But the IPCC has long relied on their expert judgment. Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example.

    In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. (The IPCC has three classes of writers. Coordinating lead authors are in charge of an entire chapter and are therefore the most senior in rank. Each chapter usually has two. Lead authors are expected to write a significant amount of text. Their numbers vary from a handful to several dozen. Contributing authors provide supplemental knowledge.

    They typically don’t participate in the meetings attended by the other two kinds of authors, but are asked to write briefly about a narrow, specific topic. A chapter may have no contributing authors or as many as 20 of them.) Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts. [footnote 4-1] Nor is he an isolated case.

    Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD. Who else falls into this category?

    Step forward Lisa Alexander. As recently as 2008, this woman was a research assistant at Australia’s Monash University. After earning her PhD in 2009, she was hired by another Aussie university – which noted in its announcement that she had already “played a key role” in both the 2001 and 2007 editions of the Climate Bible. (She was a contributing author the first time, and a lead author the second.) The IPCC selected its 2001 authors during 1999. This means its leadership decided that Alexander was a world-class expert 10 years before she, too, had earned her doctorate.

    Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 – 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published – Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once – all long before she’d completed her PhD.

    One of Kovats’ health chapter colleagues was an American named Jonathan Patz. He earned earned a Masters degree in Public Health in 1992 and had his first academic paper published in late 1995. Yet in 1994 the IPCC judged his credentials so impressive he was appointed one of its lead Given the involvement of both Kovats and Patz, Paul Reiter’s description of the IPCC’s 1995 health chapter as amateurish starts to make sense. Rather than recruiting real experts like Reiter the IPCC enlisted young, inexperienced, non-experts instead. It has been doing so since the mid-1990s. Yet in 2011 newspapers still report that the IPCC is a collection of “the world’s leading scientists.”

    Laframboise, Donna (2011-10-09). The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (pp. 10-12). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition.

    I thought it OK to present this except, as it is available to see at Amazon.com, utilizing the “look inside” feature.

    http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1335337616&sr=8-2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Fletch: thought experiment for you. I have a bucket. It holds 8 liters of water. I have a tap dripping into it, it adds 1 litre an hour. I have a small hole in it, that hole drains 1 litre an hour when the bucket is half full (when the bucket is a bit more full, it drains a bit faster due to extra pressure).

    Someone walks past, and they change the tap very very slightly. It now drips 1.0000001 litres per hour. Over a year, my bucket gets more full. Did the person adjusting the tap cause the bucket to be more full? Because the extra water they put in is only .00001% of the total.

    See if you can follow the analogy.

    I don’t believe in catestrophic global warming, but I do believe man has both increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the increase has increased global temperatures. But my simple logic (I’ve actually done some research, and nothing I saw changed my mind) is that the climate has a lot of natural variability, over which a long-term trend lays. So if things getting warmer led to run-away warming, then it would have happened in the past. And it didn’t. But interestingly, the climate is quite susceptable to cooling – ice ages are common step-changes in temperature. My simplistic interpretation is that the world broadly has two stable states – one around the temp we are now, another where there’s lots of ice reflecting heat back into space, and presumably a lot less moisture in the air. I know which one of those two stable states I prefer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    PaulL, according to Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, the Earth is more or less self regulating as far as temperature, because of the oceans, etc, and the temp cannot ever get too high because of this “Miskolczi Constant”.

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”

    “Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.”

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate#ixzz1t2WqVaKh

    Go to the link above and check it out, and read the papers there.
    No one has come forward able to disprove the theory…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. billr (21 comments) says:

    krazykiwi

    here’s what you said.

    Q1: The earth’s climate has warmed and cooled for eons. It has been warmer than today with lower Co2, and cooler with higher C02.

    that’s all very true.

    The MWP and LIA were global events, well recorded in modern history. Care to hazard a guess at anthropogenic C02 emissions then?

    The MWP was not global.

    Q2: Yes, I deny that assertion

    Separately, have you done any research on solar cycles c.f. the Maunder Minimum? The National Astronomical Observatory Of Japan suggest that World May Be Entering Period Of Global Cooling after detail and peer reviewed analysis of historical solar cycles. It makes interesting reading.

    the simple thing is this, all of the ‘normal forcing’ orbital change, solar maxima, volacnoes etc. are all still there, and they still have an effect, however, it is so trivial compared to the effect that CO2 is having to render it meaningless. take for example the last ten years or so. the hottest on record, but they have plateaued, why? lower sun output, el nino etc.

    billr, You’ve been duped. Pure, simple, and probably a tad humiliating. I guess there are millions like you, and it’s going to be interesting to watch the psychosocial consequences for you all as the Church of Climatology disintegrates

    pure spin, nothing else, there is far too much credible science around AGW, it’s been tested, flora and fauna are moving changing their patterns, ask gardeners, the seasons are coming earlier. it’s all there for those that can see.

    Also, Fletch asks about the scientists that the IPCC employs. they don’t. the IPCC takes research as it exists and brings it together.

    you are all taking this the wrong way. as i said before you see it as a political game, it’s not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    billr, the IPCC chooses which authors to write for it’s so-called climate bible. They ignore research and opinions of experts in their fields who do not subscribe to the theory of global warming.

    It is not a matter (as I think you believe) where they take all available research and extrapolate their theories from that – far from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. billr (21 comments) says:

    Fletch, you’re wrong: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Skeptical_IPCC_Contributors

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

    The MWP was not global.

    I’ve provided a reference to a peer reviewed study that shows the LIA amd MWP were global events. Feel free to provided suitable evidence to the contrary. Remember, people who felt that the MWP was a bit inconvenient to the religion of Climatology thought it was ok to completely expunge its existence from Wikipedia. I wonder why that was? Any ideas billr?

    Simple thing is this, all of the ‘normal forcing’ orbital change, solar maxima, volacnoes etc. are all still there, and they still have an effect, however, it is so trivial compared to the effect that CO2 is having to render it meaningless.

    Trivial [so as] to render meaningless?!?! How do you explain how the LIA and the  MWP, which in the total absence of anthropogenic C0, showed both warmer and cooler temperatures than we experience today? How his that meaningless?

    You have been duped. That’s not spin. It’s fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    billr, no I’m not.

    No one even knows who most of these authors are, or why they are chosen. All that is given out is the name of the country they are from. Known contributors are activists from Greenpease, the WWF, etc etc… The IPCC has made a point of selecting contributors from every country, although some admit they do not know what they are doing. They also make a point to be politically correct and choose the right amount of women (they are based at the U.N of course).

    In early 2010, when more than 250 US scientists signed an open letter defending the IPCC, the letter declared: “We conclude that the IPCC procedures are transparent and thorough…” But there’s the party line and then there are the experiences of real people. The person whose remarks begin on page three of the collected [questionnaire on the IPCC website] answers is not an IPCC novice. He or she has been a contributing author, a lead author, and even a coordinating lead author. Yet, when asked to comment on how the IPCC selects its lead authors, this person says: “I’m not clear how this actually happens…”

    As it turns out, such confusion is widespread among IPCC insiders. In answering this question these people used words such as mysterious, closed-door, and black box. They said things like:

    Selection of lead authors in my view is the most important decision in the IPCC process, and it is not transparent. (p. 185)
    After being [either a lead author or a coordinating lead author] several times, I still have no idea how I was selected. This is unacceptable. (p. 180)
    It has always been unclear how this has been undertaken… (p. 126)

    None of this makes the IPCC look good. Doing a poor job of explaining how things work isn’t a crime. Many large organizations no doubt do this equally badly. The problem is that the IPCC told us this was a yardstick by which its credibility should be judged. Again and again, we’ve been told it excels at transparency. But it does not. In fact, Climate Bible authors are chosen via a secretive process.

    First, the IPCC receives nominations from governments – but it declines to make public the names of these nominees. Second, the IPCC fails to explain what selection criteria it uses. Third, when it announces who has been chosen, the only piece of information it feels obliged to provide is the name of the country the author represents. [footnote 8-1]

    In what other context, when a hiring announcement is made, is a person’s nationality announced yet no mention is made of their specific credentials? We know that authors’ resumes are submitted as part of the nomination process – but they are then locked in a drawer. It would be easy for the IPCC to post these resumes on its website, but it chooses not to. In other words, an organization that claims to be utterly transparent expects us to simply take it on faith that the most qualified people were nominated and selected. Moreover, it feels no obligation to provide the slightest bit of evidence that those who got the job are, in fact, experts.

    Laframboise, Donna (2011-10-09). The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (pp. 27-28). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. alephnaught (18 comments) says:

    Man, what is with this blog and people calling anyone they don’t agree with a socialist? Yes, of course, all people who believe in a causal link between man made carbon emissions and global temperature must also believe that the state ought to own the means of production. Stands to reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    No, it’s those who believe there is a causal link between carbon emissions and future climate catastrophe requiring worldwide Government interventions, regulations, taxes, subsidies and compulsory artificial trading systems who are the socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. billr (21 comments) says:

    to krazi kiwi, fletch and alan

    you really are conflating two issues, ie. that of agw and the potential cures. the fact that you don’t like the latter is seriously prejudicing you against seeing the self evident, worldwide backed research into this area.

    If you are so convinced that you are correct, why don’t you pick your fights with those who publish peer reviewed papers?

    kind regards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    billr, no, I’m certainly not conflating those issues. Unfortunately the converse is not true. The advocates for urgent political intervention have been corrupting politics, business, science, science journals and the peer review process.

    The fight is against that religious advocacy for the public mind. When that is won, the corruption will self-correct – though I am not sure that science journals will survive in the internet era. There is no justification for publishing publicly-funded research behind the pay-walls that fund the likes of the Elsevier empire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    You are wasting your breath with the alt science brigade on here Bilr
    Mind you some of the stuff they come out with :lol: beats watching comedy central

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Griff, that’s an empty comment. The point is that as Lovelock accepts global temperatures have not responded to CO2 increases as the climate modelers and alarmists predicted. This is hardly in question since all of the estimates of global temperature confirm this leaving the alarmists with the silly self-justification that “this is the warmest decade on record” which could be true even if the temperature was falling rather than rising.

    On the one hand Billr asserts this is partially because the sun’s activity has reduced yet in the next breath he tells us that natural causes are insignificant relative to the impact of CO2. Logic fail.

    Then he quotes Foster as showing the failure for temperatures to respond to CO2 is because of El Nino and aerosols as well as sun activity changes. However, El Nino is itself a climate response and aerosols are a by-product of CO2 production so the Foster’s claim that there is an underlying temperature increase is simply false.

    Alt science has been produced by the bucket load in pursuit of AGW funding. It is also true that some popular criticism of CAGW is unscientific nonsense. But much is not.

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

    I’m sorry I missed Hooten and the drivel he has been spouting, unchallenged, around our air waves and now blogs.

    This paper would be a good place for him to start to understand why he is distorting the careful science the IPCC presented on sea level rise.

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html

    To put it in simple terms even Hooten may be able to comprehend, the IPCC excluded ice melt from its range of projections because it was not satisfied the science was advanced enough at that time. The above paper shows that the science is coming in thick and fast.

    Most, if not all, of the other rubbish posted above is not worth rebutting as it is ideology, not science.

    All Lovelock appears to be doing is backing off his most dire predictions which was not mainstream science, anyway, and which I (who has actually read his books on the matter) found extreme – but I did shudder at the “what if” thought!

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

    For all your most practiced superciliousness, you and your fellow alarmists are on a hiding to nothing here Luc. With each passing day public opinion, and the widening flow of empirical evidence moves against the lies and deceit that have characterized the CAGW movement. 

    But you go on believing. Perhaps one day a manufactured ‘crisis’ will fool the masses into yielding their economic and democratic sovereignty. It’s been close, perhaps closer than with global cooling in the 70’s, but it won’t be this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    The temperature has failed to greatly accede an anomaly of a high temperature recorded in 1998
    however this abnormal temperature has now stabilized as the norm for how long who knows.Even in this small rise there is significant scope for devastating local effect. As you are aware we are learning more daily as we put together the giant jigsaw that is climate change.
    The consensus among the science fraternity is its real and it will happen.
    There is no controversy just nut job alt science politically motivated weirdos.

    Que list of retired engineers and astronauts from the fifties as valid scientists. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    Isint it funny how lies and Deceit come from all major scientific bodies most world governments the UN major university and government research institutes and the true comes from a small cohort of weirdos funded by political lobbyists the likes of heartland and the Cato institute.
    All wrapped up with intelligent design and Cristian Xian cults
    Dont you love USA Cristian right conservatives
    Keep on drivingF150 and turn the aircon up full Church and the flag

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Griff, blustering claptrap. As usual sceptics debate the science, alarmists make ad hominem attacks, appeal to consensus and authority and refuse to look at the data – which is simply not alarming. End of story.

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