Nation’s top scientists agree: the climate is changing now

iansand says:

06:11am | 16/03/10

What do you suggest?  The employment of a panel of psychics?

get "Polly" staff stooges or "Galahs" off the net, says:

06:49am | 16/03/10

The loony, left accuse Tony Abbott of doing back flips, but what about when CSIRO does them. Until very, recently many CSIRO scientists were doubtful. Not because of ice ages 10,000 years ago, but the “Murray darling” system, being in extreme drought (it stopped flowing, without the aid of irrigation) during the 1890’s and causing that economic depression.

Could their recent political masters have instructed them to get with the program? The loony, left seem awfully keen to give “wall street” an ETS?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/nonedarecallit_conspiracy.pdf

Makes awfully good reading, in our post GFC, isn’t an ETS a good idea world.

Me says:

08:26am | 16/03/10

Correlation is not the same of causation, yes, nobody ever claimed that it was. Scientists do not look at the trend and say “Co2 has increased, and temperature has increased, therefore Co2 is the cause”, they say “We know Co2 is a greenhouse gas, if it increases in the atmosphere we should have x y z results”, this was predicted even before anomalous warming had occurred, and it has happened. Correlation does not equate to causation, but it can equate to confirmation.

jk says:

09:28am | 16/03/10

So, all you science haters out there, who are able to rant via the internet, which was built by sciencey types, do you really believe there is a global conspiracy to dupe the public on climate change? I’m yet to hear a serious scientific argument that goes against the hypothesis of AGW. And don’t go showing me hockey sticks or other discredited materials.
Here’s my question to you. What would it take for you to be convinced that climate change is real? And, if as I suspect, the only incontrovertible evidence that will do for you would be catastrophic destruction, don’t you think that’s a rather irresponsible approach? Wouldn’t we be better to take steps to mitigate the potential problem now rather than stand around twiddling our thumbs in 50 years’ time, saying oops, maybe we should have attempted something positive instead of attacking scientists and those who believe in scientific evidence?

Paul Horn says:

10:44am | 16/03/10

Just what are you saying Me?? That must be the best load of double speak I have ever been subect to!

“Correlation does not equate to causation, but it can equate to confirmation”, what ??? confirmation of the confirmed cause, that being CO2 - yes? Otherwise what else are you confirming? Word of advice, take up politics old son you have incredibly advanced skills of deception!!!!

Adam MacLeod says:

11:15am | 16/03/10

Like smoking and cancer.  The correlation between smoking and cancer does not prove that smoking causes cancer.  Yet everyone believes it.  Just a scientific conspiracy, right Sam?

Me says:

11:19am | 16/03/10

It’s not difficult to understand Paul Horn.

Theoretically, and arguably mathematically, if Carbon dioxide operates exactly as we think it does (and humor me for a moment and assume that it does) and it’s chemical properties are exactly as we understand them to be, then if it increases in the atmosphere, in the absence of any other variations in the drivers of Earth’s climate, the Earth’s temperature will increase.

Arguably, science didn’t even need to observe any warming to know that this theory, or math, is rock solid.

The only way you can get around that is to first, change our understanding of the chemical properties of Co2. This has not been done, by anyone.

Second, the discovery of other drivers of Earth’s climate playing up and driving the warming, offsetting warming caused by co2, accelerating warming caused by co2, etc. This has not occurred. The Sun’s output has remained normal within it’s 11 year cycle, the Earth’s orbit has not shifted, the Earth’s axis has not shifted, all these other drivers of Earth’s climate, have not shifted.

Co2 levels in the atmosphere *have* shifted.

Ryan says:

12:54pm | 16/03/10

Adam MacLeod: ask any doctor for a written guarantee that smoking will give you cancer and there you have the answer to your argument.

Adam MacLeod says:

02:11pm | 16/03/10

@Ryan…...Yes, these days everyone accepts that smoking causes cancer.  Over many decades we have seen a very strong correlation between smoking and cancer.  However smoking causing cancer has not been proven…the underlying cause of cancer remains unexplained.

My point is that while correlation is not the same as causation, some systems are just too complex for us to fully understand.  Then we have to rely on the empirical results and evidence.  The new CSIRO study shows a strong correlation between human activity and climate change.  And it shouldn’t be ignored, just the same as you shouldn’t ignore your doctor.

Regards,
Adam

Puzzled Oldie says:

03:25pm | 16/03/10

ME said in part “if Carbon dioxide operates exactly as we think it does (and humor me for a moment and assume that it does) and it’s chemical properties are exactly as we understand them to be, then if it increases in the atmosphere, in the absence of any other variations in the drivers of Earth’s climate, the Earth’s temperature will increase.”

It would seem it relies on us humoring her to support her argument.

I would like to read an explanation of exactly how CO2 operates to cause an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Obviously, the UK and parts of the US were horribly short of the stuff during their recent record-breaking deep freezes.

Ryan says:

03:45pm | 16/03/10

@Adam: agreed, I am sure those mothers who blindly trusted their doctors that Thalidomide was safe are happy about not questioning anything for fear of being called a “denier” or “skeptic”.
The one thing here Adam is that the line is touted that there is consensus on this issue which is nothing more than a barefaced lie. I wonder why Al Gore bought an ocean front property, could it be that he knows something we don’t or does he see a market for underwater properties in the near future?

Trolldoll says:

02:23pm | 25/03/10

@ME, the assumption that CO2 is a driving force in AGW comes from the (discredited) ice core data used by Al Gore in his “An inconvienient Truth” movie. Those ice core samples suggested that when CO2 increases the global mean temperature increates as well. The problem with the data shown in the movie is twofold. First the data points are more than one thousand years apart, so any correlation between them and decadal changes is speculative at best. Secondly the movie was made about 2005, by 2002 new icecore data from new samples and better imaging equipment revealed that CO2 levels followed the increases in global mean temperature by an average on 800 years, that alone should have shut the man up. The evidence against AGW is in the public domain, most people just don’t know how to access it. Try this website for some Scientific information http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php

Seano says:

07:56am | 26/03/10

Of course the Lavoisier group isn’t sus…

http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-climate-change-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap3

Yannick Spencer says:

10:52pm | 16/03/10

Great idea Eric! While we’re at it, can we have all the emails between fossil fuel companies, AGW sceptics, conservative think tanks made public too? Seems only fair.

Can we have the AGW sceptics produce some actual facts, rather than relying on the lame case that the IPCC forgot to carry a three in a single sum in a four thousand page document or something equally trite?

Can we have Ian Plimer rely on evidence other than Perth felt hotter to him as a child and CO2 measurements that he takes in his living room?

Why is there such a big furore on this subject? Governments take action based on things like, for example, intelligence assessments of Iraq that come covered in caveats and expressions of doubt, but taking the evidence of the vast majority of the world’s scientists and meteorology bureaus (not to mention the Australian and US Defence departments, among innumerable others), woah, not on your life. Is the invasion of another country really less of a big deal than the introduction of an ETS? Really?

I’m sure that you’ll understand that, as a 20 year old, I feel quite passionate about the planet that I’m going to live on for most of this century. Prove to me definitively that I shouldn’t want to protect it and I’ll change my mind.

Matt says:

08:53am | 17/03/10

RE: Yannick

You mean the emails between Rockefeller and Exxon Mobile telling the CEO to change his tune on supporting a Carbon Tax.

Google: Exxon Mobile + Carbon Tax.

Stop the b/s that fossil fuel industry isn’t in both pockets.

Fred says:

10:31am | 19/03/10

@Yannick - Great response!  But I have a feeling Eric won’t reply to it… he’s good like that

persephone says:

06:40am | 16/03/10

No, Charles, she indulges in argument based on fact.

It would be good if you tried to do the same.

Of course the climate has fluctuated in the past.

And btw, the Medieval warming period was fairly localised - it just happened to affect the part of the world where written records and observations were being written down.

As for closing down our major weather forecaster and our major scientific institute (which does a lot more than look at climate), how silly is that?

I’ll tell you what, though, Charles, why don’t you form a one person boycott of BoM? Refuse to listen to weather forecasts, because they’re obviously based on flawed science, and make your own decisions about what the weather’s going to do?

Mark says:

07:47am | 16/03/10

Hahahahaha.
Listen to yourself peresphone.

“And btw, the Medieval warming period was fairly localised - it just happened to affect the part of the world where written records and observations were being written down.”

So you were there? You know the other places that were not warm? Or your extensive scientific studies led you to this conclusion. Because you havent seen a written record by the local weather man it didnt happen? Honestly it is this kind of reasoning and that makes the warmist position untenable, laughable and false.

This is a con of major proprotions full of profiteers and racketeers. If Rudd and the rest have their way and force an unwanted ETS tax on us it will make the waste and destruction of the batt scheme debacle seem like the loss of a buck or 2 of petty cash and a skinned knee.

Please peresphone try and make some sense when you do your daily rounds.

We are all having a laugh at work, “fairly localised” bruhahahahahaha.

persephone says:

08:07am | 16/03/10

Mark, explain to me how you know that the Medieval Warming period was not just restricted to Europe.

Your assumption that it was hot in Europe, therefore it was also warmer in, say, South America, would be like me saying that there’s been a ten year drought here therefore there is a drought in England.

There may be, but I can’t tell that by what I see out of my window.

It’s the same faulty logic that said “It’s cold in Copenhagen, therefore global warming isn’t happening’ and ignored the fact that areas such as Italy, Canada and Africa had one of their warmest winters on record.

persephone says:

08:14am | 16/03/10

And (for those who, like me, like their science to be based on science):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

‘While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.’

persephone says:

08:10am | 16/03/10

And (for those who, like me, like their science to be based on science):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

‘While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.’

Mark says:

08:31am | 16/03/10

All you can come up with is a google search and a link to a warmist religious site?

Do better please.

Paul Horn says:

11:34am | 16/03/10

Then answer me this Persephone! Between 1910 and 1940 average global temperature increased by almost 0.6 degrees, almost equivalent to the rise between 1975 and 2005!! Between the 50’s and the 60’s average temperature remained almost constant but then began to rise again in the 70’s. FACTS FACTS FACTS!!! So please tell me how you account for the rise between 1910 and 1940 but no rise during the succeeding two decades? No witch craft, no nasty scepticism just plain facts.

The second point my pathetic unsexy deadpan boring engineering brain has difficulty digesting is that the noise in the temperature graph far exceeds the trend. That is yearly temperature variations are far greater than the overall average temperature increase which makes it very difficult if not downright dodgy to ascertain with any certainty what the underlying trend is!!!!  If for instance yearly average temperature variations were 1 to 2 degrees but over 30 years the rolling Global temperature average had incresaed by 5 degrees you might perhaps have a much stronger argument. No such thing though!!! In other words one to two years of very cold weather and your trend goes straight down the proverbial! 

This is the reason decent thinking people have a great deal of scepticism. If you would like further data annihilating this gutter myth then have a look at this site below and then weep or howl in abject misery.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm    But please dispute the facts and remember one tiny trend doth not a disasater make.
Punch on!!!

persephone says:

11:56am | 16/03/10

Why are they always engineers? It’s one of the things that fascinates me about climate sceptism.

Paul: my understanding (and I’m not a scientist, only an amateur on the fringes) is that we were meant to be heading into a mini Ice Age. So for a couple of decades we had a sort of war between the world’s natural inclination to cool and the artificial impetus to heat. One dampened out the other.

We’re still meant to be cooling - we have the lowest levels of sun activity for some time - but we’re pumping out so much CO2 now it’s overwhelmed the cooling tendency.

But you’d need a scientist to give you the real answer, and I’m not one. I just trust peer reviewed science and have read a fair bit of literature on climate.

Mark, you can’t even come up with a google search to justify your inference that the Medieval warming period was global. At least I can find some evidence to support my position, you’re just repeating what you’ve been told and can’t even be bothered checking to see if it’s true.

Mark says:

12:51pm | 16/03/10

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

As I said way down the page I can play google tag all day persephone.

Please continue on your religious rant. It is getting shriller by the hour.

See how pretty my science is. it has numbers and stuff so you can see it clearly. It is even…..drum roll….wait for it…..peer reviewed!!! Thats right peer reviewed hence uncontestabe. I win. It was warmer eveywhere in the medieval warm period except for 2 places that left the fridge door open.

I love this game. Shall we play more?

Randal says:

01:29pm | 16/03/10

So what you are saying perse that you the know that the MWP was a localised 400 year event because it conveniently only affected those parts of the world where records were kept, well that is an interesting logic.

Did you ever give thought (as most historians have stated for decades) that is was more than likely a global event and had records been available from the Southern part of the globe this would more than likely show this.

Or have the discredited Phil Jones and Michael Mann’s of this world so pulled the wool over your eyes that you now make illogical statements in a desperate effort to support your faith.

persephone says:

01:54pm | 16/03/10

Randal

No, I meant because it has written records it is more generally known.

Thus most people have heard of Greenland being warmer in the past, but don’t know what the climate was doing in other parts of the world.

It has made it more difficult for the scientists as well, but it’s one of those areas where, as more data becomes available, the picture gets clearer.

And the emerging picture seems to be that the MWP was not global, but specific to areas which are linked by the gulf stream.

James says:

02:05pm | 16/03/10

@ Randal, exactly how many temperature measurements do you get from the southern hemisphere during the middle ages? 

During the recent US snow storms people said ah its cold in Washington therefore it must be cold in the Northern hemisphere.  This has been comprehensively disproved.  The warming in the arctic more than made up for a bit of cold weather in Washington.

Mark says:

02:14pm | 16/03/10

My graphic says otherwise peresphone.

You facts are wrong. Stating untruths does nothing to further your cause. Continue on though.

Randal says:

03:03pm | 16/03/10

Well Perse, as the MWP was from around 900AD through until the 1300’s I wish you well in your search for new data, please let me know when you come across it.

@James, perhaps you should actually read the post before commenting, as that was exactly my point there are none, so to state definitively that the MWP was isolated to Northern Hemisphere, or to go even further as Jones and Mann have asserted that it was isolated to Europe is based on bad science as they simply do not know.

As for the snow in the US, UK and Europe and Northern Asia, this was caused by the North Pole oscillation, and to compare a single ‘weather’ event to a period of four centuries of warming shows your complete lack of understanding of this topic and no more proves the MWP as being a ‘localised’ event as the cold proves the earth is cooling.

Paul Horn says:

03:31pm | 16/03/10

My dear Persephone you are frightening me. We have just emerged from an ice age. Glaciers have been retreating since the mid 1800’s!! Have a look at my web site and dispute the facts if you will.

The one thing that infuriates me are fools that bang on about peer reviewed science. That is just a cop out to give some sort of credence to one’s own prejudices.  Let me tell you a story about peer reviewed science! In the 1920’s there was a very capable astonomer by the name of Cecilia Payne. Cecilia won a place to do post grad study as an astronomer researching the sun. The old guard wisdom of the day dictated that the sun wes made of iron. Cecilia bright, young and energetic as she was could not understand how a substance so stable could produce the massive nuclear instability that drove this immense infernal engine. Then she realised that she had been reading the spectroscopic data incorrectly - it was telling her that the sun consisted of Hydrogen!!! Whamo it all fell into place. But the old guard including her supervisor and other senior members of the faculty discredited her as their entire careers had been built on the sun consisting of iron. But how wrong they were!!!! You see science is driven by humans with all their prejudices, frailties, idiosyncracies etc etc etc.  Believe nothing until you see the facts and there ain’t no facts supporting this madness!!!
Sorry gotta get back to work now oh dear.

James says:

03:48pm | 16/03/10

@ Randal, You completely missed the point of what I was saying.  If you can’t intepret simple statements, how can we be sure you know what you are talking about when it comes to interpreting climate scientist’s emails?

Dan Cass says:

06:36am | 16/03/10

Nice one Caz! Enough said.

bec says:

06:59am | 16/03/10

Oh shush! You’re being truthy.

People are making assumptions about science and the scientific process which don’t hold up. Science *knows* it doesn’t know everything, otherwise it would *stop*.

Mark says:

07:54am | 16/03/10

Yah.

Believe scientists that take a sample of tree rings. then toss out the ones that don’t prove their theory. Use 12 out of a sample size of hundreds and proclaim they have found the “proof”. Go look it up it is readily documented.

Or make up graphs. Sure did look good though.

Or bully editors to only print “approved” material.

Or be a railway engineer and make a few million out of warming scares.

Or be an ex pollie and lie on a film.

Shall we go on?

I like the lament that they couldn’t find the proof to show their warming trend, that their evidence was not matching their beliefs (read religion). When I was at school we started with a theory and then tested it. The idea was to observe and report. Not have a preconceived idea and work towards hiding or discrediting anything that didn’t support it. Telling lies in other words.

You are not following scientists. You are following self style evangilists of a new religion.

And they got you good.

im says:

08:02am | 16/03/10

its the intergovernmental bit in IPCC that spins me out so to speak

rob says:

08:20am | 16/03/10

When it comes to a question of the “majority of scientists” V’s “a few journalists” I know who to believe. This is not to say you don’t have a look at all the arguments though and robust debate is quite healthy.

Mark says:

08:37am | 16/03/10

“When it comes to a question of the “majority of scientists” V’s “a few journalists” I know who to believe. ”

Rob you seem reasonable. How many are the majority. Who are they. What are their qualifications. What is their proof.

Or are you merely drawing on the msm reports which have been skewed to the warmist side for so long?

People keep trotting out majority and 1000’s but I never see them. How many of those 1000’s would like thier name next to the IPCC report with references to travel guides, green groups, students essays, unsupprted claims, false information, wrong dates etc etc etc.

There is your majority peer reviewed stuff right there.

/shrug. Before we change our economy, let alone the worlds, lets be reasonably clear as to why we are changing it.

Skippy says:

08:45am | 16/03/10

Caz c’mon don’t fall for the ‘highly educated’ rot, there is always something. Notice it has shifted from global warming to climate change! Your highly educated scientists took an educated guess and got it wrong! It happens.
Look at what a whole bunch of highly educated scientists achieved at Copenhagen, didley squat! I have studied science for the past 7 years, the climate fluctuates it’s a fact of nature, but you don’t need to even open a book to tell you that - highly educated scientists pft!

Ryan says:

10:17am | 16/03/10

Great advice, there were 31000 scientists that signed a petition to that stated: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ”

Now these are 31000 scientists without a vested interest in jobs, funding and a lifetime of easy street.

I take your advice Caz, I am going to believe what the 31000 highly educated scientists with no vested interest in the case have to say.

WayneT says:

01:33pm | 16/03/10

hmmm who do I believe…. highly educated scientists who have built upon years of hard evidence, trial and error and who’s sole funding comes from Government, whom will quickly cut off the money if they don’t start coming up with answers…. or crackpots on the forums of internet blogs, who’s sole aim is to get at the truth about what is happening and whom don’t gain financially by doing so? hmmmmmmmm it’s a tough one

persephone says:

02:02pm | 16/03/10

Wayne, you obviously don’t know how science is funded.

Most of these scientists are senior enough to have tenure: they won’t lose their jobs, no matter what happens.

So who do you believe then - a few crackpots sitting at home obsessing, with no real knowledge of the science, or a scientist who has nothing to gain or lose but whose whole education has been around getting to the truth?

WayneT says:

02:18pm | 16/03/10

They may have Tenure, but their salary doesn’t pay for the research they do or experiments they have to conduct or expeditions they carry out or the extra staff they require to do the research.  All that funding filters down from the Government.  I know because I have done field work with a stint in Antarctica, so I know what the hell I’m talking about.  How about you get out from behind your screen and get your hands dirty instead of riding on the shoulders of others work by linking to their hard earned data on the net, just so you can convince yourself and others of the science.  There is no smoking gun that ties Human produced CO2 emmisions with affecting the climate.  Of all the trace gases in the atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide makes up just 0.0387 per cent, and of that figure, human produced carbon Dioxide makes up about 0.0012 per cent.  That’s equivelant to about 3 per cent of all the Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Source - US Dept of Energy 2004)

Kevin says:

09:38pm | 16/03/10

Give it up, Persephone, AGW climate change is all about money- taxes and Government control. Not about science at all. Many of the scientists whose work has been used for the work of the IPCC have disagreed with its conclusions.
The evidence is simply not there for it. It isn’t a theory like evolution, for which there is so much evidence. It is based on computer programs which cannot include all the necessary data to successfully model a chaotic system as complex as the climate. The models can’t even “predict” the climate as it has been, let alone for fifty to a hundred years into the future.
Also, as WayneT states “Of all the trace gases in the atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide makes up just 0.0387 per cent, and of that figure, human produced carbon Dioxide makes up about 0.0012 per cent. “.
Scientists know that in the past, CO2 concentrations were much higher. And yet here we are.
The demonising of CO2 ignores the fact of the carbon cycle. The Earth is a system with many different feedbacks built into it. It is largely self-regulating. The status quo does not last forever, and the chnages are natural.
The Sahara desert became so in a very short period, and there is evidence that after ten thousand years of being a desert, it is now starting to recover to its previous state. All this proves only that the climate changes, which no sceptic would deny. However, I am proud to be called a denier of AGW.

persephone says:

07:42am | 16/03/10

Firstly, climate and weather are different things, and climate is actually easier to predict long term than weather.

And you’ll have to do better than ‘ample comment’ - for every person of any kind of authority (and I’m being nice by suggesting any of them have any) who says that global warming isn’t man made, there’s a couple of thousand more highly skilled and knowledgeable commentators who say it is.

Interesting, however, that the denialists are shifting camp. Firstly, there was no evidence that the climate was changing. Now they can’t deny that, so it’s now moved on to whether or not it’s caused by man. The next shift will be yes, the climate is changing as a result of human activity, but it’s too late to do anything so why bother.

If we skip a few of these steps and get straight to accepting it’s happening, we can still take meaningful action.

Sarah says:

07:55am | 16/03/10

Weather and climate are two different concepts. Weather is chaotic which makes prediction difficult. Climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time which removes the chaotic element and enables climate models to successfully predict future climate change. In fact the CSIRO and BOM have been confirming climate change for many years.

Mark says:

08:11am | 16/03/10

Sigh. Hush peresphone. You are being sillier by the second.

1. “climate is actually easier to predict long term than weather” - proof please. I contend that this is a lie. Lets look at Flannery. I am sure he is a poster child of yours. Name me one “prediction” he has correct so far. One please.

2. “for every person of any kind of authority (and I’m being nice by suggesting any of them have any) who says that global warming isn’t man made, there’s a couple of thousand more highly skilled and knowledgeable commentators who say it is.” - Agian proof. Name me those thousands. Name me 10 or so. Go on. Who are the leaders of your religion. Oust them.

3.” Firstly, there was no evidence that the climate was changing. Now they can’t deny that, so it’s now moved on to whether or not it’s caused by man” - No. It was always contended that climate changed. It is about whether man is making it worse and at what rate and to what detriment to us and the planet. The evidence as you like to quote without quoting any shows no warming in the last deacde or so and that doing something may well be more worse and more costly than doing nothing IF warming at unprecidented rates caused by man suddenly occurs. In a nutshell there isn’t a problem but you are trying to fix it anyway.

4. “The next shift will be yes, the climate is changing as a result of human activity, but it’s too late to do anything so why bother.” - Lol. You turkeys started the global warming mantra. When the warming suddenly turned up missing in the facts you changed it “climate” change.

5. “If we skip a few of these steps and get straight to accepting it’s happening, we can still take meaningful action. ” Yeh lets do that - skip a few steps. Like getting proof. Like showing a cost benefit analysis to rearranging the economy and imposing huge new taxes and draconian laws. Lets do all that “meaningful stuff”. There is nothing like being a matyr for the rest of the wrold. As we go down the gurgler we can yell out form our altar the Gracie was right. We needed to do this. hair shirts for all!!!!

6. As a giggle can you ask your bosses in the labor party to bring forth “little Gracie”. I want to meet this most articulate 6 year old, or was it 7 year old. I can’t rememebr. Copenhagen seems soooooooo long ago.

Luke says:

09:27am | 16/03/10

Monbiot recently did an article on the denier phenomenon and drew some interesting conclusions. In asking an outspoken denier what it would take to convince them that global warming is happening, the response was “Nothing will convince me”.
People who follow the actual science are routinely branded as followers of the new religion. In some cases I would agree with you, when looking at the stark reality of what we are doing I sometimes feel as if we need to try harder to get the point across too.
However when you brand us as followers of a religion, just take a good long hard look at yourself. Ask yourself the question “What would it take to convince me this is actually happening?”. If you come back with “nothing will convince me”, then make sure to identify yourself as a follower of your own religion the next time you tar somebody else with that brush.

Mark says:

10:58am | 16/03/10

Hi Luke.

Dammit you caught me out. I was merely doing a “science is settled” argument in reverse. cwahtididthar?

I love that term denier phenomenon. I wonder if young George did a article on some outspoken warmists, oh lets say either of the Tim’s or Al, do you think that the evidence that 1000’s of scientists disagree that AGW is occuring or that sea levels are not rising or that, lets say, Katrina and other storms are not on the rise/influenced by AGW/carbon etc etc etc they would sway them. Or would there answer be “nothing will convince me that carbon is the devil”.

You see I am playing their game in reverse. You bit.

I am replacing “denier” with religious zealot” - I like that you can be zealots.

You see I am not convinced it is happening because of all the lies that are regurgitated to brainwash me to believe that is is happening. I believe that the climate changes constsantly. That there is a normal flux. I also believe facts I can see and disbelieve dodgy scientists cooking the books. If it is so apparent why the need to hide the decline?

I also believe it is impertanent to believe we small beings can effect the climatic system as the zealots would have us believe.

It is a typical zealot campaign of FUD.

I will remain, yours truly, a denier for the time.

steve says:

11:47am | 16/03/10

Luke
It was alleged some individuals deliberately ignored data as it did not suit their political argument. Recently leaked Emails surfaced that called into doubt the integrity of a number of Climate scientists that have contributed a great deal to the IPCC findings, opinions and recommendations. Climategate broke.

Dr George Monbiot, a devout climate alarmist recently wrote the following:
“I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with this crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.”

The Concern is that the findings of influential Climate Scientists may be politically biased and ignore or suppressed data and findings that contradicted their opinions. At best it is an embarrassment for the AGW movement, at worst it is seen by some as fraudulent.

Luke says:

02:42pm | 16/03/10

steve, I agree. But due to my lack of training, experience or knowledge in climate sciences, the terms they use and the context within which they have been used, I am going to leave it up to the enquiries that are currently underway to determine just how deep the rabbit hole goes when it comes to the Hadley CRU (i have a feeling not very, but the FOI stuff is damaging, regardless of the reason).

Mark, “to believe… I believe… I also believe… disbelieve… I also believe ... to believe… would have us believe.” sorry mate, are we talking about science or religion?

Mark says:

04:10pm | 16/03/10

Hey Luke - we are all talking about dodgy disgraced scientists with the belief of religious zealots perpetrating a great big con.

They can’t prove the warming. They ask you to believe. People are happy to believe their drivel, their lies. In the meantime a few grab some tithes on the sides and the governments get letters from little Gracie that seems to enable them to redesign national and global economies.

They can’t prove it but expect to believe The Truth.

Of course it is religion. It has nothing to do with science as science can’t prove it. I am merely using their arguments, in reverse, against them. Quite openly too. You keep biting and I am not sure why.

They say science is settled with no proof - I say it is not with no proof. I have google, time and a pot of tea of my side. Hence I am to be feared and I can join the battle of religious theory as an equal with my champions Bolt, Plimer, JoNova and other sources as yet untapped by my side a few mouse clicks. You see - I am legion.

It was never about science the moment they perverted the scientific method. Pick a side and have fun. Don’t sit on the fence Luke that is boring mate.

Mark says:

10:22pm | 16/03/10

Luke ever since a group of scientists decided to sex up the data and prove a ideological thesis true by fraud it moved from science to religion.

It hasn’t been about science since big Al and the Railway engineer decided to cash in with a few inconvenient fallacies stated as fact.

You got to get with the program. Prove your religion. Grab a bunch of groupies. Sow the seeds of fear. Reap the tithes. Simple strategy.

This game has been played before all through history. The scale of this and the gullibility of some of the complacent, for example pretty much the whole msm, makes this fraud very worrying.

At least some sanity was restored at Copenhagen. The offering but brought to the altar but the acolytes got cold feet.

We can’t talk about the science anymore Luke. The data is either corrupted, lost or just plain not there to back them up. All they got left is some catchy jingles, a few pollies hoping to reelected with green preference and FUD to raise the odd million or billion before someone goes to gaol.

Hope that clears it up for you.

persephone says:

07:46am | 16/03/10

I’m very much pro adaptation, but it means moving whole communities in some cases, so it’s best to get on with it now.

Mark says:

08:14am | 16/03/10

persephone says:

  08:46am | 16/03/10

  I’m very much pro adaptation, but it means moving whole communities in some cases, so it’s best to get on with it now.

See. Now you are just being creepy and scary. Continue on though, you are scaring a lot of people who will actually seek out information on whether this is true or not.

jones says:

11:56am | 02/04/10

‘...  I’m very much pro adaptation, but it means moving whole communities in some cases, so it’s best to get on with it now…’

wise words… also heard them from people like hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot…

persephone says:

02:08pm | 16/03/10

Temperatures have been falling for the last ten years?

The last ten years are the hottest on record.

The northern winter may have been cold, but Canada, Africa and Italy - to name a few - had winters which were far far warmer than average.

Canada had its warmest winter on record.

Get your facts right.

Mark says:

10:11pm | 16/03/10

Err no peresphone.

Remember the hide the decline comment.

Look it up, it has been declining

We will change your religion soon peresphone!!

Eric says:

07:27am | 16/03/10

Ever noticed how climate change promoters are almost always left wing ideologues?  Not he sort of people who are going to let science get in the way of their beliefs.

David C says:

07:31am | 16/03/10

mmm how about this then from the father of Gaia Theory James Lovelock
“I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.”

Seano says:

08:57am | 16/03/10

David C :

I completely agree that healthy scepticism is important. My point though is that many of the the sceptics we see, especially on blogs or in the media are not basing their scepticism on reading science, it’s a political opinion.

Eric:
At your childish best I see. Are you know going to suggest that the bulk of scientists are left wing idealogues?

iansand says:

08:25am | 16/03/10

Bangladesh.  Tuvalu.  The Seychelles.

Maybe they could move to the Pilbara.  That was easy.  Next problem!!

Mark says:

08:42am | 16/03/10

*

      iansand says:

      09:25am | 16/03/10

      Bangladesh.  Tuvalu.  The Seychelles.

      Maybe they could move to the Pilbara.  That was easy.  Next problem!!

Why would they move. The sea level is not rising?

You need to have a problem first.

Yeh yeh yeh go and google a warmist site, peresphone has a few I am sure, then I will google a skeptiks site (i like using the k’s in skeptik, makes it far more evil and ominous don’t you think?) and we will have 2 sets of “proof”.

One will say one thing and guess what the other will say.

Houston we have a problem. You see because - using the warmists argument against you - I am right. Period. No argument allowed.

Glad we got that settled. Now we dont have to move 3 nations at the least. see how much money I saved you just there?

steve says:

10:42am | 16/03/10

G’day Ian
Hope all is well down there in the Sussex St office for you and Pheromone.
Sea Levels, which way will they go? Well up and down, South England the sea is rising, Scotland the sea is falling, Holland the sea is rising and Finland the sea is falling, New Orleans the sea is rising Why well New Orleans is on a river delta that is now 1.5m lower than when they first started building there, the sea did not rise the land compacted under the weight of civilisation and sunk.
Core samples of coral atolls show a base of coral down to 150m deep. Coral only grows in the top 5-8 m of sea level so when the seas were 150 m lower that was when the coral grew at that level, as the sea raises so does the coral atolls
What!!! You ask you must be making this up. No sorry just facts it is called Geology. We are live on a dynamic planet with tectonic plates floating on a sea of molten rock.
If it were not a Dynamic Moving Planet the rains and oceans would have swallowed the land and the mountains centuries ago.  It is a wonderful place….

iansand says:

12:25pm | 16/03/10

Steve - On what conceivable basis can you think this is a political issue?

Mark says:

12:57pm | 16/03/10

Political issue - what basis? Oh I dont know iansand. Cheering of socialists at a get together while they try to redistribute a bit of wealth from country A to country B. You know, little things like that. Rearranging the economy. Small stuff mainly.

WayneT says:

02:01pm | 16/03/10

Sea level has been on the rise since the last ice age 20,000 years ago.  Between the last Ice Age and today the sea level has risen a massive 140 metres.  If you look at the data just for the last 8000 year block.  There was a 11m rise in sea levels for the first 1000 years, 1.5m for the next 3000 years, 0.5m for the next 2000 years, and relatively flat for the last 2000 years. So what could we take away from this trend?  As temperature has risen since the last ice age, sea water levels initially rose dramatically.  But as temperature has continued to rise the rate at which seal level rise has occurred has been decreasing also.  So, what has caused the rise in sea level to drop off so dramatically?  Could it be that we are entering a different phase of a climate cycle, and that sea level rates have peaked and we are about to enter a negative trend?  Could the fact that over the last ten years the Earth’s average temperature has dropped 0.9 degrees C while CO2 levels have continued to rise be an indication that we may be entering a cooler period or that something else is about to change?  Remember we all live in this moment in time, so a sea level rise of 1.5 - 3mm seems pretty dramatic.  If we had been armed with the historical data, would we have built so close to the sea in the first place instead of creating the crisis ourselves through our own ignorance and poor planning.

steve says:

02:44pm | 16/03/10

Well Ian
This becomes a political issue when people allow politics to influence their opinions, when opinions become more important than fact.
Einstein said “I am not proved wrong by the opinions of hundreds of scientist I am proved wrong by one scientific fact.”
Look at the IPCC it is a political lobby group.
The “Climate industry” is pumped with Billions of dollars into the research of it.
Last year Canberra spent $700mill on scientific uni grants, 40% spent on anything that had climate change in the title.
The US has spent $73Bill on climate research in the last 10 years
The EU has 30 odd counties in their Cap and Trade system which last financial year turned over E130Bill, great work if you can get it. They did not have a single point drop in co2, but they had the coldest winter in 30 years so it may be working?

Yes this is a political issue and big business wants to run it.
If Cap and trade had got up in the USA it would have added $17Trillion to the derivatives market for their carbon trading. Is it any wonder that the same people you would criticize for the Global financial crisis are cheering on the Carbon trading system? The can smell a dollar is to be made at your expense.

iansand says:

03:18pm | 16/03/10

I wonder what the “I” in “IPCC” stands for?

I still fail to see how the reality or otherwise of AGW is political unless you believe in conspiracy theories.  Personally I don’t think we should let conspiracy theories get in the way of the science, but I understand that people disagree with that.

jones says:

12:02pm | 02/04/10

maldives??? yeah right: http://www.investmaldives.org/investment_environment/economic_profile.html

‘The economy has enjoyed robust growth averaging close to 8 percent per annum during the last decade… there are plans to diversify the Maldivian economy into areas such as shipping, information communication technology and offshore banking…’

‘...The number of foreign companies investing in the Maldives has been increasing yearly for over a decade…’

now why would anyone invest there if it was going underwater????
i smell carbon credits and the green of western money…!! all aboard the carbon-neutral gravy train.

persephone says:

07:48am | 16/03/10

Yes, two comments taken out of context out of thousands of emails.

I’m sure I could troll through Pilmer, take a couple of quotes out of context and make him sound like a climate change supporter.

Fog Badger says:

08:05am | 16/03/10

Have you read all the emails persephone?

Mark says:

08:18am | 16/03/10

They are not out of context.

They are in context. At least know what you are saying.

In the spirit of peer reviewed scince (lol) show me the proof as to how these two specific staements are taken out of context. Search the full email and copy it here peresphone. Then show me the out of context part.

I could also say that the author of this article runs an organisation that censors scientific view if it doesn’t conform with the accepted political (religious) view.

Me says:

08:29am | 16/03/10

Peter has apparently not read the emails and the context in which they where written. Peter probably gets his information on global warming from Glenn Beck.

Scott says:

08:34am | 16/03/10

Mark, do you have any idea what you’re talking about? What is your background? You are just as bad as people who blindly accept human caused climate change; you blindly accept any argument against it without seeming to comprehend one iota of actual scientific knowledge.

Mark says:

10:07am | 16/03/10

Hi Scott.

I read both sides of an argument and get concerned when IPCC reports - you know the ones that are done by 1000’s of scientists wearing white coats measuring stuff (it is all they do after all) refer to travel guides and Glaciers that are not retreating and green propaganda groups pamphlets etc etc etc.

I raise an eyebrow when Chavez gets cheered by the attendees of a conference that is attempting to remodel the world economy. You know, little things like that.

I look at emails between, err, “scientists” looking to pervert data and to hide the decline.

I look at graphs.

I look at evidence on a variety of websites.

I read stories about how the CSIRO censors its own scientists when they don’t toe the party line.

I get bored at repetitious ABC chanting of a gospel.

I look at groovy movies staring Al Gore.

In other words I have as much idea as the normal person on the street.

Hell, if a railroad engineer can head the IPCC I am qualified to talk about it too, I have a degree.

Sorry if my reading conflict with your religious beliefs.

(It is fun throwing the warmists argument style back at them. The science is wrong. Just as truthful as the science is settled. Pointless and fruitless. But fun)

By the way I believe the climate changes constantly.

Same challenge to you Scott. Lets keep this thread on topic. Grab the emails reprint them here hilighting how those two quotes were out of context.

You love the ad homien attack me not knowing anything about science. I contend your comprehension of the written language in the form of email is seriously wrong. I demand proof it is not.

So there /pokes out tongue

Fog Badger says:

04:04pm | 16/03/10

Yes, Paddy. I find it hard to believe that there weren’t more skeptics at CSIRO.

persephone says:

02:17pm | 16/03/10

I repeat: Canada’s warmest winter on record.

Again, the fallacy of believing that, because some countries are experiencing cold weather, all countries are experiencing cold weather (the same fallacy which says that the Medieval Warming period was global).

Climate scientists have always predicted an uneven impact of climate change - that is, that some areas will warm up and others will cool down.

It’s the overall global temperature that counts.

Randal says:

11:04am | 17/03/10

Well said Perse and that is exactly what is missing from this research, the global affect, and I wonder why, could it be that the planet has failed to warm as predicted over the past decade. I mean god help us all if the alarmists allowed the truth to get out there.

What did the CSIRO also leave out, oh that’s right, they discuss rainfall but fail to mention that rainfall increased in Australia in the past 10 years.

Makes one wonder what else they left out, surely they did not just cherry pick information to prove their case, whilst leaving out information that may lead to other conclusions, I mean come on their not the IPCC, East Anglia,  surely the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology in NZ and Britain are they??

Plus, what’s with looking at just loclaised conditions, did I not read in your earlier posts that the MWP only occurred in Europe and therefore was not relevant to climate discussions, surely under your own logic then looking at only Australia, equally has no bearing upon climate as well.

Seems a lot of flaws in the warmists argument if you ask me.

Me says:

09:33am | 16/03/10

Mindless rhetoric is not a scientific argument. You can come back to the debate when you have something other than straw men to contribute.

Mark says:

10:06am | 16/03/10

I will let you back in as well Me when you have something other than religious righteousness at your back.

To misquote Tom Cruise…

“Show me the science!!”

And then show me the cost benefit analysis of action.

Unlike Rudd would have you believe sometimes doing nothing is an option even if a real problem exists.

Me says:

10:39am | 16/03/10

Like I said Mark, Mindless rhetoric is not a scientific argument, you can call it religious righteousness all you want, but that doesn’t actually mean anything and doesn’t make it so.

I cant show you the science here Mark, this is a News Limited internet blog, but if you want to see the science, it is there for you to see, in science journals, scientific papers, many of which are published online, etc etc, it’s there if you care to do some digging.

You can draw the conclusions about cost benefits by doing the math about what the scientific papers imply yourself.

Mark says:

11:08am | 16/03/10

Well wow.

You really got me there. You accuse me of mindless rhetoric not once but twice. Ummm what to do now….lets see I know “but that doesn’t actually mean anything and doesn’t make it so. ” A wise man said that.

Me come on you can show me the science link. The IPCC report with the dangers facing the glaciers, the need to wash our boots and all that other good stuff from green group pamphlets. Lets also use that groovy hockey stick graph and yeh toss in the tree ring data from 12 trees in Siberia. And watch thta comedic hit movie An Inconvenient Truth. Oh wait…......

Now I am convincing myself that maybe there is some doubt about some of this AGW stuff. maybe the seas willnot rise 100metres this century. maybe the damns won’t be dry and the Great Barrier Reef bleached by (I recall) 2007 meh lets give them the benefit of the doubt 2010.

Lets see what we have. Dodgy info/cooked sciencebooks/zealots demanding big new taxes/the old oops I lost the dat online with my car keys trick and rearrangemnt of the worlds econmy (or just ours if we want to be the crash test dummy) vs do nothing because there ain’t no problem.

Oh no, the choices!!!

What shall we do.

So huge cost vs nothing. Net effect on the environment implementing either scenario. Nil.

Woot we have a winner. Thanks Me we will do nothing.

Me says:

09:33am | 16/03/10

The Truth is that it will and already is affecting the current inhabitants of the Earth, and it will definitely affect your children, not to mention grandchildren.

But regardless, your reasoning is along the lines of “There is an enormous asteroid heading towards Earth, with a 50/50 chance of hitting us in 200 years, potentially devastating human civilization. But why should we pay taxes to stop something that might happen in the distant future?”. It is sociopathic at best to disregard the fate of the entire planet, in 20 years or 200 years, in favor of keeping a couple of hundred dollars a year that you would probably spend on useless crap anyway.

Mark says:

01:06pm | 16/03/10

hahahahaha.

Me oh dear my son.

The Truth…capitalised. Let us read form The Book, The Gospel….the word as it is written shall be believed.

So we can see you do think along religious lines you big zealot you. You have your altar and your prophets and will bow down in subservience to them.

And how do we pay homage. Lets see “It is sociopathic at best to disregard the fate of the entire planet, in 20 years or 200 years, in favor of keeping a couple of hundred dollars a year that you would probably spend on useless crap anyway. ”

So lets cut to the chase. Lets do a bit of socialist reorganising of the ecomony tax the odd 99% of the population and redistribute away. Nothing like a good old titheing to keep the Truth rolling along.

Your typing gives away your thought process Me, whereas my typing spelling and grammar suck.

Andrew says:

10:47am | 16/03/10

Thanks Daisy, Just send the chque to “I have a bridge to sell you Ltd”

Me says:

09:49am | 16/03/10

Ah Jane, still terrified of those reds under the bed ready to crawl out and impose communism on you and your family I see.

The climate is always changing and always has. Yes, well done, you have successfully made an “observation”. Now the task of science is to find the causes behind these observations.

When the Earth’s climate changes free of human interference, and it does, It still does so for a reason, it does not just spontaneously and magically occur. Can you tell me, what is the reason behind today’s current anomalous warming? You cannot say “it is natural” or “the earths climate always changes” because as I have just explained to you, that is a cop out and is not an explanation at all. If it is natural, I assume you have an explanation about which natural forcing mechanisms are driving it.

I can think of something. Carbon dioxide, well established as a greenhouse gas, is increasing in the atmosphere due to human industrial activity.

Hmmm.

Ryan says:

10:14am | 16/03/10

And yet “Me”, there has been an observed decline in global temperature while the CO2 levels have been increasing. I wonder how that happened?
I tell you what, first explain the “anomalous” medieval warm period (where it was warmer than now) and apply some of those findings to the recently passed anomaly and I think you might find some hints, then again no need in practicing some real science right, instead lets just delete the medieval warm period from our “science” and act like it never happened. You could also just do what the University of East Anglia did and “hide the decline”.

Newton says:

10:15am | 16/03/10

@ Me. Let’s get one thing straight. CO2 has been at much higher levels in the past than it is now (must’ve been all those dinosaur cars) and not only did the earth not heat up and destroy itself, it actually flourished (plant food, you know) and provided the basic building blocks of all life that we see now. Secondly, only 3% of CO2 is emitted by humans - therefore getting rid of all our CO2 emissions won’t do diddly. Back to the drawing board for you, oh ignorant one.

As for the natural mechanisms, well there’s this bright spot in the sky known to some as the sun. Given that it supplies the Earth (even with a greenhouse effect) with 99% of its heat, it probably has something to do with it. Unfortunately, scientists don’t really understand how the sun works - they know the basics, but not the intricasies. Probably not surprising when you consider that the marks required to study science are much lower than even teaching. Obviously, if the marks are lower, the people studying it are, well, dumber.

Peter says:

10:44am | 16/03/10

Regarding Me’s comment, can you explain why carbon dioxide is not a confounding factor? Can you explain why climate change is not multifactorial?
thanks.

On a secondary note, I think that you’d be naive not to consider that there is a tinge of communism about our Labor gov’s…wasn’t Gillard in the communist party whilst at uni? Aren’t most Labor politicians former union officals or bosses that haven’t really done anything much in life outside unions or the party?
I particularly don’t like that the government is able to bipass local planning laws to erect public housing without giving local residents any say, under the guise of having to use stimulus payments quickly, I also do not like the new mooted compulsory acquisition laws for private property for government housing development. I also do not like the fact that we’ve got a leader who feeds propaganda to children in the form of authoring children’s books. I don’t like the fact that our PM feels the need to offer social commentary on everything. Our new school history curriculum is biassed.  Political correctness is rife, leading to an erosion of free speech. There are a number of wealth redistribution programs taking place. Federal powers are increasing under the guise of reforms, a disregard for elected state governments. The government is blackmailing Telstra over the NBN in a bid to gain control of information delivery. The government is planning to censor our internet.  Immigration has increased such that now the largest group of immigrants is from China, i.e. the government is importing voters from a communist country.
So personally I think the reds under the beds concept certainly remains valid.

Me says:

10:56am | 16/03/10

Ah well, Ryan, about that little divergence between rising Co2 and falling temperatures, you might not be up to date with the last couple of month’s temperature readings. You are probably familiar with this little gadget.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/

Note that the February 2010 edition has temperatures correlating to the rise in Co2, although let it be noted I am not claiming correlation equates to causation.

I am also assuming you know what “hide the decline” actually refers to. No? I’ll give you a hint, it has something to do with tree rings. As for the medieval warm period, science has never suggested it was warmer than it is today, aside from unverified ancient anecdotes about grapes in England, etc etc.

Newton, If the Sun was forcing changing climate on Earth, then we would know about it, because it is possible to measure solar radiation. Solar output has remained constant in it’s 11 year cycles, if the rising temperature was due to the sun, the sun’s output would have increased. It has not.

Your jibe about dinosaur cars is pretty preposterous, you seem to be under the impression that scientists think the only way for Co2 to accumulate in the atmosphere is by human activity. Nobody has ever claimed this. Co2 is released into the atmosphere free of human interference, it is “our” contribution of Co2 into the atmosphere that is the problem. Or are you actually suggesting that human industrial activity is not emitting Co2 at all?

It is true, only 3% of Co2 is emitted by humans, but have you ever heard of the straw that broke the camels back? Naturally occurring Co2 is offset by carbon sinks, such as the oceans and forests which reabsorb it out of the atmosphere. What human contributions do is throw out this balance, allowing more Co2 to accumulate in the atmosphere than can be re absorbed. Deforestation does not help this, and the oceans can also only absorb so much Co2. A 3% or more increase in co2 output, due to human activity or any other cause, has been deemed as sufficient to exceed to natural carbon sink absorption and cause the gas to increase in the atmosphere.

Ryan says:

11:32am | 16/03/10

@Me: Lets see:
“Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil”

Nope can’t find any mention of tree rings there, could it be that you are trying to “hide the truth” about the statement “hide the decline”? Credibility, none!

Me says:

12:09pm | 16/03/10

Ryan, it also doesn’t say anything about being related to surface temperatures. But it certainly seems to look that way simply by reading that one email. This is why context is extremely important here. This is Phil Jone’s response to the claims made about that email

“The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.

Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.

The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update

Hide the decline refers to problems Keith Briffa encountered when using Tree ring proxies. In the late 20th century, tree ring growth due to warming started to diverge from temperatures recorded by thermometers and other instruments. For the model in question, as can be seen in Jones’ response, proxies where used in the reconstruction up to 1960, and from 1961, the “real temperatures, that is, the ones recorded by thermometers, where added in in replace of tree ring proxies, to “hide the decline” that is shown if one simply used tree ring proxies past 1961 instead of the “real” (read, thermometer reading) temperatures.

Now, most skeptics do not contest the readings of thermometers, satellite data, etc, if you want to do so, well fine, but there is nothing to indicate that they have been giving us false readings for the past 150 (or perhaps only 50) years.

The reason why tree ring growth due to warmth has started to diverge from recorded temperatures is not fully understood at this time, but if you believe the recorded temperatures, there is something wrong with the tree ring samples, or something has happened to affect tree ring growth. Some theorize that tree rings where affected by industrialization and have only been unreliable since that time, others say that it proves tree rings have always been unreliable and shouldn’t be used in pre thermometer reconstructions.

Anyone implying that “hide the decline” refers to attempting to manipulate recorded surface temperature readings, is either ignorant or is lying to you.

Ryan says:

12:50pm | 16/03/10

I have read some bad excuses in my time and that one just about takes the cake. Most scientists would surely like to review the raw climate data used for these so-called computer models however the IPCC and other climate institutes WILL NOT under any circumstances release this data. I wonder why that is.
To suggest that anyone who reads the email for what it is, the climate scientists caught with their pants down, is ignorant or lying is both offensive and ridiculous, then again the same people who themselves are well versed in lying, “hiding the decline” and fudging figures, as was found in the code behind some of their computer models, who now have no credibility whatsoever.
If they wanted to redeem their credibility then they just need to release the original unadjusted, non-fudged raw data to those requesting it. I won’t hold my breath on that one though, a little too much vested interest methinks.

Me says:

04:11pm | 16/03/10

I’m not particularly concerned with whether you think it is offensive or ridiculous Ryan, it is the truth. You can conduct the most rudimentary of inquiries into the issue and you will learn that “hide the decline” refers to Briffa’s replacement of tree ring proxies with thermometer temperatures.

Simply parroting “hide the decline” about proves nothing other than that you have no idea what you are talking about if you haven’t even bothered to investigate the context of the quote.

Me says:

11:02am | 16/03/10

A good place to start would be studying the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. Wikipedia, or a generic science book might be sufficient for this.

iansand says:

11:08am | 16/03/10

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  That means that as concentrations of CO2 increase more heat is retained in the atmosphere and not radiated into space.  This is indisputable.

If you burn carbon you get CO2.  This is indisputable.

Coal and oil consist of lots of carbon.  This is indisputable.

The coal and oil we have been burning over the last couple of centuries have been sequestrated underground for over 100,000,000 years.  This is indisputable.

In the last couple of centuries man has been putting a large, extra amount of a greenhouse gas into the system.  This is indisputable.

Temperatures are rising.  This is indisputable.

But it’s all just a coincidence.  If you think so.

Adam MacLeod says:

11:37am | 16/03/10

G’day Roger.  Global dimming is a different effect than global warmiing, but shows clearly how human activity affects the weather.  Apart from trapping the heat, some pollution stops light from reaching the ground and warming the earth. 

In the days after Sept 11 when all planes in the US were grounded, the contrails dissipated temporarily and the entire continent warmed up by around 1 degree centigrade.  Quite a large change in a very short amount of time.

You can be quite sure that we affect the weather in other ways too, but no one really knows to what extent.  It’s a personal choice whether to hope for the best or plan for the worst.

Jane says:

11:47am | 16/03/10

Bingo King Canute !!

James says:

02:08pm | 16/03/10

Yes and mathematics tells us that the globe is warming and that is most likely caused by human activity, what is your point?

King Canute says:

03:06pm | 16/03/10

“And mathematics tells us the globe is warming and is most likely…”

My point is most likely should not be used as a proof. Simple as that.

Its “most likely” you didn’t read what I wrote but hey thats not proof that you didn’t.

Of course science has never been wrong ... flat earth, y2k, bird flu ....

James says:

03:33pm | 16/03/10

Sorry I think the language was actually almost certain, being 90% plus certainty, if you bet against those odds you must have failed maths.

Oh and the round earth theorm was proposed by a scientist, the flat earthers were sceptics.  Thanks for the reminder about that.

Me says:

11:25am | 16/03/10

Rhetoric posturing does not equate to science. If all you can do is cry fraud without refuting scientific arguments and principles then you cant really do much at all.

Mark says:

11:55am | 16/03/10

Restating “Rhetoric posturing” sux (my word) does not make your argument valid.

All you are are arguing Me is the science is settled when it is not.

You are drawing conclusions based on a belief that does not tally with the full scientific record (well when those silly scientists release the data set and even - gosh - find where they left the data set)

Ergo you are a religious fanatic.The “argeuments” you love have been refuted time and again

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/dead-ringer

A little ditty refuting Briffa and the tree ring data, the hockey stick and that he bathes properly (well not really but it sounded cool).

We can play gogle tag all day. Oh and rememebr your wiki references were edited the hell out of by the East Anglica gang. Lol - the Wiki’s climate graphs draw on Briffa’s falacy ridden attempts at scare mongering by making down go up. I love the interwebz.

I have refuted your science hence I am right. Is that how the game is played? Or do I launch into strawman and ad homien attacks now? I do get confused with the tactics on occaision you zealots use. Ooops there I go again.

Henry says:

12:11pm | 16/03/10

Me… I have not go the time or space here to refute it all.  However I have read countless hundreds of pages on the matter.

The science is not settled.  I am inclined to believe it errs on the side of fraud due to the amount of money at stake.  Follow the money tree and it leads to Goldman Sachs, the UN/IPCC, Al Gore’s companies and other hangers-on with dubious job titles all on the public purse or hoping to get govt legislation enacted to become super rich.  An ETS market has the potential to be the equivalent to Wall Street.  All based on hot air and about as real as the Y2K bug.

And Rudd tried to ram all this down our throats.

Me says:

12:26pm | 16/03/10

It is ironic that you refute your own argument by using the Y2k bug attempting to prove your argument. The Y2k bug was a very real problem, which had computer programmers and engineers spending the better half of the 90s working out solutions to it. It arose from the problem of having software and machines designed in the 70s still in use in the 90s, long after they had been expected to be replaced.

Y2k never occurred because something was done to avert it. I’ll wade into Godwins law here and use an analogy that if Hitler had been overthrown by the West before 1939, preventing world war 2, we would have people such as yourself claiming that because it never occurred, there was never a chance of it happening in the first place.

You are quite keen to follow the money back to Gore, Goldman Sachs, etc etc, but I wonder if you are equally as keen to follow the money back to Ian Plimer, the director of 2 mining corporations and prominent climate skeptic, the group of corporations who in the 90s formed a plan of trying to “reposition global warming more as opinion rather than fact”, etc etc.

In either case insinuations about the motives of either side do nothing to discredit/credit their scientific arguments.

Margaret Gray says:

12:48pm | 16/03/10

“...I wonder if you are equally as keen to follow the money back to Ian Plimer, the director of 2 mining corporations and prominent climate skeptic…”

Comparing Ian Plimers meagre directorial earnings to Al Gore’s mountains of stooge-sourced cash is disingenuous in the extreme.

But you were going to put renowned ‘climate expert’ Ross Garnaut, Chairman of Lihir Gold, on your list, weren’t you?

iansand says:

03:53pm | 16/03/10

Margaret Gray -  To quote only the punch line “We have established what you are m’dear.  We are simply negotiating the price.”

Me says:

04:10pm | 16/03/10

I don’t think it is disingenuous Margaret Grey, to “compare” them. Maybe to put them on par would be.

In any case, as I said, regardless of who has money invested where, it has nothing to do with arguments on the science from either side. You can question their motivations, but that still leaves the logical constructs of any scientific arguments untouched.

David C says:

12:33pm | 16/03/10

Why woudl you reduce C02 when it is not harmful to humans? We are projected to reach 560 ppm by 2100, the danger level in submarines is as high as 8000ppm. 
Reduce pollution by all means (and if we stop focussing in catastrophic global warming we might be able to do that) but I think you will fidn C02 aint the nasty chemical here.

persephone says:

02:29pm | 16/03/10

David

we’re not trying to reduce CO2 because we’re afraid of carbon monoxide poisoning (you’ve got your COs confused there, but hell, I’m no chemist).

We also don’t live in submarines.

CO2 is linked to observable increases in temperature, and these increases in temperature are presently producing more extreme weather events, which in themselves are already costing our economy millions of dollars a year (insurance claims, drought support, etc).

Study after study has found that it would be cheaper to reduce CO2 levels in our atmosphere than to deal with its effects in the long term.

This is just plain common sense - deal with the cause of the problem, try and mitigate the extent of the problem, rather than let it develop and then try and deal with it.

David C says:

10:05am | 17/03/10

Persephone I never said anything about carbon monoxide, I dont how you got there. My post was in relation to the labelling of CO2 as a chemiical cause of warming and bad to the health of humans. CO2 in itself is not dangerous to humans even at levels up to 8000ppm (hence the submarine refeernce).
Are you sure there is a provable link to CO2 and observable extreme weather events and their costs? I thought that was another of those IPCC mistakes that has been uncovered

Me says:

12:19pm | 16/03/10

I dunno Luke, Man has split the Atom, gone to the moon, engineered nano technology, cloned a sheep, utilized stem cells for scientific research and cures to diseases, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the point that Man is more than capable of altering the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Luke says:

12:43pm | 16/03/10

Me, when has man stopped a hurricane, halted an earthquake, stopped a volcano erupting, stopped the earth’s rotation etc… mother nature has no equal.

Jane says:

01:00pm | 16/03/10

Gee ‘me’...then maybe man might also be clever enough to adapt to natural climate cycles and rhythms in the future as well!! d’oh

The very concept, nay religion, that believes man can manipulate/control earths climate is the epitomy of arrogance.

Mark says:

01:06pm | 16/03/10

“Man is more than capable of altering the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere” - Me

Delusions of grandeur there.

For all your attempt at being serious you really don’t get what you are trying to change do you?

persephone says:

02:35pm | 16/03/10

Reversing climate change is difficult, but we can stop it getting worse, which is the aim of mitigation.

And Jane, all very well, but ‘man’ now populates every habitable part of this planet. Some of these areas - possibly large parts of them, especially low lying regions like Bangladesh - are expected to become uninhabitable due to the effects of climate change.

In fact, the areas which will be adversely affected by even a very small rise in sea levels, or an increase in tidal activity, are amongst the most densely populated in the world.

These people will have to go somewhere, if cc continues, and I’m not sure that there’s anywhere for them to go.

Me says:

04:17pm | 16/03/10

Some may have called splitting the atom a delusion of grandeur, Mark, before it was done. Now they say nothing. Some may have called the idea that men could fly in the sky with flying contraptions a delusion of grandeur, but now they say nothing.

It is not supreme arrogance to suggest that man is capable of altering the environment in which he lives, that is just a rhetorical sound bite that doesn’t mean anything, and in fact I think you underestimate man’s capacity with it.

Jane says:

05:12pm | 16/03/10

er Persie..the seas aren’t rising dear.
The ‘disappearing islands’ ( or appearing ones, but you don’t hear of those) or drops in land levels are more likely to be from shifting tectonic plates….it’s the cycle of earth.
Yes climate and the earth are changing…as they always have….we all should know that…statement of the obvious…blah blah
Not man’s doing though.

Anita says:

01:26pm | 16/03/10

You are the first person to actually make a point I agree with in this neverending stream of conflicting comments!
We should try and stop crapping up the planet regardless of whether it affects the climate or not. Don’t you think??

Mr Pastry says:

06:02pm | 16/03/10

Why thank you Anita - I’m just some dumb schmuck but I think a shift is needed in our behavior, being aggressively ambitious and aquisitive is a good short term survival strategy and has worked well in the past but it would appear, as our numbers grow, not too good for humans long term prospects - will we evolve intellectually in time?

Andrew says:

12:21pm | 16/03/10

But imagine all the Carbon produced in making the thermometers and all the trees to cut down for the books.

Perish the thought.

Maybe we could give them all laptops.

Sam Chowder says:

12:57pm | 16/03/10

I thought so - its those lazy unemployed again not collecting weather data.  Unfortunately we can’t release their carbon into the air so burning them at the stake is out, any suggestions?

They call me bruce. says:

01:21pm | 16/03/10

Burning them at the stake may release carbon but the net effect of not having them would produce a good off set! Something like a carbon credit. Throw in religous fanatics, gays and feminists and we are rolling… Just send the money and I will stoke up the fire!!!!

Margaret Gray says:

01:37pm | 16/03/10

Simon, don’t be so logical.

The warming luvvies and earnest basket-weavers are already distraught enough that their Church of the Poisoned Mind is crumbling around them.

I expect Jonathon Holmes to devote a considerable portion of his taxpayer-funded sermon to further debunk and demonise those who criticise and counter the climate orthodoxy.

James says:

02:49pm | 16/03/10

The CSIRO are in league with the ALP?  The CSIRO have been making consistant statements about climate change for years i.e. that it is happening and we are causing it.  Show me a statement that the CSIRO have made, when the Libs were in power, suggesting climate change isn’t happening.

PatC says:

08:47pm | 16/03/10

@ James
Where did I comment on climatology?
1.  A comment on the human psyche and it’s responses to modern media.
2.  A comment regarding science in general and a very truncated list of past scientific mistakes.
3.  A comment on the meaning of the word “rapid” and it’s (mis)use in this article.
4.  A question asking why the need to manipulate data or reputations to prove a theory, if the science behind the theory is solid.
5.  A comment about a personal suspicion based items I’ve read in the past.

Nope – no comment on climatology here.

Maybe you should refrain from commenting if you can’t understand basic English or can’t be bothered reading a completed paragraph.

James says:

09:17am | 17/03/10

@ Pat, get real! you are chucking stones at the science from the sidelines, because you know you don’t have the scientific credibility to debate the scientist’s findings directly.

1.  What are you implying here, the data over the last 150 years is dodgy?  It is the most accurate we have as measurement technology has improved.  Fail

2.  A concensus of scientists are far more likely to have an accurate model of physical reality than you and other lay people.  No scientist would every say anything is 100% certain but 90% certain is better than 10% certain.  Fail

3.  Rapid is relative, your yard stick of sea level rise is the tides (talk not getting it).  Your yard stick must be past sea level rise.  You really need to understand that.  Fail

4.  If you don’t understand the science of climateology how would you know if the science has been tweaked or changed?  Did you feel it in your gut alla George W and WMDs? Fail

You wouldn’t have a clue what to expect what the climate of the planet shoud or shouldn’t be doing and don’t pretend you do.

James says:

09:34am | 17/03/10

@ Randal “The CSIRO has no crediblity on this issue”  and you do?
You have quite an ego there mate.  The best scientists in Australia think the globe is warming but Rrrandal reckons they are wrong.  I think I know who I’m going to believe just quietly.

Steve Putnam says:

11:40pm | 11/04/10

So whatcha gunna do Randal? Read tea leaves perhaps? Consult a Gypsy? By the way, its not just the CSIRO why don’t you throw in peak science bodies in Europe, NASA, the US Geological Survey. Its all a giant conspiracy by climate scientists to perpetuate their research grants right? By the way Randal what qualifications do you bring to the table? To quote Rupert Murdoch: “The Earth deserves the benefit of the doubt”.

James says:

01:43pm | 19/03/10

No no not at all Ryan, there are plenty of conspiracy nuts, fossil fuel industry scientists, pseudo scientists and lay people that disagree that man is causing global warming.