Warmists deny Copenhagen access to polar bear scientist

From the UK Telegraph 26 June 2009

Christopher Booker

POLAR BEAR EXPERT BARRED BY WARMISTS

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission, will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with the views of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching into the status and management of  polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by  insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

polar_bears480

WUWT readers may recall seeing this photo flashed around the world of polar bears “stranded” on ice at sea. Photo by: Amanda Byrd

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming in the past 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause.

The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the ‘wind-sculpted ice’ they were standing on made such a striking image.

[Added by Anthony: Please follow this link to the original photographer. See the bottom right photo.

She just wanted a photograph more of the “wind-sculpted ice” than of the bears. Byrd writes:

“[You] have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”

]

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: ‘it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition’.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running ‘counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful’. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as the radiation of the sun and changing ocean currents – was ‘inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG’.

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of ‘ scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice’. But check out also on Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. Average temperatures at midsummer were still below zero – the latest date this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping – and after last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time, The bears are doing fine.

(Note – this was sent to me via email as an advance copy. Also I should add that the photo was not originally part of the story sent to me, I added the photo since I know the reference. – Anthony)

Related WUWT story here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Gary Strand

“Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming in the past 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.”
Warming caused by CO2 increase isn’t “dictated by the computer models” of the IPCC (which is itself wrong, as the models don’t belong to the IPCC anyway) – it’s “dictated” by basic radiative principles.
The comment is either sloppy reporting or an incorrect belief on the part of Dr. Taylor.

“Dr Taylor was told that his views running ‘counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful’.”
Opposing views are helpful to those searching for the truth, but not for those who are merely advocating a “cause.”

Things are tyeing together. If you watch the last years of the video I did on Arctic Ice, the powerful winds from the bearing sea are obvious.

pwl

It’s funny that a “Let’s stop global warming” advertisement came up on this posting with two cute (if predators can ever be called that) bears pining for sympathy are shown.

Hasse@Norway

Re: Gary Strand
Dr Taylors point is that the models are bust. Who the models belong to are really of no concern. What’s important is that he was dismissed from the conference because of his heretic beliefs…

ohioholic

How about warming {of the magnitude} dictated by IPCC models? Read an interesting chat with a fellow, Chris Colose, who says that the observations were being brought closer to the models. That’s some scientific method, the observations don’t match the models, so the observations must be wrong! It’s in the comments at Thomas Fuller’s ‘Comment on the EPA’s stonewalling the global warming report’.

Brian in Alaska

Clearly, polar bears don’t know the difference between weather and climate.

JKS

The Ministry of Climate released another mandate today. It was the third in the past six months but most people stopped counting these days. Joe knew that it wouldn’t affect him much- most of what had already been passed affected him past the point of caring. He was old, old enough to remember the days before the Ministry existed and old enough to know that the days when his voice held weight had long since passed. He knew he wouldn’t miss the extra 15 minutes of biking that the mandate curtailed, and had long since given up biking or other forms of exercise since the passage of MC1000. 1000lbs. The unthinkable amount of CO2 he exhaled each year. Was it so wrong? Did his every waking breath add so much of the dreaded CO2 to the atmosphere? Did he really have to put an end to some of his favorite activities in the name of the environment? The report released by the Ministry shortly before MC1000 said the science was irrefutable. The globe was still warming despite nearly 30 years of the harshest winters and mildest summers on record. Solid science. The models never lied.
Joe suspended his bitter musings and unhooked his methane capture receptacle. He only had a few minutes to take his monthly collection into the Ministry Measure station for his scheduled deposit. He knew he was light of his average measure on record with the Ministry which would result in a hefty fine, but he didn’t have the money to pay them anymore. So he farted a few times unhooked. Criminal.

Arn Riewe

I read one of his papers about 3 or 4 months ago but have apparently lost the link. It was an interesting analysis of the danger to polar bear populations. What was particularly interesting was that he used IPCC estimates for ice extent decline and even if you believe them there was a population loss but no danger of extinction. I’ll post the link later if I can find it.
Don’t you just love the warmists? Here’s one of the top researchers in the field they’re discussing and they bar him. That’s real science in practice.

Ron de Haan

Well, refusing experts with opposite views is how the warmists keep their doctrine alive. It is not democratic, but obviously it’s effective.
I must think about the “Rabarber, rabarber, rabarber, method first employed by the National Socialist Party to disturb political meetings.
As soon as the opposition was allowed to address the meeting, the party members
started to call “rabarber, raberber, rabarber, so nobody could hear the arguments of the opposition.
Just refusing opposition experts to a meeting is more effective.
For one it saves you time and you don’t have to shout rabarber.
We don”t have to underline that both methods are undemocratic and the people who applied those methods in the past have caused a lot of human suffering, death and destruction.
So stand up to those elements and kick them out because they are a the kind of breed that used to run countries on the other side of the former Iron Curtain and NAZI GERMANY.
This all sounds like tough talk but you better get the picture now before it is too late.

AnonyMoose

The conference’s qualification process has shown that it is a political conference, not a scientific one.

orthodoc

Gary Strand: “Warming caused by CO2 increase isn’t “dictated by the computer models” of the IPCC (which is itself wrong, as the models don’t belong to the IPCC anyway) – it’s “dictated” by basic radiative principles.”
OK, I’ll bite. Please explain how basic radiative principles dictate this. Please explain how the 0.0003 share of atmospheric CO2, which blocks thermal radiation at a few specific wavelengths (which coincidentally are the same wavelengths as for water vapor) is the culprit.
Please show your work. Use of models is not permitted.

Sam the Skeptic

Gary Strand (10:57:46) :
“The comment is either sloppy reporting or an incorrect belief on the part of Dr. Taylor.”
Actually, it’s neither. It’s sloppy thinking on your part. There is simply insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere (at <400 ppm/v) to have the sort of radiative effect you would like.
The warm-mongers have latched onto CO2 as their chosen bogeyman because this gives them the excuse to control virtually every activity on earth, seeing as how we are a carbon-based species on a carbon-based planet.
I have been a fan of Booker (and his colleague Richard North) for a long time. It doesn't surprise me that he got this story first; he's one of the few in the UK media that hasn't been at the koolaid.
But either way, Mr Strand, are you seriously happy with a system that actually refuses to hear a recognised expert on any subject because his views on that subject differ from that of the current paradigm? Is that how genuine science is supposed to work in the 21st century?
Or could it be that these are only pseudo-scientists more concerned with their next pay packet than with anything resembling truth?
Are they frightened that someone out there might actually hear what he says and might actually believe him? Are they frightened that what he has to say might actually be a damn sight more plausible than the BS they are churning out for the supposedly ignorant plebs?

David L. Hagen

See: Papers by MK Taylor on polar bears.
Polar Bears & Global Warming – Dr Mitch Taylor Video
Last stand of our wild polar bears, Dr. Mitchell Taylor
For polar bear model enthusiasts:
Mark-Recapture and Stochastic Population Models for Polar Bears of the High Arctic
MITCHELL K. TAYLOR, JEFF LAAKE, PHILIP D. McLOUGHLIN, H. DEAN CLUFF and FRANÇOIS MESSIER, ARCTIC, VOL. 61, NO. 2 (JUNE 2008) P. 143– 152
Polar Bear fact sheet
Department of the Environment, Nunavut, Canada
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

Mike Abbott

If I was a polar bear, I would be more concerned about this:
http://www.adventurenw.com/polar.shtml

the world has been taken over by “kooks & wackos”.
Polar Bear Populations are Stable and Healthy, so say the
“kooks & whackos” who want to make the polar bear endangered “just in case”. Here is a blog post, with a link to their own report begging to make the bear endangered, even though populations are stable. in fact, even with artic warming over the past 30 years, since the late 70’s, the bear population has grown. I hope the moderator will appreciate that this is not abusive language, but sadly true.
http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/06/polar-bear-populations-are-stable-and_08.html
what is scary to our society and our wildlife is global cooling. here is what has happened to the birdlife in Churchill with this years frigid temperatures and not yet happening spring, the birds can’t breed.. I live in Pennsylvania and I haven’t even been able to use my swimming pool yet!
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/big-chill-in-churchill-47992231.html

Dennis Hand

JKS, thank you for your humor. It was well needed on this day after the US House of Representatives passed the Cap & Trade legislation.

Oliver Ramsay

Gary Strand said “Warming caused by CO2 increase isn’t “dictated by the computer models” of the IPCC (which is itself wrong, as the models don’t belong to the IPCC anyway) – it’s “dictated” by basic radiative principles.
The comment is either sloppy reporting or an incorrect belief on the part of Dr. Taylor.”
—–
Gary,
I don’t know which is the more absurd; your captious comment or my taking the time to respond to it. The preposition ‘of’ is more lexically versatile than to merely connote ownership. ‘Dictate’ is another word you could have looked up or thought about before caviling.
Your point is really that you’re convinced that warming is caused by CO2. That’s original! I’ll have to look into it.

bill
igsy

Nice touch, JKS. Tragically, the way things are going, one day ‘Miniclim’ will be a household name.

John F. Hultquist

Mike Abbott (12:46:54) : “If I was a polar bear, I would be more concerned about this:”
Your link to the hunting site is interesting but not very helpful. If one searches on polar bear numbers, survival, and hunting restrictions and reads enough you will find that bear populations were harmed by unrestrained hunting. With proper restrictions and management most populations have recovered, as the report says:
“far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.”
I think it is fair to say that Dr. Taylor and others and the responsible governments worked on the details of polar bear populations and management with considerable success. CO2 was not the culprit.

Gary Strand

You folks need to look into Arrhenius, specifically “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76″, available at
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Gary Strand

I’m also not impressed by folks who post with silly handles, like “orthodoc” and “Sam the Skeptic”.

John F. Hultquist

bill (13:08:42) :
“Interesting that you may have acredited the image to the wrong person:”
Sorry, Bill:
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact”—
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
http://newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm
Carole “CJ” Williams
January 26, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
The following is paragraph #3 from the above link”
“Crosbie, who was also on the trip, pilfered the polar bear photo from a shared computer onboard the Canadian icebreaker where Ms. Byrd downloaded her snapshots; he saved it in his personal file. Several months later, Crosbie, who is known as an avid photographer, gave the photo to the Canadian Ice Service, which then allowed Environment Canada to use it as an illustration for an online magazine. ”

John F. Hultquist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8121625.stm
After more than 18 years studying the Sun, the plug is finally being pulled on the ailing spacecraft Ulysses.

JimB

Bill,
I think if you dig deep enough into the photos, you will find a statement from Dan Crosbie that he “grabbed” the photo for use in something, and didn’t realize he’d “done anything wrong” until someone pointed out that it was actually Amanda’s photo.
I’ll dig around and see if I can find the story…
JimB

JimB

Here ’tis:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
So Anthony’s photo credit is accurate.
JimB

Leon Brozyna

WARNING:
Do not feed the polar bears.
Survivors will be prosecuted.
http://whatthecrap.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/polarbear-eating-meat.jpg
For others, next of kin will be notified.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not worried about the fate of the polar bears; they’ll do just fine. Mankind, however, is another story.

don't tarp me bro

bill (13:08:42) :
Interesting that you may have acredited the image to the wrong person:
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5360/polarbear.jpg
see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/04/climatechange.activists
She took the picture and tells us about the pic. Amanda was there. It is available for sale meaning you can buy the rights to use the picture.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2969/
It is a very much hi jacked picture and theme.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/nst-letters-al-gore-lied-about-drowning-polar-bears/
Readers can view the photo at Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project website, http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/dispatch2004/dispatch02.html where they will see Byrd’s innocuous caption for the photo: “Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves.”
Byrd uploaded her photos to her ship’s computer, where another member took it and passed it to the government department, Environment Canada.
Gore is making up stories regarding these pictures.

Douglas DC

This is getting positively Galileian in it’s nature.It wasn’t the
church but the “Concensus” of the day-nothing in human nature has changed all that much.-Until the fact become obvious-like late springs,no summers,
crop failures-yet we continue to turn food into fuel…

don't tarp me bro

Carole “CJ” Williams
January 26, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Last March, global warming fanatic Al Gore used a picture of two polar bears purportedly stranded on melting ice off the coast of Alaska as a visual aide to support his claim that man-made global warming is doing great harm to Mother Earth. The one he chose, but didn’t offer to pay for right away, turned out to be a photo of a polar bear and her cub out doing what healthy, happy polar bears do on a wave-eroded chunk of ice not all that far from shore in the Beaufort Sea north of Barstow, Alaska.
The picture, wrongly credited to Dan Crosbie, an ice observer specialist for the Canadian Ice Service, was actually taken by Amanda Byrd while she was on a university-related research cruise in August of 2004, a time of year when the fringe of the Arctic ice cap normally melts. Byrd, a marine biology grad student at the time, was gathering zooplankton for a multi-year study of the Arctic Ocean.
Crosbie, who was also on the trip, pilfered the polar bear photo from a shared computer onboard the Canadian icebreaker where Ms. Byrd downloaded her snapshots; he saved it in his personal file. Several months later, Crosbie, who is known as an avid photographer, gave the photo to the Canadian Ice Service, which then allowed Environment Canada to use it as an illustration for an online magazine.
Today that photo, with credit given to photographer Dan Crosbie and the Canadian Ice Service, can be found all over the Internet, generally with the caption “Two polar bears are stranded on a chunk of melting ice”.
It’s a hoax, folks. The bears, which can swim distances of 100 miles and more, weren’t stranded; they were merely taking a break and watching the boat go by when a lady snapped their picture.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm
This original post had it corrrect the first time.
And Flock fleecing al gore preeches that the bears are being foreced off the planet, no where to go. Yeppers, they can pop back in the water and swimm from their olympic diving platforms back to land when they finish their fishing excursion.
Great Job amanda. She is a student from Australia and attending Alaska Fairbanks
Byrd, a marine biology grad student at the time, was gathering zooplankton for a multi-year study of the Arctic Ocean.
Do the environmentalists push ripping off pictures?
Dan Crosbie is being bad. He needs to be nice to lady students taking pictures.

Jim

Strand – If you believe “basic radiative principles” alone are adequate to model climate, you are an idiot.

Douglas DC

BTW here is a link exposing the truth aboutht the ‘stranded’ polar bears-and ms.
Byrd does deserve credit: http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

Bill Illis

On the polar bear photo, this melting ice floe must have been the biggest on record since about 10% of sea ice sits above water and 90% is under the water – this sea ice must have been about 50 metres thick at one time.
So, either it is actually a melted iceberg (the dirt and blue ice gives that away as well) and/or,
… it has been washed to near the shore and is now sitting on the bottom after being moved in by high tides (with the photo taken at low tide) – it would still have been extremely thick sea ice at one time so it is probably an iceberg remnant washed ashore at high tide.
Why did the polar bears get up on a small iceberg – because they are good places to rest, sleep or look around – polar bears need to sleep too.
Apparently polar bears like icebergs.
http://www.alaskastock.com/pr/704363066/Alaskastock_125SI_EQ0140D004.jpg
http://www.alaskastock.com/pr/704363066/Alaskastock_125SI_EQ0138D001.jpg
http://www.alaskastock.com/pr/704363066/Alaskastock_125SI_EQ0093D001.jpg
http://www.alaskastock.com/pr/704363066/Alaskastock_125SI_EQ0146D001.jpg

Gary Strand

Jim (14:23:08) :
“Strand – If you believe “basic radiative principles” alone are adequate to model climate, you are an idiot.”
And scientists wonder why blogs like WUWT don’t get much respect.
Since I never said what you claim I said, are you going to apologize for calling me an idiot?

Jimmy Haigh

Great story about biology student Amanda Byrd’s photograph.
What’s Up With these wildlife photographers such as Crosbie? Oh, and – I can think of one other…

Tim

Gary says:
“You folks need to look into Arrhenius, specifically “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76″, available at
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
I say:
1896? LOL. Gary – you need to look at something a bit more current. In any case, Arctic sea ice has rebounded and as NASA notes, the recent declines were related to changes in wind patterns (not CO2).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-wind-says-nasa/

Jesper

Gary Strand:
You say:
‘Warming caused by CO2 increase isn’t “dictated by the computer models” of the IPCC (which is itself wrong, as the models don’t belong to the IPCC anyway) – it’s “dictated” by basic radiative principles.’
First, your comment is disingenuous – the quote pertains to Arctic warming, not ‘warming caused by CO2 increase’.
Second, you appear to suffer from the same misconception as many who think that the temperature is as simple as ‘basic radiative principles’, implying that your position is as certain as the ironclad laws of physics.
It should be obvious to you and anyone that climate is a function of myriad interacting physical processes – many of which impact radiative balance, others, particularly in the Arctic, involving advection of heat, as Taylor correctly notes.
You are badly misinformed if you think that temperature over the Arctic can be reduced to ‘basic radiative principles’. This is why the climate models exist in the first place. This is climatology 101, and your shallow, trite argument is not likely to convince most folks who occupy this site, who are sharper than your typical Congressional Democrat.

John M

Gary Strand (14:43:38) :

Since I never said what you claim I said, are you going to apologize for calling me an idiot?

Well, he did say “if”. So technically, he only called you an idiot if you believe it.

Gary Strand

Gary Strand (14:43:38) :
“And scientists wonder why blogs like WUWT don’t get much respect.”
Boy, I really messed up that. What I meant to say was:
“And commentators on blogs like WUWT wonder why scientists don’t give them (the blogs and the commentators) much respect”.

Ed Moran

Mr Strand,
do you agree or disagree with the banning of Dr. Taylor?

Sam the Skeptic

Well, how did I guess that the good Mr Strand’s link would take us back to 1896?
Unfortunately, Gary old son, Arrhenius changed his mind a few years later. Good scientists tend to do that when faced with more facts. You can read more on this very web site at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/6995/
By the way, science is still science whether you are impressed with aliases or not but you do demonstrate the one characteristic of all the global warming fanatics — when challenged either engage in ad hominem attacks or change the rules of the game. Or both.

Mr Lynn

Sam the Skeptic (12:23:26) :
. . . But either way, Mr Strand, are you seriously happy with a system that actually refuses to hear a recognised expert on any subject because his views on that subject differ from that of the current paradigm? Is that how genuine science is supposed to work in the 21st century?

Minor quibble: As has been pointed out before, climatology is not unique in denying experts a hearing when they proffer views that “differ from that of the current paradigm.” Just ask Dr. Halton Arp, who ran afoul of the astronomical establishment for suggesting that the redshifts of some objects were intrinsic, not caused by velocity, which if true would undermine the hypothesis of the expanding universe and the Big Bang. Viz. Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science.
But most such intolerance is usually limited to specific scientific communities; they do not become the foci of a worldwide ideological movements, seized upon by governments as an excuse for spending billions of dollars chasing chimeras and potentially destroying the energy economies of the civilized world.
/Mr Lynn

Gary Strand (13:21:11) :

“You folks need to look into Arrhenius…”

No, you do. Citing only the 1896 paper, which was later repudiated by Arrhenius, is simply cherry picking.
Monckton of Brenchley writes on Arrhenius:

In 1906 Arrhenius – who had by then come across the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, which greatly simplified his calculations and improved their accuracy – recalculated the effect of doubling CO2 on temperature and, in Vol. 1, no. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, published his conclusion that a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase global temperatures by about 1.6 Celsius degrees (<3 Fahrenheit degrees).
Yet the Gorons continue to cite only Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, with its less accurate and more extreme conclusion. I wonder why.[source]

Since this information has been commented on many times here and elsewhere, please explain why you only cite the 1896 paper. You’re not one a them Gorons, are you?

JimB

Folks, please don’t feed the trolls…
JimB

Mr Strand said: (10:57:46) :
“Warming caused by CO2 increase isn’t “dictated by the computer models” of the IPCC (which is itself wrong, as the models don’t belong to the IPCC anyway) – it’s “dictated” by basic radiative principles.”
That is not my understanding of the case against carbon dioxide. My understanding is that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in particular a doubling from the current minuscule amount to a less minuscule but still minuscule amount, are likely (of themselves) to cause an insignificant amount of warming. No basic principles of anything support the assertion that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause anyone on earth any problems.
The alleged problems come from assertions, as yet unsupported by physical evidence, that modest warming from increased CO2 concentrations (if such warming will occur at all, which is debatable) will be amplified. The amplification process is, as far as I can tell, purely speculative; certainly no one has been able to identify it occurring at any time in the history of the planet.

Gary Strand

Lots of shots at me, and all misses.
I didn’t say that warming was caused only by CO2, or by basic radiative properties – I noted that the article’s comment:
“Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming in the past 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues[…]”
The statement says that the “computer models of the UN’s IPCC” “dictate” that CO2 increases cause warming. That’s not true. Many studies, going back to Arrhenius, have shown that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. That fact wasn’t created by the “computer models of the UN’s IPCC”.
As for the other comments – citing Monckton? Give me a break. He’s a joke. As for CO2 having too low a concentration in the atmosphere to be of concern – if you believe that, you need to do a lot of reading and catching up.
I used to think WUWT was chock-full of smart people with good things to say. I now realize it’s full of paper tigers.

Jimmy Haigh

Smokey (15:07:42) :
I do like “the Gorons”. Did Lord Mockton come up with that? Superb! They sound like some sort of alien race; indeed a possible foe of Dr Who.
(For the benefit of viewers outside the UK, Dr Who has been/is/will be a time-travelling superhero of British TV since the 1960’s; since long before AGW. (And for probably longer than Terran climate change has been/is/ and will be a natural phenomenon as well.)

tulbobroke

FatBigot: Although only 380ppm of the atmosphere is CO2, 99% of the atmosphere has no greenhouse effect.
That makes C02 380 parts of the 10,000 parts that are GHG.
Back to the original article Brooker insinuates that,”This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December.” Yeah right: they’ve met every 4 years since 1993 and have a policy to meet every 3-5 years.
However, if they did decide not to invite Taylor because of his views on AGW, I find that appalling.

Communist

Mr Lynn,
A timely reminder. Academia is awash with disputes which often get to be very personal and vicious. But this has been going on forever. Look at the dispute between Newton and Liebniz, or Newton and Hooke. The history of science is replete with such examples. It is, apparently, human nature.
What is different in relation to climate change is that large numbers of people have become involved – many of them far less inhibited in publishing vitriol and personal abuse than were the learned gentlemen mentioned above.
The precise reasons for this involvement of the masses would be absolutely fascinating to discover. There is topic for a doctoral thesis awaiting someone’s attention…