Climate change update

August 2nd, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

A new report from the Office of Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee is on . The forward has an extract worth noting:

 

An inherent feature of climate change science is its complexity and it must deal with many unknowns. Considerable research into the effects of greenhouse gases has been undertaken globally and, despite inevitable uncertainty, there is a very high scientific consensus regarding the likely magnitude, approximate timing of and the nature of the challenges ahead. It would be highly imprudent to ignore such projected scenarios just because they must be expressed in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. It is important to apply an understanding of uncertainty and of risk and their management to address this challenge and this means using the available and accumulating evidence appropriately. Just because there is an inherent level of uncertainty does not obviate the probability of impactful climate change and the need to be proactive in addressing it through mitigation and adaptive strategies.

The key policy issues are around how much focus one puts on mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is preferable in theory, but in practice you need to get buy in from all the major emitters to make any significant difference. Adaptation however can be done nationally, and even locally. The report notes:

New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions represent but a minute fraction of global emissions (less than 0.2%). Any action from New Zealand to mitigate emissions would have negligible direct global impact in real terms. Therefore, New Zealand’s contribution to the global effort to reduce greenhouse emissions is more of a geopolitical issue than a scientific one. Irrespective of what happens globally to emissions, the New Zealand challenge will involve adaptation to climate change.

The key projected changes for NZ are:

  • Ocean acidification: pH changes are greater in cooler waters
  • Temperature: The midrange of projections is an average temperature increase of 0.9°C by 2040, 2.1°C by 2090
  • Wind: Increase in strongest winter winds by 2100
  • Precipitation: Little change for the overall mean, but large geographical variation
  • Extreme weather: Heavier and more frequent extreme rainfalls, but also more droughts. On average, 2 or more extra weeks of drought annually by mid-century for much of North Island and eastern South Island.

In terms of the recent temperature trends, the report notes:

  • Over short time periods, natural variability has a significant impact on the global warming trend
  • Short periods of no change or even slight cooling are to be expected, despite a continued long-term warming trend; 
  • At times natural variability may even amplify warming;
  • Global surface temperatures are only part of the picture, the ocean is a much larger heat sink than the atmosphere;
  • The reported recent ‘hiatus’ in the rate of rise of temperature does not signal that climate change has ‘stopped’ or is no longer a concern

The report is around 20 pages long, and for my 2c is very well done. I suggest people actually read it, rather than jump to conclusions about what it does and does not say.

Tags:

115 Responses to “Climate change update”

  1. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    The report is around 20 pages long, and for my 2c is very well done.

    I haven’t read it but will though my prediction. from your extracts, is that it will be twenty pages of gobbly gook and double talk trying to paper over the well proven fact that political airheads have been sucked in by charlatans, willingly in many cases since they have used crap science to justify new taxes and what politician can ever resist a chance to implement a new tax?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    I didn’t quite catch your drift Andrei, does that mean you’re not going to read it with an open minnd?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,080 comments) says:

    Wind: Increase in strongest winter winds by 2100

    Cannot see a year ahead, let alone ninety! Laughable, fucking laughable.
    Let’s tax stupid NZers now is what this Labour Lite government is saying.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    You have to laugh at the naievity of those who take the utterings of weathermen so seriously. They can not predict what is happening on Sunday, with any accuracy, let alone what the weather will do years ahead.

    There are too many variables and unknowns, a fact mentioned at the start of the article. That is why with all the billions taken in taxes to study the climate, all the predictions have been wildly wrong.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Albert_Ross (311 comments) says:

    Manolo, Kea, the fact that you can’t predict a short term outcome absolutely does not mean that you can’t predict a long term trend.

    Consider. Would you rather lay money that if you toss a coin once, it will land heads up (short term outcome) – or that if you toss a coin 10000 times, it will land heads up about 5000 times (long term trend)?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Albert_Ross , a valid point. However, the predictions made have not been correct. In any other area of science they would look at the theory, but an exception is made for climate. Why ?

    What has given AGW so much traction is not the science, but a wider concern for the environment and social issues. Those concerns may have merit, but are not reliant on dramatic AGW being proven, which it has not been.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    AGW is not about science, it is about politics and environmental concerns. This is why belief, or rejection, of AGW is divided along political lines. No self respecting lefty is going to be seen rejecting AGW, regardless of how frail the evidence supporting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (9,654 comments) says:

    Note Mr. Farrar falls for the “Climate Change” scam. The left originally were all het up over “global warming”, but when all this did was turn their faces red, they changed it to the more convenient “climate change”.

    I think we should keep calling it global warming as just one more small means of exposing this utter fraud for what it really is, just another attempt by the totalitarian left to gain control over our lives and our income.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    The tax grabbers are positioning themselves for the next IPCC which will be admitting there’s been no warming for the past 15 odd years.

    Note the line….short period of ….even cooling.
    Note surface temps now no longer count (as they’re not going up) It’s a move the goal post moment .

    I despair at our gullibility at the hands of these spin masters and control freaks.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    The weathermen had a 50/50 chance of being right and still stuffed up their predictions. Claiming the climate is changing is meaningless drivel. Climate is constantly changing. Historically we have either been emerging from an ice age or heading into one. So either it is warming or heading into another frozen wasteland. Judging by the increasingly frigid winters they are suffering in the North, while Antarctic ice continues to expand in the South, I am not convinced warmth is what we should worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    However, the predictions made have not been correct.

    Which predictions, the ones that the climate will probably change, or the predictions that it won’t, or what?

    I’m not aware of any future climate prediction having been proven. That includes predictions that there will be no change, or no change that will have adverse affects, or no human caused change.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    The weathermen had a 50/50 chance of being right and still stuffed up their predictions.

    Apart from confusing weather with climate, there is nothing 50/50 about either. It’s rather more complex than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross12 (1,456 comments) says:

    I will read the full report but the high lights given by David are not that encouraging.

    The climate has always changed and will continue to change –simple fact. But the AGW theory is clearly starting to look like a very flakey theory :

    “» The reported recent ‘hiatus’ in the rate of rise of temperature does not signal that climate change has ‘stopped’ or is no longer a concern ”

    The theory says if CO2 levels increase then the temperatures will continue to increase . Well the reported CO2 levels have continued to increase over the past 15 years but the temps. have not increased as predicted.

    We can continue to argue about the science , if you like but it is the stupidly expensive and failing energy policies that are the real issue. Some countries ( like Germany ) are waking up to this and are quietly rectifying their own situation which good. But how much more money will be wasted which could among other things be put towards real environmental issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ashley Schaeffer (513 comments) says:

    Nice work if you can get it. Paid good money to make predictions so far in the future you will never have to be accountable.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (14,080 comments) says:

    Another failed attempt at spin, DPF.
    First, tell your political masters to abolish the ETS tax and gain some credibility on the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    PG the “climate scientists” [sic] are happy to use weather as evidence of climate change and do so constantly. You will find numerous references, every summer, to how the seasonal increase in temperature is due to “climate change”. You can not have it both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. OneTrack (3,235 comments) says:

    Pete – “I’m not aware of any future climate prediction having been proven”

    I think we are all aware of many AGW climate predictions that have been DISPROVEN. Wasn’t it only a few years ago that the “models” were saying that we would be all under 10 metres of sea by 2012, all the Pacific Islanders would have to emigrate to escape the raising water, that there would be weekly super storms, all the glaciers would be gone, polar bears would be extinct, etc., etc. Nek minut, its 2040 when all that will happen.

    The problem Pete is the climate “scientists” wouldn’t know what science was if they fell over it. They have their models, and they are ignoring what the real world is doing. Pretty much like the scientists of old told Copernicus, “No the sun goes around the earth, we have our models (and epicycles)”. The problem was the observation didn’t line up with their dogma. That is what is happening now with the climate debate.

    Their models are badly broken and they just don’t care. They definitely don’t seem to be willing to change their models/minds/ideology.

    As said above it has become political; – it probably always was. The left want to tax us to death whether AGW exists or not. AGW was tailor made for them as an excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. rouppe (984 comments) says:

    The predictions made some 20 years ago (based on historical readings of some millenia taken from ice core samples and ancient tree cores) was for a much higher average temperature now than have eventuated. Again, and still, I have not seen documentation that spells out what proportion of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are man-made. Volcanoes, deep sea geysers, wild fires all put out massive amounts of greenhouse gasses but all we talk about is human-sourced.

    There are countries – notably China and India – that are pouring pollution into the atmosphere at such volumes it is threatening the health of their citizens. The focus ought to first be there in terms of reducing emissions.

    As far as New Zealand is concerned we have just been told that the residents of a small Horowhenua town have to boil their drinking water for at least another 12 years because the quality of the water in the river that supplies their water is not good enough. If all the money, energy and intellect expended in NZ were turned from this stupid ETS and global warming lark and applied to improving fresh water quality it would have a much greater effect on a much greater number of New Zealanders than the ETS ever will.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Phone is off the hook when it comes to the AGW scam. All these reports can be summarised thus:

    “We don’t have a clue what’s going on, but one thing is certain – we need more taxpayer money”

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Nothing lime a conservative to say ‘move along no problem here’ and then ‘whoops’

    Thing that constanty amazes me are that the incentives are massive and the ideas for change are just common sense regardless of the outcome in ninety years yet the climate change sceptics still say ‘let’s keep sh*ing in our backyard for now. Can’t see a sewage problem just yet….’

    That’s effectively what the extracts from the article are conveying as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Raider580 (13 comments) says:

    As there are only 4 parts of Co2 in 10,000 which part should NZ get rid of first 2, 4, 1, or 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wiseowl (936 comments) says:

    Listened to the interview with Prof Gluckman on moaning report.
    What a load of garbage.
    I cannot believe well educated people fall for this crap.
    I have had to deal with the climate for 35 years.Every year is different and I know of no-one who can predict what is around the corner.
    The weather will always change and nothing we humans do will change what is going to happen.
    A giant scam!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    A view promoted by a political candidate.

    The Globalists actually tried Global Cooling first, but for various reasons it didn’t fly. Look at page 22 in the 1974 Annual Rockefeller Report, and you’ll find the mention of a conference called to investigate “…the future implications of the global cooling trend now underway….” Things sure warmed up in a hurry.

    So what is the “purpose?” What’s really behind all the global warming hoopla? Power. It’s the same old Marxist/Communist/Fascist collectivist shtick, dressed up in new clothes.

    Global warming is all about a power grab by a wealthy elite and their collectivist sycophants — using the U.N. as a cover and tool.

    Unless we better educate ourselves, listen to the real science, we are in a lot of trouble. The proposal to control people was born from Agenda 21. It was a treaty signed by 178 nations in 1992. Agenda 21 is about Socialist Control, a One World Government. It is designed to form a crisis to unit people around the world….threat of global warming, water shortage, famine and pollution. Then when people are in fear they don’t question but scream out for something to be done.

    And they conclude:

    Many scientists around the world do not believe in climate change. They base their evidence on facts, not half-truths and false science. With that knowledge I hope you make the right choice when voting at the next election.

    Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    It would be highly imprudent to ignore such projected scenarios just because they must be expressed in terms of probabilities rather than certainties.

    Right. The prudent thing to do would be to reject them because the lack of history of accurate projections and the inherent bias of politically funded research.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    Scary times for all the CAGW proponents, a whole raft of papers that use real world data rather than computer models have concluded that the equilibrium CO2 sensitivity – the heating that will arise from doubling CO2 is only about 1.5-2 degrees. A far cry from the 3-8 that the IPCC has touted in the past based on wonky (and demonstrably wrong) computer simulations. They are in a serious bind in writing the next AR5 report because of this as they can’t just ignore new sacred “peer reviewed” results, and more recent papers generally trump previous.
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/20/ecs-with-otto.html

    As a result we can perhaps expect about 1.5-2 degrees temp rise from preindustrial (19th century) as CO2 roughly doubles from 280 to perhaps as much as 560ppm, but almost 1°C of that rise has already occurred, so we might get another 1°C by 2100. Their touted 2.1°C by 2090 median estimate of the report is obviously based on outdated ECS estimates.

    And even that scenario ignores the likely replacement of fossil fuels over the next century with cheaper nuclear power (nuclear in china is now cheaper than fossil fuels, and newer tech can only make nuclear cheaper unlike fossil fuels). The story just gets less and less scary.

    And yes they should scrap the stupid ETS now. Has done and will do nothing of use to the world, spend that same money on energy/tech R&D and you would get millions of times the net benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    And yes they should scrap the stupid ETS now.

    Yes, they should. But the horse of reason left the stable years ago, only to be replaced by the ass of necessity.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    As I have posted before, The CATO Institute has a handy calculator on their site for working out climate change. If the climate sensitivity is 4.5 deg C and all industrialized countries cut their CO2 emissions by 100% then that will save 0.352 deg C of warming by 2100.

    (It seems to be working sporadically at the moment).

    http://www.cato.org/carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

    In truth, I don’t believe the temperature will go up by 2 degrees, but even if it does, so what?
    I don’t believe it will be human caused.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Albert_Ross (311 comments) says:

    Ross12: that is absolutely right, it is the stupidly expensive and failing energy policies that are the real issue.

    Opponents of those policies do themselves no favours by basing their opposition on disbelief in climate change science.

    In doing so, they indicate either that they would support the policies if convincing evidence were to emerge, or that they will never believe the scientific advice, no matter what evidence is put before them, ie they admit that their minds are closed.

    A more coherent and defensible case, robust to the emergence of new evidence, would be that even if climate change were a real concern, the policies proposed by Greens are politically motivated, economically illiterate, socially unjust, ruinously expensive, and very unlikely to make a real difference.

    There’s a good rumination on how people pick and choose whether to believe the advice of experts depending on whether they like the policy implications, here:

    http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/global%20warming

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Simon Arnold (109 comments) says:

    The report isn’t very good.

    Just looking at Section 1, it claims “observed multi-decadal trends are highly consistent with IPCC predictions made in the early 1990s” but cites a study that looked at one model only and ignores other recent studies that would cause most to question “highly consistent”; says “to have even a 50% chance of staying below the 2°C benchmark means that no more than 1.8 trillion tonnes of CO2 can henceforth be released into the atmosphere” but cites a study that is model based (not empirical) with all the problems that are arising with those model; claims the “latest current pause in temperatures is consistent with model simulations, in which decades of no change, or even cooling, can be expected despite the long term trend of increasing global temperatures” when the cited work uses models known to overstate the actual variability in trends, thus making the result meaningless; claims “observations of the heat content of the top 2000m of the ocean have continued to show a warming trend, even during the period of apparent hiatus in global mean atmospheric surface temperatures” when the cited work derives its results from climate models not observations; and the discussion on climate sensitivity ignores recent literature on empirical estimates, and in fact cites no literature in support of its own claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. alwyn (438 comments) says:

    Without commenting in any way on the subject matter I would appreciate someone pointing me to attacks on this work from the Greens.
    In particular I have noticed in the past that if anyone attempts to expound views that cast any doubt on AGW the Green fraternity will attack their views by pointing out that the proponent has.
    1. No formal academic qualifications in the subject
    2. The material has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Given that Dr Gluckman is a (very reputable) medical researcher I presume he fails #1.
    This material does not appear in any journal so it also appears to fail #2.
    Where have our Green party MPs, or their acolytes, therefore attacked this material and demanded that it must be ignored?
    Not withstanding the above I now plan to read it and yes, it will be with an open mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Manolo (14,080 comments) says:

    Dr Gluckman is a progressive scientist paid by John Key to back-up the discredited AGW theory, which he used as a pretext to punish NZ with the ETS tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    I read it the other day when Pete G posted it. Am pretty busy right now so no time to rebut it but agree with many of the above comments and the report is notable for the many new Research Papers, especially on Sensitivity which are omitted.
    Also AR5 is available in draft form and they could have mentioned that.
    The usual alarmist suspects, Renwick, Hunter et al are prominent and as usual ends with a call for more money.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    Pete,
    Just quickly many scientists around the world do believe in Climate change. I read that 97% survey and the way it was worded (a survey without object) I would be in the 97%.
    Its just that I believe that man changes the climate through Urban Heat Island Effect, Deforestation, albedo effect from black soot, pollution etc. But I think that out our emission of CO2 doesn’t really affect it much at all, mainly because Positive Feedbacks are not be backed up by observational evidence and I don’t think the climate is that sensitive to CO2 as badly as we once thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. backster (2,185 comments) says:

    Instead of just stating what will happen in 50 years, why don’t they state what the current figures are and show us a year by year projected progression resulting in the 50 year armageddon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Alan Wilkinson (1,900 comments) says:

    Dr Gluckman knows nothing about climate but that evidently doesn’t stop him from having an opinion. Lots of good comments above.

    Meanwhile we’ve got clueless local governments fantasising about sea level rises that aren’t happening – which itself is really weird because isn’t that where all the missing heat is supposed to be hiding?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Global warming, climate change, pending ice ages, peak oil, overpopulation, mineral depletion – the solutions are always the same. Higher taxes, more regulation and more power given to an unelected self perpetuating crisis lobby.

    (paraphrased from Mark Steyn)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Dr Gluckman knows nothing about climate but that evidently doesn’t stop him from having an opinion. Lots of good comments above.

    I see… A bunch a ranting, self interested, politically charged, random commentators have opinions about climate that are more correct than that of a Doctor appointed by the Office of the Chief Science Advisor who writes with contributions from NIWA, MFE, two Universities, Plant and Food Research and the Royal Society.

    Your logic is breathtaking. With such good, deep thought, you should be a climate advisor. I’m sure you’ve got an opinion. I’m sure you’ll share it readily.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson 3:16 pm

    Dr Gluckman knows nothing about climate but that evidently doesn’t stop him from having an opinion. Lots of good comments above.

    That’s funny Al.

    The climate is changing as a consequence of the atmosphere warming, the atmosphere is warming as a consequence of human activity. This straight forward idea is supported by the vast majority of scientists who specialise in studying the Earth’s climate.

    Just because a bunch of misinformed Kiwiblog nutters do not want to believe what is happening in front of their eyes does not mean that it will not happen. The warming of this planet’s surface is the one of the greatest threats with which humanity has ever dealt.

    I think that this problem needed to be dealt with decades ago and we have gone beyond the point of no return. The disappearing ice sheets over the Arctic mean the planet absorbs more solar radiation that would have previously been reflected by those ice sheets back into space. The melting tundra around the Arctic circle is releasing massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas methane is 22 times worse than carbon dioxide.

    A relatively recent story in The New York Times suggests if it were not for human activity the planet should be cooling:

    “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

    Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.

    Yet, according to the same article, the planet is warmer now than at any other time in the last 4000 years according to one of the most comprehensive studies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,000 years:

    Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.

    If anything, the majority of climate scientists have been understating the rate at which global warming has been happening. These scientists are reliant on government funding and governments are not comfortable with agencies that report scenarios that threaten the profit motives of big business.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Yoza, that article is citing the widely panned Marcott paper. Fuck you’re stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Yoza, that article is citing the widely panned Marcott paper.

    Panned by some of your fellow nutters Righty. No link I see. Am I supposed to take your word for it? Pfffft.

    Some real scientists discuss the peer reviewed Marcott paper:

    Global Temperature Reconstruction: We combined published proxy temperature records from across the globe to develop regional and global temperature reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last one to two thousand years. To our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the entire Holocene.

    Structure of the Global and Regional Temperature Curves: We find that global temperature was relatively warm from approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years before present. Following this interval, global temperature decreased by approximately 0.7°C, culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene around 200 years before present during what is commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age. The largest cooling occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Holocene Temperature Distribution: Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene, but is warmer than ~75% of all temperatures during the Holocene. In contrast, the decade 1900-1909 was cooler than~95% of the Holocene. Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios.

    Fuck you’re predictable, RightNow.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. alephnaught (18 comments) says:

    It’s really unfortunate. The waters around issues like climate change have been so muddied in the public sphere that by and large, as a socio-political group, only die-hard environmentalists (and the Green parties they support) treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves and keep themselves well informed about developments in the science.

    Yet their completely muddled attitudes to so many other aspects of the sciences completely sideline them on the one issue they’re actually consistently right about (in terms of prioritisation, if not necessarily policy), and render their politicians unelectable.

    It’s absolutely tragic that policy around climate change – one of the gravest economic, humanitarian and indeed, existential threats that we face – isn’t a hot issue in mainstream politics. But with so many vested interests set against any serious remediation, and those pushing for it so politically impotent, I can’t see the situation changing any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. alephnaught (18 comments) says:

    And David – appreciate your fairly rational attitude to this issue, which is refreshing coming from the right-wing of politics, but resigning ourselves to adaption alone isn’t an acceptable solution – some recent estimates are suggesting we could be looking at six degrees minimum this century globally, possibly up to twelve, and those estimates have consistently gotten higher as the science has gotten better. A six degree temperature rise would mean mass starvation and probably the end of modern industrial civilisation. A twelve degree temperature rise would make the surface of the Earth largely uninhabitable for human beings. That is not something that we can ‘adapt’ to, and it’s not a risk worth taking just in case the science is wrong. “But mitigation is hard and geopolitics and stuff” is a pretty poor excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wiseowl (936 comments) says:

    @allofnaught.
    You have been brainwashed.
    An idealistic young greeny I would say.
    Any one who uses the word gotten, a terrible word usually used in the USA needs to be re-educated.There is always a better alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Yoza, your quote contains a wonderful summary of why Marcott is not saying what you want it to say. A resolution >300 yrs would smooth out any peaks (like happened in the 20th C) and troughs (like the 19th C).
    Replace the 19th C low and the 20th C uptick with a single data point made up of their average and you might start to understand why the paper was widely panned. But you won’t, because Fuck you’re stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    alephnaught,

    What, precisely, do those scientists agree on? You see, I’m sceptical of AGW, yet even I fall within the 97%. It’s plausable humans have some effect, but the question is how much and is it dangerous compared to natural variation.

    I’m sorry, but the jury – the science – is still out on that question. It now appears the hysterical projections of warming are not confirmed by observable data.

    The political response is something different, again. If someone is from the far-left, then their response is likely inseparable from their anti-development agenda and therefore, in my view, not to be trusted in the slightest.

    The greens blew their credibility on this issue a long time ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Like I said. Let’s just keep shi*n in our own backyards. There’s no scientific evidence for a sewage problem yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Like I said. Let’s just keep shi*n in our own backyards

    Such hyperbolic characterisations can lead people to conclusions based on emotion, not fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    The Marcott paper was thoroughly debunked, once again by Steve McIntyre.

    The problem he found was that “Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

    The difference this makes, shown in a graph on the above link, is startling.

    Marcott was forced to admit this: “Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century….the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes

    So the Marcott paper you cite – with its alarming hockeystick-style uptick – is completely worthless.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    RightNow 9:04 am

    Replace the 19th C low and the 20th C uptick with a single data point made up of their average and you might start to understand why the paper was widely panned. But you won’t, because Fuck you’re stupid.

    Replacing the 19th C low and the 20th C uptick with a single data point would be insane. You are attempting to suggest that human industrial activity in the 19th C was the same as that during the 20th C – this is what you are saying, right?!?

    I was just wondering, because the only reason anyone could logically blend 19th C and 20th C temperature into a single data point would be if there was no difference in human industrial activity during either period.

    Is this what you are saying, RightNow?

    If it is what you are saying it means you are insane. Crazy people calling other people stupid isn’t insulting, it is only sad.

    wat dabney 12:15 pm

    Yoza,

    The Marcott paper was thoroughly debunked, once again by Steve McIntyre.

    Steve who? Oh, you mean this nut:Stephen (Steve) George McIntyre
    PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Oxford University, (1971). B.Sc., Mathematics, University of Toronto (1969).

    Stephen McIntyre has been a long-time mining industry executive, mostly working on the “stock market side” of mining exploration deals. As of 2003, McIntyre had worked in the mineral business for 30 years and he has been an officer or director of small public mineral exploration companies for over 16 years.

    So what you are saying, wat, is that a peer reviewed study by bona fide climate scientists – a study accepted for publication in a science journal – has been ‘debunked’ because a mining industry hack says its wrong on his blog. Please provide a link to where the ‘esteemed’ McIntyre has challenged the Marcott paper in a real forum where actual climate scientists can challenge his PR campaign.

    If you cannot do this you will end up looking as mad as silly old RightNow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Yoza “Replacing the 19th C low and the 20th C uptick with a single data point would be insane.”

    I’d like to think that means you understand why comparing instrumental records to proxy reconstructions that have >300 year resolution is insane, but Fuck you’re stupid.

    “You are attempting to suggest that human industrial activity in the 19th C was the same as that during the 20th C – this is what you are saying, right?!?

    I was just wondering, because the only reason anyone could logically blend 19th C and 20th C temperature into a single data point would be if there was no difference in human industrial activity during either period.”

    No – I’m saying you need to smooth it to a 300 year resolution to be able to compare it to the proxy reconstruction. Fuck you’re stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Alan Wilkinson (1,900 comments) says:

    @Yoza, here is what a real climate scientist thinks about the Marcott disaster: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/

    I don’t know if you are stupid but you are certainly ignorant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    No – I’m saying you need to smooth it to a 300 year resolution to be able to compare it to the proxy reconstruction. Fuck you’re stupid.

    As I have quite reasonably pointed out the economic/industrial activity of the previous two centuries was insignificant when compared to the economic/industrial activity of the 20th century. Pretending that the economic/industrial activity of these three centuries was comparatively similar is completely bonkers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Yoza, since you still don’t get it, (Alan, the evidence is mounting that he is stupid and ignorant), then this comment at the link Alan posted may help explain it:
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/#comment-308642

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson 7:17 pm

    @Yoza, here is what a real climate scientist thinks about the Marcott disaster: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/

    I don’t know if you are stupid but you are certainly ignorant.

    The entire ‘debunking’ of the Marcott paper seems to be founded on this admission:

    Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193;

    The purpose of the exercise was to compare historic global climate to current global climate. The warming global climate of the 20th century has already been comprehensively established by climate scientists specialising in studying the contemporary, as opposed to historic, global climate.

    Judith Curry is unequivocal on the role carbon dioxide plays in global warming:

    If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet.

    She does, however, attempt to ameliorate this statement by providing the following justification for her past denial of anthropogenic global warming.

    However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we understand natural climate variabilityproperly. Until we understand natural climate variability better, we cannot reliably infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing or understand its role in influencing extreme weather events.

    The Marcott et al study provides an important record of paleoclimate variability before massive quantities of carbon dioxide were introduced into the atmosphere as a direct consequence of 20th century industrial activity.

    I can’t help noticing the best you two are capable of is name calling, I’m guessing defending your position is a little too difficult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Yoza – perhaps I should have asked this question earlier, do you know what is meant by a 300 year resolution (in the context of the Marcott paper)?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    This picture might help yoza: http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7290/marcottvostok2.jpg

    It’s Marcott’s low resolution (300 year) proxy series overlaid on the Vostok ice core data (40-50 year resolution).

    See the smoothing effect of the lower resolution chops off the spikes. But if you use a higher resolution series that includes the spikes it makes modern (even higher resolution) temperatures look rather insignificant.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    RightNow 8:23 pm

    This picture might help yoza: http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7290/marcottvostok2.jpg

    It’s Marcott’s low resolution (300 year) proxy series overlaid on the Vostok ice core data (40-50 year resolution).

    I’m unsure of the point you are attempting to make. As I understand it the Marcott study is based on data from 73 different records.

    Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records.

    It was a study of historical and prehistorical global climate, not a study of a small region in the Antarctic, they would struggle to be taken seriously if their study of prehistoric global climate was extrapolated from one source.

    You are using the data from one regional source, a source included in the study, in an attempt to refute the study of data compiled from 73 separate global sources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Uh huh. Well I would try explaining to you some more but Fuck you’re stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Did you read this: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/#comment-308642

    I don’t have the patience to step you through it, but I think that comment explains it very well and you might understand the analogy.

    And again, do you know what is meant by a 300 year resolution (in the context of the Marcott paper)?

    Do you really think the temperature in the last 11,000 years has never deviated outside of the narrow (about 1.1 deg C) band in Marcott’s reconstruction?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    And again, do you know what is meant by a 300 year resolution (in the context of the Marcott paper)?

    Of course, it is self explanitory in the context of the Marcott paper. I have gone into some detail as to why it is not only unnecessary to ‘smooth out’ 20th century temperatures into 19th and 18th century temperatures it would be completely insane.

    …but I think that comment explains it very well and you might understand the analogy.

    Yeah, there were no planets around other stars before scientist proved they were there, sure it all comes clear now! pffft.

    If there were spikes in the data, across all 73 data sets, that were evidence of a sustained period of global warming lasting 50 or so years before the current spike I am sure one of your skeptic sources would have picked up on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Such hyperbolic characterisations can lead people to conclusions based on emotion, not fact.

    Not a truer word said. Because the “facts” can be distorted either way over and over again. You, and your children, only get one. Once it’s screwed, it’s screwed. So why not do something emotional and chose to support actually changing sh* for the obvious better rather than sitting on your backside farting out “eeew, but nobody told me that would happen. eeeew, but nobody told me to do that”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    You have been brainwashed.
    An idealistic young greeny I would say.
    Any one who uses the word gotten, a terrible word usually used in the USA needs to be re-educated.There is always a better alternative.

    wiseoldowl,

    Please do change your tag to ‘cynicaloldman’

    You put down the enthusiasm of youth as though it’s worth not trying. I bet once you would have actually had some sort of belief in something yourself.

    Clearly the years have taken their toll and you’ve been twisted into a bitter frail shell who has nothing better to do than to comment on the relative merits of spelling and punctuation.

    It’s not too late to help buddy – try believing in something again, rather than putting it down.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson 7:17 pm. causa probatum

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Still nothing Righty. Never mind, better luck next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Stamper (32 comments) says:

    Gluckman’s dissertation was written up in the NZ Herald – I emailed the journalist as follows:

    I am sorry to see you and Dr Gluckman are still being taken in by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.

    The truth about this scam was reported recently per the following link:
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

    2010 – IPCC official – “If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of man-made global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, “[W]e redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” ”

    It is not about climate, it is about using the CO2 meme to bring about de-industrialization through de-carbonization. The result is Europe on its knees as it struggles to produce energy via inefficient windmills and solar panels. At night in winter with a big low [no wind] sitting over all Europe you still need 100% load carried by coal/gas burning power stations.
    I suggest you read and follow:
    http://www.thegwpf.org/

    It is head-shaking stuff that the likes of Gluckman are taken in by this hoax.
    Keep up the good fight guys; never know – even DF may see the light too.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Heh, Stamper must be one of your ‘experts’, Righty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Itstricky,

    You’ve bought into disaster porn.

    When you get older, you’ll realise a new version of disaster porn gets trotted out ever decade. It gets trotted out by people who want to scare you in order to control you in order to achieve their political ends.

    I think such people are scum.

    We have a refuge, and that is science. I suggest you stick to observable data in order to avoid being sucked in.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    So what you are saying, wat, is that a peer reviewed study by bona fide climate scientists – a study accepted for publication in a science journal – has been ‘debunked’ because a mining industry hack says its wrong on his blog.

    No, I’m saying it’s wrong because Steve McIntyre found and demonstrated that Marcott et al completely bollocksed their data handling, and that Marcott then admitted this.

    Your argument that other reviewers failed to find this fatal flaw is like saying that the one scientist who found incriminating fingerprints and blood-spots must be wrong if others had previously failed to find them.

    And what exactly do you think the peer-review system does? Remember, the original Hockeystick – also debunked by McIntyre – was peer-reviewed. Yet McIntyre was the first person to actually request the data and code used in its creation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    New paper finds the ‘fingerprint of man-made global warming’ doesn’t exist

    A new peer-reviewed paper published in Energy & Environment confirms from the latest satellite data that the tropospheric “hot spot” or so-called “fingerprint of man-made global warming” predicted by climate models does not exist. The authors find surface warming exceeds tropospheric warming, the opposite of model predictions, suggesting there are fundamental flaws in the physical assumptions of the models.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/new-paper-finds-fingerprint-of-man-made.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    10th Daily Record in 11 Days for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/10th-daily-record-in-11-days-for-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    You’ve bought into disaster porn.

    When you get older…

    Your age-based sanctimonious ramble cracks me up. Seriously? How old do you think I am?

    I would much rather persue and listen to ideas, technologies and techniques that are doing obvious good, regardless of the twisted “statistics” and distorted “science” that are being used to push and pull in both directions.

    If you sit back and do nothing based on your belief, for example, in science “facts” that are presented by a long time mining industry executive (as given in example above) then you’re pretty much in the same boat as those who have been twisted by the Greenies into “disaster porn” as you put it. It doesn’t just go one way… …and you’d be fairly young and naive yourself to not have thought of that.

    And there’s no harm in presuing ideas that attempt to undo some of the obvious bad that we’ve done over the years in the meantime whilst the various sides and influences are attempting to win the unwinnable battle for the hearts and minds of the citizens. But, I guess, you’re more probably more comfortable with the “there’s no problem here” approach as that philosphy allows you to sit on your backside and do nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wiseowl (936 comments) says:

    To the contrary itstricky.
    I am concerned about young people and the education they are receiving.
    It is more like indoctrination.
    I actually care about alephnaught. Sounds very genuine.

    As far as gotten I had an English teacher that drilled into us the fact that their was always an alternative to got or gotten.She was right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    wat dabney 8:40 am

    No, I’m saying it’s wrong because Steve McIntyre found and demonstrated that Marcott et al completely bollocksed their data handling, and that Marcott then admitted this.

    Where? All I can find of Marcott’s ‘admission’ is when he points out that their data for the 20th century isn’t that robust. It’s worth repeating that the Marcott paper is a global paleotemperature reconstruction, they are studying historic and prehistoric climate variation not contemporary events – the climate of the 20th century has been carefully documented by climate scientists who specialise in studying 20th century climate.

    Your hero, Steve McIntyre is not a climate scientist, he is a mining industry executive. He has a vested interest in generating propaganda to undermine the findings of real climate scientists. You cannot produce a peer reviewed study that undermines the Hocket Stick Reconstruction, all you have is a bunch of far right charlatans venting their spleens through their blogs.

    wat dabney 8:49 am

    “New paper finds the ‘fingerprint of man-made global warming’ doesn’t exist”

    “A new peer-reviewed paper published in Energy & Environment confirms from the latest satellite data that the tropospheric “hot spot” or so-called “fingerprint of man-made global warming” predicted by climate models does not exist.

    And then you link to this site.

    First off, the paper has been peer screened for publication. As it has been so recently published I doubt there has been any serious attempt to comprehensively review its conclusions and the evidence on which those conclusions are based. However, one of the study’s authours, John Christy, has submitted a previous paper claiming something similar – a paper that was taken to pieces in the peer review process as reported in The New York Times:

    “These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

    John Christy has a history of making claims about studies he has carried out that are not backed up by the studies themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    All I can find of Marcott’s ‘admission’ is when he points out that their data for the 20th century isn’t that robust.

    Yes. Exactly.

    It was that dramatic uptick in the 20th century which made the headlines and which, it turns out, is simply the result of appalling data handling. Saying it “isn’t robust” is simply Marcott’s mealy-mouthed way of agreeing.

    Steve McIntyre is not a climate scientist

    He is an expert statistician. Far more so than any of these “climate scientists.” Indeed, Michael Mann himself admitted “I am not a statistician.”

    Remember, the Hockeystick and these other papers are exercises in statistics, not climate science.

    You cannot produce a peer reviewed study that undermines the Hocket Stick Reconstruction

    You are wrong. McIntyre’s debunking of the Hockeystick was expertly reviewed. The fact that completely random data passed through Mann’s home-made program almost invariably produces a hockeystick was confirmed and the reason for it is well understood. And that’s without getting into Mann’s “censored” folder in which he hid additional data which completely contradicted his published result…

    McIntyre was also vindicated when he debunked the Yamal me-too hockeysticks.

    The fact that you try to defend (in your weasly manner) such shit as the Hockeystick and the Marcott paper shows just how dishonest you are.

    And remember next time you try to hide behind the smokescreen of “it hasn’t been peer reviewed” that it was your “climate scientists” who were exposed in the Climategate emails as conspiring to pervert the peer-review process.
    Not only “your heroes” not statisticians, they are also corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Your age-based sanctimonious ramble cracks me up. Seriously? How old do you think I am?

    13?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    wat dabney 2:35 pm

    You are wrong. McIntyre’s debunking of the Hockeystick was expertly reviewed. The fact that completely random data passed through Mann’s home-made program almost invariably produces a hockeystick was confirmed and the reason for it is well understood. And that’s without getting into Mann’s “censored” folder in which he hid additional data which completely contradicted his published result…

    Once again you make an assertion without backing it up. Yes, McItyre’s ‘research’ was expertly reviewed. Unfortunately for you and McIntyre that review process confirmed the findings and methodology that produced the Hockey Stick Reconstruction.

    Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.

    More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.

    How embarrassing for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Your age-based sanctimonious ramble cracks me up. Seriously? How old do you think I am?
    13?

    Good to see your supposed “observable data” at play. Clearly you are a man of science with such irrefutable facts.

    Can’t handle it? Sling ya hook buddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    The flaw in Mann’s home-made program such that it produces hockeysticks nearly all the time even when fed completely random data is well understood. Indeed, it has been documented so thoroughly such that even non-statisticians can understand the issue (in fact it’s not at all subtle once it’s explained.)

    Do you think it’s an accident that the IPCC has dropped its former headline chart completely? It used to be front and centre of its alarmist propaganda, but now you won’t find it anywhere. It’s because even they have had to admit that it is complete crap.

    And that’s without getting into the issue of Mann’s “censored” folder which contains the broader data-set such than even his worthless program couldn’t produce a hockeystick from it. He cherry-picked the data. Give that man a job at Enron!

    As for the supposed reconstructions, they invariably picked from the same pool of proxy data collections which turned out to be completely unrepresentative. Once again, McIntyre was the person who found the problem. The original custodians of the data have conceded this point as well; even going so far as recalculating their chart and – surprise, surprise – they end up with something that matches McIntyre’s work (i.e. no hockeystick):

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/hey-ya-mal-mcintyre-was-right-cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

    And remember, it’s not just McIntyre’s work which shows the Hockeystick to be complete bollocks: there are the hundreds of independant studies showing that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were real, global events. Mann’s fabrication, by contrast, whitewashes them from history.

    So it’s Mann’s debunked Hockeystick on the one hand, and hundreds of independant scientists on the other.

    Incidentally, the quotation you cite about Wegman’s expert review of McIntyre’s work debunking the Hockeystick doesn’t say what you think it says. Although I can understand you getting confused.

    The statistical analysis confirming the worthlessness of Mann’s program isn’t being questioned here. Nobody doubts that Wegman (one of the world’s leading statisticians) is correct in his analysis (which he didn’t work on alone.) So the fact that the Hockeystick is debunked is beyond question.
    What your quotation is talking about, as it clearly says, is the fact that Wegman also included a ‘network analysis’ afterwards, in which he pointed out that the same clique (‘network’) of people was reviewing each others work. It is this which the quotation claims is “discredited”, not the statistical analysis of Mann’s program.

    How embarrassing for you.

    Incidentally, Wegman’s network analysis was totally vindicated by Climategate, where that clique was exposed as conspiring to pervert the peer-review process.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    I am concerned about young people and the education they are receiving.
    It is more like indoctrination.

    Damn those teachers a? Going off telling kids to keep the house tidy and not muck it up for others? Who do they think they are? Well I never.

    BTW, your English teacher really should have gotten you to learned the difference between this one:

    that drilled into us the fact that their was always an alternative

    The sentence also lacks structure and repeats the word ‘gotten’. It’s almost unreadable. I think you need to be re-educated.

    Good God, now I’ve sunk as low as you. I must give this up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    . Nobody doubts that Wegman (one of the world’s leading statisticians) is correct in his analysis (which he didn’t work on alone.)

    Yes they do. The Wegman Report, written by Edward Wegman, David W. Scott and Yasmin Said, commissioned by Sen. Joe Barton. Just in case anyone does not understand where Sen. Joe Barton is coming from:

    BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

    Recently, Barton has caused much controversy when he apologized to BP about the alleged “shakedown” by the White House over the oil spill disaster. Joe Barton stated:
    “I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) during a hearing on Thursday morning with BP’s CEO Tony Hayward.” I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion shakedown — with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation’s future. I’m only speaking for myself. I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown.”
    Immediately, House Republican leadership threatened to strip Barton of his seniority on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Shortly after, Barton retracted his previous statements and apologized for his original apology to BP.

    So Wegman and co. effectively produced a PR piece for the oil industry. At the same time as the Wegman report was being published Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), asked the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to also produce a report studying the conclusions of Mann et al. This independent analysis was written by Gerald R. North, Franco Biondi, Peter Bloomfield, (your man)John R. Christy, Kurt M. Cuffey, Robert E. Dickinson, Ellen R.M. Druffel, Douglas Nychka, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Neil Roberts, Karl K. Turekian and John M. Wallace.

    …the committee has reached the following conclusions:
    The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
    Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.

    To be fair the committee also pointed out that, “The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming…” and that, “Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have the potential to further improve our knowledge of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, particularly if additional proxy evidence can be identified and obtained from areas where the coverage is relatively sparse and for time periods before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900.”, but this was way back in 2001 and the additional research is exactly what the Marcott paper delivers.

    Incidentally, Wegman’s network analysis was totally vindicated by Climategate, where that clique was exposed as conspiring to pervert the peer-review process.

    But Phil Jones and the CRU were exonerated by the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:

    We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular,
    has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a
    blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise
    with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he
    knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.
    In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s
    actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not
    standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in
    academic papers.

    The thing I find most amusing about your ramblings is they are diametrically opposed to reality. If anyone bothered to check each of your claims they would find them to be the exact opposite of what the scientific record shows.

    For example:

    there are the hundreds of independant studies showing that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were real, global events.

    Nonsense, there are studies that show these events happened, but not on a global scale.

    You keep coming out with all this shit, yet you do not back it up with links to papers that have not been torn to shreds in the peer review process. These people you quote are fringe crackpots producing PR pieces for the petroleum industry. If there are “hundreds of independant studies showing that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were real, global events.”
    surely you would not have any trouble producing at least one.

    So it’s Mann’s debunked Hockeystick on the one hand, and hundreds of independant scientists on the other.

    What studies?!? Again, if there are ‘hundreds’ of these studies you should have no trouble producing at least one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    Why would anyone believe a single word coming out of their mouth?

    One of the climate alarmist’s standard responses to any criticism of the theory of global warming is that unless the person is a climate scientist themselves, the point being made is from a position of ignorance and can therefore be ignored. As with most propaganda designed to silence any opposition, there’s an element of truth in it.
    However, I think there are a number of obvious rebuttals to such an arrogant and dismissive stance.
    The regularity with which the skeptic community eviscerates alarmist papers indicates to me that they’re actually more on top of the hard science than the alarmists researchers. In general, the depth of science expertise in the skeptic community is reflected in the technical content of the leading skeptic sites and the quality of the comments, which indicate an unusually high proportion of visitors with some sort of science, engineering or mathematical background; slightly geeky to be frank but the knowledge in other areas extends well beyond those narrow confines.
    In contrast, the alarmist blogosphere doesn’t really do much in the way of hard science content, but rather acts as an uncritical cheerleader and a launchpad for various propaganda initiatives. “That’s what they’re for” was the sneering remark made about them by one of their own high priests in the Climategate emails leak.
    This science lite flavour is reflected in the character of the regular commenters there, who’re more like politically chic activists seeking some type of scientific authority figure’s validation of their belief system and sometimes exhibit an unquestioning acceptance coupled with an appalling ignorance of even the most basic principles of science. They’re more of an arty rather than sciency crowd, perhaps because they mistakenly assume art is somehow a less demanding discipline than science. Fittingly enough, any time I’ve seen them trying to put art at the service of the cause, it’s been truly dreadful.
    This knowledge weak audience demographic is reinforced by the ferociously intolerant moderation policies, which tend to shunt the enquiring or technically minded visitors of an undecided persuasion over to the skeptical sites. What can one say except thank you for all those quality recruits you’ve driven in our direction in the last few years. We have the wherewithal to persuade an open mind, rather than just demand their blind compliance. One volunteer is worth ten browbeaten conscripts.
    There is a tacit admission of this difference in the level of expertise between the two communities by the alarmist retreat from provocative hard science papers, which run the risk of being shredded by the skeptics, and a new vogue of papers based on polls and other essentially subjective metrics, which yield the requisite propaganda headlines but can safely be argued over to no definitive conclusion ad nauseam. They’re more metaphysics than science and they all tend to revolve around the novel idea of scientific proof by consensus.
    Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France during WWI, famously remarked after yet another military disaster that war is too important to be left to the generals. In an analogous fashion, when a branch of science is being used to justify the complete restructuring of the global economy, it’s no longer a scientific issue but a political one.
    More importantly, it’s the ordinary person who’s being asked to finance initiatives, which will lower their standard of living and significantly increase their tax burden for the coming decades. If you’re the one actually doing the paying, you very definitely want a say, even if you’re not a rocket scientist. He who pays the piper, gets to call the tune.
    So, if global warming is too important to be left to the scientists, how can the ordinary person arrive at a reasonable judgement as to its validity? We all have our own way of getting to understand something and personally being a from first principles type of person, asking basic questions about it has always been mine. When it comes to people, meaning the climate scientists in this particular instance, I find the most revealing questions to ask usually begin with why, so let’s take that approach. The seemingly simple but difficult trick is to ask the blindingly obvious questions.

    Why is it that every one of the cockups and blunders we uncover in their papers always err towards a warmer global climate?

    Why do they persistently withhold the data on which their conclusions are based?

    Why do they, in their own words, hide behind Freedom of Information laws, as a reason to keep such data hidden?

    Why do they, in their own words again, hide behind Non-disclosure Agreements, as a reason to keep the data hidden?

    Why are they so vague about the exact methods used on the data to derive their results?

    Why do all their computer climate models run hot?

    Why have they consistently overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2?

    Why don’t they ever design experiments attempting to disprove their theories?

    Why do the Climategate emails reveal their deep private doubts about the science, which they’ve publically reassured everyone was settled?

    If the science was so solid, why’d one of their number feel they had to resort to identity theft to discredit the opposition?

    Why are they telling each other to delete emails to circumvent Freedom of Information requests?

    Why do they feel they’ve got to “redefine the peer review process” to prevent dissenting science papers being published?

    Why do they need to get science journal editors removed from their jobs because they dared to publish a dissenting paper?

    Why, after being the beneficiary of billions of dollars of research funding in the last two decades, haven’t they by now proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Why is anyone who simply questions the science being equated with a holocaust denier?

    Why are they attempting to substitute science by consensus for scientific proof?

    Why do they say the world suffering six successive years of freezing winters is somehow caused by global warming?

    Why have global temperatures not risen in the best part of two decades while CO2 levels have kept on rising?

    Why in the decade following 1990, were the number of ground temperature stations selected to calculate global temperature reduced from the available 14,000 to a mere 4,000?

    Why for Russia, with a land area over twice the size of the USA , are only a handful of southern ground-based thermometers selected to calculate its temperature?

    Why has the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) been saying for years that the average temperatures calculated for Russia are quite simply wrong?

    Why did it fall to a skeptic volunteer force organised by Anthony Watts to regrade the data integrity of the alarmist’s few cherry picked temperature stations?

    Why is there an unexplained divergence between the global temperature derived from satellite observations and their ground based measurement?

    Why did it take them nearly fifteen years to finally concede that the global temperature had not risen in all that time?

    Why at the end of nearly every one of those fifteen years was it loudly proclaimed to be the hottest one on record?

    Why did the experts we’re supposed to trust, not feel the need to correct such scientifically inaccurate claims?

    Why, in the absence of the heat predicted by their theories, do they suddenly assert it must be by some mysterious mechanism hiding undiscovered at the bottom of the world’s oceans?

    Why isn’t the Argos network of ocean monitoring buoys showing any such warming?

    Why, in the absence of any global warming, did they switch the threat to climate change?

    Why do we see supposedly objective scientists acting like catastrophists, haranguing us to do as they say or we’re all going to die?

    Why can’t we get a straight answer to those simple questions rather than abuse, outright propaganda or simply being ignored?

    Why can’t these supermen of miraculously settled science ever say they just don’t know?

    There are no doubt a lot more simple questions like these which a more knowledgeable person than myself might pose and there may perhaps be a reasonable answer to one or two of those questions, but when they all begin to stack up like that, the ordinary person knows there’s only one inescapable conclusion – they got it wrong and know it. It’s by now all about them scurrying to protect their status, reputations and that mountain of research funding our taxes are paying for. There is no other reasonable conclusion to be drawn.
    It’s all a cruddy morass of deception, exaggeration, evasion and ever bigger lies to cover up the shrinking corner they’ve painted themselves into, and with every establishment investigation of their activities, that paint always turns out to be a rather thin coat of whitewash.
    When you catch a liar out, they invariably cover themselves by telling bolder and more outrageous lies. That’s the tangled web of deceit we’re looking at and by this point in time, and as always happens, people start ignoring whatever they’re saying.
    You see, in the end, you don’t need to be a climate scientist to make your own mind up about them. After all the lies, deception and dishonesty, why would anyone believe a single word coming out of their mouth?

    ©Pointman
    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/why-would-anyone-believe-a-single-word-coming-out-of-their-mouth/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    why are you totally focused on the very hot year 1998
    if you take out that one anomalous hot year the temperature has continued to increase
    Any one who states it has not warmed since 1998 should mention that 1998 was warmer then the trend by .3c
    it is now reaching this temperature in a normal year.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Good to see your supposed “observable data” at play. Clearly you are a man of science with such irrefutable facts.Can’t handle it? Sling ya hook buddy.

    Your earlier use of cliched “Green Youff” talking points gave you away…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    If you sit back and do nothing based on your belief, for example, in science “facts” that are presented by a long time mining industry executive (as given in example above) then you’re pretty much in the same boat as those who have been twisted by the Greenies into “disaster porn” as you put it. It doesn’t just go one way… …and you’d be fairly young and naive yourself to not have thought of that.

    It’s up to those asserting dangerous man-made global warming to prove it, not for me to prove a negative.

    They have not provided proof, therefore a valid reaction is to do nothing. Well, not quite nothing. I still read both sides of the debate, but from what this layman can see, the AGW crowd are losing the argument, thus far.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Peter the argument among the misinformed is they have not provided proof.

    You can take the blog view on the state of science .

    Among climate scientists publishing 97 percent endorse AGW

    For instance: “The hockey stick is bullshit” from a blog.

    Meantime in the real world of publishing scientific research. University such as Penn state on the quality of the hockey stick science.

    Mann named distinguished professor in EMS http://www.essc.psu.edu/

    Earth and Mineral Sciences Dean William Easterling announced that Dr. Michael Mann has been named a Distinguished Professor in Meteorology for accomplishments and leadership in climate change research.
    Mann, professor of meteorology and director of the Earth Systems Science Center, is an acknowledged leader in the climate change community. He has achieved research breakthroughs in the area of climate change science, especially the reconstruction of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years. His work has garnered national and international recognition, including his most recent election, by his peers, as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society; as well as the 2012 Hans Oeschger Medal and Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Manolo (14,080 comments) says:

    How many joints went up in smoke during the weekend, Griff?
    Still dazed by the toxic fumes, I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    How many liters of piss went down in the weekend ?
    Still drunk you piss head?

    lancet.

    Harm of drugs.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673610614626/images?imageId=gr2

    Poor sad drink fucked alcoholics .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Among climate scientists publishing 97 percent endorse AGW

    As I said, I’m in the 97%. A lot of sceptics fall within that definition because it is so wide.

    It’s plausible man is having some effect on climate, but the question is how much. The effect may be well within natural variation, and therefore nothing to worry about.

    There is a massive cost in “preventing” it. There is very real danger in advocating a cure worse than the cold, so let’s be certain of the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    The effect is not within natural variation that is the conclusion of the hockey stick
    The original hockey stick temperature proxy series has been repeated many times with more and more data
    The conclusion in each case is the present warming is unprecedented.
    Yet a misinformed yokel like you says otherwise
    :lol:

    Give up the pathetic conspiracy thinking that puts all authoritative climate scientist as corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Griff, I’m within the 97%.

    I’m afraid the conspiracy theorists are those still clinging to their flawed prediction models.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/13/junk-science-week-epic-climate-model-failure/

    We are well within natural variation, and the alarmist predictions do not match the data.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Alarmist

    Science by media story
    :lol:
    Roy Spencer
    Are you a fundamental christian?
    That is the type of science MR Roy Spencer pedals. Will you use him to prove creation next?
    http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/the-cornwall-declaration-on-environmental-stewardship/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Griff, I’m within the 97%.

    You are defined as within the 3% quoting Roy Spencer.
    Skeptical sciences Paper with the 97 % rates Roy in the 3%.
    You are ignorant of climate science but well verse in denial propaganda.
    Wingnut territory.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Ah, Griff. So convincing. You don’t like the data, so you call me a fundamentalist Christian.

    Well, that’s intelligent.

    So typical of the alarmist position. All huff, puff and arm-waving rhetoric to disguise the fact the data just isn’t going the way they predicted.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html

    “A new scientific model has revised previous figures for the next five years downwards by around a fifth.
    The forecast compares how much higher average world temperatures are likely to be than the “long-term average” from 1971-2000. It had been thought that this would be 0.54C during the period 2012 -2016 but new data puts the figure for the 2013-2017 period at 0.43C.

    This figure is little higher than the 0.40C recorded in 1998, the warmest year in the Met Office Hadley Centre’s 160-year record – suggesting global warming will have stalled in the intervening two-decade period.”

    A lot of hedging, of course, but the truth is unmistakeable:

    Their predictions were wrong

    They have form, and not good form. So why should we listen to them going forward?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    You are defined as within the 3% quoting Roy Spencer.

    No, that’s your definition. I think it’s reasonable to conclude man is having some effect, but the question is “how much”?

    You are ignorant of climate science but well verse in denial propaganda.

    “Denial” is a religious term, the opposite being “belief”. You’re the one using religious terminology, not me.

    I look at the predictions, then I look at the data. The data does not match predictions and is coming off the low end. Will it rise again? Maybe. Will it fall further? Maybe.

    I shall wait and see.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    I did the survey. I’m within the 97% too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    :lol:
    News papers stories that talk about alarmists
    who are your alarmist?
    The NZ government.
    The new Zealand meteorological society.
    The new Zealand royal society of scientists
    The same in almost all nations .
    Face it you are a classic wingnut
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Face it you are a classic wingnut

    Consider predictions.
    Consider data.
    Always be asking questions.

    Your rhetoric is somewhat unconvincing, Griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Sea ice has collapsed far more than anticipated . The ocean has heated far more than anticipated .
    the ocean has risen far more than anticipated.The extreme effects are being felt sooner than anticipated. Fires have burnt the sate far more than anticipated

    Keep on quoting news paper opinion pieces and blogs.
    :lol: it shows the depth of knowledge you have :lol:
    WINGNUT

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Manolo (14,080 comments) says:

    Griff, who cannot tolerate dissent, would’ve made a magnificent inquisitor from the Dark Ages.
    He loves the smoke from either human pyres or bales of weed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    WINGNUT

    Resorting to ad hominem, argumentum ad auctoritatem and fallacy of incomplete evidence isn’t convincing anyone, Griff.

    I would encourage you to contrast predictions with observable data. Do so with an open mind, as opposed to mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Its who they are dissenting with.
    ALARMIST
    the are arguing against the consensus opinion of the scientific experts.
    the consensus opinion of world’s governments.
    the consensus opinion of the world’s scientific bodies.
    It is not trying to crash dissent. I think its great when wingnuts prove their stupidity keeps me laughing for days on end .
    Who needs drugs when you have got wing nuts EH piss head.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    Sea ice has collapsed far more than anticipated .- Wrong
    The ocean has heated far more than anticipated .- Wrong
    the ocean has risen far more than anticipated.- Wrong
    The extreme effects are being felt sooner than anticipated. – Wrong
    Fires have burnt the sate far more than anticipated- Wrong

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Griff, the only thing getting hotter is your temper as you are confronted with empirical evidence. Many prominent alarmist are backing quietly away from their former hysterical positions as the evidence mounts against them and they fear losing all that funding. Now days the money is in studying climate change. This is a secure income as climate has always changed, so it can not be discredited in the same way as AGW.

    You need to accept the fact that man is not being punished by Gaia for the industrial revolution. I know how much you want our way of life destroyed and modern civilisation wiped out, but it is not happening. Accept it and move on :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    You need to except the simple fact that the laws of physics dictate that the more co2 we release the warmer it is going to get.
    Unless you live in an alternative reality based on god and shit like the linked Dr Spencer you have to obey the laws of physics

    as to all in red
    fuck of back to your web blogs that tell you that stuff and fund out who funds them .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    All the information I get is either from Government funded Research Institutions or from actual Government Institutions.
    Its clear you don’t understand the Laws of Physics or how the Theory of AGW actually is proposed.
    How about explaining to us in your own words how it is supposed to work?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    as to all in red
    fuck of back to your web blogs that tell you that stuff and fund out who funds them .

    Griff, are you suggesting scientists are influenced by funding ?

    Because that is exactly what I have been saying all along. I am pleased you finally admit this fact. Welcome back to the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. All_on_Red (1,650 comments) says:

    How about answering the questions Pointman raises…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Roy Spencer is far from a credible source, I don’t see how someone quoting one of Spencer’s ‘papers’ can also claim to be among the 97% of scientists who accept global warming is happening and that there is an extremely high probability this event is the consequence of human industrial activity. In 2011 Dr. Roy Spencer and William D. Braswell submitted the paper On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance to the journal Remote Sensing for publication.

    The paper was so badly flawed and so rigorously eviscerated that within a month and a half of its publication the Editor in Chief, Wolfgang Wagner, of Remote Sensing, handed in his resignation.

    Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
    After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

    Which would go some way to explain why the infamous Dr. Spencer has switched to publishing his ‘research’ in organs like The Financial Post and on his own blog, rather than attempting to publish in reputable scientific journals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    All_on_Red 1:49 pm

    How about answering the questions Pointman raises…

    How about Pointman raising his concerns with the journals that have published the papers he finds so troubling rather than screaming meaninglessly into cyberspace.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Your earlier use of cliched “Green Youff” talking points gave you away…

    Thank goodness you’re not a climate scientist. My opinon is one that is obvious to a lot of people i.e. Don’t sh*t in your own backyard yet because I said it, it must have come from a youmg greenie? Such fine data gathering and logic at work.

    Let us try some fact finding here just to show you how it is done. I used the term ‘sling ya hook’. Anyone with a fair amount of world.experience will tell you it is an English phrase, most commonly Northern and fairly aged. Not in the venicular of youth. Nor is vernicular come to think of it
    I also write on here after business hours. Certainly not a student or a green hippie – someone with a steady Job

    Hope this helps. Give me a call if you need some.critical thinking lessons. Ciao.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    How about Pointman raising his concerns with the journals that have published the paper

    Yep the old cause it is on The Internet It Must Be Credible.And Worth Listening To fallacy. Feeding nut bars more crackers for years.

    Give me a peer reviewed paper with contributions from NIWA, MFE and the Royal Society any day over the random ramble of a conspiracy chaser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (493) Says:
    August 5th, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    noddy who quotes denial echo chamber blogs
    I have explained global warming to you
    Simple co2 is a green house gas
    it absorbs energy in the infra red and is transparent to visible light
    heat radiated by the earth is infra red. the Energy from sunlight is visible or ultra violet.
    Co2 retains heat. without green house gasses the earth would be -17 not 14.5 c

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Explaining is losing, itstricky. Thou doth protect too much.

    This speech is my recital, I think it’s very vital
    To rock a rhyme, that’s right on time
    It’s Tricky is the title, here we go…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Peter you have still not provided any comment on the simple fact that the temperatures this decade are unprecedented in the reconstructed record.
    As pointed out Dr Mann has received many awards for his climate “hockey stick” Paleoclimatology reconstruction.
    There has been a lot of similar conclusion from many different proxy records.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

    The warmth of this century is faster than any documented rise in the record.
    It is also probably higher than at any time in the last 3 million years.
    Modern humans have been around for 0.2miilion.
    This is the warming that we have already experienced from our previous emissions of co2 we have yet to experence the full rise from that co2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    It’s Tricky is the title, here we go…

    Rick Rubin is 50, Pete (may I call you “Pete”?). He’s produced some of the most influential albums of the last 30 odd years. I’m pretty sure he’s not sitting there bathing in his own benevolent prejudice of “young people”, “their music” and “their silly naivety”. He’s enjoying something without boundaries while he can, and making a lot of money off it, I would wager.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rubin_production_discography

    You’re welcome to your scientific conspiracy paranoia. I’ll take the road that’s going to do the obvious good; regardless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote