WUWT readers may recall that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog discovery of UNEP’s use of a Wikipedia “hockey Stick” graphic by “Hanno”, was the subject of last week’s blog postings.
The Yamal data hockey stick controversy overshadowed it, and much of the focus has been there recently.
The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.
And then there’s the problem of the citation as “Hanno 2009” who (up until this story broke) was an anonymous Wikipedia contributor.
Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009″.
Here’s my screencap of the page from the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report from last week
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell.
The hockey stick, based on tree ring proxies has met an inconveniently timed death it seems.
It appears now that somebody at the United Nations must have gotten the message from blogland, becuase there has been a change in the graphics on page 5.
Below is page 5 as it appears in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium today:
It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hockey stick, but close enough.
You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005) rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?
It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data:
Maybe climate blogs can convince the UN to change their graph yet again.
Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Lawrie (of Sydney Australia) for pointing out the change made to the UNEP document.
Sponsored IT training links:
Testking offers up to date LX0-102 exam dumps and HP0-J27 practice test with 100% success guarantee for HP0-S25 exams.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike Jonas, you will have seen that September 2009 has gone to second or first place warmest in the record. As expected!
The solar minimum cannot at all wipe out the effect of extra CO2 into the atmosfere since 1998 plus a mild Niño.
Expect 2010 to break 1998 and 2005. In fact, expect the remainder of 2009 to go for medal places, which might even bring 2009 to bronze.
2008 suffered from an extreme Niña-event, a very deep minimum in the solar cycle and two volcanoes. It should have dropped to the coldest ten percent of years but instead entered the top ten (as did 2007), kicking out a ninety. Stronger evidence for GW is hardly imaginable.
There a huge nonclimatic issues in the Netherlands:
Annual averaged watertemperature of the river rhine at lobith, increased due to power plant cooling water (graph by KNMI 1999)
http://www.knmi.nl/kenniscentrum/de_toestand_van_het_klimaat_in_Nederland_1999/fig4.gif
full report (in dutch graph on page 14 of pdf)
http://www.knmi.nl/kenniscentrum/klimaatrapportage1999.pdf
Population in The Netherlands increased from 5 million in 1900 to 16 million in 2100.
Last winter broke records in the South, there were outages because meters froze at minus 20(!) celsius. The elfstedentocht did not happen because Friesland in the north wouldn’t freeze.
Hans Erren, Netherlands
RR Kampen (01:17:23) is astounded, flabbergasted and out of breath:
Mr Kampen’s convictions are delusions. He’s stated more than once that he can’t ice skate any more because of global warming. And now he turns the scientific method on its head by assuming that skeptical scientists must disprove AGW. Nonsense.
Global warming is entirely natural. So is global cooling. What the AGW contingent must prove is that warming is anything other than natural. But they can’t; all their “evidence” comes from always inaccurate computer models that are unable to predict the climate.
AGW caused by CO2 is the upstart conjecture. No skeptic has to prove or disprove anything about AGW. Rather, according to the scientific method the purveyors of AGW must show that the current climate is outside of the past parameters of natural variability. It is not. In fact, the current climate is quite benign. Past natural variability has been much more extreme: the LIA was much colder, and the MWP was warmer. And those were pre-SUV events.
Since the AGW crowd can not show that there is anything unusual about today’s climate, they try to turn the scientific method upside down, and demand that skeptics must in effect prove a negative. That’s not science, that’s desperation. They are desperate to show that our completely normal and natural climate is caused by human activity. Hogwash. There is no real world evidence that adding one molecule of human generated CO2, for every 34 molecules of CO2 emitted naturally by the Earth, is controlling the climate.
Alarmists are losing the debate. The planet itself is proving them wrong. So they insist that skeptics [which includes all good scientists] must falsify a conjecture that hasn’t been shown to exist in the real world.
Global warming and cooling happen naturally. If alarmists can ever show us empirical evidence that these changes are caused by human activity, skeptics will certainly sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, all the AGW ‘evidence’ comes right out of pre-programmed computers, not from the real world.
Just because the rooster crows in the morning doesn’t mean it is causing the sun to rise, and just because the planet warms doesn’t mean human activity is responsible.
Re: Hans Erren (05:18:15) :
“Annual averaged watertemperature of the river rhine at lobith, increased due to power plant cooling water (graph by KNMI 1999)
http://www.knmi.nl/kenniscentrum/de_toestand_van_het_klimaat_in_Nederland_1999/fig4.gif”
And since 1999?
Will this explain the ‘spring’ of Dec-Jan 2007?
You try to prove it cannot:
“Last winter broke records in the South, there were outages because meters froze at minus 20(!) celsius.”
See?
Except this was, of course, no record. Not even near. And you, mr. Hans Erren, know that.
“Population in The Netherlands increased from 5 million in 1900 to 16 million in 2100.”
O well, population on the Arctic Sea rose from nothing to nothing over the same period – but the ice melts today. And the temperatures rise (as an aside to a weather event: noticed the recent ‘heatwave’ there? Anomaly +15° C). Ice extent is nearing second largest negative anomaly now.
“The elfstedentocht did not happen because Friesland in the north wouldn’t freeze.”
Quite so.
In fact winter 2009 was fairly cold on average by lack of very mild days; all other winter parameters (Hellmann, number of ‘ijsdagen’ (Tx < 0.0° C) et cetera) put the winter at normal to slightly above.
This is disquieting, because qua circulation patterns this winter should have been severe (like 2006).
During the frost of January there was a large temperature gradient from south to north, the south being covered in excellent snow and enjoying a couple of good radiation nights.
You might have been in Holland when the frost period began on Boxing Day, stimulated by a classic Scandinavian blokkade. You might have been surprised it didn't get colder then – unless you saw the big read bear in Lapland and North Russia: a fenomenon that has become typical for recent years in autumn and first half of winter. In other words: twenty years ago the same circulation would have registered three days below minus ten till Sylvester, instead of zero. Prove me wrong!
—
Re: Smokey (05:22:25) :
"Mr Kampen’s convictions are delusions. He’s stated more than once that he can’t ice skate any more because of global warming. And now he turns the scientific method on its head by assuming that skeptical scientists must disprove AGW. Nonsense.
"Global warming is entirely natural." – Of course not, not this time. Theory and observations are in sync. Of course, for this reason the burden of disproving that lies with you. Just saying 'Global warming is entirely natural' or 'Alarmists are losing the debate' should evoke replies like 'the stars are holes in the night cloaked sky'. Or no replies.
"If alarmists can ever show us empirical evidence" – I'll tell you what. Put a pan of water on the fire. Observe how the temperature of the water rises. Now show me empirical evidence for the theory the fire under the pan is the cause of this temperature increase. I'll bet you you cannot! But I wonder if you see the point.
RR Kampen (04:31:46) : “Mike Jonas, you will have seen that September 2009 has gone to second or first place warmest in the record. As expected!
The solar minimum cannot at all wipe out the effect of extra CO2 into the atmosfere since 1998 plus a mild Niño.
…
2008 suffered from an extreme Niña-event, a very deep minimum in the solar cycle and two volcanoes. It should have dropped to the coldest ten percent of years but instead entered the top ten (as did 2007), kicking out a ninety. Stronger evidence for GW is hardly imaginable.”
re : “2008 suffered from an extreme Niña-event”
2008 was cooler on average than any of the previous 6 years. “Kicking out a ninety” is not particularly significant if you look at the graph I posted
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
since the PDO-related trend peaked around 2003. (1998 was the warmest year in this cycle, but that was a big El Nino year.) I was surprised when the trend peak turned out to be 2003 (on my simple maths), because I had expected it to be 1998, but on reflection I suppose it is reasonable because that is when the ocean temperature peaked. The oceans have been cooling since 2003, which to my mind is much more significant than surface temperatures – but I digress …
It is not surprising that 2009 is warmer than 2008, because it is supposedly an El Nino year, though not a very strong one perhaps. But then so far 2009 is cooler on average than 2002, 3, 4, 5, and 1998 of course.
re : 2008 “should have dropped to the coldest ten percent of years”
Not at this stage of the cycle (still at the warm end of a cooling phase).
re : “a very deep minimum in the solar cycle”
We still don’t know exactly how the solar cycle affects temperature. I suspect that in the short term it is comparable to the “noise” level – ie, not wildly significant – but that a prolonged period of low solar activity does show up over the longer term. It would help if we knew the precise mechanisms. The most severe forecast that I have seen for the current solar minimum is “A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24.”
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf
That means presumably over the next 11 or so years, since cycle 24 is barely underway. And I have no idea how reliable the estimate is anyway; as I said, it’s the most severe I have seen.
re : “two volcanoes”
There are very often one or two volcanoes with VEI 4 or greater in any one year.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
It would appear to take a level 5 or 6 volcano to have much of an impact on climate. I don’t know what level the 2009 volcanoes were.
re : “Stronger evidence for GW is hardly imaginable”
The oceans are cooling, and have been cooling for about 5 years, which is longer than possible in the IPCC computer models. If the oceans are cooling, the planet is cooling. No surface or atmospheric temperatures can override that simple fact.
and finally
re : “September 2009 has gone to second or first place warmest in the record”
It might not be a good idea to emphasise a single month. The RSS temperature for September 2009 was only about 0.1 deg C (actually 0.112) above the Hadcrut3 temperature for February 1878.
RR Kampen:
“…the burden of disproving that lies with you. ”
Wrong as usual. Insisting that skeptical scientists must disprove AGW, or any other empirically baseless conjecture that comes along, perverts the scientific method. By now it appears that the perversion of science must be deliberate.
The accepted theory of natural climate change, which has been occurring for the past 4.6 billion years, does not need the additional entity of a very minor trace gas to explain it. Occam’s Razor says: throw the unnecessary entity out. CO2 is not necessary to explain the climate.
As Dr Roy Spencer likes to say: No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability. That is the long established theory, which must be falsified by the true believers in AGW. So far, they have failed.
By turning the scientific method on its head, and demanding that skeptics must prove that the alarmist AGW conjecture is right or wrong, the alarmist crowd is tacitly admitting that their own CO2=AGW conjecture fails.
Alarmists could come up with a conjecture that three-legged space aliens cause global warming. Are skeptical scientists required to disprove that conjecture? No. Rather, it is up to the alarmist crowd to falsify the existing theory of natural climate variability.
The fact that alarmists have failed to do so makes their belief that a minor trace gas will cause runaway global warming incredible. And the fact that they deliberately misrepresent the scientific method makes them devious.
Re: Mike Jonas (07:55:41) :
“It is not surprising that 2009 is warmer than 2008, because it is supposedly an El Nino year, though not a very strong one perhaps. But then so far 2009 is cooler on average than 2002, 3, 4, 5, and 1998 of course.”
2009 is going to bronze medal, mark my words. A slight Niño is enough for records nowadays. So the list will read 1./2. 1998/2005 (virtually ex aequo), 3. 2009. Actually 2009 could even still run for the absolute top.
“Not at this stage of the cycle (still at the warm end of a cooling phase).”
Other way round: we are at the cold (Niña) end of a new warming phase (as can be witnessed by last months, including september).
Niña effects still lagged into the first half of this year.
“The oceans are cooling, and have been cooling for about 5 years, which is longer than possible in the IPCC computer models. If the oceans are cooling, the planet is cooling. No surface or atmospheric temperatures can override that simple fact.”
But the oceans were record warm last summer!
“It might not be a good idea to emphasise a single month. The RSS temperature for September 2009 was only about 0.1 deg C (actually 0.112) above the Hadcrut3 temperature for February 1878.”
And these series are comparable? How? (I guess you meant 1978, by the way).
Re: Smokey (08:07:04) :
The accepted theory of natural climate change, which has been occurring for the past 4.6 billion years, does not need the additional entity of a very minor trace gas to explain it. Occam’s Razor says: throw the unnecessary entity out. CO2 is not necessary to explain the climate.”
—
A trace of cyanide can never explain a death…
You are doing away with one and a half centuries of physics, from Fourier to IPCC say.
Do you think if CO2 went out of the air wholesale global temperature would remain unchanged?
Correction re volcanoes – on checking I see the volcanoes you referred to were 2008 not 2009.
There were three level 4 or possible level 4 volcanoes in 2008. There were also three in 1931 and in 1951. There was no significant impact on temperature visible in the record for 1931 or 1951. Like I said, it seems to take a level 5 or 6 to impact global temperature. Pinatubo, a 6 in 1991, is clearly visible in the 1991-3 temperatures. The 5’s and 6’s in 1886, 1902, 1932-3 and 1982 also had a visible effect. I haven’t checked them all, but even some of the 5’s in the past appear not to have had much effect on global temperature.
RR Kampen (08:11:43) :
“Do you think if CO2 went out of the air wholesale global temperature would remain unchanged?”
Kampen is still improperly attempting to put the burden of proving/disproving AGW on skeptics. But the burden of proof is on the alarmist contingent to show that the theory of natural climate variability is wrong.
Because they have failed to falsify the existing theory, it does not follow that anyone else must show that AGW is valid or not. It is irrelevant. History is littered with failed conjectures. CO2=AGW is just another failed conjecture, which would have been discarded long ago if not for the enormous amounts of tax money being shoveled at it.
Finally, there is no real world proof that CO2 measurably affects temperature. Rather, CO2 is affected by temperature. It has been pointed out repeatedly that CO2 levels have been more than twenty times higher in the geologic past, for millions of years, without affecting temperature. In fact, even with greatly elevated CO2 levels the planet has gone into Ice Ages.
CO2 scare tactics don’t work on this site. We know better. There is nothing to be alarmed about. The climate is benign; it is normal. There is no “tipping point”. CO2 is irrelevant, and the entire alarmist putsch is fueled by grant money, status, and cognitive dissonance. When the scientific method is used properly, the CO2=AGW conjecture is falsified.
Smokey, you are simply evading rational discussion.
If you throw around remarks you have to corroborate them, be you a ‘sceptic’ or none.
You are telling the world that CO2 is no ‘greenhouse gas’. That is plain nonsense.
Re: Mike Jonas (08:32:45) :
“Correction re volcanoes – on checking I see the volcanoes you referred to were 2008 not 2009.
There were three level 4 or possible level 4 volcanoes in 2008. There were also three in 1931 and in 1951. There was no significant impact on temperature visible in the record for 1931 or 1951. Like I said, it seems to take a level 5 or 6 to impact global temperature. Pinatubo, a 6 in 1991, is clearly visible in the 1991-3 temperatures. The 5’s and 6’s in 1886, 1902, 1932-3 and 1982 also had a visible effect. I haven’t checked them all, but even some of the 5’s in the past appear not to have had much effect on global temperature.”
Level is not the only factor, latitude is as well. Lower latitude gives far more effect. This means de Chilean and Kamsjatka volcanoes have had virtually nil effect, though the latter was visible in the red skies some time ago.
I do submit the volcanoes are very likely the smallest factor in the relatively coolness of 2008, maybe not even measurably so. A couple of hundreths of degrees perhaps.
It is very hard to distinguish effect from historical volcanoes from other ‘noise’, especially as e.g. from 1886 we have very little information about EN/SO and things like that.
RR kampen :
“Other way round: we are at the cold (Niña) end of a new warming phase”
Wrong. An El Nino or La Nina is fully effective for only a year or two. I am talking about the ~60-year cycle. Check the graph, it’s very clearly visible.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
“But the oceans were record warm last summer!”
Wrong. Those records were reported only for the surface. The oceans as a whole, as measured by NASA’a Argo floats, are cooling.
“And these series are comparable? How? (I guess you meant 1978, by the way).”
They both operate on anomalies, and line up with each other at the start of the satellite age, which is of course when the two series first overlap. So they are as comparable as they can be in the circumstances. And no I didn’t mean 1978, I really did mean 1878, the year that Adolf Nordenskiöld navigated the Russian Northeast passage, a mere 131 years before those two German container ships.
“2009 is going to bronze medal, mark my words.”
You may be right. We’ll see. But if the oceans don’t start warming again it doesn’t mean anything.
PS. I used the RSS temperature for September 2009 because the Hadcrut3 one hasn’t been published yet.
Re: Mike Jonas (08:49:23) :
Wrong. An El Nino or La Nina is fully effective for only a year or two. I am talking about the ~60-year cycle. Check the graph, it’s very clearly visible.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
Sorry, misunderstood. The graph shows the PDO superimposed on global warming… If this cooling phase exists (I would like some Fourier analysis on this), the low will be above previous low.
Wrong. Those records were reported only for the surface. The oceans as a whole, as measured by NASA’a Argo floats, are cooling.
Right. Only the SST counts for climate effect.
I wonder if deeper cooling is already the result of increased glacier speed and -melt (knowing cold water sinks)?
So sorry, I can’t finish my reply: have to go.
RR Kampen (08:38:47) :
I did, in fact, corroborate my assertion with the link in my 08:07:04 post. I understand why you pretend it wasn’t there, because it contradicts your belief system.
So who should we believe? You? Or a scientist with a PhD in physics? In fact, the people evading rational discussion are actually those who, like you, can not provide any empirical evidence showing that CO2 controls the temperature — but who continue to make that physically baseless assumption.
Smokey – re CO2 and temperature, this is an interesting graph (I have posted it before so you might have seen it already – and the original idea of doing it was Frank Lansner’s not mine).
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/deltaco2vstemp.jpg
It shows the 12-month change in CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa) against the global temperature (UAH LT). They are just the straight data – for all of the available period – scaled for graphing alongside each other (I don’t have sophisticated graphing tools). No “adjustments”, no manipulation, no mucking around.
The correlation is striking, I am sure you will agree.
The big question is, of course, is the CO2 affecting the temperature or is the temperature affecting CO2?
Well, the answer is in the graph : the 1998 El Nino is clearly visible in both. Since CO2 didn’t cause the El Nino, it couldn’t have caused that temperature spike. So if either of them caused the other, it must have been the temperature that caused the CO2 change.
Mind you, I’m not quite sure exactly what the graph is telling us in a physics sense. It seems to show that atmospheric CO2 concentration can change quite quickly as temperature changes. That seems to be at odds with the “Al Gore” temperature and CO2 charts, where CO2 lagged temperature by 800 years. Someone better than me at the physics (not a climate scientist!) needs to have a look at it.
Ironic that James Hansen is trying to disprove the “800 years” bit, and here I am helping him…and BTW I have found the 800 years difficult to believe too, but so far that’s the evidence.
“RR Kampen (08:38:47) :
“Smokey, you are simply evading rational discussion.
If you throw around remarks you have to corroborate them, be you a ’sceptic’ or none”.
RR Kampen, this is a bridge too far.
We know the properties of CO2.
We know CO2 is not a pollutant.
We know its effect on our climate is insignificant.
We know temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4091&linkbox=true
We know there is a Marxist Political Scam to tax and shackle humanity.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/copenhagen-treaty-draft-gender.html
We know the UN and the conspiring Governments and Institutions use every
propaganda trick in the book to screw our populations into the scam
(Hitler and Stalin would have been mad from envy if it happened in their time):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-asian-kids-sue-g8.html
But RR Kampen insists on “a rational discussion”.
I am flabbergasted.
Mike Jonas (09:16:10),
Thanks for that graph. I believe it is similar to this graph, in which CO2 lags temperature by 5 months.
If rising CO2 caused rising global temperatures, this chart would be impossible: click. The fact that there is no correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature effectively falsifies the CO2=AGW conjecture.
RR Kampen (01:17:23)
Your rushing to conclusions about my convictions is actually astounding. Flabbergasting. Takes my breath away… Didn’t I mention I accept the vast body of evidence outside of that tree – like IPCC accepts a vast body of evidence outside of that tree? Forget the tree. There is VASTLY more evidence of warming. Use it, or discredit it. Concentrating on one tree is never going to let you disprove (A)GW. Never.
A classic re-frame attempt. This poster skirts trolldom. He carefully avoids the issues of stonewalled data, inadequate sample sizing, self-peer review, etc. The problems uncoverd in Briffa aren’t solely about the conclusion – they are about credibility of methods and conduct for the entire AGW campaign.
RR Kampen (01:17:23) :
“Do you live in Holland, or are you from the States telling me – ice skater, fisherman – what the waters in MY country look like??”
I live in Den Haag and have observed the state of the ice and waters over many years.
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “The graph shows the PDO superimposed on global warming… If this cooling phase exists (I would like some Fourier analysis on this), the low will be above previous low.”
Yes, the graph does show a cycle in sync with the PDO, on a rising trend. Yes, we have to verify that we are indeed in a cooling phase, so if you can get an appropriate analysis done, please do. But it is worth noting that the slope of the rising trend is less than 0.5 deg C per century, whereas the IPCC based their report on a rise of 0.74 (+-0.18) deg C in the 20th century. Much of their claimed rise, which they built into their figure for climate sensitivity, was part of a cycle not the long term trend that they claimed.
Bear in mind also that the sun became more active during the 20th century, so if it becomes less active now we can’t be at all sure that that long term trend will continue.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/Lean2000.jpg
graph of data in
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “Only the SST counts for climate effect.”
Only the SST affects climate at a point in time. But the point about the ocean is this : the AGW claim is that CO2 traps outgoing radiation thus causing a heat imbalance so that heat builds up around the planet. But the atmosphere at its current temperature is holding only a tiny fraction of the claimed imbalance, so the extra heat has to be going somewhere else. The only possible “somewhere else” is the oceans. But the oceans are not warming, and have failed to warm for longer (5-6 years) than the IPCC models say is possible under AGW (4 years). So the models, and the AGW hypothesis which is based on them, are seriously wrong. NB. This is not the only way in which they are seriously wrong.
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “I wonder if deeper cooling is already the result of increased glacier speed and -melt (knowing cold water sinks)?”
Over the last several years, the part of the sea-level rise that has been due to melting ice has been about 2.5mm pa.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
Given that the average ocean depth is about 3.8km that’s far too little cold water to have a noticeable effect on overall ocean temperature.
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “So sorry, I can’t finish my reply: have to go.”
The sooner this AGW thing is resolved, the sooner we can all get back to our other lives.
Re: aylamp (12:03:56) :
I live in Den Haag and have observed the state of the ice and waters over many years.
—
Okay.
Would you agree the fact there was virtually no ice in the winter of 2006-2007 was solely due to emission of waste warm water into the canals and lakes?
Would you agree the fact that all spring flowers were blooming at same exceptionally early time in late winter was solely due to that warm water emission?
Would you agree the fact that thermometers registered virtually no frost that winter was due to same?
Would you agree the fact that last winter some skating was possible was due to a reduction of warm water emission?
Re: Ron de Haan (09:22:07) :
I thought this was a forum discussing climate, climate change. In reality, here to, so many counterarguments for (A)GW do not even touch the subject. Marxism??
I prefer to stick with the subject and do not know how to react to your post. No bridge, let alone ‘too far’. We know the properties of CO2. It is a greenhouse gas. Whether it may be called a ‘pollutant’ is an entirely different subject.
Indiana Bones, the data were never stonewalled. Even if McIntyre says it they were never stonewalled. And please reserve the word ‘troll’ for trolls.
Smokey, as an off topic question then: from where did you get your information that I am no scientist and or hold no PhD? I didn’t know all this!
RR Kampen (04:06:38) :
“Re: Ron de Haan (09:22:07) :
I thought this was a forum discussing climate, climate change”.
RR Kampen,
The first link from Norm Kalmanovitch makes the case and effectively debunks the AGW claims:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4059
and
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4091&linkbox=true
The other links are political indeed but that goes for the entire AGW scam.
That’s what happens if science gets kidnapped by politics.