PUNCH: It’s just too hard to understand climate change

David LD says:

07:39am | 11/02/11

As opposed to 100% of oil and coal interests who have funded front groups to fight the conclusions of the emergent science since the 70s, right?

Can we get some sort of registry going for everyone who doesn’t “believe”? It would be handy to have when they start bleating questions about why they weren’t told this was happening so that the rest of us can openly mock you, then punish you for delaying the implementation of strong and decisive action to prevent the worst extremes from happening.

Your willful ignorance, and willingness to agree with the things that maintain the status quo, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence, is staggering.

And an aside, it’s been a while since we’ve had a climate change thread. The comments we’ll get on the two we’ve got on offer today should be hilarious, if predictable and tired.

HappyCynic says:

07:42am | 11/02/11

OMG!!!

A rational, reasoned and accurate response from Erick?  Has the world ended and I’ve not been informed? 

Kidding   I agree entirely.  There’s a lot of bluff and bluster and hot air and insults being thrown around by people who a vested interest in seeing climate change happen.  “Interested amateurs” someone below mentioned I think is the accurate term.

In my opinion if the science is accurate then there is no simple solution, indeed it may already be far too late to do anything about it.  The planet will sort itself out over the next few million years and we’d just better get used to it.

That’s not to say we couldn’t clean up our act a fair bit.  We’re a pretty filthy and destructive species (to paraphrase Agent Smith from the Matrix we’re more of a malignant virus than a mammal) but at least we have the awareness to clean up after ourselves if motivated enough to do it.

Freeman says:

08:30am | 11/02/11

David LD,

“As opposed to 100% of oil and coal interests who have funded front groups to fight the conclusions of the emergent science since the 70s, right?”

Got much evidence on this? just who are these ‘front groups’? or are you just making it up?

“even in the presence of overwhelming evidence, is staggering”

the evidence that CFC’s were destroying the ozone layer was overwelming, AGW science is vague at best.

AdamC says:

08:48am | 11/02/11

“As opposed to 100% of oil and coal interests who have funded front groups to fight the conclusions of the emergent science since the 70s, right?”

David LD, I think most Punch commenters (including Erick) are aware that many voices in the climate debate are conflicted. I also enjoyed your comments. People like you are one of the greatest weaknesses of the AGW movement.

Denny Crane says:

08:57am | 11/02/11

I find it amazing that Bob Brown, believes the coal industry is cause of the floods, which would be temperature rising, for then you look at the northern hemisphers, which has been industrialiesd a lot longer, and are suffering blizzards.

Climate Change is fear mongering, its a way for governments to bring in a nex tax, revenue to bail them out, for sending there countries broke.

Freeman says:

08:59am | 11/02/11

Good comment Happy Cynic, Our focus should be on sustainability rather than Climate Change until there is sufficient proof of AGW.

what gets me is that on one hand the AGW alarmists tell us we must act now! but then tell us we don’t need to do anything drastic like go to nuclear power, give up our cars, remove our air conditioners and hot water systems,  no, we just need to pay the tax and then we can sleep well at night.
There is also no need to focus on the 3 major polluters putting out the majority of Co2 which is what you would do if you were to take a serious, business like approach to reducing Co2.

Steely Dan says:

09:13am | 11/02/11

Dylan, if you want to understand climate science, why not quote climate scientists and not politicians?  Just a thought.

Old Bloke says:

09:53am | 11/02/11

Steely Dan, despite waht the climate change supporters tell you, there is far from concensus among true (as distinct from paleontologists, economists) climat change experst.  The science has been corrupted by vested interests.

Robbo says:

10:22am | 11/02/11

One of the biggest harms to the AGW crowd are the pure hypocrits spruiking their claims while doing the comlete opposite.    Do as I say, not as I do it seems is the AGW mantra.    Al Gore claims seas will rise etc etc and then buys a multi million dollar BEACH FRONT mansion.
U2 tell us all to stop polluting whilst hauling the biggest live show around the world on multiple 747’s and then trucking it around the country.    These are only a few examples of some of the hypocrits that want you and I to pay a tax on breathing whilst flitting around the world on jets.    Could Copenhagen and Cancun not have been attended by that most wonderful invention, the interenet, without a single flight being undertaken??    Do as I say, not as I do indeed.

JulesG says:

11:02am | 11/02/11

Erick: Exactly my sentiments. Where Dylan and others get themselves in a raffle over climate change is dead simple - they fail to acknowledge that we can still have extreme weather that is not necessarily down to climate change. I would like to point out that large parts of Australia are in severe drought too. Dylan seems to be saying in his article that because of the rains in the east there is no drought. Australia does have a north, west and south. The world doesn’t stop at the Queensland/ NSW border!

The floods and heavy rainfall in the eastern states on this occasion were due to a perfectly normal and cyclical weather oscillation called the La Nina in conjunction with northern sea temps being 3/10th of a degree warmer than usual. This is not climate change, it’s just the opposite of El Nino; people just have short memories, that’s all.

The Earth has experienced massive and catastrophic climate change numerous times in the past and will do again. The Earth’s axial procession, the Sun’s overall activity and cosmic and gamma radiation all have an impact on our climate and non of it is man made.

Shutting down the coal industry will only benefit our coal producing competitors, not the climate. If we reduced our carbon output to zero we would still have climate change; much of it normal and cyclical and all of it unstoppable.

Climate change is nature and as a species we must adapt or perish. Shutting down our industries is way too simplistic and just as devastating. Not all extreme weather is due to climate change either, it’s become fashionable to blame climate change for everything. A silly and short sighted view.

Steely Dan says:

11:07am | 11/02/11

“despite waht the climate change supporters tell you, there is far from concensus among true (as distinct from paleontologists, economists) climat change experst.”
The prevalence of articles in journals confirming that it is happening seems to contradict that view.

“The science has been corrupted by vested interests.”
And you say this why?  I’m fascinated by conspiracy theories.

fred firth says:

12:53pm | 11/02/11

David LD says: As opposed to 100% of oil and coal interests who have funded front groups to fight the conclusions of the emergent science since the 70’s, right?
WRONG!

David LD is both a fool and a liar. Over 100 billion dollars has been spent in an attempt to prove a connection between CO2 and climate. The only evidence of financial support for climate sceptics is a donation of mere 23 million from Enron, who incidentally has paid considerably more to AGW alarmists.

Putting a price on carbon will rort over three trillion dollars from the Europeans during the next eight years. Now we have, at our expense, Tim Flanery heading up the Government’s latest team to steamroll over public opinion in the lead-up to Australia’s CO2 tax contribution.

Will carbon tax make the slightest difference to our climate? No it won’t!
Will carbon tax make a few people very wealthy at our expense? You bet it will!

Would I like to see a vote registry of those for and against believing in this nonsense? You bet I would!
Truth has an inconvenient way of shining its light on liars.

Jane says:

02:02pm | 11/02/11

” As opposed to 100% of oil and coal interests who have funded front groups to fight the conclusions of the emergent science since the 70s, right?”

Sorry David LD but the climate change scientists of teh 1970’s where saying we were heading into the next ice age.

acotrel says:

04:17pm | 11/02/11

‘But the real problem for me is that I’m not a climatologist, a scientist, a geologist, a marine biologist, or anything else that ends with ‘ist’.’

NO, you’re an ignoramus?
  Physical chemistry is a difficult subject for students.  The topic of latent heat of fusion of water is difficult to comprehend?  Think of the spring thaw in Europe.  When the snow melts it’s the coldest time of the year! The theory is probably that the effect of environmentl heat in initiating the melting of the polar ice caps, starts a chain of extremely energetic weather events, by dramatic cooling of the atmosphere and oceans.  Keep telling yourself that global warming isn’t happening.  It’s probably the only constructive thing we can do anyway.  The Chinese and Indians will never be denied their turn to have an industrial revolution!.

B says:

08:19pm | 11/02/11

David LD:
Can we get the same from you so we can bill you for this stupid and not needed ETS tax??  OR for all the economic damage your short-sighted and illegitimate comments and policies will make?

Just to throw it out their, AGW doesnt exists and YOU will be the one with your name on the wrong list.

BTW its not a “doesnt believe”, this isnt a damn religion..  Oh wait, your a member of the Church of Climatology arent you?

Reg says:

03:31pm | 12/02/11

What’s rational about that HappyCynic?

Are we to understand that Erich is telling us that the reason the other 10% support Climate Change is because they’re into mining fossil fuels?  Now that’s a worry.

Perhaps Erich should also have pointed out the Climate Change deniers also have an income dependent on not supporting the proposition of Climate Change.

I think Erich is slipping since he changed the spelling of his name. Some sort of identity crisis I suppose?

LC says:

10:39am | 16/02/11

Are you serious David?

You want those questioning climate change science to be put on a public national register to be at the mercy of those who mindlessly accept it?

I’m sitting on the fence on the issue, but I’m telling you, attitudes like that coming primarily from your side will not win me over.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

06:27am | 11/02/11

Wow, could you be more patronising? “Climate scientists” have been predicting lots of stuff, the fact is (and you know this) they don’t know.
Ever considered the possibility that they [climate scientists - there’s really no such thing by the way, or it’s a VERY recent invention] could be wrong?

If the answer is yes, then you’re sceptical (good) if the answer is no, you’re religious.

MarK says:

07:04am | 11/02/11

Information brought to you by The Day After Tomorrow and other associated disaster movies.

“Climate scientists have been predicting just this for years.”

Do show us this please.

“So predicting extreme weather events means predicting not only weather events which are bigger and more intense than normal, but weather which swings wildly from one extreme to the next.”

Funny how these happen naturally too during phases of El Nino and La Nina patterns.

“Unfortunately, the people you quote aren’t climate scientists. “

Feel free at any time to explain what exactly is a climate scientists. Use your words. And do try to leave references to popular fiction on the sidelines.

“Climate scientists write like, well, scientists, which means you either have great difficulty following what they’re saying or they qualify it so much that it sounds (to people who don’t understand how science works) like they’re not really sure of anything much.”

One of the most self serving and ridiculous comments you have written on this topic. Complete crap. Lightweight justification.

“Part of the problem is that we try and reduce everything down to a few simple concepts, when life - and science - isn’t simple at all.”

But the cure is simple isn’t it. Just a bit of wealth redistribution and a whopping great big carbon tax on everything.

Job done.

Please. We are grown ups here.

“So if someone gets the message that the drought is caused by climate change, they internalise the idea that this means the drought’s never doing to end (because we know that we’re not tackling cc). So when it floods, they get confused.”

Bullshit. We take the spin and lies told to us and then when it is tossed back with empirical evidence showing it to be lies and spin the spin begins anew.

No person that can actually think is confused. No person that can actually read is confused. Flannery and Brown have been bullshitting for years for base political and ideological gain. In Flannerys case toss in a few investment promoting schemes.

“It’s not that they got the correct message to start with; it’s just that they didn’t get the complete message. “

Sell me a shit sandwich and call it cucumber if you like. It still is shit, smells and tastes like it.

The end is nigh for this type of zealotry.

Aitch B says:

07:14am | 11/02/11

@Pers

So it’s “interested amateurs” who “don’t understand the science” who are spruiking the doom and gloom message and would have us living in caves?

How reassuring….........

Tedd says:

07:29am | 11/02/11

Yes, Brad, it is a recent focus as a compilation of a number of disciplines.

All scientists should work with the basis of a test or null hypothesis that may be difficult to prove or proven wrong and they ought to be able to also formulate alternate hypotheses.

Hypotheses are formulated with regard to the wide body of work in the discipline, including recently publicised results that my contradict ones own

iansand says:

07:41am | 11/02/11

Here you go, MarK http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4684

persephone says:

07:44am | 11/02/11

Brad

Climate scientists used to be simply good old meteorologists (the ones I knew had doctorates in physics).

However, because climate change impacts across so many scientific disciplines - geography, atmospheric studies, oceanography, palaentology, to list a few - the term has been widened to include any scientist who are focussing on climate change in relation to their field.

So I know a biologist, for example, who is now accepted as a climate scientist because he studies the impact of climate change on plant growth.

Please find me examples of climate scientists making predictions that weren’t borne out. I’ll think you’ll find that either they weren’t made by climatologists.

MarK

what’s the point? You’ll just go HAHAHAHAH anyway.

But for those out there who are genuinely interested in whether or not scientists have been predicting extreme weather for a long time now:

A very quick google search, for example, gives you the following:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-20-03.html

‘the models agree the number of extremely warm nights and the length of heat waves will increase significantly over nearly all land areas across the globe. In addition, most areas above about 40 degrees north will see a significant jump in the number of days with heavy precipitation, including the northern tier of U.S. states, Canada, and most of Europe.’

So at the same time, a prediction of increased warmth and of higher rainfall.

Lots and lots more of that out there - do your own googling.

My private library includes papers from CSIRO dating back to 2002, which contain the prediction of ‘more extreme weather events’.

Even then, such predictions were being treated as ‘old news’ by scientists (but a lot of that isn’t on line due to its age).

Obviously La Nina and El Nino and climate change interact, giving us more extreme droughts at one end and more extreme rainfall at the other.

The rest of your post is your usual ranting, nothing of substance.

I have proof for my beliefs, and am willing to substantiate what I can. Yours is a true religion - belief without evidence.

Aitch

well, I don’t know of anyone who’s suggesting we should live in caves.

And I’m not saying the message is incorrect, just incomplete.

People want to reduce life to simple slogans. It’s more complicated than that, and if you try and understand anything on the basis of a few soundbites, you’re naturally going to be very confused.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

07:59am | 11/02/11

So Perse, to use your biologist friend, he’s now a climate scientist, his study is based on an assumption that climate change (anthorpogenic) is a proven theory.
So we have an unproven theory, assumed to be correct, with various disciplines studying the effects of this (unproven) theory, and guess what, the weight of evidence (all based on a yet to be proven theory) of climate change… Just look, even biologists have released papers that show how it will affect things… Assuming the initial theory was correct, you follow my point?

No wonder so many people in the community just accept it without question… This is a farce.

Reg says:

08:01am | 11/02/11

Heyyyy this is why some were concerned about testing the first Atomic Bomb in 1945. No-one knew whether it might result in a chain reaction that would destroy the world and yet they still let it off.

Should we push the threshold until we get total destruction or should we stop just before we get there? And how close is close enough?

Again, Chaos Theory tells the story.

Tedd says:

08:30am | 11/02/11

” to use your biologist friend, he’s now a climate scientist, his study is based on an assumption that climate change (anthorpogenic) is a proven theory.”
@ Brad

No, his study will be on how changes in climate affect plants and whether those changes are being seen, to determine if climate change is occurring and to what degree.

Others will be doing the same and publishing their studies and conclusions for scrutiny.

persephone says:

08:50am | 11/02/11

No, Brad, he became a climate scientist because he was coming across things in his field which could not be explained in any other way.

That is, he saw a proveable, demonstrable change in the environment and tried to work out what was happening. This lead him to look at the possibility of cc being involved, which lead him to further involvement in the field.

And that’s why climate change is being studied by scientists across different disciplines. They observe changes in their field which can’t be explained using any other theories.

That’s what science is about: you observe something, you look at various hypotheses which might explain it, you test these to find which of the many theories best explains what’s happening.

And that’s why cc has become so widespread and accepted, because time after time following that process results in cc being the only theory which fits with observable fact.

If anyone follows your point, I’d be very surprised.

AdamC says:

08:58am | 11/02/11

Pers, the problem with that link of yours is that it is from 2006, some time after the political formula that AGW = extreme weather = hurrican Katrina was established. One of the aspects of the climate change debate that concerns agnostics like me is how the ‘science’ of climate change tends to lag the politics of climate change.

There are two obvious reasons for this. One, political actors in the AGW debate cherry-pick the science that backs up their message and, two, grants tend to follow the politics.

This is a credibility problem for the climate change lobby.

BofB says:

09:00am | 11/02/11

Tedd, not necessarily… there’s plenty of grant money floating about (or has been in the last decade) in “studying the effects of climate change”. How can one study the affect of something with hasn’t happened yet? Are these abstract?

You see, the assumption is that it is happeneing, at least to some extent, even though there is no [definitive] evidence to suggest that it is. It “might” be happeneing, but then again, it might not… I repeat, nobody knows!

Duff says:

09:20am | 11/02/11

You are quite right, Persephone.  There are many problems with the climate change debate from both side, but surely one of them has to be the Al Gore/Bob Brown amateurs who have turned the issue into a moral imperative.  They believe so much in the ‘rightness’ of their cause that they use exaggeration, hyperbole and sensationalism to ram their point through.

This, unfortunately for the rest of us, has backfired and caused more damage then good, in my view.  We now have a lot of people resisting the idea simply because they can smell a rat.  Fair enough.  I can see their point.

But climate change is real, unfortunately, and it is indeed about extremes.  Which is why the term “global warming” was rightly dropped - it only tells part of the story.  More drought, yes, but also more flooding, cyclonic weather and generally changed weather patterns around the world.  El Nino and La Nina, yes, but on steroids - that kind of thing.

persephone says:

09:20am | 11/02/11

Adam C

I also referenced a paper in my possession (and sorry, nothing I can do about something which came from a time when such things weren’t automatically put on the net, but I can assure you the date is 2002, the source is Environment Victoria and the paper predicts increased extreme events).

But to cover you’re ‘it’s only since Katrina’ quibble:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/xweather.pdf

Written in 2000, it refers to:

‘Changing levels of precipitation,
more severe El Niños or tropical cyclones, acute coral bleaching such that corals would
not have time to recover, or a stagnation of the Ocean Conveyer Belt and the collapse of
the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are risks.’

Or this one from 2002:

http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/1862.pdf

‘One of the anticipated effects of climate change is the possible increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts.’

Randal says:

10:01am | 11/02/11

“Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” - which is transient - and start talking about the new climate.”

He also goes onto predict that Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide will be out of water in 18 months, by math that should happened early 2009… Yet from what I can tell they are doing a little too well in regards to water storage.

The I read this 2009 report http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/timbal2009rainfall.pdf from the BOM, which clearly suggests that SEA (including S/E Qld) climate had changed:

“The recent 12 year, 8 month period is the driest in the 110 years long record… This change in the relative contributions by the autumn and spring seasons now more closely resembles the picture provided by climate model simulations of future changes due to enhanced greenhouse gases…”

See now I am really confused, because you Perse as a beacon of knowledge on climate change, say “Climate scientists have been predicting just this for years”, yet the government appointed expert on climate change and the models referred to by the BOM in 2009 where predicting less rain, and permanent droughts across SEA…

Then to absolutely confuse me I read this quote from the then head of the BOM’s Climate Analysis team, David Jones, who described the drought gripping SEA in 2008 as:

“Perhaps we should call it our new climate… Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back…”

Yet today the same David Jones, now head of the National Climate Centre said of Victoria’s weather:

“In some variables it is very close (to how Queensland used to be)...“You don’t need to go to Merimbula or Eden - you can go down to Frankston or Portsea..”

No wonder Dylan, myself and undoubtedly many others are confused, one minute SEA is going to be trapped in a permanent drought, the next it is becoming a tropical paradise.

Now if this confusion is being caused by ‘interested amateurs’ as you claim, what they hell are these amateurs doing running the National Climate Centre, working for the BOM, winning Australia of the Year awards and being appointed by the government as the commissioners in all things ‘climate change’.

As the author has correctly put… “Please explain”.

Jim says:

10:45am | 11/02/11

@persephone - “Please find me examples of climate scientists making predictions that weren’t borne out. I’ll think you’ll find that either they weren’t made by climatologists.”

Umm….the fabled hotspot over the tropics springs to mind immediately. If CO2 was the culprit then there was consensus among sponsored climate ‘scientists’ that a hotspot in the atmosphere above the tropics should exist. It doesn’t.

Your usual condescending and patronizing self but….you really shouldn’t pretend to know shit from clay about the sciences though. James1 tried that the other day and when I pointed out to him that I have a couple of degrees in science and stats he fobbed it off and said they were two streams which were of no use to climate science!

Egg, face - you get the rest.

Randal says:

10:46am | 11/02/11

My post was cut off and I am of course referring to that doyan of climate science, Professor Tim Flannery in the opening quote”

MarK says:

10:54am | 11/02/11

“‘One of the anticipated effects of climate change is the possible increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts.’ “

Well gosh and golly

That would mean that hurricane/cyclone energy would increase over time wouldn’t it on a global basis?

We got any data on this?

Hamish says:

11:55am | 11/02/11

Perse, the problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that the weather is actually getting more ‘extreme’. Just the media’s coverage of the weather. Cyclone Yasi is a great case in point (and don’t bother pointing out that Cyclone Yasi doesn’t prove anything re climate change, I’m totally aware of this).

Randal says:

12:21pm | 11/02/11

@Duff, no one with half a brain has ever said ‘climate change’ does not occur, of course it occurs as anyone who has ever taken 5 minutes to look at the formation and geological history of the earth can attest. The real discussion is, what forcing affect is man actually having on the atmosphere, and it is enough to affect the ‘greenhouse affect’ that makes this planet as inhabitable as it is.

In my view, I have not as yet seen enough evidence of man’s capacity through the emissions of CO2 to have the effect that has been described, at times hysterically, by the man-made climate change community. For instance this hysteria as led to your comment stated as fact that global warming will cause:

“El Nino and La Nina, yes, but on steroids - that kind of thing.”

Yet there is not a single scientific study that has been able to link the affects of ‘global warming’ to the ENSO (Southern Oscillation) that causes the El Nino and La Nina cycles, as stated in the most recent CSIRO study by climate researcher Dr Cai:

“...research conducted to date does not yet enable us to say precisely whether ENSO variability will be enhanced or moderated, or how the frequency of events will change…”

Yet you state as fact what is not proven, and in fact there is a growing body of science, such as McLean (2009) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml which states that global forcing factors such as ENSO can be explained for the global warming over the past 50 years:

“...mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation…”

They further conclude that:

“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.”

Yet here we have you Duff stating as a fact what is not only not proven, but where research is suggesting the exact opposite, that rather than global warming affecting the La Nina and El Nino cycles, that it is in fact these very cycles that affect ‘global warming’.

As the saying goes, the science is far from settled, and needs to be before the first world should risk its financial prosperity upon an unproven theory of ‘man-made climate change’.

Hamish says:

12:24pm | 11/02/11

Great post Randal. You’d almost think they’re making it up as they go along…or that there was some alterior motive (like a part-time $180K p.a. gig or some money from the gov. for your geothermal power station or both). Or maybe you’d be a little generous and suggest they just don’t know what they’re talking about.

Climate is a horribly complex system and it seems even the climate science gods might not actually be able to fully understand it. They quite clearly can’t predict it.

notsurprised says:

12:36pm | 11/02/11

Recent observations and results of the Earth’s temperature variation have more to do with the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun than that of the effects of carbon output. Add to this changes in magnetic activity, sun spots and solar flares and you have a massive and powerful changing system regulating the conditions of our atmosphere.

The planet is actually heading into a time of lowering temperatures:
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

notsurprised says:

12:36pm | 11/02/11

Recent observations and results of the Earth’s temperature variation have more to do with the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun than that of the effects of carbon output. Add to this changes in magnetic activity, sun spots and solar flares and you have a massive and powerful changing system regulating the conditions of our atmosphere.

The planet is actually heading into a time of lowering temperatures:
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

James says:

12:47pm | 11/02/11

@notsurprised, boy you have some ego to think you have picked up something that the best and brightest in the field of climate science have missed, why don’t you tell them.  I would love to be there as they laugh in your face you intellectual pigmy.

AdamC says:

01:05pm | 11/02/11

Randal, you make some excellent points there generally, but Persephone seems to be talking about ‘extreme weather’ that she argues had been predicted to increase in the context of AGW. The link from 2000 that she provided below, whilst not convincing and compromised in and of itself, does show that the ‘extreme weather’ stuff has been on the climate science community’s radar for a while. In other words, it would seem to bolster her fundamental assertions, comments by Bob Brown and Tim Flannery aside.

None of that changes the fact that recent extreme weather events are not, in a historical sense, atypical of longstanding Australian conditions. So, to summarise my view, Pers is right that the AGW movement has been predicting increases in extreme weather events for some time, but there is still little evidence that they are correct.

Jim says:

02:16pm | 11/02/11

AdamC, they could also predict that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

persephone says:

02:36pm | 11/02/11

Adam et al

busy day, my hubbie only came home from hospital this morning, have kids and other things to get organised….will try and catch up later, sorry if I didn’t report my doings to you earlier.

Will try and answer all these posts later today, but don’t have time now.

I do have a bit of a life, you know.

persephone says:

02:44pm | 11/02/11

Actually, got a spare 10 mins so will get started and finish this when/if I have time later -  I do apologise.

Randal

Can you please provide a link to that quote? Like Tony Abbott, I think context is important. (I also repeat: I don’t think much of Flannery).

And yes, that information is correct, although I don’t see anyone making any references to permanent droughts.

‘Less rain’, yes.

You can have less rain and still have floods, just as some countries in the Northern Hemisphere can have their warmest winters ever whilst others have their coldest.

You have heard of words such as ‘trends’ and ‘averaging’ I take it?

None of what you’re quoting is incorrect, and you haven’t shown them to be so.

One wet summer does not make a trend; a series of hot ones do.

(Oh and it feels pretty tropical here in Victoria at the moment - humid, wet, with torrential downpours).

MarK

I’ve already posted the data that shows this.

Do your own googling.

Got to go, got kids to pick up from school, try and answer the rest later.

acotrel says:

06:43am | 12/02/11

Risk has two components - likelihood and consequence.  What is the probability that AGW is happening, what are the potential consequences? We all have a duty of care which involves managing the risk appropriately. Getting into denial isn’t a constructive solution.

acotrel says:

04:50pm | 12/02/11

‘Ever considered the possibility that they [climate scientists - there’s really no such thing by the way, or it’s a VERY recent invention] could be wrong?

If the answer is yes, then you’re sceptical (good) if the answer is no, you’re religious.’

Brad, I’m NOT religous.  What are the probabilities that the scientists are wrong?.  They were wrong once when they expressed an opinion that the A bomb fission,  could cause the atmoshere to burn- or were they?

Randal says:

10:44am | 14/02/11

Always happy to make sure you have the context Perse:

2007/08 – Jones and Flannery “permanent drought” and
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html
http://theorstrahyun.blogspot.com/2008/01/australias-new-climate-extreme-dry-how.html

Really no doubt, permanent drought, and an end to the rains of the past is clearly what they are saying.

Fast forward to circa 2011, and according to Dr. Jones SEA is going to be a tropical paradise
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorias-weather-going-troppo/story-e6frf7kx-1226003993254

Hi words and not mine, and stated on “Wild Weather Unleashed” by Dr. Jones, and then repeated on 3AW in a morning interview. Makes one wonder what model Dr. Jones is using… Maybe it’s called the “Magic 8 ball”.

To be fair Perse, these two ‘carpet baggers’ were not the only ones to suggest a future of less rain and ongoing drought, and all research made the claim that the rains where gone for good and that ‘evidence’ was suggesting a ‘climate shift’ for SEA, and for clear evidence just take a peek at the “South Eastern Australia Climate Initiative” - a $7million dollar collaboration between the BOM & CSIRO intended to outline the path of a climate affected future.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html
http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-2Reports/S2_AR0910.pdf

Who’s findings, surprise… surprise was that the drought of SEA was caused by an “intensification of the subtropical ridge” and as the chief researcher, Bertrand Timbal stated “the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming” and went on to say that compared to previous years that “We are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’‘

Tell me Perse, is that enough context for you??

persephone says:

11:38am | 14/02/11

Randal

No mention of permanent drought in the first article – in fact, a reference to future wet years.

Second article – Dr Jones – note the use of the word ‘may’ in association with ‘permanent drought’. This also implies ‘may not’.

Note that Dr Jones acknowledges heavy rainfalls along the coast, so he was well aware that rain is still happening.

Your third article is simply repeating the second one, so why bother?

Once again, you confuse ‘events’ with ‘trends’. One wet summer – or even two, or three – does not mean that Australia isn’t getting warmer and drier.

The kind of weather Victoria is experiencing at the moment – warm, humid and wet – is very tropical. It doesn’t mean that instantly palm trees will sprout along every beach front.

None of these articles say that rain has gone for good. Indeed, most of them make reference to future rain events.

We simply don’t know at present how weather will play out in the relatively short term. This may be a blip year, followed by more drought.  We may be in for a few wet and stormy years.

This is what you’d expect if the climate was changing: instability.

And that’s what cutting carbon emissions is meant to do: not to stop climate change happening in the short term, but to stabilise the climate so we can plan for the future, something that noone, be they a farmer or a government, can do at the present, given the vagaries of the climate.

I repeat: extreme weather is exactly that; it swings from one extreme to another.

Randal says:

10:26am | 15/02/11

Of course Perse, when Flannery said that our dams and rivers will never fill again, and that Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide would run out of water within 18 months what he really was inferring is that there would torrents of rain, with bulging rivers and over flowing dams… And when Jones describes the drought of SEA as our ‘new climate’ and infers droughts becoming ‘permanent’, it is really code for the heavens will open with rivers of rain.

Oh and when the BOM and CSIRO spend $7 million on a report to assess the effects of climate change on SEA, and come back with a finding that the warming planet has seen the Sub Tropical Ridge affected and predict a continuing of the dry, they actually meant more rain, full rivers and dams.

You see the problem is that unlike like you Perse I don’t speak ‘climate change code’, that is when one says one thing they actually mean another!

PS - It is you that is confusing weather with climate Perse, I never stated the rains or the drought where evidence of climate change, just that both reflect the impact of natural variations of the earth’s climate patterns in line with the traditional ENSO pattern.

It is people like you Perse, along with the Jones’s, Flannery’s and Browns who are claiming that weather events such as an extended dry spell, followed by storms and cyclones over a very narrow time window, are evidence of changing climate.

So with all due respect I suggest you practice what you preach and blame it on the weather. Then we will have nothing to argue about.

Reg says:

06:38am | 11/02/11

Or read a little about Chaos Theory.

Sure that Butterfly farting in Siberia can result in a cyclone in Tully so just imagine what may have happened had it been a glutenous Polar Bear. Sticking strictly to natural functions of course.

Even allowing for random cancellation the insignificant origin results in astronomical outcomes. It’s there for anyone to see.

Luke says:

07:58am | 11/02/11

Iansand, check out these guys as well please.  Do some research on the other side also
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true&position=1
There are plenty of articles on there by Meteorologists that don’t agree with the concensus and have data to back it up.

iansand says:

08:38am | 11/02/11

Luke - I prefer to get my information from sources that are not overtly supportive of one side.

BofB says:

09:03am | 11/02/11

“iansand says: 08:38am | 11/02/11
Luke - I prefer to get my information from sources that are not overtly supportive of one side.”

And yet you quote newscientist… many sceptical papers there? Lets calculate the ratio eh?

Steely Dan says:

09:26am | 11/02/11

@ Luke

Meteorologists aren’t climate scientists.  Not that this means we should ignore them, but they weather and climate are not the same thing.

Reg says:

09:50am | 11/02/11

Well I prefer the balance provided by Prof. Julian Cribb in the title “The Coming Famine: Risks and Solutions for Global Food Security” and supported by New Scientist on the 14th of June 2008 in an article entitled, “What price more Food?” 

Shrinking food supplies and expanding populations with the expectation of higher living standards, lend a great deal more urgency to the problem of climate change. Anti-GM may even have to buckle in the impact of its onslaught.

iansand says:

10:29am | 11/02/11

BofB - Of course there are very few sceptical papers there.  Largely because no one is writing them.  Which is the point.

If you actually read New Scientist you will occasionally see some seriously whacky theories being given a run.  They gave a lot of time to cold fusion, for example, and the outer reaches of string theory.  In the last year I have seen them report research that suggests that there may be some evidence in ESP.  They do not run away from fringe science.

BofB says:

11:17am | 11/02/11

Ever wonder iandsand, why “no one is writing them”? There actually are quite a few being written, but there’s no money in it, mate.

Of course unless you beleive that the mythical “big oil” or “a few wealthy individuals” are funding these papers that aren’t being written

MarK says:

01:08pm | 11/02/11

“BofB - Of course there are very few sceptical papers there.  Largely because no one is writing them.  Which is the point.”

Hahahahahahahaahaha

How quaint

LC says:

11:35am | 16/02/11

“I prefer to get my information from sources that are not overtly supportive of one side.”

In which case link skeptical articles from the new scientist or you can say “hypocrite”.

Mahhrat says:

07:06am | 11/02/11

+1 Brad, nice post.

Good article, too.

I feel sorry for Mother Nature.  Her gig’s gotten so much harder recently. 

I just imagine her sitting in some big room down near the core, millennia old, cracking the old bolt of lightning through the sky to scare us stick-wielding neaderthals back into our caves and having a quiet chuckle.

Nowaday, we’ve got thousands saying humanity did it all anyway!  She’s producing these awesome storms, floods, droughts and whatever, and we’re just trying to take the credit for it!

Look, I can’t help but think that all the pollution we put into the earth, water and sky can’t be good for it.  I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with that much, at least, it’s just how much damage we’re likely to do that’s the problem.

persephone says:

07:49am | 11/02/11

You don’t agree with the science, therefore it must be manipulated.

Don’t actually provide any references for your allegations, do you? Just throw them out there as if they’re proven fact.

So on one hand you reject climate science because it hasn’t been proven to your satisfaction, but on the other hand you accept as true a series of beat ups by the anti cc brigade.

Scarcely an inquiring mind, more one that wants its own prejudices confirmed.

Reg says:

07:51am | 11/02/11

Oh I don’t know.

As the dominant animal aren’t we allowed to sh*t where-ever we want to? *Certainly in England the law allows women to piss anywhere, just like any other animal. Which is obviously because male pi** is reserved for marking the perimeters, so men are clearly the cause of pollution. Nothing worse than pi**ing right around the globe to come face to face with some Yank doing the same.  A real territorial pi** fight.

* That’s true Erich.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

08:05am | 11/02/11

Perse, I referred to climate gate for one… Yu know of this, you know how Mann’s hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited, it is widely accepted that the temperature record has been manipulated, and the justification for this is dubious.
I could waste my morning googling, but I think you know pretty well the sources I’m referring to. When I get home from work, I’m happy to invest a few minutes collating the evidence, and when I do, what will say then my man?

undertow says:

08:47am | 11/02/11

He started by referring to “a great line in the Dan Brown novel, Angels & Demons”. Any claim a credible argument was lost from the get go.

BofB says:

08:57am | 11/02/11

Perse, here’s a decent compilaiton of the mess that is the “surface temperature record”.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
You accuse me of confirmation bias, and this may be true to a certain extent, I think it’s basic human nature. I’m not so blinkered as to not consider this as a possibility. I think you too, suffer from confirmation bias, as do most/all people.
The difference is, I freely admit that I simply do not know… I also freely admit, that it appears to me that nobody knows. Plenty of scientists are on the record admitting that. I’m not saying we shouldn’t study it, nor am I saying we shouldn’t be concerned. I’m saying we should be reasonable, and there’s not a lot of reason, not is there any debate.
In fact, a few key players in the pro-AGW theory camp have recently refused to debate (after initially accepting) - again… why is this?

persephone says:

09:07am | 11/02/11

Brad

actually, no, I don’t.

I know that a few emails used out of context were beaten up to make it out that they meant something.

As for the hockey stick—

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

‘Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.’

So on one hand you accept ‘widely accepted’ myths about climate change, but refuse to accept the ‘widely accepted’ view of scientists that climate change is real.

Because you don’t believe anything (apparently) without 100% proof.

Unless it’s an anti climate change beat up you read somewhere on the net.

Convince me, using evidence and stuff.

A couple of links to start with would be good.

persephone says:

09:37am | 11/02/11

BoB

that old chestnut.

When these allegations were looked into, it was in fact found that if yoiu removed all the ‘suspect’ weather recorders from the samples the readings were actually higher.

And of course I started off as a sceptic, but it was back in about 2000. I’ve done a lot of questioning since then.

And, as for certainty, I find it passing strange how people quibble about climate change, one of the soundest theories we know of, but accept theories such as gravity without question.

As for debate, the only reason you have the perception there isn’t any is that the issue really only came into general perception a few years ago. As I said, I’ve been involved in this for over a decade.

By the time the issue came into the public domain, the science was fairly settled.

There’s been a lot of debate, and there’s a lot of ongoing debate, but if you’re holding out for 100% certainty on anything, you’ll never get it - and nothing will ever get done.

Governments - and human beings - act all the time and make major decisions about a whole heap of things where there’s a lot less than even 90% certainty.

Randal says:

10:43am | 11/02/11

Really Perse, “They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion…” you do love to talk in absolutes don’t you, yet you fail to mention the latest study by McShane and Wyner (2010) http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/ that supports the McKitrick’s Paper (2003), where they found:

“...the proxies (in the hockey stick) do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of tempreature… thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago…”

I guess that means not quite “ALL” studies have shown the hockey stick to be as reliable as you suggest.

Seriously Perse, this is becoming quite tedious the ease to which your arguments can be knocked over, but I guess it’s hard to continue to tow the party line as the evidence amounts again, especially when you consider:

1.  The oceans have not warmed since 2003 (Douglas & Knox 2009)
2.  The oceans are in fact cooling (Argos deployment 2003)
3.  Despite copious amounts of CO2 being emitted we have seen no increase in the earth’s tempreature above the 1998 (El Nino affected) peak
4.  We are currently seeing a cooling of the earth under La Nina to the long term average.

It’s a rough time for the AGW crowd, and considering the conclusions of many ‘climate’ rabid AGW scientists (such as Keenlyside in Germany) that the effect of La Nina may last for the remainder of the decade, which will see further cooling, it’s going to continue to be a tough sell for the fanatics like yourself as the ‘snake oil’ science is exposed for what is.

Jim says:

10:55am | 11/02/11

@BofB - further to your comment on weather stations…the ONLY reliable weather stations now exist in orbit, and they’ve only been up there doing that for 10 years.

There hundreds of official temperature stations that are nestled in amongst heat generating devices such as the backs of airconditioners, in the middle of highways etc - all well documented. If they were fair dinkum scientists that data would be discarded, but it supports their sponsors views so it stays.

BofB says:

11:25am | 11/02/11

“I know that a few emails used out of context were beaten up to make it out that they meant something”... a few emails, c’mon, man! How about all those Pascal code blocks? How about the corruption of the peer review process? beat-up my foot!

How do these proxies go at erasing the medieval warm period the way that Mann et al did?

I’m not looking for 100% anything, I still remain unconvinced, as is my prerogative.

Lastly, nobody is suggesting that “climate change” is not real, what’s remains to be proven, is that it is unique, and that humans are to blame, to suggest that people somehow don’t accept that the climate changes over time is deceitful.

MarK says:

01:10pm | 11/02/11

Pers loves works of fiction to prove a point.

First it was The Day After Tomorrow.

Now it is the Hockey Stick.

Gawd.

persephone says:

12:52pm | 12/02/11

BoB

well, all the hockey sticks I’ve seen had the Medieval Warming period factored in, so maybe you’re looking at more up to date ones - the ones built on the better data we now have for those periods, which show th MWP was a fairly localised event.

Well, all of those things have been proven, to the extent that we can prove anything, so your continued disbelief either bespeaks ignorance or an unwillingness to accept facts.

And governments don’t have the luxury of hanging around to wait for more complete proofs before they act. They must act on the basis of reasonable risk; if there is a 1 in 100 year chance that a block of land might be innundated, they must prevent people building a house on it. If there’s an exceedingly small chance someone might fall off a piece of play equipment and become a paraplegic, they must insure against that event, and design equipment that reduces these chances as much as possible.

So, regardless of the personal beliefs of individuals, if the bulk of the experts are warning governments that there is a problem, and that there is action they can take to minimise it, any responsible government must act.

Concerned citizen says:

08:39am | 11/02/11

Correct me if i’m wrong since the world has been constantly warming, we should have been experiencing ever strengthening La Nina’s due to the increased evaporation. Is this the case?

Grumpy says:

09:34am | 11/02/11

A Perfectly succinct explanation Tedd. I really dont see what is so hard for people to understand about this.

Steely Dan says:

09:40am | 11/02/11

@ Cc

“since the world has been constantly warming, we should have been experiencing ever strengthening La Nina’s due to the increased evaporation”
La Nina and El Nino are caused by the oscillation of the air surface temperature and pressure.  My understanding is that it’s the difference (ratio) in pressure and temperature around the Pacific that defines each phase, meaning that if everything warms uniformally (and I don’t think it does) then the cycle remains the same.

Reg says:

09:59am | 11/02/11

Summary 7: Chaos Theory for Beginners; an introduction.

  * A tiny difference in initial parameters will result in a completely different behavior of a complex system.

  * The Uncertainty Principle prohibits accuracy. Therefore, the initial situation of a complex system can not be accurately determined, and the evolution of a complex system can therefore not be accurately predicted.

  * Complex systems often seek to settle in one specific situation. This situation may be static (Attractor) or dynamic (Strange Attractor).

Lisa Meredith says:

02:17pm | 11/02/11

Dear nossy,

This article explains the science of the greehhouse effect.

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

AnthonyG says:

07:36am | 11/02/11

I believe in the Easter bunny . Until someone proves otherwise maybe an Easter goat or an Easter blue tongue lizard might be delivering our chocky eggs but i cant prove it so i will just have to believe in the bunny.

L. says:

08:11am | 11/02/11

“25% of all the world’s fresh water comes from glacial runoff so, fewer glaciers (and by and large glaciers are in retreat globally) means less water for people to drink.”

But if the glaciers are in retreat, that would mean that more fresh water is running off, yeah..?? More run off, more drinking water..??

The Original Oz says:

08:23am | 11/02/11

You say “even without human activity such as bushfires, volcanoes etc.” I wasn’t aware that volcanoes could be classified as Human Activity. BTW - Have a good look at the past. Between 1300 and 1800 the world experienced what is called a Mini-ice age. This lasted for 500 years and finished only 200 years ago. The earth is still returning to balance after that event. Yes it is climate change but human induced - not likely. I agree that we have to change the way we do things like reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and cleaning up our act to become responsible global residents. But to state that it can all be solved by a great big tax called a “Carbon price” is absolutely crap. (My background includes work with the NH&MRC;, the Australian Research Council and I am also a historian.) Study the past and you will find plausible reasons to doubt the propaganda of the warmists, who have an extremely large trough of cash for their snouts.

iansand says:

08:40am | 11/02/11

L - Until the glacier disappears, or becomes so small that runoff is negligible.

Have you seen the change in the glaciers on Kilimanjaro or Carstenz, to name but two?

L. says:

09:03am | 11/02/11

“Have you seen the change in the glaciers on Kilimanjaro or Carstenz, to name but two? “

Kilimanjaro has been smaller in the past (pre industrialisation) than today… what’s your point?

Steely Dan says:

09:49am | 11/02/11

@ L.

“Kilimanjaro has been smaller in the past (pre industrialisation) than today”
Do you have pre-industrial records?
If you’re talking about 100s of 1000s or millions of years ago, the point is that we know what drives climate over that timescale, it’s the earth’s orbital variations.  Those are very long-term changes that are inconsistent with sudden spikes in temperature over a few centuries.

L. says:

10:44am | 11/02/11

” Those are very long-term changes that are inconsistent with sudden spikes in temperature over a few centuries. “

So the snow has retreated due to global warming ...or…years of deforestation..??

” Retreat of alpine glaciers around the globe has be attributed to global climate change, but at sites such as Kilimanjaro impact of low land deforestation also need to considered. The focus of this study is to address this issue through the use of Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) utilizing satellite data to specify realistic land use change scenarios.”

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.C23A0599F

iansand says:

11:13am | 11/02/11

L - Deforestation is posited as one of the drivers of climate change.  Precipitation is part of the climate.

L. says:

12:17pm | 11/02/11

“L - Deforestation is posited as one of the drivers of climate change.  Precipitation is part of the climate.”

No, the inference is that the Kilimanjaro snows are melting due to WARMING via AGW, not deforestation, hence Steely Dan’s comment “sudden spikes in temperature over a few centuries.”

The harvard study refutes that claim.. And it’s not the only one.

iansand says:

01:38pm | 11/02/11

L - It is not the Eastern Lowland Gorilla hacking into thoise forests.

Adam Diver says:

02:19pm | 11/02/11

Way to miss the point there iansand. Is it so hard for people to admit mistakes. You can still claim AGW without referencing Kilimanjaro, have some dignity.

L. says:

02:38pm | 11/02/11

“L - It is not the Eastern Lowland Gorilla hacking into thoise forests. “

iansand, as Adam says “way to miss the point”. I’ll explain it again..

The point was made that ‘temp spikes” in the past century are the cause of the reteating snows on Kilimanjaro…again, temp is the cultprit. However the Havard study I linked to cites deforrestation as the cause….not temp. Therefore AGW is not the cause.

iansand says:

04:21pm | 11/02/11

Do you think Adam.  What is your theory about the causes of deforestation?  Meerkats?

Dave Sag says:

10:00am | 17/02/11

Sorry ‘TheOriginalOz’, my bad. I left out a comma.

When I said “That’s additional tonnes, over and above the normal, natural levels we’d see even without human activity such as bushfires, volcanoes etc.”, i ought to have said “That’s additional tonnes, over and above the normal, natural levels we’d see even without human activity, such as bushfires, volcanoes etc.”

ie I claim bushfires and volcanoes are normal, natural activity and human activity is pushing GHHG levels even higher. Much higher in fact.

My main points are still valid however.

Swingdog says:

07:49am | 11/02/11

Perfect, Liam.

Question for the writer, why are you doubtful of this science, yet, presumably, you believe in plenty of other scientific theories (gravity etc.) and you’re prepared to take the word of scientists on these issues.

Face it, the only reason there’s a groundswell of scepticism is that climate change is going to have an economic impact on all of us, and so we suddenly get picky about our science.

Reg says:

08:27am | 11/02/11

Then you buy a new car. So where do we buy a new Earth?

Adam Diver says:

08:49am | 11/02/11

So, so pathetic. My god I hate stupid analogies. Even in your analogy you use weight of numbers to find an outcome. Science does not work this way, its either right or wrong the 9th mechanic may of been right, orperhaps it was your suspension. You don’t know, believing without prrof is called faith.

The problem is that there is no control for this science. This is then compounded by looking at most the last 2 centuries in isolation for many of the factors (due to lack of long time measurements).

So lets lay some of these issues out there

1. Rediculous claims by “warmists”, dams never full again, 100m sea level rises, kids not seeing snow etc etc.

2. Countless examples of bad science. Cherry picking evidence, moving equipment for better results, influencing data into models to get desired results, using reports with no scientific basis in a scientific report, peer review process being destroyed.

3. No link proven yet between co2 and higher temperatures.

4. No discussion on whether the climate may actually be in a historically cool period (hint: it is)

5. Exagerration on what the potential effects are of an increased temperature, all based on models that can’t back date.

6. The fact that the measures being discussed to address this issue will not do s**t.

7. And the biggest one of all, the fact the real life observed data has not matched the predicted models over the last 10 years. I am talkng about global temperatures and ocean temperatures. If this is wrong, then its a leap of faith to stick with the rest of the predictions.

These are some serious issues with the science, and need to be addressed before any “consensus” starts proving scientific fact.

L. says:

08:55am | 11/02/11

No Liam, think of it like this…

You are driving along towing a load of bricks up an enormous hill and the your engine gets warm due to…now stay with me here…the NORMAL operation of your engine!

You take your car to a mechanic (who gets paid by the hour to look at engines) and says you need a larger radiator because you didn’t think the data (towing a load of bricks) was significant. 9 more mechs (who get paid by the hour to look at engines) say the same thing as they are working on the same flawed data.

How’s that..??

WayneT says:

03:40pm | 11/02/11

Perfect analogy Liam.  The other 9 mechanics can see there is some money to be made in racing ahead and fixing your gearbox without first analyzing your cars history or getting to the actual problem.  The one probably honest mechanic is more interested in actually identifying the problem and not coming to a quick uninformed conclusion.  He is more likely looking for other simpler reasons for the noise.  Now there are two courses of action you can take.  Firstly you could race ahead and spend the money and impact your ‘family budget’ and later have the real problem bring your car to a screeching stop and further expenses.  Or you could take the sensible step and proceed with caution, aware there may be a problem with the gearbox, but allow time for the single mechanic to collect further data get to the actual cause of the problem.  Given the complexity of the drive train (Climate System in this analogy), it seems more reasonable to allow a correct diagnosis to be performed before you spend all that money.

Reg says:

12:30pm | 13/02/11

@ Wayne T. “Perfect analogy Liam” 

It’s not a perfect analogy at all, it is side-tracked from being “goal oriented” to being “method oriented.”  In this respect however, it -does- highlight how easily misled some can be.

If the task of the vehicle is to supply food to a remote village so that they can avoid famine, the cost of the repair is as NOTHING when compared with the disaster the failure would bring.

I trust you can “join-the-dots”  in perceiving how this compares with the potential disaster of global change. Although I still reckon that so little is known about “initial conditions” that it’s almost hilarious to see how emphatic some are being about so called facts, either way.

HappyCynic says:

07:48am | 11/02/11

Simplistic, inane, asinine and inaccurate.

How is your comment any different from the AGW fearmongers?

iansand says:

07:50am | 11/02/11

Nice description of the “sceptic” industry.

persephone says:

07:54am | 11/02/11

MarK does tend to believe that the world works like the Liberal party play book.

Just because the people he hangs out with think that crafting careful webs of deceit, lies and mistruths is standard operating proceedure, doesn’t mean that this is how others operate.

MarK, show us the computer models which disprove climate science. Show us some backcast data.

I’m sure it would be interesting…if it exists at all.

MarK says:

08:09am | 11/02/11

“Simplistic, inane, asinine and inaccurate.”

You raise some interesting points.

I feel so humbled to be torn apart by the intellectual monstrosity that is your point.

As I am but a mere mortal and with many failings would it be too much to ask to expand just a wee bit on some of the topics you have alluded to above.

You know. If you have the time. Since you are so smart and all.

I do apologise since your points were so clear and concise. The problem in lack of understanding is mine of course.

“How is your comment any different from the AGW fearmongers? “

Oh that is simple. I don’t particularly want to reorder the worlds economy so haven’t made up a fear campaign to complement my aim. The onus of proof would seem to fall rather heavily on the ones wanting to reorder don’t you think

I can see how this subtle difference in my position to the AGW cultists could be confusing.

I hope that clarifies things.

Kevin says:

09:18am | 11/02/11

As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out on Climate Change.  However, I do note that being a Sceptic is the most personally convenient stance to take because it means you don’t have concern yourself with reducing energy consumption or having to put up with higher electricity bills.  It is this personal convenience that makes me doubt the sincerity of a lot of the advocates against AGW.
Also, it seems that for a lot of people, the topic has been reduced to a debating competition.

Warren says:

10:18am | 11/02/11

MarK the same silly attitude was used to argue there was no link between nicotine and cancer.

The fact that you need to cobble together a conspiracy which must include the governments of Europe, China, the USA as well as scientists,  insurance companies and anyone involved in business risk management, merely demonstrates the sheer stupidity of your argument. Stop listening to that pop-eye looney Lord Monckton.

MarK says:

10:44am | 11/02/11

“However, I do note that being a Sceptic is the most personally convenient stance to take because it means you don’t have concern yourself with reducing energy consumption or having to put up with higher electricity bills.  It is this personal convenience that makes me doubt the sincerity of a lot of the advocates against AGW.”

How convenient for you to believe so.

I am very concerned about the environment and environmental issues and go to great pains in my daily life to utilise as few natural resources as is necessary.

I also do not see the need to scare the crap out of everyone for political, ideological and economic gain.

I fully believe that climate changes all the time.

You can hold all of these beliefs without a shred of contradiction.

It is only the fanatical warmists that can only see one thing.

MarK says:

10:49am | 11/02/11

Oh sorry pers. Totally missed it.

“MarK, show us the computer models which disprove climate science. Show us some backcast data.”

Here you go.

Refutation by 5 o’clock please

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/134451__928051726.pdf

Nice editorial about it

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928044622&fulltext=713240928

All by scientists. All peer reviewed.

Comments?

MarK says:

01:23pm | 11/02/11

How is that review going pers?

Got to the real good bits in the study which show your models are crap?

It is a very good study isn’t it. Done by scientists and all. Reviewed by a guy who submitted material to the IPCC reports. He found no faults.

Cool huh?

Ima Seagull says:

02:40pm | 11/02/11

MarK
All I’m concerned about is did Bolt review this work and is it approved for use within the denialist community?
I follow the Bolt school exclusively.

persephone says:

04:04pm | 11/02/11

Haven’t had time to look at it, MarK.

Been busy elsewhere, sorry I can’t meet your deadline. As I’ve told you previously, I’m not at your beck and call.

Will try and find time tomorrow when things are less hectic.

persephone says:

01:14pm | 12/02/11

MarK

for one of your links I get:

‘An error has occured trying to display the requested PDF, please try again’

The other is a paper about the relationship between climate change and water management, which fairly simply states that the modelling isn’t accurate enough to apply to individual water management situations.

I haven’t found anything which says the models are crap, as you put it - what I’ve read appears to be saying that they’re currently not detailed and localised enough to use for this particular purpose.

It’s a bit like saying that we have a map of the world which is accurate but it’s not detailed enough to use to navigate our way around the streets of Melbourne.

Please enlighten me if I’ve misunderstood this. It’s quite possible.

I won’t set you deadlines. I don’t bully people like that.

(and what would it prove if I did and you didn’t meet them? That you were wrong? How silly).

MarK says:

02:07pm | 14/02/11

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/258299__928051726.pdf

So sorry pers.

Knock yourself out dear. chop chop

persephone says:

08:05am | 11/02/11

thatmosis

evidence, please, for any of these statements -

1. Who told us that the drought would never be broken?

2. No reputable scientists has said the floods in Queensland were caused by climate change. They have bent over backwards to emphasise that we can’t say that. We can say, however, that events like this are more likely under a climate change scenario.

3. Who predicted warmer winters in the Northern Hemisphere? I can find plenty of predictions from climate change scientists which say otherwise -

http://lifestylesea.com/climate-change-may-lead-to-colder-winters-in-the-northern-hemisphere .html

And, btw, 2010 was the equal hottest year on record. Some areas experienced their hottest winter ever.

4. Please provide evidence of governments not building dams because there wouldn’t be the rain to fill them.

Waiting your reply with interest.

Super D says:

08:40am | 11/02/11

@ Perse, Bob Brown told us there would be permanent drought.  I guess he’s now claiming permanent flooding.

Ian says:

09:02am | 11/02/11

@ Pers
please don’t cite a lifestyle magazine as evidence.  Next thing it will be the Women’s Weakly or the No Idea

Mick In The Hills says:

09:09am | 11/02/11

pers,
1. Tim Flannery, now your chief spokesman.
2. Bob Brown, your high priest
4. Bracks/ Brumby Victorian labor governments

MarK says:

09:25am | 11/02/11

“1. Who told us that the drought would never be broken?”

Flannery. In that excellent journal new scientist

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm

I love the dams no longer fill when it does rain line.

Oh also

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html

That is David Jones from the BOM

“2. No reputable scientists has said the floods in Queensland were caused by climate change. They have bent over backwards to emphasise that we can’t say that. We can say, however, that events like this are more likely under a climate change scenario.”

Lets look at Dr Jones again from the BOM

http://www.climateactioncentre.org/floodsclimatechange

Hmmm. seems a bit contrdictory.

We also have Karoly and the Uni of NSW there too.

Awesome

How about Al Gore? He has this science stuff all down pat

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/al-gore-chaos-awaits-if-nothing-happens/416000

Or bobby Brown?

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/greens-attack-coal-industry-over-floods-20110209-1amaj.html

“3. Who predicted warmer winters in the Northern Hemisphere? I can find plenty of predictions from climate change scientists which say otherwise -

http://lifestylesea.com/climate-change-may-lead-to-colder-winters-in-the-northern-hemisphere .html

And, btw, 2010 was the equal hottest year on record. Some areas experienced their hottest winter ever.”

Oh I don’t know.

Maybe East Anglia CRU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

“4. Please provide evidence of governments not building dams because there wouldn’t be the rain to fill them.”

That Flannery feller seemed to think it was pointless in New Scientist.

Did you know he was chosen just yesterday to chair the group think panel to bring consensus to the masses on climate change?

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Nice interview from our government propagandist

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/stop-all-your-dam-exuses/story-e6frfhqf-1225786402294

2009 story. It is not a new phenomena.

Now.

Refute them all with evidence pers.

Hop to it

MarK says:

01:16pm | 11/02/11

Pers?

Oh pers?

Still waiting I am. Got anything in that extensive personal library? Maybe you are looking through 2012 that really authoritative documentary starring what his name for proof?

Times is ticking away.

Nedd some answers.

May as well explain why this graph is not trending up

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Also 2010 wasn’t the hottest on record. 1998 still beats it. So in like 12 years it has gotten cooler.

How does this align to the theory?

Less storm energy, cooler than a decade ago can’t get the dam models to work with hindcast data…....

Is that crickets?

Adam Diver says:

02:21pm | 11/02/11

C’mon Pers, your silence is dafening and your MO becoming apparent on the punch.

iansand says:

02:45pm | 11/02/11

Ummm.  MarK.  You do realise that citing newspaper articles as “proof” of anything is pretty much the problem that the writer of the original article was complaining about?

Randal says:

03:53pm | 11/02/11

Perhaps she is busily watching “The Day After Tomorrow” in a desperate attempt to find answers to questions she does not understand

persephone says:

11:54am | 14/02/11

Adam

the ‘modus operandi’ was to see if thatmosis actually had arrived at a viewpoint after looking objectively at the information available, or if he was simply regurgitating talking points without actually understanding them.

His lack of response speaks volumes, but it was very nice of you and Mark to come to his defence.

MarK

1. MarK and Mick: Quote where in the article Flannery says the drought is permanent and explain why he refers to future wet years.

Dr Jones is careful to say ‘may’, which implies ‘may not’.

2.  Mick,  I asked for a scientist. You will see in a post above that I don’t include BB in that description. And I’m not a fan of his, anyway.

Al Gore’s commented on the Queensland floods? Good lord, the man is everywhere!

3.  I missed my own point there! see the start of this post.

4. Just saying isn’t evidence. Bracks and Brumby examined the possibility of extending some dams, but concluded that the M-D cap made this too difficult.

2010 is the equal hottest year with 2005.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

http://www.universetoday.com/82514/2010-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-say-noaa-and-nasa/

MarK says:

02:02pm | 14/02/11

Absolutely pathetic pers

Pathetic

1. “But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” - which is transient - and start talking about the new climate. “

How hard is it to read.

2. I gave you a scientist and you chose to conveniently ignore that

3.You were wrong on fact again. Credibility fail as usual

4.Yawn. Bracks and Brumby were fed a line by the greens and slavishly followed it. How is that desal plant of theirs working out?

5.Oh gawd. I will not even bother to argue with you over hottest year ever. There is a few tenths of a degree in it anyway.

So the two hottest years EVER recorded are 1998 and 2010. You admit that.

Where is the warming then? The issue is carbon is it not? With all these new emissions and the days to act scare campaigns in the last decade plus you just admitted it hasn’t got warmer.

You provided no facts just blasé denial.

Pathetic, intellectually blind fanaticism at its finest on display

persephone says:

02:40pm | 14/02/11

MarK

1. The ‘change’ he refers to as ‘permanent’ is hotter soils and increased evaporation. This is not a reference to ‘permanent drought’, which you assured me was in there.

2. Actually, that was my third attempt to answer, with the moderators saying I was writing too much, so I cut it down a fair bit.

Both Jones and Karoly and quite possibly Al Gore are saying exactly what I said scientists were saying: you can’t attribute a single event like the Queensland floods to climate change but you can say that events like these are expected to be more frequent and more intense under cc.

I don’t know how often that has to be repeated for you to understand it.

3. I was both wrong and right! The simple answer at present is that noone knows. The UK is highly dependant on the Gulf Stream, and we don’t understand yet how cc will impact on that.

(See ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ which is based on the scenario that the GS cuts out).

4. So, no evidence from you that Bracks/Brumby were against dams because they were told it wasn’t going to rain. Just admit that.

5. Didn’t read the link, did you?

For a start,  2010 and 2005 were both hotter than 1998.

So what did cause these three years to warm so significanlty - quite close together, historically speaking - if it wasn’t climate change?

Randal says:

01:11pm | 15/02/11

See I was right, Perse did spend that long silence going back to her scientific resource, the absolutely true and not exaggerated at all Hollywood account of how the world is buggered!

I mean come on, how can one argue with a resource like a fictional Hollywood movie supporting your cause.

Oh and Perse, just a little quote from good ol’ permanent drought Flannery in answer to a simple question.

Andi Hazelwood: Should Australia be preparing for permanent drought conditions?

Dr. Tim Flannery: Well, it’s the new climate. We will have to get by with less water. The CSIRO’s telling us that. We’re seeing it now, in the evidence before our eyes in our rivers and creeks, and of course the computer models in the global models have been predicting just this now for some years. I think all evidence says that this is our new climate and we have to get by with less water than we’ve ever had before.

Of course Perse, what Flannery means by this ‘new climate’ is that we will have torrents of rain and overflowing dams, you just need to be able to read between the lines like you can.

Randal says:

01:11pm | 15/02/11

See I was right, Perse did spend that long silence going back to her scientific resource, the absolutely true and not exaggerated at all Hollywood account of how the world is buggered!

I mean come on, how can one argue with a resource like a fictional Hollywood movie supporting your cause.

Oh and Perse, just a little quote from good ol’ permanent drought Flannery in answer to a simple question.

Andi Hazelwood: Should Australia be preparing for permanent drought conditions?

Dr. Tim Flannery: Well, it’s the new climate. We will have to get by with less water. The CSIRO’s telling us that. We’re seeing it now, in the evidence before our eyes in our rivers and creeks, and of course the computer models in the global models have been predicting just this now for some years. I think all evidence says that this is our new climate and we have to get by with less water than we’ve ever had before.

Of course Perse, what Flannery means by this ‘new climate’ is that we will have torrents of rain and overflowing dams, you just need to be able to read between the lines like you can.

Grumpy says:

09:04am | 11/02/11

lol nice.

James says:

01:10pm | 11/02/11

Jim you are still at it and you are still uneducated, get educated.  Face it you are a rightwing idealogue and anti climate science is part of being in the grumpy old man club.

Jim says:

02:12pm | 11/02/11

Umm…wrong Jim, James.

A right wing idealogue am I? Well lets see….my first ever trip to the polls was to put a 1 in the local Labor members box….second and third trips went to Liberal. I really thought Kim Beazely was a top bloke but sadly the ALP machine thought otherwise.

Kevin07 nearly got me, I must admit. But in the end, despite feeling a change was needed I stuck with Howard mainly because KRuddy seemed so dishonest. At this point in time I’m appalled at the incompetence in this government, so yeah, I’m throwing my support behind the LNP.

Does me not being a rusted on Labor voter make me a ‘right winger’?? I bow to your elitist wisdom!

An idealogue too??! Well, seeing as though you lot always say that Abbott stands for nothing….and the underlying requirement in being an idealogue is that you do indeed have something to stand for, is that an oxymoron? Or is it just you being a moron?

As to education….I’m pretty confident that I’m light years ahead of you in the education stakes.

If you can point to definitive proof that CARBON is CAUSING the planet to WARM then I might leave this grumpy old man club as you put it. I put those words in CAPS because they are the key parts to this entire case the carbon trading industry is hinging its argument on.

I can tell you now, you won’t be able to find anything that is definitive and cannot be easily refuted.

It’s just a grab for huge amounts of cash, the biggest lie ever told.

MarK says:

02:50pm | 11/02/11

Cutting reply James.

That showed him good and proper.

James says:

02:57pm | 11/02/11

You are clearly and old geezer who has very right wing views and to hang around your mates you need to toe-the-line when it comes to climate change being a “hoax”, there is no point giving you facts because you are immune to facts you argue against climate change because it clashes with your narrow world view and you despretely want to believe it isn’t happening.

You are not a real scientist and do not understand physics to any degree so where you do not really understand you spout babble that you want to be true, you are an intellectual pigmy and will eventually have to tell your children when we were heating the globe I played for the wrong team.  How sad.

Jim says:

12:10pm | 12/02/11

Yeah, geez James, you got me!

I thought I was on the right side of 40, but damn. I’m an old geezer.

I guess I should tear up my degrees then…should I start with ceramic engineering or mineral science/metallurgy? Hmmm….well since superconductors got me excited in the late 80’s, infuencing my decision to do the ceramic engineering degree I’ll start there, since they can’t be built to work at room temperatures. All that time spent doing physics and thermodynamics…I knew it’d be a waste! Let’s see…my mineral science degree….again, half a dozen units based around thermodynamics, 8 or 9 chemistry units, 3-4 physics ones….shame I didn’t study unicorns! Oh, and let’s not forget that pesky little statistics degree too! That sucker’s always getting me in trouble with obviously learned people like yourself….tends to show me a lot of holes in peoples assumptions too often. My MBA? I thought it was useless when I finished it…damn career progression requirements!

I did however do a 3-day TAFE course on making your own fishing rod. I might keep that one…what do you think?

Right-wing? Guess you didn’t really read my post above, did you. You can read, can’t you? I mean, you’re not one of those ones that just see someones name and ‘assume’ that what they say is going to bring the sky crashing down if you don’t reply, are you?

Oh, and I’m yet to see any facts provided by you. Should I just take you on faith? I’m not a religous person and not about to start anytime soon…

Pretty sad? I’ll be sad seeing the world getting ripped off by global corporations and banks to the tune of trillions, all based on a lie. But offsetting that sadness will be great joy in seeing unwashed greenies, born and bred to despise global business forces, suddenly realising they were conned into supporting that which they hate

PS: Love the ‘intellectual pigmy’ comment. You must be sooooo superior to anyone else on this planet. Why do you bother with opinion forums? Shouldn’t you be out there saving the planet?

Reg says:

03:43pm | 13/02/11

Nice CV Jim but unnecessary since no-one knows the qualifications or experience of the next. Besides all training goes gradually out of date, which means you have to disclose how close you are to being sent out to grass. 

Thinking locally.
The one thing that does seem to be true is that sea temperatures are rising and we do know that cyclones are driven by the heat energy in the sea. At least we can say that with certainty.

It’s fairly easy to extrapolate from this knowledge that cyclones will be more frequent and more intense and, if the warmer water extends evenly down the East Coast of Australia, then cyclones will move South. The idea of a Mega-Cyclone as an extreme, seems to illustrate the problem.

Local heating, such as may be caused mid-ocean by a moderate sized meteorite or an under-sea eruption, could raise the temperature and induce a gigantic cyclone with supersonic central velocities. This at least gives the impression that heating can indeed be caused by a local influence.

With the last cyclone transporting copious quantities of water inland, this will now be evaporated and dumped as warmed water into the Pacific or in South America where the ocean currents will receive all the energy again. While Australia was in drought the local influence was stagnant but now with all the water inland the Sun’s energy can be transferred rather than re-radiated into space.

These rising sea temperatures and the Southerly movement of cyclones would indicate that all building standards need to be upgraded in the zones expected to be effected by the new cyclonic tracks.

Not one mention of AGW.

James says:

11:03am | 14/02/11

Jim I one thing I didn’t see in your CV was that you had studied climate science.  For all those hours you spend in lectures and classes you did not gain wisdom.  I would not pressume to wax lyrical about the finer details of materials science because I have not studied it, I certainly would be second guessing the best material scientists in the world unless I had done huge amounts of work and even then I certainly wouldn’t put my opinions out in public till I had checked with them, in case I missed something and ended up looking a total arse.

Do you get where I am going with this?

BofB says:

08:42am | 11/02/11

Mate, CO2 is old hat, it’s pig and cow farts now, too!

A cooler planet will still fit the “climate change” label will it not?

Reg says:

08:52am | 11/02/11

Noooo I’m going to blame that pack of polar bears farting in unison around the North Magnetic pole.

Samuel says:

09:20am | 11/02/11

That last sentence is the most profound truth that climate change advocates seem to completely misunderstand.

If science was democratic we’d still think the world was flat and the sun moved around us. We’d think that washing your hands was a stupid idea and bleeding people out was good surgical practice.

Reg says:

09:38am | 11/02/11

Jim, just for me, isn’t an AGW an Anti-Global-Warming aficionado?

Just trying to make sense of the following.

“All the green-leaning fools who are brainwashed by the AGW lies and propoganda will feel pretty stupid when they find out they are simply supporting the global corporations that their own ideology despises.”

Feeling stupid would not be the worst of reactions is my guess, as we go down for the third time.

Jim says:

11:02am | 11/02/11

No Reg, AGW is an acronym for Anthropogenic[I know, sic] Global Warming. It’s a new term derived to label it as man-made global warming.

Duff says:

10:47am | 11/02/11

Good point.  But it is interesting that you could take any number of popular issues and make the same division.  I think it says less about the particular issue and more about the kind of people on either side of the ‘debate’.  AGW falls into the Left camp as it requires massive change to the way we do things, it alters the status quo and it requires more government (and taxes).  All things the “Right” hates.

I think it started as a purely scientific issue (after all, it was Margaret Thatcher who first brought it to the world’s attention) but has morphed into a political one much to the chagrine of the scientists involved (and perhaps some of them are partly to blame for that).

We need to get it back into the realm of science and de-politicise it.  Stop the Al Gores and the Andrew Bolt’s and start listening to people who know a bit of what they are talking about.

Gary says:

12:18pm | 11/02/11

I’m Left and I say Climate Change is the biggest con ever perpetrated on mankind.

John says:

12:54pm | 11/02/11

“I think it says less about the particular issue and more about the kind of people on either side of the ‘debate’.  AGW falls into the Left camp as it requires massive change to the way we do things, it alters the status quo and it requires more government (and taxes).  All things the “Right” hates.”

Fair point Duff.  But that leads me to believe that, like many things, its being used (no doubt by both sides to some extent) as a vehicle for pushing their wider ideological standpoints onto others.

I think (unfortunately) we’re past the stage where a non-political debate is possible.  There’s too much at stake politically for the politicians not to get their tentacles into it.  And any form of solution seems to involve government taxing the people – ie increasing the power of government over us all - therefore it’ll always be political as the Left and Right are diametrically opposed on that idea.

Samuel says:

09:41am | 11/02/11

What of the people in the employ of green groups doing the same? Or are they okay because they are on the right side?

You know, sometimes there isn’t some big conspiracy. Sometimes people just think for themselves.

Jim says:

10:32am | 11/02/11

.....*crickets*.....

...and there goes a tumbleweed….

TimB says:

10:57am | 11/02/11

:o

You only heard silence! I guess that proves it! It must be a conspiracy then.

Hamish says:

12:05pm | 11/02/11

Hey bob, yeah I’m a shill paid by Big Oil to come onto blogs and post comments. You got me.

It’s true, a rational person could never possibly disagree with you.

...I really wish I could believe that people who don’t agree with me are being paid by some malevolent corporation. Life would be so much easier.

Cigar Chomping Big Oil Baron says:

02:10pm | 11/02/11

Hamish.  Good job son, the old double bluff. The cheques in the mail now.

Just remember, this never happened.

Oh, I also have a spare kidney, it’s yours if you ever need it.

Gary says:

12:48pm | 11/02/11

Congrats, most intelligent post in this whole thread.

Along with the fervent wish that every Civil Libertarian welcomed a pedophile into the warming bosom of their own home, I feel it is imperative that advocates of Climate Change act immediately by removing air conditioners from their homes, selling their cars and converting their homes to full solar power with absolutely no reliance on electricity. Taking a guess that the believe/not believe split would be around 50/50, by the advocates taking these steps, the planet should be saved and we can all live long and prosperous lives. I feel Bob Brown should take a leading role in this initiativeand, as an added bonus for the planet he should take full charge in slaughtering every cow and pig on the planet…that should be enough to kill off man made Climate Change forever.

Hamish says:

01:51pm | 11/02/11

Samuel, but don’t you realise climate scientists are just more equal others?

I do find it quite funny that there seems to be an inverse relationship between promoting the concept of AGW and carbon footprints. The more you believe in climate change the more you contribute to it. Al Gore has a carbon footprint 100 times as large as the average person…and a beach house.

Reg says:

11:10am | 11/02/11

I think I’m drowning in sarcasm but it might be fall-out from the Bolt Blog.

Hamish says:

12:15pm | 11/02/11

So Ima, I’m assuming you have some degrees…or are you just as qualified as Andrew Bolt to give an opinion? I’m sure you do have some degrees though. I’m sure you’re not a hypocrite.

Ima Seagull says:

01:25pm | 11/02/11

Hamish
You don’t need degrees, just follow bolt like the rest of the ignorami.
That’s the beauty of it.
Once you get the hang of it, there are many other dolts to follow.
Keep it simple stupid.

Hamish says:

01:45pm | 11/02/11

Let me get this straight Ima, you’re denigrating Andrew Bolt for having a climate change opinion when he has no qualifications, yet you’re happy to voice your own similarly unqualified opinion?

You see no logical disconnect there?

Ima Seagull says:

02:18pm | 11/02/11

Hamish
No, I’m loving the simplicity of having bolt to guide me in my opinion of climate change.
Reading peer reviewed papers by experts in the field is boring, because they all agree that the climate is changing and human are playing a part in it.
It’s boring because there are no peer reviewed papers saying this isn’t the case. I like to follow bolt because it I’m seen as being smart and going against the grain. It makes me a bit of an outcast or rebel. If I didn’t have the rebel tag, I wouldn’t have much at all.

I’m loving it.
I just hope bolt now starts writing about how humans are not and have not been polluting the shit out of our environment helping to drive species to extinction and introducing toxins into our food chain. Now that would really be rebellious. Looking forward to his expert opinion on this.

MarK says:

04:08pm | 11/02/11

I love how people denigrate Bolt.

he intimidates them so they resort to ad homien attacks.

It is so funny to see them flail away never answering the questions he poses.

Cowards.

Ima Seagull says:

06:22pm | 11/02/11

Who’s denigrating my man Bolt?
You tell me where he is and I’ll write some smart ass retort to the bastard.

Tell me where. I’ll get my mates off the Bolt blog and badger the shit out of him till he relents.
Coward!

Henry says:

10:45am | 11/02/11

Flannery stated that the seas will rise 9 metres this century and our coastal beach houses will be swamped.  Rudd nodded then gave Flannery 90 million dollars of taxpayer money to set-up geothermal energy… then he bought a beachside mansion…

And the geothermal energy didn’t work….

Scam - its name is AGW and the taxpayer funded quacks keeping it (and their pay packets) alive.

just say no to carbon tax pushers says:

10:50am | 11/02/11

This is our own Labor created Orwellian “Ministry for Truth” .
Install those with premeditated agendas to “create community consensus”. Seriously you could not make this shit up.

global warming - the least of my problems says:

11:11am | 11/02/11

Flannery is being paid $180,000 a year to be part-time chairman of the Gillard Government’s Climate Commission, to CONVINCE us to agree to her plans to “put a price on carbon”. Q more militant “cataclysmic” marketing and over-the-top dogma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dOghDPDMVbc

ZSRenn says:

12:39pm | 11/02/11

This farce set up by the Labor government. i believe is a real story but Australian Media would rather focus on the pregnant pause than actually look into as “just say no” put it this Orwellian “Ministry for Truth”

HappyCynic says:

10:56am | 11/02/11

Ah but the people who worship the Almighty Dollar think their world will end if we spend any money reducing our waste and increasing sustainability.

I’m no fan of the carbon tax approach but I do think that there needs to be a carrot/stick approach to cutting pollution.  Problem is noone wants to pay for it because shareholders will cry and you can’t make rich men cry that would be mean

notSue says:

01:40pm | 11/02/11

Bwhaha!!  You made me Laugh Out Loud, Happy Cynic!
(Please excuse the use of Actual Whole Words, since acronyms appear to be so darned confusing in this thread.

Grumpy says:

12:38pm | 11/02/11

How did you find out?...You found my files didnt you. Youre the mole.

Lisa Meredith says:

05:28pm | 11/02/11

Dear Amber,

It’s important to understand the history of science in general, and AGW in particular.

Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect in 1824. The theory of AGW itself began in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius predicted that industrial CO2 output would eventually lead to a doubling in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and this would result in a temperature rise of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

At this time the effects of CO2 in the lab were well known and were extrapolated to the atmosphere, but we didn’t understand the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Throughout the 20th century, with the development and refinement of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, this mechanism revealed itself. It was achieved through independent means and a multidisciplinary approach. We know how stable this science is; based on the reliability of the technology we use everyday.

By the 1960s the science of AGW was established, and had been debated in the scientific community. Every scientist is at first a skeptic of new ideas.
It was only once the need to deal with AGW entered the political arena that the left/right divide asserted itself.

Today, we need to understand how we cannot debate the science using politics. The political debate is best to concern itself with the best method of dealing with AGW and solutions of mitigation.

Reg says:

07:59pm | 11/02/11

@ Amber. “Climate Change,” (like Religion) “is not meant to be understood, proven or unproven by anyone . It is merely contrived to serve as a scare tactic and effectively frighten people into paying more taxes.  Once you understand that, it all makes sense and you can stop banging your head.”

Pardon my redirection but the similarity is startling. However Global Change is fact one way or the other and it’s not a matter of voting for it with the idea that if we get it wrong we can change our vote next time.

As certain religions would say, you don’t get a second chance. Nor does the prayer of alleviation work.

That is, “I don’t believe in God but if I’m wrong then God forgive me.”

Transmuted to “I don’t believe (or dis-believe) in Global Warming but if I’m wrong, well I’m only a dumb-arse so what did you expect?”

Reg says:

01:50pm | 12/02/11

@ Chilliman. If I understand your impassioned plea, you’re asking that someone fix what-ever it is, but to do so without inconveniencing you or your chillies.

Can’t you rig a shade for the poor little bastards? Or evaporative cooling or both?.

James A says:

10:55am | 11/02/11

Sigh?  WTF.

There is no evidence whatsoever for AGW let alone AGW ‘making weather events more extreme’.

Lay off the grog.

MarK says:

01:12pm | 11/02/11

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Shane just stop it. You are wrong

Pers is wrong.

It is embarrassing for you

Ima Seagull says:

01:13pm | 11/02/11

Did bolt tell you that?
If he did -then Ima believer

fairsfair says:

04:28pm | 11/02/11

You’ve just recapped the weather of the past twelve months to two years. You forgot that volcano bit, remember that? I wonder how much carbon that put into the atmosphere and then removed because all those planes were grounded….

Reg says:

12:01pm | 13/02/11

It escapes me how anyone can be so certain either way, even MarK, unless they’re all disciples of Bolt.

Duff says:

11:09am | 11/02/11

First, the classic denial argument was that Climate Change does not exist. 

Then it became Climate Change exists, but we are not causing it. 

Now, you are to have me believe that Climate Change exists, and we are causing it, but it’s nothing to worry about.

Next, it will be that it’s too late to do anything about it.

Samuel says:

11:44am | 11/02/11

First, the classic warmie argument was that the globe is cooling and the world is about to end with a massive ice age, food shortages, displacement and extreme blizzards.

Then it became Global Warming and the world is about to end with a massive heat wave, food shortages, displacement and extreme drought.

Now, you are to have me believe that it’s called Climate Change and the world is about to end with, well, pretty much anything. Because when it’s called climate change you can attribute literally anything that happens in the world to it.

Next, it will be that climate change is causing the moon to melt.

Hamish says:

11:52am | 11/02/11

Duff, I don’t think there’s ever been a ‘denial argument’ that the climate doesn’t change. Obviously everyone grows up learning about ice ages, the dinosaurs, etc, when the climate was quite clearly different. Ergo: the climate obviously changes. In fact, it is the recognition that climate is a dynamic and constantly evolving system that drives most people to question the AGW ‘consensus’.

I think your second last point is actually a very interesting one. I’m yet to be convinced that even if the AGW hypothesis is correct it’s something that is really all that big a problem anyway. Or whether it’s prudent to restructure our economy and vastly increase the cost of baseload power in the context of a changing climate.

AdamC says:

12:07pm | 11/02/11

I agree, Hamish.

I think rising global temperatures may cause Duff’s strawmen to spontaneously combust.

James says:

12:43pm | 11/02/11

And then it will be I tried to tell people humans were heating the planet but they didn’t listen at that point karma dictates they get hit by a piano.

Duff says:

01:05pm | 11/02/11

Sorry guys, I hadn’t realised that there has always been a consensus about the world currently and dramatically warming.  Hurray for agreement!  I must have missed that somewhere between “The hockey stick is a hoax” and “the Antarctic isn’t melting” lines of argument.

The Original Oz says:

01:50pm | 11/02/11

Well stated Samuel. That is the exact scenario. During all three phases the trough of money for the snouts has gotten bigger and bigger. I do note that Duff has conveniently ignored your post - An Inconvenient Truth maybe?

Hamish says:

02:48pm | 11/02/11

Duff, there is no consensus that the world is dramatically warming. There is a reasonable amount of evidence it is warming, but how dramatic or otherwise it is, is very much open to debate even amongst warmist scientists. It doesn’t help that we only have reliable satellite temperarures from the 1960s onwards.

I was simply responding to your point that people opposed to the AGW orthodoxy said the climate wasn’t changing. That is simply not true. The debate is about whether or not humans are causing or contributing to these changes. No one with any idea of history could possibly suggest the climate doesn’t change completely naturally and of its own accord. This one of the bases of opposition to the AGW movement.

Jim says:

03:47pm | 11/02/11

Exactly right Samuel. I posted something very similar a few months ago but not as succinctly as you’ve put it.

There’s mountains of visible, real, tangible evidence that we are killing our environment. Look at the ocean garbage, the reefs, the residual chemicals in our water and food. Look at the rainforests! Noooo, we won’t cut down trees in Tasmania in a controlled way, with more trees replanted than we cut down…we’ll just push the problem to Indonesia or the Amazon where there are no controls!

But there is this new fangled way for people in the know to get obscenely rich now…and that’s carbon trading. And whilever people that are honestly passionate about the environment are duped into believing carbon is causing a problem then the Bob Brown’s of this world will always have an audience.

MarK says:

01:11pm | 11/02/11

In his first novel right at the end he wrote.

The End.

Best two words I ever read,

Concerned Citizen says:

01:07pm | 11/02/11

Water vapour is not CO2, I’m fairly certain water vapour is H2O. As I understand it the water vapour holds much more heat than the co2, why arnt we taxing people that boil water?

James says:

01:52pm | 11/02/11

more CO2 in atmosphere traps more “heat”, that additional heat produces more water vapour, which in turn traps more heat till a new equilibrium is reached, thus CO2 is the “active ingredient in the warming”.  Boiling a kettle is released chemical energy (gas burner) directly producing water vapour, see the difference?

Jane says:

03:20pm | 11/02/11

Actually I thought it was the other way around, those with no scientific qualifications are saying the sky is falling.

James says:

04:50pm | 11/02/11

You thought wrong.

Concerned Citizen says:

06:55pm | 11/02/11

James I understand your point, water vapour is released into the atmosphere the same way the CO2 is through heating stuff up. Why arnt we taxing water vapour and/or methane?Why just CO2.

All 3 mentioned gases are greenhouse gases are they not?

James says:

01:18pm | 12/02/11

CC we don’t tax water vapour because we don’t have direct control over it, the proposal is to tax emissions we have direct control over i.e. I burn petrol, coal or gas and emit CO2 I get taxed. 

The proposal is to tax methane as well, methane has what is called a global warming potential of 23, CO2 has a global warming potential of 1.  That is Methane loads the atmosphere with 23 times more heat per kg than does CO2.

James says:

12:12pm | 11/02/11

You nonce, let’s debate something less lightweight than the future of the planet like the UN conspiracy to take over the world?

WayneT says:

02:34pm | 11/02/11

Lightweight argument and debate is exactly what those in the know want.  They don’t want you looking to closely at the science or what will happen when a tax is introduced or who will really benefit.  Look it up James you will find that the UN headed body will have control of the money if an international agreement is made.  They will be able to fine countries billions of dollars for non compliance, and there won’t be anything you or I can do about it.

Likes Joining Dots says:

02:49pm | 11/02/11

@James

It would be an interesting piece.

Not so much for the whole UN conspiracy idea of yours, but to move on to what can be done, what can’t be done, it’s cost and relative effect on global emissions.

Let’s also debate the possible solutions, eg action or adaption as well, not just the science of climate change.

And before you say ‘the future of the planet’ is at risk.

What solutions would you propose to cancel or negate climate change and ensure the future of the planet?  This seems to be the debate that is yet to happen.

more substance PLEASE ! says:

03:59pm | 11/02/11

@james

What?
Nonce?
UN conspiracy?
Trying to shut down discussion with ad hominem?
Wow how surprising.
NOT.

Where do conspiracy theories James come into this discussion?
Nothing invalidates facts James.
These figure are factual.
The UN is a money go ground
UN bureaucrats are unelected and unaccountable.

Anything factual you can refute?
Provide a link or WTFU.

James says:

09:29am | 12/02/11

You are both beyond hope, I would get more sense out of a brick wall.

Likes Joining Dots says:

12:14pm | 12/02/11

@James

I still have not quite figured out how you manage to disagree with someone who agrees with you. For your sake though I’ll I’ll try again.

Accepting climate change is real and is related to human activity. What happens next? What is the solution?

James says:

11:43am | 14/02/11

The solution is to push for decarbonisation of the economy.  That is push for a phase out of coal, oil and gas to be replaced with Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Wave power, Electric Cars etc.  Vote for the party that has the best polices regarding this (doesn’t matter who it is but at the moment it is clearly the Greens), encourage everyone you know to do the same.  But most importantly educate yourself about the issue and educate others.

CL Angus says:

12:56pm | 11/02/11

I just did a search for works by Professor Stott, and it seems that he’s disappeared from the public eye since 2005. He was also a supporter of Bjorn Lomberg, who we all know has changed his opinion about climate change and considers it to be a real and man-made problem.

Do you have any further, RECENT evidence that climate change is false, or at least not man-made? And not from scientists sponsored by fossil fuel companies?

Trey says:

03:22pm | 11/02/11

@CL Angus

Can you seriously for even one minute refute this scientists quote:

“The fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets”.

Sounds like basic science and basic common sense to me.
To draw from this comment that he is “sponsored by fossil fuel companies”.

Ridiculous comment is ridiculous.

Reg says:

02:01pm | 12/02/11

@TSINF.  ” 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions.”

What’s this “almost” mean?

May we also presume that the opposite applies? That is, that you cannot prove that there is nothing to be concerned about?

If the starting conditions are unknown then the outcome cannot be reliably predicted. Rendering most of the discussion here—no I swore I’d never use the word—moot.  Bugger!  That is, other than my input of course.

Elwoodius says:

04:46pm | 11/02/11

and the dinosaurs are relevant - how???

James says:

12:50pm | 11/02/11

Yes and yes, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, starting with the CO2 coming out of the mouths of the anti-science baboon men.

The Original Oz says:

02:00pm | 11/02/11

James appears to be a standard warmist used tried and true warmist scientific method - if they don’t agree with you then personally abuse them, but whatever you do don’t say anything that can possibly be refuted.

James says:

02:59pm | 11/02/11

If I gave you facts OO you would dismiss them because you don’t argue based on facts you argue based on your ideology, deep down you know you really don’t understand climate science enough comment on it.  Why do you?

LC says:

02:39pm | 16/02/11

Did your mother never tell you “if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all” James?

James says:

03:12pm | 16/02/11

No, she told me if some sod tries to pull the wool over peoples eyes he/she deserves everything they get.

LC says:

06:58pm | 16/02/11

Well I can’t say I disagree with your mother telling you that…

James says:

12:58pm | 11/02/11

No great lost it is called the punch for a reason you lightweight

Deck says:

09:00pm | 11/02/11

James, your’s is yet another witty and inciteful comment from one of the self opiniated know it alls who is happiest reading his own garbage and insulting others.

You have the audacity call other people losers. Pot /kettle!

James says:

11:48am | 14/02/11

Didn’t call him a loser called him a lightweight, if you want to circle jerk each other there are plenty of dark corners of the internet where like minded people gather and furiously agree with each other.

Do you have a comment on the topic or are you here to have a bit of a cry?

ZSRenn says:

01:58pm | 11/02/11

Sorry they are busy at the moment following pregnant pauses but I am sure they will get back to you by 2150.

Talking about 2150 I wonder if the story of Chicken little will be changed from “The sky is falling” to “It’s Global Warming”

Lisa Meredith says:

03:31pm | 11/02/11

Dear WayneT,

1. This could be due to natural climate change, which is ongoing, and it doesn’t preclude AGW.
2. Raising concentrations from 280 to 560 ppm increases thermal forcing the same as rising from 560 to 1120 ppm.
3. This could be due to natural climate change or limited availability of long-wave infrared photons (though not very likely).
4. Returning atmospheric concentrations to 280ppm won’t starve plants. And only some plants benefit from increased concentrations.
5. CO2 cannot cause a runaway greenhouse effect. One of the reasons is point 2, the logarithmic response.
6. Not always, it’s based on photon availability. If less than 100% CO2 gas is saturated with long-wave infrared photons then the thermal forcing potential is decreased. Also, warming oceans hold less dissolved CO2 so this is release into atmosphere.
7. Water vapour is responsible for 36 to 72% of the total greenhouse effect. Evaporating water has a cooling effect, but condensing water (into clouds and rain) has a warming effect. This is the heat engine principle of cyclones, for example.
8. Most greenhouse models show decreased warming at higher levels due to decreased concentration of water vapour.
9, 10, 11, 12. This could all be due to natural climate change, which is ongoing, and it doesn’t preclude AGW

These are all well known to anyone who does the research, but the media rarely mentions the science.

Lisa Meredith says:

03:39pm | 11/02/11

Correction:
Points 9 and 10. These are drivers of natural climate change and don’t preclude AGW.

HappyCynic says:

02:38pm | 11/02/11

Pfft expecting proper policies from those two morons?

You might as well expect the Man in the Moon to come down and run for election in 2013 before you’ll get any half-decent policy from those two

One mindlessly repeats herself day after day, the other is just batsh*t crazy and wouldn’t know policy if it smacked in the mouth.

Got any better ideas? 

fairsfair says:

04:32pm | 11/02/11

Abbott does have a poicy in place to reduce emissions. You should have a look at it.

Things are not so black and white John.

MarK says:

02:52pm | 11/02/11

ffs

Would someone pay me to do this PLEASE.

Web guy for hire.

Thommo says:

03:40pm | 11/02/11

Lisa, you shouldn’t be talking facts to the warmistas - you’ll cause their heads to explode

Jim says:

04:34pm | 11/02/11

Thank you for a sensible reply Lisa.

Let’s discuss some points though;

“The warming trend corroborates the greenhouse effect and CO2 rise, but is not the prima facie evidence of AGW. That lies with the stability and reliability of the physics and chemistry that explains the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and the radiocarbon dating, which identifies the rise in CO2 since 1750 as derived from fossil fuels.” - Yes on the last part (although it’s chemical analysis that pinned the extra CO2 on fossil fuels). No on the first part - since satellite thermographs have been used (2000) temperatures have not increased at all. Why stick with satellite thermographs? Because they are the only reliable system available, free of outside influence. Check out http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm for some very valid examples of why surface temperature monitors should no longer be used.

“The greenhouse effect has plenty of evidence” - In 1985 it did. When the Vostok ice cores were first pulled out in Greenland it definately showed a correlation in warming and CO2 levels…no question about it. By 1999 it became apparent that there was a lag, i.e. carbon rose and fell AFTER the temperature did. By 2003 we had enough evidence to say it was a lag of 800 +/- 200 years. The recourse amongst climate scientists was that if CO2 didn’t ‘start’ warming it ‘amplified’ it. No…if CO2 was a major influence on warming then it would snowball, giving the so-called ‘runaway greenhouse effect’. It hasn’t. We have a marvellous thing on this planet called oceans. Large bodies of water with turbulent surfaces. The great thing about water is that it can absorb gases…as the planet goes through these warming cycles more CO2 is released from the ocean, hence the lag.

Also, the greenhouse signature is missing. There is no evidence of the hot-spot 8-12km above the tropics that should be there if CO2 was a major player. Many AGW players point to Sherwood and say he did find it. No, he found ‘fog in the data’. Several attempts to statistically re-work his data still failed to find it.

“This is because the CO2 molecule must first absorb a photon of long-wave infrared radiation emitted from earth and water, but not ice.” - Nice theory, but CO2 absorbs wavelengths only from a very small band in the spectrum. It can of course absorb wavelengths close to that band as well, but it’s almost at saturation point. Why almost and not fully? It’s a logarithmic function and so can never be 100% saturated. But it’s close…any more CO2 molecules added to the system will be essentially ‘unemployed’. Less surface ice so less of that particular wavelength absorbed is correct! But unfortunately it is not the same wavelength that CO2 can absorb…it will just shoot out of the atmosphere.

The climate models are aware of the log function and use it already I hear you say? Well, the models make some pretty wild estimates and assumptions - lab tests do not scale up well to planet-warming….test tubes don’t have ocean currents or clouds. In fact, the interelationship between clouds and humidity is insanely complex…high clouds trap heat, low clouds have a cooling effect…climate models just assume there is a net effect of ‘hotter’.

“This Control, as per the Scientific Method would be an identical but human-free earth where we can measure the ongoing natural climate change” - This line has been pulled out several times over the last few years. In essence it is correct…but we don’t have that other planet! We have what we have, and we are shitting in our own beds in so many ways that are tangible, but one can’t trade ocean trash, or poisons in our waterways.

“This is because, as the atmosphere heats up, the collisions between the excited, oscillating CO2 molecules and other gas molecules become more and more elastic, and less thermal kinetic energy is injected into the system with each collision” - Again, nice theory and very close to the truth ‘under certain conditions’. Fact is, at the altitudes where the greenhouse effect should be occurring, the atmosphere is not dense enough for any frequent collisions…for gas molecules to collide with any thermodynamic influence on a system it needs to be dense enough to be liquid.

“Finally, we cannot use politics and economics to argue science, only science can do that.” - Agree 110%! Unfortunately, the entire scientific process has been hijacked by vested interests in politics and global business. Global corporations that stand to reap trillions from this see throwing in millions of research dollars as chicken feed compared to the prize that is on offer. Politicians will do what politicians have done for a thousand years; play on peoples fears and lie to them to get and retain power.

No one is questioning why so many AWG and greenhouse champions are now becoming sceptics.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:12pm | 11/02/11

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your reply. It is great to talk science with someone.

I should have mentioned the trends I understand are of at least 40 years. The figures since 2000 are too short: we cannot exclude annual and decadal noise. Sorry for the confusion.

With the Vostoc Ice Core temp lags, it is well documented that during periods of deglaciation temp lags CO2 increases by 200 to 1000 years. Is this what you are referring to? This is partly due to limited photon availability and partly due to oceanic CO2 release.

During glaciation ice emits very few of long-wave infrared photons: it mostly reflects solar heat energy back into space. One could imagine an ice-bound planet with 380ppm CO2 and very little warming going on. (If this is what you are saying then we agree!) Today photon limitation is not a factor as it would have been in the past.

Atmospheric hotspots have so far only been predicted through computer modelling, that I can find. The hot spot is predicted due to the latent heat of condensation above the tropics, which creates an anomaly. It’s interesting to note the hot spot is predicted from any surface warming, regardless of the driver. You can see it in solar forcing, and sulphate aerosols, for example. Nevertheless it has not been found, as you say, particularly in any long-term trends.
I agree about the models making wild estimates. It doesn’t help that we don’t have a Control. We need to keep this in mind when using predictive models to debunk the science of the greenhouse effect. (I’m not saying this is what you are doing, but I see it a lot.)

Regarding collisions in a gas: the atmosphere is less dense at higher latitudes true, but the liquid analogy I don’t understand. The collision process is a fundamental property of any gas and determines the temp and pressure at any altitude. There are fewer collisions higher up so there is less pressure, but the oscillation still impacts on every relevant collision.

Lisa Meredith says:

04:02pm | 11/02/11

Dear Alfred,

We need to understand that climate science, as a discipline, is imprecise and we are learning. We haven’t been through AGW before, so a lot of it, when predicting how the climate will change, is educated guesswork.

We have historical records that help us predict the climate sensitivity to the CO2 rise since the Industrial Revolution, but they are less precise regarding weather patterns.

None of this speaks to the underlying veracity of the physics and chemistry that explains the greenhouse effect: the same science we rely on to deliver the technology we use everyday.

MarK says:

04:10pm | 11/02/11

So in Australia that has droughts and floods they are a sign of climate change. Even though we had drought flood cycle before carbon was even discussed.

Nice

This is compelling evidence.

Rodney says:

08:01pm | 11/02/11

Yes MarK

Evaporation will happen quicker and the atmosphere will hold more moisture. Is that so hard to understand?
Climate events will be come more severe.
Recent studies find and predict a marked increase in the severity of climate events, for instance there will be more category 3 - 5 cyclones.

That these events will be more severe seems to be the part you are missing.

Just another Scientist says:

08:51am | 13/02/11

Recent studies Mark? Cite one which has been published in a reputable scientific journal.

For those who are unaware, the natural sciences are built on what can be proven statistically. This means that enough data must be gathered, processed and analysed to generate statistical confidence in an observation. Countless members of the scientific community make hypotheses every day which they then test and test and test and test for, if the statistical outcome indicates that the findings are unnaturally biased in some direction then hooray you have identified “something”, at this point you may then start posing hypotheses (which must then be tested) regarding the cause.

The point of peer review in scientific journals is that an author’s methodology and experimental results are tested. This process does not involve the reviewers opinions,  the author must pose an argument with enough supporting evidence to convince the reviewing body of the legitimacy of the author’s findings. This is not difficult when hypotheses are reasonable, data are reliable and the conclusions do not overstep the scope of the experiment.

Now I would make the point that the majority of work done by the IPCC has been internal or by contributing researchers, alarm bells should be ringing when a body such as the IPCC (with its own agenda) begins internally reviewing its own research work! The fact is that wether you are a biologist, meteorologist, geologist, chemist, physicist, mathematician or engineer you must present your work for criticism by your peers. If an author’s work does not survive this process then it probably means that they are trying to construe to much from too little.

What this means for climate change… governments can flog it as much as they want but the scientific community will remain sceptical until genuine unbiased research is presented. The current storm of climate change research struggles to meet the demands of legitimate peer review.

So you may criticise people for being cynical about climate change but unfortunately for you the majority of cynics are the everyday, on the ground researchers in the various scientific disciplines looking for evidence of this farce. INFORMED or REASONABLE are probably better words, rather than cynical.

And here is what the informed have to say: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Lisa Meredith says:

05:48pm | 11/02/11

Dear Roge,

They sure do, still changing today. Nevertheless this in itself does not preclude the impact of the Industrial Revolution.

LC says:

11:26am | 16/02/11

If the science is actually correct Mary, it could very well be ALREADY be too late. In which case we’d have to grit our teeth and deal with it until the planet sorts itself out over the next few million years.

As someone said earlier, unless/until irrefutable proof is discovered about climate change, our focus should be on creating a sustainable society.

Gregg says:

09:38am | 14/02/11

That’s laughable Persey, especially the bit about the tropical north alantic!
And then so all these catastrophies have been measured since just 1980! or even 1931 and that’s like just WOW!

I would have thought Perse, that even you could figure out that with a hugely greater population, more so in thses areas where catastrophes usually occur, it is obvious that more people will be affected.
So a scale of catastrophes on population count could be rather meaningless, let alone what has been occurring in the many centuries of civilisation and prior.

And your two degrees warming and El Nino and La Nina all mentioned in the same breath will also possibly mean there is an effect from the Gulf Stream regardless of accuracy of measurements, like in how many places and how frequently are temperatures being recorded and what were they over the centuries previously.

Sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be extremely dangerous, even in the hands of scientists, like they did after all give us nuclear weaponry and cane toads in Australia, the latter also about 1931 and possibly our greatest catastrophe, even more so than the bugs bunny, goats, camels and everything else now roaming ferally and all eating greenery, breathing CO2 and farting out methane.

The cycle does not stop there either for all that denuded timber can die and become prime pickings for farting termites and you may want to do some reading up on just how much it is alleged they contribute -  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v301/n5902/abs/301700a0.html
The toads with their belching and farting no doubt also add to the equation.

I do not know about how well the termites may have been copulating ovr the centuries but they can sure spread through a house and perhaps we ought to blame them for any background increases since time began.

persephone says:

03:27pm | 13/02/11

Fair suck

(If I may be so bold to call you that….)

The cc sceptics are getting increasingly desperate.

No matter how they try to deny it, most people are beginning to see the real impacts of climate change, and understand the necessity for action.

Cc deniers are of two types - those who are conspiracy theorists by nature, don’t trust experts and elites on principle, and think that this makes them cleverer than everybody else.

The other type is more genuine. They are terrified about the implications of cc. They feel somehow vaguely guilty (none of us like to think that things we’ve been doing in good faith have contributed to something bad happening).

(It’s a well observed phenomena - I’m told - that the people who resist accepting cc the most, when they are convinced go straight to ‘it’s the end of the world, there’s nothing we can do, we’re all going to die!’. So you can imagine how reluctant that acceptance can be).

Genuinely enquiring minds, obviously, are fairly quickly convinced by the strength of the scientific case.

Both types are played on by the vested interests.

Lisa Meredith says:

03:37pm | 13/02/11

Dear Sauce Bottle,

Could it be that the average person in the street has only become interested in climate science since it entered the political arena?

As soon as we see science demanding political change that attacks out worldview and way of life, we question the science.

This is only natural and science can cope, indeed, it demands to be questioned: this is part of the Scientific Method.

The problem for me is that the general public are not necessarily scientifically literate, so they rely on the media to tell them where the science is going wrong.

Another problem I see is that the general public does not understand the Scientific Method or the motivations of the scientific community, so they can be led to believe that science is easily corrupted. If we believe that politics and economics can corrupt science, we might use politics and economics to argue the science.

I believe the key is education.