Former EPA researcher Alan Carlin publishes his paper

My New Paper On The Economics And Science Of Climate Change

Guest Post by Alan Carlin

On Friday my new paper on climate change science and economics was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal.  The paper is unusual from a number of different perspectives.

From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:

· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.

· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.

· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.

· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

From a historical perspective, the paper builds on my Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency in early 2009, by presenting an expanded version of a few portions of that material in journal article format, incorporating many new or updated references, and explaining the implications of the science for the economic benefits and costs of climate change control.

It is also particularly noteworthy for appearing in a peer-reviewed journal rather than the “gray literature,” such as a report to EPA, where many skeptic analyses end up—something that warmists never fail to point out.  Although this article was not written for EPA, it has major implications for the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the December 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding and the economics that EPA and many economists have used to justify current efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade schemes, and other approaches to controlling climate change.

From  a scientific perspective, the paper starts with a detailed examination of the scientific validity of two of the central tenets of the AGW hypothesis.  By applying the scientific method the paper shows why these two tenets are not scientifically valid since predictions made using these hypotheses fail to correspond with observational data.  (See primarily Section 2.).

From an economic perspective, the paper then develops correction factors to be used to adjust previous economic estimates of the economic benefits of global warming control for these scientifically invalid aspects of the AGW hypothesis.  (See primarily Section 2.) It also briefly summarizes many of the previous analyses of the economic benefits and costs of climate control, analyzes why previous analyses reached the conclusions they did, and contrasts them with the policy conclusions reached in this paper.  (See primarily Section 5.) It also critically examines the economic costs of control. (See primarily Section 3.)

From a methodological perspective the article argues that economic analyses of interdisciplinary issues such as climate change would be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives that would accomplish the same objectives.  (See primarily Section 1.)  These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses.

Additional background and access information can be found at carlineconomics.com.

A CEI press release on it can be found at http://cei.org/news-releases/epa-whistleblower-criticizes-global-warming-science-and-policy-new-peer-reviewed-study .  My 2009 report to EPA can be downloaded from http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1

See also:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Marshall

Getting closer to the truth perhaps?

Here is what the EPA (for once telling the truth) estimates the effects on temp and sea level of lowering CO2.
“the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be
reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100.
Top of second column
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f

Cementafriend

Great article,
I note that references (which where in the early EPA draft report) to Ernst Beck’s paper are missing. That would have round off the questions over global warming and the models. It is a pity that Dr Noor Van Andel’s recent presentation to KNMI here http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf was not available for you but the September presentation http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf could have added to the overall picture.
Thanks Alan for your unbiased overview of the science/technology (note thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics are engineering subjects few scientist understand) and economics associated with the AGW political movement. Thanks should also be given for your courage and persistence.
Keep healthy and strong
cementafriend

Peter Whale

The French have thrown out the CO2 tax it is amazing what a vote against can achieve.
Keep up the flow of truth about the economic consequences of this absurd belief.

Brian H

Omigawd! An excess of sanity! I cain’t hardly stand it!
Will his 100 x 10 = 1000 net benefit overstatement assessment be taken on board by any pols? I’ve had a figure like that kicking around in my head for some time, and it’s great to see backup!

David

“The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
 The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.”
Simply wonderful, now that the weakness of the CAGW proponents policy position is well articulated in the literature we really need to move from defense to offense. I submit that not only are the economic benefits of CO2 reduction two orders of magnitude lower then projected, but that the sign is wrong, and the BENEFITS of CO2 are orders of magnitude greater then formally acknowldged. The benefits to the biosphere are KNOWN, (health to the biosphere, crops, trees etc) the harm is now known to have been theoretical only and not matched by observations.

Rick Bradford

We need to have the editor of this journal removed, or maybe we even have to redefine what the peer-review literature is
Because the belief in CAGW is an emotionally driven one rather than a rationally driven one, the publication of several thousand papers of this type would not change the belief system of the CAGW zealots.

ThomasJ

Great article! Mny txs.
The URL reads: …/former-skeptic-epa-researcher-alan… Shouldn’t “skeptic” be erased?
Brgds/TJ

Holbrook

Did someone say the french have thrown out climate tax? If so was it a tax that is being discontinued or one they planned to introduce?
What is more has this been reported on the BBC?
We await the news with interest!

Matter

I’ll certainly be interested to see how you concluded feedbacks are negative. Every time someone has said that ‘predictions based on positive feedback haven’t stood up to observations’ so far, it’s just been a case of them cherry picking, fiddling the data, doing their sums wrong or just inventing the predictions and doing it wrong.

Ron Cram

Alan, thank you for this paper. I hope to read it next week.

wws

well, why read the paper? Obviously the Koch Brothers / Exxon / Illuminati / boogiemen du jour have bought him off.
/sarc
(there, I saved everyone from wondering what Romm’s response will be)

Pamela Gray

Ya know, it’s been a long time since I’ve read a peer-reviewed, journal published extensive paper that sensibly explains human effects on climate (which we do but in very different ways and very local ways than is usually trumpeted), and what can and cannot be done to mitigate such effects (we can mitigate but in much more reasonable and very local ways than is usually trumpeted). If I had said I’ve never read such a paper on climate change, I’ld be talking through a hole in my hat and then my gray hair at the temples would so give me away.
I remember the papers that came out announcing the discovery of the PDO and its long term affect on climate. What followed was paper after paper on other land species (one of my favs was on Elk) that demonstrated the same long term population rise and fall tied to this phenomenon that only industrious and wise salmon searching seamen knew. Back then, that was real science, brought to us from hard working field researchers.
Well done, well done.

Dave Springer

Closer to the truth but still a ways to go. Higher atmospheric CO2 in and of itself has a large economic benefit. What small amount of warming it entails is predominantly in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere, during the night, and in the winter. This has been a boon to agriculture via longer growing seasons where they are most needed. Then we have the botanical effect of rising CO2 making plants bigger and consuming less water per unit of growth.
Migating CO2 by any means is economically counter-productive. Evev if the mitigation cost nothing it would still be counter-productive. We could stand a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere for, if nothing else, a hedge against the Holocene interglacial coming to an abrupt end. The Holocene interglacial period is already longer than the average interglacial and if ends people will find out the hard way that catastrophic climate change involves falling temperatures not rising temperatures.

richard telford

1000 Swiss francs is certainly a bargain if it lets you claim the prestige that having your pile of recycled canards published in a peer-reviewed journal brings. But however many canards you stuff into the paper (don’t they have page limits?), it doesn’t amount to a “Critical examination of scientific validity”.
Carlin’s inability to distinguish between the atmospheric lifespan on a single molecule of CO2 and the speed at which an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are drawn down rather guts his argument.
I have only one question – who paid?
REPLY: Yes Richard, who pays for your publications when they go into a peer reviewed journal? Your objection that he had to pay the journal is simply stupid and condescending. Every journal has fees of some kind. There’s fees for word count, figures, color, and open access to name a few. On many journals they don’t even allow open access, but force user to pay to view government funded research, which is my opinion is wrong.
For example the new journal “Nature Climate Change” charges $1000 per publication, flat fee. By your argument that makes them untrustworthy.
You argument about fees fails fabulously. – Anthony

@Matter
Positive feedback: massive government funding
Negative feedback: public opinion of having energy prices artificially inflated
Positive feedback has been ahead for most of the game, but the public, with our annoying “votes” beginning to apply enough negative feedback, are pulling even.
Viva Democracy! No wonder some opinionistas are complaining about it (e.g. http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/09/thomas-friedman-our-one-party-democracy/)

Beth Cooper

(Pages 1000-1002) UN feedback hypothesis is not supported or even partially supported by a comparison with real world data. eg The UN’s Missing Hotspot in the Troposphere is still missing. Tremberth’s Missing Atmospheric of the last decade is still missing, hasn’t turned up in the oceans. Argo says ‘No.’
Where’s the feedback?

old construction worker

It sounds like the “companies” who have invested Billions in selling “Space Blankets will kept you warm” are going go broke.

Alan Carlin: Your paper uses the term “Ocean Warming Index”, which you describe as “the Pacific Decadal Oscillation plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (PDO + AMO).” And you refer to a source written by Joe D’Aleo: “D‘Aleo, J. US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895. Icecap (online), 2008:” http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
The PDO and AMO cannot be added as Mr. D’Aleo has done, so that part of your paper is wrong. This has been discussed many times here a WUWT. Example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/a-must-read-european-climate-alpine-glaciers-and-arctic-ice-in-relation-to-north-atlantic-sst-record/#comment-492327
The applicable portion of that comment reads: Unfortunately, the PDO and AMO are not similar datasets and cannot be added or averaged. The AMO is created by detrending North Atlantic SST anomalies, while the PDO is the product of a principal component analysis [of the] North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N. Basically, the PDO represents the pattern of the North Pacific SST anomalies that are similar to those created by El Niño and La Niña events. If one were to detrend the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, and compare it to the PDO, the two curves (smoothed with a 121-month filter) appear to be inversely related:
http://i52.tinypic.com/fvi92b.jpg
I’ll have to update the discussion of this in the Introduction to the PDO post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3.html
In your paper, you later write about the PDO, “In fact, major changes in the PDO from positive to negative and back appear to coincide almost exactly with observed changes in global temperature trends over 20–30 year timeframes, as hypothesized in Figure 5.”
There is no mechanism by which the PDO could cause the observed changes in global temperatures, since the actual Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N (the area used to determine the PDO) are inversely related to the PDO. Refer to the tinypic link above.

Robert Christopher

Holbrook on April 3, 2011 at 5:16 am
“Did someone say the french have thrown out climate tax? If so was it a tax that is being discontinued or one they planned to introduce?
What is more has this been reported on the BBC?
We await the news with interest!”
Was it an EU instigated tax that the French had thrown out?
That would make it even more interesting!

richard telford,
The paper was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. Carlin notes: “By applying the scientific method…”, which is something few climate papers do, and something which Mann, Jones, Briffa and the rest of their clique never do. They all refuse to provide the transparency required by the scientific method.
Phil Jones says he “lost” most of the raw temperature records. Mann still refuses to disclose his methods and data after thirteen years, despite constant requests. And Harry the programmer wrote that he fabricates the missing data as he goes along. Those are the people on your side, the ones you defend. Tell us why we should trust them.
Since you can’t credibly debunk Carlin’s paper, you set up a fake strawman of un-named “recycled canards” instead, and knock it down. That’s typical of what passes for alarmist argument: attack the messenger. Attack the journal, because Michael Mann doesn’t have that particular climate journal in his back pocket.
Here’s a thought: since you apparently believe you know how the climate works, write an article for WUWT. Let’s see what remains standing at the end of the day.

John F. Hultquist

Bob Tisdale says: at 6:49 am ~~~ “The PDO and AMO cannot be added …”
Bob has said and demonstrated this time and time again.
Somewhere it is said that it is way harder to unlearn a thing than it is to learn it in the first place. A few months ago I wrote (a rare) letter to the editor of our local newspaper regarding a false statement in an opinion piece from one of their contributors. Two weeks ago the same person used the same false material again. He knew of my letter and had commented on it at the time. I call foul on that.
Now Alan Carlin and Joseph D’Aleo have been told (again) by Bob Tisdale of their error. It is time to unlearn!

because feedback is negative rather than positive
For those who don’t know what negative feedback is here is an easy to understand explanation from Reginald Newell. He worked at MIT, NASA, and IAMAP.
1 minute video

Matter says:
April 3, 2011 at 5:23 am
I’ll certainly be interested to see how you concluded feedbacks are negative.
Here is a work showing negative:
Roy Spencer, 8:34 video, part 1:

Roy Spencer, 8:53 paper, part 2:

Matter,
Positive feedback is found in computer modelling only. If you have a study showing the positive feedback you speak of please link them. I am talking about actual measured data. I am not asking for papers that talk about the results from a computer program. They are different.

Rhoda R

I did a dogpile search on the French carbon tax thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global/24iht-carbon.html?_r=1
About a year old– but apparently it was dropped, in part, due to ruling party loses in local elections. Elections have consequences and the French prole is no more interested in spending a lot of money into the pockets of global warming rent-seekers than any other group of people.

Jim Barker

There is a post at Jo Novas about the French carbon tax thing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/france-ditches-carbon-tax-as-protests-mount/

richard telford

REPLY: Yes Richard, who pays for your publications when they go into a peer reviewed journal?
—————–
All the organisations that have supported my research are listed in the acknowledgements section of the relevant papers. Carlin does not acknowledge any financial support. If he received any funding, that would contravene the journal’s rules
‘Financial support for the study must be fully disclosed under “Acknowledgments” section.’
As well as this potential ethical breech, a second potential problem with the 1000 Swiss francs is well described at http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
———————-
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 8:32 am
“By applying the scientific method…”, which is something few climate papers do
Carlin’s “scientific method” is to ignore any research that does not agree with his conclusions and accept any “skeptic” talking point however well debunked. Thankfully, few climate papers do this.
Since you can’t credibly debunk Carlin’s paper
Did you not read beyond the first line of my comment? Carlin’s arguments on the atmospheric life-time of CO2 are simply wrong.
Here’s a thought: since you apparently believe you know how the climate works, write an article for WUWT. Let’s see what remains standing at the end of the day.
You are welcome to try your hand at rebutting any of my papers.

richard telford,
First you complain that Carlin may have paid to be published, then you complain that Carlin may have recieved payment — with zero evidence either way. Maybe it’s just your projection, eh? And I note that Jones, Mann and the rest live high on the hog at taxpayers’ expense [something Cuccinnelli is investigating]. But they get paid plenty, and it’s all A-OK with you, as long as they support the CAGW narrative.
Next, you are still dodging the fact that Mann & clique refuse to follow the scientific method. They’re hiding out from the scientific method by their lack of transparency. You can’t seem to understand that simple fact. Explain to us why Mann still refuses to release his data and code, thirteen years after publishing.
Finally, I’ll look at your papers when you provide a link that publicly archives 100% of your raw data, codes, metadata, methodologies, and everything else that you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Post it right here. Until then… Pf-f-f-f-t.

rbateman

Dave Springer says:
April 3, 2011 at 6:33 am
The Holocene Interglacial has already begun what appears to be it’s rolldown to the Next Ice Age. It could take the form of the Interglacial of 400,000 yrs ago, or it could take the 130,000/240,000/330,000 yr Interglacials. Odds are 3-1 against continuing another 10,000 yrs.
The Warmists are betting against the House. 490,000/570,000/620,000/700,000 and 790,000 yr Interglacials never made it as high as the Holocene.
1/2 of the last 8 Interglacials were duds, meaning that the Holocene has already pushed the luck envelope being on the higher side of cycles.

richard telford

Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
richard telford,
Finally, I’ll look at your papers when you provide a link that publicly archives 100% of your raw data, codes, metadata, methodologies, and everything else that you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Post it right here. Until then… Pf-f-f-f-t.
——————–
Your lucky day!
The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.
You can find the code at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/palaeoSig/index.html
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
What are you waiting for?

richard telford says:
“The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.”
Michael Mann provided “most” of the data in Mann ’08. What he didn’t make available was hidden away in a file labeled “censored.”
That little omission would have caused his paper to reach exactly the opposite conclusions than what Mann wanted [ie: no hockey stick]. SeewhatImean?☺
The scientific method requires complete transparency.

richard telford

Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
—————-
Put in a FOI request for any data sets you need. (You don’t need any to evaluate the paper – the conclusions are not dependent on the data used in the examples)
What are you waiting for?

Latitude

richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
========================================================
We present a method to test the statistical significance of a quantitative palaeoenvironmental reconstruction inferred from biotic assemblages with a transfer function. A reconstruction is considered statistically significant if it explains more of the variance in the fossil data than most reconstructions derived from transfer functions trained on random environmental data. Given reconstructions of several environmental variables from the same fossil proxy, the method can determine which is the best reconstruction, and if there is sufficient information in the proxy data to support multiple independent reconstructions. Reconstructions that fail this test have limited credibility and should be interpreted with considerable caution.
=======================================================
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.
========================================================
Richard, you’re quantifying palaeoenvironmental reconstructions…..
and not telling people how you did it?
Are you grading them? and picking the ones you like and don’t like?
Any particular ones you favor, and why?
You start out with the statement that you are “presenting a method to test”
…then not releasing all of your codes and all of your data
It is just as easy to make all of your code and all of your data available.
Why did you not do that?

Matthew Sullivan

“The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
Ah, that’s great, I’d be interested in reading…
“Purchase
$ 35.95”
… never mind.

DirkH

Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
“richard telford,
First you complain that Carlin may have paid to be published, then you complain that Carlin may have recieved payment — with zero evidence either way. Maybe it’s just your projection, eh?”
It’s a technique called mud-slinging.

richard telford says:
Dr. Telford, Bob Tisdale had a substantive criticism for Dr. Carlin to answer and I’ll be very interested to see Dr. Carlin’s (and Joe D’Aleo’s) response. You, on the other hand, posted innuendo. I have no information one way or the other (any more than you do), but my guess is that Dr. Carlin listed no funding sources because he had no funding sources. You posted a link to an article about fraudulent open-access journals that had nothing to do with either Carlin or the journal he published in. You keep making reference to 1000 Swiss Francs…. I may be a bit dim, but I don’t see where that reference came from or why 215.58 yankee green-back dollars makes any difference to this discussion. Character counts, Dr. Telford, and you are no better than any other of the no-name alarmist trolls who turn up here to sneer at the ignorant climate deniers. I’m not wasting my time on your papers because I doubt you have the integrity to provide the facts…. just another hide-the-decliner.

richard telford,
Why should I have to put in an FOI request?? It is YOU who admittedly withheld data. The scientific method is not in your work, and the truth is not in you. IMHO, of course.

Frank K.

richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
…for $35.95! Err…No…

richard telford

Robert E. Phelan says:
April 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm
richard telford says:
Dr. Telford, Bob Tisdale had a substantive criticism for Dr. Carlin to answer
————–
I also made substantive criticism – his account of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 being less than a decade is irrelevant to the problem of emissions.
215.58 yankee green-back dollars
———————–
It’s a long time since 215.58 yankee green-back dollars were worth a 1000 CHF.
Latitude says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:02 pm
…then not releasing all of your codes and all of your data
——————-
All the code is available. All my data is available.

1DandyTroll

Saludos to Mr Carline for having the balls to chime on his own dime.
Problem is though, every time you crazy scientists stray from the rest taking the rational heroic approach it’s feels like watching a classic zombie movie:
He’s going for it! He’s going for it. He’s running like hell, he’s almost there… he’ll make it, he’s almost over the fence.
Oh no, no, no, look at them munching on his brain. :p

CRS, Dr.P.H.

It is very important to understand what valid science is. Valid science as used here is the result of using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method to understand the world and its inhabitants.
The most relevant goal needs to take into account the reliability of the observational data. The essential elements of the scientific method are characterizing the subject of inquiry, generating a theoretical, hypothetical explanation for the characterizations, making predictions based on the hypothesis, and finally experimentally determining the validity of these predictions by comparisons between the predictions and real world data. The determination of validity needs to be reproducible and independently verifiable.
The assumptions and hypotheses being tested throughout this paper are those found in the various United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) reports concerning climate change, reasonable reformulations of those found there, or interpretations of them by economists preparing benefit estimates.

God, how refreshing! Thank you, Alan.

Orkneygal

An inconsequential paper behind a paywall with incomplete data.
What a breathtaking parry to Mr. Carlin’s massive thrust.
I find myself speechless and cowering in the brightness of Richard Telford’s genius.

Physics Major

Nature Chemistry, Nature Physics and Nature Cell Biology I can understand because Chemistry, Physics and Biology are actually branches of science. I could even approve of a journal called Nature Climate Science.
But Nature Climate Change? Surely, the climate changes, but that’s not a science… oh wait, I guess it’s not about science.

eadler

The very first technical point made by Carlin is based on Segalstadt’s work on CO2. This work is nonsense. None of the arguments in it makes any sense. The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began. The fact that industrial emissions are about twice as large as the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to the absorption of the extra human emissions by the environment. People who don’t understand and accept this as fact are simply not thinking clearly. The scientific literature on this leaves no room for doubt. In addition contrary to what Segalstadt claims, the concentration of Carbon isotopes is actually in agreement with the human industrial origin of the excess CO2.
Quoting Segalstadt and ignoring the rest of the scientific literature which overwhelmingly says that humans are responsible is contrary to what true scientific papers are supposed to do.
It is a sham to call this a scientific paper.
REPLY: Eadler, since you haven’t produced anything except complaints against people you disagree with, I suggest you write your own peer reviewed paper, get it published, and then submit it here for us to have a look at. Please apologize to Mr. Carlin for calling this paper a “sham”. You’ve been banned once already for calling Willis Eschenbach a “fraud”, and been forced to apologize for your comments. I relented and reinstated your commenting privileges when you agreed to apologize. Now I’m rethinking the wisdom of that decision. If you don’t wish to apologize then please refrain from commenting at WUWT any further. Your purpose here remains and always has been denigration of others, as demonstrated here again.
You seem to have no ability to contribute here in any sort of a positive way. It’s fine to point out technical issues and disagreements, but Mr. Carlin has borne a heavy load for having the courage to speak out, and unlike you put his full name to his words each and every time he’s written something.
-Anthony Watts

martin mason

The science of CAGW is being dismantled openly now, the economics are being embarassingly destroyed, the public don’t buy it one little bit and now the politicians are disowning it except for the tax.
Where does it have to go from here? Will we perhaps see some acknowledgements of incorrectness or perhaps even apologies from the AGW industry? Not a chance on this planet.
What needs to happen very quickly is a termination of their funding until some sense is restored to the debate and hysteria allowed to subside.

richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
It’s a long time since 215.58 yankee green-back dollars were worth a 1000 CHF
You’re right of course. I can’t find the actual curency calculator I used, so I have no idea whether the calculator was whacked or whether I selected the wrong currency. I also finally figured out that you were nattering about the publication fee (I’ll attribute that to the onset of mild food poisoning after accompanying some arab students who thought a Japanese/Chinese buffet was the epitome of haught cuisine)… but your attempt to link that fee with the situation described in your link is despicable. I also note that you did not answer Anthony’s question about Nature Climate Change… by your logic they fall into the same category.
As for your “substantive comment”…. go back and compare Bob Tisdale’s with yours:
Carlin’s inability to distinguish between the atmospheric lifespan on a single molecule of CO2 and the speed at which an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are drawn down rather guts his argument.
Bob Tisdale didn’t sneer and my reading of Carlin’s paper is that he was addressing the issues you claim he wasn’t.
Finally, I really like the way you emphasize that all of your data is available… but not all of the data you used is available? Something, perhaps, about confidentiality agreements? I think it would be quite entertaining, actually, if Steve McIntyre or Ryan O’Donnell took an interest in your work.

eadler,
In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.
You cannot provide testable, verifiable facts showing that CO2 levels remained unchanged at 280 ppmv for thousands of years without any change. Beck et al. has shown widely varying CO2 concentrations, measured by numerous internationally esteemed scientists, including several Nobel laureates [when that meant something], in numerous locations including ships transiting the Arctic, Antarctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans; the Sea of Okhotsk, unpopulated mountain peaks, desolate Scottish shores, and other wind-swept locations. They consistently showed CO2 levels far in excess of your claimed steady-state 280 ppmv, and in fact, they showed CO2 levels exceeding current levels in the early 1800’s and in the 1940’s.
The fact is that you have nothing but circular pal-reviewed, hand-waved-through papers, and always-inaccurate computer models as your putative authority. Time and again you have shown yourself to be totally clueless about the scientific method. You are the Barrie Harrop of WUWT. I am calling you out on your deliberate and/or ignorant misrepresentation of the facts:
Show us with empirical, testable, reproducible evidence that CO2 levels have remained at 280 ppmv “for thousands of years,” as you have claimed. Otherwise, admit that you were wrong. Or not; it’s your credibility at stake.
Nothing in the climate remains static for thousands of years, Barrie – except in the minds of climate alarmists with an agenda; people like you, who have never believed in natural climate change. Your mantra is based on Mann’s repeatedly debunked hokey stick, with its straight handle from 1400 AD until the industrial revolution, showing neither a MWP nor a LIA. It is only the climate alarmist crowd that wrongly believes climate change can’t happen naturally.
The fact is that CO2 levels have varied from under 200 ppmv, to almost 20,000 ppmv – at a time when life flourished, and the biosphere was incredibly diverse. You are simply fabricating bogus facts to promote your alarmist agenda, and as a result you have no credibility. Barrie, take your globaloney to echo chamber blogs like realclimate and CP, where they welcome scientific illiterates spreading disinformation. We need verifiable facts here, not alarmist propaganda.

savethesharks

Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm
eadler,
In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.”
=================
Right, Smokey. I doubt if he/she can provide that type of evidence. [I say he/she because none of us know what an eadler is.]
And that “stable” number of 280 ppm is just 100 ppm greater than the lowest point during the last glaciation….of 180 ppm….NOT an “ideal” number of stability no doubt.
Plant photosynthesis shuts down at 150 ppm. Talk about a disaster.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

steve

Bravo !