Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick

You Beaut

£25? Hope you got a free copy for the advert.

alex

Relax:its been revealed the Spectator has become a satirical magazine a la Viz or Private Eye...
so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, or the motley collection of Lomborg, Plimer and a man who would name his daughter 'Nigella', and you people are going to be running the country soon, God help us

Rhoda Klapp

Well, this is a start.

This morning, against my usual practice, I happened to hear the fool Miliband (sorry I can't narrow it down to which one) on the Today programme. He and his mates have agreed to limit temperature rise to only 2 degreees C. What a Cnut.

THX1138

Wingnut journo interviews geologist not a climatologist in a right wing journal and we're supposed to take this seriously- pleeeease.

Jez

"that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans"

That's the big one.

Sea temperature rises- it releases the CO2.

(saw it on National Geographic... or was it in Heat magazine?..)

Rhoda Klapp

THX, what, a geologist can't report his observations in his own field which conflicts with what climatologists say? But they can safely igonre his observations because THEY are climatologists, and don't know anything about geology or the history of the earth?

Incidentally, there are very few climatologists. Nearly everybody working in the field has a degree in some other subject, climatology has not long been offered as a subject in itself. On thr other hand, it involves effects on the climate from many sources. Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy and so on. It is a frequent tactic of the AGW crowd to discredit the people who have opinions they disagre with. This is not the way scientific debate is done.

Jez, the sea has got colder recently, according to the argo buoys, the first accurate way of measuring dea temperatures at depth.

jaz

What I love about deniers like Delingpole - a man whose scientific credentials are ... oh he doesn't have any ... is the way they cling to any scientist who expresses doubts, but blithely dismiss all of the scientists who express concern. Given one Australian scientist, or the combined weight of the UK's most prestigious scientific body, the Royal Society, I know who I am more likely to believe.

andrew Martin

@THX1138 "Wingnut journo interviews geologist not a climatologist"

Whereas Al Gore knows exactly what he's talking about? There's a lot of people, on both sides of the argument, who are loud and prominent but not climatologists.

Bickers

Alex: surely by now you should have learned to be sceptical of the many so called 'learned' institutions and Government quangos' who have misled (nay lied to us) over the last couple decades. Along with a large section of the MSM they have scared us about:

DDT
Millenium Bug
SARS
AIDS
Bird Flu
WMD

These all fizzled out as World threatening events - AGW is just the latest but by far the largest trumped up scare. Governments, academic institutions and the likes of the UN (IPCC) see AGW as a means to accrue power, money (taxes and grants) and in some cases control over the lives of citizens.

What's galling, as Pilmer and others have shown, is that there is no evidence (using the accepted scientific method) that CO2 causes any discernible warming. Sure, computer models can show any scenario you like (GIGO - garbage in garbage out) - funny that they consumately failed to show the recent cooling - but that's OK because they're really accurate at predicting the climate a 100 years from now - believe that and you're a fool.

We need to focus our energies on solving real world problems such as starvation, disease, poverty and lack of democracy. That'll make a real change to peoples lives in the Third World - having a Canute like belief that we can alter the climate to any meaningful degree is not only foolhardy it'll do nothing for the World's poorest. However, pushing AGW will line the pockets of the likes of Gore (who's a partner in an investment company that backs green tech companies)

Barry

alex at 9:07am: "...so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world..."

And the BBC is one of the oldest broadcasting organisations in the world - so what?

Eddie Hallahan

I've read the book and would say to those who immediately start spouting the usual climate-deniers flatearther dogma to actually read the book.

The simple fact of the matter is that when you look at the actual scientific evidence as opposed to computer simulations then we find that;

1) CO2 does not drive Global Temperature

2) Global Warming is just part of a cycle that is completey natural and not influenced by Man at all.

3) We have now moved from a warming trend to a cooling trend.

4) Climate Change alarmists are wrong.

Consensus is not part of the scientific method - consensus is part of the political method.

Too risky baby! :)

We had a meeting around a year ago in the depths of the West End just off Oxford Street. This was with a Consultancy we work closely with.

It went well- and toward the end, as converstation turned to a lighter note one of our clients asked;

"How did you find the journey?"

"Fine." I answered. "We flew in. It took no time."

"What?!" She looked at me as though i had two heads.

"I'm only joking. We drove!" I quickly attempted to recover the situation.

"Thank goodness. I thought you were serious. I'm thinking of the carbon footprint!" The lady informed me.

I'd never really taken much notice of that word until then.

Coming from the humble beginnings, to say to anyone that you've flown from one point in the UK to another, for a meeting is quite out of the ordinary- and would certainly get a few laughs down the Rovers Return whilst whippet juggling, i can tell you.

To our clients though, this concept was quite a feasable day to day practice.

It has opened up a gold chest of oportunities though.

The key to all this is all down to that word again;

Greed.

The bankrupt political elite have pounced. Getting their grubby little hands all over this oportunity for personal or (in the governments case) the vilest forms of self serving finacial 'damage limitation'.

The green/eco front must be approached sensibly and rationally.

No magic wands.

Israel combines small wind turbines with solar heating panels reducing energy bills by 40% (yep, i know it's sunnier there but amalgamate insulation technology to UK homes and you balance this maybe).

Supply cutting edge fertilisers to the third world and try to wean them off meat production to the levels that chew up acres of rain forest per hour.

Sustaining/investing in sound existing mechanical technology in this country- then (instead of wasting the money) re-invest it into the UK to develop more cost effective, practical and sustainable technology to *export*.

And there you have it.

Scott

Say, when is this guy going to be interviewed by the BBC?

Sheila

It is just wonderful to watch this 'global warming' trash crumbling into dust.

The reason why some people won't give up on it is because of all the time and money they have to admit they've wasted on it.

Get a beer and enjoy the sun.

Jez

Rhoda Klapp;

"Jez, the sea has got colder recently, according to the argo buoys, the first accurate way of measuring dea temperatures at depth."

Really?

Let me confirm that i'll be choosing a little more carefully the womens magazine i will be reading whilst queing for the cashout at Morrisons this weekend!

Where the hell do they get their scientific analysis from, the charlatans!

;)

(Seriously Rhoda- that's a positive then. A global extinction is not on the cards)

Charlie

Most scientists are not independent but depend upon the government for money. Galileo Newton, Maxwell, Darwin and Einstein did not depend upon the government for money.

Alison

Scott: "Say, when is this guy going to be interviewed by the BBC?"

When climate change causes Hell to freeze over.

Hereford

Wingnut journo interviews geologist...

Typical response from the AGW side. Any argument against us is from a loonatic who is either mad or bad (in the pay of the oil companies)...

Any argument, no matter who from (Al Gore, George Monbiot (credentials for these opinions please THX)) is obviously true.

A quick reminder - once only a few people claimed, against all scientific, religious and political pressure, that the world was indeed round and that it revolved around the sun. They were right. The consensus was... ...well wrong actually.

Your assertions THX, as opposed to those of the Wingnut, as you so scientifically categorise Plimer, are uneducated and based entirely on what other people tell you.

In a comparison of understanding of the subject, who I wonder, would turn out to be sort of winngy and nutty?

c chapman

Climate change killed off dinosaurs. Must have been all those huge 4 wheel drives they used to get around

alice

The more interesting environmental point is that the world has finite resources, and the world a growing population / increasing resource use per head (in particular in developing countries). That's why we need to increase use of alternative energy sources, be more careful about pollution, deforestation etc (see 'Collapse', 'Limits of Growth') - regardless of whether global warming is significant/real or not.

gerry

Well said Ian Plimer, whom I have long admired. The main movers in climate change are solar activity and plate tectonics. What our species are the cause of is the 6th and current Major Mass Extinction Event.

Nelthon

So Delingpole: why the descent into pseudoscience? Plimer's book is unmitigated junk.

Even my 5-year-old niece could have Googled to see how it was received.

TY

It is amusing how the sides line up on this debate along strict ideological lines. Greens are "metropolitan elites". Deniers are "right wing flat earthers". Climate change is a scientific not a political issue and should be treated as such - By BOTH sides. Read the book, read the IPCC science, and decide for yourself, objectively and always with an aim to challenge rather than reinforce your beliefs, before you comment.

Rikrox

Goodness, what rocks have you guys been living under? Denying anthropogenic climate change seems to be a religion these days, ie it is not based on any known evidence. Plimer's book is so full of errors a school student could spot several of them. How can a theoretically sensible journal believe any of this rubbish? Get a life, climate deniers!

PaulieboyCUFC

Every "right-on" politician in the West wants to ruin our way of life in pursuit of a scientifically-bankrupt ideal. Yes, there is a correlation between high temperature and high CO2, but it is NOT the CO2 that causes temperature to rise. It's the temperature that causes CO2 to rise! Yes, the other way round. Failure to grasp this basic fact will cost us all. Climates change: live with that. Man has experienced far warmer conditions in prehistoric times. Funny, I'm still here. Are you?

George Monbiot

Plimer's book has already been completely discredited by scientists in Australia. Here's a summary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Liam Cavin

1998 is a year you commonly hear mentioned by people who wish to cherry pick data to suit their own agenda. Why? Because 1998 was the hottest year on record, allowing you to argue that the trend following is one of cooling. However, it should be pointed out that 6 of the 10 hottest years on record have occured since 1998. So wheres the cooling trend that has obliterated the past 30 years of warming? This article is full of such misinformation, but dont take my word for it - the global temp record is available online at the Climatic Research Unit.

Will Humphreys

I can't believe people would actually pay for this rubbish. Very funny.

Maximilian

Glad to see the Speccie had the courage to put this on your cover. The Algorism troofers are howling with impotent rage already, I see.

Gregg Shick

@Liam Cavin

Please post the source of your "6 of the 10 hottest years on record are after 1998" because I call BS on that one.

Liz Palmer

Its tragic really that this book sold more than one copy, or that the Spectator would waste more than one word of print in such a load of unjustified, scientifically incorrect errors.

Reputable publishing houses refused to publish the book because its of these errors, not from fear of reprisals! The so-called climate-change deniers would do well to read up a bit more on their facts before stepping up in support of these theories, or run the risk of looking even more stupid. I hadn't thought there would be that many left, but optimistically not everyone in Australia believes this bunk: Bundanoon just voted to ban plastic bottles from their town! Maybe its' just a waiting game, see who's right. Sadly though, the outcome will result in massive loss of life, habitats, species etc.

Come on people, think about it rationally. Sustainable living makes sense on every level.

Brian

Fact is there are way too many people on this planet to consider the collective effect of our actions to be negligible.

Fact is the rate at which we are digging up carbon from the ground and dumping it in the atmosphere as carbon-dioxide is now of the same order of magnitude at the natural circulation, so an increase of atmospheric carbon-dioxide is to be expected.

Fact is the physical properties of carbon-dioxide are such that the more of it there is in the atmosphere the more heat will be retained.

Fact is the geological record indicates there has never been such a large and numerous species as us which has done what we're doing.

Fact is temperatures wobble up and down at all time scales and reliably picking out a century-scale trend from the year-scale noise is not easy.

So I don't know for sure if AGW is real, but the facts indicate it's much more likely than not, and all a responsible geologist can say is it's never happened before.

Dwight Vandryver

There is a political principle which states that a politician can promote a policy, but that there is absolutely no requirement for that politican to believe personally in the policy put forward.
With that said, it is understandable why Obama has reversed America's stance on AGW. The cost to the U.S. of imported oil was about $450bn in 2008, and set to rise. American industry needs a new technological impetus, now that it is losing the "car wars" to the Japanese and Germans. And a revival of consumerism is vital to restart the American economy.
Climate science may well have been corrupted by the economic imperative, but the Americans see AGW as a vast business opportunity, not primarily as a means of increasing taxation. Convincing the people that they need to trade in the old for new energy efficient products could help to solve the three problems that America faces.
Thus AGW scare stories should be treated with scepticism - it's usually propaganda. It is, however, important to realise that the new technologies and alternative energy sources must be developed before the global oil and gas reserves finally become depleted.

Lionel

I have never believed that man is responsible for 'global warming'.

I do know that, in my 79 years, the climate has changed and I remember the severe winters and glorious summers we had when I was a lad. It will probably continue to change if man doesn’t otherwise destroy the planet.

The claim that man is the cause makes money for some - who probably have too much already - but it is a con.

Bob Ward

I am curious about the claim that "two years of global cooling erased nearly 30 years of recorded temperature rises". That simply isn't true. According to the World Meteorological Office, 2008 was 10th warmest year since records began in 1850, and 2007 was the seventh warmest. In fact, eight of the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000. So average temperatures are climbing, heat waves and droughts are increasing, glaciers and ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. Where is the evidence of global cooling?

Bob Ward

I am curious about the claim that the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase". That simply isn't true. According to the World Meteorological Office, 2008 was 10th warmest year since records began in 1850, and 2007 was the seventh warmest. In fact, eight of the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000. So average temperatures are climbing, heat waves and droughts are increasing, glaciers and ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. Where is the evidence of global cooling?

Rhoda Klapp

I haven't read Plimer. I susepct those who are knocking him here haven't either. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't go by Monbiot as a guide to whether Plimer is right or wrong. Monbiot is IMO not as honest and upright as he should be in argument.

I have read Lomborg, and I find warmist criticism of his work not to match up to its content in any way. Lomborg is no AGW sceptic. He believes in greenhouse effect. His main case concerns whether we ought to be alarmed about it, and whether spending billions trying to avoid minor changes in global temp is a good use of our money and effort. He'd rather spend money on clean water for poor people in under-developed nations, among many other things showing a clear and immediate benefit. If you have been told Lomborg is a denier, you cannot trust that source.

Like TY, I can't see why this is a left/right discussion, but it seems to be. Let's make the scientific case and see. But if anybody tells you the science is settled, the debate is over, that is an indication of a political agenda, and cannot be countenanced.

Herbert Thornton

"....geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work."

That seems to me to be a most cogent and weighty observation.

Adrienne

Two words: Thank you!

I'm glad people are starting to speek up! Let's spread this kind of talk to other issues that are happening.

Keep up the good work!

:)

A. MacAulay

Any one out there remember "acid rain"? Weren't our forests supposed to be dead by now? The Green party pols who made a career here in Germany with this twaddle got elected, started wearing Armani suits and not a few got caught out booking their flight-miles personally when flying at public expense to and fro from Berlin. Notably Cem Özdemir, now a Green oberfuzzi, who had to spend several years in the European parliament until his expenses scandal had fallen from the public eye.

Isn't it really about time that we grown-ups stopped falling for this Chicken Licken stuff?

Luddite

Less then eleven thousand years ago ice covered most of Britain was that man made.

Englishman Abroad

alex at 9:07am: "...so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world..." et al

An august an deeply wonderful organisation though The Royal Society may be; but did you ever think to question where its funding came from? £52,000,000 last year I believe.

He who calls the piper......

Ed

I don't know if it is the journalist who doesn't know anything about science (hardly unusual) or the author who makes various factual but spurious points, eg:-

* The carbon held in the atmosphere is only a tiny fraction of that in the earth and oceans (true) therefore that in the atmosphere doesn't matter (false).
That's a bit like saying the salt content of the human body is a miniscule fraction of the salt in the ocean (true), therefore it doesn't matter for human health what the salt content of the body is (false).

* That the Earth has been far warmer in the past is well known but has no bearing on whether we are causing warming ourselves. That's another failure of logic. No-one denies that climates change naturally, what is suggested is that man-made change is occuring on top of that and at a far greater rate.

* "Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant it is a plant food" - laughable. No-one serious doesn't recognise that many natural things can be pollutants in excess. Or a simpler analogy: water is essential for life (true), therefore flooding can't be bad (false). There is no contradiction between carbon dioxide being a "plant food" and a pollutant. Ever heard of rivers, lakes, coral reefs being ruined by the plant foods of fertilisers and sewage?

John Law

I am a little sceptical of AGW and the behaviour of some of the protagonists, drives me closer to that view (Gordon Browns precision in the face of this planetary problem is laughable, presumably he believes Gods’ lessez faire attitude, has made a mess of things and needs further government intervention and regulation).

Mankind really does have a major resource (and population) problem and some of the ideas from the warmists are indeed what we need. More efficient use of resources, use of a bigger range of energy technologies (where these make scientific and real economic sense) are good ideas. On the other hand use of agriculture (as opposed to agricultural waste) to create transport fuels, looks set to create some fairly heavy duty hunger, for those in the third world. So let’s have a grown up debate and a bit more consensus, where it is appropriate, in our political response to proven problems, many of which will have a positive environmental impact. Science should no involve juvenile name calling.

If the earth really is going to see us off it is probably already too late to do much about it.

Augustus

Climate just happens, and we're all heading towards the next ice age in a few thousand years, because we're now in the middle of an inter-glacial period. In the next few decades we may also experience a mini-ice age due to a diminutive solar magnetic field.

Iceman

In his criticism of Professor Plimer’s views in the Guardian George Monbiot says that the concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm (pre-industrial world, some 200 years ago) to 387ppm (now). In other words, particles other than the CO2 made up 99.972& of the atmosphere then, and 99.9613% now.

Am I to believe that this infinitesimal change in the level of CO2 will raise sea levels six meters, kill polar bears, and turn Britain into a desert? And what about pigs? Will they finally manage to fly?

Dr. Booda

For those who claim that the planet hasn't cooled, here is a link to the satellite data since 1979. This work is from the University of Alabama-Huntsville via the NOAA-15 satellite.

The hoax is dying thanks to nature.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Brute

I hear what the AGW crowd is saying, but what I'm seeing is that it's getting colder. It's summer in Canada and I haven't turned the furnace off yet. It's too darn cold out. I'll be buying a copy of the book.

Sheila

Thanks for an article against all the alarmism. I think most of us are more responsible than we used to be, and are tired of hearing all the catastrophic scenarios the alamists keep throwing at us. When does anyone get that computer models are only that ... reality works differently. The Earth is a magnificent creature that somehow corrects the imbalances. We are not dying today or tomorrow, the icecaps are not going to melt and drown us all ... get over it.

I for don't want to pay double what I pay now to drive and heat my house just cause a bunch of enviromentalist think computers are always right. Garbage in Garbage out ... millions of years of life trumps any computer model using about 100 years of data at most.

Yeah lets clean up our act, but enough with the alarmism. And yeah, the "denier" really need to take the stage here for awhile to get public policy back in line with reality.

Bruce, UK

Well done that man. AGW is, as has been said, is the biggest con-trick ever played.

John Trainor

It is a left-rignt issue because the main push behind the phony IPPC 'science' is political. Maurice Strong (Cdn UN apparichat) has said publicly several times that the science should never get in the way of the end goal.....the redistribution of wealth and power from the hated West to others more deserving....Russia, China, the Mid East...thats how the world order will change and that is the goal of the Climate Change extremists. It has nothing to do with science as is evidenced by the complete discreditation of Gore's crockumentary by real scientists worldwide. For example....the dry Aral Sea...not man made warming my children....the Russians drained the rivers which flow into it to grow cotton...the malaria bs....fact is the worst outbreak of malaria in recorded history occured in Siberia, above the artic circle in the early 1930's when millions died....mosquitos don't mind the cold at all....it goes on. For the believers, environmentalism is the religion and Gore is the pope....how dare you doubt my faith!

Page

Remarkable that all the moonbats hold firm in their fantasy belief in AGW when there is still ZERO evidence for AGW despite the increasing billions spent looking for a trace of it. Zero evidence. And plenty of evidence that we are entering a natural cooling phase.

A mass delusion caused by those who are wishing that it was true - the Humans Off Earth Now Squad.

Try 'The Deniers' by Solomon.

Simon Templar

Greater taxation, regulation and protectionism and government control of markets..that sums it up! The idiot liberals suck this crap up. Never waste a crisis even one that you have made up. There solutions in solving these problems are worse than the problems themselves...as usual.

Jack lynch

At last, someone who is prepared to take on the vested interests of climate change.
Yippee!

Jupiter

Wow, the tree hugging trolls are out in force today. When are you nutters going to get it into your thick heads that the climate has always changed and always will. It is extremely arrogant of you to think that humans have the power to change the weather.

James Currin

If I remember correctly, Sir Peter Medawar once remarked that Freudianism was the greatest confidence trick of the twentieth century. In my opinion, Marxism is a close second. There is now little doubt that AGW will take the honours for the 21st. These frauds have two characteristics in common. First, they are largely unfalsifiable, unless you count the collapse of the economies of Eastern Europe and the USSR as a falsification of Marxism. Second they have been embraced by the same segments of society—in particular by academics and artists (especially the least talented), not all of whom are fools. To paraphrase Gibbon, these delusions are to the masses equally true, to the skeptical, equally false, and to our political masters, equally useful.

Fran Cudlipp

Thank goodness there are a few EcoHeretics left among us! I, too, have been very sceptical about this new religion, which is intent on stifling all criticism, and is attempting to implement many schemes whose full implications haven't been addressed. Thank you, Ian Pilmer, and James Delingpole, for challenging the EcoOrthodoxy.

THX1138

Rhoda Klapp Good Post I have also read Cool It and I'm surprised that Lomborg is used by deniers as a champion too.

I also agree that this should not be a left right fight, however unlike you from everything I have read I do believe the science is settled and I'm getting increasingly worried about my children's future.

Can I suggest that you read the new Lovelock book The Vanishing Face of Gaia- A Final Warning a great and important book and mercifully short

Anya Conway

When we want to increase yield on our tomatoes, we increase the amount of CO2 in the greenhouse - they thrive on it. If AGW exists (and it's a big if in my book), why are we producing so many people who not only breathe out the gas, but also need housing which concretes over the green stuff that transforms CO2 into sugar, fibre etc? We're taxing those who travel, heat their homes and produce goods to pay others to breed! Some anti-AGW strategy!

Eric Hester

Many people make their living out of so-called climate change and so the arguments of this books will not be refuted - the book will be ignored; I predict it will not be mentioned on the BBC. When I was a headmaster in the 1970s we were told that the earth was definitely cooling and if we did not agree we were flat-earthers etc.

guthrie

The list of errors made by Plimer in his book which therefore sink any claim he might have to his book showing that AGW is a myth is here:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Dixon

"Nelthon
July 9th, 2009 1:36pm
So Delingpole: why the descent into pseudoscience? Plimer's book is unmitigated junk.

Even my 5-year-old niece could have Googled to see how it was received."

Plimer would...according to Delingpole..say "So why did you breed?"

Paul McCauley

RE: Bob Ward
July 9th, 2009 4:21pm

I have not read Dr. Plimer's book, but believe I can answer your very good questions:
1.“the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase". Anyone who spends any time examining NASA based Global GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) anomalies you find this most publicized record includes using land based stations subject to urban heat island (UHI) temp raising influences (pavement, AC units, buildings, etc.) and the data itself is subject to many debatable “corrections” that always further increase the final data. This has resulted in consistently skewing the temps along a controversially steeper increase over the last thirty years and driven many away from considering these data seriously. Instead, most serious observers prefer to rely upon the UAH MSU Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomalies which are satellite based. Referring to the UAH MSU TLT anomaly temps Dr. Plimer is correct and the current temps are in fact at those of thirty years ago, and so this claim IS, in fact, true. These comparisons are thoroughly discussed and demonstrated at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/#more-8881
2.Similarly, as far as 2008, 2007 etc. being the warmest years are very much debatable as earlier annual comparisons bring the 1940's into a higher range than the current temperatures. Regardless, the cooling being widely announced currently is based upon the agreed upon decline in global temps since the recent high for 2005 and the relative flat-lining of temps for the last 12-8 years, depending on your preference. The global temps have, in fact, rolled over and are declining, although AGWers only reference temps through 2003, at the latest in order to avoid the recent temp decline.
3.“Heat waves and droughts are increasing” - are caused by various major climate drivers (ENSO, SDO, planetary/solar interactions with a recent revival by CERN of the apparently great correlation of cosmic rays and temperature data.
4.Glaciers, ice caps, and sea levels are similarly effected by the above, however, it has been documented that, again, in the last few years glaciers and ice caps have grown significantly, polar temps have set all time record lows and sea levels have continued increasing basically at their 3mm rate, if that, since the last Little Ice Age. Even if the sea levels were to rise significantly faster with any warming it would not present any human danger as increases would be spread over more than a hundred years and folks should be readily able to distance themselves from the shores at that pace.
In conclusion, Bob, there is the cooling and you should feel safe while you lay back and enjoy learning from the lifetime experiences of the Realistically revered Dr. Plimer – as I look forward to doing.
All the best,

Paul McCauley

Ps: have you noticed that many European countries are abandoning their unsuccessful support of the CO2 reductions while they have been deepening their economic demise – for nothing?

Mike

James, you might have mentioned that 2 two Nobel prizewinners were Australian as well.

BrunoBehrend

Global Cooling evidence

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/44463

Lower solar activity, lower warming or more cooling.

Common sense trumps lefty "scientists" seeking grants.

When the world figured out that 'workers controlling the means of production' was an "Animal Farm" hoax, then needed another excuse to enslave the masses...

and the union-owned, dumbed-down public education system complied, delivering a cohort of pseudo-educated shock-troops doing what socialized education told them to do.

The sheep will figure it out. One hopes they figure it out in time.

Severn

PaulieboyCUFC: "Yes, there is a correlation between high temperature and high CO2, but it is NOT the CO2 that causes temperature to rise. It's the temperature that causes CO2 to rise! Yes, the other way round."

What if both are true (that is, CO2 causes increasing warming AND warming causes increasing CO2 in the atmosphere)?

This is in fact the case, and climatologists have to take this into account.

Josiah Gradgrind

The world's population increase is the real problem, not the ersatz case for global warming.

Namrog M

Before paying for Professor Plimer's book, read this scientific essay for free: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.gorman/gwarmnat.htm

Then do read Plimer's book, since it is from a real geologist rather than an ex-student of the subject.

severn

Iceman: "CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm (pre-industrial world, some 200 years ago) to 387ppm (now)" That's 38%, not infinitesimal! And largely human-generated, contrary to this article.

Plimer refers to changes of climate over geological spans of time (which no-one doubts) but the issue which concerns us is the large change over a few decades - more relevant human life and economy.

I just had to read a few paragraphs of this article and I clutched my head in despair. So many people have put so much effort into clarifying these issues, and Plimer and Delingpole still produce stuff like this that is so muddled it is "not even wrong" because there is no sense in it at all.

A. D. Osborne

Good to see the other side getting to put its case, i.e., AGW not.

Anything, by definition, based on computer models has to be suspect and that seems to be the only form of proof ever wheeled out by the AGWers. Does anyone really want to pay more tax based on computer predictions? Think of the now discredited Mann hockey stick.

Brian Klappstein

Noting the comment of Guthrie above, I delved into (skimmed) his link. I noted a large number of alleged errors made by Plimer are repeats of his comments on models and clouds and characterization of the IPCC.

Firstly characterization of the IPCC isn't really an "error" in the scientific sense, so shouldn't really be included in such a list.

Based on alleged "clouds and models" errors however, Plimer appears to have intuitively latched onto a concept which is the soft underbelly of AGW theory.

The models which have so studiously replicated 20th century climate history, have only one significant natural forcing (it's also very short lived) and that is major volcanic eruptions.

That being true, they would be incapable of modeling the decade/century scale fluctuations of the Holocene we can see in the advance and retreat glaciers and so on. These are fluctuations of a magnitude and frequency which cannot be explained by orbital driven changes in insolation, and must have been driven by some natural forcing.

The obvious candidate for the forcing of these fluctuations is indirect solar effect. However, the models don't include this potential forcing.

The implication is this: if the models don't include indirect solar effects, but these effects were signficant modulators of climate in the last century, then some other forcing or feedback must be wrong, or overstated.

T.Budreo

Gore states that the oceans will rise 20 feet due to the warming aspect. Anyone out there figured how much ice would be needed to fulfil that garbage. There is approx 150 million square miles of ocean so someone do the math

Bryan Leyland

" It is, however, important to realise that the new technologies and alternative energy sources must be developed before the global oil and gas reserves finally become depleted."

We do not need to invent any new technologies. We have one effective large-scale technology available to us that will solve the energy problem. It is called nuclear power. I first got interested in man-made global warming because the people who promised us that the world would fry if we did not reduce carbon dioxide were fanatically opposed to nuclear power.

Their real interest is in killing economic growth because they believe it is bad for the environment. Man-made global warming is a very convenient way of achieving this end. So they won't debate the science because it is incidental to their objective.

Ian Plimer has done the world a wonderful service.

John of Canberra

Thank you James Delingpole and the Spectator for publishing this interview. Here in Australia there has been a repellent effort to censor him by the AGW fashionistas in the moralising latte set and "our ABC" has been openly hostile. This even extended to some book chains not stocking his book - even though they stocked Gore's tendentious DVD which was declared to contain serious errors by a UK court. Despite comments one hears about free speech being in danger in the UK this article shows that some Brits are still committed to that ideal. Congratulations.

Pedro

It's curious that a decade ago Ian Plimer was the darling of the left-liberal chatterers who applauded him in Oz universities and much of the media. That's when he was giving the anti-Darwin creationists a belting for their deluded clap-trap. Now that he's giving a similar belting to the climate-change alarmists those supporters are now hostile and derisory. It seems both the creationists and the climate-change alarmists have a faith-based religious delusion.

Mike O'Connor

I have searched Google in vain for the quote, but I once read that it was the Duke of Hanover who said that "these professors can be bought like whores". I refer not to Dr. Plimer, but to the average university professor whose government grant task reads "explore the human-caused extent of global warming", or the like.

Were the politicians to direct agency staff to let grants equally to those postulating anthropogenic climate change and also to those wanting to research the error in such theories, the returned papers would be a balanced presentation of claims and counterclaims, which together would amount to insufficient cause for global-warming legislation.

My point is that politicians along with assorted leftist and media cohorts have controlled the outcome of the "debate" from the outset. The supposed consensus has been achieved simply by political choice of grantees.

John

In my region and others of the USA, climate experts regularly have difficulty accurately predicting the weather 3 to 5 days in advance. What is the likelihood that they can be any more accurate in their weather predictions for 50 or 100 years into the future?

Liam Cavin

@ Gregg Schick

Sorry its taken so long for me to respond, I was working. I cited the source in my original post. "Climatic Research Unit" is part of the Uni of East Anglia, they post climate information free and open access. It turns out you were right, I made a mistake. It is in fact 8 of the 10 warmest years on record since 1998. Check for yourself. The text of this book review is riddled with scientific innacuracies, dont just buy into it because it supports your preconceptions, go check it out for yourself. The CRU provides information sheets to give the interested layperson a basic grounding in climate science.

Independant Thinker

Our so-called-experts can't even reliably predict the weather one month from now and we're supposed to believe they can tell us what the Earth's temperatures are going to be ten years from now? Any independent thinker can research this on their own and come to the conclusion that this is a bunch of hot air.

Mike in California

I have an MS in geosciences. The good professor is saying exactly what my Climatology professor, and every meteorologist I've ever personally known says.

There's nothing really knew here. AGW isn't even a theory, it's an unproven hypothesis.

Rhoda Klapp

Liam Cavin, the CRU publishes that temp data, but they do not publish the raw data they use as a source nor the methods they use to create an 'adjusted' data set for publication. This means that others are unable to check their workings or criticize their results. Even in the face of Freeedom of Information requests, they won't cough up the data. This is not how scientists are supposed to work, and in any other discipline they would not get away with it.

With all of these temperature datasets (there are four which are widely used) the temps you see are adjusted, not actual temps. Nothing wrong with adjustments, provided they are done openly and based on a published method. However, you may wonder why NASA adjustments can cause temps from before WW2 to be adjusted colder over consecutive versions of the set because of new temps for the present coming in. It's inexplicable to me. For NASA, the source data is available, the methods are not. For CRU, we just have to take their output and there is no way to question it. The man responsible is Phil Jones from UEA. He will not release the data to any critic. We UK taxpayers are shelling out for this?

itstrueekse

A story from down here in Mandelaland. My best friend and colleague was considering a new car - a monster V8 with a carbon footprint as big as
Texas just to make the bloody thing. When I chided him about our new responsibilities to think green, he said - "I'm over 60 and after a lifetime of Scottish parsimony I want some fun at last. The next generation can look after the bloody environment" He didn't buy the car because he was shot to death in a hi-jack for his present car. The vast majority of South Africans are dirt poor and don't have any kind of car and you could use this to justify the reasons for my mate's murder and conclude the following - A selfish environmental decision has been prevented by a re-distribution of wealth. Nonsense, of course, but no more silly than much of the debate that is going on about climate change - bad reasoning has no place in scientific enquiry. Until we can establish that man can in fact affect the global climate to an extent that is as significant as natural climate change cycles, any attempts to reverse something that may not even be happening are simply stupid. Especially if they deny resources to where they can be better employed and so help to limit inequality and thereby stop me being murdered for my car. Logic is great, not so!?

Richard

My father (an economics prof at the LSE) explained to me as a boy how booms engender false theories of environmental crises caused by economic growth. In the late 60s, I, as an economist for a company saw the signs again and researched it to find it was true, and all (from Malthus on) proved wrong. When the world claimed exhaustion of fossil fuels by 1980 I shrugged, and once the "oil crisis" crash was over the theory was discretely fogotted - as were those on the ozone hole, and acid rain: but in their time all believed by the scientists and the population.

As for policy impoverishing ourselves to stop it, that would be mad even if the theory were true. The underdeveloped world has ten times the population of the developed, and will certainly not be prevented from increasing their emissions by at least ten-fold, so swamping any of our policies - even were we to cut to zero.

Chris Peterson

A. McAuley makes a great point about "acid rain"; this is perhaps the strongest method to expose the fallacy of the "climate change" lobby. I was in school in the late 80s and remember it well from science lessons: pollution from factories, cars, etc was supposedly mixing with clouds, causing their rain to become acidic. The strength of the acid would increase with pollution, and in 20 years crops would be rendered inedible, buildings would be collapsing, and people would have to wear masks and cover their skin to go outside (hmm, perhaps Allah was right...)

Of course, 20 years later, "acid rain" is long forgotten, as the left have graduated onto the more global "climate change" as a method for expropriating money and control over our lives from us.

Paul Tingen

This feature makes An Inconvenient Truth look like Einstein's Theory of Relitivity.

I know this is for the purpose of stirring up controversy, but this is pretty pitiful.

What I also find hilarious is all this talk of a 'conspiracy' by well-funded shady organisations, when the oil industry have been denying anthropogenic warming for decades and have been forced to bow to consensus.

And I like windfarms.

James Delingpole

Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?

Roger Angove

So. G. Monbiot has condemned it. Monbiot earns (or rather cons) his living by disseminating and inventing propaganda for the ecofascists. Nuff said.

Bob Ward

I do like the idea that the Earth is cooling because 2005 was the second warmest year on record, but 2006 was only the sixth warmest, 2007 was seventh warmest and 2008 was the tenth warmest. So look back at the temperature record in the early 1990s, when 1990 was the warmest year on record, but 1991 was only the second warmest and 1992 was the fourteenth warmest. Didn't global warming stop then as well?

Internet Commentman

Wow, this guy doesn't sound like a crank at all. Strong work, the Spectator.

Richard Sanders

I can't help being a bit sceptical of the claim that "the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall" does anyone know of a reference to support this, or better thr reference from Pilmer's book?

Andy Powell

For all those who say that a few years of cooling don't discredit 30 odd years of warming, why then does 30 years of warming mean anything in the context of a 4.5 billion year old climate system?

What's good for the goose......

Mr Grumpy

Reading this thread as a genuine climate agnostic I'm left wondering whether anyone ever makes up their mind on this based on anything other than their prior prejudices. Depressing.

patricia

You funky free marketeers!

Who sponsors you, Mad Mel and all the other reality refusniks?

Tell all!

Maximilian

@ James Delingpole (today at 11:24 am)

The answer to your question is No. It's not just you. Some of the reactions are reminiscent of a certain accusation ending in "-phobia" that, in a different context, is commonly hurled around a propos of not very much at all. Perhaps they're going to come up with a new coinage, Warmophobia? Climatechangeophobia?Algorphobia?

ronald White

Hmm, the reference to grape cultivation at Hadrian' Wall is all very well, but that was 2,000 years and an Industrial Revolution ago.

GiVeUp

There is such a mix of bull in this article that it's almost impossible to know where to start.
We'll try to do it slowly.

- The gas CO2 is known to have the effect of trapping heat (Or is he denying this too?)
-ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is the only CO2 that counts for the temperature, your reference that it is a tiny portion of the CO2 in the world is worse than irrelevant because:
-As the temperature increases, CO2, which as you (rightly) say is trapped in the ocean, will be released. This is because the potential gases that water can hold decreases as the temperature increases. Also:
- We have added nearly an extra 50% of the CO2 to the atmosphere from pre industrial levels, from 240ppm to 347ppm.

On another track
-There is such a mess of conspiracy theories thrown in here it's unreal. The biggest industries in the world have always been the oil companies. They combined have much much much much much more power than the likes of greenpeace, who have been campaigning to protect the planet from our excesses to no personal gain... remember that they're a charity?

Who there really has a vested interest?

-Also, whether or not there have always been climate fluctuations is a moot point, this is the first time we have to deal with it.

This is so ignorant it's unbelievable. Check your facts. Stop accepting this meaningless dribble.

ron White

I am puzzled by what we are supposed to do about global warming, whether man made or part of the natural cycle. There isn't really much comfort to be gained by people living at or just above sea level, including some of Plimer's Pacific neighbours. Presumably, he'll welcome climate change refugees with open arms.

GiveUp

Plus, of course people are going to be pleased to hear this in droves. Once again, like the financial situation, they've been told it's not their fault (which mainly it isn't) but also that they don't have to do anything about it. Just like anything else, we'd rather believe anyone who says it's not our fault than anyone who actually knows a damned thing about it.

GiveUp

Oh, and it just goes to show, you can't be too careful.

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Ray Fisher

For those that would like to see real climatologists views visit www.wattsupwiththat.com
and then ask again whose fooling who?

Julian Evans

I'd love to be convinced that climate change is not man-made, that we're not heading for disaster. What could be better news!

I'm also open to arguments as to why the consensus is wrong - it has certainly been wrong in the past.

But this article doesn't provide a single argument supporting its bold claim, and if you're going to attack a consensus as lacking in evidence, you need at least SOME evidence to support that.

For the two sides to just slag each other off seems pointless. Present us with the arguments and let us try to make up our own minds.

Graham

Grow up James. It's no longer funny or clever or "contrarian" to pretend that the vast majority of scientists don't know what they are talking about. This isn't a political left-right issue (and I speak from the right). Global warming is an established fact; its long-term effects can't be precisely calibrated, but there's enough science to tell us that we ignore the potential effects at our considerable peril. Most of all it's resolvable-- and resolvable without anyone having to give up their happily materialist existence. It requires only that we marry our enormous inventiveness to some political balls.

NHP

I'm not sure which aspect of this insults me more. Is it the poorly researched, juvenile journalism on show (citing South Park, how old are you Delingpole? 12?)
Is it the arrogance and stupidity of the object of the piece - Plimer is a known quack, who loves to distort the question to suit his purpose. With everyone bleating on about Climate change being a leftist con could it not just as easily be said that this man is out for a quick buck with a controversial thesis? His line that Greens shouldn't reproduce is a classic example. It's true the greatest thing we could all do to save the planet is stop reproducing. No more people, no more problem. But the question isn't about saving the planet, it's about sustainable living, it's about preserving the earth's resources so we can continue to enjoy the lives we currently lead.

Plimer clearly holds no regard for scientific enquiry, his argument is riddled with holes, and the spectator and James Delingpole should be ashamed for passing up the chance to challenge his ideas.
Is it the arrogance and stupidity of the object of the piece - Plimer is a known quack, who loves to distort the question to suit his purpose. With everyone bleating on about Climate change being a leftist con could it not just as easly be said that this man is out for a quick buck with a controversial thesis? His line that Greens shouldn't reproduce is a classic example. It's true the greatest thing we could all do to save the planet is stop reproducing. No more people, no more probelm. But the question isn't about saving the planet, it's about sustainable living, it's about preserving the earth's resources so we can continue to enjoy the lives we currently lead.

Plimer clearly holds no regard for scientific enquiry, his argument is riddled with holes, and the spectator and James Delingpole should be ashamed for passing up the chance to challenge his ideas.

Melinda Tilley

Could I put in an early bid please. When Al the Goracle gets control of the climate, could we please have nice weather here in Oxfordshire.!

ronald White

I guess the inhabitants of Easter Island didn't really see much wrong with denuding the place of forests , either, and where are they now?

Kenneth Perry

Surely Professor Plimer's greatest point is that of "The Perspective" For most of my long lifer I was supposed to worry about an inevitable future Ice Age.

Martin

'They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.'

Three paragraphs later...

'There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’

Whoops

Ferret

The other week I heard Polly Toynbee, on some gob-fest or other, lumping climate change denial in with racism and gay bashing.

Given that the old trout is wrong about most things - I would not write this off just
yet.

Captain Flint

The climate has changed naturally throughout geological time, so it is obviously not possible that human activity, by emitting vast quantities of a known greenhouse gas, can have any climatic effect whatsoever.

This is like saying that because many thousands of species naturally became extinct during prehistory, it is obviously not possible that human activity could ever cause a single species to become extinct ...

Do you see how utterly stupid this argument is? Yet deniers cling to it like a drowning man to a straw. Minds closed, argument over.

D

All you religous fanatics - direct me to or show me three graphs or any evidence that proves man made global warming is real.

I hear "..his book is full of errors" - name three.

You keep spitting out this mindless dribble, "..he's mad", "..I believe the Royal (government funded I bet) Society over him", well then where is the evidence - this is why all of your prophets refuse to debate people like Ian Plimer - because they know he will sink them with in minutes. These prophets are not stupid people, they know how to get money out of the taxpayer, pity you cant say the same for their followers.

Maltster

Hey it's always a bit hotter this side of the planet. Can they make it 3C lower instead of 2 C? I think it's unfair to decide upon 2 degrees C without making a global referendum. I definitely want it to be 3 C below what it is now. Now, with no tongue-in-cheekiness: The UN have gone stark mad.

Helene Davidson

Having a misspent youth as an archaeologist, I can only second the points made by the professor. We spent several seasons at a major site in the Jordanian desert and it was extremely (and also v. precisely) clear the repetition of sequences of climate. You could track periods of damp, dry, cold and blazing following a sequence going back to several centuries BC and continuing down to the Middle Ages (when the settlement was largely abandonned). All of this predated any impact of carbon and had more to do with agricultural patterns in some instances, and shifts to more appealing agrarian land in others. A bit like the impact of deforestation (for brickmaking purposes) on the Indus plain in ancient India.

Shivering through yet another indifferent summer in London, meanwhile, there is a pretty heft chorus of "Where's the warming?". Its good natured enough now, but as the costs of trying to hold back the tides (which in any even appear to be being misread) become clear, that good nature may turn as icy as the increasingly cold climate.

A final point to the defender of the Royal Society and the BBC. A brief review of their records would show their advocacy in the past for positions proved woefully wrong or misplaced.

A concern about pollution is justified, and a cause for action. A theory about global warming remains (in my mind) contentious.

Rupert Wyndham

George Monbiot:
Plimer's book has already been completely discredited by scientists in Australia.

Really? Having been in Sydney during the opening rounds of the debate in the Australian media, allow me to state categorically that nothing could be further from the truth. My own small contribution follows:

Sir

I have read Prof. Michael Ashley's rather unpleasant review of Heaven and Earth by Prof. Ian Plimer. I am also in the course of reading the book. Whilst your reviewer will no doubt consider it obtuse, as an interested scientific layman, I have always understood that, in contrast to religion, say, the scientific endeavour was marked by a number of commitments. Amongst these are intellectual rigour, objectivity, personal integrity, transparency in the sense of disinterestedness and, following therefrom, a willingness to engage in open debate. Lastly, science is marked by one other unique attribute, a spirit of persistent scepticism; in a nutshell, if it's settled, it's not science.

When dialogue is of the essence, it is always a surprise, therefore, to encounter a scientist who declares that a contribution to open debate constitutes "an enormous disservice to science" . But, of course, after watching the evolution of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis for over thirty years, it is impossible not to note that so called climate change orthodoxy is dedicated to the proposition that science is validated by consensus, the very antithesis of the hitherto long accepted Huxley dictum. It is also offensive, is it not, to find one scientist declare of another practitioner of considerable distinction that: "It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates." - en passant, a shame too that your reviewer's command of the subtleties of his own mother tongue is insufficient to enable him to grasp the contextual distinction between 'understate' and 'overstate'.

But anyway to specifics. There are many to choose from. The one I have chosen appears on page 165, and the choice is informed by a desire to select an example from Prof. Plimer's own specialisation, namely geology, of which I trust that he will not be accused of ignorance. It is selected also because it goes to the very heart of the controversy. He writes as follows:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 Ma) and Jurassic-Cretacious (151-132 Ma) glaciations occured when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 ppmv and about 2000 ppmv respectively. The Carboniferous-Permian glaciation had a CO2 content of about 400 ppmv, at least 15 ppmv greater than the present figure. If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead, there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 content does not drive global warming, and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

He continues:

"This has never been explained by those who argue that human additions of CO2 will produce global warming."

For Prof. Ashley there are two separate but related questions, are there not? Does he dispute the factual accuracy of these statements? Is he willing to engage with Prof. Plimer in a courteous dialogue in open forum?

Speaking personally, I suspect that the answer to both questions is "No". I shall be agreeably surprised if I am wrong.

It would, however, also be instructive to see the writer of this comment debating the issues with Prof. Plimer or indeed, with several Nobel laureats I could name, who shared the accolade conferred upon the IPCC. Given Mr. Monbiot's notoriety, I believe that this might quite possibly be capable of arrangement. If I'm right, would Mr. Monbiot agree? Most likely not, one suspects.

RW

T Massingham

Everyone else is airing their personal anti-AGW fact here, but no one has mentioned the 'divergence issue' yet.

One 'proof' of AGW was that official temperature figures showed us getting warmer. These figures were never provided raw, but always after some 'corrections' had been added, and what those corrections were was never revealed.

However, in 1979 satellites starte providing temperature figures as well - ones which were not 'corrected'. And, lo and behold, the satellite temperature measurements have been 'diverging' from the GISS and HADCRUFT sets, by an amount which has become very embarrassing. No one addresses this issue, but you can see the effect of 'correcting' the figures to try to prove AGW - you soon end up with unbelievable figures....

Bickers

You know the nutters have taken over the asylum when the G8 say they won't let the global temperature rise by more than 2 degrees C - has King Canute travelled through time!!

How mankind can have the deluded audacity to think he can control the climate beggars belief. And who's decided what the right temperature is, even if we could control it, and on what scientific basis/lifestyle basis.

We're now seeing the consequences of the mainstream political class backing a pseudo science, liberal backed scam - carbon trading. A lot of people (mainly those backing AGW) will get rich (The Goracle already is by perpetrating this hoax) whilst the poorest in our World will be denied their right to use abundant energy to raise themselves out of poverty and improve their lifestyles. The West in general will be screwed by taxation and other greenwash tax scams that will do absolutely nothing to reduce harmless CO2 emissions or reduce temperatures by any meaningful amount.

The reality is that the climate is contunually changing (AS IT'S DOING ON OTHER PLANETS)and whilst we need to be good stewards of our planet we don't need to be subjected to the green unproven propoganda that is being shoeved down our throats daily. Most politicians, Government institutions, NGO's and many academics have been shown to have their snouts in the trough and have tried with the support of the MSM to scare us before: DDT, AID's, SARS, Bird Flu, WMD anyone?

Rob Cremona

What a load of triffle!

Everyone knows that the world started to end the moment we discovered it!

Let's get on wth more important issues like contracaption for rats, middle-class misguided arrogance and halfpenny-worth know-it-alls who think that religious views are applicable to all.

Chris Coulter

the science, the science, the science . . . you can't deny the science -Albert Gore, Master Illusionist

nilesmc - Boston, Mass. U.S.A.

Yes! Climate Change is REAL!!! I know. I was the guy who drove all those gas-guzzling SUV's to reverse all those ICE AGES(plural...more than one)back in the day.

So, do whatever Al Gore and the UN tell you to do. After all, it's only money...right?

Klem

When it comes out in Canada I'm buying a copy. But don't expect too much support from the Canadian media, they are clearly on the doom and gloom left side.

Jimmy Haigh

To THX1138

Define "climatologist". My definition is a new age pseudoscientist who makes a nice living thank you very much off of the crumbs that fall from Al Gore's table.

I know what a geologist, such as Ian Plimer, is: I am one myself. What are you? And whay are you afraid to post your real name?

Bensaude

Personally I think Plimer and Booker and their allies are correct. But assuming that peak oil theories are also correct, and that fossil fuels will become rare and uneconomic over the next fifty years, we will end up will-nilly in a low carbon world pretty soon.
Unless Obama and the rest of the nuts are in truth just trying to prepare us for this unavoidable future, it seems totally mad to ruin our economies with dubious and complicated taxes.

Robin Guenier

alex and jaz have suggested we should listen to the Royal Society rather than Professor Plimer. Maybe – if we knew what the RS believed. But we don’t. Go to their website and look at the headline statement on climate change. It’s clever in that it appears to support current dogma without actually doing so. It refers to the alleged “scientific consensus” without saying whether it agrees with it. Anyway, the RS knows better than any that science is not a matter of consensus – that was a principle of the Enlightenment. Then the statement goes on to refer to “possible consequences” and disasters that “could” happen. This may sound scary but it says nothing about what the RS believes is likely. Given the huge importance of this question, I regard this equivocation as a sad betrayal of an honourable tradition.

Professor Plimer, in contrast, makes his position wholly clear. And does so convincingly.

Pavo Absolutus

All the predictable alarmist twaddle goes into hyperdrive to repudiate something quite well-known in the REAL scientific world - genuine scientists - ie those not in the pay of major interests ( including government conditional grants ) actually agree with Professor Delingpole, who is by reason of his study area very competent to evaluate weather patterns globally ( for that is what we are talking about - remember ? )

The good Professor must be quite amused to read the Pro-Global-Taxation-Scam MMerchants up in arms at his pronouncing of scientific FACT instead of the officially sanctioned garbage published by so many of the pseudoscientist class, and Doctors of Political Woodwork !

The "Onus probandi" ( obligation of proof ) lies with those imposing the worldwide scam upon us all - their answer to that is a "Computer generated game" for goodness sake !! Wake up to the real world - 'they' can make it 'prove' anything they want - as in every other computer generated game written by profit oriented programmers !!

Robin Guenier

Ed: you misunderstand the three points you cite.

* Plimer reminds us that manmade CO2 is a minute fraction of the atmosphere to rectify the generally false impression that it is a substantial part of it. He doesn’t say that CO2 therefore “doesn’t matter”.

* He rectifies the (again) false impression often given by dangerous man-made warming proponents that today’s temperatures are unprecedented by reminding us of earlier warm periods. That’s all – he doesn’t say that that proves the proponents wrong.

* It’s frankly absurd to regard CO2 as a pollutant. Your analogy is sound – water can be dangerous but it is not therefore classified as a pollutant.

But you’ve missed Plimer’s essential point – there is no real world empirical evidence verifying the hypothesis that further CO2 emissions will cause dangerous atmospheric warming. Computer models are useful but are not evidence. In any case, the current financial crisis should surely have taught us that complex computer models can be disastrously misleading.

R Sanders

"Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?"

"The other week I heard Polly Toynbee, on some gob-fest or other, lumping climate change denial in with racism and gay bashing.

Given that the old trout is wrong about most things - I would not write this off just
yet."

Yes!

Robin Guenier

GiveUp: you rudely describe James as being “so ignorant it’s unbelievable”. You urge him to “Check your facts. Stop accepting this meaningless dribble”. The ignorance, however, is yours. The essential facts are simple: there’s clear empirical evidence for a recent increase in global temperatures and simple physics shows that CO2 contributes to the “greenhouse effect”, and thus to atmospheric warming. But there’s no empirical evidence verifying the hypothesis that CO2 emissions are the main cause of warming and, as I mention above, that further such emissions will cause dangerous future warming. So it remains a hypothesis. Simple really.

paulgilboy

Well that was all going swimming until you put the bit in the middle about OZ going broke if they don't mine coal and uranium.
Its such a fundamental mistake i'll not even bother pointing it out.
As every friutloop in town will rip your essay too bits.

Adam Adamson

Two of my ignorant contributions have been kicked out, so here goes for the third time. In his repudiation of Professor Pilmer’s views, the UK guru on things globally warm quotes two figures, namely that whilst in the pre-industrial world the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood around 280 ppm (parts per million), it hit 387 ppm recently. In other words, C02 levels were 0.0280% then, and are 0.0387% now, or to reverse the composition, particles other than CO2 accounted for 99.972% before the humans put their act together. Today, according to Mr. Monbiot, the concentration of atmospheric particles other than C02 dropped to 99.9613%.

Nor being a scientist what I cannot fathom is this: The C02 levels didn’t get hiked by one percent, not even by one tenth of one percent, but merely by around one hundredth of one percent. And this is supposed to be killing life as we know it.

Is it truly beyond the wit of our leading scientific minds to run an experiment demonstrating how much more heat (primary or deflected) does an atmosphere trap if its CO2 content shifts by one hundreds of one percent?

Shaun Hexter

Where is the scientific evidence for global warming? Models do not make evidence - they try to extrapolate from measurements. Where are the measurements of more than 250 years ago? Not there. So if the climate change doom-mongers are so certain, why is that? Follow the money! The scientists are basing research grant applications and their salaries on climate change. The politicians don't understand the science, but realise this is one big tax raiser. The civil servants are all for bigger budgets (and taxes). The greens and their friends are also following the money. Even industry is getting in on the act. If climate change is not real (and it will take some time for them to realise), where is their money going to originate? David Bellamy is a good example of a climate change denier (he is on a pension not a research grant). He is also a pretty fair scientist. My background is also scientific - at the best university in Britain. Too many academics are afraid of the truth. They are suffering peer pressure as well as money pressure. The band wagon is one giant juggernaut - let's hope the wheels come off soon and everyone realises.
For an alternative view to Monbiot's one, read the review on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/0704371669
If you have any doubt about the religious nature of climate change believers, read Monbiot's blogs http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards?picture=344343776
and wonder why the politics of his opponents differ from his. This is a political and religious argument - based on good old fashioned money - the science just gets in the way!

Climate Change Con

Try googling Dr John Theon, who for 12 years was the Head of NASA's climate programme and one of the most eminent climate scientists in the World.

Theon rejects AGW as a political fraud and his views fit with those og Ian Plimers.

Theon was also James Hansen's boss and he is a sharp critic of Hansens motives and flawed scence

Truppe1

I find it rather amusing and also enlightening that, at least here in the USA, the term "Global Warming" which frightened children for nearly two decades has over the past year or so seamlessly changed into "Climate Change" - I suppose it was becoming far too easy to disprove the "facts" about GW and so the term was altered - as the climate always changes and always has changed, there can be no way to disprove CC. And over here the sheeple accept the new term without a single thought. Political correctness reigns - but let us hope that this reign is soon terminated.

Seth

"that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction"

Oopsie, someone just got caught lying about rock-bottom-basic scientific facts.

In 400,000 years CO2 has never gone above 300PPM despite many climate cycles. Since the industrial revolution humans have raised that to almost 200PPM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

"All this is scientific fact"

Only if you consider "lie" and "fact" to be synonyms.

Dave G

I wonder how Professor Pliner would react if a climate scientists told him that his geology work was wrong.

severn

Climate Change Con: I did google John Theon a long time ago, and it turned out he was not what he claimed to be. Not Hansen's boss and retired in 1994 and not much in touch with current science. A lot of 'authorities' who are quoted by denialists seem to turn out to be not what they claim.

Fearless Frank

@Jez and others: "Denier"... isn't that something to do with ladies' stockings?

Oh, you mean "heretic".
Your position becomes clear now!

Robin Edwards

Quite a selection of views/opinions here make interesting reading for anyone with a real sense of what is going on in the world of climate analysis. I have to presume that all of the contributors are personally familiar with the available data, and have done their own analyses. If they have not their contributions are founded on hearsay. Please DO NOT believe that the big climate "authorities" get things right. They do not. There's been much talk of hidden adjustments, secretiveness regarding data and so-called analytical methods that are less than transparent to put it mildly. I recommend collecting data from several sources and drawing your own graphs and running time series analyses. Even if not all the data are pristine (unsullied by adjustments) or precise and accurate - data never are - you will get a real feel for what has been happening. Just remember the fiasco at the Met Office early this year when they had to admit to a blatant and elementary mistake in their analysis method for temperature change. I immediately knew that they were wrong and so would anyone else who studied the data. Please, Professor Jones, do release your full data and analytical methods. Remember that we've funded you.

Bravo, Prof Plimer.

Dixon

Seth: "In 400,000 years CO2 has never gone above 300PPM despite many climate cycles. Since the industrial revolution humans have raised that to almost 200PPM."

So, according to Seth, Humans have "raised" Co2 to LESS than the level it was at before...doh!!!!!!!!!

CO2 produced by Human activity is not claimed by any source to be more than about 9% of the total, possibly as low as 5%.

Dixon

The "is it aint it " ( real ) question is really misleading . The real question is "why the hell should I care".

The predicted effects of anthropogenic climate change are laughably trivial compared to other environmental changes that Human societies have effectively shrugged off as inconsequential in the past.

Take but one example. Last weeks "New Scientist" carried a cover feature that shrieked hysterically that the effects of rising sea levels will be more apocalyptic than anything before imagined. Reading the actual article, however, it was discovered that the dire prediction was that some 60 million people...in the entire world...were anticipated to be living in areas affected by rising sea levels by the next century. Ahem, thats less than 0.01% of the present population. And who the hell imagines that the populations of those areas will continue to increase to that number ( from the even lower present figure, as the author presupposed ) in the event that such encroachment indeed occurs?

Thats illustrates one of the underlying errors in the scare-mongers vision: leaving out the compensating migration of populations between more or less positively affected regions as inevitably would occur over almost a century.

But I remain tickled pink by that net figure: a global catastrophe affecting less than 0.01% of the worlds population! None of them being anyone I know personally or should give a proverbial monkeys about!

Jason S

The list of psychological problems necessary to buy into man-made climate change is long and distinguished. I only hope the people who engineered our current economy (for which we Americans shelled out nearly a trillion in direct costs, not to mention the indirect costs of higher interest rates and inflation soon to come) have no say in any climate change legislation. The "we need the money now or we will all die" approach will not work this time. Thankfully the economy is giving everyone much better perspective on just how silly all this man-made climate change rubbish has been. The need to eat will always trump the need to feel important and involved in something meaningful like "saving the planet". My advice for the folks suffering from this lack of purpose in life is to find something a little bigger than a politician to believe in. Jesus worked miracles, and I have as much scientific proof supporting that statement as you do supporting the arrogant notion that humans can have any meaningful impact on our climate.

Bruce Clarke

Absolutely bloody correct.

Alex Dick

I must try to get the book.

Now perhap someone of standing will grasp the nettle and point out publicly that the real danger(to themselves and everything else) is too many humans.

It will take courage, because there are really dreadful vested interests, not least religions, in that field.

Perhaps I am lucky in being 82.

M. Simon - Rockford, Illinois, USA

The resources of the Earth are finite and amount to around 600,000,000 metric tons per person.

That is .6 billion metric tons per person. We are doomed. Especially if it falls on us.

Colin MacDonald

"There is such a mess of conspiracy theories thrown in here it's unreal. The biggest industries in the world have always been the oil companies. They combined have much much much much much more power than the likes of greenpeace, who have been campaigning to protect the planet..."
I hear this line trotted out all the time. Now, working in North Sea Oil I hate the beastly oil companies as much as anyone. However here's the thing, these same companies have to spend their billions finding and producing oil and a return for their shareholders. Greenpeace on the other hand can chuck there entire $300 million annual income into propoganda.

M. Simon - Rockford, Illinois, USA

In 500 million years CO2 has never gone above 10,000 PPM despite many climate cycles.

And during some million year eras it has never gone above 1,000 ppm

The CO2 level on the Earth is getting dangerously low. Some plants stop growing below 200 ppm. Save the plants. Burn coal.

Rob-on-the-job

The true position will forever be lost on doom-mongers.

Gareth Edward Jones

Ultimately you can chat about this all you want, the world is changing, the sea level is rising, the artic is melting, the poor are dying, due to increased drought and sea level rise. Of course humans have an impact, look at Chernobyl, look at Bhopal, Aral Sea... everything has an impact on the environment from the smallest creature to human kind.

You can deny all you want but it won't help anything, nor will it save you. Not to say doing anything about it will either mind you, but logically iit has to be better to try.

Believe science? believe this book? I prefer to put my money on a favorite. Better odds of coming in. The favourite today is the 1000s of climate scientists around the world that have all come to the same conclusion. Oh and the insurance companies of course :)

Andy Cunningham

Poor George Monbiot, Savonarola in Specsaver frames. Here's some Monbiotisms to test his credibility against that of Ian Plimer. Oh, and yes all of Monbiot's writing has already been completely laughed out of court, mocked, ridiculed and discredited by sane people all over the planet. Here's a summary of some of George's loopier pronouncements to illustrate:

"Home ownership causes homelessness." Of course.

"Flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse". Really, George.

On the benefits of the GFC "Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened waste of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?" Stay in Wales then.

On Climate Change "it is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves." Huh?

Yes, hang in there people, for the firm hand of George will deliver us from evil and guide us to the light.

Rupert Wyndham

James Delingpole
July 10th, 2009 11:24am
Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?

Mr. Delingpole, you are quite right. Indeed, given that The Spectator, regardless of individual political affiliations, is reputed to be an up-market, literate and intellligent journal, some of the contributions to these Comments are truly depressing.

RW

Bob

Its a good ruse to predict something dire is going to happen a hundred years from now when none of us will be around to witness it or not as the case may be. The AGW theorists never defend their argument but always attack the man and duck scientific debate. So lets remember Karl Popper and just ask them one question.

What evidence would be required to DISPROVE the AGW hypothesis?

If no answer is forthcoming then AGW theory cannot be verified by experiment, is not scientific and should never be treated as anything other than a belief system.

Alan

There is anthropogenic created climate change and it is caused by fine particulate matter [aerosols] from the burning of fossil fuels, not the messenger elevated CO2. Aerosols are creating global hazes which are wreaking havoc with the weather everywhere. The most dense and damaging haze is located in the equatorial Indian Ocean region. Where it is cooling sea surface temperatures and preventing evaporation for the formation of clouds.

Undoubtedly, the dense populations of Asia create most of the problems with their fossil fuel burnings, ably compounded by forest fires and coal industrialisation.
The soot/black carbon component of aerosols settling on snow/ice when warmed by the sun is enough to cause accelerated melting.

So if you want ice to remain intact for polar bears and weather normalise, eliminate emissions of soot from fossil fuel burnings.

BFJ

Who do you believe indeed?
The scientists paid by the state who, surprise surprise, come up with 'findings' that justify further expansion of the state? And who form the official 'consensus' purely because they all have the same paymaster - spending, btw, 99% of all money dedicated to climate science.

Bill Vaughan (Australia)

Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991 – 2005). He was previously Professor and Head of Geology at The University of Newcastle (1985 -1991). His previous book, ‘A Short History of Planet Earth’, won the Eureka Prize.

Hardly a looney as described by the chicken littles of the sky is falling school of thought!

EcoScareFatigue

@Paul Tingen:

"...forced to bow to the consensus..."

That neatly summarises that the AGW proponents are not engaging in a scientific debate but a moral crusade. This is not science it is a rejection of the enlightenment.

Suki

Gareth Edward Jones: 'the sea level is rising' - it isn't.

Where are you getting this guff from?

Valentinus

You know, I've never been personally politically sympathetic to TS, but I have consistently recommended it to my students as a fluent articulation of a respected and influential political and cultural position. That just ended today, when you decided to venture into National Enquirer territory. This is a shameful episode in this distinguished periodical's history, confirming the worst fears about 'two-cultures' scientific illiteracy in British journalism. I am no AGW alarmist, but the basic scientific howlers in this book, combined with its mendacious graphs and tables, and its genuinely flaky theorising about the physics of the sun, render it a lasting embarrassment to The Spectator. How did this get on to your front page?? If you had presented The Da Vinci Code as a breakthrough in biblical scholarship, it would not have been more absurd. It will take you years to recover from this one.

Dallas Beaufort

Independent rational thought finally trumps political correct hogwash!

Enduser

Alex: "so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, or the motley collection of Lomborg, Plimer and a man who would name his daughter 'Nigella', and you people are going to be running the country soon, God help us"

Let's go back in time a few hundred years and rewrite the previous comment:

So who do you believe, the Holy Catholic Church (God's representative on earth) or that motley collection of Copernicus, Galileo,etc....

Mr. Enjoying the Comment Box

Way to check the references in his book geniuses! Oh no, I'm sorry that was uncalled for, that would require an ounce of journalistic credibility and, well, effort. That's okay, I get lazy too sometimes. Of course, whilst my laziness usually involves opening a glass of wine and watching some weekly sitcoms, yours just puts at risk your own reputation and people's understandings of a complex and nuanced world issue. But that's fine guys! Don't worry about it, take a load off and have fun, that's what this is right? A nice big party to celebrate over the slow choking of the concept of a modern news magazine that doesn't equate full sentences and repeating nonsensical rantings as journalism! Yeah, sure! Enjoy it, because after that story you're working on about the moon landings being a big crock and Galileo being a drunk catholic-hater, after that you may well find there isn't a huge amount of work out there for what I can only assume are monkeys whacking at keyboards with glow-sticks... is it just me or is it getting hot in here?

Richard Mackey

Science and democracy thrive on the vigorous debate about ideas, evidence and truth.

James Delingpole and the Spectator show themselves to be true to the deep values of a free society and sound science by promoting debate about our planet's climate dynamics.

It is this willingness, this preparedness to promote debate, shown by the extensive review of Ian Plimer's scientific book, by featuring it, that places James Delingpole and the Spectator as guardians of scientific truth and democracy.

One must get fearful when scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs. One must get even more fearful when politicians try to silence the promotion of scientific research that is contrary to their ideology or their preferences about scientific findings. One must be even more fearful when so many in the fourth estate refuse to investitgate scientific/political controversy and report findings without fear or favour, but instead take partisan sides, and belittle those who disagree with them or even give space and time to the views of those who disagree.

How did the advanced democracies and the scientific academies get to this appaling situation?

Some have mentioned that the Royal Society of London is a dedicated enthusiast of the IPCC.

The Royal Society has on several occasions made an historic fool of itself. One occasion that comes to mind was the refusal for more than 100 years to recognise the true role of Liebniz in the discovery and development of the calculus, an attitude that kept Continental maths out of England for over 100 years with the result that mathematics in England stagnated for over one century.

Bear in mind that no agency has yet undertaken an objective evaluation of all the theories and evidence for our planet's climate dynamics.

The IPCC did not and could not as its terms of reference confined it to an examination of human caused climate warming. Yet the Royal Society takes the word of the IPCC that human beings are responsible for the modest warming experienced by the planet since the 1970s! And the motto of this Society is "Nullus in Verba" ie "Take nobody's word for it".

The Royal Society of London was supposed to be about establishing the truth of scientific matters through experiment rather than through the citation of authority.

If the Royal Society cared about establishing scientific truth in this area through experiment and the vigorous contest of ideas, it could hold a series of seminars in which there would be papers that show that the warming that commenced in the 1970s arose in large part because the rotation of the Earth increased a little; that the planet's climate experiences periodicities because of the interactions of the several and vast atmospheric/oceanic oscillations; that the Sun, through its output of radiation and matter (ie plasma) and its variable gravitational and electromagnetic fields - and especially through the interaction of these variables - gives rise to much climate variability, often strongly regional rather than uniformally global; that there is substantial evidence of the likelihood of the planet cooling, perhaps more compelling evidence of this than for a continuation of the modest warming that began in the 1970s,and that their is a real need to apply Ockham's razor to trim away the IPCC's suspect hypothesis.

One might expect that on a matter of such widespread interest as our planet's climate dynamics the Royal Society of London would be THE champion in promoting vigorous debate of all of the evidence, all of the theories so as to help reveal the truth. One might expect the Royal Society to hold seminars in which papers were presented that brougjhto light the many flaws in teh IPCC's work and, of course, invie the IPCC to address these publicly in a contestable setting.

Thank goodness there are journals like the Spectator and journalists such as James Delingpole who are doing this as the Royal Society of London is so publicly and shamefully taking the IPCC's word about the nature of and explanations for our planet's climate dynamics.

Tom

Fact:- The polar caps on Mars have recently been declining at pretty much the same rate as the Earths! Caused by man too huh?? This proves that the SUN is the culprit, and not CO2. I agree that the global warming argument is one of the biggest money making cons of all time. How can 0.04% CO2 have an effect on global temperatures? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so miniscule it quite simply cannot have any affect at all.(Yes and I am a Geologist too!!). The Earth's climate changes time and time and time again we geologists know that I just wish that the alarmists would too. We are actually in a warm age at the moment, and soon the Earth's climate shall plunge into yet another an ice age...this is the reverse of what the alarmists are claiming. Then it will become 'Global cooling LOL'.

Maximillian

The yearning for the validity of Climate Change scepticism expressed above is distressing for its illumination of the baseness and triviality of the human race. Its all about ME,my existence, my self-fulfilment, my self-expression, MY WAY, and how dare the nature of reality even propose to endanger this all-important, exalted endeavour.

Take a look at a photograph of the Earth, and how much of it is covered in salt water oceans. Now consider that polar and mountain ice is already melting at an accelerating rate, freshening the salt water of the Great Ocean Conveyor at key points. It doesn't even matter if the cause is natural or human-induced warming. With a continuation of this process, the ocean conveyor, which is the engine of global climate, is likely to slow to the point where it will no longer carry heat energy from the south to the north. If this fully happens, the resulting cooling will bring agricultural colapse to North America, Great Brittain, and Europe. The other event that will turn the oceans into the greatest enemy the human race has ever recognised will be the release of deep-sea methane deposits, which may result in the possible extinction of most life on Earth. It has happened before in the geologically "documented" past, and can take as little as a few years to happen. Change in our universe is often exponential: very slow and gradual for a long time then, suddenly, rapid and substantial. You children are bickering about who or what is responsible for an unstoppable freight-train hurtling towards the abyss, not understanding that nothing the human race does at this point will stop what is already inevitable.

I am not of you, and you are not my people.

Fearless Frank

Seems to me the AGW believers have given themselves an argument they can't lose... if we're overwhelmed by AGW catastrophe, they can say "told you so'.
If, more likely, we're not, they can say 'those anti-carbon measures really do work'.
At what point will they claim victory over CO2? Or is this the war that will never end?

Robin Guenier

A bad bet, Gareth Edward Jones.

Unfortunately, the research has not been conducted to determine the conclusion reached by your “1000s of climate scientists around the world”. But, if were, I think it would find they agreed (a) that the world has warmed over the past 160 years or so (by around 0.65 deg C – hardly alarming) and (b) that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and thus contributes to atmospheric warming. But it would not find an agreement that human CO2 emissions were the main cause of warming. Why? Because no one has yet published a peer-reviewed paper setting out the empirical (verifiable by reference to the real world) evidence verifying the dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis.

Your reference to poverty is important. In recent years, the alleviation of poverty has been most marked in two countries: China and India. That has resulted from a massive growth in their economies – based almost entirely on energy from fossil fuels, mainly coal. Meanwhile, poor people in the third world, especially sub Saharan Africa, are being left behind. For them, more expensive energy (an inevitable consequence of CO2 restriction) would mean that yet more already desperately poor people would be unable to access clean water, fresh food, better health care (cold storage for medicines), better education, etc, etc … Almost everything they need would cost more.

How many Africans would you allow to die for the sake of an unsubstantiated hypothesis?

(And, Valentinus, I congratulate the Speccie for having the courage to give this prominence.)

John Halstead

Lomborg should not be tarred with the same brush as fools like Pilmer and Delingpole. Lomborg does not deny climate change. He agrees with the IPCC on their predictions. His crucial message is that prioritisation to save lives may entail not spending very much on reducing carbon dioxide. A fair point, and a largely economic not scientific one.

Jerseyman

I notice that those who use the "denier" rhetorical device do so without any shame whatsoever. Conflating anti-semitism and Holocaust denial with climate change skepticism is a dirty tactic.
Those of us who are history buffs- not scientists- just readers, continue to ask how the Medieval Warming is explained by anthropogenic warming enthusiasts. That is if they've ever heard of it.

Rupert Wyndham

Richard Mackey: The Royal Society has on several occasions made an historic fool of itself.

Absolutely right. In fact so discredited has Carlton House Terrace become that even a scientific layman such as I was able to bring about the closure of website debating forum, not just in relation to global warming but in entirety. A far fetched and empty claim? Through The Spectator I'll be glad to supply chapter and verse to anyone who may be interested.

But to revert to Goerge Monbiot - will he agree to put his money where his mouth is, and actually debate the issues with Prof. Plimer, Mr. Delingpole or (God help us all!) at a pinch, even such as I and do so, moreover, in a measured, rational manner which eschews insolence and innuendo? Or, like the Olympian Mr. Gore or the oracle of Clarence House, will he prefer the soft option of polemical self-indulgence, taking care not to have to wrestle with inconvenient contra-indications to his proclaimed orthodoxy?

One route requires a bit of courage and integrity, the other mere huff 'n puff and chicanery. That's the challenge to Mr. Monbiot. Is he up for it?

RW

WJP

The Climate Sceptics(Party)are going to challenge Gore to debate the science of AGW on Monday 13/07/2009, Melbourne, Australia. Manne's falsified hockey stick will be exhibit A.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/sceptics-to-hassle-al-gore-20090710-dg2u.html

So all you UK climate sceptics, go to our website,

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

join or donate. We intend to contest the senate the next federal election in as many states as possible. Help us to help you!

harbinger

I think the Hadley Centre, the Tyndall Centre and the Government should be allowed a say here:
"Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change" — a summary of relevant research at the Hadley Centre January 2005

"What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.

Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change.

These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases.

The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system."

And the science is settled? Before anyone says that was 2005 and they have learned more, we have been told the science is settled repeatedly for the last 15 years.

How about Tyndall? These extracts from a 2004 paper provide an insight into their propaganda agenda.

"The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change" September 2004.

"Global warming (or climate change) is, without elaboration, a much debated and contested issue. Not only is it contested among scientists, but also among all those with vested interests.

We suggest that, in the realm of the public, forces act to maintain or denounce a perceived reality which has already been constructed. That is, an issue introduced by science (or media for that matter) needs continual expression of confirmation if it is to be maintained as an issue.

In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception.

As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?

To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming."

Sound familiar? The Institute for Public Policy Research, Labour's favourite think tank,had this advice in 2006 for public agencies interfacing with the public.

"Treating climate change as beyond argument"
..it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won.

This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective.

The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach.It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.

Millions of pounds of money are spent on social engineering to get us to accept environmental taxation, to “save the planet”. Unfortunately the opposition are fully signed up as well.

Carpenter

I am not a scientist. CO2 emissions seems to be an area where evidence suppporting either viewpoint can be presented convincingly to laymen. This is clearly a problem and one which makes me feel vulnerable - just like I feel when I take my car in for repairs. Mostly I have to rely on the professional opinion of whichever business I patronize.

But can the anthropogenic aspect of deforestation be denied? Is it not beyond question, that deforestation is just very bad (a simple word for a complicated thing) and that underground and surface fresh water supplies are dwindling?

Mike

Are you seriously suggesting that more than 150 years of industrialisation has had no effect on the biosphere? Do you think your children and grandchildren will thank you for your contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it analysis?

Either way, what's wrong with putting sustainability at the heart of everything we do?

MAGB

The references in Ian Plimer's book show clearly that global climate is complex, chaotic, and poorly understood. Anyone who thinks they can model it is seriously deluded.

Stephen Wilde

For a series of relevant articles about the climate mechanisms and designed for lay readers please see here:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=37

Ray Taylor

As I live in Adelaide, I intend not only to buy Pilmer's book, but I intend to shake his hand and get him to autograph it. I was a Y2K sceptic too. The world has too much hysteria and political correctness.

While I don't think human activity is the cause of any global warming that has occurred I agree there are too many of us and we need to be aware of our polluting effect. All those carcinogens spewed by diesel engines [including those on Bio-diesel] worry me...

helen goulden

debunked here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

Valentinus

Guenier––do you really want me to begin listing the schoolboy science errors in this one? If a GCSE student were to mistake the Sun's rotation for orbital motion around the solar system's centre of gravity, he would get 0 out of 4 in the 2007 GCSE Physics Paper. Shall I go on? How about the view that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, but is instead similar in chemical composition to a meteorite? This is a view that was widely promoted in the 1920s by the Hollow Earth hypothesisers. Tell me this, straight up––do you believe it? Because if you do, then your views on AGW have about as much validity as my cat's.

Clothcap

I challenge every scientist, government and dogma bitten commenter to prove CO2 produced by humans is harmful to climate. Over 2 decades of the best minds and tens of billions in funding. Still waiting.
THERE IS NO PROOF
Just lies, deceit and exaggeration.
Sawdust for brains that need to be spoon-fed facts need to read this:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-1.pdf

Clothcap

PS Thanks Ian Plimer and
James Delingpole.

erthbcoolin

The problem with you Globalists is that while you believe that we are fast using up the worlds resources, you do not mind using Arab oil. You stop us digging up the almost infinite resources in the earth in the U S,U K and Canada - oil,coal,uranium,natural gas,while paying to ship oil from the Arabs. They then use the cash to fund extremist hate-mongers all over the world. God help us all! (I just said that to anger the God-haters!)

stephen cohen

I have read some of the criticism of Plimer's book, which claim that he has made many scientific errors, some of a quite elementary nature. However, the key fact is that global warming has stopped 10 years ago. None of the AGW group can explain this in a satisfactory manner.

Robin Guenier

Carpenter: I too am not a scientist. But I find that simple logic helps to understand the facts about human CO2 emissions. First, it’s surely obvious that “proof” that the world is warming is not proof that human CO2 emissions caused it. So much for allegations about declining polar bears, rising sea levels, etc. Second, the fact that lots of important-sounding people are alleged to agree about something (the so-called consensus) doesn’t mean it’s true. Science is not democratic.

No, since the Enlightenment, science has progressed by the Scientific Method - i.e. that a hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it is verified by empirical evidence (from the real world, not computer models or the laboratory). So, ask for the empirical evidence that, if we emit more CO2, it will force temperatures up to dangerous levels. If there is no such evidence, cap-and-trade, emissions trading, carbon sequestration, etc. are no more than an expensive waste of money.

You don’t have to prove anything. Just insist on that evidence. You’ll find that there isn’t any.

Crystal Bullet

Unless God himself came down to the surface of the planet and categorically assured us the climate was perfectly self-regulating by design, the doubt will continue. It is not climate change or worry about it that is responsible for the economic business cycle or the “boom and bust” wave in history. It is an unidentified malaise that effects confidence and has at its roots disquiet at social ills that were not being adequately answered even at the height of the previous boom. Our ill is that by eschewing nuclear energy an enormous amount of wealth has transferred to Arab nations without requiring them to endorse the spirit of capitalism, but rather spread religion.

Suppose this downturn is bigger than in 1929? We should be asking ourselves that. What does a bigger 1929 mean? We need to stop pre-emptying the scale of this current crisis as being measurable within the previous measure. It was 80 years ago! If the current crisis is not going to be bigger, it suggests in 2089 future man will still be making comparisons with 1929. In our current year of 2009 we are still au fait with the technology of 1929, the motor car. It will not be central to transport debate in 2089.

Plimer is an Australian version of Rime of the Ancient Mariner: “Uranium, uranium everywhere and not a drop to drink”. Should all electricity where possible be generated by uranium fission? Should fossil fuels be reserved for where they are most efficient: the internal combustion engine? As a geologist, what does Plimer think on the viability of electric cars? Is supply of Lithium for batteries realistic? Freeman Dyson is another vehement critic of IPCC. But he has advantage of being privy to nuclear secrets that Plimer doesn’t.

Imagine in 2089 another financial crash. This time it is spread across several worlds, colonised by human beings. Now the issue of fiscal and political independency from “mother earth” raises its ugly head. But they make comparisons with the great crash of 2008. 1929 is irrelevant to them. 2008 was bigger and because the importance of internal combustion engines is forgotten. Freeman Dyson’s nuclear rocket ship is the dominant transport of the day, enabling trade between these worlds.

Which theoretical hurdles need jumped for it to be true? Without a Theory of Accelerative Relativity a spaceship reaching a star quickly would crush the crew as flat as a pancake. Nuclear science is like economics, key to relativity is the yardstick chosen. 1929 was not worst possible. Is there sentient life present on planet outside universal earth gravity? If not, a yardstick to decline relativity exists. Since 1929 the story of oil contrasts strongly against non-exploitation of nuclear. Secrets aside, Dyson and Plimer could question together how Plutonium makes us fear nuclear electricity. They might however consider all aspects of the atomic boon, for which Dyson, a prominent physicist on The Orion Project (1957-65), keeps the oil-lamp burning.

Robin Guenier

Er, Valentinus (whoever you are), perhaps you might consider what I actually said (5:04PM yesterday) instead of sounding off offensively about something else. Whether or not Plimer’s book contains “basic scientific howlers” is irrelevant. My comment was about the Delingpole interview and I commended the Speccie for giving prominence to a barely appreciated fact – that, despite the alarmist stories appearing throughout the mainstream media, the dangerous man-made warming hypothesis has not been verified by reference to empirical evidence.

It’s an important issue. As I said to Gareth Edward Jones, how many Africans would you allow to die for the sake of an unsubstantiated hypothesis?

Travis Bickle

Deniers and Ecofascists alike.

Newsflash ; None of these posing G8 leaders actually give a stuff. (or for a start they'd meet by video conferencing) AGW is simply the current most convenient vehicle for them to control us and sting us for taxes (flying abroad £40 green tax (rising to £85 and more) to plug my budget deficit, thank you very much). It also makes a fortune for the likes of arch hypocrite Al Gore and Stern.

Scientific concensus backs the horse carrying the research grants.

And since few of us will be around in 50 years anyway, who's going to say "told you this was all a waste of time"

Yep the climate is changing, as it always has, will screwing increasing amounts of tax out of us change that, unlikely, but seems to make some of us feel good. Does the science matter - NOT A JOT....

PS If people are so worried about climate change why do they have home computers? Bit of an oxy moron there surely...

R Sanders

Richard Mackey says
"One must get fearful when scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs."

Can you supply even one example of scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs in the field of climate change? If you cannot then you should withdraw that remark.

A. MacAulay

The scepticism of the doubters goes much deeper than the pushing back and forth and search for indisputable facts as evidence. Contributor Bob's reference, for which we should be thankful, to Popper should give all cause to stop hurling un-unproved theories at each others heads.

And is not the divide between the believers and (us)infidels lastly a philosophical one? The natural and robust canon of conservative values called "common sense" perhaps spiked with a little empiricist philosophy balks at the unreflected vehemence and moral supremacy of the believers. We all know, and all history shows it, that this mind-set, no matter which ideology or religion or science it has latched on to, always leads to tears and often enough to tyranny and the letting of blood.

When the institutions which uphold our liberties are infected with this kind of pernicious nonsense then the sky falling on us is nothing as compared to the effort required in putting the world to order again.

Keith

"Environtmentalism is the last refuge of the socialist" Discuss.

Paul

It seems to me that most of today's greens are yesterday's reds. They tried to control our lives then, and they're trying to control our lives now. These neo-Puritans are determined to curb freedom.
Either the climate change mob are wrong, and all the restrictions on our lives are for nothing; or we're doomed anyway and there's nothing we can do about it. So why make our lives less enjoyable in the time left to us?
The one contribution we can all make is to restrict our breeding. That will be of definite benefit to the planet.
Paul in Sunderland.

J Smith

There are no citations, either for the graphics or for the data sets, in figures 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, 42, 44, 50 and 52.
Why is that ? Is this meant to be a scientifically serious book or not ?

Rhoda Klapp

"Can you supply even one example of scientists try to stifle scientific research that produces results that are contrary to their beliefs in the field of climate change? If you cannot then you should withdraw that remark."

OOh, OOH, me sir.

The supression of a papaer by Ababneh following up research on treerings by returning to the same trees used to produce the hockey stick graph. Her results were suppressed. She got the degree, but when asked for the data she referred to her lawyers.

Here's one reference http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2310

Plenty more on that site. Many other examples too.

Boris Karamazov

The good old Sir Thomas Huxley defined science as 'common sense at its best. Rigid accuracy in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic'. The AGW theory fails on both counts.

Take as an example the famous hockey stick. If I have two shirts and buy another one my shirt assets grow by 50%. If I own 100 shirts and acquire another one, the increase is merely 1%. The charting of the shirt asset growth follows a logarithmic curve. So should the relationship (if there were one) between the level of CO2 and the resultant temperature. An increase of 20ppm from 280ppm level should have produced a greater hike in temperature that a similar increase from 360ppm. No question about it.

We would be better off to accommodate to a climatic change rather than attempting to stop it by messing up with the economic engine that made us more comfortable than any other past generation.

Valentinus

Well, Robin, it really is hard to know where to begin with that. Anyone who believes that there is no empirical evidence for AGW either does not know what constitutes empirical evidence or is simply closed to the conclusions one must draw from the relevant facts. There is massive, overwhelming evidence empirically to verify that CO2 levels are rising, that they are in turn raising global temperatures and that the principal cause of that is the industrial activities of human civilization. All this tosh about research grants and consensus cannot disguise this fact. Point me to one major climate study furnishing evidence of AGW that you believe has been corrupted in this way. Since you are such a great empiricist, provide us with the empirical data.

AGW is beyond dispute. But I am with the sceptics in rejecting all the solutions so far proposed and in having marginally more faith that we will find a technological fix to our problems before they overwhelm us.

As for it being 'brave' to promote Pilmer. It would be 'brave' for next week's cover to endorse the view that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax. It would be equally fatuous.

louis beckers MD

While Australians always were my favorite people, because of the indiscipline and their efficiency as the best soldiers during the first world war, I like this professor in particular, because het thinks in exactly the way I do, and because he is right

Richard Sanders

Rhoda

They don't appear to have done a very good job of supressing it.

www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Theses/AbabnehDissertation.pdf

Any more?

Richard

spollo

i remember very well the millenium bug...when the clock struck midnight...planes would fall out of the sky etc.etc. I have an impending disasters file in my office/swine flu/heat wave/millenium bug/ i have been on courses(blow your nose,don't wear an overcoat'drink more water)I manage an old persons home,there is a whole industry built up around bogus threats...it is all about control and taxation and lots of people are falling for it and colluding with it,climate change is natural it is not our fault,spend some of your righteous energies on denouncing real things such as the murder of civilians in wars that we engage in,instead of being spineless gutless namby pamby eco-tosspots.

MP

Funny how people cling to the idea that the Royal Society can't be wrong because it's the Royal Society. This is the same Royal Society who supported the Eugenics movement and initially claimed that powered flight was impossible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth which, contrary to popular belief, is not supported by the majority of respected scientists working in the field. It's not just Ian Plimer, there are thousands of others including the late Reid Bryson - the Father of Climatology - and one the scientists who originally envisioned the failed theory of AGW.

what's the message here?

I am not a scientist, but I know how to read and I am educated. I will start by acknowledging that I have not read Mr Plimer's book and am only basing my comments on this highly supportive article (which does not stimulate me to read the book).

There are a number of issues in this article I find questionable. We all know that there have been huge climatic shifts in the earth's history. However, Mr Plimer (and the gullible Delingpole) seem to be skirting neatly around the fact that there is no historic base line for the kind of human activity we have been seeing over the last 150 years. More surprisingly, Mr Plimer appears to dismiss the validity of other studies focussing on this period. How can he purport to be benchmarking the activities of the last 150 years against historical evidence when this type of activity was never in the picture? From secondary school science I recall that you need to be very careful about setting up a control to test a theory.

I defy Mr Plimer to refute the evidence that, with increasing wealth, prosperity and the comfort of modern technology, the human species has become wasteful to an unprecedented scale. Western civilisation has actively segregated itself from any kind of natural process. We have been creating compounds not normally found in Nature. Of course Nature will win over time, but the last time I looked most scientific theory conforms to ACTION and REACTION. What is the cost of our actions?

I am also not clear on whether Mr Plimer is justifying our clearly wasteful ways? I agree that extinction is a normal life function - when a species is no longer fit for the environment it finds itself in. But what about those species that are being actively eradicated by another short sighted species (are we the new dodo?). Any extinction changes an ecological balance. Is Mr Plimer's theory that we should just let things be and NOT use our superior brain power to ensure own own survival...? No one can deny that The Gore Theory and the reaction to it has been wide ranging and in some cases extreme. However, any social scientist will tell you this is also normal - people position themselves over a wide ranging spectrum. But is the focus of the message to reduce waste a bad one? I think not.

Finally his comments quoted in the article are pretty telling and I find myself asking even more questions: Is Mr Plimer so committed to his profession that he is afraid how its future must evolve if we are able to find better sources of energy over fossil fuels. Is he one of those people who, because they were very poor growing up, feel they have now earned the right to waste? The comment that his publishers were so poor they couldn't even afford curtains is egoistic, condescending and a pretty primitive analogy (BTW Mr Plimer - I don't have curtains and am still doing OK!), which causes me to question the rigour he applies in developing any of his theories.....

What is Mr Plimer's ultimate message? Everything is OK and let's carry on without evolving?

tired of pagans

Look at the temperatures, you goronic, self-deluded, CO2 producing and therefore hypocritical AGW scare mongers. I am fed up with foul-mouthed attacks that come back to us from climate alarmists so decided to return some - see how you bozos like your own medicine.
What a pack of idiots!!! You believe the Royal Society of humans who are capable of lies but not the actual measurements of real world (not idiotic computer model) temperatures, produced by an absolutely honest natural environment, the very thing you claim to want to protect. If hypocrisy has a name, it is Al Gore, and if stupidity has a personality, it is the dirt worshipping manner of a deluded environmentalcase.

Stephen Wilde

Plimer and other sceptics have no problem with accepting that humans need to prevent unnecessary pollution, conserve resources and eventually stabilise population and per capita consumption at a sustainable level.

What is wholly unacceptable is the nonsensical panic over emissions of CO2 which is wholly beneficial for life on Earth and most unlikely to be a significant climate driver.

The wrong diagnosis will lead to desperately wrong decision making and that is where the sceptical position becomes irrefutable.

Robin Guenier

Well, Valentinus, let’s establish first where we seem to agree. Yes, I accept that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that CO2 levels are rising. I accept also the simple physics shows that adding CO2 warms the atmosphere – so, to that extent, AGW is indeed beyond dispute. But I believe there is no such evidence that industrial activities are the principal cause of recent warming – or that our adding further CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous “climate change”. Believe me, I’ve looked for that evidence – not least by dragging myself though the long and turgid pages of the IPCC’s AR4 report and by reading other pro dangerous AGW material. Plainly you have no doubts. So I’d be most interested if you could refer me to any published research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact. The evidence should be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication.

BTW I do not claim that major AGW research has been corrupted.

(In contrast, spollo, the millennium bug was undoubtedly a real problem.)

SteveH

I saw one of the Milliband boys on the Andrew Marr show this morning talking about his upcoming Climate Change Bill and how we must make sure that a predicted 4` rise in the Earths temperature is restricted to just a 2` rise. This by carpeting the country with windmills and getting everyone to put in loft insulation.
But can someone please answer these questions for me that no one seems to put to anyone who spouts off about a 2 or 4 degree rise in temperature?
1. How do you tell the temperature of the Earth?
2. What is it now?
3. Who is going to say when we have amazingly restricted the Earths rise to just 2 degrees?
4. What happens if say the Northern Hemisphere stops rising at 2 degrees but the Southern Hemisphere goes on rising? The more you think about it the more ridiculous it sounds. Am I missing something?

Wilfred

Oh Delingpole, you are such a lightweight prat. You've really done Cameron's green conservatism a gross disservice with this article. Did it ever occur to you to wonder whether a professor of MINING might not be the best person to try to do a Lomberg? Did you attempt to find out whether he has any links with mining companies? From what you write about his attempts to bring down the Rudd government over the Emission Trading Scheme, Plimer is hardly the disinterested scientist. What a fool you are, Delingpole. Stick to TV reviewing.

Crystal Bullet

A time to say “green-shoots” and mean it is when “green” is a dirty word. The heart of the matter is how long the Chinese or Arabs are going to bankroll Anglo-Saxon green lunacy? If you fell into a coma and re-awoke an unknown time later, you'd instantly know if the economic recovery had begun from your hospital bed. That is by watching TV and finding nothing remotely about "green initiatives" being reported. Until then roll-on governments with wherever utter lack of common sense cares to take you!

DaveP

AGW may be right or may be wrong. The subject of climate change though, is far too complicated for anyone to really be an expert. All people can do is to extrapolate from measurements, or run model based algorithms. Again, the assumptions, simplifications, and dropping of certain parameters in a model, markedly affects the result. This is not the fault of the researchers – it is simply a consequence of the fact that the science, such as it is at the moment, is very young, and still developing.

Given these, making decisions on predictions, which do not have the basis of solid science behind it, has the potential to destroy the economies of the West (the East is not buying AGW, and will do so only if it handsomely compensated), is foolhardy.

There is far too much alarmism and hysteria in the debate, most of it deliberately done for self-serving purposes. It has already been pointed out that politicians and energy companies will gain from AGW. In the end though, all will have to pay for haste, when caution would have been far better.

Ayrdale

Wonderful stuff. Green guilt and the green wish list are starting to disgust many of us, and their gamble on the acceptance of CO2 as the driver of an environmental apocalypse is collapsing. Unfortunately for the green/left behind brigade they have bet the house on it...

Steve The Rock

As a geologist and parent, I am split. Personally, I think we should adopt everything that the IPCC and Greenpeace wants. Then when the world is shivering in 30 years time with widespread Third World famine and collapsed western economies, it may also result in the collapse of the pseudo-intellectual left wing "one-world" movement (a movement that is never critical of people like Mugabe). Like the collapse of Communism, these people defended their system to the very end, and no amount of science is going to change their political agenda of control. Sometimes one must let the truth become self-evident. So just let it happen, and when the executions start, maybe we can return to sanity. The pity is, no-one wants to trash the planet, but if a new Maunder arrives, that could be the end of the Green movement forever. As a parent, it grieves me to write this.

Ben Anixter

A breath of fresh air. Keep pushing.

Michael Roberts

Climatologists are no scientists', they are leeches making a living out of junk science. I would listen to a geologist over them any day. Even Obama has seen the light and is backing down along with the Senate on this absurd tax on production and life.

John Childs

I am currently reading Ian Plimer's book. I am not a scientist and neither are some of those who want to attack the book because it does not fit with their view of the cause of climate change. I do not know if Al Gore is correct nor if Ian Plimer is correct but, is'nt it time we stop screaming subjective comments and start being objective and actually look at what is happening to the climate and why? It is about time that actual scientists who work in the area stand up and speak out either for the argument or against it, as they will be doing us all a big favour rather than those who want to have "their" view as the only one acceptable. To do this they must also justify their stand with facts not ideals.

Ted from Sydney

Plimer's book is excellent, as it comes from a scientist whose pedigree and reputation are beyond question. In addition, his research is meticulous and his arguments are powerful. The thrust of his argument is that true science works against consensus, while politics needs consensus. Politicians seek to persuade us that the hypothesis that warming is caused by humans is now 'settled', when Plimer's evidence shows that there is no real consensus at all and that the hypothesis, on many counts, is invalid. Not only that, he proposes several other alternatives to explain warming.

He is a very brave man and the vitriol he has had to endure only adds weight to his arguments, in my view. Plimer's book illustrates that the onus of proof lies on the people who claim that human activity is causing global warming - and that they have not yet proved their case. This is not the first time that clever people have tried to hoodwink others with false claims - Y2K was a massive fraud, for example - and won't be the last.

John Barrett

To those concerned: Paleoclimatology is a branch of Geology (the study of the Earth including it's history). Most of these so-called climatologists(AGW funded probably) produce and rely on biased models not real data. In fact, these models have failed to predict the global cooling in the last decade.

Robin Guenier

I note, Valentenus, that you have yet to provide a reference to the evidence I’m seeking. If you cannot, and I suspect that may be the case, we are facing in the UK a most extraordinary situation.

On Wednesday, Ed Miliband (our – hmm – “Energy and Climate Change Secretary”) will introduce a White Paper requiring us to build 7,000 gigantic offshore wind turbines by 2020. That is, two per day – a practical impossibility. The cost of this vast enterprise will be recovered by a huge levy on our already dreadful energy bills.

Yet this absurd scheme is based on no more than an unverified hypothesis.

Paul Maynard

I stopped buying the Speccie about two years ago for the same reason that I stopped reading The Economist. Both had fallen for the "science is settled argument" and were not challenging Dave and the government's green terror.

This article has restored my faith. I hope Matthew D'Ancona is looking at this blog and the clear majority in eloquent support of Delingpole and Plimer. I have taken a new subscription.

If any doubtful readers wish to look at a complete demolition of the AGW propaganda they should look at the NIPCC report on The Heartland.org website

Regards

Paul

Rhoda Klapp

Richard Sanders, the suppression of Ababneh's data lies in the fact that further papers have been published about the trees by people in the paleoclimatology field who have not used her data, even though it is available, because it doesn't produce a graph showing warming in recent years since the first samples were taken. In other words, they are cherry-picking to get the result they want, rather than mess up the modern end of the hockey-stick graph, which has a high profile in the 'proof' of AGW. When I say suppressed I don't mean men in trechcoats making threats like in the movies, or mysterious accidient. These are not required, when the advocates of a position have control of what gets published. One of the problems is that some groups who should be scientifically neutral have assumed an advocacy stance. When that happens the value of 'peer-review' goes out of the window. This is the end of science and the beginning of politics.

Robin Guenier

Ted from Sydney: Y2K was not a “massive fraud”. It was a serious problem and was largely (not entirely) fixed by the dedicated work of thousands of medium ranking IT professionals doing a mind numbingly boring job – while their more flashy colleagues were busy pumping up the dotcom bubble. Criticise the dangerous AGW scare by all means – you’ll see from my earlier posts that I agree with you – but ill-informed references to Y2K don’t help.

Hamish Pringle

I enjoyed James' article and set about trying to track down Ian Plimer to invite him to speak to the IPA 44 Club, when I found a very detailed rebuttal by Barry Brook:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

Not sure where to go from here!

alan smith

Hopefully, someone with clout will be able to do a Globalwarming-gate and expose the scam. The relentless lies about this con have permeated the whole of our media. I do hope the truth will out sooner rather than later

neil

Robin Guenier
July 12th, 2009 4:24pm

Robin I agree with you, lets look at some facts:

Human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2.

CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and heats the surrounding air.

The global air temperature has been increasing for the past century.

It is pretty easy to convince an untrained individual that those facts show a cause and effect.

A trained person will ask show me the science, physics, chemistry, maths that closes the energgy balance and confirms the cause and effect.

How much CO2 is from human activity? How much energy can it absorb? how much can that raise the temperature?

When you do the science the biggest number you can generate is 0.05C! but the planet has warmed 0.7C? IPCC modellers simply put in a fudge factor then predict the future.

Ignoring a few problems:

The warming period started 200 years before industrialisation.

The geographical record shows that CO2 was at 400ppm (380 now) at the onset of the last iceage. And with the previous two iceages the CO2 was 2000 and 4000 ppm respectively

The planet was 2 deg warmer 2000 years ago when CO2 was at 280ppm

The earths orbit causes a 100K year temperature cycle and we are near the end of the warming phase.

I could go on and on, but man-made climate change alarmists insist, in fact demand that CO2 is the only cause.

In the words of Al Gore:
"Skeptics do not add value to the debate"

Apparently it's only a debate if everyone agrees with him!

John Thomas

Whatever may have been the origin of AGW alarmism - it may even have been honourable - the whole thing was long ago hi-jacked by politicians (of all persuasions), because for politicians, it's like gold - a Trojan horse by which they can con the people into allowing all kinds of reductions to freedom, extensions to State power, taxation unlimited, and all manner of control over their lives (and great personal wealth for themselves, obviously, as Al Gore). No Stalin, or any other totalitarian leader, could have dreamt up anything so beautifully simple and effective. If I were Ian Plimer, I'd be expecting a hitman (CIA directed, or from a hundred other sources) any day. I hope he gets a Nobel prize - but it'll surely be posthumous.

neil

Hamish Pringle
July 13th, 2009 11:04am
"a very detailed rebuttal by Barry Brook:"?

Barry Brook questions the accuracy of a single graph when compared to a graphic representation from a TV documentary and you think that is "a very detailed rebuttal"? What is his detailed rebuttal to the other 492 pages, several hundred other data based graphs and several thousand references?

Antonia

Please, stop mentioning global warming. The soundbite of today is climate change for the obvious reason: not warming any more but cooling.

Fact: scientists around the world make their living from governments' handouts. If they ever proposed a project on global cooling, they wouldn't see a penny.

Advice about CO2: stop breathing and breeding.

James Delingpole

Very much enjoying your comments so far everyone. But especially those of the ones who think TV reviewers shouldn't be taken seriously about anything that's not on TV/the Royal Society is right about everything because its old and dinstinguished its got Royal in the name/the Spectator has fallen victim to an outrageous practical joke from an Aussie con man aided and abetted by a gullible journalist/1000s of scientists can't be wrong/Al Gore is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge/a Professor of Mining Geology must perforce be in the pay of the evil and sinister mining industry/found a page on the internet with a few nitpicking (and as it happens) erroneous criticisms of Plimer's book on the internet by parti-pris computer modelers/fervent warmists and decided you needn't read any further etc. If one of you bothered to read Professor Plimer's book, that would be nice. But in the mean time your rage is bringing me great joy (though please be careful: one very angry man I met once got so cross he burst his sphincter.) As to all you people who are on mine, Plimer's, and by extension the world's and the global economy's side, thanks for your encouragement and wisdom. I think we're winning here by what, about 80 to 20?

Tom Dunne

Robin Guenier.

No you are wrong. Y2K was a fraud.

I was overseeing the required Y2K program at my, then, employer - a Footsie 100 company. It was clear from early days of scoping the project that it was a fraud. The cost was bourne as a window dressing excercise.

Examples of many countries (think Italy for one) where there was virtually no preventative work done on Y2K. The were zero ramifications.

I suspect your passion is due to the fact that you were a "middle ranking IT consultant" slaving over this for a couple of years and became completely myopic.

I was similar, but willing to accept it as 2 years of my working life wasted.

Lance

I have read a large number of the blogs on this thread and obviously very few of the people commenting have read the book, which means their comment is uninformed. I have read the book which runs to 500 pages and contains 2300 references to scientific papers most of which would have been peer reviewed.
Plimer has a distinquished career including Professorial postings at 3 Australian Universities. I doubt that many of the critics on this blog could match his qualifications.
Global temperatures have been falling since 1998, ocean temps. have been falling for the past 5 years, the antarctic ice shelves have been increasing in area for the past 30 years, during which time CO2 levels have been steadily increasing.
Global temperatures were significanty warmer (1 to 2 C) during the medieval warming period (about 1000 yrs ago) and the Roman warming period than today even though there was no industry producing CO2.
How come there was an ice age in the late Ordovincian period while CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today (ie 4,400 ppm).
The AGW idea is a giant hoax.

James

@Bickers
Just to set the record straight: Canute did not believe that he could "turn the tide" - it was his courtiers that thought he could. He was showing them that he was not all powerful. Unfortunately now we are governed and informed by the courtiers and there is no leader with the wisdom of Canute.

As a geologist I am much more likely to believe that Ian Plimers work is closer to a truth rather than climatologists whose work spans a couple of centuries at most.

I can recommend Ben Goldacres book "Bad Science" to those who are not aware of the scientific methods (peer reviews, open access to original data etc.) so that they can make more informed decisions about the various issues here.

Robin Guenier

Look, Tom Dunne, I’m tempted but this isn’t the place to start a Y2K debate. (Google me and you’ll see who I was.) But, yes, a lot of preventative work was done in Italy. And, yes, there were ramifications – but not many, thank goodness. Here’s one from the NHS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1541557.stm. And, to stay on topic, here’s one re global warming: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

For an overall view re finance, see this from the Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/1998/024.htm

Escovado

Looks like the enviro-nazis are having a hissy fit: a sure sign that Dr. Plimer is on the right track.

Robert G

Look at some of the qualifications of people we keep listening to on AGW

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

J Smith

I hope people do take up this book as a sort of Bible for those who deny AGW because it will make opposing them so much easier - there are so many mistakes in this book that any reference to it will be shot down in flames within seconds.

I hope people do try to claim (as Plimer does) that Mt Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans do in one year.
All anyone has to do is quote a proper geology site :

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#CO2
(CLICK ON 'EFFECTS')

Bring it on !

Matthew Hague

At the age of 63., my biggest regret is that I will not be here to tell the ecofacists that they are wrong, gullible and doing immessurable damage to our futures. I live in an area that the Wind Industry is exploiting- at our expense using the arguments of the likes of Gore and Monbiot on a largely scientifically illiterate public. Well done Plimer- lets see if the BBC gives it coverage

Matt

herseyk

What happened to the Ozone hole?

Vivian Godfree

How shocking that a reputable magazine such as The Spectator would publish an article on climate change that contains so many scientific errors. Do you not check the facts before you publish? I had always understood that your magazine was of the highest quality, now I believe that you have fallen prey to a scam. Surely you would understand that a typical denier's technique is to make it sound as though overwhelming evidence is a conspiracy theory. This is a low point in the history of your magazine.

Steve The Rock

Er, do not underestimate Mt Pinatubo. The only years that NZ's greatest winery, Te Mata, did not produce its flagship Coleraine was - 1992 and 1993. Why? Mt Pinatubo. Since then the vintages have been getting steadily better! How about Tambora and "The Year Without Summer"? I'll take warm over cold anyday. Here in NZ, we are shivering our boots off,my Lime tree is in serious trouble and the winters have got colder each year for the past 3 years.

Pedro

Hamish Pringle:
You have come across the opinions of Barry Brook.
Barry Brook is a colleague of Ian Plimer's at Adelaide University. He holds the chair of Climate Change.
You won't be surprised to know this chair is recent. Nor will you be surprised if a true-believer in climate change and in all things "greeny" was appointed to such a chair. He is also a true believer in computer modelling, which is his "big thing".
It was Barry Brook who turned me from a neutral listener into a sceptic over this climate change issue. Not because I have any scientific qualifications but because Barry Brooks' many comments in the media come across as those of a blind true believer and greenie crusader. To Barry Brook there is no time to waste on further argument, the science is settled, the opponents are crackpots, and the end of the earth is nigh. He's as much a doomsdayer as Al Gore. I'm no scientist but I understand the scientific method. So I'm now a sceptic and I'm hearing Ian Plimer.

Paul Shallard

James Delingpole in “Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick” [Spectator 8th July 2009] quotes Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist and supposed master of exposé of the falsehood of global warming, as saying in his opening gambit,
“I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.”

This raises some very interesting questions.

By saying “We geologists” is Plimer not trying to commandeer all other geologists in a single bold presumptive flourish into a sort of grand geological class action against his imagined opposition: those “people pushing AGW [anthropogenic global warming]”? Having moved at a stroke to the royal “We” [geologists of the world!], is he not also implying that he has an irrefutable anchor in the whole 4567 million years of geological history and is thus indulging in big-noting with the largest number he can lay his hands on?

By declaring from his 4567 million year self-assumed superior perspective, that his opposition, the “people pushing AGW“ are “only interested in the last 150 years”, is he not simply trying to write them down the the smallest number he can think of, to make them look as small minded and lame-brained as he can? This trick is essentially a straw man argument in which imaginary unnamed people are simply set up, minimised and then knocked down by asserting the bleeding obvious i.e. that “It [their imagined argument as defined by Plimer] doesn’t work.”? Well of course it does not work, but who ever said it did? Well, errr, only you, Ian Plimer! What shades of Don Quixote...

I am a bloody Aussie too, Ian, and you know that in Oz we tend to call a spade a spade, if not a bloody shovel! I cannot but put it to you straight, mate: your opening statement in Delingpole's article is what is commonly known in Antipodean parts as “pure bullshit.”

Come off the grass, mate, these AGW geezers have actually been known to study data on CO2 concentrations going back at least 670,000 years and generally rest their cases on studies covering many more millions of years. You do not have a monopoly on the past, Ian! This 4567 million versus 150 horse-shit argument of yours is just a set-up. It does not mean you are 4567 million versus 150 times more correct than they are, which is what you seem to be angling at! Honestly, mate, if you can't get through your first paragraph in an article in the Speccie without resorting to false projections and grandiose delusions like this, what hope have you got? Tell you what, it fair gives me the ta-tas about reading your bloody book.

But I'll tell you what mate, you've got this Delingpole cove conned real beaut. He's gone on and on for six pages [in the online edition] shovelling himself further and further in as he goes. Notice how he has hardly got any references to independent scientific findings or objective rational discussion. No it's all mainly just down-putting assertions and ad hominem arguments against your manufactured imaginary opposition. Almost perfect! You even gave him the raw prawn about there being no global heating since 1998 and he didn't even notice or bother to quote you the plethora of data that shows this loony claim is a false. He let the whole post-1998 Arctic meltdown go by without a mention: man that's rich! How did you blind him? In ancient Rome they called this “selling the smoke”. I've got to hand it to yer mate, you're a real pro.

Now I want yer to get in touch with me mate cos we could do a book about them gallahs that perch on gum trees in such numbers that when they all get a fright and all take off together [and forget, as they do, to let go of the branch they're on], they fly away into the sunset with their gumtrees in tow..., and how the Sydney City Council employs special Gallah Officers to keep them off the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House least they perch on them and get a fright and fly off into the sunset with them too.... Not everyone knows what a big problem synchronised nervous gallah take-offs are in Australia...

And yer know their flapping warms the atmosphere up one hell of a lot. Not many people know that this is the main cause behind global warming, which rises, as all heat does, up from Downunder to go all around the northern hemisphere. That's why the Arctic's been melting so much faster that the Antarctica, which will never melt, cos it's so cold down the bottom of the world, yer know. All this bullshit about lots of ice falling off into the sea down there is pure lies, yer know.

But on the gallah issue, we could claim to be the Gallah Monitors of Australia and could attest to this rising heat source just by being the first to claim it, like you've done with all yer geologists, eh! Listen mate, if you can get this Delingpole cove to do us a review, like the one he's done on your climate bullshit book, but on The Gallah Effect, I reckon we could clean up big time. I tell yer, there's money in it.

Give us a call, mate,

Paul Shallard
Auckland
New Zealand

Me

RE: "...that it was caused by a bacteria."

That should be: "...that it was caused by a bacterium."

Ben South

Thanks for joining the 30,000 or so ignored scientists that refute global warming as any kind of science....

Here in the U.S.A. government has determined that absolute control must be exercised over the citizenry...and the global warming hysteria is one way to make massive inroads into further enslaving the "people"

God help us all....

Semper Fidelis,
Ben South

Steve Meikle

Do you really want Plimer to champion any cause you take seriously? His book "telling lies for God" was nothing but an ad hominem rant, think on logic and large on venom.

Yes, Human caused Global Warming is a ruinous myth. And along comes a venomous name caller like Plimer. What good will his spleen do here?

Campbell M

We may need resources to help those affected by the (historically slight) sea level rises we can expect in this end-of-a-post-ice-age period. Mainly because we've been a bit silly and built things in the wrong place. However - where is it all going to go? More government, more bureaucracy, and to satisfy the fantasies of those who think they should be at the centre telling everybody else what to do. So if the expected (historically low) eight inch rise is a problem - well, by the time we get they, the economy will be kind of not exactly able to cope with it.
No body wants to live in a dirty planet. Given the means, people clean up. Listening to this lot, you'd think C02 was S02 or plutonium. Now what we have now is serious moral confusion over basic hygiene.

Al Ford

It is good to see some common sense entering the 'climate change' debate. Why don't politicians inject some honesty into the debate and explain that all they are trying to do is to wean people off imported oil!

Corsican Pirate

No surprise here... the politician's specialty has always been "hot air"..

Mark Heneghan

I'd have been more impressed if he'd presented some data rather than criticisms over time scale, dissuasion through pointing out how much global warming measures cost - arguments by cost alone are pretty spurious, food costs money but I'm willing to pay it - and finally an argument by analogy, that of H Pylori, that sometimes the consensus is wrong, especially as he implies that stomach acid isn't implicated in peptic ulcers, when it clearly is, as anyone taking acid suppression drugs will point out. Show us your facts.

James P

Good article, JD. I was pleased to read the reference to stomach ulcers, which I have often used myself to balance conventional wisdom. Interesting, too, that Barry Marshall, the doctor who demonstrated the action of the h.pylori bacterium was also Australian. It took 30 years for the medical establishment* to accept the proof, however, so I guess we shouldn't hold our breath over AGW!

*Veterinary medicine knew about this 60 years ago, but of course, doctors never talk to vets...

Pops

One of the dirty little secrets in climate science is that the ground-based temperature record, used to assert that recent years have been much warmer than the past, is "adjusted" before making such determinations. Furthermore, if one subtracts the unadjusted numbers from the adjusted numbers, the result - which represents the adjustment itself - is a hockey stick! In other words, the adjustments to the numbers produce the warming, not the actual measured temperature.

Alex

"so who do you believe, the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in the world, or the motley collection of Lomborg, Plimer and a man who would name his daughter 'Nigella'"

Surely, one's daughter's name is highly relevant argument in the 'climate change' (aka 'global warming', aka 'new ice age' aka ....) debate, which, of course - is over.

Sounds a lot like something one would expect to find in the Inquisition's indictment of Galileo.

The only thing one can say is - eppur si muove

Winston

I suppose toxic waste is not a problem either. Dumping it into oceans? Cutting down trees to cook food? Making more oxygen consuming engines? Making more useless for more useless... ah forget it.

Richard

I am American; I like Nigella Lawson. Her dad seems like a decent sort. Rotten teeth, but you don't get "Lord" in front of your name with white choppers. To my ears Lord Lawson seems well enough educated and very reasonable. I know he served in government for many years and didn't get caught stealing or abusing prostitutes so how bad could he be?

Bryan_K

Well done Mr Plimer...I whole heartedly endorse your sentiments...the next ice age is what they should be concerned about..it could happen very quickly and have devastating effects...global warming..bring it on....no..it is all about a "new" way to tax the moronic masses..since when has any politician had any interest in what happens after his or her term in office...power companies will simply pass the tax on to the eager to pay, conscience stricken public...and whilst they are willing to pay the tax...the power companies never will renew their equipment..our prime minister, Rudd the dud has started something that he would rather forget about..he knows that the tax burden would harm the economy...but he has to carry on to save face....I'm in my 70's but if I were 30 years younger I would be very concerned... What I find amusing is when power companies try to interest you in buying "Green Energy"...people are suckers enough to fall for it ....I remember when in the UK in the 50's..we had to have a handkerchief up to our nose because of the coal fires...many parts of the world are still like this..and we should try to help them to clean up their environment...
Oh!..I nearly forgot...what will the tax be spent on...they don't tell you that do they...absolutely useless exercise....Keep it up Mr Plimer..there is a growing voice of support for you..

Gareth

I would suggest checking out monbiots blog

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Antipodian

Mark Heneghan

What century do you live in Mark? Are you still drinking butter milk for your stomach ulcers? I know you poms think you invent everything but how long have you been living in your time void?

Dr Barry Marshall and Dr Robin Warren received the Nobel prize for medicine in 2005 for discovering a bacterium that causes gastritis and stomach ulcers in 1982! No Australian has had stomach ulcers for 25 years!

Mark go see your doctor and tell him your symptoms and he will prescribe anti biotics that will fix you in a week!!!

Thorfinnss

Al (Augustine) Gore's 'A Convenient Lie', defines the post-modern equivalent of Original Sin. Why do we hate ourselves so much? Is this why Lucifer took pity on us and brought us the fruit of the tree of knowledge, self-awareness?

Robin Guenier

Winston:

Yes, toxic waste is a dreadful problem – as are dumping it in oceans and deforestation. Other dreadful problems are the emission of particulates and various dangerous pollutants by internal combustion engines. Yet we are spending vast sums concentrating on eliminating CO2, one of two non-polluting emissions. (The other is water vapour, ironically the main greenhouse gas.) Much the same applies to coal-fired power stations. Genuine “clean burn” power stations could almost eliminate today’s harmful emissions and would be more efficient, reducing the amount of coal burned for a given amount of power. But, instead of focusing on that, we are investing vast sums in nonsensical “carbon capture” systems which may not work and, if they did, would burn more coal, increase costs and, because of the energy used to extract the extra coal and “capture” and store the carbon, probably negate any reduction in CO2 emission.

Mankind produces many toxic pollutants that could be largely eliminated. But instead we are expending vast sums on reducing CO2, a benevolent gas. It’s all quite absurd – and all done on the basis of an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Groan.

Jon

People may find the following website interesting and wonder why these people didn't get the same coverage as the so called IPCC "scientists".
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Andrew Adams

As a geologist I am much more likely to believe that Ian Plimers work is closer to a truth rather than climatologists whose work spans a couple of centuries at most.

I can recommend Ben Goldacres book "Bad Science" to those who are not aware of the scientific methods (peer reviews, open access to original data etc.) so that they can make more informed decisions about the various issues here.

You are aware that the vast majority of peer-reviewed papers on the subject support the notion of AGW, right?

Andrew76

A quick reminder for those quick to dismiss this article under a deluge of "consensus," ie: "Don't you know that LARGE bodies of scientists agree that AGW is real!?"
Science, true science, has absolutely *nothing* to do with democratic consensus. Quite often, scientific models are changed by one person acting alone, or a few individuals acting in concert. Their research challenges the status quo and the text books are rewritten. Point being, go stuff your scientific consensus because it is utterly meaningless in the realm of scientific inquiry, no matter how "royal" the consensus is. You're a fool who does not understand Science if you believe otherwise. AGW is a complete farce.

Andrew Bourget

Reducing carbon emissions means we can continue using those finite resources for longer. Thus I view the "limitations" beeing placed on the release into our atmosphere of carbon, long withdawn from it, as very positive. As for taxes, well, for those not burning any CO2 it doesn't change anything. And for those that are high "CO2 burners" they will change their ways of life and some industries will thus close while others will boom. Human economy, like the climate, changes.... :-)

Jon Hargis

see:
http://www.petitionproject.org

31,478 real American scientists have signed this petition which goes against the fraudulent claims of so called 'environmentalists',
including 9,029 with PhDs.

The real consensus goes against the laughable 'manmade CO2 causes global warming'.

12 years of cooling while CO2 has been rising. That dog don't hunt.

Jon

Robin Guenier

Andrew Adams: since you seem to have reviewed “the vast majority of peer-reviewed papers” (phew – quite an undertaking!), perhaps you’d be kind enough to refer me to those that demonstrate from empirical evidence that our adding further greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. Thanks.

Jason

I think climate change is mostly out of mankind's hands. But Ian makes it really hard to take his books seriously when you do some research on his background and other sensationalist claims. He has a habit of misrepresenting facts to support his pre-conclusions (just like the people he attacks!).

I'd love to think his book was spot-on good science, but I really can't. I wish it were true, but it isn't.

Human's actually do have an effect on the global climate. We may be overshadows by geologic or cosmological events, but we do have a measurable impact.

It is in our best interests to be more conscientious of how our decisions may help or harm the environment. It is a luxury of the well-off, something the poor can't afford to consider. While we are well-off, we damn well better think about it.

Yank G

The past 20 years as seen a dramatic rise in piracy off the coast of Africa.

Global Warming has been on the increase during the same period.

Obviously, pirates are the cause of Global Warming.

Peter Fitzgibbon

And now Hansen's temperature figures are now shown to be falsified - increasing summer temps and reducing negative temps. Nasa has now stated that the actual temperatures will be used.

Jonathan

I was wondering when this wackjob would turn up in the Spectator; he's been beguiling the rightwing press down in Oz for months.

Here's a link to a nice, clean rebuttal of Ian Plimers latest work, featured in The Australian which is usuaully a platform for climate change deniers.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Merlyn

As usual both sides have a point.
"Climate change" due to our activities may be a lie, but its time to have cleaner air and environment for all our sakes. We also need to stop being put over a barrel by the Arab nations. Algae is being used as a great alternative.
http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles^l2025&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Technology

tony kirkby

Thank heaven for Prof. Pilmer. I shall get 20 copies of this book into my wife's bookshop right now.
Speaking as an engineer in the energy industry (which means I'm fortunate to work day-to-day with rock doctors - weird bunch, great company, though...) the selectivity of information presented on global warming (sorry, climate change - couldn't be that's to cope with figures since 1998, could it?) and the simplification of information presented in a good deal of the media - specially the BBC - on this subject to something just below mindless stupidity have left me feeling, well, as Prof. Pilmer says: disenfranchised.
Good on 'yer, professor.

Andrew Adams

Robin Guenier,

I never said that I had personally reviewed them?

See

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

And of course it's the job of the IPCC to review peer-reviewed research and summarise the current state of scientific opinion on the subject.

Andrew Adams

Quite often, scientific models are changed by one person acting alone, or a few individuals acting in concert. Their research challenges the status quo and the text books are rewritten.

Yes, of course. But currently we have a consensus not because the world's scientists are collectively deciding that AGW is real, but because large numbers of scientists acting alone, or acting in concert with a few other individuals, have all independently come to the same conclusion.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about a consensus in that sense.

Andy Cunningham

Jonathan here's my rebuttal to your rebuttal. And funnily enough the ad hominen attacks in your linked rebuttal (and in much of the criticism of Ian Plimer) meld perfectly with your own hectoring style. Just another reason that there are more and more reasonable people listening to the climate change sceptics. My rebuttal to your rebuttal follows.
http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael-ashley-reviews-ian.html

Nik

Even if polar ice has only been present for 20% of the history of the earth, its melting would nevertheless be a catastrophe for the thousands of coastal cities that have been there for even less time.

Climate changes cannot be both cyclical and random. Unless you are a scientific illiterate, like Mr Delingpole.

CO2 is not a pollutant in normal quantities. But the proportions of it in the atmosphere have been steadily growing since the industrial revolution. The ratio between atmospheric and other CO2 is a sublime irrelevance inserted for rhetorical, rather than logical purposes.

Nik

And where is the contrasting evidence? The whole article just states baldly that there is no evidence for global warming, while never telling us why the instances usually put forward as examples don't count. An island in the Pacific was evacuated last month as rising sea levels made it uninhabitable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o2AapO6rK8 Ice shelves at both poles are retreating at dramatic rates. http://bit.ly/lVSsv These are not 'doomsday scenarios' churned out by 'computer models' - they are happening right now.

Unkle Al

Check out this link: http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
Very detailed scientific review of the literature...their conclusion is "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide
and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123)."

ungulate

An an aussie I had to have a chuckle at the bit where he claims (heh, talk about being alarmist) that we'll all go broke thanks to the cap n trade system. The reality is that the government is handing free credits to every large industry so the actual shift in prices is likely to be minimal in the short term. The real story here is the campaign being waged (you guessed it) by the coal and aluminium industries.

NH

Feh, we've not needed anyone to tell us that GW is a hoax perped by the globalists one worlders to tax us, we knew it all along...

Randall

DDT-still dangerous to the environment.
Millenium Bug-fully human created and stopped by.
SARS-still a danger.
AIDS-still infecting and killing mainly in Asia and Africa leaving many orphans.
Bird Flu-could become a dangerous pandemic at any time.
WMD-a fiction made up by the allies to attack Iraq.

Acid rain was reduced when the industries were forced to clean up their smoke stacks. No myth there just reality.

Many have died from heart failure, when you are struck by a bullet in the heart is it normal? The heart stopped like many others before and since or is it artificially made to happen?

CO2 is a component but also methane release was instrumental in the Permian extinction and Cretaceous extinction too, probably. Should the frozen methane hydrate should thaw it would instantly turn to a gas and bubble up to the surface and increase the warming by many orders of magnitude. Don't forget nitrous oxide and many industrial gases that are thousands of times more potent than just CO2.

Just 6 degrees C up or down could radically change whether it is hot house or frozen earth. Just 6 degrees.

We should have been in a cooling trend but are not.

nikki noodle

The only relevent point in this whole debate is the impact on HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

Globablly, we know that temperatures rise and fall and that iceages come and go. AGW has nothing to do with the weather - that does not matter.

But whether 110 million people in Bangladesh, the Pacific rim and parts of Europe have to be relocated does matter.

Regardless whether the actual science is 100% or not.

[And its not polar ice melting that causes sea level rise - it is thermal expansion of the sea water].

Graeme Codrington

As a long time reader of The Spectator, I have always enjoyed and respected your contributor's wonderful use of the English language, good humour and intelligent analysis.

It was therefore surprising - and distressing - to see this article as a lead in your magazine. Plimer and his book have had detailed critique from some eminent scientists, and he has been exposed as a shoddy scientist. At best he has made grave errors, at worst he has deliberately attempted to deceive.

The best compilation of refutations can be found at http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

This is an unfortunate episode for your otherwise excellent magazine.

Jay

Tax and control is what its all about.
I'm
just waiting for a time in the near future when the ice caps are at record levels, temperatures have plunged, and we will be told that it an effect of global warming,
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Global cooling is caused by global warming
(please visit infowars.com)

John Powell

Great to see a book like this. Great to expose the fraud of generating more taxes to waste by invoking green-guilt

Brute

Global Warming/CO2 Emission Regulation, the ultimate political boondoggle.

George Orwell was right.

Marx would be proud of today’s political class.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (sometimes abbreviated to 1984) is a classic dystopian novel by English author George Orwell. Published in 1949, it is set in the eponymous year and focuses on a repressive, totalitarian regime. Orwell elaborates on how a massive Oligarchial Collectivist society such as the one decribed in Nineteen Eighty-Four would be able to repress any long lived dissent. The story follows the life of one seemingly insignificant man, Winston Smith, a civil servant assigned the task of perpetuating the regime's propaganda by falsifying records and political literature. Smith grows disillusioned with his meager existence and so begins a rebellion against the system that leads to his arrest and torture.
The novel has become famous for its portrayal of pervasive government surveillance and control, and government's increasing encroachment on the rights of the individual. Since its publication, many of its terms and concepts, such as "Big Brother", "doublethink", and "Newspeak" have entered the popular vernacular. The word "Orwellian" itself has come to refer to anything reminiscent of the book's fictional regime.

Robin Guenier

This is addressed to those, such as Andrew Adams and Nic, who seem convinced the dangerous AGW hypothesis is settled science. It isn’t. Yes, the world has warmed over the last 160 years or so – by a less than alarming and not unprecedented 0.65 deg. C. Is that a problem? Maybe, but probably not. But problem or not, unprecedented or not, the hypothesis that mankind is the culprit is not supported by empirical (real world) evidence; therefore the dangerous AGW hypothesis remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

For a fresh perspective, consider Darwin. At an early age, he thought that the diversity of life was the result of evolution by natural selection. He didn’t claim his hypothesis was valid because lots of distinguished people agreed with him, nor because the creationists who said God created all life 6,000 years ago were wrong as the earth was patently much older, nor that his was the only answer that seemed to fit the facts, nor because no one could prove him wrong, nor because his opponents held foolish views on other subjects, nor because no one had proposed a better answer – i.e. the various arguments put forward by dangerous AGW proponents. No, he went out and investigated nature and collected supporting evidence in meticulous detail, making it available to other scientists for comment and verification. Only then did he claim that his hypothesis was valid and publish "On the origin of species". That's how science has been practiced from Galileo and Harvey over 350 years ago to the researchers who established the smoking/cancer link or are searching for the Higgs boson today. There is no reason for the dangerous AGW hypothesis to be treated any differently.

It's absurd and cruel to impose a massive additional burden on our already shattered economy and to add to the miseries of many of the world's poorest people on the basis of an unsubstantiated hypothesis. It's certainly not science.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : 'For a fresh perspective, consider Darwin. Only then did he claim that his hypothesis was valid and publish "On the origin of species".'

OK, what is the proof (or what you consider the best piece of evidence) that would convince a Creationist that evolution is FACT ?

P Wilson

Whoever wrote up there: Who would you trust - the Royal society or a bunch of sceptics - or words to that effect - this is tantamount to asking would you trust Galileo or the Church with the truth about Astronomy. The Royal society isn't a serious scientific institution and never strictly has been. They act as a spokesman for the current fashionable theory. Theories are not facts

Robin Guenier

J SMITH – you asked: “what is the proof (or what you consider the best piece of evidence) that would convince a Creationist that evolution is FACT?”

Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them. But I doubt if there’s any that would.

Enrique

I find it truly remarcable that a professor in geology, used to look at earth's natural history over eons, dismisses observed -and well documeted - changes in temperatures over many decades just by observing two years of differing data. Times series building the correlation between temperature increases and human emissions of CO2 can be found at any decent meteorologic institute. By the way, are geologists also experts in meteorology? I'm sure there are, but Mr. Dr. Plimer only claims to work on geology, so excuse me if I doubt his self-claimed expertise on the subject matter. I also find it truly amazing that this man claims that climate change is a fraud invented by environmentalists and some dubious green-energy companies to get rich at the expense of everyone else. Where have I heard that before, that climate change is a bunch of bull*#@* invented by some con-artist to terrorize the rest of the world and get rich in the meantime, and that we have really nothing to worry about?? Oh yes, I've heard it from coal mining industries, oil companies and others that employ geologists!!

Robin Guenier

Enrique: you write about a “correlation between temperature increases and human emissions of CO2”. But correlation does not prove causation.

In any case, there is no correlation. CO2 concentration has risen by over 30% since 1940 (by 8% since 1990). Yet temperatures fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998 and fell thereafter. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 of warming.

Enrique

Robin: I wonder where you get your information from, pitty you don´t say... but I guess you argue based on Mr. Plimer´s book. Take a look instead at these average annual temperature changes since 1880. I hope you don´t fail to see the tendency to increase...unless of course you think NASA is full of fake scientists and the only reference we need is Prof. Dr. Plimer. Or maybe your monitor is upside down...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Wait a minute, here´s another source, but it´s probably also fake since it´s from the Max Planck Institute

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2005/pressRelease200509301/index.html

Robin Guenier

Enrique: you’re right there’s been a “tendency to increase” since 1880 (and before): from 1850, the global temperature has increased by (a hardly alarming) 0.65 deg. C or so. A good reference is the UN IPCC’s latest AR4 report (as are your NASA graphs – although they don’t start until 1880). I chose 1940 because that’s when man’s GHG emissions started to accelerate (see Figure SPM 1 of the AR4 Working Group 1 report) and any correlation should therefore be particularly noticeable. It isn’t. Given your interest in correlation, however, you may wish to note that in 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 the global temperature warmed just as fast than it did in 1976-1996 – despite the far lower CO2 concentration (again see the AR4 report).

Another reference (UK Met Office) is here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hadcrut3_bar.png

And, to see the recent relationship of temperature and CO2 emissions, see this: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2.jpg

So much, I suggest, for correlation. In any case, as I said before, correlation doesn’t prove causation. Surely you know that?

Enrique

Dear Robin: It´s really interesting that you refer me to icecap.us. Surely you have read this too: http://icecap.us/docs/change/Land%20Use%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
And quoting from your own source, with reference only to land use change:
“change and variability in land use by humans and the resulting alterations in surface features are major but poorly recognized drivers of long-term global climate patterns …these
spatially heterogeneous land use effects may be at least as important in altering the
weather as changes in climate patterns associated with greenhouse gases.”
Interestingly you also deliberately avoid to mention that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere coincides with the intensification of the use of fossil fuels, especially after 1950. Many do see quite a valid correlation there between human activity, the increase in atmospheric CO2 and climate change. Among those who see a correlation, and a direct influence on climate variability is the IPCC, and their fourth assessment report (which you cite) states on page 14 "Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004". Furthermore you can read in the same report on page 11 "Changes in the ocean and on land, including observed decreases in snow cover and Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, thinner sea ice, shorter freezing seasons of lake and river ice, glacier melt, decreases in permafrost extent, increases in soil temperatures and borehole temperature profiles, and sea level rise, provide additional
evidence that the world is warming". This coincides with an increase of the concentration of GHGs, namely CO2. On page 14 of the same report, you will see a nice graphic depicting the sources of CO2, of which the bulk accrues to the use of fossil fuels, second place is given to deforestation. Now, who is responsible for these two? Humans? Indeed! Here´s the reference to the IPCC´s fourth assessent report for you (or anyone else) to peruse: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Finally, quoting your comment from july 12th you state " Yes, I accept that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that CO2 levels are rising. I accept also the simple physics shows that adding CO2 warms the atmosphere", the only fact you have troule accepting is that humans play a key role in the increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. But the data is there for anyone to see. The problem is not going to go away by simply saying "no that´s not true, and the evidence is not conclusive enough". Surely there is a lot that still needs to be understood about climate change, but to pretend that human activity does not play a role in it just because we don´t fully understand it´s impact is rather negligent.
So, I´d love to stay arguing but I have more entertaining things to do. I wish you all a nice, warm summer.

Sourcier

WOW! You certainly opened a can of worms here. The pseudo-religious Green Meanies are pretty upset at being exposed as the gullible nitwits they are. It is encouraging to learn that a geologist feels compelled to point out that most of the scientific evidence available proves the AGW believers wrong. The record of the rocks indicates what has happened to the planet in the past, and the research carried out by Milutin Milankovitch indicates believable cyclical effects which control the polar ice caps and the seasons.
Who are the deniers now? I reckon the meanies fit the bill!

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "Given your interest in correlation, however, you may wish to note that in 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 the global temperature warmed just as fast than it did in 1976-1996 – despite the far lower CO2 concentration (again see the AR4 report)."

I'm no expert in trends and statistical significance, but why are you comparing periods of different lengths ? Wouldn't it be more significant to choose periods of equal length if you want to make a closer comparison ?
Also, why have you chosen not to include 1998 in your final period ?

john sylvain

Thanks Mr Plimer for writing the truth about the huge con game that will cripple the world if it is not shown for what it is

P. Wilson

Enrique. I'd ignore the IPCC'sconclusions. They fit the paradigm, which is political, but not the facts, which are scientific. If 3%pa of c02 is anthropogenic, then its physically impossible for total c02 exchanges to be anthropogenic. Ib FACT they are mainly oceanic and natural vegetation based, both diurnally and seasonally. Also, c02 elevations at the moment are from long term ocean changes. There is a delay between prior warming and its release into the atmosphere

Liam O'Neill

OMG! Plimer ought to talk about 'torturing the data'(I love that) and scientific fasionistas. Hasn't it been the same with evolutionary theory since Darwin and quantum physics since Einstein? Is Prof. Plimer, the ardent anti creationist theory crusader now admitting we actually don't know everything? Well I'll be a monkeys uncle.

Curtis Turner

If we follow AL Gore's thinking, we can all become neanderthals, live in caves and save the earth from disaster. Al Gore is becoming rich on our stupidity. Gore is not a believer because he does not walk the talk.

P.Wilson

As to whether c02 can cause temperature change or not - its quite rudimentary. C02 absorbs 15 microns of long wave radiation, after which its "saturation window" closes. The effect of any more c02 after that is not existant. That is, more c02 doesn't absorb more heat, as its a logarithmic process. So no, c02 doesn't affect the temperature.

P.Wilson

As to whether c02 can cause temperature change or not - its quite rudimentary. C02 absorbs 15 microns of long wave radiation, after which its "saturation window" closes. The effect of any more c02 after that is not existant. That is, more c02 doesn't absorb more heat, as its a logarithmic process. So no, c02 doesn't affect the temperature.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You will have noticed from my exchange with Enrique that his position was that, because A happened when B happened, A must have been caused by B. That is clearly illogical (although he ran off to do “more entertaining things” still insisting upon it). I referred to 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 as an illustration not as a statistical analysis: I thought it might help him to note that, twice in the past 160 years, A (i.e. global warming) happened when B (i.e. the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere) was present to a significantly lesser extent than now; therefore it seems probable that some other factor(s) (D and/or E and/or F …) caused A then, and may also have caused it more recently.

As to 1998, its inclusion would make no difference to my point. I excluded it because it appears uncontroversial that that year was an outlier when warming was either caused or exacerbated by an unusually strong El Nino. Sceptics like to exclude it because it lessens the warming trend up to 1998 and AGW proponents because it lessens the cooling trend after 1998.

Robin Guenier

The deniers, Sourcier, are those who deny that recent warming may have had natural causes.

Josh

"up to my neck in s***".
Indeed.

Josh

I hope everybody enjoyed the irony here. Plimer firstly claims that most climate scientists are wrong because they lack "understanding of scale", just concentrating on the last 150 million years. Then he tries to claim we're in a cooling phase because some recent years were slightly cooler than 1998. Note that the following 9 years were in the all time top ten hottest; 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Also note that our species have only been about for 200,000 years, a blink of an eye, so the fact that "ice has been present on earth for less than 20% of geological time" is not very comforting.

Josh

A question for those who agree with Plemin! can someone briefly explain to me why the governments of the world are promising (reluctantly) to curtail their releases of carbon dioxide, at HUGE cost to the carbon-hungry economies, if there are smart chaps like Plemin who can show that they don't need to? Why isnt every government and every international fuel guzzling corporation throwing millions at scientists like him to prove the mainstream wrong?

P.Wilson

As to whether c02 can cause temperature change or not - its quite rudimentary. C02 absorbs 15 microns of long wave radiation, after which its "saturation window" closes. The effect of any more c02 after that is not existant. That is, more c02 doesn't absorb more heat, as its a logarithmic process. So no, c02 doesn't affect the temperature.

P.Wilson

if you do some proper research, the hottest years on record were in the 1930's and only three from the top 20 were in the last 20 years. NASA admit their logarithmic calculation errors in reaching the prior conclusion of the record of the last 20 years. Yet none surpass the hottest year of 1900

Robin Guenier

Josh: you ask “why the governments of the world are promising (reluctantly) to curtail their releases of carbon dioxide …”. An excellent question – although (a) it applies only to the developed Western economies and not, for example, to China and India and (b) Western governments’ promises do not appear to be even reluctant. A tip: you may perhaps have noticed that Western governments not uncommonly take actions that turn out to have been mistaken and where they might have done well to listen wiser counsel. I suggest that recent examples are their invasion of Iraq and their encouragement of banking excess.

But I think you may find the answer to your question here: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=202. It’s a comment, interestingly enough, on another article in the Speccie, this time by Cass R Sunstien, author of the much-admired “Nudge” and an adviser to Obama.

And, Josh, I’m not sure what your point is in referencing what you describe as “the all time top ten hottest” years. “All time” since when? It was almost certainly warmer only a few hundred years ago. Moreover, the years you mention were only so “hot” (a tiny increase of 0.65 deg C since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850) because they were built on the periods of warming experienced in 1860-1879 and 1906-1940 (when mankind’s CO2 emissions were modest): see my posts to Enrique and J SMITH above. In any case, it remains a fact that the world has been cooling since the beginning of this century.

Rob-on-the-job

@ Josh
Why isn't every government and every international fuel guzzling corporation throwing millions at scientists like him to prove the mainstream wrong?

Your above question does not need an answer as everybody knows that no one really gives a moo about all that poo.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "As to 1998, its inclusion would make no difference to my point. I excluded it because it appears uncontroversial that that year was an outlier when warming was either caused or exacerbated by an unusually strong El Nino."

So, does that mean you would expect such a high temperature anomaly to be exceeded in the near future or not ? Also, do you believe that this decade will be the hottest decade on record, i.e. hotter than the 90s, which included that 'outlier' ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You asked me if I expected the temperature anomaly of 1998 “to be exceeded in the near future or not”. I have no idea. I am unable to forecast temperature. Likewise, I have no idea about the likely temperature of the current decade, except to observe that, so far, it has fallen slightly.

I would, however, refer to my answer to Josh at 4:28pm: “It was almost certainly warmer only a few hundred years ago. Moreover, the years you mention were only so “hot” (a tiny increase of 0.65degC since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850) because they were built on the periods of warming experienced in 1860-1879 [0.39degC] and 1906-1940 [0.56degC] (when mankind’s CO2 emissions were modest): see my posts to Enrique and J SMITH above.” I think no sensible person disputes the fact that the world has warmed since about 1850. So it's no surprise that it's warmer now than it was then..

The question that matters, however, is not whether the temperature has warmed, but why it has warmed. Various hypotheses have been suggested, but none has yet been validated by empirical evidence.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "Likewise, I have no idea about the likely temperature of the current decade, except to observe that, so far, it has fallen slightly."

As you seem to be someone who knows something about these things, I can't see how you can write that. You know, as well as I do, that this decade so far has a higher trend than last decade. Are you really denying that ?

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "It was almost certainly warmer only a few hundred years ago."

Are you stating that as a fact or as a supposition ? If the former, could you let me know where you get your information from ?

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "The question that matters, however, is not whether the temperature has warmed, but why it has warmed."

Are you saying that the temperature is warming or cooling at the moment ?

Bart Brooks

We accept that if you put your hand out and it's raining; that its raining. I live in Canada. The last three winters have been colder and colder. If it was getting warmer the global warmers would be first to point to it. Why won't they accept that despite everything, it's getting colder?

J SMITH

Bart Brooks wrote : "I live in Canada. The last three winters have been colder and colder. If it was getting warmer the global warmers would be first to point to it. Why won't they accept that despite everything, it's getting colder?"

What part of Canada do you live in ? I ask because I was under the impression that the Winter of 2006/7, for example, saw cities like Quebec and Ottawa with their first snow-free Christmas in decades. Is this not correct ?

Also, the observed temperatures from the Canadian Weather Office shows warmer/normal temperatures during Winter, except for a swathe of the South last year :

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2005&type=t

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2006&type=t

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2007&type=t

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/charts_e.html?season=djf&year=2008&type=t

I guess it feels different when you are on the ground ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You seem to be obsessed with my view on whether the world is warmer now than it was a few years ago. No problem: if you compare the current temperature with that in, say, the 1990s, it is. Moreover, the world was warmer in the 1990s than in the 1890s. So the centennial trend is clearly upwards.

The important question, of course, is not *whether* it’s warmed but *why* it’s warmed.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "The important question, of course, is not *whether* it’s warmed but *why* it’s warmed."

But the IPCC (based on thousands of studies) and most studies since, have stated that it is mainly due to CO2 released by us.
What do you think it's due to and what do you base your belief on ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You ask what I think is the cause of global warming. I don’t know.

It’s interesting that you base your belief that it’s mainly caused by CO2 released by us on the IPCC and its “thousands of studies”. You should find it easy, therefore, to direct me to just one item of published research, referenced by the IPCC, that demonstrates unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact. The evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication – i.e. normal scientific procedure.

A tip: the reference should be in AR4, Chapter 9. I’ve looked and I can’t find it.

Liam VENNER

Remember The KYOTO Protocol, based on the work of the Montreal Accord is an effort by the World Bank thru the auspices of the United Nations to empower those Member States that want to, to Tax and Regulate their Citizens using the Environment as the excuse.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: further to my latest post, if you cannot locate a study compliant with my definition in the IPCC report, please identify an appropriate study from amongst your “most studies since”. Thanks.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "You should find it easy, therefore, to direct me to just one item of published research, referenced by the IPCC, that demonstrates unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
(Chapters 2 to 5)

However, as you previously noted :

"Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them [CREATIONISTS]. But I doubt if there’s any that would."

Does that apply to those who deny the effects of man-made CO2 ? Maybe your reply will reveal all.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

Providing a link to the contents list of the IPCC report is pathetic: a contents list isn’t evidence. Surely you understand that.

I’ve read that report (have you?), some of it several times. I was unable to find any reference in it to published data as I defined at 3:40 this afternoon. Presumably you think it’s there. OK – all you have to do is identify it for me (as i said before, it should be in Chapter 9). Thanks.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "I’ve read that report (have you?), some of it several times. I was unable to find any reference in it to published data as I defined at 3:40 this afternoon. Presumably you think it’s there. OK – all you have to do is identify it for me (as i said before, it should be in Chapter 9). Thanks."

As you wrote previously : ""Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them. But I doubt if there’s any that would."

In this instance, I would use 'denier of man-made Climate Change' for 'them', and I thank you for confirming your own assertion. As you have stated, no evidence would ever convince those who don't want to know but I still urge you to read those Chapters I mentioned previously.

Robin Guenier

So, J SMITH, it seems you cannot find that evidence (as defined at 3:40 yesterday) in the IPCC report. Interesting.

Unlike you it seems, I’ve read those chapters and I assure you they contain many examples of the report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. Here’s one:

It admits to areas of uncertainty – notably solar forcing and cloud feedbacks, where its assumptions have not been validated in the real world, but by computer models. Further, it’s based exclusively on the period 1976 to 2000, thus ignoring the factors applicable to previous temperature changes (see my earlier comments on this). Therefore, the report is not unambiguous (compare, for example, the certainty of the evidence for the smoking/cancer link), not empirical and not capable of independent replication. In particular, it fails to demonstrate empirically a link between adding further GHGs to the atmosphere and a dangerous increase in global temperature. And that’s the link that matters.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

It refers to “projections of future climate change”. It's specific about this, making it clear that “projections” are not “predictions” – so it doesn’t even try to show that adding GHGs *will* lead to a dangerous increase in temperature. Yet that’s the essence of what’s required.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

It refers to projections “for a range of SRES emissions scenarios”. But these (from IPCC “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”) were defined in 2000 and were much criticised by economists even then. Yet here we are nine years later and the global economy is utterly changed. So the whole “projection” edifice (see my previous post) is built on a meaningless base.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

Its first “projection” is that, for the first two decades of the 21st Century temperatures will increase by “about 0.2 deg C per decade”. Not completely impossible, I suppose, but so far it looks exceptionally unlikely. That alone seriously undermines its credibility.

Robin Guenier

Here, J SMITH, is another example of the IPCC report’s inability to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adding further GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming:

Look at the report of Working Group 1 and especially at Table SPM2 on page 8. You’ll see it lists seven “Phenomena” – including, for example, “Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” and “Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas”. Of these, for five the “Likelihood of a human contribution” is assessed as “more likely than not” and, for the other two, as “likely”. Not one is assessed as even “very likely”. Most important, however, is that the assessment (according to the column’s heading) is of “a human contribution”. That’s all – not “due to” or some other reference to causation. After all, a “human contribution” could be as little as 1%. So it isn’t remotely close to showing that human GHG emissions are the cause of anything. Moreover, for four of the seven phenomena, a footnote (f) says “Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies”. This last appears to amount to little more than guesswork and doesn’t begin to meet my request that the “evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication”.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I could add to the above but it’s becoming tedious. Quite obviously the IPCC report does not meet my request for an unambiguous demonstration from empirical evidence that our continuing to emit GHGs will cause dangerous warming.

If that’s really the best you can do, I suggest your only logical conclusion is to accept that you must become, at least, an agnostic on this issue.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "If that’s really the best you can do, I suggest your only logical conclusion is to accept that you must become, at least, an agnostic on this issue."

As you wrote previously : "Well, there’s plenty of evidence that should convince them. But I doubt if there’s any that would."

There is plenty of evidence for evolution and man-made global warming (and no definitive proof) but, as we both acknowledge, you cannot convince those who don't want to know. Same with the theories of gravity and the Big-Bang.
I guess there are some who just cannot believe, for their own personal reasons. What are yours ? Is it to do with not wanting to pay extra taxes ?

J SMITH

TO ROBIN GUENIER :

Realising that you have probably already dismissed anything by the IPCC, so any proof in there will not be recognised by you, I have another link for you to look at, from the PEW CENTER and released in June 2009.
As in the theory of evolution (which you seem to believe in, even without the definitive proof for it), this just adds to the body of knowledge which points towards man-made global warming :

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Key-Scientific-Developments-Since-IPCC-4th-Assessment.pdf

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I’m not looking for proof – apart from the mathematical sciences, science doesn’t require proof. Science progresses by establishing solid verifiable empirical evidence supporting a hypothesis. If you had specifically identified such evidence from the IPCC report, I would certainly recognise it. But you haven’t. The Pew Report contains references to a lot of interesting research into the effects of warming but, re human causation of that warming, only assertion, “attribution” and “links” based on computer models. Solid empirical evidence isn’t there.

My position is this: (1) I agree that the world has warmed since at least the mid-19th Century; (2) I agree that physics shows that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere warms it; but (3) as I have not yet seen any empirical evidence (i.e. the type of evidence that verifies evolution or the smoking/cancer link) that man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of recent warming, I remain unconvinced about dangerous AGW.

When I see that evidence, I’ll change my mind. You’ve failed to provide it.

Lenore Smith

Wonderful article. Can't wait to get enough money to get a copy. Probably have to order it though since the local bookstore is so "AGW" oriented that this book would probably not even be stocked. Glad to here his argument about time, one of my favorites to use when I'm talking with people who don't bother to bone up on anything once they have left high school. Just think what is being spoonfed to our children.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "...as I have not yet seen any empirical evidence (i.e. the type of evidence that verifies evolution or the smoking/cancer link) that man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of recent warming, I remain unconvinced about dangerous AGW."

Could you let me know the type of evidence that verifies evolution ? I ask because if it exists, even a Creationist couldn't deny it, surely ? It would be helpful for the next time I have a discussion with a Creationist, if I could say 'Here we are, this proves it beyond reasonable doubt'. It should stump even the most die-hard Creationist !

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: you asked me to let you know “the type of evidence that verifies evolution”. Very simply, it would be empirical (real-world, physically observed) evidence. And a vast quantity exists – from the fossils of the land-based ancestors of whales, through Darwin’s Galapagos finches to the chromosomes of the great apes and DNA sequencing in the SARS virus. Of course, none of this is proof – but, as I’ve said, except for the mathematical sciences, science doesn’t require proof. I doubt, however, if it would convince your creationist friends: as we’ve noted, their position is essentially based on belief, not science.

What is especially relevant to our discussion, however, is the overwhelming difference between the character of the above evidence, drawn robustly from the outside world and verifiable by independent research, and that of the alleged “evidence” you refer to (you still haven’t identified anything specific) in the IPCC and Pew reports which is based on assertion, opinion, conjecture and the outputs of computer models.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge this difference suggests to me that your belief in dangerous AGW is akin to your friends’ belief in creationism.

Rupert

I am not sure whether Plimer should be very pleased or desperately saddened by this article and the responses to it.

Pleased: front page promotion and two page glowing article in a national magazine. "Land mark book", "change forever we the way we think". How good can it be? Not bad for someone who is being 'suppressed'.

Disappointed. I haven't read the book and this piece of hagiography has nothing in it to give me a reason to do so. Delingpole's article fails to mention one single insight or new fact. The article repeats inane points (yes, we all know the earth's temperature has changed over time: that is neither news no an argument one way or another over AGW) or hilarious misunderstandings to the level Prof Plimton could probably sue for libel, unless he is happy with such errors.

The same is true of most of the posts in this discussion.

There may well be a debate about climate change, but most of these comments need to do a bit more research before they can add to it.

Ideas like "long term trends" as opposed to "short term variation" shouldn't be news to the readership: so why do people point to last years weather as though it proved anything about a 200-year pattern? If the FTSE went up yesterday does that prove the economy is actually doing fine after all?

The science behind climate change comes from proven fact (CO2 is a 'one way valve' for heat), logic (if there is more CO2 that one-way valve will trap more heat) and observation (CO2 level increases 50-100%) then it will trap 50-100% more heat.

Anyone disagreeing with AGW needs to do something about that chain of logic (dating back 150 years by the way, not a recent 'hippy' idea).

The fact that temperatures were indeed higher in geologic time and there were mass extinctions, as Plimer notes, is a source of worry, not reassurance.

person in New York

My guess is that all the global warming alarmists will admit they are wrong about the same time the Obama voters admit they were wrong.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "And a vast quantity exists – from the fossils of the land-based ancestors of whales, through Darwin’s Galapagos finches to the chromosomes of the great apes and DNA sequencing in the SARS virus. Of course, none of this is proof – but, as I’ve said, except for the mathematical sciences, science doesn’t require proof."

Glad to see that you acknowledge that there is no real proof for evolution, as there isn't for man-made global warming - simply a vast amount of scientific evidence. Your 'proof' for evolution (which convinces you, anyway) is obviously no such thing, if anyone wants to argue against it. Fossils are not proof of any link between whales and land-based creature - just accepted theory. The Galapagos finches have no connection with the evolution of man. The chromosomes of the Great Apes could, of course, just be coincidence. DNA sequencing of a virus has no link to man's evolution.
See, no real evidence - just theories, consensus and science that we all have to trust is being reported correctly by the scientists involved. Just like man-made global warming so thanks for making that connection.
How about the Big Bang theory ? What is it, despite the lack of empirical evidence, that convinces you to believe what you are being told ?

Rob

Rupert

"The science behind climate change comes from proven fact (CO2 is a 'one way valve' for heat), logic (if there is more CO2 that one-way valve will trap more heat) and observation (CO2 level increases 50-100%) then it will trap 50-100% more heat.

Anyone disagreeing with AGW needs to do something about that chain of logic (dating back 150 years by the way, not a recent 'hippy' idea)."

In that case, problem solved, AGW is false. Your statement that CO2 is a one-way heat trap is plainly false. If it were true, the Earth would have overheated long ago.

Rupert

I am not sure whether Plimer should be very pleased or desperately saddened by this article and the responses to it.

Pleased: front page promotion and two page glowing article in a national magazine. "Land mark book", "change forever we the way we think". How good can it be? Not bad for someone who is being 'suppressed'.

Disappointed. I haven't read the book and this piece of hagiography has nothing in it to give me a reason to do so. Delingpole's article fails to mention one single insight or new fact. The article repeats inane points (yes, we all know the earth's temperature has changed over time: that is neither news no an argument one way or another over AGW) or hilarious misunderstandings to the level Prof Plimton could probably sue for libel, unless he is happy with such errors.

The same is true of most of the posts in this discussion.

There may well be a debate about climate change, but most of these comments need to do a bit more research before they can add to it.

Ideas like "long term trends" as opposed to "short term variation" shouldn't be news to the readership: so why do people point to last years weather as though it proved anything about a 200-year pattern? If the FTSE went up yesterday does that prove the economy is actually doing fine after all?

The science behind climate change comes from proven fact (CO2 is a 'one way valve' for heat), logic (if there is more CO2 that one-way valve will trap more heat) and observation (CO2 level increases 50-100%) then it will trap 50-100% more heat.

Anyone disagreeing with AGW needs to do something about that chain of logic (dating back 150 years by the way, not a recent 'hippy' idea).

The fact that temperatures were indeed higher in geologic time and there were mass extinctions, as Plimer notes, is a source of worry, not reassurance.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

You say that “there is a vast amount of scientific evidence” for man-made global warming. Of course it’s true that, if you release CO2 into the atmosphere, it will warm it. That’s simple physics. But will that warming be dangerous? Well, far from “a vast amount”, there is no empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that it will. It seems you disagree. OK – produce some. So far you’ve failed.

Your blind refusal to acknowledge the huge gulf between “the vast amount of empirical evidence” supporting (not proving) the theory of evolution and the complete lack of empirical evidence supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis, is interesting. As I said before, it seems your belief in dangerous AGW is akin to your friends’ belief in creationism.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "As I said before, it seems your belief in dangerous AGW is akin to your friends’ belief in creationism."

It's interesting you should link AGW and Creationism : Creationism is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on evolution; Denial of AGW is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on Global Warming. They are very similar, aren't they, and are even directly linked by a scientist call Roy Spencer who is a Creationist who denies AGW. One seems to follow naturally from the other, and many who are Creationists also deny AGW. I wonder why that is ?

You didn't reply to my other question : If you believe in the Big-Bang theory, why do you do so without any empirical evidence ? Or do you, as in AGW, deny the Big-Bang theory for that reason ?

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I suggest you try doing some homework. Produce some specific empirical evidence for dangerous AGW – not just references as to where it might be – and I’ll take you seriously. Not otherwise.

Steve Ford

Irritatingly, neither Plimer nor any of the contributors to this thread are going to live long enough to say 'told you so!' - whichever way it turns out.
My own view of the words I have just read is that Plimer is unconvincing - there is, in any case, so much more to environmentalism than climate change. We are in the midst of a concatenation of adverse developments, downgrading even one of the larger ones does not alter the urgent need for change in the way we look after the planet.

Rob

J Smith

"It's interesting you should link AGW and Creationism : Creationism is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on evolution; Denial of AGW is the denial of the body of evidence and consensus on Global Warming."

What utter rubbish. The evidence for evolution is currently incontrovertible and does not rely on any consensus. The Earth is (roughly) round; consensus has no bearing on this fact. AGW doesn't have any evidence, only hypothesis and modeling, whereas evidence for natural climate change is available in abundance, as Dr Plimmer clearly understands and J. Smith does not.

Sceptics do not deny the evidence for AGW; they assess it and point out that it's mostly inadequate or just plain wrong.

There is a large body of science that suggests AGW alarmism is unwarranted and it is AGW supporters that are denying this evidence. Those who refuse on principal to read Dr Plimmer's book are cleary indicating that they wish to deny any evidence that doesn't support AGW. They have complete "faith" and no evidence could ever change their minds.

For the record, I am not a creationist.

neil

J SMITH

What evidence? That's all we hear from AGW proponents "the over whelming body of evidence" The only thing missing is the evidence. What is it? where is it? how does it work?

No AGW supporters ever actually answer those simple questions they use vague rhetorical replies like, "no reputable sceintists disagree", "there is no point in wasting my time telling you because you are a denier". No more rhetoric, show me the money! WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE!!

J SMITH

Rob wrote : "The evidence for evolution is currently incontrovertible and does not rely on any consensus."

Could you show me where I can see the evidence for the jump from non-life to life ?
Could you show me where I can see the evidence for the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees ?

Robin Guenier

Rob and neil: you’re both right about the lack of real-world evidence for dangerous AGW. BTW, I wouldn’t bother getting into an off topic debate with J Smith about creationism etc. See my post yesterday at 4:37pm: only take him seriously when he produces some evidence (or accepts that he cannot).

Thomas N. Sluyter

Right within our solar system is the reason for long and medium term climate changes.
It also indicates that we are only a few years away from the start of a new glacial period.

George

Good piece of work. I worry about committees and govt lack of science knowledge. I am a geologist by training. I don't buy the IPCC view. The earth may be warming up but that happens anyway.
I would love to see all the supporters answer basic questions like - how much CO2 is there in the atmosphere? What is the most dangerous gas in the air? (try O2).
We need to wake up and have a free and open debate before we all succumb to anti science faschism.

J SMITH

Neil wrote : "What evidence? That's all we hear from AGW proponents "the over whelming body of evidence" The only thing missing is the evidence. What is it? where is it? how does it work?"

As has been shown with regard to evolution (i.e. a large volume of evidence, much of it non-empirical), those who don't want to believe (i.e. who prefer Creationism) will not accept anything but 100% proof - which does not exist. The same goes for the Big Bang theory, which most accept, despite the almost complete lack of empirical evidence, and the fact that it is scientists who know the most and who we have to accept as the experts. Funny how people are prepared to give scientists the benefit of the doubt there, but not with regard to AGW. Why is that ?

For the large body of evidence with regard to AGW, start here :

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
(Chapters 2 to 5)

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Key-Scientific-Developments-Since-IPCC-4th-Assessment.pdf

Please state which parts you disagree with.

John Westman

Thank God for the likes of Ian Plimer.
All I ask is that all those "pro warmers", do what I did. That was to embark on a study of the issue. As I was aware of changes in Earth's climate over the years prior to the Industrial Revolution, it soon became clear to me that both Gore and the IPCC are a nonsense. Perhaps Gore should be in jail for misrepresentation.
Ask yourself, "what is Gore's interest", in this issue? You may be surprised

John Westman

After reading many of the posts I have become somewhat intrigued by the many aspects of human nature and behaviour and the associated belief systems. There is an unquestioning and blind belief!...Ah, but then perhaps that is politics!

I did make a "blue" in my previous post as I made a reference to "Global Warmers"; so to clarify. "Global Warmers" was a reference to those clowns who made the forcast and their sycophants, of catastrophic global warming about 20 years ago when there was talk of increases in temperature and that we only had a few decades before we would all be fried! The Mann hockey stick was the "proof"!

I did make my previous post in some haste!

The huge problem we face today is the lack of scutiny of the so called AGW concept and the relationship with industrial CO2. This has been exacerbated by a compliant media, which does not question; politicians of doubtful motives and quality, and simply dumb people who neither question nor find out for themselves, but are lazy and prefer to believe what their politician tells them.

It is logical that the world be in a warming trend as we have been emerging from a mini ice age. During this mini ice age the Thames in London actually froze over for a month and the canals in Holland froze. This caused great hardship! Perhaps the potato famine in Ireland, caused by the potato blight, was the result of a series of cold wet summers. No one really knows how many died but it could have been in the millions. We have much to be afraid of with a cooling planet and it's implications for food production. Remember, cool air hold less water vapour that warm air and therefore cannot give as much rain. There are good prospects that a cooling trend will lead to more drier periods(my comment)

Some claim that the medieval warm period did not exist. Greenland was settled by the Vikings who also farmed the land. There are Viking villages still buried under the ice. The Vikings abandoned Greenland when it became too cold with the onset of the mini ice age.

It was announced, some time ago in the media, that the Northwest Passage was about to open for the first time. The fact is that Edward Parry in about 1819, was almost through the passage but had to turn back. As the passage had not been surveyed at this time, he was unaware of his close success. During the 20th century there have been many crossings of the passage.

Some clown, in the media, recently made the claim that polar bears were on the verge of extinction and that some recently dead polar bears found in the open sea were dead because they had to search for food too far out to sea. The reality is that the bears were driven out to sea by strong polar winds. There are 3 times as many bears in the Artic today, than there were 60 years ago.

Let's us make a critical examination of AGW/CO2 and not be glib and fall for what we are necessarily told by persons with vested interests. If we don't and carbon cap and trade is introduced, without good reason, we will be in big trouble financially and I suggest politically, for the world.

Thanks for stirring the debate Robin Guenier

Antipodes

I am a scientist and as such a skeptic about AGW and pretty well anything. Let me relate 3 observations: (1) Ian Plimer is a serious scientist who, i.a., blew creationist claims for Noah's Ark out of the water. (2)The majority of scientists (I know a lot of them, including Plimer) and pretty well all geologists are skeptics. (3)The Royal's case for AGW rested very much on the now discredited "hockey stick" - now they have removed this graph but failed to alter their conclusions.

Ian Walsh

One of the most disturbing things that is happening at the moment on the AWG issue is that there is no good scientific debate taking place in the public domain. Good science is about looking at the pro's and con's of a theory and putting each piece of evidence to the test. That "testing" is being supresse at the moment. Those scientists who disagree with the "politically correct" version of climate change, can't even get their studies published in main stream science journals. That is a sad and dangerous state of affairs. I would like to see far less hysteria and name calling replaced with good honest debate. I am a farmer of 45yrs experience, farming in an area that is supposed to be getting drier and hotter. My records show that the last 10yrs have been the wettest 10yr period since I have been farming, I no longer grow wheat because I was loosing too many crops to frost and we have seen good regeneration of flora and fauna on my property. I have also been heavily involved in conservation, revegetation and salt land rehabilitation over all my farming life, ie I am a conservationist! I live with the effects of the climate every day. I have seen much climate variability but no climate change.

Robin Guenier

John Westman: J SMITH is a good example of the laziness you mention. Unable to produce a specific example of empirical evidence for dangerous AGW, he points to acres of text (I doubt if he’s even read it) and says, “It must be in there somewhere”. (Neil: don’t take him seriously.)

manacker

The article starts out: "Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination."

In actual fact, it is.

But this figment is being sponsored by the powerful and rich of the world, with the ultimate aim of making them even more powerful and wealthier at the expense of everyone else.

Professor Plimer has it right. It's a con trick.

Max

manacker

Having been a "lurker" here, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon.

The exchange between Robin Guenier and JSmith is interesting.

Guenier asks for empirical scientific evidence to support the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat caused by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

JSmith replies by simply citing the IPCC AR4 report as empirical scientific evidence and then making the comparison between creationists who deny Darwin's theory with those who are skeptical of the AGW premise.

Having followed this debate on several sites I see that this is a rather typical exchange.

The AGW supporters do not have any empirical scientific evidence to support the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat caused by human CO2 emissions because this evidence is not there.

So they are forced to side-step with irrelevant discussions that have nothing to do with the issue being debated.

Max

neil

J SMITH
Your response to:
"What evidence? That's all we hear from AGW proponents "the over whelming body of evidence" The only thing missing is the evidence. What is it? where is it? how does it work?".

Is:
As has been shown with regard to evolution (i.e. a large volume of evidence, much of it non-empirical), those who don't want to believe (i.e. who prefer Creationism) will not accept anything but 100% proof - which does not exist. The same goes for the Big Bang theory, which most accept, despite the almost complete lack of empirical evidence, and the fact that it is scientists who know the most and who we have to accept as the experts.

Allow me to summarise:
I asked for solid scientifice evidence of AGW and you responded that because you're not convinced by the evidence that supports evolutionary theory, and you don't understand Stephen Hawking, AGW is a proven scientific theory! And then you throw in a couple of IPCC links.

So you can't show mew the science, you can explain how CO2 causes warming! Which is my whole point. NO ONE CAN!! Not even the 52 climate scientists paid by the IPCC. YES there is only 52 of them!!

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE:
I posted this earlier in this blog.

Lets look at some facts:
Human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2.
CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and heats the surrounding air.
The global air temperature has been increasing for the past century.
It is pretty easy to convince an untrained individual that those facts show a cause and effect.
A trained person will ask show me the science, physics, chemistry, maths that closes the energgy balance and confirms the cause and effect.
How much CO2 is from human activity? How much energy can it absorb? how much can that raise the temperature?
When you do the science the biggest number you can generate is 0.05C! but the planet has warmed 0.7C? IPCC modellers simply put in a fudge factor then predict the future.
Ignoring a few problems:
The warming period started 200 years before industrialisation.
The geographical record shows that CO2 was at 400ppm (380 now) at the onset of the last iceage. And with the previous two iceages the CO2 was 2000 and 4000 ppm respectively
The planet was 2 deg warmer 2000 years ago when CO2 was at 280ppm
The earths orbit causes a 100K year temperature cycle and we are near the end of the warming phase.
I could go on and on, but man-made climate change alarmists insist, in fact demand that CO2 is the only cause.
In the words of Al Gore:
"Skeptics do not add value to the debate"
Apparently it's only a debate if everyone agrees with him!

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!!!!

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "John Westman: J SMITH is a good example of the laziness you mention. Unable to produce a specific example of empirical evidence for dangerous AGW, he points to acres of text (I doubt if he’s even read it) and says, “It must be in there somewhere”. (Neil: don’t take him seriously.)"

Typical, if I may be allowed to state this and be published, of those who deny : AGW or Evolution. Have a go at the person and not the science : a very poor distraction which shows a lack of self-belief in one's own arguments.
There is plenty of evidence contained in the IPCC report I referenced and in the follow-up Pew Center report. Those who deny (AGW or Evolution) don't wish to look at this sort of evidence (as those who wished to deny Galileo's theories, refused to look down his telescope and see for themselves), but would rather claim that they only want clear 'proof' - unobtainable in any scientific endeavour. If you wish to deny, in order to feel safe and sound in your own beliefs, fair enough; but don't then claim that you haven't seen what you don't WANT to see. I have provided the proof and await anyone who can scientifically disprove it. Can anyone do so ?

manacker

Bob Ward

You wrote:

“According to the World Meteorological Office, 2008 was 10th warmest year since records began in 1850, and 2007 was the seventh warmest. In fact, eight of the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000.”

And then added:

“Where is the evidence of global cooling?”

The temperature record tells us that the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface as well as tropospheric temperature anomaly (whew!) have cooled on average at a rate of 0.1°C per decade since the 21st century started (January 2001).

The climate models cited by IPCC had predicted warming at the rate of 0.2°C per decade and the UK Met Office even had a warming forecast of 0.3°C per decade (before they cut it back to 0.2°C).

So IPCC and the Met Office were wrong. It stopped warming and started cooling instead. The evidence of global cooling is the temperature record, even from those thermometers out there next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots. Will it continue to cool? Who knows?

Now the argument comes, “Yeah, but 2008 was still among the 10 warmest years.”

This argument is true, but irrelevant. We are not talking about an absolute value but a trend.

According to Hadley, 2008 was the “10th warmest year” and according to UAH it was the “9th warmest year”.

So let’s see what happens if the temperature continues to cool by 0.1°C per decade (or 0.01°C per year).

2009 will then become the “11th warmest year” (both Hadley and UAH).

2010 will become the “12th warmest year”

2011 the “13th warmest year”.

Etc.

But it will be cooling at a rate of 0.1°C per decade, when the climate models all say it should be warming at 2 to 3 times this rate.

And that is what is relevant. We will be experiencing global cooling instead of global warming, despite all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

And, let's face it, the absolute values are meaningless.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The temperature record tells us that the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface as well as tropospheric temperature anomaly (whew!) have cooled on average at a rate of 0.1°C per decade since the 21st century started (January 2001)."

January 2001 to July 2009 (which is where most of us are) is a total of 8 and a half years, by my reckoning. How did you work out your 'cooling of 0.1C per decade' ? Don't you need to take the average over 10 years ? Perhaps you need to allow another year and a half to elapse before you can state that ?

Robin Guenier

Manacker:

AGW proponents love to trot out the "2008 the 10th warmest year" mantra to "prove" global temperatures are not cooling. Suppose you and they were climbing a hill in the mist. After six hours, the path levels out and then descends. After half an hour of this, you point out that you seem to be going down. Presumably they would reply - "Oh no: we're higher than we were three hours ago and much higher than six and a half hours ago - so you're wrong, we're quite obviously still going up". Perhaps they would. Ho hum.

John Westman

I note that we now have Charles Darwin's concept of evolution entering the debate versus the concept of creationism.

Perhaps it would enlighten many people, by reading (studying) some of Charles Darwin's works (in particular "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". Both these works give an insight into how new scientific thought is postulated and how that thought is backed up by empirical evidence (ie hard facts and meticulous observation, which are recorded assiduously)

Darwin, at the time bucked most of the scientific establishment and was aware that he had to present a case that was difficult to refute. Even so, he had is "AGW types" who ultimately ended up in the basket with the "flat earthers".

Along with Ian Plimers book "Heaven + Earth" you now have 3 quality and informative books for study.

It is wonderful to see the debate that is raging-this is the only way that the truth will ultimately appear. The AGWers appear afraid of this!

Let us have "Death to Dogma"!

But I have digressed! Can someone tell me how it is that after 70 years of burning all those fossil fuels the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has reduced from 400ppm in 1940 to about 385ppm today?

James P

"AGW or Evolution" (JSmith)

That's a tad hubristic, is it not? Evolution is a bona fide, tested every which way, theory that keeps on turning up new supporting evidence. AGW is at best a hypothesis that appears to rest on the consensus of people who either haven't thought about it very much, or who have a vested interest in its acceptance.

The ever-increasing problem for its supporters would appear to be how to distance themselves from it without looking a bit silly...

J SMITH

John Westman : "But I have digressed! Can someone tell me how it is that after 70 years of burning all those fossil fuels the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has reduced from 400ppm in 1940 to about 385ppm today?"

You are mistaken. The concentration in 1940 was 310.4.

See here :

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

You didn't get your figure from the Plimer book, did you ? If so, we'll have to mark it up as another mistake he made.

John Westman

J Smith: I note that in the link that you mentioned there was the word "smoothed". Is this referring to data that has been massaged?

Those figures I quoted did not come from Ian Plimers book.

Did you find those figures in his book? I hope so, because this shows that your mind is at least partially open, and this must be applauded!

James P

"The concentration in 1940 was 310.4"

You do know that's a 20-year smoothed value? That irons out the bumps nicely...

manacker

JSmith

You asked how I worked out the cooling of 0.1C per decade for the 21st century.

Open the Hadley record for the 21st century (January 2001 to July 2009).

Download it into Excel.

Draw the linear trend line.

You will see that it shows a cooling rate of 0.01+ degrees C per year (which equals a decadal cooling rate of 0.1+ degrees C.

It's easy to do.

Whether or not the current cooling rate will continue, and if it does for how long is anyone's guess.

Solar scientists plus guys who study ENSO swings, etc. believe it will continue cooling for a while and then go back to the long-term warming trend we've had since 1850 of 0.041 degrees C per decade.

AGW aficionados plus IPCC climate modellers think it will start warming again very soon at a rate of 0.2 degrees C per decade.

Only time will tell who is right. You don't know. I don't know. James P. Hansen and Al Gore don't know. Neither do the GCMs cited by IPCC or the Met Office.

I'd guess that we will probably stay on the long-term trend line of 0.041 degrees C per decade with multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles of around 60 years as we have had since the modern record started in 1850.

What's your guess?

Max

manacker

J Smith

For pictures showing how the observed long-term temperature trend has developed in cycles and how IPCC projects the future see:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3436203110_77f7070b27_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3411826039_d291acca96_b.jpg

Max

neil

J SMITH

I'm waiting!

The science.

The evidence.

The facts.

We are all waiting.

The reason you have not presented ANY!! evidence to support AGW is because there isn't any!!

Come on! SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!

J SMITH

neil wrote : "Come on! SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!"

Well, I gave you a couple of links to the evidence but if you need me to actually lead you to some of it, here are a few links :

Attribution of polar warming to human influence, Gillett et al
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html

Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends, Zhang et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7152/full/nature06025.html

Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States, Barnett et al
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152538

Methane bubbling from northern lakes: present and future contributions to the global methane budget, Walter et al
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/297/299.pdf

Generally, these are the facts :

CO2 is rising and mankind is causing it.
CO2 causes warming.
The Troposphere is warming and the Stratosphere is cooling.
The oceans are warming.
Sea levels are rising.
Global sea ice area is decreasing.

As Creationists like to dismiss the body of evidence ('no actual proof', etc.) and argue specifics, so I would expect those who deny AGW to do the same. Fortunately, the body of evidence is convincing enough for the majority of people, especially those have to make the difficult decisions : even those who deny will thank them for it in the future.

John Westman

Has anyone got a list of the errors/lies and misreprentations exposed in a UK court in regard to "An Inconvenient Truth" or (A convenient Lie)?

manacker

J Smith

Let’s look at “the body of evidence” you posted to support your premise that AGW is a serious threat caused by human CO2 emissions.

“Attribution of polar warming to human influence, Gillett et al”

“Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence.”

J Smith, this is model study stuff, not empirical scientific data.

The second study you cite: “Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends, Zhang et al”

“Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel.”

Ouch! More model study stuff, J Smith. Again fits the “cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing” by our models category, but is not empirical scientific data supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat.

The Barnett et al. study “Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States” is a model study on what might happen based on a model assessment of what happened in the USA from 1950 to 1999, based on population growth and many other human factors.

“Observations have shown that the hydrological cycle of the western United States changed significantly over the last half of the 20th century. We present a regional, multivariable climate change detection and attribution study, using a high-resolution hydrologic model forced by global climate models, focusing on the changes that have already affected this primarily arid region with a large and growing population. The results show that up to 60% of the climate-related trends of river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced.”

This is more model study stuff and not empirical data supporting the notion that the changes are due to temperature changes resulting from human CO2 emissions. Don’t confuse model studies with empirical scientific data, J Smith.

Your final reference is “Methane bubbling from northern lakes: present and future contributions to the global methane budget, Walter et al”

Here your source tells us that extrapolating observed CH4 emissions from 16 lakes to all northern lakes results in an estimated global source of atmospheric CH4, emitting approximately 24.2 million tons per year.

No mention is made that this emission is due to global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Wiki tells us that the current natural annual emissions of CH4 are estimated to be 370 million tons (including a slightly lower estimate of 10 million tons from hydrates).

Annual anthropogenic CH4 emissions are estimated to be 400 million tons (around half of this is from ruminant de-gassing and rice growing).

Soils act as a CH4 sink, absorbing around 30 million tons annually.

CH4 has a limited life in the atmosphere (7 years) with an estimated 200 million tons disappearing from the atmosphere annually (converted to CO2 or dissipated into space).

So you see that the 24 million tons estimated by your study to be emitted annually from northern lakes by extrapolation of the estimated emissions from 16 lakes (and not specifically attributed to AGW) are peanuts.

You’ll have to come with some better evidence than that J Smith.

A tip: Forget model studies. They are not empirical scientific data.

Your final listing of the “facts”:
CO2 is rising and mankind is causing it.
CO2 causes warming.
The Troposphere is warming and the Stratosphere is cooling.
The oceans are warming.
Sea levels are rising.
Global sea ice area is decreasing.

This list is nice, J Smith, but is no empirical scientific data supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Remember that in science correlation does not provide evidence of causation.

Max

John Burgess

Great! Now people are starting to see through the AGW religion, can we see a similar piece in The Spectator on its similarly scientifically-illiterate, politically-motivated little brother, the myth of second-hand smoke? Oh, they're on to third-hand smoke now - they proved it with a phone poll. Well, that's science! (When you have billions behind you and a political objective, that is).

manacker

John Westman

You asked for a list of the errors/lies and misrepresentations exposed in a UK court in regard to "An Inconvenient Truth" or (A convenient Lie).

The first link gives a quick summary and lists the nine “inaccuracies” (i.e. “lies”), which were singled out by the court.

In addition, the court ruled that “in order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.”

The second link lists the entire court proceedings, if you care to wade through pages of British legalese.

http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
http://www.newparty.co.uk/UserFiles/File/dimmocktranscript.pdf

Max

J SMITH

To manacker : Did you notice those words 'observed/observation' in those parts you copied ? Just in case English may not be your first language, I have to inform you that Empirical research starts off with 'observation' (in English), leading to induction, deduction, testing and evaluation. I'm afraid you must have misunderstood the meaning of 'empirical'. So, from the bits you have copied, you can easily see the stages of empirical research.

As for your claim about 'the nine “inaccuracies” (i.e. “lies”), which were singled out by the court', I hope I may be allowed to put the record straight.

The only mention in the actual court transcript of a version of that word 'inaccuracies' is in a mention of a part of the contents of the Guidance Note (to point out that showing the film is not 'promoting partisan political views'). The relevant part states :

"in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion."

The word 'lies' is not mentioned at all and, in fact, Mr Justice Burton takes care to state the 'errors' as I have written the word, i.e. in quotation marks. This shows how inconsequential he thought they were, so that they couldn't be described as true errors, without quotation marks.

Here is the actual transcript, not 'deciphered' or spun by any political or biased website :

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html&query=title+(+dimmock+)&method=boolean

Robin Guenier

Much earlier today I posted a comment on J SMITH's four research studies which he thought provided evidence of dangerous AGW. It did not appear so here it is again (remarkably - but not surprisingly - similar to Manacker's post on the same subject):

Well done, J SMITH – you’ve done some homework and referred us to some actual research. Unfortunately (for you) it doesn’t do the job you’re claiming for it. If that’s the best “evidence” you can find, you don’t (as I suspected) understand what’s needed to verify the dangerous AGW hypothesis. I’ll explain.

What you must find is empirical (real-world) evidence that man’s adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. In contrast, looking at each of the studies you cite, you find:

1. A study using “simulations from four coupled climate models”. Problem with this: models are not empirical evidence. In other words, it doesn’t get anywhere close to being empirical evidence showing that adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming.

2. A study comparing rainfall with “changes simulated by fourteen climate models” showing that “anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation”. Problems with this: (a) nothing about GHGs; (b) based on models; (c) “a detectable influence” on changes says nothing about cause. In other words, it doesn’t get anywhere close to being empirical evidence showing that adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming.

3. This study uses “a high-resolution hydrologic model forced by global climate models”. Problem with this: models are not empirical evidence. In other words, it doesn’t get anywhere close to being empirical evidence showing that adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming.

4. A study extrapolating CH4 fluxes from northern lakes “using circumpolar databases of lake and permafrost distributions” suggests these “lakes are a globally significant source of atmospheric CH4”. Problems with this: (a) extrapolation is not measurement; (b) more models; (c) “suggests” indicates uncertainty; (d) nothing about it being a cause of (even a link to) future global warming. In other words, it doesn’t get anywhere close to being empirical evidence showing that adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming.

As to your “facts” – (1) yes, CO2 concentrations are rising and man’s emissions are a cause; and (2) yes, CO2 causes warming (simple physics). But, as for the rest, if these things are happening, that says nothing about the cause of their happening – still less that further such emissions will cause dangerous global warming.

In other words, the fact that A happens and B happens doesn’t mean that A is the cause of B (simple logic). And your four studies do nothing to provide evidence of that cause.

Kenneth Andrew

Obviously the destruction of all wildlife and forests on an alarming scale is doing a great deal of harm.As I understand it the world's climate is the result of an interaction between the Sun and the Magnetic Field system which surrounds and goes through the Earth, both through the centre and to a depth of 150 miles below the Earths surface. Supporting this system and essential to the contiuance of all life are the highly complex weather systems which include lightning strikes at a rate of 2000 per.minute round the Earth at all times, plus the carbon cycle, water cycle and sophisticated wind systems together with tidal and other storm systems vital to the transmission and transference of electrical forms of energy which is fundamental energy/matter which is the life force itself. Since electrical energy is extracted from the atmosphere NOT generated.It is in fact destoyed in use, like 'total loss'lubrication on early motorcycles. This is not the case with the thin layer of life which covers the Earth's surface, where the energy gets passed on but retains it's potency. The problem is that with the increasing use of electricity on a vast and increasingly great scale,it is apparently starting to interfere with the various eco systems that underlie the proper functioning of the Earth's systems.The idea that carbon + oxygen rises up and forms some sort of barrier is absurd and anyway could only happen on a minute local scale. The whole 'greenhouse' theory does not work. The likelyhood is that there could well be an ice age quite soon. The idea that the minute scale of Man's affairs could possibly change the world's climate shows an arrogant view of Man's importance,completely out of scale with the immense size of the world including its surrounding atmosphere reaching a temperature 0 degrees centigrade at 9000 feet and minus 40 degrees at 30,000 feet.Lastly I would simply point out that the contribution to world pollution if Great Britain were to shut down all polluting sources the reduction would amount to 0.02%, quite useless!

manacker

J Smith

An extract of the UK court decision, listing the errors (or “inaccuracies” or “lies”, whichever terminology you prefer) in AIT:

The 'Errors'

‘Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near futur
This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but onlyafter, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".
In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.
In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.
Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc
The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.
In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.
In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.

'Error' 13: Coral reefs.
In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

This is all pretty clear to me (as it also was to the very cautious and careful court). AIT was full of errors, all of which were intended to cause alarm about AGW (from which Al Gore has already earned millions, and hopes to earn even more).

Max

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: I hope Manacker won’t object to my commenting on your reply to him. In each of the cases you mention, phenomena are indeed “observed”: “observed polar temperature changes”, “observed changes in land precipitation” and “Observations [of] … the hydrological cycle of the western United States”. Those data are empirical. Unfortunately (for your position), in each case models are then used to make assessments, comparisons or attributions. And that, J SMITH, is not empirical.

Here’s an example of how empirical research is done. Based on known data, particle physicists have used models to postulate the existence of a particle of matter dubbed the Higgs boson. To determine whether or not it exists, they are carrying out a series of experiments using the Large Hadron Collider (at CERN in Geneva). The models have taken them so far – now they are looking for real-world evidence. Another example of the same process is the way the smoking/cancer link was established.

manacker

J Smith

The UK court was very cautious and “politically correct” when it (nevertheless) lambasted Al Gore’s AIT sci-fi film and ruled that it should not be shown to school children as a factual report.

Lies or inaccuracies were referred to as “errors” and Al was given every benefit of the doubt, although the ruling was very specific in pointing out where Gore had “bent” the truth to sell his message.

Had I been the judge I would have written more directly (but with essentially the same message):

‘Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future

This is obvious unfounded scare mongering. IPCC tells us this could happen in “millennia” not the near future.

'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

More BS. The tide gauge records show us that there is no inundation. In fact, sea levels rose at a faster rate in the early 20th century than they have in the later 20th century.

'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

Wow! A total fantasy. Let’s warn the northern Europeans (who wouldn’t mind a bit of “global warming”) that global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps them from freezing to death. Obviously another unfounded bit of scare mongering.

'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

This is the cornerstone of Gore’s argument that atmospheric CO2 levels have driven climate in the past; the problem with Gore’s argument is that the temperatures rose on average 800 years before the CO2 did (cleverly hidden by Gore), so there is no correlation to show that CO2 drives temperature. It’s “smoke and mirrors” instead.

'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro (disappearing due to AGW).

Aw. C’mon, Al. This claim was just too stupid to be true. Totally unfounded.

'Error' 16: Lake Chad (drying up due to AGW).

Another totally unfounded claim, as dumb as the one about Kilimanjaro..

'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina (caused by AGW).

More unfounded scare mongering.

'Error' 15: Death of polar bears (caused by AGW)

This staged sequence of a polar bear swimming to find sea ice was a great example of how to provide back-up footage to support a totally unfounded lie.

'Error' 13: Coral reefs (disappearing due to AGW).

Another unfounded claim.

All in all, an alarmist sales pitch for “action”, based on sloppy science.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The UK court was very cautious and “politically correct” when it (nevertheless) lambasted Al Gore’s AIT sci-fi film and ruled that it should not be shown to school children as a factual report."

And, again, that is not correct, as anyone who looks at the transcript will know. The judge states, quite correctly, legally and non-biased :

"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

"I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government's adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of "sceptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context."

Why do you keep trying to misrepresent what anyone can check and see for themselves ? It just makes you look dubious.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

I have some questions for you.

(1) Assuming you persist in believing that man-made global warming is a most serious problem, do you wish to see mankind give up it’s dependence on coal and oil?

(2) If so, what do you think should be put in their place? (Remember: wind and solar power, even if they approached best expectations, cannot possibly meet today’s energy demands, let alone future demands. And nuclear energy has huge problems and many environmental activists will fight it.)

(3) Or would you like us to revert to a simpler pre-industrial life? (Remember: a pre-industrial life would be hard and unpleasant: in those parts of the world where it’s a reality today, short hard lives are the norm.)

(4) China, India and other developing countries have made it clear that they are not going to curtail their GHG emissions and thereby halt an economic development that is lifting their populations out of dreadful poverty. Do you believe they are likely to change that view?

(5) If so, why?

(6) If China, India, etc. are not going to change their view, what is the point in the West introducing “green” measures that will further damage our stricken economies, causing them to enter a decline that will bring misery for millions of people?

jenydbenni

cooling individual down growing colleagues comparable

N. O'Brain

It's nice to see the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) being called ont their AGW scam.

Refreshing.

J SMITH

To Roben Guenier's questions :

1) Since man-made global warming IS a serious problem, we MUST give up our dependence on coal and oil.
2) They should be replaced by a combination of wind, solar, tidal, hydrogen, geothermal, biofuels, nuclear, ground source heat, etc.
3) No, I prefer post-industrial.
4) China is doing much with regard to energy efficiency and the use of renewables, as well as clean-coal power. However, along with India, I believe they are holding out for an acceptable agreement that will help them to reduce emissions without it costing them too much.
5) See 4), especially with regard to negotiating positions.
6) See 4), but we must do what we have to do, especially as green technologies are the future and any country that wants to progress in the future will need to be involved in such technologies as soon as possible, otherwise they will be left behind and suffer accordingly. We are still rich enough to be able to support our own populations and prevent 'misery for millions of people'.

Gene Smith

Better resource use and less waste being a good idea does not equal AGW/ACC. Get a grip. I am a neo-pagan. I believe that all life is cyclic. AGW religionists want an unchanging climate. Aint gonna happen.

Peter

Thanks for this article James.
Over 30,000 scientists in the US have signed a petition to Congress disagreeing the concept of man-made global warming. The house of cards is beginning to crumble.

Ed Rice

Wow. Just read the first page - that seems enough. We got ourselves a first-class ranter here. But can anyone read that and think the guy has any scientific credibility? What a joke.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH:

Re your answers to my questions:

1. Given your inability to produce one piece of empirical evidence supporting your view, I can only conclude that that view is a quasi-religious belief.

2. I believe we should develop all these energy sources – but progress is dreadfully slow. You’re living in dreamland, however, if you think they will satisfy the world’s energy needs for many decades – especially with expanding world populations demanding economic growth now. Without fossil fuels (the engine of human civilisation), decline would be inevitable and people are simply not going to accept that.

3. I agree.

4. Re China, see these links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AB2QB20081112?sp=true
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,611818,00.html#ref=nlint

Re India, see this:

http://www.earth-stream.com/Earth/Continents/India/India-refuses-to-set-emissions-reduction-target-despite-US-pressure-_18_197_671_184987.html

No, China, India, etc. aren’t “holding out” for an emissions deal. It’s most unlikely they will sign up to realistic CO2 reduction at the December Copenhagen conference. (Indeed, after Poznan earlier this year, even European resolve looks weak.) I suggest what’s happening is that China, India, etc. are exploiting the West’s constant global warming scare stories and their accompanying assumption of guilt and debt to the rest of the world – where individual “carbon footprints” are vastly smaller than ours. If we don’t pay up (and we can’t afford to, so won’t), we are bad, greedy people and our world standing and influence is further diminished. So, we’ve talked ourselves into a trap: in truth, these countries are not going to abandon their growth ambitions and the miseries of their people in pursuit of a Western goal they perceive as having dubious merit. With good reason, they’re fed up with a West that has been calling the shots and taken the benefits for too long. We’ll see in December.

5. See 4.

6. No, J SMITH, we’re pointlessly damaging our already stricken economies and thereby making them even less prepared to alleviate the impact of natural climate-related problems as experienced for by humans for hundreds of thousands of years.

J SMITH

Ed Rice wrote : "Wow. Just read the first page - that seems enough. We got ourselves a first-class ranter here. But can anyone read that and think the guy has any scientific credibility? What a joke."

You're not wrong there. I listed some of the errors above but I have now read up more about one of his previous books (TELLING LIES FOR GOD) and it seems that he did something similar in that one. A review stated :

However, while previous books have generally been written in a straightforward, factual manner, Plimer's new book is a shoddily-written polemic that, in places, verges on the hysterical.

Creationist arguments are nearly always completely bogus (sometimes they are only partially bogus). But rather than address the arguments scientifically, Plimer often chooses to attack straw men of his own devising.

While decrying the ignorance of creationists, Plimer himself makes some elementary mistakes in terminology.

There are many typographical errors, missing references, and spelling errors.

Even more serious is the lack of attribution for large sections of the book.

Unfortunately, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, what is good about Plimer's book is not original, and what is original is not good.

If science and its conclusions are to remain credible in the eyes of the public, scientists must behave with decorum, be very careful about acknowledging the work of others, avoid ad hominem attacks, and be quick to admit error when proved wrong. Ian Plimer, regrettably, does not seem to understand this.

http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/plimer.html

Even when he is on solid ground (against Creationists), he still almost makes it look as if he is the non-expert. Against man-made global warming, he is so wide of the mark it is embarrassing.

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: further to my post at 12:35pm, I suggest that you read this recent article from The Times (“Can we make China quit the opium of the gases?”):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6652656.ece?Submitted=true
It’s about the December UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Here are two extracts:

“… there will be no Copenhagen treaty. There will, no doubt, be an agreement, full of pomp and promising words, but no pact that would stem, let alone reverse, the continuing increase in carbon emissions.

“If carbon is a problem, the solution has to be in Asia. Without a commitment from those countries to curb emissions, Copenhagen is a futile gesture. No surprise, however, to learn that in Beijing and Delhi, the message is loud, clear and rising in irritation. There will be no curb, says China. The priority is jobs and wealth creation.”

I agree

Dave

Peter:

> Over 30,000 scientists in the US have signed a petition to Congress disagreeing the concept of man-made global warming. The house of cards is beginning to crumble.

Peter, this is a lie. The Oregon petition to which you refer does not contain the signatures of 30,000 scientists.

The signatories themselves are an unverified list of names, along with their claimed scientific credentials, containing duplicates, dead people, fake names and made up degrees, companies, pranks, signatories from over a decade ago who have since changed their mind, people who were misled and want to be removed, people with no scientific background etc etc etc.

The number of actual scientists on that list is small.

The number of actual scientists who are actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals is smaller still.

The number of actual climate scientists who are actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals, let alone contributed to the IPCC review process, is vanishingly small.

Hell, the number of actual, living people on that list who truly agree with the statement of the petition is only a subset of the 30000 you claim.

Interesting backstory: the open letter encouraging recipients to sign the Oregon Petition is the work of Frederick Seitz, who was an adviser to tobacco firms dating back to the 70's and who denied that secondhand smoke was harmful. He also denied CFCs threatened the ozone layer. The original petition mailing was heavily criticised for duplicitous practices, as it included "evidence" mocked up to appear as an extract from a prestigious journal.

Are these really the kind of scruples you want to align yourself with?

Dave

James P:

> AGW is at best a hypothesis that appears to rest on the consensus of people who either haven't thought about it very much, or who have a vested interest in its acceptance.

Strong talk in a comments thread. I suggest you take a stand at the next conference on climate science, and tell the couple thousand or so delegates that they're either stupid or frauds. Make sure you take plenty of evidence with you to back it up. You wouldn't want to look rude, insulting and hopelessly misinformed, would you?

TonyN

J Smith 09:28 25/07/2009

Your take on the Burton judgement would seem to be similar to a post at Real Climate appropriately, but with unconscious irony, entitled ‘Convenient Untruths’.

If you search the High Court judgement for the word error you will find it occurs without quotation marks in Sections 17(iii), 19, 21, 22 and elsewhere.

The term error implies inadvertence; a mistake. The court did not consider how or why the errors in AIT occurred, only whether the claims made in the film were supported by mainstream scientific evidence as represented by the IPCC Assessment Reports. Therefor Mr Justice Burton had no way of determining the cause of what he describes as ‘errors and omissions in the film’ (Sec 17[iii]; note the absence of quotation marks). Given that a panel of scientific experts advised the filmmakers, the possibility exists that they were well aware that some parts of the film were not supported by mainstream scientific research although these sequences were presented as though this was the case. The possibility must therefore also exist that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

It is unsurprising that Mr Justice Burton chose to enclose the term error in quotation marks at some points in his judgement; judges use language with great care and precision. In this case he seems to have underestimated the ingenuity that some people would employ in order to misrepresent his findings. Sections 34 to 38 of the judgement make it quite clear that the judge attached considerable importance to the ‘errors’, whatever cause or motivation had introduced them into the film, and that he required substantial changes in the teaching notes in order that a breach of the law would not result from AIT being shown in schools. Indeed he says that they are ‘significant planks in Mr Gore’s ‘poitical’ argumentation’ (Sec 34).

I’m afraid that focusing on the use of quotation marks in this judgement is an attempt to distract attention from other, very damaging, findings. Mr Justice Burton characterises AIT as; ‘a political film’, ‘an apocalyptic vision’, ‘one sided’, ‘partisan’, making ‘a political statement in to support a political programme’, using ‘alarmism and exaggeration’ and he even refers to Mr Gore’s ‘crusade’. NB: the quotation marks in the pervious sentence so not indicate that I think that these statements are untrue.

TonyN
www.harmlesssky.org

Robin Guenier

Dave:

You say, “The number of actual climate scientists [I assume you meant sceptical scientists] who are actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals … is vanishingly small”. Well, I’m afraid you’re poorly informed on that and Isuggest you might rectify that deficiency by reading the following papers. When you’ve finished, I have many more:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
 (Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? 
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity? 
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
- J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
 (AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard

- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
 (AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
 (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Climate Change Re-examined
 (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
 (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
- Sherwood B. Idso

Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
 (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney

BTW, although I wouldn’t accuse dangerous AGW proponents (well, maybe some) of not having thought about it very much or as having a vested interested (I dislike ad hominem attacks), James P is correct in his statement that dangerous AGW is an unverified hypothesis.

J SMITH

Tony N wrote : "I’m afraid that focusing on the use of quotation marks in this judgement is an attempt to distract attention from other, very damaging, findings. Mr Justice Burton characterises AIT as..."

Only 'damaging' if you desperately want to find them damaging. In reality, overall the judge recognised that the film was 'based substantially on scientific research and opinion', 'not party political', and he had 'no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."'
As for the 'apocalyptic vision', those words are used by the judge to sum up the views of Paul Downes, who represented the losing claimant.

Again, the facts can be checked here :

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html&query=title+(+dimmock+)&method=boolean

Those who deny man-made global warming just cannot seem to accept that that court review is over and done with, and hasn't been over-turned. Why can't you accept that and move on ?

Dave

Robin Guenier:

Don't put words in my mouth and brush up on your reading. I was referring specifically to the fraudulent Oregon petition, and had you paid attention you'd have understood that.

All those papers you linked are drivel. For a far more substantive list of worthwhile papers, you need look no further than Plimer's book. How about you check some of the sources he cites, hmm? He certainly didn't, given the number of them that don't support his position.

J SMITH

Robin Guenier wrote : "Dave: You say, 'The number of actual climate scientists [I assume you meant sceptical scientists] who are actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals … is vanishingly small'. Well, I’m afraid you’re poorly informed on that and Isuggest you might rectify that deficiency by reading the following papers. When you’ve finished, I have many more:"

Do you have any that are ACTUALLY published in peer-reviewed journals, especially ones that are relevant to Climatology ?

Your particular gems are :

Some from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Energy & Environment, and the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which are not listed in any of the Citation Indices.

From the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, which publishes scientific material of interest to the Canadian petroleum geoscience community.

ArXiv, which is a pre-print repository (itself not peer-reviewed, similar to most of your other sources) where some peer-reviewed work can be posted before going through the peer-review process by whichever relevant journal. I would guess that your source didn't go any further ?

The AAPG, which gives information on geoscience and the associated technology of the energy industry.

Three others which are over 10 years old and hardly relevant.

Do you have any that are relevant, up-to-date and peer-reviewed ?

Robin Guenier

Well, Dave, anyone who, without explanation, dismisses scientific papers as “drivel” doesn’t need to have words put into his mouth: your unmannerly response is sadly typical of some dangerous AGW proponents. Such an attitude does nothing to assist your support for an unverified hypothesis.

John Westman

I saw something on the television the other day, that piqued my interest, and my immediate thought was that this is just what Gore and his credulous lackeys are looking for. The scene was a row of African mud huts with solar panels on the straw roofs. Too bad if the sun ain't shining! Too bad for the Africans who want to raise their living standards!

It is clear that Gore (No! I have not meant to spell God) and his acolytes are starting to lose their shine. There are many politicians who are now starting to question the concept of catastrophic global warming, particularly now that the good old Earth is cooling.

The IPCC has now declared that CO2, which is vital for life on Earth, is a pollutant, but carbon (C) is not. Yet we hear all these references to carbon being a problem. We hear things such as the "carbon footprint", carbon this and carbon that. I wonder why this is-Is it something to do with confusing or confusion? Carbon(C) is an inert substance and is common. Carbon dioxide(CO2)is a minor gas. If these AGWer's were so concerned about the so called "greenhouse effect", why arn't they attacking water vapour, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas and far more common in the atmosphere. Water vapour make up about 95-96% of the greenhouse gases, whereas CO2 is about 3-4%. Of this 3-4%, man's contribution is tiny.

However, back to "god". He "blessed" (some would say cursed) us with his presence recently in Australia. We had a skeptical politician, a senator, who wanted to have an audience with Gore, to clarify some questions that he had. Our Senator beseeched the "god" that he would make availble himself at any time of "god's" choosing. Needless to say, our senator did not get his audience!

As a point of interest the senator mentioned, does have a deciding vote in the senate.

My apologies to God: There is no confusion in my mind (but others may have a difficulty) with God and "god".

Dave

Well Robin, anyone who, without explanation, dismisses hundreds upon hundreds of scientific papers amassed over a century, by rational, unbiased individuals, which accumulate to form a well-supported theory as an “unverified hypothesis” is insulting, unmannerly, and laughably out of touch with reality.

Perhaps you should take me up on my suggestion, and compare Plimers claims to the peer-reviewed papers he cites, rather than copy-and-pasting the same old tired, unsupported, unreviewed and widely debunked rubbish to back up your position.

If you are unable to apply the merest shred of critical thinking to this, you really have no business expressing an opinion - and if you do, you should be fully prepared to be laughed at.

TonyN

Mr Justice Burton’s characterisation of AIT as a political film, partisan, one sided, alarmist and exaggerated etc would be very damaging to any film that purports to be a documentary, regardless of subject.

You say:
“… overall the judge recognised that the film was 'based substantially on scientific research and opinion'”

In context this reads:
‘It is now common ground that it [AIT] is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.

Note the use of the term ‘common ground’; the judge was evidently satisfied that the defendant had conceded that AIT is a political film. It is also worth noting that even a work of science fiction could be described as ‘based substantially on scientific research and opinion’, and this can in no way be interpreted as an exoneration of the film’s content. So far as the reference to ‘party political’ is concerned, I am at a loss to know how anyone could attach significance to this routine clarification of the definition that the judge is applying to the more general description ‘political’.

You also refer to the following extract from the judgement:
“He [Mr Justice Burton] had 'no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."”

‘Broadly accurate’ is very faint praise indeed when it comes from the defendant’s star witness. This appears in Sec 22 of the judgement as a preliminary to identifying nine errors (in Secs 24-33) later described as “‘significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation’” (Sec 34). Therefore the emphasis is clearly on the qualifying term ‘broadly’ rather than on ‘accurate’.

You also say:
“As for the 'apocalyptic vision', those words are used by the judge to sum up the views of Paul Downes, who represented the losing claimant.”

In context this reads:
“Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, ….”

Or in other words, the judge is accepting Mr Downes’ view of the film.

Concerning your assertion that the claimant lost the case, Mr Justice Burton said this:

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act".

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: more on Copenhagen here (“Climate activists in denial”, from the FT): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37c9c748-7adf-11de-8c34-00144feabdc0,s01=1.html

Robin Guenier

J SMITH: my point (at 6:04pm yesterday) was to demonstrate to Dave that sceptical scientists have published peer-reviewed papers. That’s all.

But, of course, counting heads, counting PhDs, counting publications (from "rational, unbiased individuals" or otherwise), etc. is irrelevant to the only issue that matters. And that issue is identifying (preferably, but not necessarily, in the peer-reviewed literature and preferably, but not necessarily, in publications relevant to climatology) empirical (physically observed, not theoretical), and independently replicable evidence that man’s adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. That has yet to be done. And, until it is (if indeed it ever is), dangerous AGW will continue to be no more than an unverified hypothesis.

Science requires only one researcher to be right – no matter what his qualification and no matter where he publishes. The proponents of dangerous AGW have not found that researcher. Not even amongst Dave’s “hundreds upon hundreds of scientific papers amassed over a century”. To insist on believing otherwise is faith, not science.

James P

Dave

"a well-supported theory"

Which is? Bearing in mind that, as a theory, it will need some proper supporting evidence (not just correlations).

Dave

Robin (@ 11:10am):

Your response about skeptical scientists and peer-reviewed papers was a complete non-sequitor from my comment which, as I'm now reiterating for the second time, was directed at the laughable Oregon petition.

Given your stated intention, I suggest you check how many of your links were actually peer-reviewed at all, let alone in a credible publication. Otherwise it just looks like fluff, spoon-fed to you by sources that chime with your own faith-based outlook and prejudices.

The point of referencing the multitude of research out there on this subject is not to win an argument on volume, but to highlight to you the fact that in order for you to be right, all of that material has to be wrong. And all of the scientists that have studied it and considered it to be correct? They also have to be wrong. It is no good throwing out some random links (and frankly, tired and well-debunked at that). You have to show - with precision - why the physics, geology, cosmology, biology, atmospheric science etc etc is all wrong.

Plimer's book is an attempt at this and he failed dismally, even going so far as to include fraudulent graphs to try and back up his prejudices.

Your blind refusal to actually countenance that thousands of educated individuals may know something you don't is hubris of the first order.

Your insistence that awell-supported theory older than relativity and quantum mechanics, and independently verified and supported by a wide range of evidence from varied disciplines, is an "unsupported hypothesis" is just childish, and displays both a desire on your part to denigrate, insult and disparage rather than engage on points of science. I shall be charitable and assume you just have no clue what you're talking about.

J SMITH

TonyN, I've noticed, with regard to those who deny man-made global warming, that they will highlight the smallest piece of any comment, judgement, opinion, science, etc. to try to claim vindication for their views : even down to single words, as you have done.

Please accept, as the claimant accepted in this judgement, that the film was acceptable to be shown in schools and is being shown in schools.
I presume you would also like THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE to be shown ? Well, that wouldn't even pass judgement by a group of 5 year olds, with regard to its 'science', veracity and one-sided-ness.

You don't like either judgement (legal in the first case, common-sense in the latter) but the rest of us are content. Accept it and move on, or continue your lonely battle while the rest of us move on.

Dave

James P:

> Which is? Bearing in mind that, as a theory, it will need some proper supporting evidence (not just correlations).

You do know that you can replicate the physical effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in a simple primary school experiment, don't you? Let alone all the other complexities, that trivially simple act alone makes a mockery of your ludicrous "correlation only" claim - ie there is a replicable, physical reason for anticipating that increased CO2 will cause warming, and one that we've understood since around 1890 if memory serves.

By simply ignoring the fundamentals and focusing on your prejudices, you wouldn't recognise the complete evidence if it dropped on your desk in a painstakingly summarised form easily understood by the layman.

Tell you what - you go line by line through the evidence summarised in the IPCC report, you explain why each cited piece of evidence doesn't count, and I'll rebut your (inevitably spurious) reasoning. That sounds fair.

Robin Guenier

Hmm – well, Dave you don’t get it do you?

You have the odd notion that I must think that “all of that material [you mentioned] has to be wrong”, that “all of the scientists that have studied it and considered it to be correct … have to be wrong” and that “the physics, geology, cosmology, biology, atmospheric science etc. etc is all wrong” also. You believe that I must think “that thousands of educated individuals may know something” that I don’t. You conclude that I “just have no clue what [I’m} talking about”.

Precisely the opposite is the case. I wholly agree that a vast amount of well-founded and valuable science has been achieved over the years relating to the global climate. For example, work on the interaction between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures was done in the nineteenth century, establishing that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”; and that research has extended over time to cover a detailed understanding of atmospheric CO2’s absorption frequencies, the amount of outgoing radiation it reflects back to earth, how those absorption frequencies can become saturated, how the band of frequencies widens, etc. All this is sound science. Moreover, a vast quantity of data has been gathered (for centuries) about changes in global temperatures – developing from relatively simple land-based measurement to today’s satellite and oceanic measurements. At first separately, but increasingly in convergence, other data from other established disciplines, such as physics, have been related to the newer climate-related sciences. An example is geology’s ability to relate ancient climate records (from proxy and historic sources) to modern findings. Moreover, more recent disciplines such as solar science and cosmology have contributed. On top of all that, even newer areas of research have been initiated such as that examining and determining the effects on the global ecology of atmospheric warming and other climate related change. There’s much more. A wealth of most valuable work has been done. I most certainly do not think it’s “all wrong”, as you so foolishly suppose.

One result of this is that there is clear evidence that global temperatures have been rising since around the end of the so-called Little Ice Age (early to mid nineteenth century) and that there was a pronounced period of warming recently. Also, as I mention above, there is ample evidence that carbon emissions cause warming – moreover there is no doubt that the level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing. All this was established by empirical evidence, i.e. evidence that is determined, not by belief, consensus or reference to authority, but by physical observation (not theory), is based on measurement and is capable of independent replication. In other words, by the application of the Scientific Method developed and refined since the Enlightenment.

But, despite an almost unprecedented amount of investment in climate-related research, there is no such empirical evidence establishing that mankind’s CO2 (and other GHG) emissions were the main cause of recent warming – and therefore there is no such evidence that further emissions will cause increased warming and that that, in turn, will cause dangerous climate change.

And that, Dave, is why the dangerous AGW hypothesis is unverified and why, to insist on believing otherwise, is faith not science.

John Rolph

Got the book, read it and I thank the God of sanity that Ian Pilmer had the wisdom and courage to write it.
John

James P

"You have to show - with precision - why the physics, geology, cosmology, biology, atmospheric science etc etc is all wrong."

I'm sure Robin will answer for himself, but if all of this is known and settled, why the reliance on computer models?

I seem to recall that these do not have a brilliant track record, having already brought down the banking system.

I'm still in the dark about this theory, for which there is apparently overwhelming proof, but which never gets defined...

John westman

I had a bit of a laugh when I saw "Dave's" comments about "educated individuals".

Some years ago (1972 to be precise) we had a so called "educated" socialist make to the prime ministership in Australia. All the socialists thought he was wonderful but he proved to be the most incompetent manager that we had seen in living memory. The government was a joke!

For those with an expansive mind, I found a great link to where you can read an essay about the AGers and religion. Well worth a look at www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Now that the IPCC has declared CO2, a pollutant, it would appear that there is now a need to take active steps to remove CO2, from the atmosphere. A pollutant, by definition, must be bad! Of course the clowns have not considered (it appears that their thinking is considerably limited), the consequences of such action. One consequence will ultimately be the death of virtually all living things.

I wonder how many of these vehement AGwers have a vested interest in the promotion of Gore's claims. Do they work for a government department? Do they work in the renewables industry?
What is Gore's interest in all of this: Check it out! Gore is not a disinterest third party. For the record I have no connection to the renewables industry nor am I in receipt of payments from the government. I will however, make a claim to common sense!

I would like all the AGers out there to list all the errors claimed in Professor Ian Plimer's book "Heaven + Earth". By doing this the good professor will then have the opportunity to make any corrections that are needed, plus it will also serve to inform the skeptics. Please leave out any reference to typos, as they can be found everywhere.

If governments around the world were to embark on programmes as proposed there will be much hardship with potential for revolutions. And when you consider that these programmes are based on an unproven hypothesis, scaremongering and questionable assupmtions, one would think that prudence should be the order of the day.

This lack of prudence just goes to show how many donkeys there are in the world. Opps sorry! To all the asses employed throughout the Middle east, I did not mean to insult you.

Thanks to people like Robin Guenier who are bringing enlightenment!

James P

Dave

"You do know that you can replicate the physical effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in a simple primary school experiment, don't you?"

So let's do it, shall we? Get a large (say 10 litre) belljar full of atmospheric air and measure the temperature at the bottom while also measuring the sunlight intensity above. Add 4ml of CO2 (less than a teaspoon) which will effectively double the concentration within the jar and see how the temperature rises. Or not.

Of course, school experiments tend to be a lot coarser than that, and will doubtless 'show' the effect of the evil CO2 by multiplying the concentration up (originally 0.04%) by a few orders of magnitude, thus fixing it in young impressionable minds that we will all fry!

The most convincing argument for the stability of our planet's eco-system is the fact that it has remained more or less habitable for eons, despite CO2 levels dramatically higher, vulcanism, tectonic shifts and meteor strikes.

My money's on natural variation.

Dave

Robin:

> But, despite an almost unprecedented amount of investment in climate-related research, there is no such empirical evidence establishing that mankind’s CO2 (and other GHG) emissions were the main cause of recent warming – and therefore there is no such evidence that further emissions will cause increased warming and that that, in turn, will cause dangerous climate change.

You talk at length about the foundations upon which this conclusion is based, and yet you dismiss it all out of hand in your rush to insist that AGW is not real.

You explicitly accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the warming effect it has is quantifiable, and that there are increasing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere, and that - thanks to that ground work - we have a good understanding of the forcing effect that different concentrations of CO2 will have in the atmosphere. I fail to see how you make the leap from accepting the science to insisting that it reaches an unverified conclusion, especially when - as you know - the observations have matched the predictions for a few decades now. From your words, it appears that you dispute that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in origin - is that so? It would be good if you could enumerate your precise objections, because they're really not clear. Is there warming or not? Does it represent a trend or not? Is it significant over the timescale we're talking about or not? Is rising CO2 a driving factor or not? Are we causing the rise in CO2 or not?

People that object to AGW all have different rationale - Plimer is a case in point. He makes no one specific argument, instead choosing to ape the debating technique of his old adversary Duane Gish in throwing out as many points against AGW as he can muster, regardless of whether they are mutually contradictory or actually supported by the evidence he cites. He seems to care not whether any one specific point is actually right (or indeed accurate and not fraudulent!), merely that the impression is left that AGW is wrong. A wholly unscientific approach.

> And that, Dave, is why the dangerous AGW hypothesis is unverified and why, to insist on believing otherwise, is faith not science.

Your closing words are at odds with your opening position. You claim to wholly agree that "a vast amount of well-founded and valuable science has been achieved over the years relating to the global climate" and insist when I assert that you dispute the credibility of the scientists that "precisely the opposite is the case". Yet, when those same thousands of scientists provide you with a summary of the current state of understanding, that they regard as a solid, well-supported theory, you maintain they are wrong and that they have merely an unsupported hypothesis.

So which is it? Why do you only accept expert scientific opinion in some areas and not others?

Dave

J SMITH:

Interesting you mention the infamous Swindle documentary. Everyone should know that Plimer knowingly included a fraudulent graph from that film - one that even Durkin accepted was untrue and subsequently changed. We're not even talking about minor misrepresentation - we're talking about changed axis and truncated trend lines to obfuscate the real observations. Plimer did this despite having previously been corrected on this graph in a public forum - so he knew it to be fraudulent prior to the publication of his book and he knew the source was TGGWS. When challenged directly after his book was published, he lied about the source.

manacker

J SMITH

You asked (of papers that are not supportive of the premise that AGW is a serious threat caused by human emissions of CO2), “Do you have any that are relevant, up-to-date and peer-reviewed ?”

Here is one that meets your specs:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

Max

Robin Guenier

Well, Dave, at least your most recent post was courteous. Thanks. Your problem, however, is that you seem to have difficulty in understanding what I’m saying. Therefore, I’ll spell it out for you again.

The current science on the question as to whether there is empirical evidence that man’s adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming can be summarised by three propositions:

1. There is empirical evidence that global temperatures have been rising since around the mid nineteenth century – albeit by a less than alarming 0.6deg.C or so.

2. There is empirical evidence that carbon emissions cause warming – and that the level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

3. But there is no such evidence that mankind’s emission of further CO2 will cause dangerous global warming.

That single specific point, Dave, is the nub of it – that’s where science has not reached a conclusion. So, if you can refer me to solid empirical evidence (not opinion) that our adding further CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming, I’d be most interested to see it. Remember: any such evidence would have to be established by physical observation (not theory), based on measurement and capable of independent replication. Judging from your comment to James P (8:04pm yesterday), I imagine that you would expect to find a reference to that evidence in the IPCC report. If so, it would be in Chapter 9 of Assessment Report 4 (2007), entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. You can access it here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
I’ve studied it in detail (please read my posts to J. Smith on July 20th at 8:50am, 8:52am, 8:54am, 8:56am, 9:00am and 9:03am); and I cannot find that evidence.

Perhaps you can? If you’re right and, as you say, dangerous AGW is a “solid, well-supported theory”, the IPCC would surely not have missed it. Yet it seems not to be there.

Let’s see how you get on.

manacker

Dave (and J SMITH)

All the gaggle about a misleading curve from TGGWS being used by Plimer is a bit silly.

I believe the graph that was in question was the temperature graph showing that the warming in the early 20th century (1910-1944) was allegedly greater than the warming in the late 20th century (1976-2000).

While this graph may, indeed, have been “distorted” (and was apparently “corrected” for the second release of TGGWS) the fact remains that according to the Hadley temperature record:

The linear warming observed over the 35-year period 1910-1944 (0.53°C) was greater than the linear warming observed over the 30-year period 1976-2005 (0.43°C).

In fact the linear rate of increase was also slightly higher:
0.152°C (1910-1944)
0.143°C (1976-2005)

So the “distorted” graph may have “exaggerated” the truth visually, but in fact it showed the truth, namely that the warming over the early 20th century warming period was greater than that over the late 20th century period.

Max

Nathaniel

Well i for one always believe the last conversation i ever have. What a bloody nice bloke

Dave

Oh, and manacker - you mention the Hadley record. Durkin asserted the source was NASA, so you're really on to a loser there.

Dave

Robin:

> 3. But there is no such evidence that mankind’s emission of further CO2 will cause dangerous global warming.

Okay, so that's two points really - whether emission of further CO2 will cause warming, and whether said warming will have dangerous consequences, correct?

The first point is pretty clear - climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 has been calculated in a variety of ways since the 60's I believe, including predictions from the understanding of the physics involved, statistical analysis of 20th century temperature trends, ice core data, paleoclimate records, modelling etc. For example, the following paper (Annan 2006) combines several observational approaches to predict a sensistivity of 2.5 - 3.5 degrees:

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf

If you look at page 749 of chapter 10 of the IPCC assessment report, it explains that an analysis of all of the available research led them to consider a sensitivity to doubling of between 2 and 4.5 degrees, with values greater than 1.5 degrees deemed to be very likely, and with values above 4.5 degrees very unlikely (but cannot be discounted). You'll find the above paper in the references, along with all the other evidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

The IPCC impacts, adaptation and vulnerability report sums up the opinion of what will happen if the temperature rises that much:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm

At the top of that chapter, you'll find they state that consitutes "dangerous" effects cannot easily be determined in scientific terms alone, and that the intention is to provide an assessment of all of the probable implications of the predicted warming - both positive and negative - such that this may better inform a socio-political judgement as to what is an acceptable level of interference with the environment.

This covers such things as the extinction of 20-30% of species by 2100, complete disappearance of low-lying islands and coastal areas due to sea-level rise, spread of eg. malaria and dengue fever into areas previously free from such disease (including into more developed countries), many tens of billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure due to sea-level rises and increased extreme weather events, changes to cereal production (some good, some bad, depending on latitude) with an overall decrease in productivity if the temperature rises by 3 degrees etc etc.

So the evidence is there, and it points to a wide variety of adverse effects on our environment, and precious few positive impacts. The outlook here is pretty bleak if current trends continue, and the IPCC report represents a conservative assessment of the available science (for example, extreme ice sheet melting scenarios were excluded due to uncertainty about the effects).

Dave

Manacker:

Hmm, I swear I posted another reply, but it may have been lost in the ether...

Anyway, here is the original TGGWS graph (as copied by plimer), the later "corrected" version, and the actual NASA plot, side by side so you can make your own judgement.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p37.htm

Despite the update to the graph, in TGGWS Durkin still repeated the same line you did about warming being greater pre 1945 than post 1975, which is just untrue - and the omission of the last 20 years of the graph has no justification. Your attempt to defend this by switching to the Hadley dataset rather than the NASA one Durkin claimed as his source is telling.

The fact that Plimer knowingly included this in his book (without citing the source), despite previously being warned in public that it was untrue, and when pressed obfuscated his source, is also telling. And this is just one in a long long long line of holes in that book.

manacker

Sorry, Dave, the GISS and Hadley records do agree roughly.

A look at the GISS (NASA) data shows:

Early 20th century warming:
1910-1944
0.47°C (35 years at 0.14°C per decade)

Late 20th century warming
1976-2000
0.40° C (25 years at 0.16°C per decade)

So even the GISS data shows that the warming in the early 20th century was greater than that in the late 20th century (although the decadal linear rate of warming increased slightly).

So the graphs may have been “manipulated” to make the early warming look more dramatic, but the fact remains (as stated in TGGWS) that:

• over the entire 20th century there was a “bit more than 0.5°C warming” (record shows 0.57°C linear warming from 1901 through 2000)
• most of the warming occurred in the early 20th century when there was very little CO2
• this was followed by a period of slight cooling when the post-war boom started and CO2 increased

Max

manacker

Dave

I believe you have confused two separate issues.

First, the graphs shown in TGGWS (before and after correction) do visually show an exaggerated early 20th century warming (the “corrected” graph is a bit less exaggerated). Whether or not this was intentionally done to “mislead” the public is a moot point.

But secondly, it is indeed true that both GISS and Hadley show that the warming of the early 20th century was marginally greater than that of the late 20th century. In the GISS record this difference is a bit less than in the Hadley record, but it is still there.

If you do not believe this, go back to the raw data, plot these in Excel, draw a linear trend line and establish the linear equation plus the linear warming over the entire period.

The two records are available at:
Hadley
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

GISS
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

IPCC uses Hadley, so that is why I usually do, as well. There has also been less controversy about the Hadley record than the GISS record, so I prefer Hadley.

Max

Dave

manacker:

Here's some questions.

Why did your earlier analysis run 1976-2005, while your later one ran 1976-2000?

Why is it okay for Durkin to fabricate a graph based on alleged NASA data, for Plimer to use the fabricated graph knowing it to be false, and then obfuscate the source, and for you to then attempt to back up their original claims using a different dataset?

Do you genuinely think that there was "very little" CO2 output prior to the end of the second world war?

What exactly is the point you're trying to make with the graph anyway? What's the actual relevance of selecting an arbitrary 35 year period in one half of the century, a 25 year period in the other half, and then comparing the rise in temperature? I'm really interested to know what exactly you think you're demonstrating with that.

The point that Durkin and Plimer are trying to make is that there's no relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature, by disregarding the accepted explanation for the 20th century temperature record (eg. effects of other factors, primarily sulphate aerosols). By attempting to cast doubt on the reality of CO2-induced warming, you do realise that puts you at odds with Robin in this thread, don't you?

If you dispute the accepted explanation for the mid-century temperature flattening, just say so. It really helps if you actually state the position you're arguing clearly.

Robin Guenier

Dave:

You’re right: the hypothesis that mankind’s emission of further CO2 will cause dangerous global warming contains several components. And each requires empirical support if the hypothesis is to be verified. But, contrary to your observation, there are (as I said in the penultimate paragraph of my post at 10:32pm on 28 July) at least three such components, not just your two. They are:

1. That mankind’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of recent global warming.

2. That, therefore, further such emissions will cause increased such warming.

3. That it, in turn, will cause dangerous climate change.

If the first is not supported by evidence, nor is the overall hypothesis. I believe it is not. Doubtless you disagree. Therefore, I would be most interested if you could refer me to research showing that the proposition at 1. (above) has been subject to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact; the evidence should be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication – i.e. established scientific procedure.

Over to you.

manacker

David

Wow! You’ve loaded me up with questions. Since none are obviously “loaded” (such as “when will you stop beating your wife”) I’ll see if I can answer them.

Q: Why did your earlier analysis run 1976-2005, while your later one ran 1976-2000?
A: No particular reason . I had already plotted the data for Hadley from 1976 to 2005, but 1976-2000 is the “late 20th century warming period”, so that is what I later plotted using the GISS data. Changing the Hadley data to cover the 25-year “late 20th century” period does not make much difference in the conclusion that it warmed more in the early 20th century than in the late 20th century.

Q: Why is it okay for Durkin to fabricate a graph based on alleged NASA data, for Plimer to use the fabricated graph knowing it to be false, and then obfuscate the source, and for you to then attempt to back up their original claims using a different dataset?
A: I have not said it was OK for Durkin or Plimer to use the exaggerated curve. It was probably a stupid move, since it gave critics something to complain about. I simply showed that the TGGWS statement was correct that the early 20th century warming was greater than that of the late 20th century.

Q: Do you genuinely think that there was "very little" CO2 output prior to the end of the second world war?
A: Yes. Unfortunately we have no good record of CO2 prior to 1958 when Mauna Loa started measuring, but according to the IPCC estimate, there was very little increase in atmospheric CO2 from 1901 (291 ppmv) to 1945 (310 ppmv), an average of just 0.43 ppmv increase (0.15%) per year.

Q: What exactly is the point you're trying to make with the graph anyway? What's the actual relevance of selecting an arbitrary 35 year period in one half of the century, a 25 year period in the other half, and then comparing the rise in temperature? I'm really interested to know what exactly you think you're demonstrating with that.
A: The early 20th century warming period 1910-1944 has been cited and studied (and is not arbitrarily picked by me). See Delworth + Knutson:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/287/5461/2246?ck=nck
This study concluded: “Over the period 1910-1944 (which encompasses the warming of the 1920s and 1930s), there is a linear trend of 0.53K per 35 years in observed mean temperature. If internal variability alone can explain this warming, comparable trends should exist in the control run. Linear trends were computed over all possible 35-year periods, using the last 900 years of the control run… For each 35-year segment, the time-varying distribution of observed data over the period 1910-1944 was used to select the model locations for calculating the global mean. The maximum trend in any 35-year period of the control run is 0.50K per 35 years. This suggests that internal model variability alone is unable to explain the observed early 20th century warming.”
The late 20th century warming period has been cited by many, including IPCC. Its start is generally agreed to be in 1976 (some say 1979), and the last year of the 20th century is 2000 (everyone agrees on that, except some uninformed individuals who believe the 21st century started January 2000). This period is 25 years.
The statement was made in TGGWS that the warming in the early 20th century was greater than that in the late 20th century. Both Hadley and GISS records confirm that this statement is correct. This is what I was demonstrating.

Q: The point that Durkin and Plimer are trying to make is that there's no relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature, by disregarding the accepted explanation for the 20th century temperature record (eg. effects of other factors, primarily sulphate aerosols). By attempting to cast doubt on the reality of CO2-induced warming, you do realise that puts you at odds with Robin in this thread, don't you?
A: I do not know what Robin’s point of view is on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomalies as recorded by Hadley and GISS. I believe his point on this thread is that there is no empirical data supporting the premise that AGW, caused by human CO2 emissions, is a serious threat. Durkin and Plimer may be telling us that it is just not that simple: CO2 may be a partial cause of warming, the change in solar activity may be another. As I recall, TGGWS does state categorically that human CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming. TGGWS did point out that IPCC overlooks the impact of the sun and even pointed to some graphs showing a strong correlation between global temperatures and solar activity.

Q: If you dispute the accepted explanation for the mid-century temperature flattening, just say so. It really helps if you actually state the position you're arguing clearly.
A: The unsupported rationalization that human aerosols caused the temperature to drop over a 30-year mid-century period of rapid growth of human CO2 emissions as IPCC states in a footnote to a chart in the FAQ section of Chapter 3 is a bit contrived: “From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s”. Show me the empirical evidence that supports this rationalization, David. I have seen none.

Hope this has answered your questions.

As to Durkin and Plimer’s use of an exaggerated chart to make a point (when they really did not even need the exaggerated chart to make their point), I’d say this was not very smart. To you I would say (in NewYorkese) “fuggidaboudit”. It’s not very important.

Max

James P

Dave

"this is just one in a long long long line of holes in that book"

I haven't got my copy yet - perhaps you could expand?

Dr. Clifton Chadwick

I like his answer about stomach ulcers. Unfortunately, The Nobel Committee sold ouit and gave a prize to moonbat Gore.

tempterrain

Dave,
Unfortunately, it is a waste of time debating with the likes of Max and Robin. Just take a look at Robin's comment, to Max " might it not be amusing to throw the 1860-1879 warming into the mix?"

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=48 Post 7074

Is that the comment of someone who is genuinely interested in climate science or someone whose only iterest is in the spreading of disinformation?

manacker

Tempterrain

Hi Peter,

Welcome back from hibernation!

Robin may indeed have had a scientific interest in the 1858-1879 warming period. It is part of a series of warming/cooling cycles our planet has seen since the modern temperature record started. You and I have discussed these and their apparent 60-year cyclical nature, which points to some cyclical climate driving force that has not yet been fully understood by climate scientists today (and largely ignored by IPCC in its myopic fixation on anthropogenic GHGs, primarily CO2).

Search for truth about what drives our climate goes outside simply reading IPCC reports or RealClimate rationalizations of the prevalent AGW theory, Peter.

Possibly this was Robin's motivation at the time.

Best of all, ask him yourself.

Max

manacker

Tempterrain

You wrote “Unfortunately, it is a waste of time debating with the likes of Max and Robin”.

I am really sorry that you feel that way, Peter. I always considered our exchanges interesting and informative.

Under the premise that it “a waste of time” debating with someone whose views you are unable to change, both you and I (as well as Robin) may have been “wasting our time”.

I do not view this as the goal of debating (changing the other party’s opinion), but rather hearing another opinion, taking issue with those portions of the opinion with which one does not agree, seeing if there is any common ground or any points where one could agree, etc.).

When discussing religion, this becomes more difficult as positions often become more intransigent and rigid. I have personally noted that discussing the premise that AGW is a serious threat caused by human CO2 emissions often becomes a quasi-religious discussion for the true believers of this premise.

Rational skepticism (critically insisting on empirical data that support the premise) becomes a form of heresy against the belief and the rational skeptic is cast into the role of heretic.

But I did enjoy our many months of exchanges.

Max

Robin Guenier

So you think my exchange with Max is about an interest in “the spreading of disinformation” eh, Peter Martin (aka tempterrain)? Well, for a real example of such an interest, I suggest you look at Dave’s exchange with J SMITH at 10:12am on 29th July. In it, he piously talks of Plimer’s use of a “fraudulent graph”. Subsequently, by demonstrating the accuracy of Plimer’s point (that early 20th century warming was greater than late 20th century warming, Max has comprehensively demolished that accusation of fraud. The Dave/SMITH exchange is true disinformation, Peter.

But, like Max, I’m truly saddened that you think that all those months of debate were “a waste of time”. I enjoyed and certainly learned a lot – and modified my position – from them.

tempterrain

Robin and Max,

Yes, a scientific debate can be useful but not with people who think that the IPCC and every other recognised scientific research institute worldwide are part of some giant conspiracy and hoax. Its like trying to prove that to Moon landing sceptics that NASA really did put a man on the moon. Of course, they will say, the conspiracy is so deeply entrenched that no-one dares break it.

You, together with James P are denizens of the 'harmlessky' website. Details of the hoax and conspiracy theory abound. Even the carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa and the Antarctic ice cores is challenged.

Various researchers in the 19th century reported CO2 levels as high as 600 ppmv and as low as 200 ppmv. Sensible people might think that this is indicative of some lack of precision due to the nature of the scientific equipment available at the time.

Not so the zealots at 'harmless sky'. This indicates to them that CO2 levels are naturally variable. They have produced graphs showing enormous oscillations in CO2 levels during the 19th century!

And before you say that they weren't your posts, I'd just remind you that you let them pass without any opposing comment. Why would you do that if you were interested in information rather than disinformation?

John Westman

Some days ago, I asked if someone could give me a list of the claimed errors in Professor Ian Plimer's book, "Heaven + Earth". To date there has been no response. It would be useful to have such a list, as the "acolytes of Gore" could become the "proponents of Gore"- a much more credible state to be in. Such a list would also give the professor an opportunity to correct claimed errors and to also correct any misconceptions the acolytes and Gore may have. At this time, when we get to the gist of their current creed, they have extremely little of substance.

In the final analysis it is amazing that people accept pronouncements without question. All that Gore has to offer at this time is a creed. His acolytes are behaving like children, and immature ones at that. And like children they do not consider the consequences of their actions or beliefs.

tempterrain

Robin,
If the warming over the 20th century could be represented as a straight line, one could meaningfully ask whether the warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century was greater than in the first half.

Unfortunately it isn't. Overall average global temperatures have risen and fallen. I don't remember ever seeing you posting a graph but, to separate information from disinformation, that's what you need to learn to do.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2163/2440243665_63416a6212_o.png

BTW, I took this graph from a well known climate sceptic website so I hope you aren't going to quibble about the source.

Cold Play

I think you upset Mr Monbiot he writes at the Guardian. Where they have adopted a new motto:-
Comment is free if you agree
But Facts suck.
The hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will causes dangerous global warming is not proven.
The hockey stick graph was a statistical nonsense.

Robin Guenier

Peter (tempterrain):

I do not believe nor have I, at any time, even hinted at a belief that “the IPCC and every other recognised scientific research institute worldwide are part of some giant conspiracy and hoax”. I believe the same applies to Max. Your accusation (like so many of your comments) is unfounded and totally absurd.

Re early 20th century warming, Max’s point was, quite simply, that warming during the period 1910-1944 was, according to both the GISS and Hadley records, greater than the warming during the period 1976-2000. He was not talking about 1900-1949 compared to 1950-2000. I suggest you pay attention.

Coldplay

"Is it just me, or are most of the contributions from people who agree with Plimer good humoured,correctly spelt, and grounded in common sense, basic scientific understanding and economic reality? And the ones from people who disagree just a bit, well, shrill, angry, illiterate or mad?
James you could not have said it better.

Mr Monbiot
Posted earlier along with one of his baiters from Cif.

Mr Monbiot says he does not agree with moderation?

I say the only thing worse than a hypocrite is a sanctimonious hypocrite.

tempterrain

Robin,

If you want 'absurd', how about?
"Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar climate research scam”. or
"It’s all a hoax."

Max Anacker 2007 http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/03/climate_change_.html

Your comments are designed to appear more measured, but, and besides climate science itself which you have admitted that you don't know much about, you clearly don't understand how scientific debates should be conducted either.

Primarily their purpose is to flush out mistakes, false reasoning, inconsistencies etc. It is quite normal for proponents of a particular theory to be equally rigorous with all evidence, not just the most favourable. It is, or should be, far removed from the usual partisan political debates which we are all generally more familiar with.

But you, like most climate sceptics, can't criticise the absudity of those who make similar comments to Max. After all they are your 'side', aren't they?

tempterrain

Robin,

If you want 'absurd', how about?
"Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar climate research scam”. or
"It’s all a hoax."

Max Anacker 2007 http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/03/climate_change_.html

Your comments are designed to appear more measured, but, and besides climate science itself which you have admitted that you don't know much about, you clearly don't understand how scientific debates should be conducted either.

Primarily their purpose is to flush out mistakes, false reasoning, inconsistencies etc. It is quite normal for proponents of a particular theory to be equally rigorous with all evidence, not just the most favourable. It is, or should be, far removed from the usual partisan political debates which we are all generally more familiar with.

But you, like most climate sceptics, can't criticise the absudity of those who make similar comments to Max. After all they are your 'side', aren't they?

tempterrain

John Westman,

You are asking about "errors in Professor Ian Plimer's book, 'Heaven + Earth' ".

Where do we start? How about typing "errors + Plimer" into Google? Bingo!

http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

Detailed responses from 7 top Australian climate reserachers.

I hope that helps.

PS Maybe you could give us a list of any errors that the good Professors may have made?

tempterrain

Robin,

We can all cherry pick years to suit but you should at least try to get the time intervals roughly the same. The period, 1910 to 1944 was ten years longer than the period 1976 to 2000.

I also hope you've been paying enough attention to the title of this thread which includes the word 'con-trick'.

You don't seem to approve of words like scam, hoax or conspiracy. Is 'con-trick' any better?

But I guess all climate sceptics have to stick together so you won't want to come out unequivocally against that word either.

neil

Oh you people have become so tedious.

The underlying principle of science is that you don’t have to disprove someone else's position, you have to prove your own.

And here lies the problem AGW proponents have never been put to task about proving their position, they demand that opponents disprove them. This is akin to proving that ghosts or aliens or fairies don't exist. Believers need no evidence to accept, so how can you convince them they are wrong?

Heres some simple facts:

The sun radiates mostly high frequency energy to earth, i.e. UV, visible light and a little infrared.

This is absorbed by the planet and infrared radiation in the 5~60um range is omitted at about 360W/m2.

Water vapour, H2O, absorbs energy over this entire range.

CO2 only absorbs energy over the 14~16um range.

At a CO2 concentration of 100ppm CO2 absorbs almost all of this energy, and what it misses H2O gets.

So it doesn’t matter if CO2 is 100, 280,387,2000 or 10,000ppm. There is no more infrared radiation in the 14~16um band be to absorbed, so beyond 100ppm CO2 is irrelevant.

This is not something to be debated, this is a rigid law of science. You may not like it but you can't change it.

Robin Guenier

Oh dear, Peter (tempterrain), you haven’t changed – as before, you’re not listening.

1. There is no requirement that all sceptics think alike. One of the excellent things about the HarmlessSky blog is that contributors have a wide range of views, ages, skills, educational backgrounds, nationalities, political positions, etc. Suffice to say: I personally do not believe that “the IPCC and every other recognised scientific research institute worldwide are part of some giant conspiracy and hoax” – nor have I, at any time, even hinted at such a belief. Any suggestion to the contrary is unfounded.

2. The one (possibly the only) thing most contributors to that blog have in common is a wish to uncover, mull over and discuss what most see as “mistakes, false reasoning, inconsistencies etc.” related to the dangerous AGW hypothesis – and an important consideration in all this is that, as neil has pointed out, it’s not incumbent on sceptics to disprove that hypothesis. BTW, I said “most” because, as you know well, proponents of that hypothesis are most welcome to contribute. The blog does not have a “side”, nor do those of us who are critical of the hypothesis (commonly for different reasons) see any need to “stick together”. Science has nothing to do with “sides’.

3. Re your cherry picking accusation, see my post at 2:44pm yesterday: my point was no more and no less than to repeat that Max’s observation was correct when he commented that warming during the period 1910-1944 was, according to both the GISS and Hadley records, greater than the warming during the period 1976-2000. I drew no conclusions from that. For the context that explains why those periods were used, read the earlier Dave/SMITH/Max posts. As I said before, I suggest you pay attention.

4. I neither approve nor disapprove of words. “Hoax”, for example, is a perfectly acceptable English word and the language would be the poorer without it.

But, from my perspective, all the above – although interesting – is irrelevant to the key issue: that I have yet to see empirical evidence (established by physical observation, not theory, and capable of independent replication) that verifies the hypothesis that mankind’s emission of further GHGs will cause dangerous global warming.

J SMITH (above) and Dave (above) have been unable to identify it. And I know you failed to do so on the HarmlessSky blog. Perhaps you can do better now.

Over to you, Peter.

John Westman

Thanks Neil for your useful erudition.

Tempterrain is sounding desperate.

What I want tempterrain, is a list of the claimed errors in "Heaven + Earth", to be listed in this site so that they can be debated and if there are errors found, I am sure someone will refer them to the good professor for correction. I also specifically asked that typos be not included: Such inclusion is simply useless(I note that you had an error of English in every fifth line on average in your post to me). To be sure to present a balanced view, could you also include the "errors" ("errors" is in inverted commas for good reason) contained within Gore's production "An Inconvenient Truth"?

I note that tempterrain accuses Robin Guenier of "cherry picking" data. Have a look at yourself, Peter! Gore and his acolytes have done little other than "cherry pick" data to suit their dogma.

It does look as though things are turning against the AGWERS. In Gore's hometown there have been record low temperatures, at a time when climate is supposed to be approaching the frying stage.

Another less than truthful statement attributed to the AGWERS, appeared the other day with the announcement that people are fleeing the Pacific Islands because of rising sea levels. Those people fleeing are ecomonmic refugees, looking for better opportunities in New Zealand and Australia. Nothing to do with rising sea levels!

A point about sceptics(or skeptics). A sceptic is a person who questions an accepted dogma. Sceptics are valuable people because without sceptics many of the great advances in civilisation would never have been made. A sceptic by nature is an inquirer, a seeker of the truth and is prepared to alter his/her views as the evidence, and in particular empirical evidence, dictates.

Contrast this with the believers who call sceptics deniers(this alone is a highly offensive term with its connotations in regard to the holocaust). A believer is one who accepts the dogma and mantras of a belief system without question and without regard to empirical evidence. Those who do not accept the dogma are branded heretics!

tempterrain

Robin,

I'd say that anyone who claims that AGW is a 'dangerous hypothesis' and therefore must be incorrect, is pretty much in the same camp as those who use terms such as 'scam, hoax, conspiracy, con-trick' etc.

It's pretty much a waste of time trying to discuss climate science, especially when, and as is usually the case, you and others of like mind don't much, even basic, science to begin with.

Neil,

Your 'undebatable' account of the benign nature of CO2 concentrations is, pretty roughly, the way the problem was often analysed in the early part of the 20th century.

Experiments were carried out on the absorption bands of CO2 and water vapour and as you have suggested these did largely, but not completely, overlap.

Nevertheless various estimates were made which should have alerted of the potential problem at an earlier stage. Not everyone got it completely wrong. Arrenhius, at the turn of the previous century, made various estimates of CO2 senistivity, based on a doubling of levels, ranging from 1.6 to 6 degs C. That's not much different from the range of current predictions!

Since then it has been recognised that both CO2 and H2O absorptions bands are narrower than had previously been supposed. The bands tend to broaden under increasing pressure, and so measurements made at sea level are not valid over the full depth of the atmosphere.

Consequently CO2 is nowhere near saturated. It is an important GHG. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the earth warmer by 33 deg C than it would be. That's not such a bad thing. Doubling CO2 levels from the pre-industrial level of 280ppmv, (it is now around 385 ppmv) is estimated to increase this to around 36 degC.

tempterrain

John Westman,

Here is a list of well known and well worn arguments that we've all learned to know and love over the last couple of years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I'm not sure if Ian Plimer has missed any out. If you think he has, you might like to email him with suggestions for a future edition.

On the other hand if John Plimer has come up with any new ones, maybe you could let me know and I'll try to get them added to the sceptical science website. Complete with "what the science says" correction.

Robin Guenier

Peter (tempterrain):

Are you incapable of paying attention? I have requested that you refer me to empirical evidence verifying the hypothesis that mankind’s emission of further GHGs will cause dangerous global warming. (No claim, you see, that AGW is a “dangerous hypothesis” – wake up.)

Now either you can refer me to the evidence or you cannot. Last time you tried you failed. Let’s see if you can do better this time.

neil

tempterrain,

"Experiments were carried out on the absorption bands of CO2 and water vapour and as you have suggested these did largely, but not completely, overlap."

True CO2 also absorbs energy at 4.2 and 4.8um but this is outside the spectrum radiated back from the earths surface so is irrelevant from a GH perspective.

"Since then it has been recognised that both CO2 and H2O absorptions bands are narrower than had previously been supposed. The bands tend to broaden under increasing pressure, and so measurements made at sea level are not valid over the full depth of the atmosphere."

I'll take your word on that as I don't know what the state of the science was 100 years ago. But the numbers I quoted are what is accepted by the broader scientific community today.

"Doubling CO2 levels from the pre-industrial level of 280ppmv, (it is now around 385 ppm) is estimated to increase this to around 36 degC"

This is complete jibberish that you obviously cut and pasted from a fanatical AGW website. If not show me the maths that supports your position.

In the meantime I'll give you some maths.

IPCC modelling is so simplistic that any secondary school science student could debunk it. The way their models work is that firstly assume that only CO2 has an effect on temperature. Then they take the global temperature rise from 1900~1998 of 0.7C (beyond 1998 the delta drops so they ignore that). Then (get this) the divide the 1998 global avg of 14.7 by the 1900 avg of 14.0 and assume this is directly proportional to the 105ppm rise in CO2 from 1867 to 2007??? Does anyone else see a disconnect here??

So they use a rate of 0.7C/105ppm to predict the future. They need a model for that; I can do that with a rule and graph paper.
Firstly; energy is not measured from 0C, it can however be approximated from 0K (-273.15C) so a 0.7K rise is not 5% it's 0.24% so the positive feed back is 21 times less than IPCC modelling suggests.

If take into account the 14~16um spectrum accounts for approximately 3% of the reflected infrared energy then the total temperature rise attributable to CO2 from 1867 to 2007 is 0.0072% of the 0.7C or 0.00005C. But if you also take into account that water vapour would have captured that energy anyway the contribution is ZERO!

tempterrain

Neil,

The long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument is recounted in historical terms, in two excellent articles on Realclimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

Don't expect simplicity though! The RC website is full of thorough explanations of why there is a problem with CO2 and other GHG emissions.

Robin,

Empirical tests? What sort of tests do you have in mind which might convince you? If you know what you are talking about there must be something surely?
I guess you might reply with something puerile. Like, its up to the proponents of a theory to prove it. That can work both ways. How about I say that if you think it is safe to double CO2 levels you should be the one to prove it?

Your attitude reminds me of the guy who lived on the side Mt St Helens prior to 1980. He refused to be evacuated saying that he wasn't convinced that there was any proof that the volcano was going to erupt. I dare say he might well have asked for "empirical evidence verifying the hypothesis". He may well have felt just as smug as you do now in his final hours.

John Westman

temptrain

I asked you for a list of the claimed errors in Professor Plimer's book, "Heaven + Earth", excluding typos, so that those errors could be debated in an open forum. All I get from you is reference to some web site. Do you own a copy of the book? Have you read the book? It would appear not! You have made a claim about Plimer's book, now present and back up those claims!

Also, from the point of view of balance, I also asked for a list of errors in Gores "An Inconvenient Truth", be presented.

Neil, thanks for your essay in regard to the effects of CO2 and reflection of heat. I would like to ask a question: Does CO2 cause a reflection of incoming heat, from the sun, back into space? This heat not reaching the Earth's surface.

I note an increasing desperation in the language of these AGWers as the pressure builds.

In Australia, there are a number of politicians starting to question this whole issue of man made global warming. They are coming to the realisation of the damage that will be done to the economy should the current clowns get their way in Canberra. Of couse it all swings on what is, at this time, an hypothesis, a belief system. The hypothesis is dangerous because it will wreak havoc on economies, if governments proceed down the path of "cap and trade".

It amazes me that the AGWers aren't attacking water vapour. It is far more plentiful in the atmosphere and a far more potent greenhouse gas. I would have thought that if you have a belief in rising temperatures and GHGs, that you would also look at water vapour. Surely some of this must be man made. Eg, steam from cooling towers at power stations

This whole issue of AGW smacks of politics. That alone is sufficient to question the credibility of the arguments!

tempterrain

Robin,

I noticed that you had taken me to task for attributing the words "dangerous hypothesis" to you. OK Sorry about that. I should have had it letter perfect, I should have written "dangerous AGW hypothesis". You might find CNTRL + F , useful if you want to check on exactly what was written.

It does strike me as odd that the sort of argument being promulgated about "con tricks" , hoaxes, scams, and conspiracies does tend to come almost excusively from the conservative right. Why do you think that should be? Incidentally, does anyone know of any exceptions to this rule?

Its natural that political opinions should vary, but I would have expected that the science of global warming should be taken at face value. And, that the left would argue for more socialist measures to attack the problem whereas the right would argue for more free market types measures.

Instead the messengers of the bad news, who themselves are of different shades of political opinion, have been denounced in right wing circles and accused of participating in a con-trick. Very strange, don't you think?

Billy Barnett

Reading the comments hitherto posted, one is struck by the way that the pro-AGW-lobby is almost to a person nasty, vindictive, non-factual, dismissive and indulge almost soplely in ad hominem attacks than is anything resembling constructive debate. Cummon guys - if you've got all the answesr start explaining why we've not had warming for 10 years, why the models don't seem to be any better at predicting climate than my granny at predicting the lottery, and why the last ice age ended absent the awful influence of homo sapiens (or was it all that heat from the cavemen's fires?)....

Robin Guenier

Peter (tempterrain):

Please refer me to research showing that the hypothesis (that mankind’s emission of further GHGs will cause dangerous climate change) has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact; the evidence should be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication.

That, Peter, is established scientific procedure. Without such evidence, your belief in the hypothesis is more akin to religion than science. As you seem to like analogies (I don’t), your position is like that of a priest telling me that my refusal to believe in his god means that I will burn in everlasting fire.

I’m away from my computer for several days. I look forward to seeing what you have to say when I get back.

Robin Guenier

(The following short essay was written in May and prompted by Peter’s (tempterrain) inability than to produce evidence supporting the hypothesis that mankind’s continued emission of GHGs will cause dangerous global warming.)

The economic, intellectual and cultural success of Western society is based, to a substantial extent, on the development and application of science and technology over the past 300 years. And that, in turn, has depended on the rigorous application of the principles of the scientific method as developed during the Enlightenment. Those principles (a problem is identified / a refutable hypothesis explaining it constructed / the hypothesis is tested against empirical evidence / if the evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is validated) are beautifully characterised by these quotations from Thomas Huxley (whose debate with Bishop Wilberforce established the pre-eminence of Darwin’s theory of evolution):

"My business is to teach my aspirations to confirm themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations."

"The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification."

"The ultimate court of appeal is observation and experiment … not authority."

"… what you get out depends on what you put in; and, as the grandest mill in the world will not extract wheat flour from peasecod, so pages of formulæ will not get a definite result out of loose data."

In my view, therefore, we should be very concerned that, regarding the hypothesis that the continuation of mankind’s emissions of “greenhouse” gases will cause dangerous global warming, we seem to be abandoning these principles. Instead of clear references to empirical evidence as the validation of the hypothesis and the admission of any uncertainty, there are assertions of “consensus”, reliance on authority, statements that “the science is settled” and the demonisation of critics. Yet it was precisely science’s escape from the tyranny of the consensus of authoritative opinion that underpinned the Enlightenment and hence our society’s success.

Over recent years, global temperatures have stabilised (most recently they have fallen slightly) despite the continued rise of greenhouse gas emissions. Were that to continue for, say, another five or ten years the hypothesis could be fatally damaged and the scientific establishment lose the moral authority on which our society depends. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty for scientists to have allowed such a possibility to have come about.

tempterrain

John Westman,

Errors in Ian Plimer's Book

#1 He seems to have repeated this argument from a couple of guys named Khilyuk and Chilingar.

"Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×10^18 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth's climate."

Stop for a moment and think. Can you spot the flaw in that argument? Don't read on until you've tried.

OK Its over the course of the earth's history as compared with a couple of hundred years which is the silly comparison. Of course CO2 at one time was a very abundant gas. That carbon is now locked up as coal, oil, limestone etc.

#2 Referencing Becks Dodgy graph

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php

This needs to comment at all.

tempterrain

Robin,

I really don't understand what you are asking for and I suspect that you don't either. Otherwise you would be able to explain yourself better.

I'm not sure what you know about science and what you don't. Do you know that the earth would be 33 degC colder without its natural GH effect?

Would you agree with that? Would you agree that CO2, which has always been naturally present in the atmosphere contributes significantly to that 33 degs?

If so, what are the 'empirical' studies that have convinced you of this?

manacker

Tempterrain

Peter

I see from your exchange with Robin that you have been quoting me, allegedly to “prove” that I have called the AGW movement a “conspiracy”.

I have not said that, because I do not believe that there is a “conspiracy”.

I do, however, believe that the facts have shown quite clearly that there is a collusion of interests between within the scientific community, between the scientific community and the media (seeking viewers/readers/profits), the politicians (seeking tax revenues/power and granting the billions of dollars of climate research funding), many industrialists (seeking profits to be made from new “green solutions”), some self-described “saviors of the planet”, such as Al Gore, James E. Hansen (seeking glory and fame) and a bevy of assorted “do-gooders”, environmental activists, anti-industrialists, nature lovers, etc.

Peter Taylor covers this “collusion” very well in his book, “Chill” (recommended to me by TonyB). Taylor also gives a fairly compelling “reassessment of global warming theory”, from the standpoint of a true environmentalist, himself. He points out some of the errors in the computer simulations. He concludes that the most recent warming period has resulted from an unprecedented combination of natural events, which he describes in some detail. He also writes that our greatest threat today is one of a prolonged global cooling (such as we had during the Little Ice Age).

I will quote his concluding summary, which I feel gives a fairly concise picture of the current situation and its background:

• The proposition that the planet has warmed due to greenhouse gases of human agency and that humanity could in the near future destabilize the global ecosystem and the biodiversity of life is a virtual reality created by a small cabal of computer specialists.
• Those specialists had little real comprehension of ecology and in particular of past ecological environments. They were fundamentally mathematicians and physicists, chemists and computer technicians, and prone to all manner of ambitions to further their field of knowledge and make a play for saving the world from what they genuinely believed could be a future threat.
• Within a relatively short time, powerful global interests had allied to this cause, in particular those organizations in need of new and truly global missions.
• The hypothetical threat from carbon dioxide was a perfect enemy. It lay at the heart of all the environmentally destructive tendencies occasioned by burgeoning economic growth; its global reach meant that no country was safe from its effects. Emissions reflected perfectly the global inequity of trade and wealth, pollution and the evils of laissez-faire capitalism.
• Thus, the war and campaign began – alliances were sought, the media were activated and the debates politicized such that almost no party could gainsay the ‘truth’ of climate change.
• And when the UN’s assembled scientists debated, disagreed ans worked their caveats, a whole cadre of politicized drones reworked their wordings into something that ‘policy makers’ could act on – a series of ‘targets’ that related to emissions and percentages of renewable energy supply.

The book is well worth reading, Peter, just to get another slant on the whole story, and it is only around one-third as long as the IPCC AR4 WG1 report and far less boring.

Max

manacker

Dave

You have commented a few times on Ian Plimer's book, "Heaven and Earth".

Have you actually read the book?

I have just completed it and found it very interesting reading.

Plimer covers our planet’s climate history in some detail (much better coverage than given by IPCC AR4 WG1, which concentrates essentially on a 25+ year period starting in 1976, tying essentially everything to anthropogenic factors).

His treatise also covers the climate impact of the sun in much greater depth and breadth than IPCC (who gloss over this topic fairly quickly).

All in all, I would say it is a very good and well-referenced treatise on the cyclical nature of our planet’s past and current climate, with some (non-apocalyptical) thoughts about where the future may lead us.

The temperature graph to which you made reference earlier (Fig. 3 in the book’s “Introduction”) is not really a key part of his argumentation. He does not mention the source of the graph or whether the raw data came from Hadley or GISS, only that is based on “thermometer temperature measurements”, i.e. surface rather than satellite readings. At first glance it does look a bit distorted, but simply measuring the rate of increase from 1910-1944 and comparing this with the increase from 1976-2005 shows a ratio of 22:17 or 1.29.

The Hadley record shows a linear warming (1910-1944) of 0.53°C (0.152°C per decade over 35 years) and (1976-2005) of 0.43°C (0.143°C per decade over the slightly shorter period of 30 years). This means that the actual ratio of the early 20th century to the late 20th century warming was 0.53/0.43 or 1.23.

So there is a 6% distortion in the graph.

Either way, it shows that the early 20th century warming was slightly greater than the late 20th century warming, which was the point Plimer wanted to make.

The distortion is unfortunate, but is really no big deal. The book is an interesting and informational read.

Max

manacker

Tempterrain

Reur post on alleged errors in Plimer’s book”

Error #1: I have been unable to find the section you quoted on relative amounts of CO2 naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history and human CO2 emissions today. Can you tell me on which page (and Chapter) to look for this? Thanks.

Error #2: Citing the historically recorded chemical CO2 measurements over the 19th and early 20th century is not an error, Peter. It would be an error to simply disregard them. To what extent some of the higher readings may have been influenced by local factors or anomalies is a moot point. Whether or not they reflect reality is another open point. Plimer points out that IPCC “accepts” the lower readings (by the Pettenkofer method) as a yardstick, but “rejects” the higher readings. Sorry, Peter. This is not an “error” by Plimer, as you stated.

Max

manacker

Tempterrain

Noticed a slight “unsubstantiated leap of faith” (let’s not call it an “error”) in your statement to neil:

“Consequently CO2 is nowhere near saturated. It is an important GHG. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the earth warmer by 33 deg C than it would be. That's not such a bad thing. Doubling CO2 levels from the pre-industrial level of 280ppmv, (it is now around 385 ppmv) is estimated to increase this to around 36 degC.”

In a subsequent post, Neil explained to you the “diminishing return” of CO2 IR absorption with higher concentration.

The “natural” greenhouse effect (33 degC) is caused primarily by water vapor, not CO2. Most climate scientists put the natural CO2 impact at 5 to 7 degC.

3 degC added warming for a doubling (from 280 to 560 ppmv) is a computer-generated virtual figure, based on dicey assumptions, some of which have already been shown by empirical data to be false.

Plimer does a good job of explaining how water vapor dampens the effect of increased CO2, pointing out that this is why there have been no “tipping points” or “runaway greenhouse warming” in past periods, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.

Read the book, Peter. I can only recommend it. The guy is a renowned geologist and professor of earth sciences, and much of what he writes about is climate change and its causes in distant geological times and how this relates to the most recent warming.

Max

tempterrain

p477 quotes Khilyuk & Chilingar whose thesis is that humans aren't responsible because our CO2 emissions, measured over the history of the planet, are less than that of volcanoes. Also cited on p479 and p492.

p472 claims Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans in a year. Obviously wrong if you glance at Mauna Loa data.

Most climate scientists don't try to separate out the effect of one GHG from another. They are all interdependent.

For instance if all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere and the temperature did, initially, fall by the 5-7 degC that you suggest, it would be quickly followed by a reduction in the atmospheric water vapour content too. The atmosphere in Antartica, for instance, is much drier than at the tropics.

Its known as the positive feedback effect. Of course climate sceptics don't like to talk about that but its quite easy to see how it occurs. If CO2 concentrations rise, the atmosphere warms, and just like in a clothes drier, the warmer air will be able to hold more water vapour before it condenses out.

Of course the contrarians like to quote some preliminary work by Spencer, and others, which suggests that this isn't the case at all. They are suggesting that under certain circumstances relative humidity will actually fall which increasing temperature.

This is not really a comforting result even if, although unlikely, there does turn to be some validity in the argument. Reducing RH would have serious implications for world rainfall. It is only when RH hits 100% in the atmosphere that precipitation can occur.

manacker

Tempterrain

Your point on Pinatubo CO2 may well be valid.

However, you should check the following NASA article for a suggested reason that measured atmospheric CO2 did not increase unusually after the Pinatubo eruption.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011210co2absorb.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.B33A0241A

I have no idea how much CO2 was actually released by Pinatubo. I have seen a conservative estimate by Gerlach that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (roughly 130 times less than annual human emissions), but I have seen no specific estimate of CO2 released by Pinatubo. But I would agree that it is doubtful that Pinatubo released more CO2 than humans in a year as is stated in the book. Since Plimer cites no reference for this claim, it is hard to check.

As to the quoted reference to a study by Khilyuk and Chilingar (which concluded that humans may be responsible for 0.01°C of the observed 0.56°C total average atmospheric warming of the 20th century), Plimer is actually responding to an claim in the Stern report (which concludes “that there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years”). K+C have given another “plausible explanation” for the warming (whether it is correct or not), so the Stern claim was erroneous.

The rest of your post is a bit doubtful. Your hypothetical prediction that atmospheric water vapor would drop significantly if CO2 were removed is based on a leap of faith, rather than any empirical scientific data. It could just as well increase slightly to “make up the difference” and maintain a constant GH effect.

The overall “positive feedback” leading to a 3 to 4 –fold increase in the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is also based on faith (and computer model assumptions) rather than empirical physical data..

The study by Spencer et al. is, however, based on empirical data from physical observations. It shows that cloud exert a strongly net negative feedback with warming, contrary to the assumptions fed into the computer models cited by IPCC.

Your postulation that “reducing RH would have serious implications for world rainfall. It is only when RH hits 100% in the atmosphere that precipitation can occur” is also based upon oversimplified assumptions. The formation of clouds obviously reduces the amount of water vapor locally, and empirical data (Minschwaner + Dessler) have shown that RH does reduce slightly with warming (rather than remaining constant as assumed by the climate models cited by IPCC), but this has nothing to do with “world rainfall”.

Peter, your list of “errors” in Plimer’s book was very weak. I have read the book and found that most of his claims are well founded and referenced.

One might not agree with his conclusions
• that climate, sea level and ice sheets have always changed in the past due to natural cyclical reasons and the current changes are no exception to the rule,
• that atmospheric CO2 has been much higher in the distant past with no “tipping points” or “runaway GH warming” and
• that trying to deal with scientific misrepresentations (ex. in Gore’s “AIT” film) is “like trying to argue with creationists, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo”.

But it is a well-presented scientific argument for the premise that global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is not a serious threat.

Max

James P

Tempterrain (Aug 6th)

"Of course CO2 at one time was a very abundant gas"

"Very abundant" is probably overstating it, as it has never (AFAIK) been more than about 1%, but it was certainly an order of magnitude higher than it is now.

Since this didn't apparently lead to a 'tipping point' or thermal runaway, can you explain why an increase of a few ppm should be so dangerous now?

tempterrain

Max,

The relationship between atmospheric temperature and water vapour content can be measured directly. At the poles the air is cold and dry. At the tropics it is warm and moist.

You might have noticed that a good method of demisting windows in a car is to switch on the air conditioner. The cooler air, from the AC, is drier but quickly warms up to produce a low relative humidity atmosphere in the car.

It is easy to understand that if CO2 alone increased enough to produce a temperature increase of 1 deg C ( and this was the figure given by Lindzen in testimonony to the UK's House of Lords) that water vapour would also increase to add still further to the warming. However, I agree that there could be a counterintuitive process at work which might mean that the relative humidity would change to compensate.

However, you can't have it both ways. If average relative humidity does fall to maintain atmospheric water levels at a constant level this would surely adversely affect rainfall.

Again we don't have to rely entirely on computer models. Rainfall patterns in areas of high atmospheric humidity are measurably higher than in areas of low humidity.

I'd say there was probably about 3 mistakes per page in Plimer's book. Naturally, I refuse to buy a copy but I have had a flick through in the the bookshop before the shop assistant glared at me! Correct me if I'm wrong but he seemed to cover all the well known contrarian arguments: Its all the sun, warm weather is better for, its not really warming anyway (UHI effect), they can predict the weather next week so how can they know what will happen in 100 years etc etc. Do you reckon he's missed any out or come up with any new ones?

JamesP,

By thermal runaway do you mean the 'venus effect'? This is pretty much the worse case scenario. Its possible that it could happen now, whereas it didn't previously, if the sun is now hotter.

Even if it is a possibility, I'd agree that it was unlikely. However, I'd just ask what level of CO2 you'd be prepared to accept and how high sea levels were when they were last at that level?

John Westman

Tempterrain (Peter)

I am simply astonished. Why did you not buy the book "Heaven + earth"? In Australia is is cheap at $40.00.

You have been passing critical comment about the book and now we find out that you have not read the book but have skimmed over it while standing, or sitting (sleeping?) in a bookshop. You have no right to being a critic until you have read and studied the book-only then can you be a credible critic. No wonder you are unable to supply the list of claimed errors, as requested! The book has roughly 500 pages with 2311 references to source material. Many of these 2311 references are to work by other scientists.

Peter, your words are; "I'd say there was probably about 3 mistakes per page in Plimer's book. Naturally, I refuse to buy a copy but I have had a flick through in the the bookshop before the shop assistant glared at me!" So, this qualifies you as a critic?

Or, perhaps I have got it all wrong! I am standing in the afterglow of brilliance? A brilliance of mind that has no comparison on Earth. To skim a book and then with confidence make a comment in regard to errors, I am speechless!

Please raise the errors to enable debate.

Pages 87-99 in Plimers book make reference to the Mann "hockey stick" It is interesting to note that in those pages are also the words; "fraud", "dishonest", "nefarious", "misleading", "politicised", and questionable". Plimer does a pretty good demolition job on the Mann "hockey stick".

manacker

Tempterrain (Peter)

Believe there is no point responding to your totally unsubstantiated “three errors per page” (times 493 pages) charge regarding Dr. Ian Plimer’s book, since John Westman has already done that.

I have found some errors and inconsistencies in IPCC AR4 WG1 and SPM 2007 reports (but certainly not anywhere close to three per page times around 1,000 pages total). I did, however take the time to download the entire report, read it in its entirety and compare its claims with other published research, before arriving at my conclusion regarding the discrepancies that I did find. I believe this is the only realistic way to truly evaluate the relative accuracy of a written document.

I also believe that any long treatise making a sales pitch (as both Plimer and IPCC are doing) will have some exaggerations and some outright errors in it (as both Plimer’s book and IPCC AR4 WG1 and SPM 2007 do).

IPCC is trying to sell us its premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat. Plimer is selling us his premise that the IPCC premise is incorrect.

I do not believe that it is a coincidence that Plimer has chosen the subtitle “the missing science” whereas the IPCC SPM had the subtitle “the physical science basis”.

To your second point: at a local level specific humidity, relative humidity, atmospheric temperature, amount and type of clouds, amount of precipitation all are interrelated, as you say, Peter. This is obviously a very complex and dynamic interrelation.

The IPCC assumption that relative humidity remains constant with warming in goose-step with the Clausius-Clapeyron law has been shown by actual physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler) to be wrong, hence the assumed water vapor feedback is overstated.

The IPCC assumption that net cloud feedbacks are strongly positive with warming has been shown to be wrong by actual physical observations (Spencer et al.), hence the assumed strongly positive cloud feedback is incorrect.

Your speculation that a slightly warmer world (or average) with a slightly lower relative humidity (or average) would have significantly different rainfall patterns locally than those local rainfall patterns in today’s world, and that this would be moving from a current desirable state to a less desirable state in the future, is pure conjecture, for which you have not provided any empirical supporting data.

Max

tempterrain

John Westman,

So if anyone fills a book with crap, no-one who hasn't purchased a copy is allowed to comment on what it is filled with?

Ian Plimer just makes it up as he goes along. It may seem a small point but he's stated that the Romans grew grapes and oranges in Northern England. Like most of his statements it is just given without any reference.

Grapes possibly. There is now a vinyard near York I believe. Although I dare say that Roman aristocracy would have paid a little extra for the imported ones from warmer climates, but oranges? I don't think so. Its just not warm enough.

manacker

Tempterrain

Peter, don’t shoot yourself in the foot.

You wrote (of Plimer’s book):

“Ian Plimer just makes it up as he goes along. It may seem a small point but he's stated that the Romans grew grapes and oranges in Northern England. Like most of his statements it is just given without any reference.”

I have read the sections on both the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warm Period.

Nowhere does Plimer say that oranges were grown in Northern England in either period.

Of the Roman period he writes: “citrus trees and grapes were grown as far north as Hadrian’s Wall”. Note that “citrus trees” are not necessarily “oranges”; “lemons” (which are grown in many parts of central Europe today, which would not support orange trees) are also “citrus” fruits. For this statement as well as others relating to European climate during the period, Plimer cites references (which I have not checked), such as Lamb, Claiborne, etc.

It looks like you are making it up as you go along, Peter.

Find serious errors in Plimer’s book and flag them. I have seen one or two, but so far you have only cited the “volcanic CO2” exaggeration.

Max

J SMITH

Having been away for a while, I was surprised to find this still going.

Anyway, someone has been asking for a list of errors in Plimer's book, and, because there are a lot, rather than copy and pasting, I thought it best to provide this link to a site from Ian Enting, a mathematical physicist and the AMSI/MASCOS Professorial Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS) based at The University of Melbourne (listed in Wikipedia) :

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Warning : because there are so many errors, etc., there are 38 peges to the above link but I hope any open-minded person would look at it.

Finally, it was very troubling to find out the link between Robin Guenier and manacker at that site provided by tempterrain. I find it a bit shocking, actually. Why can't people reveal their connections ? It all feels very underhand and suspicious to me, which is a shame because now I don't know whether it is worth debating any further with you two. What is your agenda ?

manacker

Tempterrain

You raised a philosophical question to John Westman:

“So if anyone fills a book with crap, no-one who hasn't purchased a copy is allowed to comment on what it is filled with?”

Buying the book is not the issue here, Peter. If you have not read the book in detail, checked out the cited references and compared the claims and references with other published scientific reports, you are not in a position to say that Plimer’s book is filled “with crap”.

And, so far, you have cited only one error. That’s pretty weak, Peter.

I can do a lot better than that with the IPCC AR4 report, for example.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

Thanks for Ian Enting’s list of “errors” in Plimer’s book.

I will review these briefly.

1. and 2. relate to the details of how many studies said this and how many said that and whether or not the studies themselves were correct. These are irrelevant comments
3. is a general nitpick about the graphs
4. is more specific:
"In general the graphics are poorly linked to the text, with the text making no explicit
mention of the graphics in virtually all cases. Apart from the issues of lack of citations
and mislabelling of axes, noted in item 3, there are significant problems with the content
of many of the graphs. By figure number, these are:
1: Misrepresents the HadCRUT data set and uses fabricated data for 2008 — [see item
6]."
The 2008 data for HadCRUT shows a drop from around 0.4C in 2007 to 0.2C in 2008. The actual drop was from 0.403C in 2007 to 0.312C in 2008.
"3: The data are distorted — [see item 12]."
A visual check of the two temperature increases as depicted on the graph shows a ratio of 1.29 (early 20th century warming, 1910-1944: late 20th century warming, 1976-2000. The actual ratio was 1.23 (0.53C vs 0.43C), so there is a 6% distortion and nothing much to talk about.
"5: Falsified time axis, thus giving no indication of the Younger Dryas, in contradiction
with text — [see item 15]."
Axis looks OK. Discrepancy with text is meaningless. There is no “falsification” as claimed.
"10: Lack of specifics makes the plot meaningless — [see item 17]."
This is a silly remark. The plot is clearly identified as temperature in C and ice accumulation in metres per year. This is quite specific.
"11 (upper): ‘Hockey stick’ data have been distorted — [see item 25]."
They have not been “distorted” as much as “simplified”, with short-term “blips” and error bars removed.
"11 (lower): values for 20th century have been distorted, end of MWP inconsistent with
abrupt end described in text — [see item 25]."
Looks pretty abrupt to me. This is a visual aid, to show the difference between the Mann et al. hockey stick and the “temperature history derived from hundreds of studies”; it shows this difference quite clearly.
"14: While a citation is given, comparison with the cited source shows that one of the
curves is not what Plimer claims it to be [see item 31]."
No comment. This looks like a genuine screw-up by Plimer (showing sunspot numbers instead of grain price, even though his graph is supposed to show the correlation with grain price).
"15: Time series truncated to shift relative degrees of correlation — [see item 32]."
This is a “nit-pick”. The graph (from a 1990 study) shows a strong correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature anomaly, with no clear correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly, just as Plimer describes.
"29: The content is misrepresented — [see item 44]."
Another “nit-pick”. The graph shows that seasonal fluctuations of both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (apparently shown by quarter) are far greater than any long term trends in the Arctic sea ice (apparently shown by month).
"38, 39, 40: Plotted on different scales to try to imply trends are different (in violation of
the basic laws of arithmetic) — [see item 51]."
A real “nit-pick”. The scales are clearly identified and appear to be the scale that fits the graph best.
"5. In analysing the details that follow, remember that Heaven + Earth is being promoted as a scrupulous and scholarly analysis."
Where does this quote originate?
"6. p. 11, figure 11: This graphic has several misrepresentations. The bold line purports to be temperature data from the HadCRUT data set (see page 24 below). This is not true.
The HadCRUT data are closer to the lighter solid line which is labelled, UAH LT (adj to
Sfc)3 More seriously, at least for the HADCRU data4, the 2008 data that are shown are
fabrications. The HadCRUT data set shows 2008 as being only 0.081_C lower than 2007"
— [BB].
First part is a “nit pick” (the line depicts HadCRUT fairly closely), but the 2008 value shown by Plimer is incorrect (see 4.1. above).
"7. p. 21–22: Biased comparison of IPCC ‘balance of evidence’ vs a survey that found only 10% of scientists certain that global warming is a process that is underway."
Not exactly. Plimer writes that in 1996 “only 10% of 400 American, Canadian and German climate researchers expressed strong agreement that they are “certain that global warming is a process that is already underway”.

Will bring more “comments on the comments” later, but so far they look fairly weak.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

OK. Let’s do a quick interim status report on Ian Enting’s list of “errors” in Ian Plimer’s book.

The first 3 were too unspecific to be of much value.

The next 10 relate to 13 of the 54 graphs in the book. Of these 13, there were 2 errors in the graphs (HadCRUT 2008 temperature shown incorrectly and “grain price” on the “grain price graph” erroneously shown as “sunspot number”. There is one scale exaggeration of around 6% (early 20th century vs. late 20th century warming). The rest are “nit-picks” and can be ignored.
So far, Eating’s critique looks weak indeed.

The next (#5) states that Plimer’s book was “sold” as “a scrupulous and scholarly analysis”. It looks pretty scholarly to me, with all the cited references, but I have not seen where it was “sold” as such. Has anyone? It is a moot point, in any case.

The next (#6) is a repeat of the incorrect HadCRUT figure for 2008.

The next (#7) is a misquote of what Plimer said about 1996 agreement among American, Canadian and German scientists regarding being “certain that global warming is a process that is already underway”.

Continuing to new points”

“8. p. 22: asserts that during the MedievalWarming, the global temperature was a few degrees warmer than today. This claim is asserted in various forms at many places through Heaven + Earth, mostly without any justifying citation. Many examples of changes for various regions are noted with citations, but there is no analysis of the overall results. The main places where the claim for a large and widespread Medieval warming is backed with citations are on page 63 [citing footnote 239] and page 490 [citing footnotes 2282 and 2283].
As noted in item 19, reference 2395 shows only a single time series for temperature. Item 97 notes that reference 2282 makes no mention of the MWP and reference 2283 (the first IPCC report) contains only a schematic with no temperature scale assigned. Similarly, item 20 notes that reference 255, cited in support of 2C cooling from MWP to LIA only analyses the period 20,000 BP to 10,000 BP”

This is a lot of verbiage, but does not say anything specific. References are cited for a warmer MWP in many regions of the world. These contradict the since discredited bristlecone proxy findings of Mann et al.

“9. p. 22: Misrepresents IPCC treatment of Little Ice Age (LIA), Medieval Warm Period”
(MWP). (See later — item 26).
Ignore.

“10. p. 22: Referring to the ‘hockey stick’ in the 2001 IPCC WG1 report: It was highlighted on the first page of the Summary for Policymakers and was shown another four times in the 2001 Summary for Policymakers. Since there are only five figures in the 2001 WG1 SPM, this would imply that all figures in the SPM include the ‘hockey stick’. This is quite simply false.”
It was shown on p.34 of the 2001 SPM and repeatedly in the TAR. The curve appears to be identical to the one shown by Plimer excluding the “error bars”.

“11. p. 22: The IPCC, without explanation, quietly withdrew the “hockey stick” from the Summary for Policymakers in subsequent publications and had it buried in a scientific chapter of the 2007 report, with the footnote 24 noting as one of the reconstructions of past climate. The reconstructions, including that from Mann et al., are also in the technical summary (figure TS.20) of the 2007 report — [DK].”
I would think that most AGW supporters would be smart enough to drop the discredited Mann hockey-stick (and later “copy” hockey-sticks) like a hot rock. They only make the AGW story look contrived.

“12. p. 25, figure 3: The graph has been distorted and misplotted. The line has the 1998 peak in about the right place relative to the scale, but the 1940 peak (labelled as such) appears in the 1950’s and the 1975 trough is plotted nearer to 1979. (The Brave New Climate web site identifies this fabrication as coming from The Great Global Warming Swindle).”
This has been discussed before the 6% distortion does not change the correct conclusion that the warming from 1910-1944 was greater than the warming from 1976-2005. These are the recorded facts, no matter how one presents them on a graph. I would suggest that one should ignore what “The Brave New Climate web site” claims.

“13. p. 25: There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase. The last 30 years of temperature increase have not been erased. The HADCRU data set6 shows that both 2007 and 2008 have annual temperatures higher than any year prior to 1997 in the instrumental record.”
This is a false comparison. Cooling means a reduction in temperature, regardless of absolute values. 2008 cooled relative to 2007. The entire 21st century has cooled so far.

“14. p. 32: within a glacial period that has already lasted tens of millions of years, identified in footnote 38 as Pleistocene glaciation, sometimes called the Quaternary glaciation —implying a tens of millions of years duration for the ‘Pleistocene’ and ‘Quaternary’ that might surprise Plimer’s geological colleagues.”
More splitting words, but no real “meat”.

“15. p. 33, figure 5: Caption reads: The amount of temperature and temperature change ....This is two different things, but only one line is plotted. In addition, this unattributed graphic lacks any indication of the rapid cooling and warming associated with the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas [c.f. pages 42–44 and figure 10)]. Since the graph extends to the point labelled Today at 2000 on the time-scale, the description Time (years ago) is incorrect. However,7 comparisons with other publications indicates that this is rates of change from the GISP-2 ice core. However, in the ‘original’ graphic the timescale was non-linear (possibly linear in depth), and the linear time-scale has been imposed by Plimer (with, as noted, the endpoint being inconsistent with the labelling). This is one of the weirder one’s since Plimer’s falsification of the time axis acts counter to his argument by removing the changes around the Younger Dryas.”
Covered earlier. A meaningless “nit-pick”.

“16. p. 40, figure 8: lower part lacks numbers on horizontal axis.”
A “nit-pick”. The scale shows that this covers the period from 2000BP to today.

“17. p. 43, figure 10: The plot of ice accumulation is meaningless without saying where. Clearly, 0.2 metres/year for the last 10,000 years is not a global average.”
The reference cites where this reduction in accumulated ice is supposed to have occurred. Is this reference correct? Who knows?

“18. p. 59: In the section on The RomanWarming Plimer states By 300 AD, the global climate was far warmer than at present. Reference 217 is a 1977 book by H. H. Lamb which says little about Roman times. The strongest statement seems to be on page 4 saying that By late Roman times, particularly in the fourth century AD, it may well have been warmer than now, with ‘now’ meaning the mid 1970s.”
No evidence is provided by Enting that the Roman Warm Period was not warmer than today, so his claim is essentially unsupported.

“19. p. 63: In the Medieval warming, it was far warmer than the present and the warming was widespread. The citation for this (footnote 239) is the book: The Little Ice Age. The index identifies four references to the MWP. One is a passing reference, one refers to sea level and one notes a subsequent cooling of 0.7_C to 1500. The most detailed discussion is on page 376 which presents only one time series of temperature estimates—1000 years from central England. In addition, proxy series from Greenland and North America are shown without any temperature calibration, and combined into a ‘North Atlantic index’ again without any temperature scale assigned.”

So what? The cited refernces support the statement that the MWP was considerably warmer than today, and this is the point that Plimer wanted to make.

Enough for now.

It is beginning to look like Ian Enting had the agenda to “trash”Ian Plimer’s book, but (with a few exceptions noted above) his arguments are weak.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "1. and 2. relate to the details of how many studies said this and how many said that and whether or not the studies themselves were correct. These are irrelevant comments"

Not at all !

1 - points out the lack of citation for claims about higher temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period and states that some of those that are cited, don't even address the MWP. It also shows the lack of citations for the claim of a climate sensitivity of 0.5C.

2 - points out the exaggeration Plimer gives to the role of water vapour in the warming of the planet.

manacker wrote : "3. is a general nitpick about the graphs"

Nitpick ? It points out that 26 (nearly half, by my reckoning - in a scientific book ?) of the graphics/data sets have no citation.

I will leave more until another time but I just wanted to address one more of your comments.

manacker wrote : "'5. In analysing the details that follow, remember that Heaven + Earth is being promoted as a scrupulous and scholarly analysis.'
Where does this quote originate?"

From Prof Enting's link :

"Material that is underlined [IN THIS INSTANCE : 'scrupulous and scholarly analysis'] is presented as an exact quote from Heaven + Earth" - Page 2

"Cover ‘blurb’ by Lord Lawson of Blaby, on paperback edition" - Footnote 2 on Page 4

(Page and Footnote numbers refer to Prof Enting's link)

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The 2008 data for HadCRUT shows a drop from around 0.4C in 2007 to 0.2C in 2008. The actual drop was from 0.403C in 2007 to 0.312C in 2008."

So, what was shown in the book was a drop of 0.2C, whereas the reality was a drop of 0.091 ? Hmm, is that a mistake or was he trying to mislead ? What do you think ?

manacker wrote : "'3: The data are distorted — [see item 12].'
A visual check of the two temperature increases as depicted on the graph shows a ratio of 1.29 (early 20th century warming, 1910-1944: late 20th century warming, 1976-2000. The actual ratio was 1.23 (0.53C vs 0.43C), so there is a 6% distortion and nothing much to talk about."

Not so; there is much to talk about.
Just so everyone else knows what the graph is, it is the infamous one from THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE, which even they had to amend. It originally ended in 1987 but was extended to cover up to 2000...somehow.
Even the peak of 1940 and trough of 1975 are labelled wrongly - the first appearing to be actually representing 1945, and the second being where 1979 actually is.

manacker wrote : "'5: Falsified time axis, thus giving no indication of the Younger Dryas, in contradiction with text — [see item 15].'
Axis looks OK. Discrepancy with text is meaningless. There is no “falsification” as claimed."

Really ? The caption reads 'The amount of temperature and temperature change' (both represented by one line somewhow); and the time-scale axis is labelled 'Time (years ago)', even though it extends up to a point labelled 'Today'.

manacker wrote : "'10: Lack of specifics makes the plot meaningless — [see item 17].'
This is a silly remark. The plot is clearly identified as temperature in C and ice accumulation in metres per year. This is quite specific."

Specific about the 'ice accumulation' ? Where has this ice accumulated ? Do you think it is a global figure ?

tempterrain

Max,

Plimers full comment was "Even 2000 years ago the Earth was considerably warmer than now. The Romans were scantily clad and growing oranges and grapes in northern England". It may have been in his previous scholarly work " A short history of planet earth". One of my last memories of Northern England was playing cricket in the snow in April. Were the Romans, or their oranges, were quite as hardy as he claims?

As usual, Plimer produces no reference to support his claim that the earth was warmer 2000 years ago. Maybe he meant 1000 years ago? The so-called medieval warm period? But the Romans had left long since. So no marks for history there Ian.

You'd think Professors were supposed to be smart people but Ian Plimer is such a loser. He even managed to lose over a million dollars to the Creationists in failed court cases. It turns out that he hadn't bothered to read the letter of the Australian law he was supposedly trying to enforce, so its perhaps just not in his character to back up his climate claims by actually reading scientific references on the subject.

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "'11 (upper): ‘Hockey stick’ data have been distorted — [see item 25].'
They have not been “distorted” as much as “simplified”, with short-term “blips” and error bars removed."

Simplified, eh ? He claims to be using the same reference period and 1998 instrumental values, but displaces the curve upwards for some reason. Why is that ?

manacker wrote : "'11 (lower): values for 20th century have been distorted, end of MWP inconsistent with abrupt end described in text — [see item 25].'
Looks pretty abrupt to me. This is a visual aid, to show the difference between the Mann et al. hockey stick and the “temperature history derived from hundreds of studies”; it shows this difference quite clearly."

Is the temperature for 2000 showing as virtually the same for 1940 ? Check it, because if it does, it is wrong. It should be 0.6C higher.

manacker wrote :"'15: Time series truncated to shift relative degrees of correlation — [see item 32].'
This is a “nit-pick”. The graph (from a 1990 study) shows a strong correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature anomaly, with no clear correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly, just as Plimer describes."

This is the uncorrected version (from THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE again !) of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen study (from 1991) with mathematical errors retained. After corrections and updates to their original paper the correlation after 1975 disappeared, with the temperature continuing to rise while the solar curve remains flat. Why didn't Plimer show that ?

The caption, 'Plot of the last 140 years', is wrong too : the actual plot line goes from 1860 to a bit after 1980 (120 years). The axis goes up to 2000, but the plot line doesn't.

manacker wrote : "'29: The content is misrepresented — [see item 44].'
Another “nit-pick”. The graph shows that seasonal fluctuations of both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (apparently shown by quarter) are far greater than any long term trends in the Arctic sea ice (apparently shown by month)."

To quote directly from Prof Enting :

'A graph that claims to be area of global sea ice with total area of Antarctic sea ice (upper curve) and Arctic sea ice variations (lower graph) shows negative values for the arctic. In reality, the curve seems to be taken from the site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This identifies the lower curve as daily global sea ice anomaly and not Arctic sea ice
variations (lower graph).'

John Westman

Temptrain (Peter)

Gosh! We now have some progress. You have listed some of your claimed errors in Plimer's book "Heaven + Earth". Although, I have been unable to find any references to "oranges". Could you let me know where such are referenced in the book? You said that there are probably 3 errors per page. To make it easy and organised let us start at page one and go through the pages one at a time. Remember, you did say that there are probably 3 per page so we should find three on every page. However, I will be magnamimous: Let us look for just two on every page. That should make the task easier! According to your statement, there is not an average of three errors per page, but that there are three per page. It is reasonable to exclude typos and errors of English.

Page 1.
1. ? (just fill in the blanks)

2. ?

And to prove that you are a person of balance, perhaps you could let us have a list of "errors" in the IPCC reports and Gore's production "An Inconvenient Truth". I understand that they are there!

I think you have become fixated on your "beacon of light", but remember, Peter, there are millions of stars in the universe, all making a contribution. The IPCC, Gore, "watermelons", and many persons with a vested interest, are making a corruption of those contributions. That alone is condemnation enough!

Perhaps Peter, you should just go away. You are not credible!

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "'6. p. 11, figure 11: This graphic has several misrepresentations. The bold line purports to be temperature data from the HadCRUT data set (see page 24 below). This is not true.
The HadCRUT data are closer to the lighter solid line which is labelled, UAH LT (adj to
Sfc)3 More seriously, at least for the HADCRU data4, the 2008 data that are shown are
fabrications. The HadCRUT data set shows 2008 as being only 0.081_C lower than 2007 — [BB].'

First part is a “nit pick” (the line depicts HadCRUT fairly closely), but the 2008 value shown by Plimer is incorrect (see 4.1. above)."

A nit pick again ? 'The line depicts HadCRUT fairly closely', you write. You mean, the line does NOT represent HadCRUT, then ? So you agree with Prof Enting.

I have already pointed out the discrepancy in the values, i.e. Plimer is wrong.

manacker wrote : "7. p. 21–22: Biased comparison of IPCC ‘balance of evidence’ vs a survey that found only 10% of scientists certain that global warming is a process that is underway.'

Not exactly. Plimer writes that in 1996 “only 10% of 400 American, Canadian and German climate researchers expressed strong agreement that they are “certain that global warming is a process that is already underway”."

So you can't really compare the more recent IPCC 'balance of evidence' (using thousands of papers and scientists) against a small survey of the scientists in three countries from over a decade ago, which uses 'strong agreement' with regard to 'certainty', which very few scientists would ever claim as their position on virtually any scientific matter. At the very least, this is a poor comparison and was included to make a point that Plimer wanted to highlight.

manacker wrote : "It looks pretty scholarly to me, with all the cited references, but I have not seen where it was “sold” as such. Has anyone? It is a moot point, in any case."

I have already shown you this, i.e. it is from a quote on the cover of the paperback. Those quotes are used to draw people in and get them to buy the book. Although, being as how it comes from ex-Tory Lawson, it would probably repel as many as it attracts !

manacker writes : "'8. p. 22: asserts that during the MedievalWarming, the global temperature was a few degrees warmer than today. This claim is asserted in various forms at many places through Heaven + Earth, mostly without any justifying citation. Etc...'

This is a lot of verbiage, but does not say anything specific. References are cited for a warmer MWP in many regions of the world. These contradict the since discredited bristlecone proxy findings of Mann et al."

A lot of verbiage ? Many of the claims have no citations but where there are citations, they are either for regional studies (and therefore do not prove a global situation), or don't actually mention the MWP. I call that empty and redundant verbiage by Plimer.

manacker wrote : 2'10. p. 22: Referring to the ‘hockey stick’ in the 2001 IPCC WG1 report: It was highlighted on the first page of the Summary for Policymakers and was shown another four times in the 2001 Summary for Policymakers. Since there are only five figures in the 2001 WG1 SPM, this would imply that all figures in the SPM include the ‘hockey stick’. This is quite simply false.'

It was shown on p.34 of the 2001 SPM and repeatedly in the TAR. The curve appears to be identical to the one shown by Plimer excluding the “error bars”."

So it wasn't shown five times in the SPM, as Plimer claims, then ?

manacker wrote : "'11. p. 22: The IPCC, without explanation, quietly withdrew the “hockey stick” from the Summary for Policymakers in subsequent publications and had it buried in a scientific chapter of the 2007 report, with the footnote 24 noting as one of the reconstructions of past climate. The reconstructions, including that from Mann et al., are also in the technical summary (figure TS.20) of the 2007 report — [DK].'

I would think that most AGW supporters would be smart enough to drop the discredited Mann hockey-stick (and later “copy” hockey-sticks) like a hot rock. They only make the AGW story look contrived."

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 6 : Palaeoclimate

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

MBH98, MBH99 and HOCKEY STICK mentioned on the following pages : 466 (8 mentions), 467, 469 (2 mentions), 471 (2 mentions), 472 (3 mentions), 473, 489, 491 (2 mentions), 492 (3 mentions) and 496. This includes references to papers by McIntyre and McKitrick.
Very well hidden, eh ?

For further backing of the hockey-stick, see :

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
(NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Report)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

manacker

J SMITH

I am not going to get into a item by item “nit pick” on which curve in Plimer’s book looks slightly different from which source for that curve, based on Enting’s attempted but largely unsuccessful trashing of Plimer’s book. I will address the 5 points you made in your post.

These have been boiled down from 29 “critiques” by Enting, of which I would agree that two are valid errors, one is a minor distortion of a curve and the rest are “nit-picks”.

You wrote: “manacker wrote : "'11 (upper): ‘Hockey stick’ data have been distorted — [see item 25].'
They have not been “distorted” as much as “simplified”, with short-term “blips” and error bars removed."
Simplified, eh ? He claims to be using the same reference period and 1998 instrumental values, but displaces the curve upwards for some reason. Why is that ?

Stop “nit-picking”, J SMITH. Plimer is simply pointing out that Mann’s since discredited study has attempted to eradicate a generally known and historically documented MWP that was a bit warmer than the late 20th century. His “hockey stick” curve looks the same is the one IPCC published in its TAR, with two notable exceptions: the error bars have been removed (for simplification) and the sharp, exaggerated upswing at the end (to 1998) has been made to look a bit less ridiculous than on the IPCC version.

To the lower curve you ask: “Is the temperature for 2000 showing as virtually the same for 1940 ? Check it, because if it does, it is wrong. It should be 0.6C higher.”
Another “nit-pick”, J SMITH. The curve is not intended to show temperature trends within the 20th century, but rather the existence of a generally known and historically documented MWP that was a a fraction of a degree warmer than the late 20th century. It is hard to tell exactly where the 1998 (or 2000) point really lies. Since these are obviously smoothed and not annual values, the end of the century should probably show at around 0.2 higher than mid 1940s (not 0.6C higher). The 1936-45 average was –0.02C and the 1989-1998 average was +0.21C, according to the Hadley record, for a delta of 0.23C.

To my comment on Fig. 15 you wrote, “This is the uncorrected version (from THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE again !) of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen study (from 1991) with mathematical errors retained. After corrections and updates to their original paper the correlation after 1975 disappeared, with the temperature continuing to rise while the solar curve remains flat. Why didn't Plimer show that?”

The curve looks identical to the one published by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), which shows excellent correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature anomaly over a 120+-year period (a much more robust correlation than between CO2 and temperature, I must say!). Is there a 8 or 10-year “blip” at the end of the series that does not continue to show such a robust correlation that was published in a later update, and, if so, why did Plimer not show the updated curve? To deduce from this that Plimmer has falsified the data by “using the GGWS curve” is a silly nit-pick, J SMITH. With or without the “blip” at the end of the curve, solar cycle length shows a much more robust correlation with global temperature anomalies than does CO2, and that is the point that Plimer made successfully.

To your further point, “The caption, 'Plot of the last 140 years', is wrong too : the actual plot line goes from 1860 to a bit after 1980 (120 years). The axis goes up to 2000, but the plot line doesn't.” J SMITH, I think even you will realize that this is a silly “nit-pick”.

To Fig. 29 (Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent trends) you quoted directly from Enting, “A graph that claims to be area of global sea ice with total area of Antarctic sea ice (upper curve) and Arctic sea ice variations (lower graph) shows negative values for the arctic. In reality, the curve seems to be taken from the site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This identifies the lower curve as daily global sea ice anomaly and not Arctic sea ice
variations (lower graph).”

Enting is wrong with his “seems to be” postulation. Both graphs show sea ice extent and can be downloaded. The only apparent difference is that the Arctic graph shows data averaged monthly while the Antarctic graph shows data averaged quarterly.

J SMITH, it is quite apparent that Enting’s hastily cobbled-together attempt to discredit Plimer’s book has failed (except with a few “die-hards” that want to believe that Plimer must be wrong, as his view conflicts directly with their ingrained belief that AGW is a serious threat).

Max

manacker

Tempterrain

Re: “oranges in northern England”:

To bring up a quotation from another book by Plimer when we are discussing his latest book, “Heaven and Earth”, does not make much sense, Peter. In his latest book Plimer does not claim that Romans grew oranges in northern England, but that “citrus trees and grapes were grown”. As I pointed out “citrus trees” (lemons, for example) are grown in Switzerland and many places today where oranges would not survive.

Most every Swiss knows about the warmer Roman period, since this is the time when Hannibal actually crossed the alps with elephants This would not be possible today without the current highway and tunnel network, which obviously did not exist in Roman times.

Very rarely old Roman period artifacts (coins, etc.) are discovered under receding glaciers, but other evidence from that period, such as signs of vegetation, is much more common.

The same is true of the MWP. There are many records of human migrations into high alpine valleys that were fertile during the warmer MWP, but had to be abandoned at the end of this period and are still unpopulated today. In one case there was even an abandoned medieval silver mine that was discovered as the glaciers receded.

Glaciers don’t lie, Peter. Just as the currently receding glaciers are telling us a story, so are the traces of earlier civilizations being exposed as they recede today.

Plimer gives an excellent account of the history of our planet’s climate (an area where the various IPCC reports are strangely silent). I have seen another German study (not cited by Plimer) that also covers the longer-term warming and cooling cycles our planet has seen since historical times, but I was always surprised that IPCC totally ignores these observed long-term climate cycles in our planet’s recent history. I personally write this off to the concentration by IPCC on anthropogenic climate factors (rather than the whole picture) with a myopic fixation on human CO2.

Plimer has his periods well-defined and documented. I think his historical knowledge is quite good, but you seem to disagree. Do you have any specific criticisms of his historical climate observation?

The unsuccessful IPCC attempt (in TAR) to “eliminate” a historically well documented MWP with the since discredited Mann et al. Hockey stick is a true case of falsification of data (forget the “distorted” Plimer graphs). The bevy of “copy hockey sticks” that have been published since then (and cited by IPCC in AR4) are a rather shameful example of trying to keep a blatant lie alive.

Forget the “oranges in northern England” story, Peter. It does not apply to Plimer’s latest book and is irrelevant in any case.

There are, however, documented records that show that oranges were grown in provinces of China during the global MWP, where this is impossible today.

Peter, I would not claim that Plimer’s book has “all the answers”. Together with Peter Taylor’s recent book, “Chill”, these are two important critiques of the current so-called “mainstream view” on AGW.

I personally feel that we are being over-bombarded by media releases about impending disasters, 1,000+-page IPCC “sales pitches” masquerading as “science”, etc., and that books, such as these, serve to give a bit of a balance to the whole story.

Both books point out some basic problems with the premise that our climate had been essentially unchanged for thousands of pre-industrial years, that our mid-20th century climate was at a “just right” level, and that anthropogenic climate forcing is now causing a potentially dangerous change for the worse in our planet’s climate.

Both books are worth reading in detail, Peter.

Max

Max,
Plimers full comment was "Even 2000 years ago the Earth was considerably warmer than now. The Romans were scantily clad and growing oranges and grapes in northern England". It may have been in his previous scholarly work " A short history of planet earth". One of my last memories of Northern England was playing cricket in the snow in April. Were the Romans, or their oranges, were quite as hardy as he claims?
As usual, Plimer produces no reference to support his claim that the earth was warmer 2000 years ago. Maybe he meant 1000 years ago? The so-called medieval warm period? But the Romans had left long since. So no marks for history there Ian.
You'd think Professors were supposed to be smart people but Ian Plimer is such a loser. He even managed to lose over a million dollars to the Creationists in failed court cases. It turns out that he hadn't bothered to read the letter of the Australian law he was supposedly trying to enforce, so its perhaps just not in his character to back up his climate claims by actually reading scientific references on the subject

manacker

J SMITH

You wrote about “regional versus global climate studies cited by Plimer:

“Many of the claims have no citations but where there are citations, they are either for regional studies (and therefore do not prove a global situation), or don't actually mention the MWP.”

Let’s say I have several regional studies showing a slightly warmer MWP than today. Together these “regional” studies give a “supra-regional” or even “global” picture (just like many local temperature readings today are being used to portray a “globally averaged” picture).

Now on the other hand I have a proxy study based on bristlecone pine tree rings in western North America.

Which set of data are more “global”, which more ”regional”?

Now, let’s add to that that the bristlecone pine study has been shown to be full of errors in statistical approach and that the tree-ring / temperature correlation, itself, is dicey.

Which data gets posted in the IPCC SPM report? Duh!

Forget that argument, J SMITH. It doesn’t hold water.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "Enting is wrong with his “seems to be” postulation. Both graphs show sea ice extent and can be downloaded. The only apparent difference is that the Arctic graph shows data averaged monthly while the Antarctic graph shows data averaged quarterly."

Presumably, therefore, you could post the citation used for the graph so we can all have a look ? Include its details in your next posting, please.

Could you also post the reference for his claim that Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans in one year ?

As for the rest of your meanderings, I'm afraid you just don't want to face up to the fact that the book is poorly referenced, badly illustrated and full of unsourced assertions. You admit that he has used wrong data and some of the graphs have incorrectly labelled plot lines, descriptions and axes.
And yet you claim it is scholarly ?!

Come off it : You're pulling my leg, aren't you ? Are you on a wind-up ?

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "Let’s say I have several regional studies showing a slightly warmer MWP than today."

Go ahead and post them, then.

Did you read my link to the NRC report of 2006 ? Just in case you didn't, they stated that evidence for regional warmth during medieval times [centred around AD 1000] can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain. They concluded that none of the largescale surface temperature reconstructions show medieval temperatures as warm as the last few decades of the 20th century.
Perhaps you had better let us and them know that they are wrong about that, by posting your evidence.

manacker wrote : "Which data gets posted in the IPCC SPM report?"

Perhaps you should look at the IPCC link I posted above - you know, the one that showed all the references to MBH98, MBH99 and Hockey-Stick that Plimer reckoned had been hidden. It shows all the different types of data that were used. Have a look. You might be surprised to find it isn't only based on Mann and/or bristlecones.
Also, have a look at the third link I posted, which gives a lot more details.

It seems you didn't bother to look at any of those before you posted, which is a shame.

manacker

J SMITH

The TAR SPM (2001) showed Mann's hockey stick as evidence of an usually warm late 20th century. This was shortly before it was discredited.

In its AR4 SPM (2007) there is no graph (the "spaghetti copy hockey-sticks" are buried in Chapter 6 of the AR4 report itself). The “overlap of reconstructed temperatures (700-2000) on p.467 looks very much like Mann’s graph, and the "spaghetti copy hockey-sticks" on p.468 show results from several proxy studies, also essentially eliminating the MWP and LIA.

On p. 466 IPCC gives its rather strange recapitulation of the Mann hockey stick fiasco, leaving the impression that the errors in MHS were minor (“the impact on the amplitude
of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C)”.

And IPCC still repeats in its latest SPM the discredited claim derived from Mann's study "that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years".

Strangely, IPCC ignores hundreds of historical references to both the MWP and LIA, as well as observed physical evidence of both, relying entirely on proxy studies. It does not mention the study of Craig Loehle, which added several locations not considered in the other tree-ring proxies but was published too late to be included. This study shows a MWP slightly warmer than today.

I think it is clear from the record that IPCC has been trying very hard to “erase” the MWP and LIA from the record, in order to support its premises (a) that late 20th century temperatures are unprecedented, and (b) that there were no cyclical changes in our planet’s climate prior to industrialization and anthropogenic climate forcing.

But evidence for both the MWP and LIA keeps popping back up despite all the "spaghetti copy hockey-sticks".

Max

manacker

J SMITH

To your two points:

Arctic and Antarctic sea ice data. Check the following link for a complete monthly record going back to 1979.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135

If you plot these monthly data on a time axis, you will see the two graphs shown by Plimer.

Just from looking at Plimer’s graph it appears that the Arctic sea ice record is plotted on a monthly basis, but the Antarctic record appears to be on a quarterly basis, as I noted earlier.

To your request: “Could you also post the reference for his claim that Pinatubo emitted as much CO2 as humans in one year ?”

No. I doubt that this statement is correct (as I have already indicated earlier) and Plimer provided no reference for it, so I assume it is an error (or exaggeration).

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "Strangely, IPCC ignores hundreds of historical references to both the MWP and LIA, as well as observed physical evidence of both, relying entirely on proxy studies."

Can I ask, again, for your references for that warmer MWP ?

manacker wrote : "Just from looking at Plimer’s graph it appears that the Arctic sea ice record is plotted on a monthly basis, but the Antarctic record appears to be on a quarterly basis, as I noted earlier."

Can I ask, again, for the citation(s) used for that graph so the rest of us can check it for ourselves. Which data was used, according to Plimer ?

manacker

J SMITH

To make it easy for you, I have found the site that lists the curves cited by Plimer on sea ice. They are based on the raw NSIDC data, for which I gave you the link, but are plotted.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.pdf

As you will see, the Arctic sea ice extent is the monthly anomaly from the mean in million sq. km. (showing recent monthly values 0.8 to 2.5 million sq. km. below the baseline) but the Antarctic sea ice extent appears to be the absolute sea ice extent in millions of sq. km. averaged quarterly (looks like the EKG of someone with a heart murmur).

Plimer’s graph of Arctic sea ice anomaly looks OK to me, but I will admit that the graph of the Antarctic sea ice extent looks screwy.

The conclusion is stated as: “there is little or no change in global sea ice associated with the Late 20th Century Warming”. This is true. Globally, the change has been very small. The losses in Arctic sea ice have been essentially offset by gains in the Antarctic.

The annually averaged global sea ice extent was 23.8 million square km. in 2008 and the 1979-2000 baseline was 24.0 msk, for a decline of 0.8% over the period.

Max

tempterrain

J Smith,

You ask Manacker if he's winding you up. He's actually been winding himself up on the topic of AGW for several years now. I don't know where he finds time for the normal things in life.

It's really a waste of time arguing with him. He's of the belief that 'puny man' is incapable of changing the Earth's climate.

I've heard this argument several times, and I must say I've never really understood why anyone could really think such a thing, but it does seem to be the 'philosophical' (if that's the right word) underpinning of all climate contrarians.

When this belief is firmly held, all of the other nonsense which we regularly see trotted out "Its all down to the Sun", "Its the UHI effect", "The Vikings grew grapes (oranges too?) in Greenland in the MWP" naturally makes complete sense.

You can't argue people out of delusions. They think they are the only ones who are sane and it's the rest of us who are delusional.

Max,

What would you say? Why do you believe that 'puny man' is incapable of changing the climate? Why is it 'arrogant' to suggest otherwise?

J SMITH

tempterrain wrote : "You ask Manacker if he's winding you up. He's actually been winding himself up on the topic of AGW for several years now. I don't know where he finds time for the normal things in life."

I'm beginning to wonder what he's up to, especially after you gave that link where he and the other poster on here (Robin Guenier) have been working together on this. I find it a bit underhand and devious but thought it worth debating with him to see what he came up with. However, I don't seem to be getting any straight answers. I would still like to know what his agenda is.

manacker : I asked you for your proof as to the global nature of the 'warmer than now' Medieval Warm Period, but you still haven't provided any links, etc. Do you have any I can look at ?

I also asked you for the citation(s) used by Plimer for that graph of ice data and you have given me two now, the latter one not a direct link but, rather, a website which is rather partisan. Are you suggesting that both links are given as citation for that graph ?

Can't you just type out exactly what the citation is as it is shown in the book ?

Rusty

Good morning. The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Built in bathroom cabinets. I found only this - bathroom Cabinets in flint mich. Having bathroom vanity cabinets helps me feel a connection to my ancestors in a way that simple photographs can not quantify. August th, no comments blogonary search. :cool: Thanks in advance. Rusty from Solomon.

manacker

J SMITH

You wrote:

“manacker : I asked you for your proof as to the global nature of the 'warmer than now' Medieval Warm Period, but you still haven't provided any links, etc. Do you have any I can look at ?”

Please refer to my most recent post on this, listing sources that cover the globe. Check the history books, as well, J SMITH. They provide good info.

Then you wrote:
“I also asked you for the citation(s) used by Plimer for that graph of ice data and you have given me two now, the latter one not a direct link but, rather, a website which is rather partisan. Are you suggesting that both links are given as citation for that graph? Can't you just type out exactly what the citation is as it is shown in the book ?”

I have not seen a citation by Plimer for his graph (have you?), but I gave you the NSIDC source of the raw data on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent. I also gave you a link to a site that had drawn this data up as a graph. Check it out for yourself.

Some general advice: Try not to act too obstinate or impertinent in our discussion. It will not get you anywhere. I am sure your Mommy told you that it is better to be polite with people.

Max

manacker

Tempterrain

I usually do not enter into a discussion based on a loaded question, but I will make an exception here, since I believe that you are seriously interested in my answer rather than than just baiting me.

You asked: “Why do you believe that 'puny man' is incapable of changing the climate? Why is it 'arrogant' to suggest otherwise?”

Several world politicians (including Germany’s Angela Merkel) have made statements such as “we must stop global warming to no more than 2°C by year 2100”.

It is “arrogant” of these politicians to believe that they can actually achieve this self-imposed goal.

IPCC tells us that CO2 is likely to be at a level twice the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv by year 2100 (560 ppmv).

IPCC also tells us that this will cause an equilibrium warming of 1.5 to 4.5°C above pre-industrial values by year 2100. The mean 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is stated to be 3.2°C.

So far it has warmed by around 0.7 to 1.0°C since pre-industrial times. Some AGW gurus tell us that some of the warming to date is “still in the pipeline”.

This means that (on average) we have somewhere between 2.2 and 2.5°C warming to be expected from AGW from today until year 2100 (all other things being equal, which they rarely are).

And these politicians are telling us that they will commit to keeping this at a maximum of 2.0°C!

No big deal. Just (pardon the expression) “hot air”.

Now let’s look at some specific proposals to “change our planet’s climate.

Hansen (a climate “prophet”, who happens also to be quite “arrogant”), tells us that coal trains are like the “death trains” of WWII, and that 450 ppmv is a “dangerous level” of CO2, which could lead to irreversible “tipping points” in our climate and horrible consequences for our society and our environment.

From this horror scenario have come proposals that the USA should stop building new coal-fired power plants in starting in 2010 and shut down half of all existing plants by 2050.

Now, I have figured out what impact this astronomically costly upheaval of US power generation would have on global temperature, and it is around 0.05°C. (You and I discussed this earlier on the Harmless Sky site).

So yes. “Puny man” (the politicians and climate gurus, included) is unable to “change the climate” on our planet, Peter.

Hope this answers your question.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "I have not seen a citation by Plimer for his graph (have you?), but I gave you the NSIDC source of the raw data on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent. I also gave you a link to a site that had drawn this data up as a graph. Check it out for yourself."

Oh I have certainly checked all this out for myself : you don't think I would just rely on your say-so, do you ? Especially when what you write seems to change with every posting.
Here is what you have written about this graph, with the oldest comments at the top :

-------------------------------
The graph shows that seasonal fluctuations of both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (apparently shown by quarter) are far greater than any long term trends in the Arctic sea ice (apparently shown by month).

Both graphs show sea ice extent and can be downloaded.

Arctic and Antarctic sea ice data. Check the following link for a complete monthly record going back to 1979.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135

If you plot these monthly data on a time axis, you will see the two graphs shown by Plimer.

To make it easy for you, I have found the site that lists the curves cited by Plimer on sea ice. They are based on the raw NSIDC data, for which I gave you the link, but are plotted.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.pdf

Plimer’s graph of Arctic sea ice anomaly looks OK to me, but I will admit that the graph of the Antarctic sea ice extent looks screwy.
--------------------------------

So, to recap : You reckon that both graphs show Arctic and Antarctic 'sea ice extent' AND ALSO that one graph shows Arctic 'sea ice anomaly' and the other Antarctic 'sea ice extent'.

You also reckon that you can 'see the two graphs' by plotting the monthly data from THE NOAA Datasets; you point to an Icecap link that 'lists the curves', AND ALSO that one graph 'looks OK' but the other 'looks screwy'.

Basically, I don't know what you are trying to get across or what you are seeing. Therefore, knowing that Prof Enting is an acknowledged expert on such matters, I am more comfortable believing his statement about this graph, i.e. :

'A graph that claims to be area of global sea ice with total area of Antarctic sea ice (upper curve) and Arctic sea ice variations (lower graph) shows negative values for the arctic. In reality, the curve seems to be taken from the site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This identifies the lower curve as daily global sea ice anomaly and not Arctic sea ice variations (lower graph).'

If you think I have misunderstood your position, or if you have any proof for any of your assertions as to what you believe the lower curve, especially, is actually referring to (sincel Plimer didn't give a source, for some strange reason), please provide it. No more assertions or beliefs, just the facts, please.

And no more smug, arrogant comments either, if you don't mind. If you can't give a civil answer with some facts, it would be best not to reply at all.

manacker

J SMITH

This post did not get through earlier (possibly due to the many links), so am resending in pieces.

You asked for sources citing a MWP and LIA. Here are just a few of the many sources:

Part 1:

Loehle
Global
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
“Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.”

Soon and Baliunas
(Summary of historical data and paleoclimate studies covering Europe, Greenland, N. America, S. America, S. Africa, Central Asia, China, India , Japan)
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
“However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2nd millennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.”

More to come.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

Part 2 (references to studies confirming global MWP and LIA)

Keigwin et al.
Sargasso Sea
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
“Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was ~1°C cooler than today ~400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation.”

Tyson and Lindesay
Southern Africa
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/3/271
“New research based on oxygen isotope analyses of cave speleothems and mollusc remains in shell middens, together with foraminifera studies of inshore marine deposits, palynological and micromammalian research and earlier dendrochronological work, has allowed more reliable identification of the effects of the 'Little Ice Age' in the subcontinent. Cooling prevailed from 1300 to 1850 with a warm episode occurring between about 1500 and 1675. In addition, the generally warmer period from about 900 to 1300 may have been associated with the Medieval Warm Epoch. Earlier distinctive events appear to have been a variable period of cooling from 600 to 900, a warmer period from about AD 250 to 600 and a notable interval of cooling between AD 100 and 200.”

More to come.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

Part 3 (references to studies confirming global MWP and LIA)

Huffman
South Africa
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGS-3Y45X97-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=978204070&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1d5ca371dff
“Shifting distributions of Iron Age villages in central and southern Africa provide independent cultural evidence for climatic change over the last 2000 years. A warm and wet period characterized the main spread of the Early Iron Age. Another wet period from about AD 900 to 1290—the Medieval Warm Epoch—permitted the build-up of large populations at K2 and Mapungubwe. The abandonment of Mapungubwe and simultaneous rise of Great Zimbabwe coincided with the beginning of the dry Little Ice Age, while a warm pulse in the 15th and 16th centuries created the conditions for mixed farming on the highveld.”

Chuine et al.
Burgundy, France
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-historical-5414.html
“French records of grape-harvest dates in Burgundy were used to reconstruct spring-summer temperatures from 1370 to 2003 using a process-based phenology model developed for the Pinot Noir grape. Our results reveal that temperatures as high as those reached in the 1990s have occurred several times in Burgundy since 1370. However, the summer of 2003 appears to have been extraordinary, with temperatures that were probably higher than in any other year since 1370.”

That should do for now. Most of the globe (except Antarctica) is covered.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

Regarding Arctic and Antarctic sea ice claims in Plimer’s book you are wasting a lot of words on nothing. Check the raw data for yourself. I have been doing so regularly many months on a month-by-month basis and updated the anomaly graphs for each month.

There was major loss in the Arctic by summer 2007, which got a lot of press attention. Around a third of this long-term loss was “recovered” by 2008. This was noted, but got less press attention.

The Antarctic has shown slow but steady growth, which has gotten hardly any attention in the press.

Plimer states that “there is little or no change in global sea ice associated with the Late 20th Century Warming”.

The 1979-2000 mean average annual global sea ice extent was 24.0 million square km.

The 2008 average annual global sea ice extent was 23.8 million square km.

So the losses in the Arctic were largely offset by gains in the Antarctic and Plimer is theoretically correct.

The Arctic sea ice extent anomaly graph of Plimer looks about right (the scale is so compressed that you can’t see much of an effect). The Antarctic graph looks screwy to me (it apparently shows an absolute value, rather than an anomaly, but I am unable to recreate it using the raw NSIDC data).

I’m not going to spend anymore time talking about this, J SMITH, since it is a total waste of time.

Max

tempterrain

Max,

No it doesn't answer the question. You are trying now trying to shift your ground. Your full comment was "The arrogance of thinking that puny man IS changing global climate is only exceeded by the stupidity of believing we can – and must – urgently do something to stop it"

This sort of declaration cannot be based on any sort of rationalaty. The rational response to an initial question of "is it possible that mankind is changing the climate?" is to say "Yes maybe it is. Lets do some calculations and look at the evidence".

You obviously decided that this was not at all any kind of necessary step.

J SMITH

In response to manacker's supposed 'proof' of higher global temperatures in the MWP :

Loehle, Global
----------------

Published in the non peer-reviewed ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Where shall I start. Let me just list all the problems with that paper :

No validation of the results; one record in South Africa was weighted the same as the whole China average; use of data sets that weren't dated to better than hundreds of years; no attempt to weight for areal representation or for how good any one proxy was; not calibrated to any modern record, so no comparison between his MWP and the modern was possible; data has low resolution which does not allow more accurate assessment; use of averages to represent data points; times scales were misrepresented without reasonable context; use of proxy data with short period calibration with no validating data; use of out of date data; composited data with different averaging periods; different spatial representation and noise levels; assigned weighting in a random pattern out of context to better validated reconstructions.

Soon and Baliunas
--------------------

Failed to distinguish between proxy evidence of temperature and drought or precipitation, and didn't account for whether temperature anomalies in different regions were contemporaneous or not.

As the IPCC 4th Report states :

"Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones,
2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006)" :

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2003RG000143.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

J SMITH

Keigwin et al, Sargasso Sea
----------------------------

As the IPCC 3rd Assessment states :

"Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability. The Bermuda rise sediment record of Keigwin (1996) suggests warm medieval conditions and cold 17th to 19th century conditions in the Sargasso Sea of the tropical North Atlantic. A sediment record just south of Newfoundland (Keigwin and Pickart, 1999), in contrast, indicates cold medieval and warm 16th to 19th century upper ocean temperatures. Keigwin and Pickart (1999) suggest that these temperature contrasts were associated with changes in ocean currents in the North Atlantic. They argue that the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" in the Atlantic region may in large measure reflect century-scale changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (see Section 2.6). Such regional changes in oceanic and atmospheric processes, which are also relevant to the natural variability of the climate on millennial and longer time-scales (see Section 2.4.2), are greatly diminished or absent in their influence on hemispheric or global mean temperatures."

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Tyson and Lindesay, Southern Africa
------------------------------------

Doesn't mention any higher temperatures than now, in the abstract given.

Huffman, South Africa
----------------------

Doesn't mention any higher temperatures than now, in the abstract given.

Chuine et al, Burgundy, France
-------------------------------

"temperatures as high as those reached in the 1990s have occurred several times in Burgundy since 1370. However, the summer of 2003 appears to have been extraordinary, with temperatures that were probably higher than in any other year since 1370.”

'As high' 'several times' ? So, not higher then; and 2003 was the highest.
You will also notice that there is a greater run of positive anomalies going back to 1988 from 2003 (every year but one), than in any other period.

You need to provide some proper evidence, I'm afraid : especially some that says the MWP was warmer.

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The Antarctic graph looks screwy to me (it apparently shows an absolute value, rather than an anomaly, but I am unable to recreate it using the raw NSIDC data)."

Seems like an agreement that the graph is not what it claims to be, especially since there is no citation to check.

Will come back later with more of Plimer's errors.

John Westman

manacker

Thank you for bringing some balance to the debate. It seems to me that the AGWers are ignoring many facts of the matter, to persue their religion. Infortunately, as is common with many of these debates they can become complicated by obfuscation and nit picking.

Broadly, it is reasonable to say that what those fools have forecast, has not been borne out in fact. Remember, we are supposed to be now approaching the frying stage based on the predictions shown in the Mann "hockey stick".

Any thinking person would say that this "stick" has been shown to be a fraud, but still there are people with a total conviction, a total sense of belief. It just goes to show that even supposedly educated people are not immune to falling for a fallacy and will defend the fallacy to the end.

The facts speak for themselves. There is no linkage shown between industrial activity and increased temperatures.

Gore, unfortunately turned up in Australia recently, and in an interview said that the drought in Southern Australia was caused by global warming. He, I presume, was ignorant of the fact that running up to 2000 we had a run of average to above average seasons. The history of severe droughts in Australia, is written in the ice cores in New Zealand. The prevailing winds carry the dust across to NZ where it is deposited on the snowy peaks and ultimately ends up in the glacial record. I point out this, as it is a typical example of the inaccurate commentary given by a person with clearly, a vested interest. Uninformed people fall for it every time.

Looking at some of the commentary from J Smith and Peter(temptrain) the belief system is in place and total. I have not seen one admission from them about the errors and mistruths exposed in a court of law in regard to AIT nor productions from the IPCC. They are the proponents of perversity!

J SMITH

John Westman wrote : "Broadly, it is reasonable to say that what those fools have forecast, has not been borne out in fact. Remember, we are supposed to be now approaching the frying stage based on the predictions shown in the Mann "hockey stick"."

Insult followed by a fallacy. You must know manacker ? If not, please point out where the 'frying stage' is shown on the 'hockey-stick'.

John Westman wrote : "Any thinking person would say that this "stick" has been shown to be a fraud, but still there are people with a total conviction, a total sense of belief. It just goes to show that even supposedly educated people are not immune to falling for a fallacy and will defend the fallacy to the end."

Well, perhaps you can have a go to show up this 'fraud', which has been confirmed many times by others, using other proxies and data sets ? Please provide some links, if you can.

John Westman wrote : "The facts speak for themselves. There is no linkage shown between industrial activity and increased temperatures."

Which facts are they ? Please provide some if you can.

John Westman wrote : "Looking at some of the commentary from J Smith and Peter(temptrain) the belief system is in place and total. I have not seen one admission from them about the errors and mistruths exposed in a court of law in regard to AIT nor productions from the IPCC. They are the proponents of perversity!"

We have already been through the connection between Creationists and those who deny man-made global warming, so we all know who has the belief system : those opposing the body of evidence and facts.

As for the 'errors' in AIT, it should be written as 'errors' because that is the way the judge wrote it, because they were not errors as such. And it was a judicial review of a decision to allow the film to be shown in schools, because one man opposed it. He lost because the film is based on the body of evidence and facts I mentioned above, and it is now shown in schools.

With regard to the IPCC, what 'errors and mistruths' are you writing about ? Do you have any you can provide ?

tempterrain

John Westman,

The 'belief system that is in place and total', as far as the vast majority of scientifically trained people are concerned, is that following the path of reasoned, rational thought and scientific study offers humanity the best possible way forward.

Not just on the issue of AGW, but everything else too. I have no problem agreeing with you on that point.

manacker

John Westman

Thanks for your post.

You are right.

I have had a long exchange on another site with Peter Martin who also posts under the name Tempterrain. He is usually polite and only rarely slips into emotional diatribes. But he is a fervent believer in the pseudo-religion of AGW, i.e. the “doomsday cult” that supports the premise that AGW is a serious threat caused by the human emission of GHGs, primarily CO2 and that we (industrial mankind) are guilty of transgression and must suffer a horrible fate unless we repent immediately and start paying an exorbitant carbon tax (either directly or through some cap and trade scheme that will make a few wealthy individuals ever richer at the expense of every man, woman and child on this planet).

My exposure to J SMITH is limited to a few days on this site. He appears to be a bit less open than Peter, his judgment appears a bit more clouded, his arguments a bit less thought-out and his manners a bit less refined. But he is a “doomsday cult” believer, just like Peter.

These guys have a fervent pseudo-religious belief . They “know” we are doomed and at fault.

Plimer puts it best when he writes about the scientific misrepresentations firmly believed by these individuals, “Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of contexts, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.”

Debating with them is interesting, not because there is the slightest chance that they will give up their pseudo-religious beliefs, but because it gives a glimpse into their “doomsday cult” mentality and psychology.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

Our discussion on Plimer’s curve of Antarctic and Arctic sea ice trends is over, so you are beating a dead horse. Plimer’s point was that there has not been much change in global sea ice, and the record does confirm that.

Basta.

Max

manacker

Peter Martin
J SMITH
John Westman

Changing the subject only slightly, another book has recently been published on the subject of AGW.

It is “CHILL, a reassessment of global warming theory”, written by Peter Taylor, an environmentalist, science analyst and consultant to environmental NGOs.

Taylor’s approach is a bit different from that of Plimer (he spends less time, for example, outlining in detail past cyclical climate periods of our planet), but his message is similar.

He brings evidence to support the premise that the recent late 20th century warming was caused by an unprecedented combination of natural factors, many of them cyclical in nature.

He points out that global cooling (caused by a reversal of there natural cyclical events) could be a far greater threat to humanity than a continuation of the recent global warming.

He laments the fact that the environmental movement has been more or less “hi-jacked” by “AGW”, which has become a big business.

His references are not quite as exhaustive and detailed as those of Plimer (243 references, rather than 2000), but his argument is well-presented and supported.

No matter where one stands on this issue, this is another good read, which should help broaden anyone's knowledge on this subject.

Max

Peter Ravenscroft

See the AIRS CO2 data and maps, from NASA's AQUA satellite, for why Ian is right. troposphere CO2 first, is not coming from human effort, and second, is not entering the atmosphere anywhere near where the planet is warming. It is coming from warming and up-welling (de-pressurising) seawater, and from the big sedimentary basins, probably from the deep biosphere. And some from the China-rusia coal outcrop fires, very old. The global warming we are getting is, however, right where the deep geomagnetic field is shifting most, on the Antarctic Peninsula and in eastern Siberia. Don't believe anyone, download the NASA maps. then think for yourself.

Have fun, all.

Peter Ravenscroft, JABAG

(Just another bloody Australian geologist.)

J SMITH

For anyone actually interested in the science, rather than fiction, try these :

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

manacker

John Westman commented that, according to Mann’s “hockey stick, we should be approaching the “frying stage”, which J SMITH found to be exaggerated.

Well, “frying stage” may have been an exaggeration, but let’s look at the Mann “hockey stick” as shown by IPCC on p.34 of its TAR summary report (Fig SPM-10b).

This is a masterful work of “chartmanship”. Plimer has reproduced this curve quite accurately on p.89 of his book (only difference is that he has used the 1960-1990 baseline value rather than the 1990 value). Plimer has also left off the “forecast for the future”, which IPCC added to the curve for effect.

It shows a fairly flat wiggly line (hovering around –0.5°C, as compared to the 1990 baseline value). From year 1000 to 1860 the curve show’s Mann’s since discredited numbers, which attempted to eradicate a historically well-documented and recorded MWP and LIA.

After 1860, the actual record is “spliced” onto the curve (using 1990 as the 0.0°C baseline).. The curve clearly shows the early 20th century (~1910 to ~1945) warming of 0.5°C (from –0.5°C to 0.0°C), a cooling of around 0.2°C until the mid-1970s and a sharp upswing, back to 0.0°C by 1990 and to around 0.2°C by 2000, i.e. a late 20th century warming of around 0.4°C, for a total net 20th century warming of around 0.7°C. This part is recorded history.

The next “splice” is based on various model predictions. The curve swings upward to an almost vertical line, shooting up to the ceiling (as in Al Gore’s film): by year 2100 a temperature increase of 1.3°C to a staggering 5.3°C above the year 2000 value is projected, with the average increase over the 21st century projected to be 3.3°C (or a warming rate of 0.33°C per decade), almost 5 times the warming seen over the 20th century!

Well, we all know now that it hasn’t worked out that way (so far). The 21st century (to date) has show cooling at a decadal rate of a bit more than 0.1°C, rather than warming at three times this rate. So we are a long way from the “frying” stage.

But what will happen over the next years and decades? Who knows?

This is anyone’s guess, but it looks very unlikely that the rapid warming as projected by the IPCC computers back in 2001 with it’s depiction of the Mann “hockey stick” will actually take place in the real world.

Max

manacker

BTW, Mann’s hockey stick, as expanded and published by IPCC, can be seen in all its beauty on the last page of the link below. It’s a beaut.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf

Max

tempterrain

Max (The arrogance of thinking that puny man IS changing global climate is only exceeded by the stupidity of believing we can – and must – urgently do something to stop it) Anacker,

You seem to be falling back on all this AGW = 'pseudoreligion' which is of course what the Creationists say about Darwinian Science.

You obviously made up your mind that AGW couldn't possibly be happening on the basis of your 'puny man' theory. You can't deny that was completely irrational. And no I don't mean attempts to fix AGW. I mean , as you did , why it is happening in the first place.

You have learned and you aren't so stupid as to repeat the remark but it is too late. What has been written can't be unwritten and the extent of your irrational belief is there for all to see.

John Westman

Manacker,

I think I will take up fishing. They took the bait, hook line, and sinker (my reference to "approaching the frying stage"). However, this is not as exaggerated as it seems: Remember Gore's comment about reaching a "tipping point" and the IPCC's upward pointing graph.

A good resource for information about scientists sceptical of man made climate change is the Senate Minority Report from the USA. Over 700 scientists have added their names. I have posted some of the comments made

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

In Australia, it is clear that there is a strongly growing anti AGW political movement. There is much more comment today in the mainstream media, than has previously been the case.

I note that J Smith has made a connection between myself and the creationalists. Nowhere have I claimed a connection to creationalism. I have no connection! Charles Darwin, the father of evolution theory wrote many books and is an excellent example of how scientific theory should be propounded. That is; meticulous attention to detail and simple presentation to present a credible theory.

The simple fact is J Smith. You claim that human introduced CO2 to the atmosphere is causing a temperature increase of the planet. Baloney! Human induced CO2 has increased while temperature has not increased in line with projections by the IPCC. Enough said!

temptrain has "nothing to add to the debate". He claims that there are probably 3 errors per page in Plimer's book "Heaven + Earth". temptrain makes this comment after visiting a bookshop and scanning the 500 page book whilst standing/sitting/sleeping?, in a bookshop. To be able to make such a claim, temptrain must have an incredible mind. It just does not seem plausible nor credible. Are you sure Peter, that you are not credulous?

PS. I wonder how many "scientists" who are AGWer's, have a pecuniary interests in so called AGW (or "climate Change") and how many skeptics don't have a pecuniary interest. Perhaps, there in lies one of the problems!

I am sorry if my language may sometimes appear blunt. Where I come from, we are inclined to call a "spade a spade".

A quote taken from a web post-"To quote George Orwell : "Only an intellectual would believe such stuff; an ordinary man could not be such a fool."

tempterrain

John Westerman,

You write "The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models."

It is a commonly repeated sceptic claim but, as usual, it is easy to see that it is false.

It has been known since the mid 19th century, when the only computing power available was in the form of the abacus or maybe the Babbage engine, that the presence of GHG's, which include CO2 and methane, and water vapour in the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface 33 degC warmer than it would otherwise be.

Since the 1950's, measurements, not computer models, of carbon dioxide and other GHG's have shown steady increases over pre-industrial levels.

You don't need a Kray supercomputer to work out the likely outcome! Arrhenius at the turn of the last century made various estimates for the likely warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels of between 1.6 to 6 degs C.

That's not too different from the last range of estimates endorsed by the IPCC.

manacker

Peter Martin

John Westman’s stated: “"The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models."

This is correct, of course.

The “warming” we are talking about here is not the theoretical warming one could calculate using Arrhenius’ theory and the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship, but the actually observed warming over the 20th century, or, even more specifically over the last 30 years or so.

This was around 0.7C over the 20th century, including an early warming period (1910-1944) of 0.5C, a cooling period to 1976 and a renewed warming trend of 0.4C since 1976.

Climate models cited by IPCC tell us that cause of the first warming trend is uncertain and the cause of the cooling trend is also doubtful (in a footnote to a chart they give a speculative rationalization, which has since been challenged).

But to the most recent warming trend IPCC states that the computer models cannot explain this without including anthropogenic forcing.

AR4 WG1 Ch.3 (Observations), p.240: “ The 1976 divide is the date of a widely acknowledged ‘climate shift’ and seems to mark a time when global mean temperatures began a discernable upward trend that has been at least partly attributed to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

In Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) IPCC adds (p.684): “The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate.”

On p. 685 IPCC continues with: “Climate simulations are consistent in showing that the global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings.”

So IPCC has confirmed that John Westman is right on this one. The “evidence” for human influence on the warming trend is based on climate models.

Max

manacker

John Westman,

Thanks for your post.

I agree fully with your viewpoint on this.

There are no conclusive empirical data that support the premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused largely by human emissions of CO2.

The whole AGW craze is based on GHG theory and climate model "results" (which are based on climate model input "assumptions").

Peter has been challenged on another site to show these conclusive empirical data, but has been unable to do so, pointing instead to IPCC reports or Royal Society statements of faith.

Max

manacker

Peter

I answered your question concerning man's ability to change our climate in an earlier post.

At the time, I assumed you were not just "baiting" me, but wanted my answer to your question.

Now I get the feeling that maybe you were just "baiting" me.

At any rate, the question has been answered and I do not intend to rehash all this.

Max

tempterrain

Max,
You say "I answered your question concerning man's ability to change our climate in an earlier post."

Well you sort of fudged the issue by talking about our ability to fix it in the future. We can all feel the same way in our moments of pessimism. But, that's not what you meant (was it?) when making your "puny man is incapable...." statement.

Yes I would really like like to know where that came from? Is that irrational belief based on some religious faith of yours?

manacker

John Westman

BTW, here is a copy of the IPCC version of the Mann “Hockeystick” with actual 1860-2000 temperatures plus 21st century “projections” “spliced” on.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3820576014_91c891760f_b.jpg

You got to admit that this is an impressive work of chartmanship.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "Mann’s since discredited numbers, which attempted to eradicate a historically well-documented and recorded MWP and LIA."

Shame you have failed to show any of that 'well-documented' evidence, though. Do you actually have any ?
And you should have realised by now that things don't become fact just because you can repeat them over and over again. Show us some worthwhile evidence.

manacker wrote : "Plimer has reproduced this curve quite accurately on p.89 of his book (only difference is that he has used the 1960-1990 baseline value rather than the 1990 value)."

As 'accurately' as a blunt pencil, to be exact. I have only to copy and paste what Prof Enting has shown :

'In the upper part, the ‘hockey stick’ curve has been displaced upward relative to the version shown in the 2001 IPCC report, in spite of claiming to be the same reference period and having the 1998 instrumental values the same. In the lower part of figure 11, the depiction of the Medieval Warm Period is inconsistent with the claim on page 128 that The Wolf minimum heralded the end of the Medieval Warming and the beginning of the 600 year Little Ice Age. It took only 23 years to change from a warm climate to a cool climate. In addition the 20th century temperature data have been falsified by showing the 2000 temperature as almost exactly the same is the peak circa 1940 rather then 0.6C higher.'

manacker wrote : "The 21st century (to date) has show cooling at a decadal rate of a bit more than 0.1°C, rather than warming at three times this rate."

Not so, even though it is laughable trying to get meaningful trends from so few number of years. Nevertheless, I'll play along with your game.
Annual average temperatures from GISS show a linear regression trend rate of 0.0126 0.0218 deg.C/yr, an uncertainty which is much larger than the actual trend rate.

manacker

J SMITH

You wrote (to my assertion that there was a well-documented MWP and LIA, contrary to Mann’s since discredited “hockey stick”): “Shame you have failed to show any of that 'well-documented' evidence, though. Do you actually have any ?”

Are you suffering from short-term memory loss?

Please refer to the many references cited in my 3 posts of 12 August.

These show that (a) there was a MWP and a LIA, (b) these were global in scope and (c) temperatures were slightly higher than today in the MWP and slightly lower during the LIA.

Plimer also lists studies from several locations, which you can check out.

Besides all these studies there are numerous historical references, records of human migrations, crop records, physical evidence being discovered today as glaciers retreat, farm houses found buried in the permafrost in Greenland, etc.

All you have to do to find this is check the Internet. It’s easy.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

You “cherry picked” GISS as your source of 21st century temperature trends. Shame on you!

James E. Hansen’s GISS record is the only one of the four main records to show only a very minor 21st century cooling to date (-0.014C per decade).

The other four principle records all show a strong cooling rate:

-0.110C per decade (Hadley)
-0.156C per decade (RSS)
-0.155C per decade (UAH)

The average of all four records (including GISS) is a cooling of –0.109C per decade.

I have attached a chart to make this all a bit easier to see.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2600/3670965001_4249d9a68e_b.jpg

Max

J SMITH

John Westerman : I love your list of scientists - supposedly proof that man-made Global Warming isn't happening ?

Perhaps you believe that a list of Biophysicists, Chemists, Engineers, Astrophysicists, etc. (retired or not) is good enough to prove something ?
Do you believe that any scientist, especially if they are of the denying type, is qualified to prove your beliefs ?

As for Dr Joanne Simpson, it was a shame (and coincidental, no doubt) that you left out the following bits from her statement :

'There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring.
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.'

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "Please refer to the many references cited in my 3 posts of 12 August.
These show that (a) there was a MWP and a LIA, (b) these were global in scope and (c) temperatures were slightly higher than today in the MWP and slightly lower during the LIA.
Plimer also lists studies from several locations, which you can check out."

As usual, you don't have to worry about me checking out things that you post and the fiction in Plimer's book.
In fact, I have posted responses to your so-called evidence : unfortunately, your 'evidence' failed because none of it showed what you thought it did !

The abstracts gave the game away with some of them, by not even pretending to offer higher temperatures for the MWP.
The others were a strange mixture of non peer-reviewed rambling, discredited rambling, local studies and/or didn't mention higher temperatures either. I wonder whether you actually read them !
Even the Burgundy one admits that the temperature has been higher this decade. Did you not notice that ?

As for Plimer, we have already seen that his references are either vague, non-existant or bear no relation to what he pretends them to be. Just like you, in fact !
Are you and he the same person ?

manacker

J SMITH

You apparently believe that by making a statement that a study is not valid, proves that this is so. Sorry, J SMITH the studies I cited, in particular those of Baliunas + Soon and Loehle, clearly show a global MWP warmer than today.

The Burgundy study only starts in 1370, pretty much the end of the MWP. It concludes that summer 2003 was warmer than any summer since 1370, but says nothing about annually averaged temperature.

The other studies speak for themselves.

The MWPand LIA were real, J SMITH, and you can’t “wish” them away, just because they are inconvenient to your belief that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

You have an uncanny ability of getting it wrong every time! How do you do it?

To my statement that Plimer had reproduced the Mann hockeystick quite well, you opined (maybe quoting Enting, who seems to share your uncanny knack):
“As 'accurately' as a blunt pencil, to be exact. I have only to copy and paste what Prof Enting has shown :
'In the upper part, the ‘hockey stick’ curve has been displaced upward relative to the version shown in the 2001 IPCC report, in spite of claiming to be the same reference period and having the 1998 instrumental values the same. In the lower part of figure 11, the depiction of the Medieval Warm Period is inconsistent with the claim on page 128 that The Wolf minimum heralded the end of the Medieval Warming and the beginning of the 600 year Little Ice Age. It took only 23 years to change from a warm climate to a cool climate. In addition the 20th century temperature data have been falsified by showing the 2000 temperature as almost exactly the same is the peak circa 1940 rather then 0.6C higher.'”

IPCC showed Mann’s hockeystick in the beautiful “composite” curve which I linked. Look at it closely.

They used a “baseline” of 1990 temperature anomaly = 0.0C.

Plimer clearly states that his curve shows the same Mann data, but with a “baseline” of 1960-1990 average. This is roughly 0.3C cooler than the 1990 value, so the whole Plimer curve is slipped upward by this amount. Otherwise, it looks identical to me.

The “spliced” part (labeled “global instrumental observations” in the IPCC composite) shows the early 20th century warming (around 0.5C on both curves), the mid-century cooling (around 0.2C on both curves) and the late 20th century warming (around 0.4C on both curves).

Plimer shows 1998 to be at 0.5C; IPCC shows it to be at 0.2C. The difference is due to the different baseline of 0.3C. Simple arithmetic, J SMITH, not an “inconsistent” depiction.

The model-based projection part (beyond 2000) has not been “spliced” onto Plimer’s depiction (as it has in the IPCC version). This is pure fantasy, in any case, showing a 21st century warming of 1.3 to 5.3C (average 3.3C, or 0.33C per decade).

The first decade is almost over, and the cooling has been at a rate of 0.1C per decade, as I showed you earlier.

So much for IPCC’s forecasting ability. They cannot get the first eight years of the new century right and we are supposed to believe their 100-year forecast? Give me a break, J SMITH.

Forget this nit-picking of trying to trash Plimer’s book. Look at the lousy forecasting ability of IPCC instead.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

One last remark to your nit-pick of Plimer’s version of the “hockey stick”.

Presume you are quoting Enting when you write of Plimer’s depiction of the “hockey stick”:

“In addition the 20th century temperature data have been falsified by showing the 2000 temperature as almost exactly the same is the peak circa 1940 rather then 0.6C higher.'”

This is total baloney.

BOTH the IPCC version and Plimer’s version of the “global instrumental observations” section of the composite show that the 1945 peak was around 0.2°C below the 2000 peak. This is because these are not annual numbers but numbers that have been averaged over 10 years (IPCC tells us that “the line shows the decadal average”).

So Enting is wrong and so are you, J SMITH. The Plimer and IPCC versions are identical, with the only difference that the two curves use a different “baseline” value, resulting in a shift of around 0.3°C of the entire curve, as I have already pointed out to you twice.

Max

Bonnie Hoy

Hooray for you! Waltzing Matilda & all that.
Hopefully Australia can humiliate our Congress critters. Thanks for your work, your effort, your courage.
Thanks from all of us.
And if your gov does pass it, then take a look at our tea parties where we could possible stop the the DC imperialists from imposing the NHS on us.

Good luck!

Yours in Liberty
Bonnie Hoy
San Jose CA

manacker

J SMITH

You quoted Enting, who apparently took issue with Ian Plimer’s Fig. 11 (Mann hockey stick versus other depictions of climate changes in Europe over the last thousand years.

Believe we have discussed the upper graph and have agreed that this is identical to Fig. SPM-10b in The IPCC TAR Summary Report of 2001 with the noted exceptions.

The lower graph purports to show climate change in Europe over the past 1,000 years.

You quote Enting as criticizing this curve as follows:
“In the lower part of figure 11, the depiction of the Medieval Warm Period is inconsistent with the claim on page 128 that The Wolf minimum heralded the end of the Medieval Warming and the beginning of the 600 year Little Ice Age. It took only 23 years to change from a warm climate to a cool climate.”

This is a “nit-pick”, of course, but let’s look at the provenance of Plimer’s curve.

Plimer does not give the specific reference for this curve, but it is a fairly close match to Fig. 7.1c in IPCC Climate Change 1995 (the second IPCC report), to which Plimer makes reference on p. 87. This curve (along with Mann’s hockey stick) is also shown in Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png

It shows that at the height of the MWP temperatures were around 0.4C higher than in the late 20th century, and at the coldest part of the LIA they were around 0.8C cooler.

Beyond the mid 20th century, Plimer has added the three notable warming/cooling cycles of the 20th century (warming 1910-1945, cooling 1945-1975, warming 1975-2000), which IPCC did not show on their graph, and has added a temperature scale. No specific reference is given for the temperature scale, but it appears to be quite similar to that shown by Wiki (see above). The curve appears to have originated in a 1965 study on medieval Central England temperatures by H.H. Lamb.

The Oxford Companion to the Earth site describes this in more detail:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O112-MedievalWarmPeriod.html

“Scrutiny of archive sources by Hubert Lamb in the 1960s revealed how climate affected human prosperity in medieval Europe. The Norse colonization of Greenland and Iceland—itself probably made possible only by the moderation in climate—provided a legacy of records in a climatically sensitive zone. Indeed, high latitudes provide the most emphatic evidence for increasing temperature. This is usually attributable to variations of sea ice; for most of the eleventh and twelfth centuries the waters around Iceland and southern Greenland were largely clear of ice.

The discovery early in the twentieth century of plant roots and Norse burial grounds in subsequently frozen soil suggests that temperatures were 2–4 °C higher than in the twentieth century. A chronology of annual temperature for Iceland, derived from sea-ice records, indicates a peak of warmth around 1100 ad, a finding confirmed by evidence of agricultural prosperity: the largest surviving foundations of farmhouses are of Norse origin.

Central European vineyards have been found at elevations more than 200 m higher than today, indicating that summers were up to 1.5 °C warmer. Vineyards spread northwards as well as upwards; they were quite widely distributed over southern England. This implies a freedom from late spring frosts, and summers that were relatively dry and sunny. This is confirmed by estimates of seasonal temperature and rainfall compiled by Lamb, who estimated the mean temperature for July and August in central England from 1150 to 1300 at 16.3 °C compared with 15.8 °C for 1900–50.”

For an interesting study by Steve McIntyre on the provenance of the 1995 IPCC curve, see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072

This also points to the Lamb study as the basic source.

In summary, the “lower curve” appears to have come from an early IPCC report (which, like Plimer, also gives no reference), with the original data from a study by Lamb.

So Enting should actually criticize IPCC for having shown this curve back in its 1995 report.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The MWPand LIA were real, J SMITH, and you can’t “wish” them away, just because they are inconvenient to your belief that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented."

Sorry to be a stickler for the facts, but I do not believe in the unprecedented 20th century warning : I accept the evidence that tells me it is. Nothing you have presented so far, has stated otherwise. You actually need to present evidence that states the MWP was warmer, you know.

manacker wrote : "This is pure fantasy, in any case, showing a 21st century warming of 1.3 to 5.3C (average 3.3C, or 0.33C per decade).
The first decade is almost over, and the cooling has been at a rate of 0.1C per decade, as I showed you earlier.
So much for IPCC’s forecasting ability. They cannot get the first eight years of the new century right and we are supposed to believe their 100-year forecast?"

This is quite funny. Allowing for your fantasy of 'cooling' of 0.1C 'per decade' (I will be generous to you), do you really think 8, 9 or even 10 years is an acceptable level to determine any sort of trend ? And do you really think that 8, 9 or 10 years is an acceptable basis on which to judge a 100 year forecast ? If you do, I find that rather strange or, at least, straw-clutching.
How can I compare it ? I know : I am going to throw a coin 100 times, to see if it conforms to the statistical probability that there should be 50 heads and 50 tails. I throw it 8, 9 or 10 times and get heads each time ! Wow, what shall we determine from that ? If it was me determining, I would say : 'Wait until I've thrown the 100th, and then we'll see.' If it was manacker determining, he would say : 'The probability theories are all wrong.'
Do you see how funny that would appear to everyone ?

manacker wrote : "Believe we have discussed the upper graph and have agreed that this is identical to Fig. SPM-10b in The IPCC TAR Summary Report of 2001 with the noted exceptions."

Not at all. You certainly believe that, but what you believe and what is actual reality (as we have seen vis a vis you're belief that the science is all wrong - apart from that tiny minority that you can clutch at), are two very different things; as is obvious from anyone reading what has gone on above.

manacker wrote, quoting the Oxford Companion to the Earth on Hubert Lamb : "who estimated the mean temperature for July and August in central England from 1150 to 1300 at 16.3 °C compared with 15.8 °C for 1900–50."

I'm afraid you are a little bit behind the times. About 50 years at least !

Lets have a look at some more CET Data :

Mean annual temperature for 2001 to 2008 is 10.40°C compared to warmest decade of 20th century (the previous decade, the 1990s) which was 10.06°C

The hottest July was in 2006 with a mean of 19.7°C

The hottest August was in 1995 with a mean of 19.2°C

Now, comparing the above with the quote from Lamb (who estimates an average of 16.3C in July/August for the MWP), I think it is patently obvious that you have erred again, I'm afraid.

Plus, if you want to compare that estimated average with this 'cooling' decade you keep mentioning we are in, you will see that the estimation is still lower : the average July/August for 2001 to 2008 is 16.76C.

You still haven't convinced anyone but yourself, and you won't be able to convince anyone else until you can actually provide some figures which back you up in some little way. I doubt if you can, going by your previous efforts, so can you just admit you are wrong about this and we can move on ?

Here are the figures for you to play around with/cherry-pick as you wish :

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/data/download.html

manacker

J SMITH

You spent a lot of time on your “cherry-picked” quotation of Lamb’s estimate of CET July/August temperatures, as if this has much to do with annually average temperatures. In doing so you conveniently ignored two paragraphs in the Oxford write-up, which I will repeat here:

“The discovery early in the twentieth century of plant roots and Norse burial grounds in subsequently frozen soil suggests that temperatures were 2–4 °C higher than in the twentieth century.”
“Central European vineyards have been found at elevations more than 200 m higher than today, indicating that summers were up to 1.5 °C warmer. “

Now let’s go through the Lamb quote.

Lamb tells us that July/August CET from 1150 to 1300 was 16.3°C compared to 15.8°C in the early 20th century. How about a comparison with today? The Hadley site you referenced tells us that the average July/August CET was 16.2°C in 2008 and 16.4°C in 2009, for an average of 16.3°C. So we are up to the average in the late MWP (after having been considerably lower during the LIA).

MWP and LIA are a part of our world’s history, as can be checked in hundreds of reference (I just gave you a sampling).

To “dream them away” in order to prove that temperatures experienced during the late 20th century warming trend was “unprecedented” is foolish.

Mann’s study and its conclusion have been officially discredited. It has been buried in the trash heap of history. Let it R.I.P.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

A little statistical quickie for you.

Lamb tells us that the Jul/August CET from 1150 to 1300 was 16.3 °C. This is a long period, and there were certainly some “ups and downs” to arrive at this long-term estimate.

Now I have just shown you that the July/August CET average for just the last two years (2008/2009) was 16.3 °C, as well.

I think if we took a 150-year period ending this past year, or even if we only took a 100-year period, we would see that the average temperature was a bit colder than 16.3 °C, don’t you?

Does this tell us that the MWP really was a bit warmer than the 20th century?

What do you think?

Max

manacker

J SMITH

Yeah. The average July/August CET for the period 1951-2008 is 16.15°C, and that for the period 1901-2008 is 16.0°C, both a tiny bit below Lamb’s estimate of 16.3°C for the 150-year period 1150-1300. So it does make a difference how long a period one considers.

If we considered a 150-year period (1859-2008) the difference would probably be slightly higher.

Just to put your post on this into proper perspective.

But we are beginning to “nit-pick” here. Lamb has told us that over the period 1150-1300 it was marginally warmer than over the 108-year period 1901-2008.

Let’s leave it at that.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The Hadley site you referenced tells us that the average July/August CET was 16.2°C in 2008 and 16.4°C in 2009, for an average of 16.3°C."

So, previously you have been making up figures and now you are pretending to know the future ! I don't know what world you inhabit, but where I am (in the real world), August is not even half-way through.
You get more and more desperate. How can one debate someone who doesn't even realise when they are writing fiction ?

Mike O'Neill

In view of the multimple expense negatives reaching into all international economies related to suspected Global climate change, it would seem that these more solid opposing scientific views should get together to flush out the truth based on a set of 'finally' accepted facts. Lets put an end to the controversy and get on with fixing the earth as best we can. I think a more realistic external threat to our combined destinies is the potential for a large asteroid impact. Spending money and expertise for the design and implementation of a long term solution of that problem is more in order.

J SMITH

Mike O'Neill wrote : "I think a more realistic external threat to our combined destinies is the potential for a large asteroid impact."

That is nothing to worry about :

'At the current rate of impacts, we would expect about one large asteroid to impact Earth every 100 million years or so.'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-chance-of-an

Global Warming will be causing severe problems during this century - much more of an immediate concern, I think you'll agree ?

manacker

J SMITH

You are wrong AGAIN!

So far your record is impeccable!

You wrote: “So, previously you have been making up figures and now you are pretending to know the future ! I don't know what world you inhabit, but where I am (in the real world), August is not even half-way through.
You get more and more desperate. How can one debate someone who doesn't even realise when they are writing fiction ?”

If you will check the Hadley CET site (current and past year) you will, indeed, see that Hadley has reported an August value for both 2008 and 2009, with the footnote that the 2009 figure is provisional to the 14th. Will the second half of August be warmer than the first half? Who knows?

So there is no “making up figures” and no “pretending to know the future” as you erroneously state.

Just stating the facts as recorded.

Of course, I could have taken the 2007/2008 average for July/August, which was only 15.75°C, which would make your claim look even more ridiculous.

Face it, J SMITH. You are the one who is “writing fiction” (and grasping at straws), because you are getting “more and more desperate”.

The Lamb study does, indeed, show that CET temperatures over a 150-year period 1150-1300 were slightly warmer (16.3°C) than those from 1901 to 2008, a 108-year period (16.0°C). Just one piece in the puzzle (along with the many other studies I referenced) demonstrating that there was a MWP that was slightly warmer than today’s climate.

And that is basically what we are talking about here.

Max

manacker

Hey Bonnie Hoy, I like your style.

Keep those “tea parties” humming.

If enough people become aware of what the “renewable energy bill” really means (“cap ’n trade = carbon TAX), they will certainly reject this concept and let their Senators know to do the same.

Right now it’s taking back stage to the health care plan.

Are the two linked?

You betcha!

After promising all Americans earning less than $250,000/year a tax cut, the Administration needs lots of bucks to finance another campaign promise: health care.

What better source could there be than the well-camouflaged “cap ‘n trade” bucks? After all, it’s only the big, bad oil and coal companies that have to pay this.

Yeah, right.

And they’re not going to pass this on to every man, woman and child that uses “energy” or any products that have an “energy” component?

Duh!

I live in Switzerland where we threw out the foreign rulers a few hundred years before you in the USA did, but my sentiments are 100% with you.

Liberty is what it’s all about.

Not “big brother” watching over you (and taxing you to death in the process).

Max

manacker

Space Com reports about the five worst mass extinctions on Earth.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

“Here are details of the five worst mass extinctions in Earths history and their possible causes, according to paleobiologist Doug Erwin of the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History. Erwin said estimates of extinction rates are from the late John J. Sepkoski at the University of Chicago:

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago, probably caused or aggravated by impact of several-mile-wide asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater now hidden on the Yucatan Peninsula and beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Some argue for other causes, including gradual climate change or flood-like volcanic eruptions of basalt lava from Indias Deccan Traps. The extinction killed 16 percent of marine families, 47 percent of marine genera (the classification above species) and 18 percent of land vertebrate families, including the dinosaurs.

End Triassic extinction, roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago, most likely caused by massive floods of lava erupting from the central Atlantic magmatic province -- an event that triggered the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. The volcanism may have led to deadly global warming. Rocks from the eruptions now are found in the eastern United States, eastern Brazil, North Africa and Spain. The death toll: 22 percent of marine families, 52 percent of marine genera. Vertebrate deaths are unclear.

Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago. Many scientists suspect a comet or asteroid impact, although direct evidence has not been found. Others believe the cause was flood volcanism from the Siberian Traps and related loss of oxygen in the seas. Still others believe the impact triggered the volcanism and also may have done so during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. The Permian-Triassic catastrophe was Earths worst mass extinction, killing 95 percent of all species, 53 percent of marine families, 84 percent of marine genera and an estimated 70 percent of land species such as plants, insects and vertebrate animals.

Late Devonian extinction, about 364 million years ago, cause unknown. It killed 22 percent of marine families and 57 percent of marine genera. Erwin said little is known about land organisms at the time

.
Ordovician-Silurian extinction, about 439 million years ago, caused by a drop in sea levels as glaciers formed, then by rising sea levels as glaciers melted. The toll: 25 percent of marine families and 60 percent of marine genera.”

No mention is made of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM ) extinction (55 million years ago), which has more recently been cited as an event caused by drastic warming (over 6C over a period of 20,000 years) caused by (Wiki) “around 1,500 to 2,000 gigatons of carbon, which were released into the ocean/atmosphere system over the course of 1,000 years as a result of major volcanic activity”. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota but some marine species became extinct. Wiki tells us that “35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) died out over the course of ~1000 years. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.”

So what does this all tell us?

Including PETM (a relatively minor extinction), we have two extinctions caused by massive warming (root cause massive volcanism), two caused by asteroid impact, one caused by a big freeze (root cause unidentified) and one with cause unknown.

Mammals (that's us, too) did not become extinct during the big PETM warm-up.

Looks to me like Mike O'Neill might be right and we should be looking at “mitigation” of potential asteroid impact, rather than worrying about global warming.

Max

J SMITH

manacker wrote : "The Lamb study does, indeed, show that CET temperatures over a 150-year period 1150-1300 were slightly warmer (16.3°C) than those from 1901 to 2008, a 108-year period (16.0°C). Just one piece in the puzzle (along with the many other studies I referenced) demonstrating that there was a MWP that was slightly warmer than today’s climate."

Your mathematical contortions get more and more bizarre - I don't know how your brain keeps up !

You like to use a 8, 9 or 10 year trend because you believe it shows something you want to try to highlight.

You like to use an ESTIMATED 150 year average July/August temperatures from over 50 years ago, because you believe it shows something you want to try to highlight.

You also like to use that ESTIMATED 150 year average in the way it was originally used, to compare temperatures between then and the 50 years up to 1950, because you believe it shows something you want to try to highlight.

You like to try to then compare that 150 year ESTIMATE against a 58 year average and a 108 year average up to 2008, because you believe it shows something you want to try to highlight.

Unfortunately, you are not up-to-date and are relying too much on cherry-picked data and outdated studies. You have come nowhere near to disproving the IPCC's conclusions, which stated :

"The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then.

...the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.

However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briff a, 2006)."

None of your gymnastic efforts with regard to trends, length of averages or cherry-picked data can hide the fact that what the IPCC state is undoubtedly correct, and the amount of effort you have put into trying to prove otherwise by selective use of data has been in vain, I'm afraid.

To repeat my previous analogy of your views :

If I throw a coin 8 times, and it comes down heads each time, I will draw no conclusion from that because it is possible for that to happen and the true lesson will be learnt after the 100th throw.
Manacker, on the other hand, will determine that that proves false the statistical rule which predicts that heads and tails are each as likely to appear. (Refer above to where manacker states : "So much for IPCC’s forecasting ability. They cannot get the first eight years of the new century right and we are supposed to believe their 100-year forecast?"

manacker

Sorry, J SMITH, your latest post added nothing to the discussion.

Tossing in statements about length of periods considered in the statistics, etc. has not cleared anything up, J SMITH. The MWP was not a short-term climate “blip” like the late 20th century warming. It lasted several hundred years.

Quoting IPCC as an un-biased source of factual information regarding the relative warmth of the MWP and the 20th century warm period is a major stretch, J SMITH.

IPCC are the guys that are trying to “sell” us their “pitch” on AGW being a potentially serious threat requiring “action”.

Of course they would say that today’s warming is “unprecedented” and that the MWP was cooler. Remember that they were the guys that published the Mann et al. “hockeystick” in their TAR (without first doing a good job of “due diligence”) and are now trying to keeps its conclusions alive in the AR4, long after the hockeystick itself has been thoroughly discredited as a fraud.

Lamb gives a CET figure for a 150-year period, which is a bit higher than the figure for the most recent 100+ year period.

Loehle gives us a similar figure on a global basis.

Soon and Baliunas confirm that the MWP was global.

Other studies I have cited tell us of an MWP in several different geographical regions.

History books and actual physical evidence confirm a warmer MWP and a cooler LIA than today.

All the “copy hockeysticks” in the world cannot belie the fact that (a) there was a MWP slightly warmer than today over a long period covering several centuries, (b) there was a LIA cooler than today over a period covering several centuries and (c) both periods were global in scope.

I believe we can cap this part of our discussion off, J SMITH.

All the evidence in the world is not going to change your mind.

Max

manacker

J SMITH

You wrote:
“If I throw a coin 8 times, and it comes down heads each time, I will draw no conclusion from that because it is possible for that to happen and the true lesson will be learnt after the 100th throw.
Manacker, on the other hand, will determine that that proves false the statistical rule which predicts that heads and tails are each as likely to appear.”

Flipping a coin is a digital experience. These are two possible conclusions: heads or tails.

Our planet’s climate is extremely complex. There are observed cyclical changes with various cycle lengths that are barely understood by the recently created “climate science” today. There are observed solar impacts for which the mechanism cannot yet be described, changes in ocean circulation patterns that have major climate impact but the causes of which are poorly understood, etc.

The AGW signal (primarily from CO2) is but one of many factors. Even it is poorly understood today, despite the fact that much of the multibillion-dollar research money goes into funding AGW related studies. Funding for solar studies or studies relating to natural cyclical factors is limited.

AGW-aficionados speak of “the GH signal” and “background noise” due to “natural variability”. Right now, it appears that the “background nose” is driving our temperatures down, despite all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2.

So with all this going on, climate models are cranking out “projections” for the next 90+ years, based myopically on only the GH signal and ignoring the “background noise”, “natural variability” and the many cyclical factors that have driven our climate since well before the industrial era.

For a good treatise on why long-range projections are more likely to be wrong than short-term projections, read “The Black Swan” by Nassim Taleb. Unforeseen “outliers” are more likely to occur the longer the forecast period. Forecasting experts get it wrong not because of “what they know”, but because of “what they do not know”. It’s a good read, J SMITH, from which you can learn something smarter than your “flipping a coin” analogy.

Remember that in 1860 a long-range (60-year) forecast was made that Manchester would be covered by two meters of horse manure by 1920, due to the rapidly increasing number of horse-drawn carts and carriages.

IPCC would do well to remember this, as well, when they make totally meaningless projections to year 2100.

Max

neil

You guys have been at this for six weeks. Is this the only blog in town in the UK?