A brick through Australia's AGW window

Anyone have a reference for what this quote is referring to?
“As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)”

Anthony,
Can you send this article to the Catlin Expedition?
I am sure it would cheer them up no end!

Speaking of Australia, Jennifer Marohasy has this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/fossil-fuels-fail-to-explain-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels/#more-4778
“Most CO2 from fossil fuels is emitted in the northern hemisphere and it takes at least six months to spread to the southern hemisphere, which means that concentrations in the northern hemisphere should go up before they do in the southern hemisphere. In fact, they go up simultaneously, which suggests that manmade CO2 emissions are not the only contributor to the rise in global CO2 and there must be some other source.”

Chad,
Given that all of your quotes follow the words: “What follows is an intense compression of the book’s 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:”
Wouldn’t it be worth waiting for the actual book to come out before passing judgment? I am sure the 500 pages condensed by a journalist may contain some errors. As to whether the actual book contains “classic school-boy errors” remains to be seen.

Chad: I believe the IPCC reports/predictions are based on model runs assuming a doubling of CO2 and that may be what Plimer is refering to. Do you know if they also perturb other variables? e.g. TSI?

chad,
sure… and who are YOU?

Just pre-ordered it, prepublication discount was $10 with $9 shipping to USA.

YouTube link correction?
Human Induced Climate Change – Ian Plimer (part 5 of 5) at about 4:51/7:38

“…a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.” Good phrase. Most ordinary people I know who believe in AGW to at least some extent are happy to do the first, but the reason they believe is because the possible existence of any ideology or subversion has gone totally over their heads.

chad (13:31:36) :
Well at least you didn’t prove his point by jumping immediately to insults and attacks … oh wait …

5 minute video speech from Ian Plimer :

Anthony,
Perhaps you can let us know when the book is available online?

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I – and you – capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits?
That’s a rather graceful way for someone to concede they might have been wrong in the past. I somehow or other think that rather a lot of people will be looking for similar words very soon.

Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
…
Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.
Love those comments above pointing out the similarities between the AGW Movement and fundamentalist religeous belief (of any persuasion), and the appeal to evidence over conformity to Orthodoxy.
AGW Belief = Mind Slavery.

My post here.
Simon
Australian Climate Madness

Pete,
I would be grateful if that reference is found – IPCC admitting fault publicly doesn’t seem easy to find. Perhaps Anthony could highlight it as a separate thread.
As a geologist who studied under Plimer, I can but agree with him totally.
Incidentally Plimer is scheduled to deliver a lecture on this in Perth. Western Australia, later this year under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists; I am the AIG News editor.

Chad….Chad, Chad… [snip] Chad…
“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable – human-induced CO2 – is not science”
This is totally a strawman. This isn’t describing the science at all. The forcing charts in the IPCC reports don’t simply contain “co2″.
Other factors are used in the IPCC report but this criticism was not leveled at the IPCC, but rather the mitigation efforts proposed by Activists (like my friend Chad here) target CO2 because it is weighted by content to be the main driver in climate and the primary forcing mechanism to reach the “fabled” tipping point to generate run-away feedbacks.
“Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate.”
Another strawman. No one has brushes aside that it’s the most important driver over thousands of years – the IPCC report again contains this info. However the evidence is *currently* against it being the most important driver of climate in recent decades.
Actually Chad the IPCC does brush solar influence away as a driver in modern times, and by drowning out the influence of solar forcings with GHG forcings and positive feedbacks as being dominant they attribute a rather small portion of warming to solar variance at all. They contend that it has limited to no influence on modern temperatures beyond being a constant input.
“Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth’s climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.”
Which is? To claim scientists are ignoring some aspect sounds nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Why would (or rather *how* could) scientists worldwide for decades ignore some aspect of the physics which this guy claims to know about?
The point here is that the literally thousands of coupled factors in the climate system cannot be represented by the relatively primitive computer models that we use to predict climate. There is not enough known about the coupled systems to accurately represent them via a model. Much of the “physics” as you call them are clearly shown by the IPCC to be in the realm of poorly understood.
“Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise.”
This is classic school-boy error. Please direct him to Lindzen and Roy Spencer who will correct him.
I am not sure what school boy error you mean unless it is the ice core data that clearly shows this pattern in CO2 behavior, or the numerous studies that show a warming ocean and non-foliaged land mass releases more CO2 than it absorbs? I do not recall this statement refuted by by the Scientists in question, If I am mistaken please direct me to Lindzen and Spencer’s comments directly about CO2 and past changes where CO2 concentrations were a driver of these changes.

I’ve asked Amazon to send me alert when this book is available, but if you can arrange to list it on your website with a link to Amazon I will buy it through you. It’s only right since you brought it to our attention. Have a look at Hawks anthropology weblog,
http://johnhawks.net/weblog
He gets a little extra money by recommending good books on his site.

It is important to note that The Sydney Morning Herald is the mainstream politically left newspaper in Sydney. It, together with its Melbourne based stable-mate, “The Age” have pretty much led the CO2-Global Warming Disaster hysteria in the Australian press.
The article itself isn’t that significant, it’s the fact that it’s in a bastion on one-eyed narrow-mindedness, particularly when it comes to any topic relating to the climate.
Given the cool temperatures we are getting in this “heating world”, all that pesky ice at our “ice-free Poles”, and rain in our “never-ending droughts”, perhaps the SMH is finally starting to see the bleeding obvious!

This man is yet more prestigious name in science that is speaking up!
Clearly the tide is turning in the scientific world. It’s turning slow as the Queen Mary, but it’s turning. And all the yelling from the environmentalists and politicians can’t stop it.
BYW, has there been any converts to the alarmists side? I haven’t heard of any names in a long time who have changed over to the alarmists side.
But I have seen there’s a second edition of the Hockey Stick which is just as flawed as the first. The picture of the graph seems to pop up every where in Google anyway when you type in the words “Medieval Warming Period”. There must be some people burning the midnight oil posting that graph high and low in the internet.

There is no evidence that Disraeli ever referred to ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’. Mark Twain made this attribution in his Autobiography, published 25 years after Disraeli’s death.
One early use of a version of the phrase (though still made more than a decade after the death of Disraeli) was in an address by Robert Giffen, the chief statistician at the British Board of Trade to the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science meeting at Hobart, Tasmania in 1892:
‘An old jest runs to the effect that there are three degrees of comparison among liars. There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts. This has lately been adapted to throw dirt upon statistics… There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics. Statisticians can afford to laugh at and profit by jests at their expense.’

Why do a lot of these “new hockey stick” graphs state that the “Medieval Warming Period” was a warm period, but the zero point is set during that time, the warming data is “flattened”, as well as the LIA data?

Whoops, missed the original link:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/04/free-preview-of-ian-wisharts-new-book-air-con.html

Just Want Truth… (16:33:20) :
This man is yet more prestigious name in science that is speaking up!
Clearly the tide is turning in the scientific world. It’s turning slow as the Queen Mary, but it’s turning. And all the yelling from the environmentalists and politicians can’t stop it.
BYW, has there been any converts to the alarmists side? I haven’t heard of any names in a long time who have changed over to the alarmists side.
There is David Attenborough, does he count? He’s more media than science though. It is interesting for someone to claim to be skeptical of AGW at one point to become a patron of the Optimum Population Trust.
“I was sceptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf. I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0524-24.htm
” The broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has become a patron of a group seeking to cut the growth in human population.
On joining the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David said growth in human numbers was “frightening”.
Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife.
The Trust, which accuses governments and green groups of observing a taboo on the topic, say they are delighted to have Sir David as a patron.
Fraught area
Sir David, one of the BBC’s longest-standing presenters, has been making documentaries on the natural world and conservation for more than half a century.
In a statement issued by the Optimum Population Trust he is quoted as saying: “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm
That last statement is a beauty.

If the question of Climate change had been about the science. Then the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming would have been wrapped up and falsified over a decade ago…… However, AGW has nothing to do with Science….. AGW is purely a vehicle for a political ideology involving strange ideas of Environmentalism and Socialism.
The fact that AGW has become so entrenched is a sign that our Bureaucracy is out of control and serves itself, rather than the citizens that bureaucracy is meant to serve…..
I think it is serious. I look at the example of a man like Al Gore…. and I shudder.
There is a rising aristocracy of elites who think of themselves as the Vanguard of a new enlightenment….. They are dangerous.
History shows similar examples, some very recent. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung…… will Al Gore, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd, be the next names in infamy? Will tens of millions die because of their policies? Will hundreds of millions be oppressed, Just like the Ukrainian farmers in Stalin’s collectivisation of the 30′ or the Chinese millions in the Great Leap Forward?
Time will tell. However, as a reminder. In Australia recently, we had nearly 200 people burn to death because of land clearing laws that prohibited them from making their farms, houses and towns bushfire resistant. The old rural practices where discouraged and the farmers replaced with ecotourism and unknowing greenies living among the trees…… Who burned to death because of ideology.
I am heartened by people like Dr Ian Plimer. They are a bulwark against this flood of ignorance and deception.

Chad,
Hansen has made it clear that CO2 is the driving factor of AGW.
Dissembling by asserting the IPCC is not saying that is simply not realistic.
Neither the IPCC or Hansen are pushing for radical changes in land use to achieve their goal of managing the climate. They are seeking to control CO2 emitted by human enterprises.
A better defense of Hansen and the IPCC would be to explain away the tremendous failure their models have experienced irt heat content of the largest part of the Earth- its oceans.

Steve Schapel (16:45:05) :
You know what’s the best thing about this? It’s that Paul Sheehan has demonstrated himself to be a man of quality and a man of integrity. He has
provided an example of how to handle being provided with information that does not support his beliefs. This is unlike so many AGW alarmists who, presented with increasing evidence over recent years that CO2 is not a significant factor in dangerous climate change, have responded with increasing irrationality. It is tremendously heartening to see someone being willing to open their minds to another point of view, and report it so clearly and professionally.
Steve – It’s a question of methodology. As Follows…
[1] The Rational person uses “Evidence Based Reasoning” – When the evidence changes, the reasoned position will also shift in accordance to the evidence. In this method, Evidence is the primary source an imput into the reasoning process. Validating the evidence is a core activity to ensure that the reasoning process has something substantive to work with.
[2] The Irrational person uses “Belief based Reasoning” – This process puts the cart before the horse and only searches for “evidence” to confirm the belief system. Contrary evidence will be ignored, devalued or actively hidden, or destroyed.
Hence, the AGW Alarmists become more irrational as the evidence mounts that there core beliefs are not comming true. They have to spend increasing amounts of energy and time, ignoring, devaluing, hiding and (when they can) destroying the contrary evidence.
The massive snowfalls of the last NH winter has done much to dent the spell of the AGW Alarmists. So much snow when the world is meant to be warming is too hard to deny.

One comment:“Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise.” “This is classic school-boy error. Please direct him to Lindzen and Roy Spencer who will correct him.”
My thought: No need to go to Lindzen and Spencer, just check out your bottle of pop. Put it in the frig and CO2 stays in there. Put it in the oven and you have an explosion! Just simple science.

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.”
What about the problem of Fascist aggression in WWII?

Lets face it, on a geological timescales nothing that we are likely to experience is all that extraordinary. Extinctions of most of life on Earth have occurred before, including events where 90% of all species disappeared. Even the extinction of the human race, or all mammals would not be particularly special or lamentable, give a perspective employing geological timescales.

Mike Bryant (18:23:23) :
“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.”
What about the problem of Fascist aggression in WWII?
I’m gob-smacked, – what an excellent refutation.

“Lets face it, on a geological timescales nothing that we are likely to experience is all that extraordinary. Extinctions of most of life on Earth have occurred before, including events where 90% of all species disappeared. Even the extinction of the human race, or all mammals would not be particularly special or lamentable, give a perspective employing geological timescales.”
Well I’ve been watching the Discovery Channel and other cable channels so I now realize that there are many many things out there that can kill us all alot quicker than AGW, like killer asteroids, tornadoes, hurricanes, firestorms, lightning, meteors, comets, tsunamis, falling spacejunk, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Jihadists, pirates, giant volcanoes, rabid dogs, bats and rabbits, bigfoot, chupacabras, ice-slinging windmills, soot, aerosols, sharks, supernovas, killer bees, stingrays, plastic bottles, bags and other packaging, our drinking water and the pitbull next door. This is only a very preliminary list.
After carefully considering these threats it seems that there is only one sane response… PARTY TIME!!!

He means this error:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=204
Mr. Hansen, there is something on your face. Have you been eating eggs?

Re Graeme Rodaughan (15:38:02) :
“…Love those comments above pointing out the similarities between the AGW Movement and fundamentalist religious belief (of any persuasion), and the appeal to evidence over conformity to Orthodoxy…”
Moderators – I think a response to the stereotype that is alluded to here should be allowed as it is often repeated on this site and probably disappoints some of your otherwise ardent supporters.
The stereotype that I refer to is that the overall thought process of a religious fundamentalist and a global warming alarmist are similar. It then follows from this arguement that either AGW alarmists are just like religious kooks (fundamentalist is being deliberately defined in a negative sense above) and can be discounted/discredited, or that those with fundamentalist religious beliefs are unable/unwilling to embrace science and the scientific method and are just like AGW alarmist kooks and can also be discounted/discredited. If this isn’t an ad hominem attack I don’t know what is.
Fundamentalism has many definitions and subtle differences within philosophical/theological thought. I would consider myself an Evangelical Christian of the low church tradition (Anglican), however depending on the standpoint of the viewer, it would not be surprising to me to find they considered me a fundamentalist.
This however does not stop me from understanding the misrepresentation and ideology that is AGW. I will suggest that the majority of Christians I have contact with on a personal level are not convinced by the theory of AGW but would say they have reasonable doubts as to mankind’s role and impact in climate change as set forth by the IPCC.
It is simply wrong to say or imply that a belief in a set of basic religious principles disqualifies me or others from the ability to embrace, understand or discuss the scientific method and specifically its abuse in the promotion of the theory of AGW.
Kind Regards
Michael

I agree with Michael about the comparison of warmists to religionists. Ninety percent of the American people believe in God, and I think it would be wrong to alienate those people. The science stands by itself without denigrating those who believe in a supreme being. These comparisons ultimately hurt the cause of science and freedom.

Michael (19:13:35) :
…
Moderators – I think a response to the stereotype that is alluded to here should be allowed as it is often repeated on this site and probably disappoints some of your otherwise ardent supporters.
The stereotype that I refer to is that the overall thought process of a religious fundamentalist and a global warming alarmist are similar. It then follows from this arguement that either AGW alarmists are just like religious kooks (fundamentalist is being deliberately defined in a negative sense above) and can be discounted/discredited, or that those with fundamentalist religious beliefs are unable/unwilling to embrace science and the scientific method and are just like AGW alarmist kooks and can also be discounted/discredited. If this isn’t an ad hominem attack I don’t know what is.
…
Kind Regards
Michael
Michael – You are correct, it’s a sloppy ad-hom, lacking in nuance and an off the cuff remark. If I have offended you, please accept my apologies and I will endeavour to be more nuanced in my comments in the future.
Cheers Graeme

That geologists are sceptical about climate change is nothing new…
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
EOS, VOLUME 90 NUMBER 3 20 January 2009
By P. T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman.

Graeme Rodaughan (18:52:51) :
Mike Bryant (18:23:23) :
“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.”
What about the problem of Fascist aggression in WWII?
I’m gob-smacked, – what an excellent refutation.
Yeah it was pretty good, we might be needing those numbers again because it looks like Deja Vu all over again.

Graeme,
Michael’s post woke me up. I have often taken some silly delight in those comparisons that are really beyond the pale and not worthy of the posters, commenters, moderators and lurkers who people this site. Now I understand why Anthony would prefer that religion stays completely out of the mix.
I also apologize for my similarly ad hom remarks in the past.
Mike

Moderator, I just made a post that apparently hit the spam bucket, no indication of waiting for moderation. Should be 20:18 or so. How can I avoid this, it’s the second time today, and why is California two hours behind western Colorado since we went on DST?
Reply: Stuff with links sometimes hits the spam filter. It’s nothing to worry about. It is checked regularly. I have no idea about the system clock. If in the mood sometime I will look into it. Otherwise, maybe Anthony may or may not jump on it. ~ charles the moderator
Reply2: Ok. I also have manually adjusted the site for daylight savings. It is apparently a known issue at wordpress.com to be fixed at unspecified date. ~ charles the moderator

Michael, Mike.
All good – happy posting.
Cheers Graeme

The Twelve Step Plan to Shake Off the AGW Indoctrination”
Step 1: Honesty
Tell the truth, and listen to the truth.
Step 2: Faith
Believe what can be proven.
Step 3: Surrender
Don’t let pride keep you from freedom.
Step 4: Soul Searching
Listen to the voice of reason within you.
Step 5: Integrity
Don’t allow yourself or others to advance falsehoods unchallenged.
Step 6: Acceptance
Don’t think you are less of a person because you were wrong in the past.
Step 7: Humility
Realize that no one knows everything and that science is still advancing.
Step 8: Willingness
Make a list of those you convinced and set them straight.
Step 9: Forgiveness
Forgive yourself and also forgive those who still believe that CO2 is bad.
Step 10: Maintenance
Nobody likes to admit to being wrong. But it only hurts for a little while.
Step 11: Making Contact
Stay in touch with scientific advancement and those who also stay informed.
Step 12: Service
Help everyone around you remember that as you pursue truth, you are also pursuing happiness.

“Jerk, jerk”, go the knees of the doubters! “Jerk, jerk” go the knees of the true believers. Many of the responders herein are endorsing (or occassionaly opposing) a body of work they have not read and are mostly unqualified to judge in any event. While I applaud a site the invites participation from all comers (otherwise, I certainly would not qualify), it should by now be apparent that interest in “scientific truth” is taking a back seat to political inclination. Political liberals generally tend to embrace AGW because they like where it takes us politically. Political conservatives are generally skeptical because they do NOT like where AGW would take us. In neither case is any real interest in scientific truth very much in evidence amidst the cacophony.

Chad, while I don’t want to undermine your belief in AGW he is right about one thing and the IPCC agrees with him the models aren’t all that good. They haven’t actually predicted anything that has come to pass, but don’t take my word for it:
Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, June 2007″Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well”.
UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth:
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”
Dr Trenberth, Nature Climat Blog, 2007:
“There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess. … Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil causing it. He concludes,
… the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.”
Drs. Trenberth and Renwick are supporters of the AGW theory by the way and Dr. Tenberth was mortified that his words were used by sceptics to imply the human induced CO2 wasn’t the cause of GW, but he and Dr. Renwick are the quality of scientists we need in this debate, they tell it as it is. Typical Kiwis.

HSEHL Thank you so much for this Website, Anthony and thanks to David L Langen for the post: The Inconvenient Professor.. Excellent tool for getting the truth out.

Mike Bryant (21:37:49) :
Would change :
1O. It is OK to be wrong . Science advances by testing hypothesis and tossing the wrong ones out the window. You are a scientist !

The claim that co2 doesn’t cause warming, which is a claim this guy makes, is akin to claiming the Earth is only 6000 years old. It is so divorced from the weight of evidence that it just calls into doubt the credibility of the other claims made. Spencer and Lindzen do not subscribe to such nonsense, accepting that co2 rise does have a warming effect.
On the matter of the IPCC remember the IPCC don’t create the science they report on it. The models include TSI forcing and there is no other quantifiable mechanism for solar forcing. So the argument that the models “ignore” some well known significant solar forcing is false. You can’t make any calculations based on unquantified forcing and so you can’t claim they “ignore” such.
What I find amazing is that people are willing to attack my arguments when I made them earlier, seemingly simply because, as one person put it -they thought I was an “activist” – and I guess that means I have to be challenged on every single point, irregardless whether my point is valid.

If you get the chance to see Plimer presenting in the flesh it is well worth the effort, especially in front of a crowd of AGW true believers. I had the chance to see this late last year at the “Great Energy Debate” in Adelaide where he confidently and effortlessly took their belief system apart piece by piece. No questions afterwards – they were all dumbstruck with their jaws on the floor.
Like many commentators here, all the geologists I know regard AGW as a fashionable joke.
Hopefully his book can result in the beginning of some honest mainstream debate before we are all locked in to punitive cap and trade regimes to no good purpose. I look forward to reading it.

Paul R (17:36:40) :
I’ve skipped down so if someone has already chinned you for missing the point with regard to celebrity alarmists I apologise – the OPT has nothing to do with climate change per se.
I don’t believe in AGW and anyone who does believe that we can influence such a large and complex system so dramatically so quickly is suffering from an incredible dose of arrogance in my opinion.
I do agree with the OPT
We have to stop the breeding before we strip this planet of every single resource and survivable habitat as no animal in nature so resembles the locust as the beast humanity.
One has nothing to do with the other!

CHAD –
[1] What are the falsification criteria for the idea that man made emissions of CO2 cause measureable global warming? I.e. What events if they were to happen would disprove the idea that man made emissions of CO2 cause measurable global warming? For example (a) lack of a tropospheric hot spot, (b) continued global cooling while CO2 levels increase?
[2] What # of PPM would CO2 concentrations be considered “saturated”?
[3] For man made emissions of CO2 to cause catastrophic global warming requires that water vapour provide “positive” feedback to cause a run-a-way warming process. What compelling physical evidence do you have that water vapour provides positive feedback?
[4] How do you explain the cool/cold conditions that have been experienced over the world for the last two years – if CO2 is a potent GHG that causes serious warming? I.e. what’s stopping the warming from happening.
[5] How do you explain that the world temperature seems to have flatlined over the current decade, when the IPCC forecasts are for an average 0.2 degrees celcius rise from 2001 to 2010?
[6] Was the world warmer than now at any time since the end of the last ice age? If not, on what evidence do you base the conclusion that the current period is warmer than any period since the end of the last ice age approx 10K to 12K years ago?
[7] What would be worse, a 4 degree average rise in temperature world wide, or the return of an ice age likely to run 70K to 100K years with 1 km high sheets of ice over much of Europe, North Asia and North America?
[8] The current Pro AGW movement would like to shut down the debate, i.e. “The science is settled”, “The debate is over”. How do you reconcile such an attitude with human liberty and the open and free discussion of ideas that have been central values of western civilization and arguably core forces that have led to the prosperity that the modern world enjoys today?
[9] Some commentators has professed the view that the recent bushfires in Victoria, Australia that killed several hundred people can be attributed to AGW, and hence to man made emissions of CO2. If you agree with this position, are you able to provide a measurable distinction between those weather events that are “natural” and those that are due to “man made emissions of CO2”?
[10] The IPCC and Climate Science in general relies heavily on the outputs of Computer Models. Could you please describe what has been done to validate those models against empirical physical evidence?
[11] The GISS data relies on a network of ground stations (USHCN), are you able to provide information on how many, or what proportion, of those stations are well sighted according to the Climate Reference Network Rating Guide?
[12] Given that the IPCC use a single paper “Jones et al 1990 letter to Nature” to determine that UHI was 0.05 degrees Celsius per century, and the same author recently asserts that China UHI is around 0.1 degree celsius per decade – a difference of a factor of 20. How do you know that UHI is correctly factored in the measurement of surface temperature. I.e. is surface temperature measuring global warming, or urbanisation? REF: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/
[13] Given that CO2 is a necessary imput in the photosynthesis process conducted by plants that supports all life on planet Earth – how could it be a pollutant? Have you noticed that gardeners often pump CO2 into greenhouses to increase productivity. Are you able to provide an estimate of the increased biological production of land plants and phytoplankton under 385 PPM of CO2, as opposed to pre-industrial CO2 levels od less than 300 PPM?
[14] If we reduced CO2 to pre-industrial amounts, and given a best case scenario of “green” electricity production. How much food could be produced at <300 PPM of CO2? How many people could be supported? How many people would have to die to meet the available food production?
[15] Are you willing to go without electricity?
Any assistance with these questions would be much appreciated.

Lee,
Oh the irony:
“anyone who does believe that we can influence such a large and complex system so dramatically so quickly is suffering from an incredible dose of arrogance”….
is followed hotly by,
“We have to stop the breeding before we strip this planet of every single resource and survivable habitat as no animal in nature so resembles the locust”…
Hmmm, is it just me?

Chad = Clearly Has Agw Disease
Please read the book ! You may even get cured !

MattN,
It’s easy to just make numbers up out of thin air. I started firmly as a skeptic (through most of the 1990s) awaiting what I felt was sufficient confirmation of the science before finally gaining an understanding and acceptance of the urgency of the issue through very wide reading of books, websites and esp scientific literature. I can think of a number of persons of ecological influence who took this approach and are now firmly assured of the man-made nature of our problem. Dr Suzuki and David Attenborough spring to mind as measured thinkers who are slow to rush to conclusions.
Given that a few thousand (wherever you got that figure from) have decided that their understanding of the issue doesn’t give them confidence in its validity, how does that in any way stack up to the literally millions of informed persons who now understand that AGW is real who obviously at one point either didn’t know enough or, like me, needed to await further confirmation? How could you possibly assert there are “none going the other way”? It’s a multi-decadal, multi-disciplinary stampede that must be kind of hard to miss unless this little corner of the web is your sole solace….

The Guardian is attempting to push more alarmism on us
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c

From The Guardian article above:
World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree
Hmmmm… Isn’t it rather odd that attendees of the Copenhagen Conference would come to that conclusion?
In related news The Guardian reported that attendees of the Westminster dog show agreed overwhelmingly that dogs make better pets than cats.

Graeme Rodaughan…I too would like to see Mr Chad respond to your list of fifteen questions!
Just one comment on question 13 though….you quote the pre-industrial level of CO2 as just under 300 ppm. If you follow the link from Smokey’s post [13:22:53] to one of Dr Pilmer’s lectures, Pilmer makes a seemingly convincing case to argue that 280 ppm is far too low for pre-industrial CO2 levels. His graph shows that as recently as 1820 it was more like 440 ppm!

Reply2: Ok. I also have manually adjusted the site for daylight savings. It is apparently a known issue at wordpress.com to be fixed at unspecified date. ~ charles the moderator
Since this site has an international audience (thank you Anthony), it would be nice if there was a note somewhere (About page perhaps?), explaining the current time difference to GMT of the time stamps. Some of us don’t even know exactly *where* you are 🙂

Lee (01:09:00) :
Paul R (17:36:40) :
I’ve skipped down so if someone has already chinned you for missing the point with regard to celebrity alarmists I apologise – the OPT has nothing to do with climate change per se.
I’m not familiar with the term chinned, I feel guilty for taking this thread off topic already and deserve chinning for that but i was only answering a question. You and I have a different opinion about population perils and all I will say is that I see a correlation between those who push the AGW agenda and the overpopulation agenda. You obviously will have to be discarded as bad data since you upset my model with your AGW skepticism. 🙂

Where is my post addressing MattN?
It was entirely reasonable…
REPLY: Spam filter, patience.

Paul R (17:36:40) :
Fair point about the correlation between agenda’s, I just happen to think the overpopulation doesn’t need to be dumped into the climate change argument to make ground.
Climate change happens naturally and the debate about our significance into that process is open (hence this site).
Our use of resources on this finite plant has to be dealt with for its own sake.
I’ve been discarded as a bad date before but never for being bad data – thank you for providing my new experience for today :>

Slightly O/T:
I was at the library yesterday so my kids could get some books to read. While I was waiting I picked up a climage change book. The opening statement went something like this:
“The Earth has been warming and most scientists believe humans are responsible for most of the warming”
Aren’t systems that require you to believe in something called religions?

John W,
Still, no one should be made fun of because of their religion. As a Catholic you are as big a target for the progressives as are fundamentalists are. Allowing the type of comparisons between AGW alarmists and Fundamentalists, I believe puts all people of faifh upon a slippery slope. Also I don’t believe those comparisons help the cause of freedom. I would also like to say that collectivism, socialism, fascism and the unholy alliance of government and science are far more dangerous to real scientific progress than any type of religion.
Science, as well as religion, can only thrive under freedom. Since I believe that is true, each person must decide whether they would like to live where people can believe as they choose and science is free from government tampering, or where some religions are ridiculed and science is the true religion of the state.

“Muphry’s Law strikes again :-)”
I was thinking the same thing!
@ Graeme Rodaughan (02:00:52) :
I am not Chad, but here are my thoughts as a climate dabbler.
[1] It’s all about rates. CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas and helps to amplify (or degrade) natural variations.
[2] There is really no saturation point, unless you mean something different than what I am thinking wrt saturation.
[3] Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas, and warmer air can hold more water vapor.
[4] Weather is not climate? Why can it be -20 in winter and 100 in summer in Fargo North Dakota?
[5] Weather is not climate?
[6] We are still in an ice age.
[7] Both would be bad for different reasons.
[8] Doesn’t it happen on both sides of the discussion?
[9] See 1.
[10] Lots of science uses models. We put satellites into space using models, we model chemical reactions and prescription drug effects, geochemical evolution of magmatic systems, etc all using models. Typically we look at the model and compare it to real data. I don’t think people understand how much modeling is a part of ALL science, it just gets a particularly bad rap with respect to climate.
[11] Corrections for the urban heat effect are relativity simple? Oh, and corrections to data happen all the time in science, just like models, wrt to climate science corrections get a bad rap.
[12] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221
(Some evil ipcc junk science)
[13] I wouldn’t call it a pollutant.
[14] The same as now. I will ask, how much food can be produced when aquifers run dry due to over use? This is a little mentioned thing in the media and the blog-o-sphere/interwebs.
[15] Not me.

“(As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)”
Does anyone have a link to this story?

Lucy Skywalker,
Not only may you add it, but you may revise it as you see fit.
Mike

AnnaV,
I like the change to #10 that you suggested perhaps Lucy will incorporate that into her Primer.
Mike

mr.artday,
You projected that reducing global population by 1 billion people would require killing 1 million/day for 1000 days (not counting births). I couldn’t resist running the numbers myself.
Assuming 1.188% global population growth and a current population of 6,706,993,152 (2008 CIA World Factbook), it would require 5.75 years (2,102 days) murdering 1 million fellow humans per day to reduce the human population to 5 billion. Put another way, all we have to do is re-fight World War II 42 times (every 50 days) to pull this off by New Year’s 2015.

i’ve noticed that no one seems to ever defect from the deniers side to the side of the believers? now where have i seen this before……..oh yeah, that’s right….the Cold War.

Troppo (04:48:12) :
Graeme Rodaughan…I too would like to see Mr Chad respond to your list of fifteen questions!
Just one comment on question 13 though….you quote the pre-industrial level of CO2 as just under 300 ppm. If you follow the link from Smokey’s post [13:22:53] to one of Dr Pilmer’s lectures, Pilmer makes a seemingly convincing case to argue that 280 ppm is far too low for pre-industrial CO2 levels. His graph shows that as recently as 1820 it was more like 440 ppm!
Thanks Troppo – I am aware of the discrepency – the point is “What AGW Alarmists Believe” and can they back it up with evidence, or reason from that position without tripping over.

Papertiger wrote: I think it would be helpful to write up some procedure, to give our green friends the language to concede the reality about the AGW movement in as painless a way possible.
We could all do without rubbing their noses in the boo boo.
That’s a very good idea. Something along the lines of…?
“Now that I have stopped reading the Guardian/Independent/NameYourRag I have discovered/realised in blinding flash of light/comprehension/insight that there are two/three/several different points of view about global warming/climate change rather than just one, as I had been led to believe. I blame my newsagent/Al Gore/Jim Hansen/other people in general.”

I just want to say that this crew is by and large a very civil and good natured bunch of posters.
I run a fine site full of fine people so I know. Anthony, Charles and most of the posters here deserve a lot of appreciation for not only the content but the quality of community.
Really. Well done folks.
Mark Young
Traders-Talk.com

@Graeme Rodaughan (16:51:36) :
To answer your question more specifically, the earth is likely as warm today as in other interglacial periods. Perhaps a bit warmer, perhaps a bit cooler, but the further you go back, the more uncertainty you have with the proxies. And depending on the proxy, perhaps some have uncertainties that we don’t even know.
I think as long as folks are open and honest and follow the data the truth will be ours at the end of the day. Unfortunately, i think many folks on both sides of the conversation have already determined that the “Science is settled” which is clearly not the case.
I’d argue that science, in any field, is seldom settled.
Ben

CodeTech,
And David Attenborough? Is it just senility kicking in? You forgot to address his cautious approach which now leaves him no room for doubt…. I’d say he’s been round the block a few times and knows a fad from a genuine warning. Or do you have a better ecological sense of perspective than he?
My point remains unchallenged, there are/have been literally millions of smart people moving in the direction that MattN said had seen NONE. I’d stay silent too after that clanger.

I’d argue that there is no such thing as settled science.
If it is settled it is not science.

evanmjones (21:50:28) :
Well, I am sure some folks in the chem and pharma industry may disagree! Perhaps orbits are ‘relatively’ straight forward.
And I think folks are too eager to write off models completely with respect to climate science. It is hard to argue that we have not learned many a valuable things from climate models.

there are/have been literally millions of smart people moving in the direction that MattN said had seen NONE.
Bennett, give me just ONE example of a prominent scientist or science writer that began a skeptic and switched to the AGW side. Just one. You say there are millions, so give us one, (and be prepared to prove it.)

“If it is settled it is not science.”
Your ‘model’ is the best illustration we’ve seen!

Replying to…
chad (23:57:28) :
The claim that co2 doesn’t cause warming, which is a claim this guy makes, is akin to claiming the Earth is only 6000 years old. It is so divorced from the weight of evidence that it just calls into doubt the credibility of the other claims made. Spencer and Lindzen do not subscribe to such nonsense, accepting that co2 rise does have a warming effect.
The fact is that over the entire Phanerozoic Eon (the last 650 million years) there is no long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature. Of the Phanerozoic’s four major ice ages, two occurred with far higher CO2 levels…Ordovician (4000-4500 ppm) and Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous (2000-2500 ppm)…And two ice ages with low CO2 levels Pennsylvanian to Lower Permian (200-1000 ppm) and Upper Tertiary to Quaternary (200-1000 ppm). We are currently living in the Quaternary ice age…We just happen to be enjoying an interglacial. There’s an online publication called “Plant Fossils of West Virginia.” This publication includes a chapter on Carboniferrous climate; in which you’ll find a very nice graph that shows the total lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 since the Cambrian Period.
From a geological perspective, the only evidence of a “correlation” between CO2 and temperature is found in Pleistocene-aged ice cores. However, the changes in temperature always precede the changes in CO2 by an average of 800 years. Even Real Climate Dot Org acknowledges the lag-time problem…Well they acknowledge it and dismiss it.
As far as Lindzen and Spencer go…My understanding of their views is that they believe that anthropogenic CO2 has a minimal effect on climate forcing and that natural drivers overwhelm any anthropogenic effects and that the climate’s feedback mechanisms to CO2 are more likely to be negative; rather than positive. Spencer also correctly asserts that Kyoto-style remedies won’t cool the planet and will waste trillions of dollars and the misdirection of gov’t spending will harm people – particularly poor people.
As a geoscientist, I’ve come full-circle on this issue. Twenty years ago, I did not believe that anthropogenic CO2 had any influence on climate. By 1998, I started to accept the fact that maybe it did…It seemed to be getting hotter and hotter…Mann’s paleoclimate reconstruction sure looked convincing and some of the initial correlations of CO2 and temperature in ice cores made be think that CO2 was a significant driver. Since then, the Earth has begun to cool, Mann’s work was shown to be seriously flawed and the lag-time in the ice cores became obvious.
Since then, Svensmark and others have clearly demonstrated the correlation of solar cycles, cloud cover and climate…I’ve discovered that plant stomatal data contradict the ice core data (CO2 has routinely been 300-500 ppm throughout Pleistocene interglacials and the early Holocene) and the ad hominem attacks against dissenting scientific opinion on the part of people like Al Gore has grown to a McCarthy-esque scale.
I’m now convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming is akin to the Ptolemaic Solar System. It’s only a matter of time until it collapses under its own version of retrograde motion. Hopefully it will collapse before the politicians waste too much of our money.
On the matter of the IPCC remember the IPCC don’t create the science they report on it. The models include TSI forcing and there is no other quantifiable mechanism for solar forcing. So the argument that the models “ignore” some well known significant solar forcing is false. You can’t make any calculations based on unquantified forcing and so you can’t claim they “ignore” such.
The IPCC proactively ignore most solar forcing…particularly the cloud/albedo effect. They mention Palle’s paper on albedo forcing in the 4th AR (or was it 3rd?) and then summarily dismiss it because it doesn’t fit the models and another way of measuring albedo effects fit the models.
What I find amazing is that people are willing to attack my arguments when I made them earlier, seemingly simply because, as one person put it -they thought I was an “activist” – and I guess that means I have to be challenged on every single point, irregardless whether my point is valid.
I have to admit that my initial reaction to your post was that you were an activist.

“I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy. AGW. I’m sure Pascal would agree.”
Pascal over Descartes? You will profit little on that bet.
Give me a Scotsman over a Frenchman any day, thank you; Hume to be exact.
Your bets from evidence, please, not dreamy.metaphysical.fairytale.unicorns-with-wings.moonbattery.

On the population question.
Some comment http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324516647690251
Suggest further reflection on dropping fertility levels should be considered before touting alarmist “Overpopulation will destroy us all” mantras.

idlex (03:48:02) :
If he is lending his support to the global warming scam, it’s almost certainly because he’s been put under pressure to do so.
By the BBC, no doubt (who never now show us Dr David Bellamy, who was almost as common a sight on our screens as David Attenborough at one time, but who is now outcast as an unbeliever in AGW).

So how he could accuse the BBC of not allowing his views any airtime, starting from the mid-ninties, because of a position he didn’t hold until 5-6 years later is beyond me. I’ll admit I may have the exact dates out by a year or two, as I don’t have time to google right now, but I’ll welcome any clarification on this.
No need to Google, Matt – it’s in the article: “It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.”

I am not a highly educated man, yet I am not a fool. Common sense would agree with the good doctor that the largest energy source to our world is indeed the sun. That the energy emitted by the sun is absorbed by the planet and in absorbing this energy quite a bit would be converted to other forms of energy, one of these being heat energy. Those who ignore these simple facts are guilty of a sort of ‘scientific malfeasance’ in that they eschew the obvious as being too obvious and in turn search for an arcane, more devious answer that provides them with an intellectual superiority and thus empower them to make those who don’t possess this ‘knowledge’ subservient to their whims. These pseudo intellectuals (or as in the case of Al Gore ‘Sumo Intellectuals’) are seeking control of our lives because ‘they know better’. I’m beginning to see these folks as a throwback to the geocentric ideas of Ptolemy and Aristotle and as such suspect their ideas will be refuted in the future. But, will that occur in time to prevent them from sending our civilization back to the times of those two sages?