I’m off this weekend and part of next week– talk quietly and politely amongst yourselves. Don’t make me come back here.
If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator. Those that want to do guest posts are welcome to do so also. Again, flag a moderator for attention. I’ll update when I can but I have quite a busy schedule in the next week that will keep me offline for extended periods.
– Anthony
Moderator: I volunteer this as a guest post: Politicians around the world are making claims for projected sea level rises that have no basis in reality. The new Sea Level Rising page examining claims and actual data for Tuvalu, Australia and Washington State.
Somebody knows this.
For every pound of human fat burned through exercise, how much extra CO2 is released?
Jon Jewett (13:10:31) :
I believe they do ask identical stuff for the count me inners. Did you check?
France & Brazil unveil Climate Bible
“We are fighting for the world to live up to its historic responsibility,” the president added.
Is that so?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916573.ece
More than three quarters of countries in Europe recently voted to support a trade ban of the bluefin at CITES but were blocked by Spain, Italy and France and three other Mediterranean nations involved in the controversial fishery.
hey we beat Bahrain in soccer last night. It was now or never. We wouldnt have got another chance for another 20 odd years. The last time we got in was in 1982.
Mind you a lot of CO2 was expelled last night. Maybe they should ban the World cup. The motto of Copenhagen – The only good human is a dead human.
This pretty much says all there is to say on that issue.
Ric Werme (21:17:48) :
Discussion question:
“The percentage of the general public skeptical of climate chane/global warming is rising, I suspect because promised ills haven’t happened as promised and it’s too cold in a lot of areas.
The media is showing signs of catching on, though some areas and some radio programs still talk about agw with the same certainty as the Sun will rise tomorrow.What timeline do you expect to pass before the mainstream media starts talking about the demise failure of global warming?”
As I have opined on other threads, it all comes down to a combination of advertising revenue, and a phenomena I call bumstickability.
The money-flows are interesting. Here is how it works (in most western societies):
1. An organization that wants funding engages a PR company to “create a media presence”.
2. The PR people start to issue “press statements” that carry the basic message of the organization with a subliminal message of “give me money”. The “press statements” are presented in various forms – the basic statement – and a set of variations that look, read, and smell like articles in the style of the candidate news media.
3. Journalists, looking for a simple life, and easy copy, take the “article” and submit it to the editorial process for publication. They don’t bother getting unstuck from their chairs to check anything – the “bumstickability” factor – because it is not worth the effort, and besides they are drinking buddies with the PR folks, and their kids all play together.
4. The editorial process decides on the merits of the article in terms of, “how much readership will this attract or retain?” The readership size directly relates to how much the publication makes from advertising revenue.
5. A concerted PR campaign creates nonfactual public consensus (i.e. group-think) in which the belief system has the ability to override factual evidence to the contrary.
6. This upwelling in public group-think is detected, and mirrored, by the local politicians who will then push for funding to “address the issue” so that they can be seen to be doing something about it.
7. If the timing is done right, the original organization applies for funding at precisely the time when such funding becomes available. The spin-doctors are very good at timing.
8. The process continues until a) the government shift budget allocations onto something else; or b) something else comes along that grabs public attention making the original group-think “so yesterday”.
I suspect that public opinion is starting to get a bit jaded – everybody has seen the movies with the Statue of Liberty covered in ice, and tidal waves washing over the Himalayas – ho hum.
The AGW crowd may throw more money into getting more funding, and we may go around the cycle again, but the press (and the PR people behind them) are probably running out of ways to frighten children and old ladies.
Watch for “the next big thing” and you will have your answer. Although, do not expect to see any reversal in reporting in the media – they will just stop reporting anything to do with the climate past the normal weather reports.
Kia Ora Richard,
I hope you were at the match, dressed in you best cricket whites …?
Mike Odin (11:38:49)
That was a tour de force, interesting Arctic ice evidence there. Sadly my PC could not cope with the heavy-loading stuff. But it did help me understand. Lots of detail issues, some could perhaps easily make JAXA do “unprecedented” wobbles.
Great discussion on the Solar 24 forum you quote. It’s cooling, as predicted, but it’s warming, as predicted, but you wouldn’t understand, as predicted, so we’ll keep changing our story, as predicted.
Paul Maynard (12:07:26) : Last Thursday evening, Ian Plimer gave a talk for the Spectator events series. This was meant to be a debate with I think Monbiot but he demurred. Plimer was eloquent on the geological history. I’d say the audience was 75% sceptic and 25% warmist. The latter just did not want to hear.
Heck, Paul, that reminds me, I saw one of the email exchanges between Monbiot and Plimer over this, somewhere today. Monbiot claimed Plimer was going to duck the debate, but since it was Plimer there and not Monbiot, that looks like being his deluded excuse that he will tell the world. Yuck! But could you email me please re requests, thanks.
Mike D. (13:15:00) : Lucy (02:44:41)…Lucy (02:44:41): …there’s no need for excessive paranoia.
That wasn’t me, that was Luke Warmer said that in response to me. Just noting. Not paranoid. Or do you want me to be paranoid, if so I daresay I can oblige…
Rereke Whakaaro (17:03:49)
Ric Werme (21:17:48)
You might add to your explanation the phenomenon of Informational conformity.
Al Gore and the media worked together to paint a picture in the mind of the public: global warming is caused by human activity, it is a threat, and “carbon” is evil.
Since this wasn’t a big concern at first, people mentally filed it away along with the rest of their daily informational overload. But when they keep hearing it, they mention it to others on occasion. Those who hear trigger phrases like “global warming” naturally assume that everyone thinks that ‘carbon’ [by which they mean CO2, even if they don’t know the difference] is a problem, and they tend to conform to what they perceive the group thinks. In the early stages, few people went around proclaiming what the established science mainstream said: that carbon dioxide is beneficial and harmless.
The more educated, who understood that CO2 is a harmless minor trace gas, felt no need to make the effort to explain that the alarmists were crackpots. But politicians count votes, and the alarming claim that CO2 controls the climate, and that it was out of control, began to get traction. Scientists need a paycheck like everyone else, and it was easier keeping quiet than jeopardizing their livelihood by speaking out. Which is why there is such a preponderance of skeptics among retired scientists.
By the time An Inconvenient Truth appeared, informational conformity had already provided a big push for the belief that carbon is bad, and grant money began to flow.
Since informational conformity is a trait that is hard wired in our brains, it takes a lot of education to overcome the emotional response to the evil “carbon.” Education is finally beginning to show positive results. But it has taken a major effort. And we’re not quite out of the woods yet.
If it were not for sites like WUWT, the “science” would have already been settled.
Thanks for the links, Philip and Stephen.
Yes, it helps.
I may be slow in responding if someone addresses me for the next ten days as I am off the France visiting and online time dubious.
Richard deSousa: Sorry, I was off a month. The walk ended started on September 20 in Coos Bay, OR and ended 350 miles later in Portland on October 24th.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/16/man-to-walk-350-miles-to-highlight-climate-change-no-mention-of-how-hes-getting-back/
Just goes to show how closely I keep track of public awareness stunts.
Richard deSouza… James Hansen has been very quiet lately… is he sensing a turn in the climate?
Well, to be fair, he has apologised
Sorry to be uncommunicative the past few months, in large part because I had to deal with prostate cancer – which took longer than I expected
But he did manage to present to the Club of Rome, pointing out that The fraction of CO2 remaining in the air, after emission by fossil fuel
burning, declines rapidly at first, but 1/3 remains in the air after a century and 1/5 after a millennium (Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 2287-2312, 2007).
I wish Dr Hansen a speedy and complete recovery.
“wakeupmaggy (15:12:06) :
Somebody knows this.
For every pound of human fat burned through exercise, how much extra CO2 is released?”
I know the answer, Very simple,,,, NOT ENOUGH!
Kia Ora Rereke, alas no had to watch it on TV but it was great heart stopping.
Paul and Lucy
It is a matter of demonstrable and recorded fact that it was Plimer who reneged on his side of the agreement. Monbiot accepted Plimer’s challenge to a debate, with a counter-proposal that the debate should take the form of first a written and then a face-to-face component. Monbiot would publish a list of questions about the apparent scientific errors in Plimer’s book, the Professor would then answer these, in writing, and the process would move onto a public debate co-sponsored by The Spectator and The Guardian.
Email correspondence shows that both The Spectator and Plimer agreed to this proposal.
And when I say scienntific erros, I mean the kind of stuff that led Professor David Karoly of the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences to write..”Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it.” And you can find a list of 100+ errors of science, logic and fact in Plimer’s book documented here
After first agreeing to answer Monbiot’s questions, most of which were straightforward requests for the source of, or supporting evidence for, the more remarkable claims in his book, a request most authors could answer in an afternoon from their research notes, Plimer reneged on the agreement. No answers to Monbiot’s questions were forthcoming, instead the Professor responded with a list of questions of his own. These read like undergraduate exam questions composed by Lewis Carroll:
Calculate 10 Ma time flitches using W/R ratios of 10, 100 and 500 for the heat addition to the oceans, oceanic pH changes and CO2 additions to bottom waters by alteration of sea floor rocks to greenschist and amphibolite facies assemblages, the cooling of new submarine volcanic rocks (including MORBs) and the heat, CO2 and CH4 additions from springs and gas vents since the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. From your calculations, relate the heat balance to global climate over these 10 Ma flitches. What are the errors in your calculations? Show all calculations and discuss the validity of any assumptions made.
If anyone knows what a time flitch is, please add a comment. btw Gavin Schmidt of NASA had a go at answering Plimer’s ludicrous attempt at obfustication.)
And that is the short version of why Plimer ended up debating himself. Not his finest hour.
Ric Werme (15:20:01) :
Rick,
Good point. I assumed and you know what that does!
Thank you.
Steamboat Jack
Phil Clarke (18:12:31) : Hansen “..Massachusetts could provide a tipping point.”
The “tipping point” he is talking about is not runaway global warming – not unstoppable climate change, not the melting of Greenland, its a purely political “tipping point”. The words of an uncompromising political fanatic not a scientist.
Blizzards seem to follow him around but he preaches warming in the midst of them as does Al Gore.
Websters Third New international Dictionary
Flitch: To flay
…
2b : a complete package of thin sheets of veneer laid in sequence as they are sawed or sliced 3: one of several elements (as planks or iron plates) that are secured together side by side to make a large girder or laminated beam
It would as used in context be an ordered set of or sequence of time slices.
Google and the internet are not always good sources to find definitions of terms that are not in common modern usage. The term as defined in the dictionary appears to have been commonly used in the fish, meat and lumber industry as most of the examples listed referenced one of the other application. It would probably be obvious to someone who grew up in a fishing or logging community prior to the 1960’s. This dictionary volume is dated 1966.
Larry
Please demonstrate; I am having difficulty detecting a renege where Monbiot further stipulates a list of questions HE provides must first be answered by Plimer … were not the goal posts moved after a debate was agreed to?
This short excerpt, written by Monbiot, shows it is he who will not debate (after having moved the goal posts on Plimer/requiring written answers to written questions):
Again, Phil Clarke, please demonstrate it was ‘Plimer who reneged’; I saw NO direct correspondence directly from Plimer on your cited “Email correspondence” website indicating he was reneging.
.
.
.
In your post above you supplied a link to a document by Ian G. Enting addressing Plimer’s work; do you have a link to the words spoken/written by Professor David Karoly of the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences?
Do you have anything where Professor David Karoly that addresses Plimers work (or was it just the denigrating pull-quote you needed from him)?
.
.
Oops the Himalayan glaciers are not melting after all.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
Spen (06:29:30) :
‘ anna v (00:49:41) :
Hey, denialists, a la Lindzen, have you voted?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
The no seem to be stalled ( like the ice). Has it reached saturation of available votes? it used to be 3 no to 1 yes. Of course schools visiting the museum will be voting yes, because the thing is guiding them to “yes”, but where have the denialists gone?’
“The poll doesn’t accept my email address – that’s one way of fixing the no vote.”
Reply: Get yourself a Googlemail account and try again – they’re free and available here (just click the link bottom right of the page) :-
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=mail&passive=true&rm=false&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fhl%3Den%26tab%3Dwm%26ui%3Dhtml%26zy%3Dl&bsv=zpwhtygjntrz&scc=1<mpl=default<mplcache=2&hl=en
UK Warnings
BBC Weather Forecast
Last updated: Sunday 15th November at 00:05 UTC
“Weather Warning
Sunday 15 November
Further spells of wet and windy weather are expected to affect England and Wales again on Monday. Adding to recent poor weather this could lead to further local flooding and disruption”
There are 8 flood warnings in place.
Looks like Piers Corbin’s October prediction was right again – bet the UK Met Office love this guy… 🙂
Yet another free energy scam with Barrage balloons for airliners
DaveE.