McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award

Thursday night, Steve and Ross will be presented with the Julian Simon Memorial Award at CEI’s annual dinner. The dinner will be held on Thursday, June 17, 2010, at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

Let me offer my sincere congratulations to Steve and Ross for their hard work and well deserved award.

There is a by invitation only congressional briefing from noon to 1:30PM that same day. People with interest may be able to attend by contacting Myron Ebell at the email address given below.

Two important figures at the heart of the ClimateGate e-mails, Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, will provide key information on the remarkable revelations in thousands of e-mails and files that were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November last year.

They will show examples from the e-mails and related sources that reveal a core group of scientists manipulating the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process in order to keep policymakers in the dark about major uncertainties and problems in climate science.  They will also show how the inquiries set up in the aftermath of ClimateGate have been rigged and misdirected so as to whitewash the scandal and protect the climate establishment from genuine external scrutiny.

Much of ClimateGate involves research initially called into doubt by the analysis of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.  The scientists involved in the scandal saw McIntyre and McKitrick as major threats to global warming orthodoxy and to their own credibility.  Consequently, they are mentioned more than 150 times in the ClimateGate e-mails.

McIntyre and McKitrick are most famous for demolishing the infamous “hockey stick”—the graph promoted by the IPCC as proof that global temperatures had been stable for nine hundred years until increasing rapidly in the twentieth century.  Their debunking of the hockey stick was confirmed in 2006 by a panel of professionals statisticians convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Their exploits have been recounted in a new book by A. W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, which reads like a detective thriller.

Before laws regulating energy use are enacted that could well cost trillions of dollars, it is crucial to understand the extent to which the alleged scientific consensus supporting global warming alarmism has been discredited by ClimateGate and related scandals.  Join us for a discussion featuring two of the people at the center of the storm.

Stephen McIntyre is the editor and founder of Climate Audit, one of the web’s most popular and compelling climate science blogs as well as one of the best sources for expert analysis of the continuing ClimateGate and related scandals.  Before becoming interested in the scientific debate over global warming, Mr. McIntyre worked for thirty years in a variety of roles in the minerals exploration business in Canada, including as President of Northwest Exploration Co. Ltd.  He holds a B. A. in mathematics from the University of Toronto and earned another degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University.  Since the hockey stick scandal, Mr. McIntyre has continued to use his statistical expertise to analyze temperature data and has uncovered a number of other significant mistakes in official claims, which have proved highly embarrassing to U. S. government agencies and several leading climate scientists.

Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada and a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute.  He holds a Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia.  Professor McKitrick has published a wide range of internationally-recognized studies on the economic analysis of pollution policy, economic growth and air pollution trends, the health effects of air pollution, statistical methods in climatology, the measurement of global warming, and other topics.  His 2003 co-authored book, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, won the Donner Prize for the best book on Canadian public policy.  His newest book, Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy, will be published later this year.  Professor McKitrick’s willingness to question conventional thinking on environmental issues and global warming dogma has had an impact around the world.  He has made over 100 invited academic presentations in Canada, the U.S., and Europe, and has testified before the U. S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament.  

Myron Ebell

Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy

Competitive Enterprise Institute

1899 L Street, N. W., Twelfth Floor

Washington, D. C., 20036, USA

E-mail: mebell@cei.org


About these ads

129 thoughts on “McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award

  1. It is sobering to consider where we might be without M&M’s contributions. Hell and handcarts come to mind…

  2. CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”

    McIntyre and McKitrick would do best by refusing the award to distance themselves from an organisation that is so removed from science that they pretend that they have never heard of the greenhouse effect.

  3. Gore and his cabal should be destituted, their (ig)Nobel prize for peace taken away and handed over to these two great guys who have shown the world what the truth is. But politicians are of course in cahoots with Gore and his cabal of a handful of money seeking ‘scientists’ and until the current bunch of politcians get booted out or die a natural politcal death, the situation will not change.

    Galileo persisted and he won the day and he is in the good history books for ever. The two Macs shall remain known for ever too, for their search of the truth while Mann et al will be buried in unnamed historical tombs and forgotten. But the lesson will not be forgotten: That a few money-guzzling scientists, abetted by the msm and left-wing politicians could take the whole world for such a long expensive ride.

  4. “”Seth Cuttlefish says:””

    I’m sure they will take your suggestion under consideration Seth.

    CONGRATULATIONS YOU GUYS!

  5. So Steve McIntyre is the “founder” of Climate Audit? What about… Oh never mind. He deserves it all anyway.

    In the “Hockey Stick Illusion” I was mentioned once as “a supporter”. That’s the price of anonymity, I suppose….

  6. Absolutely smashing job the both of them performed.
    The 21st Century equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein.

  7. Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”

    What is untrue about any of the above which you have quoted?

    “….an organisation that is so removed from science that they pretend that they have never heard of the greenhouse effect.”

    Have they, show me where? In years to come you will be highly troubled by the sham you let yourself into. You’ve been taken for a ride sir.

  8. Many thanks. All of us owe you a debt of gratitude for uncovering the statistical snafus and pursuing them. You pulled at a string and now the whole ball is unraveling.

  9. Congratulations!

    Well deserved recognition for undertaking the thankless task of seeking the truth.

  10. YEEAH!
    Finally – for Steve and Ross!

    To those how only know Julian Simon as a “Cornucopian” – ie, that technological fixes will solve all challenges we face – you deserve a corrective. His book “Population and Development in Poor Countries: Selected Essays” (1999, Princeton University Press), showed me that his claims such as those in “The Ultiumate Resource 2″ were well founded, well-researched and thus merit acknowledgement, debate and discussion.

  11. dbleader61 says:
    June 14, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Yeah, now if we could only get rid of the Green Party of Canada our economy would really soar…

  12. The epic story of their work will become immortalised in the annals of science.

  13. John A says:
    June 14, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    So Steve McIntyre is the “founder” of Climate Audit? What about… Oh never mind. He deserves it all anyway.

    LOL! Not to worry John. Many of us from the early days remember your contributions! Hell I’ll just say it… Odds are if it wasn’t for your efforts most of us would’nt know about Steve McIntyre and his work.

    On behalf of a great many of us let me thank you for your prodding & needling of Steve and your tireless work on the CA blog. I know I’m not CEI but at least I’m not BP!…

    Best,
    Don.w

  14. Prophets are generally unrecognized in their own country.

    M&M are to be honoured/awarded in the USA.

    A salute and thank-you to Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

    Canada salutes Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

    Bravo.
    …-

    [Canadians] “McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award”

    “Two important figures at the heart of the ClimateGate e-mails, Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, will provide key information on the remarkable revelations in thousands of e-mails and files that were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November last year.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    …-

    “Tories put climate change on G8 agenda after pressure from world leaders

    Nobel Peace Prize laureates and environmentalists had joined chorus calling to put climate change on the table”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-put-climate-change-on-g8-agenda-after-pressure-from-world-leaders/article1603818/

    http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/06/14/rob-ford-slightly-ahead-nanos/#comment-83682

  15. As a Canadian, I’m delighted to bask in the glory of two countrymen who will be seen to have changed history – for the better!

  16. Just more evidence that Canadians are finer, nobler people. And too polite to say so (well, too polite to say so very often).

  17. @Seth Cuttlefish
    “CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”

    I dont see why hey should distance themselves from something that is infact true.

  18. Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”

    —…—…

    M&M: Congratulations. The dinner will be a nice recognition of your courage, but the testimony in the hearing before hand is the more important.

    Seth: As asked above, what is incorrect about the statement you quoted?

    Exactly how many billions of people do you want destituted by withholding food, power, shelter, water, clothing, sewage treatment, and transportation by restricting energy just so YOU can “feel good” (uselessly) about the environment?

  19. Two Quixotes on pursue of their Dulcinea, the truth. Congratulations!
    Nobel men never negotiate their principles.

  20. Woot! I’m taking this as independent confirmation that not all us Canadians are certifiably insane. Walk tall gentlemen, walk tall. Congratulations :)

  21. Congratulations Mc and Mc on your award. From a simple question about the provenance of the hockey stick, you have unearthed the tricks which were used to generate the stick. You have also forced climate scientists to open up their data to the public and you have inspired countless others to question methods used in climate science. Thank you!

  22. Jimbo says:
    June 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
    —————————————————————————————
    “What is untrue about any of the above which you have quoted?”

    “….an organisation that is so removed from science that they pretend that they have never heard of the greenhouse effect.”

    “Have they, show me where? In years to come you will be highly troubled by the sham you let yourself into. You’ve been taken for a ride sir.”

    —————————————————————————————
    RESPONSE:

    TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING IS A BAD THING. Good food is harmless. So why don’t you eat twice as much?

    As far as breathing it in and out by Humans, Animals and Plants, how many of the preceding are going to do any breathing in the expanded, Sahara style, desert areas of the Earth?

    POLLUTION BY A NATURAL SUBSTANCE? That is relative to the impact it makes. If it causes trouble then it is rational to call it pollution.

    An example. In the late 19th century horse manure was no problem at the farm. Quite the contrary, it was desirable since it made good fertilizer.

    But pedestrians crossing city roads had a different opinion. Stagecoach after stagecoach would pass by with their horses-did anyone ever think of diapers?-heeding natures call. It was also a major health danger due to the large numbers of disease carrying flies it created. People were actually paid to clean up that pollution.

    By the way, horse manure was actually called pollution back then.

    As far as being troubled by the “sham” we have supposedly been led to, I have a prediction to make. As soon as the Arctic ice cap melts, Oil Company shills will invent a new set of lies and fantasies and expand the emphasis on some old ones. All of a sudden Natural Warming will be all the craze as opposed to “No Global Warming” and/or “Global Cooling”.

    At the fringes of lunacy-Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. ad nauseum-there will be a different psychosis. The environmentalists and Warmies did it! They made Global Warming happen! After all didn’t someone once write a book saying so?

    As for you sir, where what will you be saying when the Arctic Ice Cap turns to ice cubes?

  23. Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Anyhow, well done to the two good men McIntyre and McKitrick you deserve this and much more.

  24. Sourced from Wikipedia;
    “CEI is an outspoken anthropogenic climate change denialist and an opponent of government action that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It favours free-market environmentalism, claiming that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government.
    In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith said of anthropogenic climate change: “Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer and easier productivity to agriculture.”
    CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funder’s include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation. CEI’s most recent television ad campaign, entitled A Bright Future For Some, focused on energy policy and global warming, criticizing policies advocated by former Vice President Al Gore. The CEI ad aired nation-wide in March and April, 2008.” (URL’s edited)

    Talk about giving oneself a pat on the back! Julian Simon, proponent of unlimited mining of resources, unlimited population growth; whatever problems arise, the market will fix it. Like the GFC? Who fixed it, if indeed it is? We the minions with our taxes for the too big to fail. Big failures feeding on little failures. Keep in mind that Mother Nature doesn’t do bail outs and isn’t too big to fail.

  25. villabolo says:
    June 14, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    “By the way, horse manure was actually called pollution back then.”

    plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

  26. A good time to recall again John Daly. He was on one of the first hacked mails and also a Canadian. RIP

  27. We live in a sick society. These gentlemen deserve far far more credit.

    However, “whistleblowers” tend to be shunned in our society. It is better to lie and cheat (=Nobel Prize) then to be seen as an outsider who refuses to play along with the latest fashionable claptrap. So sad.

    Meanwhile the fraudsters like Pachauri and Gore will simply move on to the next “big thing” – idolized & sponsered by the “disaster story” seeking media and speaking eloquently to packed auditoriums with total conviction about their next new ponzi scheme.

    Disgusting to think that neither McIntyre nor McKitrick have made a single cent out of all the good work they have done for society – meanwhile the Goldman Sachs sponsored fraudsters have their pockets lined with dirty money.

    How can one have any faith in a society that rewards gangsters and shuns honest citizens? No wonder we have such a mess in the West.

  28. those two boys, mr m & m, along with mr watts, deserve the congressional medal of honor for calling out the snake oil, liar, self interest ,elitist hypocrits associated with the agw dogma…congrats mr m & m…may u live long and prosper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. RBateman says 3:24
    Yes Robert ,at least the equivalent, and a hat tip to Mosher and Fuller for their work putting all of the “expose” in a book that I have on my desk now.

  30. Co2 has a very good point. It is mind boggling stupid to accept an award from the CEI. It is mind boggling stupid to associate with a right wing clown like Monckton.

    Goldman Sachs chose Obama, so did the most of the rest of corporate America. That’s how they operate. They put the money on their guy, or their cause, like global warming. Obama’s only chance of re-election is if Goldman Sachs put up the money for Palin to win the Republican nomination.

  31. Dave F says:
    June 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/EssexMcKitrickAndresen07-globalT_JNET2007.pdf

    This paper still valid?
    ———————
    It never was or will be, it is a rather stupid argument about averages. Here’s a segment from the paper;
    “In economics, for example, an exchange rate is meaningfulwhen comparing two currencies, but the ideas of a ‘‘global exchange rate’’ or a sum over exchange rates are both nonsensical. Regardless of the fact that enough data exist to compute something analogous to a ‘‘global temperature’’ for the money markets, neither the level nor the trend in such a statistics would provide any meaningful information about the global economy. Another example: Individual telephone numbers are both meaningful and useful, while the sum or average over telephone numbers in a directory have no meaning.”

    To use the above analogies is plain dumb, has anyone ever heard of a “global exchange rate”? Tally up the phone numbers of an entire phone book and come up with an average telephone number? Just because one can think up non-sensical averages, doesn’t prove that there are no sensical ones. The above cited are pedantic arguments no respectable scientist would be part of. Averages may or may not be real. If the average wage is $500 per week, some people will actually earn that amount, some more and some less. If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a different context.
    The same argument goes for global temperatures and averages serve an important scientific purpose to establish trends. I know that the skeptic don’t like trends, an inconvenient truth if you like.

  32. Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
    ____________________________________________________________
    SO Seth, if yo believe CO2 is pollution how about not producing any CO2 pollution what so ever?

    I am sure that many of us would love to see Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Obama, Mann and the rest cut their “carbon foot” print to zero. The sooner the better.

  33. CO2 says: June 14, 2010 at 5:47 pm
    “Sourced from Wikipedia;”
    Bla, bla, bla….

    ’nuff said.

  34. nono drv

    This is from John Daly’s website:
    “Originally from Britain, I came to live in Tasmania in 1980, …..”

  35. Congratulations to two guys who aren’t recognized in their own country. You’d think that the demolishing of the hocky stick graph would rate some attention from the Canadian government, especially given the effect on the economy that following the junk science from the IPCC would cause. What’s also noteworthy is that these two guys had no government support and did the work on their own time. I’ve learned a lot of stats from the climateaudit site which, on a good day, I can just barely follow. I’m glad that WUWT is around to bring the same information in a less technical form to a much larger audience.

    Canadian politicians seem to be the same as politicians everywhere else and view the prospect of carbon taxes as a means of massively increasing government revenues. I live in BC which has a carbon tax which goes up every year and, if global cooling becomes the norm, people will be penalized more and more for heating their homes in winter. The last thing politicians here want is more widespread recognition of how M&M have so completely debunked the “scientific” foundation for carbon taxes.

  36. dearieme says:
    June 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Just more evidence that Canadians are finer, nobler people. And too polite to say so (well, too polite to say so very often).

    Canada also produced prominent CAGW’ers David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver, Gordon McBean, James Hoggan etc. Fortunately, M & M trump them all.

  37. Gail Combs says:
    June 14, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    ____________________________________________________________
    SO Seth, if yo believe CO2 is pollution how about not producing any CO2 pollution what so ever?

    —————————————————————————————

    I’m sure that is a misrepresentation of what Seth really means.

    Other than the obvious reason that CO2 and as part of the natural process is essential to Carbon based life is the fact that Climatologists clearly state that CO2 in its present amounts keeps the Earth from plunging into an ice age.

    As I said in a previous post it is not the mere presence of CO2 that is the problem but the amounts.

  38. Congratulations to both. A Herculean task well done , and hopefully more accolades will follow.

  39. CO2 says:
    June 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a different context.

    …I know CO2 later corrected that to 15Kmh, but I suspect CO2 belongs to teh hockey-stick statistical society

    Isn’t the correct calculation 13.3 Kmh??? Or has my schoolboy math let me down?

  40. AndiC says:
    June 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    CO2 says:
    June 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a different context.

    …I know CO2 later corrected that to 15Kmh, but I suspect CO2 belongs to teh hockey-stick statistical society

    Isn’t the correct calculation 13.3 Kmh??? Or has my schoolboy math let me down?
    —————–
    Yes it has; 20+10=30 divide by 2 equals 15. Somewhere you lost 1.7 kmh
    Hockey-stick tatistical Society? Quelle imagination. Have you read any of the subsequent debunking of the hockey-stick? Perhaps not, you don’t read opposite arguments, do you? Try for a change, it’s good to have knowledge from both sides.

  41. Bill Sticker says:
    June 14, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Good news. Pity it isn’t a Nobel prize, but it looks like you only get one of those if your proposer is selected by the Nobel committee.
    —————————-
    As it should be, the committee receives nominations, the committee decides by vote. Nothing sinister just a democratic process.
    Can you suggest a better way? I know you will come up with an alternative way, how about Christopher Monckton, he already (and falsely) claims to be a Nobel Prize Laureate.

  42. Robert Austin says:
    June 14, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    dearieme says:
    June 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Just more evidence that Canadians are finer, nobler people. And too polite to say so (well, too polite to say so very often).

    Canada also produced prominent CAGW’ers David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver, Gordon McBean, James Hoggan etc. Fortunately, M & M trump them all.
    ———————
    You left out one of Canada’s better products; John Ralston Saul. With M & M, were you referring to the nasty coloured sweets?

  43. ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
    Nothing says “Climate Science Watchdog” like an award honoring a professor of business administration:

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

    The timing is perfect, too.
    Months before the alarmist Arctic sea ice tries some attention-grabbing stunt this Summer:

    Hey, if Arctic sea ice was important, the Free Market would just produce more of it after the death spiral.
    ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

  44. 13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km. Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33

  45. Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
    June 14, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    “…especially given the effect on the economy that following the junk science from the IPCC would cause. …I’ve learned a lot of stats from the climateaudit site which, on a good day, I can just barely follow. I’m glad that WUWT is around to bring the same information in a less technical form to a much larger audience.”
    ——————————
    If you can barely follow the statistics on a good day, how did you conclude that the IPCC uses junk science? Was that your own conclusion or just repeating from a blog. Is there any junk science on your side of the argument? Of course not, anything that argues against global warming is A+ science, the rest is just junk. A global conspiracy. Get real. I’m all for less technical explanations, for as long as they do not distort the basic premise.

  46. nano drv says:
    June 14, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    A good time to recall again John Daly. He was on one of the first hacked mails and also a Canadian. RIP

    John Daly, a Canadian? Which John Daly would that be?

    From http://www.john-daly.com/dalybio.htm

    John L. Daly
    Profile of a Greenhouse `skeptic’

    Originally from Britain, I came to live in Tasmania in 1980, settling near Launceston, and for the last 9 years have been one of the numerous `skeptics’ speaking out publicly against the Global Warming scare, which makes exaggerated claims that the earth will warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

    Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days as a ship’s officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970’s, the `nuclear winter’ scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present. All these scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30 years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this industry has, through the `politics of fear’ which it has promoted, acted against the interests of the public.

    See also: Still Waitng for Greenhouse, http://www.john-daly.com

  47. Congrats to 2 fine gentlemen on this award, may more reconigtion for your work come your way

  48. M&M’s reasoned and detached inquirey is working… we all hope they have the energy to continue, this is going to be a protracted academic arguement. CO2 captures heat flow, which is why a mosquito can find you, CO2’s weight confines it to the proximity of the planet’s surface, where it’s needed, it is not that envolved with climate…however, I’m listening.

  49. Gordon Ford says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km. Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33
    ————————-
    Typical denial obfuscation of something simple;
    To keep it simple for simple readers I simply stated to travel a distance one day at 20 kmh and another day (it may well have been the same day or a week later or whatever) the same distance at 10 kmh. No going back involved and simply assuming constant speed on each occasion. The distances are equal, the speeds are constant and there are only two units. Distance irrelevant.
    Do you want it simpler than that? One tin with 20 cookies, one tin with 10 cookies, average tin 15 cookies.

  50. Thank you two very much. I am deeply thankful there are people like you in this world. You have devoted so much time and effort on behalf of us all. Your love of science, real science, shows through and your devotion has not gone unnoticed. The world owes you a debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay.

  51. Anu says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    “Hey, if Arctic sea ice was important, the Free Market would just produce more of it after the death spiral.”

    Almost sounds theological.

    What is most amusing from my perspective is comparing statements like that to the actual repercussions to the World economy an open body of Ocean in the Arctic would create.

    Estimated time: Ten to twenty years for complete meltdown. Half as long for substantially open waters.

    Temperature increase of the Arctic Ocean, 6-9 degrees Fahrenheit. Which will cause intensification of water evaporation. This in turn will lead to more intense rains of the type we’ve been getting in Minneapolis, Tennessee, Fargo and now Oklahoma. More severe droughts in other areas.

  52. #
    #
    Walter Schneider says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm
    Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days as a ship’s officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970′s, the `nuclear winter’ scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present. All these scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30 years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this industry has, through the `politics of fear’ which it has promoted, acted against the interests of the public.
    —————————
    I have followed the global warming issue for a similar period. What do you mean by the “ice age scare”? It was one scientist’s (if) qualified hypothesis and it didn’t get much attention at the time; no global panic. The “nuclear winter scare” of the 1980’s, didn’t create a global panic. Again it was an hypothesis of what could happen during a global nuclear war. Apart from radiation fall-out the massive amount of aerosols would cause rapid global cooling. A small academic decipline of 30 years ago, grown into a mammoth global industry of spreading fear? Really? I always thought that the average citizen recognised spin for what it is. Apparently they don’t. Yes, you’ll accuse me of the same, but I read all science, whenever I can, both for and against, I try to be informed. But I don’t fall for ‘scares’, conspiracies or the multitude of ‘gates’ created on a whim. I’ll take any reasoned argument but detest hyperbole. Why do you make qualified statements into definitive ones? Such as; “…claims that the earth WILL warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse Effect.” (my emphasis)
    When I read the documents, they are projections and invariably conditional.

  53. Walter Schneider says, quoting John Daly:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    “I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970′s, the `nuclear winter’ scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present.”

    I recall the Nuclear Winter issue. I was a nuclear survivalist who did not take the idea seriously because the facts, as presented by Carl Sagan, seem stretched out.

    On the other hand, the so called Ice Age scare was a general media fabrication. The majority of scientists believed in Global Warming back then.

    The “talking point” statement that goes, “Scientists said in the 1970’s that an Ice Age was coming.” Implies that someone must have done a survey of Climatologists in order to find out whether the majority believed in Ice Age or Global Warming. None of the magazines cited like Time or Newsweek even pretended to have done such a survey. They simply had articles based on what so and so said. So and so would simply be a “scientist” or two. So how would anyone know what the majority of Climatologists thought one way or the other?

    It wasn’t until this claim was made that the matter was looked into by the AGW crowd and discovered that 85% of scientific papers in that time period supported AGW and 15% believed in Global Cooling.

  54. I’m glad to see CO2 finally straightening out the complicated statistic problem of the average speed of a bicycle.
    On the other hand, when trying to compute global average temperatures one quickly runs into so much problems of defining what temperatures to average, and how they respond to spurious inputs, not to mention the number of measuring points needed, that the whole excercise soon becomes meaningless.
    Trying to average the speeds of all bicyclists all over the word would be a good comparison.
    While it is possible to (fairly…) easily calculate an average bicycle speed, it is not self-evident that a global mean temperature can be averaged with any accuracy.

  55. Seth Cuttlefish says:
    June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”

    Further to other comments above – Seth, talk to an Anaesthetist, they will tell you that your bodies pCO2 levels are what triggers breathing. If your pCO2 blood levels are too low you stop breathing. CO2 is indeed a vital part of the Carbon Cycle.

    Seth – also talk to someone who knows about plant photosynthesis. When you have done both of these things – have a little ponder about what you said and the motivation behind your questioning what the CEI states when what they say is true fact.

    Methinks you are listening to hype and spin.

  56. Congratulations to both McIntyre and McKitrick, keep up the good work.

    @ CO2, villabolo, Seth.

    Completely O/T comments. There are plenty of other threads on this site about sea ice, CO2, models etc you could popst your comments on. Why not go back to fakeclimate instead of hijacking threads over here. Nothing you read here will ever change your minds so please go back to your love in.

  57. @CO2:
    If you travel “a certain distance” at 2o km/h one day and the same distance at 10 km/h the second day, the average speed for the two days is 40/3 km/h. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the “certain distance” is 20 km. In that case, the travel time on the first day is 1 h, the travel time on the second day is 2h, and the total distance traveled is 40 km. The average speed is 40km/3h, which is approximately 13.3 km/h. Claiming the average speed is (20 + 10)/2 betrays a lack of knowledge of grade 9 mathematics. This kind of problem can literally be found in first year algebra textbooks. So now that we have established your level of mathematical competence, CO2, shall we guess at your level of understanding of the science?

  58. Dan says:
    June 14, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    Just look at;
    Gordon Ford says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Who’s complicating what? As for the issue at hand, global temperature have a look at http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/ineed-a-title.ars
    This is the last paragraph of the author’s letter;
    Quote; There are few things in this world designed to annoy me more than bad science. I can handle ineffectual science, which, in my darker moments, is the label I give my own research. But the combination of rhetorical posturing, statistical strawmen, and questionable examples were, simply put, nauseating. Combined with the fact that one of the authors studies thermodynamics (and is therefore making deliberate distortions) and the paper made it through peer review means that I am typing this with a bucket beside me. I hate to put readers through this, but this is your punishment for demanding balance. :)end Quote

  59. CO2 still cannot do elementary math, even after it has been explained to him by AndiC and Gordon.

    “If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh.” (later ‘corrected’ to 15).

    Let’s suppose the distance is 20km to make it easy. The first day you do the 20km in 1 hour. The second day at 10kmh it takes you 2 hours. Your average speed is therefore
    total distance / total time = 40/3 = 13.3
    as stated by AndiC and Gordon.
    The point is, you spend more time going at the lower speed.

    In view of this, I don’t think anyone needs to take CO2’s comments on the paper by Chris Essex (Math Professor) and Ross McKitrick very seriously!

  60. Villabollo, There is a commercial tomato grower in the UK who buys tonnes of waste foodstuffs rejected by supermakets. This he stores in massive sealed underground silos, the methane these give off is captured and burned to create the heat for his tomato greenhouses so he can grow tomatoes all year round. The CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.

    There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!

    There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is also at record high levels.

    As for the Sahara? Have you seen the parts of the Sahara that are now turning green with vegetation? That does not get on the news either for some strange reason.

  61. I think CO2 might have bitten off a little more than he can chew here.
    “CO2 says:
    June 14, 2010 at 9:15 pm
    Gordon Ford says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km. Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33
    ————————-
    Typical denial obfuscation of something simple;
    To keep it simple for simple readers I simply stated to travel a distance one day at 20 kmh and another day (it may well have been the same day or a week later or whatever) the same distance at 10 kmh. No going back involved and simply assuming constant speed on each occasion. The distances are equal, the speeds are constant and there are only two units. Distance irrelevant.
    Do you want it simpler than that? ”
    The problem is he brought in the distance, which he now says is irrelevant. If you do equal times at the two speeds, then the average is certainly 15; but equal distances mean you spend twice as long at the lower speed and so the average is 13.333. I seem to recall something like this in the early years at secondary school. Arguably, since most of us want to ride a bicycle to get somewhere, it is the second average that is the more relevant.
    In the case of average temperatures a similar effect occurs in spades. Aside from the trivial fact that a non-linear system exquisitely sensitive to starting conditions requires a completely impractical density of datum points, just what average temperature do you require? Should the temperatures be adjusted, say, for the adiabatic lapse rate? What about air density? Should we in fact be looking at energy content? (and since this is essentially a water world, this should include the energy content of the world’s water in all three phases). Does CO2 think it reasonable to take temperature records for one site as valid for somewhere twenty miles away, even with identical sensor siting?
    All in all, I think the McCritics have done an excellent job in bringing peoples’ attention to some of the essentials of statistics. Well done, Gentlemen!

  62. Phil Brisley says:
    June 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    “M&M’s reasoned and detached inquirey is working… we all hope they have the energy to continue, this is going to be a protracted academic arguement. CO2 captures heat flow, which is why a mosquito can find you, CO2′s weight confines it to the proximity of the planet’s surface, where it’s needed, it is not that envolved with climate…however, I’m listening.”
    ——————————
    What’s the relevance of a mosquito? CO2’s weight confines it to the proximity of the planet’s surface? So, capturing CO2 is simple then, it will conveniently fall down next to the chimney into big funnels. CO2 not involved with the climate? Spend a day in your fridge just to get an idea of how cold the world would be without it. Just as a fore-taste that is; want to go for a swim? Try somewhere close to the equator using your snowmobile to get there.
    Protracted academic argument? Sorry, for the academics at large it is already dead in the water.

  63. Apart from the logical scientific approach that M & M have applied, the major factor for me, along with their tenacity, has been their decency and dignity. These are powerful attributes when in search of the truth.

    Well done gentlemen!

    Thank you!

  64. CO2:
    It is probably not very difficult to find several articles supporting my view.
    They would, also probably, be better written and without displaying the author’s mood.
    The mood of the author does nothing to make his views more convincing to the reader, they serve only to convince himself that he is right.

  65. I’ll just say that I think Ross and Steve have taken the best shots of the global warming industry and have barely been gloved by their opponents. There’s a perfectly good reason why they were mentioned so often in the Climategate emails – because their opponents were (and are) mortally afraid of them.

    In 2005, when Climate Audit was launched, there was palpable fear over what the Hockey Team could do to academics (and everyone else) who dared criticize them. That’s why M&M 2005 (GRL) was such a landmark achievement, because after the orchestrated swiftboating (mostly completely unjustified) given to Soon and Baliunas in 2003 over their meta-study, there were virtually no scientists prepared to put their head above the parapet.

    For that reason, and the advent of RealClimate which was designed to given swift pre-buttal and rebuttal to M&M 2005, it was vital that Steve had an outlet to respond to the Hockey Team in near realtime.

    I remember the “climate of fear” really well – it seems like a long time ago doesn’t it? I remember how circumspect people were about admitting that they were reading Climate Audit, let alone commenting.

    Of course, the greatest assistance to the growth of Climate Audit (and WUWT and JeffID and many others) has been due to our opponents: Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, William Connelley, Eric Steig, Tom Crowley et al – whose studious inability to respond to reasoned criticism and argument has been outstanding.

    Now in 2010 Michael Mann’s star has fallen right to earth, and I’m sure many researchers think twice about co-authoring any papers with him. Ammann and Wahl are now fixtures in the blogosphere for trying to rescue the Hockey Stick by inventing their own statistical methods. Gavin Schmidt is no longer quoted as an unimpeachable source even by the BBC. William Connelley doesn’t work for the British Antarctic Survey any more and is in perennial trouble at Wikipedia over his heavy-handed twisting of history, while his former boss at the BAS has had to ratchet down the alarmist rhetoric at the British Museum after an avalanche of criticism.

    I’m not being sarcastic – without the interventions of the incompetent Hockey Team, McIntyre and McKitrick would have had minimal impact.

    I hope they enjoy their dinner and their award because they thoroughly deserve it.

  66. Ken Hall says:
    June 15, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Villabollo,

    There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!

    There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is also at record high levels.
    ———————
    CO2 by a factor of 4!? can you cite me the calculation?
    Any level of CO2 is okay? Care to visit Venus?
    Yes, I have looked at the arctic lately; record melt May 2010, from the start of the melt season 2010, this year so far has melted 1 million square km more than 2009.
    Since 2007? What a devious question, chosing the record 2007 melt as reference, from which all scientists said that the arctic would recover. It did in 2008, about 1/3rd, it did in 2009 also about 1/3rd, the remaining 1/3rd no. That’s certainly not a case of “arctic recovered” as is continuously claimed on this blog. Recovered is a definitive word and the arctic is all but definitive. In order for the arctic to recover to 1980 levels, there would have to be the mother of all recoveries, lasting more than the 3 decades it took to melt.

  67. Congratulations to Mc and Mc – the history of the world takes new turns from such efforts as yours to find truth and make it known. Thanks.
    And trolls, please cease, in more ways than one, demeaning the meaning of the word ‘science’.

  68. John A says @3:49 am [ ... ],

    John A, trenchant comments. Those of us who have followed CA for the past 5 years know of the unflagging effort you have personally put into opposing the cabal of the folks who have both front feet in the government/NGO grant trough. Thanks.

  69. congratulations to Steve and Ross from down under where Anthony is touring at the moment

  70. Congratulations gentlemen. It is men with integrity such as yours that makes the world a better place for us all.

  71. Hey, don’t forget the poetry and music from Canadians!
    Prime examples are Leonard Cohen and Gordon Lightfoot. Cohen tours Australia in November.

    Marshall McCluhan was also Canadian.

  72. PaulM – Absolutely correct. CO2’s tricky poser was, “If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh”. Note the words “given distance” and “average speed”. Dammit PaulM, never mind your logical supposition of letting the distance be 20km, I’m going to let it be 40km, just to really complicate this wonderful example provided by CO2.

    The first day you do the 40km in 2 hours at an average speed of 20km/h. The second day you do the same 40 km in 4 hours at 10 km/h.

    Total distance travelled = 80 km. Total time = 6 hours.
    Average speed = 80/6 = 13.33 recurring.

    Exercise for CO2.
    1. Now do it over a 120km distance just to make it really complicated.
    2. Present results here.
    3. Comment on any similarities between PaulM’s and my result.
    4. Repeat 1,2 and 3 for a SQRT(2) distance.
    5. Apply for the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics when it next becomes vacant.

    You would be hilarious if you weren’t so mathematically illiterate.

  73. Disputin says:
    June 15, 2010 at 2:15 am
    I think CO2 might have bitten off a little more than he can chew here.
    Some people [like CO2] make very strong and condescending] statements without having the basics right. The correct answer is of course, 40/3=13.333…

  74. “There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!”
    +++
    “CO2 by a factor of 4!? can you cite me the calculation?”
    +++

    Yes.

    http://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/10210/3094/1/Nel%20.pdf

    Willem Nel, PhD Thesis, Geography Department, University of Johannesburg. Probably the highest the CO2 level can be elevated is about 540 ppm and that is based on doubling the total discoveries to date of oil, natural gas and coal.

    The problem is peak energy, not peak oil. The estimate that the global population will peak in 2050 matches the energy peak. It will fall to its present level about 2100. By then all carbon fuels will have peaked, peak coal coming about 2070 long after peak uranium, oil and gas.

    Nel W.P., Cooper C.J. 2009. “Implications of fossil fuel constraints on economic growth and global warming”, Energy Policy, 37(1), pp. 166–180.

    Nel, W.P. [D], Cooper, C.J. [L] 2008. “A Critical Review of IEA’s Oil Demand Forecast for China”, Energy Policy, 36(3), pp. 1096-1106.

    http://ujlink.uj.ac.za/search~S1?/anel+w/anel+w/1%2C11%2C13%2CB/frameset&FF=anel+willem+p&1%2C1%2C/indexsort=-

  75. Pssst, hey, “C02″: Call the distance traveled on each day D (km), and the time spent on day 1 to travel that distance T (hrs.). On the 2nd day, at half the speed it will take twice as long to travel that same distance, so 2T (hrs.) To get the average speed you add up the total distance to get 2D, and the total time to get 3T, or 2D/3T, or 2/3 x D/T. In this case, we know that T = D/20, because at 20kmh it takes 1 hr. to go 20 k. Now, plug D/20 in in place of T, and you get the average of 2/3 x D/D/20, which = 40/3 kmh =
    13 1/3 kmh. Simple algebra, really. Perhaps you didn’t get that far in school.

  76. Congratulations to Ross and Steve… and to us! If it weren’t for these two gentleman, climatism would have utterly triumphed. They demonstrate that the sceintific method, so painfully assembled over 400 years, is still alive.

  77. Congratulations to M&M, and all the rest contributing over the years!

    Now, dont expect any Nobel Peace Price. That price is politicized, and the commitee, filled up with …politicians, seems to sit for 3 years at a time.

    Here is the commitee mebers from the period when Al Gore got the price;
    All politicians;

    Mjøs, Ole Danbolt Christian People’s Party
    Furre, Berger Ragnar Socialist Left Party
    Five, Kaci Kullman Conservative
    Rønbeck, Sissel Labour
    Ytterhorn, Inger-Marie Progress Party

    But the other Nobels are possible of course!

    They are based on merits within Physics, economics, etc, and is in Stockholm, not in Norway.

  78. CO2 says:
    June 15, 2010 at 4:02 am

    This is hilarious! Coming here to WUWT trying to teach grownups algebra!

    And getting it wrong! hohoho!

    If you come back, please come as H2O, not CO2. That will give you more credibility.

  79. CO2 says:
    June 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a different context.

    AndiC says:
    June 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm
    …I know CO2 later corrected that to 15Kmh, but I suspect CO2 belongs to teh hockey-stick statistical society
    Isn’t the correct calculation 13.3 Kmh??? Or has my schoolboy math let me down?

    CO2 says:
    Yes it has; 20+10=30 divide by 2 equals 15. Somewhere you lost 1.7 kmh
    Hockey-stick tatistical Society? Quelle imagination. Have you read any of the subsequent debunking of the hockey-stick? Perhaps not, you don’t read opposite arguments, do you? Try for a change, it’s good to have knowledge from both sides.

    ——
    Pardon me Mr C. You say “over a given distance”, presumably the same distance both days. It makes no difference in the result what that distance is, so let us say that it is 20 km. On the first day it takes one hour; on the second it takes two.

    Average Speed = (total distance) / (total time) = (20+20)/(10+20) = 40/3 ≈ 13.3 km/hr

    Your error is a classic groaner, which I often use in class (I am a professor of mathematics) to illustrate the counterintuitive nature of averaging, even in the simplest cases. This illustrates the importance of mathematical training for anyone pretending to understand climate issues. M&M has proven themselves quite adept in this regard, and have repeatedly caught so-called “climate experts” either fudging the statistics or simply bumbling the math at a grade-school like this. Indeed, there is a pretty good case that global temperature averages, as calculated by CRU, NOAA etc, are simply meaningless in a physical sense — and that is before considering the ridiculous manner in which the process by which they are derived is tampered with to support predetermined conclusions. In my view M&M richly deserve broader recognition than this award, but the CEI’s recognition is worthwhile for its own sake; they are proven contributors toward cutting through climate BS.

    As for the earlier business about CEI’s statement about CO2: Check out the science on this. The natural conclusion from literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies on the matter clearly demonstrate that, from the perspective of the biosphere, the current levels of CO2 are TOO LOW. Plant health, crop production, resilience to disease and pests, etc all appear to be optimized, for the majority of plants, somewhere between 800 and 1500 ppm — two to four times as much as the atmosphere holds today. As far as I know the CEI has not “denied” the greenhouse effect but approach it as anyone knowing the basics would: its effect is logarithmic (ie diminishes rapidly as a function of increased CO2), CO2 infrared absorption covers only a tiny part of the spectrum, and its theoretical effect on instrumental readings is tiny — the doom and gloom projections you see rely not on 100 year old established physics about infrared absorption, but upon still unproven hypothetical amplifiers of that effect, which are increasingly being regarded by genuine climate experts as the fictional nonsense that they are.

  80. Smokey says:
    “June 15, 2010 at 4:22 am
    John A says @3:49 am [ ... ],

    John A, trenchant comments. Those of us who have followed CA for the past 5 years know of the unflagging effort you have personally put into opposing the cabal of the folks who have both front feet in the government/NGO grant trough. Thanks.”

    I, too, wish to recognise John A for all the assistance (and wise comments!) he provided at CA

  81. Ken Hall says:
    June 15, 2010 at 2:01 am

    “The CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.”

    “There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!”

    “There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    “Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is also at record high levels.”

    —————————————————————————————
    —————————————————————————————

    “The CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.”

    I am aware that under experimental conditions increased CO2 helps plant growth. The plants were inside tents, which keeps insects out. Outside, in the open, the situation is different. Insects are even more attracted to certain plants than they normally are causing devastation to the plants. The reason is that the plant produces more of a certain substance that the insects eat.

    Your example of a person who uses hyperbaric CO2 under enclosed conditions does not necessarily contradict the pros and cons of increased CO2 mentioned by AGW people.

    Even if CO2 were to increase ALL plants growth in open ground it’s benefits would canceled for the following reasons:

    1. Increased growth due to increasing a SINGLE substance that plants consume would automatically increase the plants needs for the OTHER substances that it uses such as water and fertilizer or soil fertility. This would create a bottleneck effect that would cancel out any other benefits for plants do not live on CO2 alone.

    You cannot assume that will automatically happen in the natural world or can be made to happen in the human domain. You would need more rain then we get now for forests and crops. As far as crops are concerned you cannot substitute insufficient rain water with aquifer waters for long due to the fact that they are being depleted throughout the World including the USA.

    2. As far as soil fertility is concerned, it is not going to go up out of thin air in the forests. In croplands you would need more fertilizer to provide the larger more productive plants with the food they need. Artificial fertilizer is made from natural gas and any major increase in its consumption will hasten the arrival of “Peak Gas” (within a century or less?).

    These two things, water and fertilizer, are bottlenecks that will prevent growth of plants in the open land assuming that CO2 increases their growth without any unintended ill effects.

    —————————————————————————————

    “As for the Sahara? Have you seen the parts of the Sahara that are now turning green with vegetation? That does not get on the news either for some strange reason.”

    Since I do believe that CO2 insulates heat in our atmosphere to the degree that physicists have determined it is obvious that expansion in deserts will not be that good for plant growth except for certain types of deserts if cactus turns one on.

    As for the Sahara turning green, it is known that 5,000 years ago it was lush with vegetation. The remains of hunter-gatherers have been found there. HOWEVER, When the Sahara was green, large ares below it that were green before as well as today were desert themselves. It is thought that a decrease in temperature turned the Sahara into a desert, not directly of course, but by affecting the rain patterns. If this seems counterintuitive please see the Wikipedia article linked below.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Climate_history

    FURTHERMORE, the Sahara is EXPANDING SOUTH into what used to be farmland contributing to the famines there and NORTH into the southern fringes of Spain. So, if it is turning green in certain places but expanding in others the obvious conclusion is that the desert IS SHIFTING POSITION, most probably to what it was 5,000 years ago when WARMER TEMPERATURES sucked in moisture from the ocean and created monsoon conditions with cooler rain (see Wikipedia article linked above).

    —————————————————————————————
    “There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!”

    I’m not sure whether there is enough “carbon based fuel” or not but the issue is moot because there is plenty of carbon based BIOMASS to accomplish a fourfold increase and more as well. Then you have the production of Methane in the Siberian thawing permafrost. For an interesting, amusing and very graphic video on the subject of Siberian Methane (as well as Alaskan) please see:

    This permafrost melt is due to increased temperatures in Siberia of course.
    —————————————————————————————

    “There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Which means what exactly? That CO2, and while we’re at it, Methane has no heat insulating abilities (greenhouse effect)? Why then did Physicists figure out otherwise and did so before Global Warming was an issue?

    How about the “The Sun Is Guilty!”. Other than the fact that Astrophysicists know that the fluctuations in the Sun are not enough to create the temperature rises that have been very noticeable since the 1980’s, and definitely not the Ice Ages throughout Geological time, is the fact that increases in the Sun’s energy output would be distributed equally throughout the Earth. Instead, our current situation is that of a concentration of temperature in the Arctic region about three times greater than the rest of the world.

    —————————————————————————————
    “Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is also at record high levels.”

    That reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who’s looking for his keys at night under the street lamp. Why was he looking there when he lost it somewhere else? Because the light was better.

    Have you looked at the Arctic THICKNESS images which indicate a continued reduction in ice thickness since 2007? It actually lost multiyear ice through the WINTER of 2009 (September) to 2010 (March).

    Yes, I’m aware about the claims that it is thicker than those Satellite maps project. But there are two points to be made about that.

    First, there have been on site explorations by icebreakers and persons walking the ice. The crew of the Amundsen, in September of 2009, reported going through hundreds of miles of 20 inch thick rotten ice until they finally discovered a multiyear ice floe 10 miles wide. Within five minutes it disintegrated before their very eyes as ocean waves pounded it. The satellites cannot determine the state of disintegration of the ice.

    Second, the thinning of the Arctic Ice Cap has been steady and consistent ever since the 1980’s with the possible exception of the winter of 2008 to 2009 where it could have been slightly thinner or thicker.

    If the submarine data does actually indicate a thicker ice cap at present then it would be interesting to take 30 years of submarine measurements and compare them with the satellite measurements for the same time period. Even if there is a consistent discrepancy between the two, the trends of both should be that of thinning.

  82. I can only smile and smile. With pride for Steve, Ross and all those out there involved. The fingering and smudging of the data now crystal clear for all to see. Thank you.

  83. Hey, don’t forget the poetry and music from Canadians!
    Prime examples are Leonard Cohen and Gordon Lightfoot. Cohen tours Australia in November.

    Marshall McCluhan was also Canadian.

    Bruce Cockburn. Mark Steyn. Doug Flutie (er, oops, the reverse. First American-born player to be inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of fame). Michael J. Fox. Pamela Anderson. Monty Hall. David Frum. Christopher Plumber. About half the American network news anchors (apparently American Broadcasters feel the Canadian/”midwestern” accent is particularly easy on the ears). Etc. A big chunk of the team of NASA engineers behind the Apollo project (who were acquired when the Canadian Avro Arrow project was cancelled and suddenly a large crack team of aerospace engineers was put out of work). Etc.

  84. CO2 erroneously proposes the following analogy:

    “If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is [15] kmh. Did you ride at [15] kmh on either day? No you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a different context.”

    (note: CO2’s “correction” has been included, in “[]”)

    So now let us correctly address CO2’s analogy. That is: what is the kinetic energy of the system (i.e. 1/2 * m * V^2)?

    Since the mass remains the same, CO2 effectively asserts that 10^2 + 20^2 = 2 * 15^2 (and thus asserts that 500 = 450). This is clearly a false statement.

    Similarly, a surface radiates energy according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law (which exhibits a T^4 dependence). Thus CO2’s argument amounts to the assertion that (A^4 + B^4) = (0.5*(A+B))^4 (the reader is free to insert CO2’s “10”, “20” and “15” into this relationship, to confirm it’s falsehood).

    Since we observe that different regions are at different local temperatures, they radiate at different rates (and thus the Earth is clearly not a black body).

    Let me be quite clear about this — the Earth does not have “a temperature” (singular).

  85. CO2 has gone strangely silent. Perhaps he/she is beavering away over some primary school maths books.

  86. WOW, I guess Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are really hitting the Climate Conmen where it hurts, they are even attacking Dr Judith Curry!

    “…But that specific timing issue of the blogs, while important to Curry’s effort to paint McIntyre as some sort of (mostly innocent) victim of attacks by blogging scientists, is irrelevant to the bigger issue, which Curry has backwards. Curry seems to think that the blogosphere is the only place that matters. McIntyre started his attacks in 2003, long before RC was set up. And if you believe that ExxonMobil money wasn’t connected to the McIntyre-McItrick attack on the hockey stick, read this long Deep Climate piece or a very good summary by DeSmogBlog. (And no, being connected to oil money doesn’t inherently invalidate the attacks, but it does kind of scramble Curry’s narrative.)

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/

    I just very briefly skimmed the article but I still think I need a shower.

  87. CO2 and Villabolo: Way, way too late to the party. Grade school understanding of the science gets you a fail. Can we help you find your way back out?

  88. The bicycling example I like to use has the same trick, but it’s something I formulated when I thinking black thoughts about bicycling over hills.

    Suppose I normally ride at 20 km/h, but there’s a hill that’s 1 km up and 1 km down. I can only ride up at 10 km/h. How fast do I have to ride down to keep my average speed at 20 km/h?

  89. Carsten Arnholm’s site is worth a look for his space images and how to make an observatory in your back yard with a purchased garden shed and adapting the roof so it rolls sideways!

    Great site Carsten

    http://arnholm.org/astro/

    Click on Observatory under the Equipment Heading for the garden shed observatory details.

  90. Gail Combs: Thanks for the links. WOW, OH WOW, how unhinged the “consensus” folks have become because of the troublesome truth of M&M. It is absolutely hilarious! They need to turn in their sheepskins!

  91. Their names will go down in history as honourable. That’s more than anyone can say about thelikes of Hansen, Jones, Schmidt and his Goreable.

    Does anyone know where I can get the records of the temperature stations that used to be included in theUSHCN, but are now no longer included?

  92. Rick Werme

    Light speed won’t do it. You’re shot at the top of the hill, used your whole 1/10 hour already.

  93. James Hansen recently was awarded $250,000 by the Heinz Foundation — his hands are literally red with ketchup money!

    And Lonnie and Ellen Thompson recently were given $1M by the David Dan Foundation — I have no clue what Dan’s agenda is. Wiki says he’s a successful businessman.

    So let’s hope CEI comes up with at least $2M for Steve and Ross!

  94. Arrghh….Gail ! Why did you point me to Deep Climate and DeSmogBlog? Now I feel dirty, too.

    Deep Climate apparently thinks that Coby Beck and Tim Lambert know something about climate science…pathetic. I also find it amusing (and indeed, quite biased) when a site directs readers to these sorts of sites, and to Real Climate, without also directing readers to “the opposition”.

    I take such actions as public admission that the robustness of their “science” is based on concealing opposing views. Thus is the life of a True Believer… Note how they scream “kill the heretics!”…

    Science is not done in a vacuum, it is not done without challenge, and it is not done by popular vote.

  95. “The notion of being globally ‘‘hotter’’ or ‘‘colder’’ for out-of-equilibrium systems
    is not altogether without merit. Miami in January, with temperatures
    ranging from 20 to 30C, say, is certainly warmer than Toronto at, say, 15
    to 5C. However, this ranking of relative warmth is not based on averages,
    but on the ranges
    in respective temperature fields.”

    This is the part that interests me the most.

  96. I think “Deep Climate” should be really named “Deep Swiftboating”. Its rare to find such incredible character assassination outside of the extreme fringes of the Republican Party.

    I read about half the article before boredom set in. There was more straw men fallacies in that half an article than I ever seen even on Doltoid.

    Only the already convinced would find that article at all persuasive.

  97. My wake-up call came when CA published the entry, “A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open,” on August 8, 2007. I heard about it while listening to an obscure talk radio show, which referred me to an article in the Toronto Star. After reading the article I visited the CA site for the first time. I was immediately horrified, as I became aware for the first time of Hansen’s “adjustments.”

    I was so upset I mentioned my upset in a newsy email I sent out regularly to my friends. One friend happened to be a leftist, and he promptly hit the “reply all” button and tore me to shreds, publicly, for being a “ditto head.” (I was unaware Rush Limbaugh had commented on “A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open,” a few days after it was posted.) This awoke me to the fact that, if you dared question the way Hansen was coming up with his data, you could expect to get blasted. It was a sort of baptism by fire, in my case.

    It was an amazing thing to me. All I needed to do was ask a few obvious questions, and I found myself called a brainwashed shill of Big Oil. At first I was hurt, and innocently expressed my hurt and repeated my questions, however when this only earned me further blastings I became angry, and developed my ability to blast right back.

    It was at this point I learned something about CA. They snipped me, when I did little more than rave. They were not interested in sinking to that level. (I actually found other sites where one could blast and get blasted back. Accuweather’s site was the best, when it came to raving and getting raved at. On that site a topic such as “rising sea levels” would often degenerate into furious discussions about religion and whether the Red Sea could really be parted.)

    CA did not snip me merely for disagreeing, as sites such as Real Climate did. Often I was agreeing, (albeit with foam around my mouth.) Rather they snipped me for sinking to the level of trolls.

    This taught me yet another lesson.

    All in all, I feel I owe Steve McIntyre a very great deal. He has remained amazingly calm in a storm, and has simply stood for truth.

    I feel there are times truth deserves a capital “T,” and should be written as “Truth.” It has a power all its own, for it does not matter if the whole world calls It a lie, It cannot help but be what it is: “True.”

    I pray this power manifests and blesses Steve McIntyre, and protects him from all the trolls, including the ones in Congress.

  98. Wonderful!
    Now maybe we can get them to investigate the HEART of the whole thing–what happens to terrestrial animals when CO2 or temperatures rise. There are hundreds to thousands of scientific studies on plants, most of which (not all) show that more CO2 is beneficial to them, as are generally higher temperatures (in most cases). Higher CO2 also means plants use LESS water despite faster growth, because they do not have to open their stomata (“mouths” in their leaves) as much to get CO2 and hence lose less water through transpiration.
    There are some studies about insects and CO2, which are not really the animals we want. It is birds, mammals and people that concern us. There is almost no scientific research–at least I have found only a handful of studies, and those at concentrations above 70 times ambient (and it was still beneficial).
    Lack of science leaves the field open to wild guesses. We all learned as tiny children that the byproducts of digestion, peepee and poopoo, are harmful to us and flushed away. Then we learned in grade school a tidbit about the carbon cycle. We learned that plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen (except at night) and animals including us breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. So CO (2) must be bad, right?
    Actually carbonic acid is a vital component of the blood and its levels must be exact. Too little is as deadly (or more so) as too much. Also, when it is too easy to expel CO2 with your breath, you can’t breathe enough to get all the oxygen you need. So there is an optimal level of carbon dioxide in the air. Almost all our physiology evolved under conditions of far, far, higher carbon dioxide than today’s. So it is not surprising that an increase is actually beneficial (at least according to the very few studies I have found).
    Climatology is all very interesting and new, but we have lost sight of the fact that the real point of the debate is the welfare of life.
    Biologists have been asleep at the switch, almost totally suckered into mental gymnastics about how more growth is really bad and how more plants mean a higher rate of extinction (I wish I was kidding). They could use a few “M & M’s.”

    –Esther Cook

Comments are closed.