Climate alarmism in Britain: “…the poll figures are going through the floor.”

Excerpts from the New York Times article.

Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.

A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned.

“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.”

Perhaps sensing that climate is now a political nonstarter, David Cameron, Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, was “strangely muted” on the issue in a recent pre-election debate, as The Daily Telegraph put it, though it had previously been one of his passions.

And a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them.

“Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said at the meeting of environmentalists here. “This is happening in the context of overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and a threat. But the poll figures are going through the floor.”

The lack of fervor about climate change is also true of the United States, where action on climate and emissions reduction is still very much a work in progress, and concern about global warming was never as strong as in Europe. A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 percent a year ago.

In a telephone interview, Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert, said that the shift in opinion “hadn’t helped” efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.

“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.” Indeed, once Mr. Cameron became prime minister, he vowed to run “the greenest government in our history” and proposed projects like a more efficient national electricity grid.

In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.

“I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis, referring to the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.

It is unclear whether such actions are enough to win back a segment of the public that has eagerly consumed a series of revelations that were published prominently in right-leaning newspapers like The Times of London and The Telegraph and then repeated around the world.

The public is left to struggle with the salvos between the two sides. “I’m still concerned about climate change, but it’s become very confusing,” said Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park.

========================

Read the complete story here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Opinion, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

221 Responses to Climate alarmism in Britain: “…the poll figures are going through the floor.”

  1. Jeff L says:

    “Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said

    Yep, it sure sucks that the world isn’t filled with a bunch of idiots that will follow you like lemmings, Ben.

  2. Same response as I made to the last post. The Met Office has blown so many seasonal forecasts on the high side that few people (besides Gordon Brown and David Cameron) take their climate predictions or global warming seriously any more.

    When people are freezing, WWF telling them they are hot just makes them look like morons.

  3. John Q Public says:

    There’s a simple explanation for the change in poll numbers. It’s called “education”. No one really took AGW as a serious threat until it became a “political game changer”. Once that happened – thanks to President Obama – the sceptics decided it was time to shine a light on the weak science and models that propped the “straw man” up. Even the sceptics didn’t take is serious enough at first.

    After that, it was only a matter of time before “regular people” started to see both sides of the story. Once that happened … it was game over.

  4. pat says:

    note the front-page reference at the bottom of the article.

    “A version of this article appeared in print on May 25, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.”

    meanwhile:

    25 May: Age, Australia: Adam Morton: Climate debate ‘almost infantile’
    A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ”almost infantile”, equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.
    Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice…
    ”It’s a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals – and they have been disproved,” Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection’s Future Summit.
    ”Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ …
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-debate-almost-infantile-20100524-w81e.html

  5. CAGW was a perfectly good man-made concept of a shadow of a crisis, and now it’s going to waste. I’ll bet Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod have bought TMJ cushions, to prevent them gnashing their teeth in the night.

  6. AndrewG says:

    I’m curious what happened with Simon Lewis’ court case?
    Hes suing becasue the Times reported “Distorted information about climate change” and “pushing the idea that there were serious mistakes in he IPCC report”

    The mind boggles!

  7. kim says:

    For the Times, they are a Changin’.

    See comment #6 on the malaria thread at DotEarth, a nice back and forth between Pat Michaels and Andy Revkin. Comment #4 is good, too, by an author of the pertinent Nature article.
    ==========

  8. Lance says:

    Note however that the article still takes the view that climate change is a serious threat and that people are being lead astray by the “skeptics”.

    It gives instant credence to the bleating of a “rain forest expert” and the WWF.

    I guess it is progress that the press is at least admitting that alarmists are losing the battle of public opinion.

  9. Michael R says:

    A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ”almost infantile”, equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

    Unfortunately, they are confusing the issues and lumping them as one and this is the most infuriating part of these kinds of stories and everytime I see one, have to assume that whoever said it, doesn’t have the foggiest idea what the debate is about.

    First it was “Global Warming”
    Then it was “Humans cause it”
    Then it was “Catastrophic”
    Then sceptics got up in arms about murky evidence for “Catastrophic”
    Then sceptics started showing the murky evidence that “Humans cause it”
    Then “Global Warming” morphed into “Climate Change”
    and finally sceptics of “Human Caused Global Warming” became “Deniers of Climate Change”

    This lovely little leap in logic is so absurd that I have a tendency to feel like throttling the speaker when I hear them say we don’t believe in Climate Change, especially when belief in “Climate Change” has never been a point of this debate.

  10. Dave N says:

    pat:

    That Steffen thinks the issue is as easily explained as whether the Earth is round or flat speaks volumes about his value as a scientist. I’ll bet his opinion that significant rebuttals have been “disproved” are just that; an opinion.

  11. David Davidovics says:

    Keep up the fight and keep asking the experts the uncomfortable questions that the media refuses to. This is far from over but its none the less encouraging.

  12. rbateman says:

    Cap & Trade, brainchild of Ken Lay, who bilked California for billions and started the economic slide frow whence my state has never recovered.
    Don’t think folks didn’t notice this little tidbit?
    They did.
    Amidst the blown forecasts, predictions and a sea level that is stuck in Lodi.
    The Alarmists did this to themselves.
    These Alarmists are not the people who inspire nations.
    Nobody wants to follow them anymore. Why? They panic and act rashly.

  13. Ian H says:

    It might have been good to interview someone from the skeptical camp. Or aren’t journalists taught how to do that kind of thing these days.

  14. Richard G says:

    I guess it’s because we hayseeds confuse weather with climate. May 22, 2010 we had a winter storm watch with snow down to 2,8oo feet in the mountains of Idaho and eastern Oregon, setting a record low for Boise for that date and a record total precipitation for that date. We are too ignorant to know when our tomatoes are killed by frost and the mountains are white on green in the morning.

  15. Flying Economist says:

    Reminds me of Mencken’s famous comment about politics, in which he warned us about Al Gore, Henry Waxman, and Barack Obama before any of them were even born:

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    Before there was AGW, there was “overpopulation”, natural resource depletion, and Alar lurking in your kid’s apple juice. Jeez–talk about depressing. If they’re going to scare the hell out of me while taxing me for the privilege, I at least would like to have a little input into which hobgoblins they trot out after this one expires. How about the “not enough fast cars, rich food, and fine wine to meet demand” crisis?

  16. noaaprogrammer says:

    This is the latest (May 20) I have set out my tomato plants (in S.E. Washington State) and they have been pummeled with hail and cold nights (40 F). I wish there were global warming, but despite weather-isn’t-climate, it is common everyday experiences like this that integrate over enough time and people to produce the collective wisdom of crowds – “there just ain’t no global warming!” – peer reviewed by Poor Richard’s Almanac, 2010.

  17. James Allison says:

    25 May: Age, Australia: Adam Morton: Climate debate ‘almost infantile’
    Problem with the Alarmists is they continue to insult the average persons intellect. I certainly don’t like being called infantile – even almost.

    The average person may have given politicians the benefit of the doubt about CAGW because of ignorance about the subject and also feelings of guilt about their contribution to CAGW. However now that realism about climate change is infiltrating the average persons thinking the politicians will rapidly lose support for continuing to exploit CAGW for reasons of control and tax. And it will come back and bite them hard on their collective behinds because people tend not to trust or believe them even during the best of times.

  18. James Sexton says:

    “The public is left to struggle with the salvos between the two sides. “I’m still concerned about climate change, but it’s become very confusing,” said Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park.”

    Nice, is it too much to ask that the public stay at least remotely informed? Salvos between two sides????? Educate yourselves beyond the pathetic public education you’ve received!!!! In this day and age, there is no cause for the ignorant, other than the willful sort. I have as much disdain for them as I do for the people that wish to control them. Does the elemental chart not include atomic weight any longer? As far as I can tell, critical thinking is no longer a course in advanced learning. No damned way that big yellow globe in the sky is the major force for warmth on this earth. Struggle? Yeh, people are forced to struggle under this farce. Someone wants to talk about forcings? Let’s talk about the economic melt down that coincides with CAGW alarmism. Yes, there were other factors, but the capital spent on this garbage……..a few billion here, a few billion there…….next thing you know, we’re talking a couple of trillion. I wonder if that correlates with any bailouts we know of? As it turns out, the largess of this world has an end point. But we all knew that. Didn’t we?

    You know, at the start, there were only a few nut bags like me saying “this is BS.” Today, there are many, but for different reasons. I’d give a pound of safety for less than an ounce of freedom. The peace that would come with assuring the freedom for just an insignificant part of our society would be worth everything.

    Life with total constraints is merely existence and not living. Freedom works under the constraints of morality. Without morality, there can be no societal endorsed individual freedom. There is nothing less and there is nothing more that should be acceptable man’s condition.

    Tomorrow comes early. Good night.

  19. Don E says:

    Over-hyped? No!

  20. JER0ME says:

    the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.

    Surely you jest? What and where are these stories that have ‘dominated’ news reports?

    I always laugh when I read this line. It is so common it is obviously one of the proscribed ‘topics to repeat as often as possible’. If it was not so serious it would be a complete joke, it is all so clearly orchestrated from a few or even a single source. Either that, or the reporters cannot ever come with a thought of their own, I guess.

    So, you get a minuscule fraction of reports in the media telling people we may not all die immediately, and that is obviously unacceptable to you. Can you say ‘Totalitarianism’?

    Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert, said that the shift in opinion “hadn’t helped” efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.

    Even the arch warmist Phil Jones is telling us there has been no significant warming in 16 years. In any case, the science is still speculative as to the effects of CO2, and almost all of every single measurement made so far seems to fail somewhat under even the slightest scrutiny. So bad is that problem that ‘unadjusted’ data is just unavailable or lost. When it can be found, guess what? No warming!

    So the evidence is clear, the warming is probably not real, and is not statistically significant in any case. As for the ‘science’, it is still out to lunch and waiting to get served. Back in a decade or so when people finally realise that we should check these things before making paupers of entire nations.

  21. Anu says:

    Gee, Gillian and Sandra, two women in London, have their doubts and are very confused about this “climate change problem”.

    In the end, it will be what the Earth’s climate does, not some media PR campaign, that convinces millions of Gillians and Sandras.
    One side will be right.
    One side will be very, very wrong.

  22. Hockeystickler says:

    last winter was the coldest in britain since 1963, that was a big influence : they’re changing their minds there. stevengoddard – you’re right in your assertion : freezing temperatures can do that.

  23. Wren says:

    Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.

  24. Capn Jack says:

    What was not to like in the campaign, that went something like this Agenda:

    1. We are intelligent and you are dumb.

    2. We don’t care what the thermometer says, see Agenda item1. We are always right.
    3. You aren’t listening to us, re 1. So we are going to put you in jail, we are going to sue you and we are going to hang you because of 1. We know where you live. So pay us protection if you know what’s good for you. You are various (substitute various insulting and derogatory terms as applicable) so do as you are told.
    4, You have to pay more tax see Agenda item 1. That is all you need to know and we say it is for your own good..
    5. Little children and POLEY bears know we are right they recognise item 1.
    6. We won’t debate you, because you don’t qualify under item 1.

    Agenda item 7 revision.
    Okay items 2 to 6 haven’t worked, so now we are going talk at and over you again and again until you understand agenda item 1, you dumb ignorant bastards who we will pretend to respect.

  25. RedS10 says:

    Personally, & I’ve written this before here, I think the collapse of CAGW can be laid to rest because of the rememidy that was proposed by the Warmers.

    When the world was told that the temperature was increasing & the polar bears were disappearing, the Average Joe said, “Hummm, maybe, could be, probably… this is all too bad.”

    As the years past, the story changed to, “It’s getting warmer & we will all be washed away by the melting ice at the poles.” “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

    Average Joe said, “What shall we do???” The Warmers said, “Stop using your cars, your air conditioners & wear more sweaters… lower your heat!”

    “Oh, & one more thing… we’re gonna invent a new tax to pay for the solution… which will be here in 100 YEARS!” “Right, if you make yourself miserable now, pay higher taxes… the SKY WILL NOT FALL IN 100 YEARS!!!”

    Did they think that we were really that dumb, really???

  26. Phillip Bratby says:

    “Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert”.

    Stern was not even a good economist, just a lackey of Nulabour. As for being a climate change expert – well, words fail me. He has no scientific background whatsoever.

  27. pgosselin says:

    If there are still people out there wondering if the science has been hyped, the answer is YES IT HAS!

  28. erfiebob says:

    What worries me most is Nicholas Stern’s comment that “the politicians are way ahead of the public”. That seems typical thinking from politicians and policy makers these days: “We don’t care what our constituents think, we know what’s best for you and we’re going to force you to accept it for your own good!”

    Somehow, I don’t think that’s how democracy is supposed to work…

  29. ImranCan says:

    “I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.”

    As usual Nicholas Stern ghas it completely upside down. The politics is always about 3 years behind the public reality. What else would you expect from a man who has been so uttelry wrong on everything he has ever worked on ?

  30. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    ““Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said at the meeting of environmentalists here. “This is happening in the context of overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and a threat. But the poll figures are going through the floor.”

    Because dear, we turned our back on Catholicism and Indulgences centuries ago and have no wish to return it even in a modern disguise. As for Marxism, it was born on our shores and is Britain’s worst export ever. It’s our only export that failed to be a success everywhere it went.

  31. pat says:

    “Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.”

    Doubts? After story after story evidence that a bunch of left-wing loons on a government teat wish to suck the world dry……of your money?

  32. Athelstan says:

    Great tidings.
    The British and so many like minded people the world over can sense a ‘stitch up’, when politicians are so forcefully pressing a very dubious hypothesis, it leads to many people begging the question, why? And, what’s it that they’re trying to sell?

    The promoters of the great Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scam have most obligingly shot themselves in the foot by overplaying their hand in using graphic scare stories; the polar bears spring to mind, sea levels, glacier melt………yawn!

    Right from the outset, the idea of man-made CO2e was causing runaway warming was an outrageous postulation but the ruse was not finessed.
    It relied on presentations by extraordinarily dumb ex-politicians and ex NASA mouth pieces to pursue and promulgate the great lie, an error to which the scam has never really recovered its scientific integrity (if indeed it [AGW science/hype] ever warranted such high praise).
    The CRU fiasco and Mann’s hokey stick fuelled the fires of scepticism, in all of this; empirical science and the reputation of science has taken a kicking, because the silent majority of the science community has kept its collective counsel, this is now changing…….there is no consensus with the exception of…… in that small band of accountants, railway engineers, snake oil salesmen, economists and oh yeah the odd climatologist…. aka the IPCC.
    That was the cleverest con, the idea that the science (of AGW) was indubitable, incontrovertible and uncontested in the science community was good: but now most people realise this is not the case, most annoyingly (for the IPCC/Obama/CRU/Met Office/Dave Cameron/Michael Mann/an ex (D)Tennessee politician/a NASA scientist/The EU politburo etc ) the worm has turned and now it works not in their favour but against the alarmist cabal.
    ………Man knows many things but the more you know the more one comes to realise how much is still to be discovered.
    We have only been around for 2 Min’s (geologically speaking)……the voyage of discovery has only just begun, nothing, nothing ( Einstein knew it) – is ever cut and dried and to claim it as such, is hubris-tic nonsense.
    Now two cold winters have passed, it is remarkable how short people’s memories can be but older correspondents on this blog can recall the awful winters of the 60s and 70s (some even further back than that;> ).
    Nature is wonderful but an elemental and terrible force, we don’t know much about it, politicians don’t know this…………….. The people do!
    And lord! Don’t the climate change!

    Doctor Lewis…….?
    He needs to drop the attitude and gain some perspective, do some reading other than AGW lit’, get out more and enjoy life to the full.

  33. UK Sceptic says:

    Nicholoas Sterm is a climate change expert? Not in this dimension he’s not. Stern is nothing more than a bumbling rent seeker who was enobled by Gordon Brown for his services to shafting the British taxpayer!

  34. Jordan says:

    Wren says: “Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”

    It depends on whether CAGW is real or completely in peoples’ minds. If the latter, then it certainly can be so stopped.

    If the former, then we must examine the evidence for and against the PREDICTIONS of catastrophe CAUSED by human CO2 emissions. Are you prepared to critically analyse the evidence behind those predictions Wren?

  35. Colonial says:

    Some above have quoted the dismissive line oft used by warmers, “Weather is not climate.” That is, of course, very true. As has been described time and again, climate is the summation of weather over time. If you took calculus, you’ll understand that description to signify that in the limit (i.e., in the real world), “Climate is the integral of weather”, from whence it further follows that “Weather is the derivative of climate.”

    The next time someone tries to shut you up by waving his “weather is not climate” talisman, you can agree with him and confuse him at the same time. Just say, “You’re right. Weather isn’t climate. Weather is the derivative of climate.” And grin.

  36. E.M.Smith says:

    I think it all comes down to time lags and attention ( delegation of decision ) behaviours.

    When it was “might get warm, go ’tisk tisk’ at parties” folks went along and delegated the decisions. Once it became “Put your children in bondage and wear sack cloth. Flagellation for your sins. Enrich Al Gore and Soros even more.” Well, folks decided to take back the delegation. Then you wait for a time lag while they read and ‘study up’ (something politicians seem unencumbered by…) and you end up at, well, now.

    Then, for icing, we have modestly horrid cold breaking out all over the place and old folks talking about long duration cycles…

    Hard to convince folks is getting hotter when they are standing in snow fall in May in California with June one week away…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/freaky-snow-in-california-in-may/

    So one cold winter is a fluke. Two were a minor pattern. Three is a trend. And a trend with a summer that isn’t coming on time (forget early) is a laughing stock.

    Once folks are laughing at you, it’s unrecoverable. (Cue re-run of Obama speech with laughter at global warming line…)

    FWIW, on “Law and Order” tonight the episode featured a Global Warming believer who was living by a set of “rules” to save the planet. They included not driving, not eating anything form more than 100 miles away… and not using toilet paper… A couple of times they ran the punch line of “bowl of water and left hand” …

    So even TV is painting AGW true believers as some kind of over the top kooks.

    At that point you know it’s soaking in…

  37. Since when has an economist – and that is using the term loosely in the case of a socialist political advisor – been a “climate change expert”? Going back to my Economic Course I always had trouble with the Supply/Demand “graphs” which never had any datum points and was told “that’s irrelevant”. Seems to me that much of the “science” in this debate is generated in the same way – pick a range of points along an axis and make a graph that follows the curve you want.

    Ah, I see, enlightenment dawns – that is what they’ve been doing. I’ll get back into my box now…

  38. Friar says:

    Professor Will Steffen is quoted above as describing the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ”almost infantile”, equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

    The Professor heads up the Australian National University Climate Change Institute.

    It seems obvious to me that his position would be very much at risk in the event that ‘climate change’ no longer attracted large amounts of research funding. It may be that such considerations are at the bottom of his simplistic characterisation of the debate.

    Even so, banging on about those who deny climate change really is a bit over the top. I don’t know anyone who ‘denies climate change’ – that is just too silly! Those who are or who have become skeptical of the hype generated in connection with climate change nevertheless are perfectly well aware of the fact that climate does change …because….well….after all is said and done, that’s what climate does!

    I would urge the Professor to abandon the hyperbole and off-hand ad hominem
    attacks and devote such talents as he may command to providing solutions to any of the many extremely important questions which remain unanswered in the field of climate science.

  39. JER0ME says:

    Wren says:
    May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.

    But fortunately, at least in a democracy, it can prevent trillions of dollars being spent on a futile attempt to solve it while lining Mugabe’s Swiss bank account.

  40. Alexander says:

    The recently-departed NewLabour Government told us time and again that ‘the science of CAGW is settled’ and anyone who didn’t believe the CAGW mantra wa a ‘flat earther’. Is this an example of Nicholas Stern’s paradigm that the politicians are ahead of the public, or is it just the hubris most of us ordinary blokes and blokesses believe it is? Most of the MSM still persistently interview themselves and wonder why, when they talk to someone in the street, the information they hear is all new to them.

  41. RobJM says:

    Hey I thought there were only a handful of sceptics, now theres whole groups in just one county!

  42. Julie Woods says:

    Capn Bob and erficbob,
    Did you hear that chilling item on BBC Radio 4 last night? “Experts” were saying that it’s time to forget democracy and just impose climate-change limitations. Governments have to take a lead. People are too short-sighted and thick. We don’t understand that the gases coming from the back of our cars today can cause the ice to melt in Alaska in 40 years’ time. We just don’t get it.
    There are precedents: in WW2, if there had been a vote, we wouldn’t have gone to war with Germany; the Leaders have to take a lead.
    The reporter “Isn’t this a bit like facism? Aren’t you talking like an eco-facist?”
    “Expert” — “Ho ho ho, yes I’ve been called that, ha ha ha. But this is SERIOUS. It’s about SAVING THE WORLD.”

  43. Juraj V. says:

    Question of time, until it will become a topic for mainstream politicians. Modern politicians are populists, listening what population wants. If the public resentment will turn the other way, they will crawl from their caves.
    Until then, you US voters do proper job in November.

  44. Jackie says:

    NYT finally begins to notice Crime of the Century.

    Only with a screwed up MSM could you get away with declaring the world is approaching global warming catastrophic tipping points and the only solution to the problem is to get Wall Street and the other incompetent Financial Markets to trade $billions of worthless carbon dioxide to prevent it.

    The NYT is now and has been for quiet some time the NRT(Non Relevant Times)

  45. tonyb says:

    I think the article has slightly missed the point as one of the reasons for the decline in alarmism is that the British Public are sick to the back teeth of all the blatant propagand in the form of stupid adverts, biased Tv programmes and general hectoring and lecturing. We are a contrary people and resent being lectured.

    On top af all this of course is that for the first time a reasoned sceptical view has started to be heard in the MSM, coupled with the realities of the most severe winter in 30 years after we were told that Snow was virtually a thing of the past.

    It is unknown how a hot summer and a fightback by the BBC and others will change peoples views again.

    Tonyb

  46. Gareth Phillips says:

    As a gardener in the UK I have observed no signs of warming. While this is a local and anecdotal observation, the plants that need a good summer do less and less well each year. 10 years ago I could grow Sweetcorn and tomatoes outside, now we are more reliant on Potatoes, Cabbage and other colder climate crops. Every year we are told that it will get warmer, every year I waste seeds on crops that need a reasonable summer. Very few people in our village believe in warming any more, as the lady in the post office said: “we were promised so much, but it delivered so little” She is a pretty observant lady!

  47. Peter Miller says:

    And the warmists wonder why they are losing the argument:

    1. Taking the questionable Theory of AGW and calling it fact. In all other branches of science, today’s level of knowledge and understanding of climate change would definitely classify AGW as only being an “interesting theory”.

    2. Obvious widespread manipulation of historical climate data to help ‘prove’ the Theory.

    3. Never ending scare stories, mostly obviously bogus, ludicrous or wild exaggeration of the facts.

    4. Most vocal supporters of AGW being: a) Rent-a-mob lefties and losers, b) Greenpeace, and c) tax hungry politicians – now that’s a group any thinking person will instinctively know has to be wrong.

    5. Growing public awareness of climate scientists’ motives: namely, the preservation of their research grants, salaries and comfortable life styles – almost always funded by the government.

    6. Ignoring anything which questions the Theory, such as: a) full implementation of the UHI effect in historical climate data, b) flat to declining global temperatures for more than a decade, c) Antarctic Ice Cap stability, d) recent climatic history such as the Medieval Warm Period and climatic fluctuations of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods etc, etc.

    7. Proposing to solve the ‘problem’ supposedly caused by the Theory by economically catastrophic tax rises, which only western industrialised countries would actually impose and would: a) not solve the ‘problem’, and b) not result in any material benefit for anyone with the possible exception of the Swiss banks.

    8. Climategate and with it the exposure of the cosy little club that ‘climate scientists’ have created for themselves, along with examples of how data is manipulated to support their Theory.

    9. The Hockey Stick and the disrepute that has caused AGW.

    10. An almost universal refusal by warmists to debate with sceptics in public – there is no one more zealous than a convert to a new cause or religion – so why do they wish to hide? I guess the answer is obvious.

    In conclusion, I suspect the most telling fact is that while sceptics may only have a few million dollars in voluntary, private sector, annual support, the warmists have many hundreds of millions of annual state support, the latter are losing the argument.

  48. Sheumais says:

    The much mentioned Nicholas Stern is such an renowned expert in the field of climate science, he recommended we should all become vegetarian, as eating meat requires more livestock and their belching is warming the planet. He would be well-advised to keep his mouth shut on this subject (and probably on Economics too).

  49. John V. Wright says:

    Anthony, thanking you for flagging up Elizabeth Rosenthal’s article in the NYT. Writing from the UK, I can confirm that we are a nation of sceptics, particularly about Government-led thinking. From the beginning there was an evident national unease about the ‘end of days’ way in which the AGW story was bring told.

    I have always believed that there are two sides to virtually every story and once I began to investigate the science I quickly discovered how underhanded and duplicitous a large section of the scientific community can be. There are, however, two areas of great concern not flagged up in the article, both of which will cause problems for the Establishment in years to come.

    The first concerns the BBC. The damage to the Beeb’s reputation among vast swathes of once dedicated middle England ‘BBC believers’ has been incalculable. Even now, the BBC will not discuss the science. Even now, it still trots out the IPCC line – limiting its attempt at ‘balance’ to reminders about the East Anglian Univ. FoI scandal and the disappearing glaciers farce. Even now, the flagship ‘Today’ programme pats the head of some blinkered oik from the halls of grant-filled academe as he/she/it fields happy science-free questions from ‘journalists’ while thinking people across the country howl with laughter at the BBC’s inability to properly get to grips with the issue.

    The second concerns the damage done to the reputation of scientists. Among with, I suspect, the majority of British people I have always viewed scientists with respect, holding them in high esteem as apolitical apostles of progress. As a former journalist and avowed sceptic myself I was aware that scientists had been used to pursue political ends in the past. But it seemed to me that the majority approached their research with an open and enquiring mind and the wellbeing of life on earth as a common cause. I, and millions like me, now see that many scientists are just as venal, power-hungry and in denial as the politicians who pay their wages.

    It is not enough for the silent majority to know what is going on. Climate change sceptic scientists need to be given primetime platforms on the BBC to explain the breathtaking scope of the global con-trick being attempted by scientists and Governments in this unholy alliance. In this way, both science and the BBC can go some way to repairing the reputational damage.

  50. Jonathan says:

    Tony Blair has just been appointed a climate adviser by Vinod Khosla. That should help convert a few more waverers.

  51. jaymam says:

    I would like to propose that every time someone gets an alarmist story in the media, they and the organisation they represent gets a point.
    Each week the names of the people and organisations in descending order of points will be published. If they retract their story the point will be deducted. After a year the points for their stories will be halved.
    The intention of this is to ensure that the people at the top of the list are unlikely to receive futher funding for their alarmist work. Perhaps the people doing the funding should get points as well.

  52. UK John says:

    We can be blinded by self interest and faith, also we can be blinded by doubt and cynicism.

    Keeping an open mind is hard.

  53. “Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.”

    Their science is so bad and the case so irrational that they have to prep and indoctrinate their supporters to try to hold their ground.

    ‘“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” [Nicolas Stern] said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.”’

    That’s a dangerous place to be. They’ll get stranded when the tide cuts them off.

  54. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    So many alarmists jumped on to this particular bandwagon that they trampled it to death. The public recognise incredible claims when they hear them.

    A more serious scientific issue concerns the irresponsible use of modelling. Models are very useful tools when used properly. Climate scientistist have demonstrated very clearly that if you don’t understand the basic science then you shouldn’t broadcast the incorrect model output implications from every rooftop.

  55. Ken Hall says:

    ” Wren says:
    May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”

    You are indeed correct. The only thing that will stop CAGW is the earth cooling naturally.

    Will that stop the billions of dollars worth of bought and paid for alarmist “scientific” research and the PR juggernaut to promote further alarmism? I doubt it. If the coldest and longest winters on record can be safely ignored by those screaming “THE WORLD IS BURNING UP!!!” then nothing will. Only a few years ago we were told that Scotland’s skiing industry would be dead. This year is set to be the longest skiing season on record.

    Yeah, that is an entirely subjective and singular example which proves nothing. BUT, how come the alarmists can point to any single, subjective example of weather and claim it is proof of climate change when it suits them? But they cannot accept any equal piece of subjective evidence that runs counter to the “warming meme”?

    The ice is melting = catastrophic change… The ice is recovering and doing so really quickly = irrelevant!

    It is that sort of hypocrisy that is weakening the “so-called scientific” case for CAGW.

  56. Mike Haseler says:

    The simple truth is that worldwide the interest in global warming has been decreasing since around 2007 and whilst I’d like to think it was something special in the British psyche, the fact is that we are just appear to be following the worldwide trend.

    It boils down to this: the public were fascinated by the new idea that mankind could be heating the globe to the extent that it would cause real changes. So, the public were lapping up every bit of news about what climate change could do . But after we’ve learnt that a few species we didn’t know existed before we were told they are threatened by a bit of warming might go the way of many other species that we never knew existed …And after we’ve realised that our own homes will never get flooded by rising sea levels, … and we’ve been watching our own local weather long enough to know that any change is going to be so small as to be unnoticeable in our own area.

    …Basically when we’ve heard everything that anyone can tell us about global warming and it still means the kids can go to school, our workplaces won’t be flooded etc. etc. we all realise this is a none problem. Interesting perhaps, … well perhaps not now that all the stories just seem to be the same dull repetitive eco-claptrap.

    Come on we’ve all seen it before in bird flu, swine flu, sars, MMR, salmonella in eggs, millennium bug. The press build up the story, the public lap it up, the stories get wilder and wilder in an ever more vicious cycle to sensationalise the story, and finally as the public realise that no one is actually dying (more than usual and only those with underlying conditions) and the needed press coverage to continue public interest clearly begins to look ridiculous, the press go off the story and start finding something else to interest their readers.

    That is why the guardian and bbc are so angry with the “bad media skills” of the climategate scientists. These eco-zealots in these organisations needed the scientists to squeeze every last bit of sensationalism from the evidence. The real truth of Climategate is that it revealed a scientific community struggling to fit the needs of media groups like the BBC and guardian for sensationalism to the scientific reality of the data. It showed the truth of scientific doubt behind the media lie of absolute certainty.

    But the stupid thing is the public already knew the guardian and bbc were egging the organic-sour-millet-freetrade-green-pudding

  57. Jimbo says:

    “If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?”

    One possible answer is the press coverage of Climategate has been so muted in the USA relative to the UK. Also look at the visitor stats from sitemeter shows me that you get more visitors from the UK than the USA even though the population of the UK is around 60 million and the USA is near 300 million.

    America! Land of the brave, home of the free, home of freedom of speech!

    http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s36wattsup&r=83

  58. KenB says:

    The thing to watch now is the re-invention of, reasons we need to revise our way of life with a new super-duper whizz bang economic barter system. A New world economy that will still enrich the Al Gores, the Soros’s and magically appear to solve the worlds economic fate. Don’t mind of course that this new world order will begin by transferring any rights we had at all to our governments, god bless them, who will then pay homage to the UN and duly deliver your savings, your kids heritage, and most if not all your food allowance to needy UN diplomats to hold bigger parties, grant indulgences to their rich mates and receive even larger kickbacks to bulk up their retirement funds.

    Of course the Melbourne Age being the leftist bastion for the so called intelligentsia will still bleat that we should also give away the shirt off our backs to expunge some mysterious guilt complex “they think” we Australians should have for standing shoulder to shoulder with our mates and fighting for the rights of the world.

    Such a pity for their agenda, that its raining so hard and its so cold, that most of us could do with some warming,( if we could only afford the inflated cost of those commodities) caused by the threat of CAGW.

    I liked that quote, It so much sums up our present political climate in Australia!!

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” (They wish!!)

    Keep up the good work guys! Those with agenda won’t let a “gravy train” opportunity slip away so easily.

  59. Jimbo says:

    Oh, and the other reason for the poll falls might be found through alarm fatigue. If you blame all things on global warming then soon enough ordinary people shrug their shoulders, laugh at the idea in their local bar and say to themselves “this can’t possibly be so.”
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  60. oslo says:

    Lack of public support will only cause CAGW to go underground.

    In Norway, the Prime Minister has appointed a shadow-PM to take care of affairs while he is out there dishing out billions to various funds and lobbying for carbon trading.

    We never hear anything until “another success” is announced, meaning that another few billion kroner has been wasted to bribe corrupt logging companies into non-logging. No one seems to protest.

    So as the voter loses interest and the media loses interest, the show still goes on behind the scenes, even more fervent in its unchecked craziness than before.

    What we need is a “big jolt”, which in economic theory is an event which brings the whole system out of balance, for it to eventually settle in a new mode of operation. Several small nudges just won’t do the trick.

    We need a climategate x 10.

  61. Alan the Brit says:

    My goodness, when one resorts to referring to an economist as a chief climate expert, as one does a mulit-millionaire railway engineer (& economist), then the science has had it! What’s the old saying, “opinions are like belly buttons, every body has one, & they’re all different!”

  62. pesadilla says:

    I sometimes think that never grows so red the rose
    as where some buried caesar bled
    that every hyacinth the garden wears
    dropped in her lap, from some once lovely head.

  63. Jimbo says:

    Oh, and the Met Office’s failed forecasts. Oh, and ……

  64. Mooloo says:

    ”Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ …

    Infantile is right.

    Educated people have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Trying to tar educated people who have actually bothered to read some of the material on offer as “flat earthers” is infantile in the extreme.

    I can prove the earth is round in multiple ways, very easily. I don’t need to though, since everyone knows it is.

    Only an infantile fool would think that climate sceptics are at that level.

  65. Philhippos says:

    If it wasn’t for the efforts of the BBC (Brussels Broadcasting Corporation!) and especially it’s chief lemmings Roger Harrabin and Justin Rowlatt then the support would probably fall to the couple of percent of lefty greens.

    However, as was made clear in a BBC Radio 4 Analysis yesterday (24th May), there are many people who claim that ‘global warming is too important to be left to democracies to solve – we need dictatorial powers to make the public do waht we say must be done’. Very scary given the acces these people have to money and power.

  66. Stephen Wilde says:

    “If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?”

    It’s because of all wot I wrote over the past two years !! :)

  67. Beth Cooper says:

    Cap’n Jack, you are very smart for a pirate! Life at sea has taught you a lot.

  68. Gail Combs says:

    Julie Woods says:
    May 25, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Capn Bob and erficbob,
    Did you hear that chilling item on BBC Radio 4 last night? “Experts” were saying that it’s time to forget democracy and just impose climate-change limitations. Governments have to take a lead. People are too short-sighted and thick….

    The reporter “Isn’t this a bit like facism? Aren’t you talking like an eco-facist?”
    “Expert” — “Ho ho ho, yes I’ve been called that, ha ha ha. But this is SERIOUS. It’s about SAVING THE WORLD.”
    _________________________________________________________________________
    It has always been about a totalitarian government (global governance). Just google two of the leaders Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller. You can include the Master Spinmeister too, Stan Greenberg, who helped get Tony Blair and Bill Clinton elected among others.

  69. Richard North says:

    Nice to see the NYT catching up ….

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/05/fading-away.html

  70. jcrabb says:

    As the Arctic continues it’s decline and the North west passage opens up to regular transit people will no longer have a choice about the occurance of Global warming.

  71. Mike Haseler says:

    Mooloo says: May 25, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Educated people have known for thousands of years that the earth is round.

    Unfortunately, it is the educated people who do not live by the sea who would have been the most likely to believe the earth is flat. Anyone who lives by the sea is a aware that boats disappear over the horizon – and this effect would be more apparent to the ancients! in their smaller boats. All sailors would have been aware that coastlines disappear and this effect is all the greater the smaller the boat This is because in a small boat the horizon is all that much closer as short as a couple of miles for a rower in an open boat.

    So two fishermen sitting in small boats may be unable to see each other when they are as close as four miles away … even on a flat calm sea … until they stand up or hoist a sail! Lights in coastal houses would disappear “over the horizon” around 10miles out to sea or along the coast. So it is beyond belief to think that anyone in a small boat travelling more than 20 miles would not know the “downward slope of the horizon” at distance.

    Up to 50miles and only the highest mountain tops would be visible along a flat horizon and more than 70miles and even the highest features of 1000m mountains would disappear.

  72. Popular culture is starting to catch on!

  73. Kevin Cave says:

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but the mental image of dozens of glum-faced, hand-wringing, New World Order-wanting, freedom-hating, lefty-loving, watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), all meeting together in a hall in London, and fretting that Joe Public simply ain’t buying their snake-oil any more, is quite frankly, deliciously funny.

    Yes what I said is infantile, but it’s oh so gratifying B) , and why can’t I/we have a bit of fun at their expense every now and then? :)

    Getting serious for a moment though, we all still need to keep an eye on these slippery buggers – they’re getting desperate now, and will stop at nothing to get their way. It’s up to us to keep asking all the awkward questions, point out the flaws in their thinking and logic, and to smash all the FUD they keep producing with unassailable, awkward facts.

    Regards.

  74. Lazarus Long says:

    They are The Annointed.

    How dare you question them?

  75. Kevin Cave says:

    #
    Lazarus Long says:
    May 25, 2010 at 4:04 am

    They are The Annointed.

    How dare you question them?

    Correction : How VERY dare you!

    ;)

  76. Dave Springer says:

    The beginning of the end, or rather the beginning of the truth coming to light, of this so-called settled science was when the popular name of it changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.

    That’s a rhetorical tactic called framing the debate. Science is based on empirical evidence, repeatable results, and hypothetical predictions which either confirm or falsify the hypothesis. The bottom line is that much of the empirical evidence is less than what I’d call robust and enough of the hypothetical predictions were so wrong as to put the hypothesis in grave doubt. Rather than discard or modify the hypothesis (man-made CO2 causing greenhouse warming amplified by positive feedback from increased water vapor) when the predictions failed they retained the hypothesis and reframed the prediction of “global warming” into “climate change”. Now the only way to falsify the hypothesis is for the climate to not change. A pretty safe prediction since it opens the door to cherry picking weather events and calling them climate events instead.

    The public aren’t idiots and even if they don’t understand the science or the methods they understand when someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

  77. Jryan says:

    An earlier poster beat me to it, but I just wanted to reiterate that the climate will do what the climate will do, and no amount of PR will change that.

    As someone who doesn’t buy the alarmist panic I have to wonder if some of the vitriolic urgency on the alarmist side right now is because they want to take credit for the declining temperatures of the next few decades. Had they won this battle in 2000 and gotten severe CO2 limitations in place you’d better believe there would be no hiding of declines today… they would be celebrating them.

  78. Wren

    CAGW exists only in people’s minds, so yes it can be stopped by public opinion.

  79. Steve in SC says:

    The BBC is in a world of hurt.
    Don’t they have all their pensions tied up in global warming scam stocks?

  80. jcrabb

    Please draw on the map the best route through the ice.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png

    I’m having a tough time finding it.

  81. Tenuc says:

    Professor Steffen – at the Australian Davos Connection’s Future Summit:-
    ”Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ …”

    This comment shows we’ve got the CAGW crowd on the back-foot again, I think, and this is the last hiding place for the whole ridiculous scam.

    Providing we keep pushing forward the sceptical arguments on natural climate variability, it won’t be long now before the whole edifice collapses.

    Long may it RIP!

  82. R.S.Brown says:

    Once again we have to feel sorry for the poor polar bears as victims of
    climate change. The BBC has a report on a study out of Canada that
    models bear behavior in a stressed enviornment.

    They went to a model because the real data was too spotty for them
    to do much with:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8700000/8700472.stm

  83. maz2 says:

    Al Gore’s Weather (AGW) Report:
    Healing the Rift.
    …-

    “Myles Allen is the head of the climate dynamics group at University of Oxford’s atmospheric, oceanic and planetary physics department”

    “So we have a real opportunity here. Will Cameron and Chris Huhne just keep on pushing for “meaningful and binding commitments” in Cancun? Or will they use those friendly invitations from Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Hu Jintao to say: “That didn’t work, did it? Here’s a better idea…””

    “New climate solutions could heal the rift over Copenhagen

    Will the new prime minister, David Cameron, open the floor to new proposals – such as mandatory carbon sequestration?”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/may/24/climate-solutions-copenhagen-coalition

  84. morgo says:

    instead of being worried about global warming we should be trying to fix up the man made polution of our rivers and land and air ,but the scientists see that there is not the big grants in land polution , the so called global warming is where the big bucks are, sad but that is the world we live in the mighty doller rules .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  85. Cameron Taylor says:

    Isn’t it interesting how many polls are being conducted to follow public opinion on this issue. I would have thought that these governments who usually ignore the wishes of the ‘common people’, and armed with a so-called concensus among the experts would feel justified in proceeding with AGW policy. And yet they keep such a close eye on us to see whether we are accepting it or not.

    Strange………

  86. Barry Woods says:

    To extend on a thought, this, I can tell you, without a word or a lie:

    Buying a ticket in the lottery tommorow MAY result in SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC GAINS for you.

    Unlikely. But possible.

    The same as Anthropogenic Climate Change MAY (Insert bad thing here….)

    Thanks to Speedy, at Jo Nova

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/this-is-so-not-over/

  87. Tom in Florida says:

    Wren says:(May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm)
    “Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”

    Good, because warmer is better.

    jcrabb says:(May 25, 2010 at 3:38 am)
    “As the Arctic continues it’s decline and the North west passage opens up to regular transit people will no longer have a choice about the occurance of Global warming.”

    Good, because warmer is better.

    p.s. Notice one reference is to CAGW and the other just plain old Global warming.
    Does jcrabb know the difference?

  88. t . f . p . says:

    Gareth Phillips says: May 25, 2010 at 1:02 am
    As a gardener in the UK I have observed no signs of warming.

    Try doing a plot of airfrost days in UK – the decline is obvious
    for a starter here is a blinker image 1961-90 cf 1971-2000 snow days in uk from met office Add http:// to image url:
    img690.imageshack.us/img690/9668/daysofsnowlyinguk.gif

    Here is one from alaska it is just a record of dates – no tweaking possible.
    Nenana (alaska) river ice breakup date:
    img72.imageshack.us/img72/8913/nenanaco2tsi.png

  89. rbateman says:

    jcrabb says:
    May 25, 2010 at 3:38 am

    As has happened before, it will happen again: Alarmists will herald balmy open-water come-one/come-all to the NW Passage.
    Many fools will attempt it and perish. Some will be rescued, some will not. Canada will be forced to issue warnings that fall on deaf ears as the ignorant rush in.

  90. Conrad J says:

    A consensus of scientists, even very clever scientists, who have not audited the data and methods of the IPCC adds almost nothing to the credibility of the IPCC results. Some may be supporting fellow scientists perceived to be under attack. Others may believe the published findings to be in accord with their own environmental notions. Science is about collecting and analyzing data. Those scientists who responded to poll questions about work they had not audited should be embarrassed to have done so. What would be convincing is to have a body of skeptical scientists given all of the data, programs, and methods and to charge that body with replicating the work and establishing its credibility. If the IPCC supporters have faith in their product they should be eager to get on with it.

  91. Bruce Cobb says:

    When will pollsters get it through their thick skulls that the questions about whether or not climate change or global warming “is happening” are nonsensical? Climate change is a given – it’s like asking if people believe the earth is spinning or not, and the question about warming makes no sense without context, because without that, the correct answer is “it depends”.
    It’s good to see that the doubts in the public about man’s responsibility for warming or climate change are climbing though, despite the confused and confusing questions of pollsters. A confluence of factors are responsible for the rising doubts, meaning that this rising tide of doubt is pretty much unstoppable. Further, doubt leads to people educating themselves, since among the factors is the MSM itself having over-hyped CAGW/CC to the degree that they are no longer seen as credible sources of information. Here in the U.S. it will contribute to a number of climate-change legislation supporters being ousted this November.
    All good news, but as has been pointed out the fight will continue, and we can only look forward to it becoming even nastier.

  92. Colin Porter says:

    If any one is hoping that David Cameron and the Tories will deliver us from this global warming travesty, think again. Like Ponteus Pilot, Cameron has washed his hands of the responsibility. He has made his Liberal Democratic coalition partners responsible with the appointment of Chris Huhne as Energy and Climate Change Secretary. The Lib Dems are even more barmy about climate change than New Labour and Chris Huhne is among the most radical within the Lib Dem party and passionately opposes practical solutions for our energy shortfall, such as building new nuclear capacity. Economically, we don’t stand a chance of recovery with these idiots in power.

  93. David L. says:

    “I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.”

    In other words, politicians don’t care what the people think. Cram any crap down their throats as long as it increases the power and the wealth of the government.

    I really love the mantra: “The science is settled”. That’s the kind of catchy phrase that any “good” movement needs to help push an agenda that’s simply not true. History is full of them, especially the period of the 1930’s and 1940’s.

  94. Symon says:

    Wouldn’t a “a more efficient national electricity grid” be a good thing?

  95. Stacey says:

    The reason for the realism that has hit Jo and Josephine public, is because it was the web wot won it?

    Sites like this one and Climate Audit, to name but a few, allowed information to be dissemminated to any one interested.

    Sites like Comment is Free if you agree and UnReal Climate had/have no answer to the questions raised about the dodgy science so what do they do? Censor.

    The web is to the defeat of global warming alarmism as printing was to the emancipation of the people.

  96. David L. says:

    Tom in Florida says: (May 25, 2010 at 4:59 am)

    “Good, because warmer is better.”

    I agree. Go back 13,00 years when the glaciers were receding from North America and see if the people living at that time were upset that the globe was warming. Do you think they stopped burning their fires because it was perceived to be warming the planet and they would rather have it cold? Can you imagine the panic when they realized the glaciers were receding and creating the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes? How they must of cried. But it was too late for them, it was irreversible. Too bad their politicians weren’t strong enough and had enough cute little catch phrases to save the glaciers. The glaciers are completely gone now, as are the mammoths and various other species. And look what’s happened to the human population since then! What a catastrophe!

  97. hunter says:

    What the promoters of catastrophic AGW fail to realize is that legitimacy has always rested with the skeptics.
    The public is just now figuring realizing this.

  98. Jon says:

    Man made warming has been a plus, plus for politicians. They have enjoyed political contibutions and support from organizations and support by bringing “alternative” energy projects into their districts. The cost of these projects and their ineffectiveness has been lost in the multi-trillion dollar budgets.

    As carbon taxes became closer to reality and the specter of huge increases in gasoline, gas, oil and the cost of rising energy content of everything we buy become apparent, people are now paying attention and are not ready to accept these assertions as facts. People arround the world are looking at the failed premise of man-made warming, the distortions and fabrications necessary to support it and the abject failure of technologies that are touted as the answer to the imagined problem. The theory of large scale warming from fossil fuel usage is an unproved theory with no basis in science, history or common sense. The “solutions” offered for this imagined problem if imposed and carried out perfectly cannot make any measurable change to the perceived problem. We need real energy. we can have cleaner air using natural gas, clean coal and utilizing the cleanest energy of all, nuclear. The only way to keep us free of foreign oil is to develop domestic sources. The United States has more energy resources than any other country in the world by far. Choking off these resources and forcing improtation of energy is a plan that endangers our economic and military security as well as that of the entire world.

    We cannot accept the incompetence and distortions of politicians any longer. We need real solutions to real problems and cannot afford to continue to spend hundreds of billions on pretend solutions to imaginary problems.

  99. Ian W says:

    Hockeystickler says:
    May 24, 2010 at 10:42 pm
    last winter was the coldest in britain since 1963, that was a big influence : they’re changing their minds there. stevengoddard – you’re right in your assertion : freezing temperatures can do that.

    But you see at the same time as people in Britain were having a severe winter, and the USA was having ‘snowmageddon’ and cattle were dying in huge numbers in Mongolia – we were being repeatedly told that this was one of the warmest Jan-Feb in human history. This is the opposite of “face validity” and was not the third cry of “WOLF!!” but about the 97th.

    Climate ‘scientists’ can wave all the peer reviewed papers they want saying its getting hot – in front of someone watching their cattle die in the cold – and all it does is lessen belief in climatology and science in general.

  100. Ulric Lyons says:

    Most people I know didn`t trust the what the “scientists” said about global warming anyway, though many embraced popular suspicion that mankind`s activities were doing wierd things to the weather. With a bit of education on the decline in Atlanitic hurricane landfalls, and the science of solar driven temeperature change and weather events, all have now abandonded the notion that we can do much to change the weather, and are happily getting on with matters to them. Just a few more monkeys and we`ll reach that magic 100 number.

  101. Mike Haseler says:

    Colin Porter says: May 25, 2010 at 5:15 am

    If any one is hoping that David Cameron and the Tories will deliver us from this global warming travesty,

    Colin, don’t you think that if the tories thought it at all important there would be a tory in the post!

  102. Nicholas stern, influencer of UK govt policy, purveyor of doom laden outpourings, oh and director of a carbon trading company….

  103. tarpon says:

    It’s hard to keep a lie afloat for long, even with trillions of tax scams in the balance.

    The trap was too many people with the expertise, physics, chemistry, space science … and more, that couldn’t be bought off with government grants. Once the nut was cracked, good science and scientist with reputations to protect, will come forth — And they did.

    Thank Steve for leading the way.

  104. artwest says:

    The latest desperate warmist tactic, grooming in reverse…

    “Young climate campaigners adopt an MP
    Campaign by UK Youth Climate Coalition aims to keep global warming at the top of the political agenda”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/25/youth-climate-adopt-an-mp

  105. Pamela Gray says:

    I’ve been waiting for them to dust off the idea presented a couple years ago that models predict it will turn cold for the next 30 or so years before it gets all hot again. And that this fluctuation is a part of global wa…never mind.

  106. Dave Springer says:

    @symon

    re; wouldn’t a more efficient electrical grid be a good thing

    Not just a good thing but a required thing. Our grid is old and working at and sometimes over capacity. It gets older and less able to meet rising demand every day.

    You don’t see much press about this. Electrical transmission lines are expensive to build and nobody wants them running over their homes or schools (NIMBY). Electric vehicles where the batteries are recharged by plugging them into a wall socket in your garage can’t become a reality without a huge upgrade in transmission lines which can barely handle peak demand without adding electrical vehicles into the mix. It’s also a basic, show-stopper kind of problem with putting huge solar power farms out in southwestern US deserts. Theoretically there’s enough sun and open space in the deserts to git ‘er done if you discounting the problem of no way good way to store power for nighttime demand. But even if the storage problem is solved there’s no way to get the power from way out in the desert to where it used. That would require a huge capital outlay for new and upgraded transmission lines. And if you’re talking about electrical vehicles then the new or upgraded lines have to go all the way to every residential meter.

    It’s clear enough we are going to desperately need to have a viable replacement for fossil fuels in this century. I see only two practical means at the current time. One is biological where we have genetically engineered bacteria that turn air & sunlight into clean burning liquid fuels or we put photo-voltaic collectors in orbit (space based solar power) which solves the first two problems of reliable sunlight and overnight storage (sunlight is much more intense and shines 24/7 in orbit). The distribution problem is solved by having decentralized rectenna farms on the surface which can feed into the existing grid. That would still require beefing up local distribution to the point everyone can recharge the electric vehicles overnight in the garage. The best hope I think is the biological solution. At this point the biological solution is just folks like Craig Ventor continuing to plug away at bleeding edge genetic engineering. Doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of scientific discovery required at this point. It’s an engineering problem not a science problem. Engineering problems are solved by time and money in a more predictable fashion than scientific problems which require largely unpredictable discoveries to move forward. The space-based solution is almost entirely an engineering problem too at this point but requires far more capital outlay and radical transformation in how we power things since it doesn’t produce liquid fuels easily accomodated by extant internal & external combustion engines.

  107. Capn Jack says:

    The thermometer told the story.

    It were not Al Gore in the Pantry having sex with a media Mogul.

    It were not Gaven Schmidt of NASA in a coffee House in Brooklyn, Hoboken to be more exact.

    The truth is Models failed and measurement is measurement.

    It aint winning or losing but in one decade , we know more than we did before.

    Science under adversity, the public can read thermometers, they can see the beach and rivers.

    All they need is a BS call. THey knew they just needed scientists real scientists. Willing to fight science as it should be fought.

    Economists will talk for a decade yet, but the science argument is over.

    Carbon trade is dead, you can’t regulate elements on the periodic table to quote a Green peace legend.

    Cutting down Rain forest is not a good idea, killing species is not a good idea, but there is a place for sustainability.

  108. CheshireRed` says:

    Beware, all is not done and dusted in the UK media, not by a long way. A couple of weeks ago The Times published a climate change article online, resulting in a deluge of adroit and well- argued grumbles from climate sceptics. Recommends on sceptical posts went through the roof and The Times promptly pulled the article completely.

  109. P Wilson says:

    Several reasons.

    The CRU/climategate exposé

    Also, laymen have an aptitude, or else an instinct for a semblance of truth, regardless of what ideologists tell them.

    If you tell a bus driver that the faster he goes the shorter the distance between two points, he will not believe it, regardless of how abstruse mathematics equations can be concocted to demonstrate that higher speed will shorten the distance.

    Its similar to the experiment by Galileo at the leaning Tower of Pisa. Aristotle maintained, with valid logical, that two weights dropped from the same height, one weighing ten times the other will lead to the heavier weight reaching the ground ten times more quickly. Of course Aristotle never tried the experiment.

    Several thousand years later Galileo audaciously proved Aristotle wrong when he dropped the weights from the tower and both landed simulataneously. Even the professors refused to believe that Aristotle could be in the wrong, and therefore considered that their eyes were deceiving them.

    The layman thinks otherwise.

    The sceptics are Galileo, and the AGW’s are Aristotle

  110. Vincent says:

    Politicians are ahead of the curve? That one made me laugh, not least because it shows just how clueless these so called climate experts are. Well, it was Lord Stern who said it, so what to expect?

    The reality is that the politicians are shown once again as being behind the curve. They got on board several years back when public concern was detectable. Even then it wasn’t as strong as politicians realised. Now the tide has gone out and shown that they have all been swimming naked. Eventually they will gather their clothes and quietly slink away, but not before inflicted still more damage on their economies.

    The Greek government, for example, has decided that they can grow their way out of their debt crisis by investing in “green technology.” Perhaps they’ve been reading too many Stern reports, or haven’t noticed whats been happening in Spain.

  111. Jim Clarke says:

    My favorite quote:

    “I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis…”

    Okay…maybe it is a matter of semantics. Perhaps it is not a ‘factual error’ to base the entire argument on a logical fallacy, but it certainly is atrocious! Proclaiming that “AGW must be true because we can’t make our models work otherwise.” is argumentum ad ignorantiam: a claim that it must be true because they can’t figure out how it could be false! (And heads up boys…your models don’t work if you DO make anthropogenic forcing the dominant influence on climate, accept for a few decades in the last 20th Century. For the rest of Earth’s history…your models are useless!)

    Well here is how it could be false: natural variability! Real climatologists are unlocking the secrets of natural climate variability, while the IPCC ignores such variability in the present and actively denies it existed in the past! This is delusional. The IPCC claims that it does not know of any natural climate variability that could cause the observed changes. Well, here is a clue…read the research of climatologists who actually study the Earth’s climate and not computer programs. That may help!

  112. Capn Jack says:

    North Sydney and Went worth is rich bastards doing socialism for a buck..

    Looks ALP to me.

    Those two seats are ALP. We will take 30 seats, we dont need born to rule Bastards.

    Wise guys.

  113. Coalsoffire says:

    The lesson here is simple and ancient. Those who live by the anecdote, die by the anecdote. CAGW alarmists, when asked for proof of their position always turn to the flavor of the month anecdotal evidence of warming (or when really pressed they will even try to explain how an incident of cooling is actually due to warming – that really goes over poorly with sentient beings – but they keep trying). They give the impression that their whole theory is based on today’s weather, today’s glacier melt, today’s ice extent, today’s sea level, today’s polar bear numbers etc. And when tomorrow’s numbers turn against them they are caught out in the lie. Hence the poll numbers show that the ruse has been understood by the people. If they would have just stuck to the science of the thing instead of waving wildly at every anecdotal incident of apparent warming as if it meant the end of the world…. oh, that’s their problem, apparently there is no science.

  114. Capn Jack says:

    The Merchant Banker and the real Estate Agent actually think they have the cred to lead the wide brown Land.

  115. ScottD says:

    I love this line:
    …efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.

    Just because the world is maybe warming does not mean that humans are causing it. Can’t they understand that. Show us the proof that humans are causing any warming then we might believe them. So far I haven’t seen one thing to convince me that we have anything whatsoever to do with the present warming. For that matter, I haven’t seen anything that shows that the warming is unusual.

    Idiocy like this makes you wonder how the Earth recovered from the last couple of ice ages without all those coal fired power plants and SUVs. Personally, I think it’s that little fusing ball of hydrogen hanging out in space might have a little something to do with it. :)
    ——————————
    David L. says:
    May 25, 2010 at 5:31 am
    LOL, Save the cute widdle cavebear! That made my day

  116. TJA says:

    Web 3.0 – Open Information + Critical Thinking

    They are not ready for it, and will have to throw out their whole playbook, or take control of the web.

  117. Capn Jack says:

    North Sydney has a name, it is Rhyde.

    That is the beach’s name North Rhyde, not Sydney.

  118. roger says:

    David Cameron may well have been “strangely muted” during the UK election campaign and I would suggest with good reason.
    With a £156Bn current account deficit and compelled by market forces to perform radical financial surgery, he would no doubt have been shocked to find that The Carbon Trust, a so called independent yet government funded Quango that for years has bribed the UK Press with huge amounts of advertising money in the CCAGW cause, was reportedly in receipt of £100M in 2007 from Governmental sources, according to this excerpt from the National Audit Office report.
    “The Carbon Trust used 77.1 million in funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2006-07, plus 23.1 million from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the devolved administrations.”
    I have been unable to find more recent figures, but anecdotally the run up to Copenhagen produced a plethora of full and double page adverts masquerading as scientific articles.
    Will he have the courage and sense to abolish this chimera which uses our taxes to indoctrinate us to accept yet more taxes? Or will the intelligent fraction of the Nation continue to groan inwardly and develop repetetive strain injuries from exasperated daily turnings of the offending pages?
    Time will tell.


  119. Writes John Q Public:

    No one really took AGW as a serious threat until it became a ‘political game changer’. Once that happened – thanks to President Obama – the sceptics decided it was time to shine a light on the weak science and models that propped the ‘straw man’ up. Even the sceptics didn’t take it seriously enough at first.”

    Hm? Where does that perception come from? I’ve been monitoring the anthropogenic global warming contention since its current instantiation broke surface in about 1979, and the “skeptics” (myself included) have been taking the assertions of the AGW charlatans about as “seriously” as it’s possible to get.

    The political ramifications of the “only-man-is-vile” campaign armed and engined by the AGW blunder were evident from the beginning. The election of Barry Soetoro in 2008 had vanishingly little with any decision on the part of scientific critics of the “global warming” fraud “to shine a light on the weak science and models” of the warmist’s Cargo Cult Science.

    Admittedly, the ascendancy of our flagrantly unconstitutional Mombasa Messiah drove home the urgent need for political opposition to the machinations of thugs and bunko artists like Algore, but the election of Crash Test Johnnie (the other socialist party’s candidate in that year of choice between seppuku and falling on one’s sword, Roman-style) would’ve resulted in a creature squatting in the Oval Office with just as blind and pig-headed a determination to ram cap-and-trade down upon this nation.

    Bear in mind that John McCain is very much the “bipartisan” figure when it comes to helping his nominal opposition to do vicious, unlawful, destructive, thieving, and murdering things to the American people. I picture him happening on a gang rape, and “going along to get along.”

    Heavens, wasn’t that the same sort of “zipper control problem” that sunk the Navy’s Tailhook Association? So much for naval aviators….

    I would ask those who, like John Q Public, think that the skeptical opposition to the anthropogenic global warming fraud is a recent phenomenon to take the time required to look into the record of sound and well-reasoned critique of this idiocy, which was manifest from the earliest days of this error’s promulgation.

    The political aspect of this dead-from-the-neck-up pseudoscience is certainly harrowing, but as damned bad science it has been lucidly and conscientiously opposed for the past three decades, and this is worth bearing in mind.

  120. Keith in Hastings UK says:

    Alarmist fight back is far from over, and behind the scenes gravy trains still rumble on (excuse mixed metaphors, please)

    Everyone properly convinced of it, must continue to press the sceptical case down the pub (bar), in shops, queues (lines), wherever, or the drip drip of pro CAGW articles and media nonsence – esp. BBC – will gradually change perception again. Continuing to report, person to person, the lack of ongoing warming signs, is essential, while mentioning that climate may still warm but doesn’t seem to be from man made CO2…. we must stay alert and not ourselves actually become “deniers”, or refute the fact that in the end we must get off oil etc in a planned and sensible way, for political and resource exhaustion reasons?

    Thanks to all the proper scientists who contribute on this site and allow those like me with ancient science degrees to catch up!

  121. Mark says:

    It’s worth noting that the British people just voted ‘none of the above’ en masse in a general election; it’s not just ‘global warming’ they’re sick of but politicians in general, particularly those who believe they are ‘ahead of the curve’ (i.e. who don’t give a damn about what the people think).

    For the Tories to still be pushing insane ‘green’ tax rises and money pits for the sake of ‘global warming’ when the winter was the worst in decades and the economy is in the toilet with borrowing at record levels is truly infantile behaviour. Labour may come back laughing next year after the Tories have dug their own grave.

  122. Capn Jack says:

    The beaches have names, Convict names.

    The land has Squatters names.

    We have history other than politics. None of it perfect but it is ours, not politicians.

    The beaches of Sydney have names.

    We will have our history.

  123. Grumbler says:

    “t . f . p . says:
    May 25, 2010 at 5:08 am
    Gareth Phillips says: May 25, 2010 at 1:02 am
    As a gardener in the UK I have observed no signs of warming.

    Try doing a plot of airfrost days in UK – the decline is obvious
    for a starter here is a blinker image 1961-90 cf 1971-2000 snow days in uk from met office Add http:// to image url:
    img690.imageshack.us/img690/9668/daysofsnowlyinguk.gif

    Here is one from alaska it is just a record of dates – no tweaking possible.
    Nenana (alaska) river ice breakup date:
    img72.imageshack.us/img72/8913/nenanaco2tsi.png”

    You’re missing the point. The plots and ‘data’ see one thing but the observers see another. That’s why we are sceptical. If all the gardeners said there was no change would that make any difference to the data set torturers? No. It varies a bit but for the past 30 years but May 5th is the last frost in my garden.

    cheers David

  124. Robert of Ottawa says:

    pat says:

    meanwhile:

    25 May: Age, Australia: Adam Morton: Climate debate ‘almost infantile’
    …..
    ”It’s a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals – and they have been disproved,” Professor Steffen said

    Wot Prof. Steffen don’t understand is that we now know how that bias in the number of published “peer-reviewed” papers came about. By fixing it, Prof. STeffen, so the grants continue to flow. Are you worried that your budget may be axed?

  125. Enneagram says:

    Time for the left to leave, and for climate to freely change without the help of politicians and investment banks.
    Time, also, for Saint Al Baby (AKA: Fat Bedwetter) to move to his new sea level residence and forget Gaia church.

  126. Retired Engineer says:

    re: Dave Springer

    A modern electical grid isn’t the universal answer. Sending electricity from here to there hasn’t changed much in a long time. We may well need a bigger electrical grid. “Smart” grids, proposed by many pols, really means giving the utility/government the ability to turn things off when they choose to. It doesn’t add a kilowatt-hour to anything.

    Solar collectors in the deserted southwest are great. No people. And no water. So how do you keep them clean? And prevent the blowing sand from etching the glass? Not impossible, but a long way from practical. And very expensive.

    The Solar Power Satellite was interesting in the late 70’s. It was shot down by reality shortly thereafter, but has refused to die. Sunlight isn’t “much more intense” up there. On Earth, pointed directly at the sun, you get about 1kw/m^2. In orbit, about 1.36 kw/m^2. And you have to convert it to microwaves (inefficient), beam it down (maybe 50% loss), and convert back to electricity (inefficient). My microwave engineer associates say you would be lucky to get 5% end to end. That overcomes the more intense sun by a wide margin. There is the cost of getting a lot of stuff up to Clarke orbit. Anything lower requires rather complex aiming and handoff protocols. Making solar panels on the moon to save boos cost doesn’t pass the laugh test. We are going to build things that need the best clean room possible on the dirtiest place we’ve ever been? And transport a major manufacturing facility to a place we’ve sent only 12 folks to with a tiny dune buggy or two?

    There is the not-so-slight problem of keeping this gizmo aimed at the sun. It will be huge, many football fields in size. And it must rotate completely once per orbit to keep the flat part pointed at the big yellow thing. Not easy. Read “Neutron Star” by Larry Niven for a simple description about what happens to things in orbit.

    Then there is a small problem of RF pollution. A multi-gigawatt transmitter in an orbit shared with all the communication satellites? So it’s not the same frequency, but that much power will totally desensitize any earth-based receiver. Been there, done that, in far smaller terrestrial applications. As for the “rectantenna” that receives all this power? Assuming the 10×20 km size in the original proposals, the energy density for a 1 Gw receiver (about 0.1% of our national needs) would exceed 10 mw/cm^2 at the center of the antenna. That’s about 1000x the federal standard for microwave exposure. Birds flying over may not appreciate this.

    We need practical solutions, not pie-in-the (literal) sky answers. Until we build a reprocessing facility, I’m not a fan of nuclear. So we have coal and gas. With a bunch of both, enough until we get something like fusion. Which might take a while.

  127. Henry chance says:

    The MET OFFice did it’s part. It had great forecasting errors 10 years in a row. 9, the errors were on the hot side.
    The Met Office helps us doubt the mantra.

  128. Enneagram says:

    ….or perhaps all betwetters leave diapers and get back recharged, on steroids, and begin hunting skeptics ☺

  129. JEM says:

    CheshireRed – that happens all the time.

    Newsrag site puts up alarmist AGW piece, then pulls or buries the story as soon as it looks like the skeptic side is winning the comments.

  130. jcrabb says:

    stevengoddard

    I’m not saying the Northwest passage is open at the moment, only during the Arctic Summer months.

    Tom in Florida

    What grounds do you have to say warming is good? in Australia increased warmth is diastrous for our Agricultural industry with increased droughts and heatwaves. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming comes into play when permafrost melt releasing Methane, which is starting to occur from the East Siberian sea. The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully.

    rbateman

    The Northwest passage was succesfully navigated by a commercial cargo ship in 2008, no rescue required, in fact not even a ice cube was seen.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/11/28/nwest-vessel.html


  131. John V. Wright laments “…the damage done to the reputation of scientists” by the whole anthropogenic global warming foofaraw and especially the hammering so delightfully inflicted upon the AGW high priesthood by the Climategate revelations.

    Speaking as someone practiced in the scientific method (though you’ve gotta stretch painfully to call the practice of medicine all that exactingly “scientific”), I can personally attest to no such respect among the scientifically literate for those who conduct scientific research. Especially in clinical medicine, we’ve seen just too damned many episodes in which people – if not given to flights of bogosity by virtue of sordid financial interests in this or that patented pharmaceutical product or medical gadget – have simply made mistakes.

    And I, for one, am damned glad that we keep this in mind. That’s how it should be. The Bishop of Rome can play at ex cathedra infallibility. Nobody with an ounce of intellectual integrity in the sciences can.

    There is in scientific method a helluva lot of that “creative destruction” about which methodologically sound economists speak in their discourses upon the value of a market economy free of jackbooted government thugs’ interferences.

    I bear in mind one of Mencken’s late-in-life thoughts from his Minority Report (1956):

    “Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.”

    Anything more required? Well, hell. Looking even further back in Mencken’s corpus we’ve always got this from 1919:

    The value the world sets upon motives is often grossly unjust and inaccurate. Consider, for example, two of them: mere insatiable curiosity and the desire to do good. The latter is put high above the former, and yet it is the former that moves one of the most useful men the human race has yet produced: the scientific investigator. What actually urges him on is not some brummagen idea of Service, but a boundless, almost pathological thirst to penetrate the unknown, to uncover the secret, to find out what has not been found out before. His prototype is not the liberator releasing slaves, the good Samaritan lifting up the fallen, but a dog sniffing tremendously at an infinite series of rat-holes.

    Appreciated that way – and every scientist, whether engaged actively in research or simply fiddling around as an educated student of scientific inquiry, really needs to keep this “ignoble” characterization in mind.

    The best kind of scientist models himself on Kipling’s “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi,” and has no other real purpose in this life than to “Run and find out.”

  132. PaulD says:

    One of the most annoying things about how sceptics are treated in the MSM is the way the media sets up strawmen arguments to represent the view of sceptics. I have finally found a great article that well expresses the views of the sceptics and summarizes many different threads of the sceptics argument. It is written by a law professor. Here is the link for Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%2FSSRN_ID1612851_code711466.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D1612851%26mirid%3D1&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com%2F .

  133. Indiana Bones says:

    “People will think… What I tell them to think.” Says Charles Foster Kane, the thinly disguised characterization of William Randolf Hearst in Orson Welles’ masterpiece “Citizen Kane.” For thousands of years now the structure of human civilization has been carefully honed and manipulated to allow a small faction of gate keepers to control the masses. Religion, mythology, disease, death, terrorism are all the tools of fear factories – until recently successful in making people think what they are told to think.

    With the grass roots expose of “climate change” for the pseudo-science it is – a new era of enlightenment has begun. And not since “Citizen Kane” has the story of political hubris and arrogance been so boldly, cinematically told. We WILL transition to electrified transportation and clean sources of sustainable energy without fear of drowning. We will end our imports of foreign oil. We have done so without hype or hubris or being told what to think. It appears, for the moment at least, that the “Climate of Fear” has reached its proper inevitable end.

    And it’s been kinda fun getting here.

  134. latitude says:

    It certainly does not help that their ridiculous predictions, tipping points, dead lines, hurricanes, sea level rise, glaciers, snow, you name it…..

    ……..have for the most part, been false

    woops, I just realized, have they been right about anything so far?

  135. Capn Jack says:

    Locomotion, UK.

    This is grass roots now.

  136. Liam says:

    The best man for the job:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7762502/Tony-Blair-hired-by-US-billionaire-Vinod-Khosla-for-climate-change-advice.html

    Hmmm….Tony Blair

    Climate Expert? – No
    Environmental Expert? – No
    Technology Expert? – No
    Economic Expert? – No
    Scientist? – No
    Honest broker – No
    Economical with the actualite? – Yes
    Political Influence – Yes
    Great Love for large amounts of Money – Yes

    PS, isn’t Gore involved as well?

  137. Joe Martin says:

    “..Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert…”

    Exactly how does an economist become a climate change expert – is redistribution expertise qualify you as a”peer”?

  138. Joe Martin says:

    sorry, meant to say ‘does’ – guess my English expertise won’t qualify me as a peer either.

  139. Capn Jack says:

    These are not Ladies. They fight their way.

  140. John Luft says:

    I think Europe is far too concerned about their economic mess right now to worry about climate-change boogey men. The real concern in Europe is not the climate of the earth, but the economic climate. Any politician…..ANY POLITICIAN stupid enough to introduce a whole bunch of economic measures to curb CO2 emissions in the current economic climate deserves to be run out of office as soon as possible.

  141. Dave says:

    Roger: great information. Where did you get the data for Carbon Trust etc handouts please?

  142. RichieP says:

    Well, we here in Britain have a long tradition of responding to politicians and experts who tell us what to do for our own good but don’t do it themselves (and, boy, have we just had a lengthy run of that sort of bs from our last government, with state spying, nanny state health and safety, endless invasions of our privacy and personal lives) – and the way we tend to respond is by jeering and raising two fingers in the Agincourt salute. It’s a great and refreshing British tradition and a general indication of how much faith we have in those who think they know better. I hope that’s what’s happening now. We are completely peed off with being told what to do and have got to that Network moment where we’re opening the windows ready to yell.
    That said, the forces of inertia are still hugely powerful, the Beeb in particular, and we can’t afford to be sanguine about it. The eco-fascists on that Analysis programme are still waiting for their chance to crush scepticism and democracy and we will have to fight the mad buggers all the way.
    Anyway and mildly off topic – here’s one natural disaster that, at last, is NOT being blamed on AGW:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7764347/Beavers-responsible-for-Polands-flooding.html

  143. Capn Jack says:

    jcrabb

    it’s called the North West Passage for a reason, hence it’s name.

    But sometimes it’s closed and it called a lot of other names.

    That passage has been closed due to ice, in history.

    But anyway it’s called North West Passage, sorry to hear you did not have ice for cocktails, you might want to bring an ice bucket next time.

  144. pmcculloch says:

    I may have missed this in previous comments, but this is encouraging:

    http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/052010SciencePolicy/happer.pdf

  145. RichieP says:

    jcrabb says: May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming comes into play when permafrost melt releasing Methane, which is starting to occur from the East Siberian sea. The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully.”

    Given this is a blog which likes some scientific evidence, what are your peer-reviewed references for these assertions? Preferably ones based on observation rather than computer modelling. One could also substitute “if” for the “when”. Philip of Macedon told the Spartans that if he came to their city he would raze it to the ground, kill the men and enslave the women. The Spartan response to his envoy was one word: “If”.

    I am so tired of these people using terror to achieve their ends, usually on the basis of inadequate or manipulated evidence (and I’m being charitable here) . The Siberian methane didn’t react in this way in the Roman or Medieval warm periods and there is no reason, apart from your questionable religious need to cry End of the World, why this should be so now. Start thinking – we know it’s fraud; we KNOW it.

  146. Wren says:

    David L. says:
    May 25, 2010 at 5:31 am
    Tom in Florida says: (May 25, 2010 at 4:59 am)

    “Good, because warmer is better.”

    I agree. Go back 13,00 years when the glaciers were receding from North America and see if the people living at that time were upset that the globe was warming. Do you think they stopped burning their fires because it was perceived to be warming the planet and they would rather have it cold? Can you imagine the panic when they realized the glaciers were receding and creating the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes? How they must of cried. But it was too late for them, it was irreversible. Too bad their politicians weren’t strong enough and had enough cute little catch phrases to save the glaciers. The glaciers are completely gone now, as are the mammoths and various other species. And look what’s happened to the human population since then! What a catastrophe!
    =====
    Modern civilization is based on modern climate. Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture. Warmer would not be better in areas that depend heavily on air-conditioning for health, economic activity, and comfort. Warmer would not be better for coastal areas that would be under water because the warming caused a rise in sea level.

  147. Baa Humbug says:

    Friends please indulge me in an OT

    Regarding civil debate between sceptics and pro AGW, Jo Nova has allowed Dr Andrew Glikson ( dyed in the wool alarmist) a lengthy and detailed post.
    This now makes part 5 of their ongoing debate from Quadrant on-line
    Comments and contributions are welcome.

    Link here

  148. Ackos says:

    Yesterday, a record was set for the latest date measurable snow has fallen at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

  149. Wren says:

    How to get two birds with one stone for future generations:

    1. Tax coal – taxing coal would encourage more efficient use of this natural resource, thus reducing the impact of global warming on future generations

    2. Apply the coal tax to the national debt – reducing the national debt would leave less debt for future generations to pay.

  150. James Evans says:

    t . f . p . and Gareth Phillips:

    I am also a gardener in the UK, and of course there’s no noticeable difference in climate. How could there be? According to the most rabid alarmists the temp has changed a fraction of a degree in a century. It isn’t humanly possible to notice something change so little over such a long time – particularly when there are such large daily and annual temp changes.

  151. Anu says:

    RichieP says:
    May 25, 2010 at 9:07 am

    jcrabb says: May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming comes into play when permafrost melt releasing Methane, which is starting to occur from the East Siberian sea. The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully.”

    Given this is a blog which likes some scientific evidence, what are your peer-reviewed references for these assertions? Preferably ones based on observation rather than computer modelling.
    ————————–
    Yeah, where’s the scientific papers describing the observation of catastrophic Global warming caused by runaway release of methane ?
    Not just those computer models of the Permian extinction event:
    http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Benton2003.pdf

    The Siberian methane didn’t react in this way in the Roman or Medieval warm periods and there is no reason, apart from your questionable religious need to cry End of the World, why this should be so now.
    You think it was just as warm in the Arctic then as it is now, and will be later this century ?

    Given this is a blog which likes some scientific evidence, what are your peer-reviewed references for these assertions? Preferably ones based on observation rather than computer modelling and data manipulation.

  152. David Ball says:

    Indiana Bones says:
    May 25, 2010 at 8:23 am
    “And it’s been kinda fun getting here.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It has been fun, to a degree (pardon the very bad pun). It has been financially disastrous for our family. Had my father just followed along with the rest of the grant-coveting herd, we would very well off. Morally bankrupt, but very well off. We are proud to stand up against the shit storm it has been. That way, we have been able to keep our dignity and you can wash the shit off. Those who have “sold their soul” for the almighty dollar, may have a lot to answer for (to the public and whomever you believe we answer to), and remain tarnished for the rest of time.

  153. David Ball says:

    “Modern civilization is based on modern climate. Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture. Warmer would not be better in areas that depend heavily on air-conditioning for health, economic activity, and comfort. Warmer would not be better for coastal areas that would be under water because the warming caused a rise in sea level.” Keep it coming Wren. Our side really appreciates your posts. 8^D

  154. Smokey says:

    Wren says
    May 25, 2010 at 9:11 am:

    “Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture.”

    Wren, you are such a worry wart. The glass is always half empty. The end is nigh. Doom, defeat, and despair.

    Agriculture won’t go away with a fraction of a degree warming, which is about all we can really expect. Apple orchards will simply become orange groves.

    And vast areas in Mongolia and Siberia will become productive with more moderate temperatures. Precipitation will increase, providing more fresh water.

    There is a lot of vacant land in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Why? Because people tend to settle where it is warm. But climate alarmists can’t see the benefits of a warmer planet because they all seem to be afflicted with an incurable case of cranial/rectal inversion.

  155. Anu says:

    Retired Engineer says:
    May 25, 2010 at 8:04 am
    re: Dave Springer

    A modern electical grid isn’t the universal answer. Sending electricity from here to there hasn’t changed much in a long time. We may well need a bigger electrical grid. “Smart” grids, proposed by many pols, really means giving the utility/government the ability to turn things off when they choose to. It doesn’t add a kilowatt-hour to anything.

    “Modern electrical grid” can also mean ultra high voltage, which leads to much less line loss, and thus it does add kilowatt-hours to the final consumers.

    China is going this direction in a big way:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China
    http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/China-to-Triple-Ultra-High-Voltage-Transmission-Lines-by-2012_1773.html
    http://electronics.ihs.com/news/articles/iec-uhv-electricity-transmission.htm

    Ultra High Voltage – or UHV – is defined as voltages of 1 000 kV alternating current, or higher, and 800kV direct current, or higher, and it is needed for two main reasons. The first is to deliver large quantities of power over very long distances with very little loss of power (higher voltage means lower current on the transmission line and therefore lower loss). The second is to deliver large quantities of power to cities without having a proliferation of transmission lines.

    The first issue is to develop reliable equipment and systems that deliver electricity safely. At present, the highest voltages used for long-distance transmission are about 765 kV A.C. It would be easy if we could simply increase the voltage of the power lines, but technically this is impossible because today’s equipment will not withstand these higher voltages. The challenge then is to develop new transformers, breakers and associated equipment, new transmission lines and insulating equipment designed for UHV.

  156. pat says:

    The underlying assumptions about planetary heat absorption by climate scientists are based upon a simplistic model created by NASA for the Apollo missions. The are wrong, and have been known wrong since the first moon landing. In fact it appears they were never more than gross guesses that served their purpose and were never intended to be the foundation for climate prediction.
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

  157. MinB says:

    Twould be fun to host a contest to predict the next PR campaign of the alarmist group. Everyone foresaw the whitewashes, then came “ACT NOW, climate change is happening faster than we thought!” and “nasty skeptics are attacking climate scientists”.

    My prediction is that the key talking points for the next six months will be 1) large summer Arctic melt, 2) active severe storm season, and 3) and reliance on fossil fuel is bad (using images from the gulf spill to drive the point home). This assumes that 1 and 2 will happen.

  158. Baa Humbug says:

    Anu says:
    May 25, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Interesting paper Anu, thnx for the link.
    My understanding of the paper, briefly, is that a 600,000 yr continuous flow of hot lava in Siberia caused the release of permafrost trapped methane, leading to global warming, ocean anoxia and mass extinction.

    But pray tell how current warming of less than 1DegC over 150yrs equates to hot lava over methane beds.

  159. A C Osborn says:

    I think the work done by Anthony and all the other anti warming bloggers and speakers is having an effect because the UN is now putting Bio-diveristy ahead of Climate Change in importance.
    Have they seen the writing on the wall?

  160. Pascvaks says:

    AGW will die for want of money, money, money.
    The real problem, people, more people, and more and more people, is not going to go away.

    Well, not anytime soon.

  161. Wren says:

    Jordan says:
    May 25, 2010 at 12:02 am
    Wren says: “Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”

    It depends on whether CAGW is real or completely in peoples’ minds. If the latter, then it certainly can be so stopped.

    If the former, then we must examine the evidence for and against the PREDICTIONS of catastrophe CAUSED by human CO2 emissions. Are you prepared to critically analyse the evidence behind those predictions Wren?
    =====
    I have already analyzed the evidence, and I am not alarmed. Global warming is occurring to slowly to adversely affect me. I , like most other adults today, won’t live long enough to be harmed by global warming.

    But I am concerned about potential for man-made warming to adversely affect future generations. There is compelling evidence that burning fossil fuels causes a cumulative increase in the amount of green house gas, a known warming influence. More oil and coal will be burned as the world’s population increases and as developing nations such as China and India increase their per capita consumption of these fuels.

  162. Tenuc says:

    Cameron Taylor says:
    May 25, 2010 at 4:55 am
    “Isn’t it interesting how many polls are being conducted to follow public opinion on this issue. I would have thought that these governments who usually ignore the wishes of the ‘common people’, and armed with a so-called concensus among the experts would feel justified in proceeding with AGW policy. And yet they keep such a close eye on us to see whether we are accepting it or not.

    Strange………”

    Not strange really when you understand that the ultra rich ruling elite wanted the world to unite behind this ‘great cause’ and accept an unelected world government under the auspices of the United Nations.

    They must be sick as parrots that, even after spending many billions, the public of the world are not swallowing the CAGW hog-wash and that the truth about natural climate oscillation is becoming widely known.

  163. A C Osborn says:

    Or are they trying to take the spotlight off of Climate Change so that we will all forget to go over the IPCC ar5 with a fine toothed comb?

  164. harrywr2 says:

    “Modern civilization is based on modern climate.”

    Modern civilization is based humanity finding means to overcome the limitations imposed by climate.

    If one thinks otherwise then I suggest trying to survive a week in the arctic without benefit of clothing or shelter, or a week in the deserts of Saudi Arabia without clothing or shelter.

  165. Wren says:

    Wren says
    May 25, 2010 at 9:11 am:

    “Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture.”

    Wren, you are such a worry wart. The glass is always half empty. The end is nigh. Doom, defeat, and despair.

    Agriculture won’t go away with a fraction of a degree warming, which is about all we can really expect. Apple orchards will simply become orange groves.

    And vast areas in Mongolia and Siberia will become productive with more moderate temperatures. Precipitation will increase, providing more fresh water.

    There is a lot of vacant land in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Why? Because people tend to settle where it is warm. But climate alarmists can’t see the benefits of a warmer planet because they all seem to be afflicted with an incurable case of cranial/rectal inversion.
    —–

    Why do you think it would be a good thing if there was gradual mass migration of the world’s population in the future?

    Why do you think man-made global warming would stop after a fraction of a degree increase?

  166. FrankS says:

    Climategate was the bombshell that changed everything, the release just before before Copenhagen especially, since it gave maximum publicity and disruption.

    That was when scientists lost their automatic “authority” and skeptic/realist views actually gained some coverage in the mainstream media. In the UK especially it was The Mail which featured a series of hard hitting front page articles against the consensus view. Murdoch also loosened the green reporting policy in his UK papers, The Times, Sun and News of the World.

    And if you are allowed to see two sides to a debate then it is only natural that some will change their minds.

  167. FrankS says:

    Last post – Climategate at the start is missing!

  168. Zeke the Sneak says:

    The real moral of the story is that whenever scientists and policy makers get together, then Iend up with some new fee, tax, restriction, rationing, regulation, and most of all, new expensive redundant public works projects.

    Now, our very participation in two perfectly natural earth cycles – the carbon cycle and the methane cycle – have been determined to be harmful to us by policy makers and their cadre of experts.

    So here is the answer: “He who laughs last, laughs best.” HYDROGEN.

    Now how will they convince us they must control that? It sends me into fits of laughter thinking about it! But creating a new smart grid is totally open to all manner of arbitrary controls, pricing, and shortages. We must diversify power production as widely as possible.

    Persue hydrogen fuel cells, Blacklight Power, , gas, coal, domestic oil, hydro, nuclear with onsite transmutation of waste, and whatever else.

    There is plenty hope from these internationalist would-be rulers in total energy diversity and HYDROGEN.

  169. wayne says:

    Anu says:
    May 25, 2010 at 9:51 am
    “Modern electrical grid” can also mean ultra high voltage, which leads to much less line loss, and thus it does add kilowatt-hours to the final consumers.”

    Ultra High Voltage – or UHV – is defined as voltages of 1 000 kV alternating current, or higher, [...]

    I just learned recently that there is a 3,000 kV natural limit to how high you can boost the voltage on a grid to increase efficiency. This is due to the nature of an electrical field in air. Near or at this 3,000 kV limit energy will be leaked directly to the air as a plasma discharge. Have you ever seen high tension lines glow about the wires? That is the indicating the limit of which I speak. Therefore, grids are somewhat limited to something lower than that limit to also allow for high humidity situations which only lowers this limit further.

    Anu, just thought someone reading your comment above might like to know something of this natural limit.

  170. RichieP says:

    Baa Humbug says:
    May 25, 2010 at 10:08 am
    “My understanding of the paper, briefly, is that a 600,000 yr continuous flow of hot lava in Siberia caused the release of permafrost trapped methane, leading to global warming, ocean anoxia and mass extinction.
    But pray tell how current warming of less than 1DegC over 150yrs equates to hot lava over methane beds.”

    Thank you Baa, you beat me to it (I was having my tea and getting back from work). You took the words right out of my mouth but phrased the reply much more elegantly than I could have. Frankly, if the Siberian traps go off, well, that may pretty much do it for all of us but it certainly won’t be anthropogenic.

  171. Wren says:

    harrywr2 says:
    May 25, 2010 at 10:24 am
    “Modern civilization is based on modern climate.”

    Modern civilization is based humanity finding means to overcome the limitations imposed by climate.

    If one thinks otherwise then I suggest trying to survive a week in the arctic without benefit of clothing or shelter, or a week in the deserts of Saudi Arabia without clothing or shelter.
    ====

    Add an adjective to your statement and I will agree with it. The adjective is “modern.” Below is

    Modern civilization is based on humanity finding means to overcome the limitations imposed by MODERN climate.

    Modern civilization also is based on our ability to adapt to change. When the price of oil increased, for example, Americans switched to more fuel efficient vehicles.

  172. Anu says:

    Baa Humbug says:
    May 25, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Interesting paper Anu, thnx for the link.
    My understanding of the paper, briefly, is that a 600,000 yr continuous flow of hot lava in Siberia caused the release of permafrost trapped methane, leading to global warming, ocean anoxia and mass extinction.

    But pray tell how current warming of less than 1DegC over 150yrs equates to hot lava over methane beds.
    Good question.

    First, the methane back then was not in Siberian permafrost, it was in methane hydrates at the bottom of the oceans on continental shelves. The 10 km^2 per year of Siberian lava (for 200,000 years) did not run into the oceans and warm the methane hydrates directly – it cooled on land, but released lots of CO2, which over the course of the eruptions doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere. This warmed the world enough for the next tipping point, the bubbling up of some methane hydrates (they don’t all destabilize at once, since they are on the continental slope – different pressures and temperatures) which began a positive-feedback warming loop, since methane is 54 times more efficient than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

    Second, the warming over the last 130 years is not the worry – it’s the further warming over the course of the 21st century – 2 °C more ? 3 °C more ?
    Methane hydrates are bubbling up right now – the question is, how much further warming would be required for the ‘runaway greenhouse’ phenomenon ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Methane_hydrate_gasification

    But as I asked: where’s the scientific papers describing the observation of catastrophic Global warming caused by runaway release of methane ?
    Not just those computer models of the Permian extinction event. There’s plenty of papers on that. And it’s not absolutely clear that the methane hydrate ‘runaway greenhouse’ phenomenon actually occurred. You just can’t trust computer models, unless they designed the airplane your family is flying in.

  173. sandyinderby says:
  174. Anu says:

    Wren says:
    May 25, 2010 at 10:12 am

    I have already analyzed the evidence, and I am not alarmed. Global warming is occurring to slowly to adversely affect me. I , like most other adults today, won’t live long enough to be harmed by global warming.

    Don’t be so pessimistic.
    If you eat right, exercise, and get plenty of sleep, it’s possible you will live long enough to be harmed by global warming.

    You should look into Resveratrol, too.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/25/60minutes/main4752082.shtml

  175. James Evans says:

    Personally, I think the whole Global Warming thingy points to a problem that goes far beyond the issue of Climate Change.

    Scientists have become so cocky that they don’t bother with science any more. For instance, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These things are hot topics at the moment, but what exactly are they?

    They are expressions of the gap between theory and observation. The scientists peering throught their telescopes aren’t seeing what their theories say that they should be seeing. So what do they do? Change the theories? No, they question the observations. And they start making up stuff, like Dark Energy and Dark Matter, to try and explain the fact that the observations aren’t right.

    This seems to be a growing trait in science. “Our theories are better than the observations.”

    So, we have Catastrophic Global Warming, but without the warming. Scientists don’t need those boring observations any more.

  176. roger says:

    Dave says:
    May 25, 2010 at 8:48 am
    Roger: great information. Where did you get the data for Carbon Trust etc handouts please?
    http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/the_carbon_trust_accelerating.aspx
    500,000 must leave the Governmental payroll in a bonfire of all the Labour Party’s vanities if we are to redress the deficit let alone the debt. Freedom for the people from jumped up jackanapes in all Departments will go some way to achieve this.

  177. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Wren said,

    “Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.”

    Well Wren, I have found in my experience that the opinion of a well-educated public is very good at stopping completely imaginary government-invented hobgoblins from scaring people to death for no good reason.

    Since the public is FINALLY becoming at least somewhat educated on the un-reality that is (hopefully soon to be was) CAGW, I fervently hope that public opinion will put a complete and total stop to it.

    The world can only afford so much nonsense. Look at the economy of Spain, which has been almost single-handedly decimated by the complete myth of CAGW. Obviously it NEEDS to be stopped, and public opinion is a wonderful method of stopping it.

    Now, if we could only come up with some REAL LEADERS who were willing to say, “I am not willing to make policy based upon the highly questionable inputs and outputs of “computer models”, I am only willing to make policy based upon SOUND SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS” then we MIGHT have a bit more hope for the future.

    Ahh, a man can dream….

  178. Wren says:

    “In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.”
    ——–

    A Times rep called Lewis, admitted the article was a fraud, and offered to publish his letter of rebuttal(the link below has a recording of the call).

    http://public.me.com/skrap

    I read Lewis refused the offer, but I don’t know why.

  179. Tim Clark says:

    jcrabb says: May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am
    I’m not saying the Northwest passage is open at the moment, only during the Arctic Summer months.
    The Northwest passage was succesfully navigated by a commercial cargo ship in 2008, no rescue required, in fact not even a ice cube was seen.

    You must be a young college whelp. Do some more digging and you will find that the Passage has been open many times, all unrelated to CO2. Explain that with your naive view of history!

    The North Marine Route was officially discovered by the crew of the British expedition under the leadership of Robert John McClure in 1850-1854 (this route was passed on two ships and partially – on foot over the ice from the west to the east).
    For the first time this route was passed by water in 1903-1906 (from the east to the west) by the Norwegian expedition under the leadership of Roald Amundsen, on Gjoa, a sailing vessel with an engine. This was actually the discovery of the Northwest Passage.
    This route was completely passed by water in the opposite direction (from the west to the east) by the Canadian crew under the guidance of Henry Larsen on a motor schooner “Saint Rock” in 1940-42.
    In 1944 Henry Larsen sailed through the Northwest passage during one navigation period.
    In 1977 for the first time Willi de Roos, Belgium, sailed through the Northwest Passage on yacht (solo and during one navigation).

  180. James Evans says:

    It’s become very obvious over the last few weeks, that someone at Alarmist HQ has decreed that troops be mobilized to counter all discussion threads on t’internet. So suddenly we have all these people show up here.

    But I have a suggestion, and it’s only a suggestion – I’m no expert in mob control. But my suggestion is that if you’re going to ask people to come over here to disagree with what’s being said, then try to recruit people who are clever, and who have something interesting and pertinent to say.

    Otherwise, it’s just a bit silly.

  181. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Anu,

    It has warmed about 1 degree C in the past 150 years. The slope of the warming BY ACTUAL OBSERVATION has completely flattened out and is possibly even reversing direction.

    If CO2 is the main driver for warming, please explain to all of us here how the concentration of CO2 is still increasing in a relatively linear (although very slow) fashion, while the temperature has ceased to increase completely. I am sure we would all appreciate that explanation.

    So far, for the 21st century, the slope of the “warming curve” is as close to ZERO as makes no nevermind, and we are 10 years in to the 21st century now. In order to get your 2 degrees C or 3 degrees C during the 21st century, you would need a warming curve slope of + 0.22 degrees per decade to +0.33 degrees per decade for the next 90 years.

    From 1850-2000, the warming slope was 0.07 degrees per decade, and from 2000-2010 the warming slope is nil. Good luck with getting a warming slope that is 3 to 5 times steeper than the 1850-2000 slope… just ain’t gonna happen. Most “climatologists” will tell you it is perfectly possible. Most meteorologists (the sensible scientists) will tell you that we are quite likely to see a REVERSAL and see a negative slope for the next 30-40 years.

  182. Tim Clark says:

    Wren saysMay 25, 2010 at 9:11 am:
    “Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture.”
    Why do you think man-made global warming would stop after a fraction of a degree increase?

    Because there is no observational data, to date, that demonstrates the positive feedback (IPCC, 2007) by water vapor necessary to create greater than a 1.2 degree warming per 2X[CO2] (and the 1.2 is still in dispute).

  183. Wren says:

    Anu says:
    May 25, 2010 at 11:26 am
    Wren says:
    May 25, 2010 at 10:12 am

    I have already analyzed the evidence, and I am not alarmed. Global warming is occurring to slowly to adversely affect me. I , like most other adults today, won’t live long enough to be harmed by global warming.

    Don’t be so pessimistic.
    If you eat right, exercise, and get plenty of sleep, it’s possible you will live long enough to be harmed by global warming.

    You should look into Resveratrol, too.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/25/60minutes/main4752082.shtml
    =====
    I do eat right, drink wine, and exercise a lot. My health is excellent. But given my age now, I would have to live to be well over 100 years old to be adversely affected by global warming. While I would like to set a new age record for humans, I think that highly unlikely.

  184. maksimovich says:

    jcrabb says: May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming comes into play when permafrost melt releasing Methane, which is starting to occur from the East Siberian sea. The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully.”

    The truth however tells us that it is not melt release CH4 (aged) but young and biologically produced ch4 ie bacteria eg E Damm et al 2010

    Abstract. A methane surplus relative to the atmospheric equilibrium is a frequently observed feature of ocean surface water. Despite the common fact that biological processes are responsible for its origin, the formation of methane in aerobic
    surface water is still poorly understood. We report on methane production in the central Arctic Ocean, which was exclusively detected in Pacific derived water but not nearby in Atlantic derived water. The two water masses are distinguished
    by their different nitrate to phosphate ratios. We show that methane production occurs if nitrate is depleted but phosphate is available as a P source. Apparently the
    low N:P ratio enhances the ability of bacteria to compete for
    phosphate while the phytoplankton metabolite dimethylsulfoniopropionate
    (DMSP) is utilized as a C source. This was verified by experimentally induced methane production in DMSP spiked Arctic sea water. Accordingly we propose that
    methylated compounds may serve as precursors for methane and thermodynamic calculations show that methylotrophic methanogenesis can provide energy in aerobic environments.

  185. Robert of Ottawa says:

    According to the Reuter’s article http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N2Y620100524, Stern wants to plunder the pension funds

    Pension funds must shift more capital into low-carbon energy to drive long-term returns, British academic Nicholas Stern told Reuters Global Energy Summit

  186. M White says:

    Most people I know have been on holiday at least once to a mediterranean country, If you’ve never been you know someone who has. It’s often cheaper than holidaying at home in Britain. We know certain people love their computer models, these models have told the British public that we can look forward to –

    LONG HOT MEDITERRANEAN SUMMERS and

    MILD WET WINTERS

    We know what a mediterranean summer is like.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml

    The real world is not living up to the hype.

  187. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Anyways, paying for a new electric grid which would centralize and unify the source of your home, transportation, and production power needs, and then letting the Federal gov’t within 30 Astronomical Units of it is…it’s…I am trying to think of a word…

    It’s infantile.

    Right, so what do they teach kids in school these days?

  188. 1DandyTroll says:

    As always I’m the optimist so I figure that people are now getting their heads around the fact that climate alarmism is real, just not that there’s anything alarming about the climate.

  189. Bruce Cobb says:

    Wren says:
    May 25, 2010 at 11:56 am
    I would have to live to be well over 100 years old to be adversely affected by global warming.
    Actually, you are far more likely to be adversely affected by global cooling, since 1) cooling is likely in the coming decades and 2) cooling is far more detrimental.
    The Climate Optimum of some 5 – 9 kya was warmer and wetter than today. Think upon that word “optimum”. Perhaps, if man is lucky he will see another such period before plunging into the next ice age.

  190. Z says:

    Wren says:
    May 25, 2010 at 9:29 am

    How to get two birds with one stone for future generations:

    1. Tax coal – taxing coal would encourage more efficient use of this natural resource, thus reducing the impact of global warming on future generations

    How do we use coal? We burn it. We burn it in huge buildings called “powerstations” whose efficiency is limited only by current technology. Tax would not increase the efficiency of these “powerstations”, only new technology will.

    Another great usage of coal comes from the fact some people burn coal at home. This home is in what was former called “The Third World”. We call these people “Poor People”. The efficiency of their coal burning is limited by the efficiency of their stove. If we tax these “Poor People”, then they would have to spend more on their coal, and less on other things. Like better stoves. If we tax coal so much, that they don’t have enough to keep warm, then they will die. This will surely ensure that there are more coal reserves left.

    Efficiency: Making “Poor People” die, so we can have more.

    2. Apply the coal tax to the national debt – reducing the national debt would leave less debt for future generations to pay.

    Wealth comes from production. If energy is more expensive, the production suffers. There is no nation in history that ever taxed itself to riches.

  191. Z says:

    Anu says:
    May 25, 2010 at 11:18 am

    But as I asked: where’s the scientific papers describing the observation of catastrophic Global warming caused by runaway release of methane ?
    Not just those computer models of the Permian extinction event. There’s plenty of papers on that. And it’s not absolutely clear that the methane hydrate ‘runaway greenhouse’ phenomenon actually occurred. You just can’t trust computer models, unless they designed the airplane your family is flying in.

    Except they don’t. Mathematical models of flow over a wing is always verified by a wind-tunnel, which is then finally verified by a testflight. In the real world where getting it wrong leaves you poorer and not richer, nobody trusts anything.

  192. Z says:

    Wren says:
    May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.

    It’s not Catastropic Anthropogenic Global Warming anymore. It’s “Climate Change”. CAGW implies a specific testable condition, and that can not be allowed. Even flatulent wooly mammoths are “Climate Change”, which makes it far better.

    Don’t people get memos anymore?

  193. Z says:

    James Evans says:
    May 25, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Personally, I think the whole Global Warming thingy points to a problem that goes far beyond the issue of Climate Change.

    Scientists have become so cocky that they don’t bother with science any more. For instance, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These things are hot topics at the moment, but what exactly are they?

    They are expressions of the gap between theory and observation. The scientists peering throught their telescopes aren’t seeing what their theories say that they should be seeing. So what do they do? Change the theories? No, they question the observations. And they start making up stuff, like Dark Energy and Dark Matter, to try and explain the fact that the observations aren’t right.

    This seems to be a growing trait in science. “Our theories are better than the observations.”

    So, we have Catastrophic Global Warming, but without the warming. Scientists don’t need those boring observations any more.

    The aether (or ether) came about through a smiliar gap between observations and theory, as did phlogiston. If it is has only one attribute (i.e. mass), and neatly plugs a gap between theory and observations, then start to smell a rat.

    Except you can’t in this instance – dark matter is invisible, smellless, tasteless but hangs around everywhere where it’s needed, and never where it isn’t.

    A bit like celestial carbon monoxide but with a heart of gold.

  194. Mari Warcwm says:

    I quite often talk to ordinary people in the street, at bus stops, on trains, and I never come across anyone who takes AGW as a seriously. Nah, they say, it’s all rubbish innit.

    Go to a smart middle class North London dinner party and AGW is an accepted religion which is ‘not discussed in polite society’.

    Then further up the social scale again to a really smart function with seriously clever people, and once again AGW is thought to be rubbish. I find these divisions interesting.

  195. Jeff B. says:

    Why? Most people would simply shift their resources to something more useful if they found out that something they thought was a problem, was actually no problem. Telling. Ben Stewart views Climate Alarmism as a vehicle for his agenda, rather than as an actual problem. Note to environmentalists: find something productive to do with your time. Climate hysteria is a non-issue.

  196. Van Grungy says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    May 25, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    According to the Reuter’s article http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N2Y620100524, Stern wants to plunder the pension funds

    Pension funds must shift more capital into low-carbon energy to drive long-term returns, British academic Nicholas Stern told Reuters Global Energy Summit
    —————————————————-

    Divest from the life giving carbon energy folder so that those with deep pockets can consolidate their grip on a most precious resource for a song.

    Chilling.

  197. Tom in Florida says:

    jcrabb says: (May 25, 2010 at 8:14 am)
    “Tom in Florida,
    What grounds do you have to say warming is good?”

    On the grounds of that’s who we are. Humans evolved in warm climate. Humans have natural methods of dealing with warmth. Humans have no natural method of dealing with cold. It is the reason why more humans live in warmr climates than cold. Warmer is better for humans.

    “The massive amounts of Methane stored in this region would cause catastrophic Global warming when released fully”

    Don’t you mean to say “IF” released fully? BTW, how did the methane get stored there in the first place?

    Wren says: (May 25, 2010 at 9:11 am)
    ”Warmer would not be better in areas that depend on the current climate for agriculture.”
    So it is impossible to change crops, no one else can grow the crops that are grown in the current place somewhere else, no one is capable of adaptation, everything is set in stone and any change will doom us all. I see.

    ” Warmer would not be better in areas that depend heavily on air-conditioning for health, economic activity, and comfort.”
    If they are already depending heavily on these things, than the infrastructure is already there and working well. You realize, don’t you, that you have just made the argument that humans can adapt to different climates successfully and with positive results. So what’s all the worry about?

    “Warmer would not be better for coastal areas that would be under water because the warming caused a rise in sea level”

    Humans will adapt to any significant sea level rise, if there is any. Those that can’t or won’t will go the way of the dinosaur. Sorry but that’s the nature of life. You cannot stop the change, you can only adapt. (See your comment above)

  198. John says:

    I am always surprised when the pro AGW NGOs talk about an “overwhelming scientific agreement” on AGW. Can a reputable authority please collate real data on the scientists who are on either side. By this I mean scientists who are expert or associated with climate studies as against dentists, podiatrists and railway engineers.

  199. Good Grief!
    We must be able to communicate better to the public the reality of what the climate community has found. This becomes more urgent as more and more people think this is the greatest con in history.
    What to do?
    We must invest more in public relations, branding and marketing of global warming.

    Well, global warming didn’t work as the world is not warming consistently. Branding it as climate change isn’t working. We have to come up with something better, more catchy. How about climate disruptions? Yeah, climate disruptions or the deteriorating atmosphere or maybe human induced chaotic climate change.

    Then we need to promote this concept. We have to send out TV teams to every unusual weather event on every place on earth so people are constantly reminded that extreme weather events happens all the times and promote this as human induced.

    Let’s see! No, BBC has to stop using the IWTWT technique (It’s worse than we thought).

    Look today, they use IWTWT for the same old polar bears with the same old tipping points. This is so passé. It doesn’t work. People have become immune to these sorts of things.

  200. Van Grungy says:

    Artwest,
    The guradian is promoting child abuse by endorsing the use of children for propaganda dissemination. Why are Brits such easy marks for group think?

  201. Matt says:

    Wren says
    May 25, 2010 at 9:11 am:

    Why do you think it would be a good thing if there was gradual mass migration of the world’s population in the future?

    Wren There has already been a mass migration over the previous 100 years. Look at the world population? Billions of humans, they have settled in warm climates near the oceans where there is warmth and food aplenty. If sealevels rise by 6″ to 1′ and that is a HUGE IF then most of the world won’t even notice, even most coastal cities won’t notice it except in rare situations where they get massive storms along with record high tide. However even without this sea level rise, there would still be massive damage from the same storm.

    lets say 1 billion people have to move from low lying areas near the water over the next 100 years. well that is a REALLY slow migration. That averages 10 million people per year, or about 27,000 per day. Current death rates are in the 150,000 per day, globally. Seems like as new younger people are born, they will settle in land which is slightly higher than the land previously occupied thus there will be o mass migration, simply as people die, new people won’t live in the same places.

    Why the shocking alarm?

    Matt

  202. JimBob says:

    Any said, “You just can’t trust computer models, unless they designed the airplane your family is flying in.”

    Z said, “Except they don’t. Mathematical models of flow over a wing is always verified by a wind-tunnel, which is then finally verified by a testflight. In the real world where getting it wrong leaves you poorer and not richer, nobody trusts anything.”

    You beat me to it, Z. Metallic properties are very well known and follow well-understood laws that can be modeled with a high degree of accuracy (certainly not like climate models!), yet any aircraft your family climbs on will have been structurally verified by tests. Lots of tests. See, Anu, engineers understand that models are tools that can reduce the risk of failing an expensive test…they don’t replace the test in the first place. Aerodynamics are even worse. Talk about a voodoo world of impressive-looking models with less-than-impressive track records in the real world. They have their place, but only within limits bounded by real data.

    We use models all the time and understand their limitations. A college professor may ask you to show him your model, but an experienced engineer will ask to see the data instead.

  203. Anu says:

    wayne says:
    May 25, 2010 at 10:53 am

    I just learned recently that there is a 3,000 kV natural limit to how high you can boost the voltage on a grid to increase efficiency. This is due to the nature of an electrical field in air. Near or at this 3,000 kV limit energy will be leaked directly to the air as a plasma discharge. Have you ever seen high tension lines glow about the wires? That is the indicating the limit of which I speak. Therefore, grids are somewhat limited to something lower than that limit to also allow for high humidity situations which only lowers this limit further.

    Anu, just thought someone reading your comment above might like to know something of this natural limit.
    ————–
    Thanks – that sounds plausible; I hadn’t heard of it.

    I guess if a jump from 765 kV to 1000 kV saves so much lost power, they must have considered 1500 kV, 2000 kV, and 2500 kV – and rejected it for discharge problems in high humidity, or just too expensive given the current state of the art. Probably the former for the higher voltages, and the latter for the lower UHV. Once you build out a national electrical grid for many $billions, you wouldn’t want to upgrade it for many decades, so they are probably pushing the technology as much as they can.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
    Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance. For a given amount of power, a higher voltage reduces the current and thus the resistive losses in the conductor. For example, raising the voltage by a factor of 10 reduces the current by a corresponding factor of 10 and therefore the losses by a factor of 100, provided the same sized conductors are used in both cases. Even if the conductor size (cross-sectional area) is reduced 10-fold to match the lower current the losses are still reduced 10-fold. Long distance transmission is typically done with overhead lines at voltages of 115 to 1,200 kV. At extremely high voltages, more than 2,000 kV between conductor and ground, corona discharge losses are so large that they can offset the lower resistance loss in the line conductors.

    Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 and 6.5% in 2007. In general, losses are estimated from the discrepancy between energy produced (as reported by power plants) and energy sold to end customers; the difference between what is produced and what is consumed constitute transmission and distribution losses.

    Maybe developed countries should wait till they could build 2,000 kV (or slightly less) grids (1o more years of R&D ? 20 ?) then upgrade. Anyway, China is jumping on 1,000 kV – it’s pretty much a new grid, not an upgrade.

  204. Anu says:

    PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    May 25, 2010 at 11:50 am
    Anu,

    It has warmed about 1 degree C in the past 150 years. The slope of the warming BY ACTUAL OBSERVATION has completely flattened out and is possibly even reversing direction.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, disagrees:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
    The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) analysis of satellite temperature data shows a +0.17°C/decade warming.
    Perhaps you are thinking of old UAH data (before they were forced to acknowledge all the errors they had in their processing) which showed almost no warming in the lower troposphere (this was about 1978 to 2005). Word travels slowly in the blogosphere…

    In order to get your 2 degrees C or 3 degrees C during the 21st century, you would need a warming curve slope of + 0.22 degrees per decade to +0.33 degrees per decade for the next 90 years.
    Sure, if it was going to be a linear response to rising CO2.
    But it’s not. Read about GCM’s if you’re interested in what will happen this century.
    But don’t try to solve for global temperature, given CO2 ppm, on your cellphone calculator. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Most meteorologists (the sensible scientists) will tell you that we are quite likely to see a REVERSAL and see a negative slope for the next 30-40 years.
    Well, choose your experts.
    I knew people in 2004 who thought gasoline prices (in the US) wouldn’t go over $1.50 for a “long, long time”. Six years later, Hummer is dead.
    People have trouble accepting that the world changes very quickly sometimes. Don’t worry about it, till you’re forced to by cold, hard reality.
    You might have 10 years left, max – enjoy.

  205. rogerkni says:

    PaulD says:
    May 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

    One of the most annoying things about how sceptics are treated in the MSM is the way the media sets up strawmen arguments to represent the view of sceptics. I have finally found a great article that well expresses the views of the sceptics and summarizes many different threads of the sceptics argument. It is written by a law professor. Here is the link for Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%2FSSRN_ID1612851_code711466.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D1612851%26mirid%3D1&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com%2F .

    Unfortunately, only the abstract is there. The full article requires a journal subscription.

    RichieP says:

    The Siberian methane didn’t react in this way in the Roman or Medieval warm periods and there is no reason, apart from your questionable religious need to cry End of the World, why this should be so now. Start thinking – we know it’s fraud; we KNOW it.

    Studies in the Canadian arctic recently are showing that warmth causes the growth of ground-shading bushes or tiny trees, which dampens the methane release. I guess that’s a negative feedback.

  206. Anu says:

    Z says:
    May 25, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Anu says:
    May 25, 2010 at 11:18 am
    You just can’t trust computer models, unless they designed the airplane your family is flying in.

    Except they don’t. Mathematical models of flow over a wing is always verified by a wind-tunnel, which is then finally verified by a testflight. In the real world where getting it wrong leaves you poorer and not richer, nobody trusts anything.

    Yup, 800,000 hours of supercomputer design time.
    15,000 hours of wind tunnel tests.
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html
    and then…

    Boeing 787 wing flaw extends inside plane
    The wing damage that grounded Boeing’s new composite plastic 787 Dreamliner occurred under less stress and is more extensive than previously reported.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html

    Engineering and science are difficult.
    But if your family is flying in the airplane, hopefully the government scientists (FAA) have done their job correctly, and the airplane was certified properly.
    The Boeing 787 will probably be certified later this year:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

    And let’s hope those computer models of composite fatigue at 35,000 feet were correct…

  207. rogerkni says:

    RichieP says:

    The Siberian methane didn’t react in this way in the Roman or Medieval warm periods and there is no reason, apart from your questionable religious need to cry End of the World, why this should be so now. Start thinking – we know it’s fraud; we KNOW it.

    Studies in the Canadian arctic recently are showing that warmth causes the growth of ground-shading bushes or tiny trees, which dampens the methane release. I guess that’s a negative feedback.

  208. savethesharks says:

    Wren says:
    May 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    Unfortunately, CAGW won’t be stopped by public opinion.

    ===============================================

    Uh huh.

    But fortunately…the opinion of…and the morons who are spreading of the myth/scare of CAGW, will be eventually stopped by the public…or by natural selection, whichever comes sooner.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  209. savethesharks says:

    Correction:

    “and the morons who are spreading the myth/scare of CAGW”

  210. stan stendera says:

    Wren at 10:12am and later posts.

    In spite of your later posts which indicated your physical age you are not an adult. Adults process information and make conclusions. They do not regurgititate talking points they read on RealClimate.

  211. stan stendera says:

    Rich Matarese @ 8:16am

    Kipling on WUWT so early in the morning????

  212. Al Gored says:

    Van Grungy says:
    May 25, 2010 at 2:16 pm
    Robert of Ottawa says:
    May 25, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    According to the Reuter’s article http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N2Y620100524, Stern wants to plunder the pension funds

    Pension funds must shift more capital into low-carbon energy to drive long-term returns, British academic Nicholas Stern told Reuters Global Energy Summit
    —————————————————-

    Divest from the life giving carbon energy folder so that those with deep pockets can consolidate their grip on a most precious resource for a song.

    Chilling.

    —————

    Why would you question Stern’s advice? He’s a “former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert.” That’s a rare combination.

    The World Bank does all they do “for the children,” and the planet of course. And Stern apparently spent considerable time looking out his office window watching the climate change.

    I’m sure a consensus of experts would agree that his credentials are impeccable.

  213. 3x2 says:

    tonyb says:
    May 25, 2010 at 12:59 am

    I think the article has slightly missed the point as one of the reasons for the decline in alarmism is that the British Public are sick to the back teeth of all the blatant propagand in the form of stupid adverts, biased Tv programmes and general hectoring and lecturing. We are a contrary people and resent being lectured.

    On top af all this of course is that for the first time a reasoned sceptical view has started to be heard in the MSM, coupled with the realities of the most severe winter in 30 years after we were told that Snow was virtually a thing of the past.

    It is unknown how a hot summer and a fightback by the BBC and others will change peoples views again.

    Have to agree. Most people are blissfully unaware of the shaky science and even if they have heard of “climategate” wouldn’t have actually read the emails. I put the about face down mainly to the constant drip drip of “Biscuit Weevils could be up to 5% more aggressive in warming climate” rubbish. In the end people simply tune out.

    As for politicians being ahead of the curve stay tuned as the PIGS collapse. I don’t think Obama will be using Spain’s economy as a shining example of anything for much longer. Although not entirely due to living in green la la land that has certainly played a large part.

    As we in the UK are asked to make cuts to public services of some 6 billion somebody (not the MSM obviously) might start asking questions about the hundreds of billions set aside for the various “climate” scams over the coming years. As things stand no mention has been made by the MSM or our new overlords. A bit surreal making 6 billion in cuts while the “climate act” alone is costed out at 18 billion a year and doesn’t merit a mention. I’m sure that forcing Hospitals to use their new shrunken budgets to buy “carbon credits” from the likes of Goldman Sachs will open a few more eyes before long.

    As for the BBC “fightback” (and there I thought they were neutral purveyors of news) It seems that they are fast realising that the upsurge in scepticism is destroying their pensions (all 8 billion invested in green scams) so watch out for the BBC they now have a very real motivation.
    (UK interest only – seems the Beeb plan to plug the pension hole directly from the licence fee. Green economy – nice work if you can get it)

  214. thethinkingman says:

    Well the warmistas are still banging on about Carbon footprints

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7760327/How-big-is-your-carbon-footprint.html

    But the responses indicate that most Brits see it for the pig-in-a-poke that it all is.

  215. PaulD says:

    “PaulD says:
    May 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

    One of the most annoying things about how sceptics are treated in the MSM is the way the media sets up strawmen arguments to represent the view of sceptics. I have finally found a great article that well expresses the views of the sceptics and summarizes many different threads of the sceptics argument. It is written by a law professor. Here is the link for Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%2FSSRN_ID1612851_code711466.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D1612851%26mirid%3D1&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com%2F .

    Unfortunately, only the abstract is there. The full article requires a journal subscription.”

    Actually, the full article can be downloaded for free from the above site.

  216. Eco-fascism is coming to the UK!
    It doesn’t care what people think!
    Well, they don’t call it that in this program from the BBC, but that is what they mean.
    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/analysis/analysis_20100524-2030a.mp3

    They discuss if democracy has to be suspended as more and more people discover that this is the biggest con in history.

  217. rogerkni says:

    Actually, the full article can be downloaded for free from the above site.

    Thanks, I’ve just done so. I thought initially, from looking at the URL of the PDF, that it was just a download of the abstract.

  218. holbrook says:

    I understand that if we are experiencing AGW caused by CO2 than it will leave it’s footprint.
    Namely the Tropical Troposphere should be heating up due to hotspots at an altitude of 8-12km and above it the Stratosphere should be cooling down.
    Apparently both are behaving normally.
    Therefore it should be end of the story.

  219. kwik says:

    When the “Love Guru from India” went for “Climate change” instead of “global warming”, many understood its a fraud. When they switch to “Ocean Acidification” even more will understand.

    When AR5 comes as a summary of all the scary stories we have seen lately, the majority will be convinced. “Its a fraud”! will be the concensus.

    And then, Mr. Stoere, who is “wrongly constructed in the head”?

  220. Wren says:

    Z says:
    May 25, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    Wren says:
    May 25, 2010 at 9:29 am

    How to get two birds with one stone for future generations:

    1. Tax coal – taxing coal would encourage more efficient use of this natural resource, thus reducing the impact of global warming on future generations

    How do we use coal? We burn it. We burn it in huge buildings called “powerstations” whose efficiency is limited only by current technology. Tax would not increase the efficiency of these “powerstations”, only new technology will.

    Another great usage of coal comes from the fact some people burn coal at home. This home is in what was former called “The Third World”. We call these people “Poor People”. The efficiency of their coal burning is limited by the efficiency of their stove. If we tax these “Poor People”, then they would have to spend more on their coal, and less on other things. Like better stoves. If we tax coal so much, that they don’t have enough to keep warm, then they will die. This will surely ensure that there are more coal reserves left.

    Efficiency: Making “Poor People” die, so we can have more.

    2. Apply the coal tax to the national debt – reducing the national debt would leave less debt for future generations to pay.

    Wealth comes from production. If energy is more expensive, the production suffers. There is no nation in history that ever taxed itself to riches.
    ====
    Nor is there any country in history that ever reduced it’s debt without tax revenues. Of course taxes add cost to what’s being taxed, and a tax on coal would add to the cost of electric power. But tax revenues, regardless of source, can be used to pay down the national debt and/or compensate the producers and consumers most effected by the higher cost of electric power.
    Making energy cost more encourages innovation and adaptation to use energy more efficiently, which reduces pollution and slows the depletion of energy sources. Witness how rising gasoline prices caused motorists to demand higher mpg, and how auto makers responded by producing vehicles with better gas mileage.

  221. Tony B (another one) says:

    RichieP says:
    May 25, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Yes – I could not agree more with your comments, especially the “Network” moment, which I have been feeling for some years now.

    I suppose the internet – and sites like this – provide us with the opportunity to open the window and shout out “I am mad as hell, …..etc etc”.

    Of course, to deluded idiots like Wren, Anu etc, we – the skeptics – are mad, anyway.

    But I never did place much credence on the opinions of the gullible.

Comments are closed.