Jan
Thanks Dr. J.P. Costella: the climate floodgates are opening
Good old-fashioned honest journalism by Pittsburghlive.com pointedly embarrasses Penn State and their pernicious professor, Michael Mann. Their editorial reviewing the “Climategate Analysis,” by Australian physicist, Dr. John P. Costella and now available from the non-profit Science & Public Policy Institute (scienceandpublicpolicy.org), has really caught the attention of Pennsylvanian readers.
Since running the editorial on Dr. Costella’s latest exposé, the Tribune-Review’s (local paper) found its circulation jumped 14.8 percent from 146,520 to 168,218 on the back of Costella’s story. Dr. Costella was clearly delighted with the response, “I’ll give you 168,218 to 1 that it ruined at least one of Mann’s meals!”
Thanks to Costella’s newly re-published analysis of the leaked emails from on the world’s key Climatic Research Units at the University of East Anglia, researchers into the Climategate scandal have been having a field day unpicking 13-years’worth of lies, deceit and fraudulent junk science all perpetrated at taxpayers’ expense. The cost to the U.S. economy for implementing policies based in such junk could run into trillions of dollars.
In the wake of the Climategate scandal has come a flood of other shocking revelations to derail the juggernaut of pro-green climate policy pursued by world governments. After Climategate, Pachaurigate, Glaciergate and Amazongate, now President Obama’s U.S. Administration is expected to be defeated in Congress on its unpopular and expensive climate cap-and-trade bill after Republican, Scott Brown, scored a sensational victory capturing the staunch Democrat seat of recently deceased Edward Kennedy.
The true depths of the climate scandal is causing great interest in the Pennsylvania heartlands of disgraced dodgy tree-ring counter, Michael Mann. Pittsburghers have been fascinated to find that the greatest fraud ever committed in the history of science was being perpetrated within their midst.
Michael E. Mann is famous for his ‘hockey stick’ graph often used by former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore when preaching his sermons on the ‘terrible threat’ of global warming. Mann’s graphs were much trumpeted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) before being debunked as fraudulent by independent analysts.
The impact in the hometown of disgraced climatologist Michael Mann has been so great it will surely add to the pressure on Penn State. The university’s own investigations to root out all the rotten apples in this scandal.
In 2009 Mann was appointed Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. Since 2005 he has been Director of the university’s interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. He previously taught at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences (1999 – 2005).
John Costella’s study has been accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless exposure of the trickery and deceit of public-funded climate scientists intent on bolstering the now discredited theory of man made global warming.
Pittsburghlive.com explains,
“John P. Costella, the 149-page report’s author, does a tremendous service by documenting, step by step, how science was perverted to advance misguided ideology, cynical politics and personal and professional interests. Costella proved that there was massive ‘research’ funding — with strings attached requiring production of ‘evidence’ backing preordained eco-wacko ‘findings.’ The fakery that took place in Penn. State Uni. and other government-funded institutions helped spread such venality far and wide among ‘scientists.’ What Climategate reveals and his report itemizes is ‘science’ unworthy of the name — and on a vast scale.”
Costella was ably assisted by retired British nuclear physicist, Dr. Phillip Bratby, who edited and proofread this sterling analysis before Costella presents all the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in precise chronological order, with an insightful scientific commentary. Pittsburghlive.com broke to Costella the news of his article’s succes late into the night, Australian time.
John says, ”I used some of the Australia Day public holiday yesterday to read the SPPI Reprint myself. Although I’ve visited the U.S. three times, I’ve never been to Pennsylvania (the closest I got was D.C.). But if plans to fly me over in the coming months pan out, I will most certainly be visiting the good folk of Pittsburgh. I like them already. “
The SPPI Reprint is at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/climategate_analysis.html
The original web page is at:
http://johncostella.webs.com/
”The only differences are very small edits and typos that I continue to make to the web page as they are picked up. (The SPPI Reprint seems to have lost all italics, and occasional spaces, but that is of little consequence),” John said.
“However, the SPPI Reprint, with its inclusion of my op-ed piece as an ‘Introductory Essay’, seems to have spread like wildfire, not least of which being an incredible discussion at the legendary Watts Up With That site a few days ago,”
Yesterday, another top climatologist caught up in the Climategate conspiracy — Alabama State Climatologist and UN IPCC lead author, Dr. John Christy — was dismayed at the unethical conduct of Michael Mann and other climatologists, has demanded that the IPCC seek to restore its damaged reputation in their next climate report by providing “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists.”
Thanks to John Costella and other brave scientists who have stepped forward, it is hoped a Federal Department of Justice criminal investigation will bring down this blatant racketeering.
Possibly related posts:
- Now get John Costella’s climategate email commentary in a PDF “book”
- Penn State decision on Michael Mann due on this week
- BREAKING! Penn State finds Michael Mann innocent of suppressing or falsifying data
- Penn State Protects Michael “Climategate” Mann
- Economic stimulus funds that went to Penn State climategate scientist should be returned
Remember folks….cockroaches don’t like light.
“John Costella’s study has been accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless exposure of the trickery and deceit of public-funded climate scientists intent on bolstering the now discredited theory of man made global warming.”
This gives me hope. Thanks for posting this!
In Dr. Costella’s pdf there is afile listing for ‘documents.’ Open this file and select Rules of the Game or something like this. Never mind, use the site below:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
One will find a list of rules designed by the UN to enable a successful ‘indoctrination’ of the worlds public, Facinatingly horrifying. Man, are we “all like sheep.” Scary!
One minor correction to your report: John is Australian
When they lie and cheat they shouldn’t bleat when they get caught out!
Having been in the fraud detection business many years ago, the first thing a fraudster does when caught is bleat, and long and hard too. Even when caught red-handed, all the way through the trial, and from inside their cell. They’re totally innocent – always. They usually blame their victims too. These people have the facility to convince others while looking totally convinced and believing in their own story. That is why they are so hard to catch – even when the first signs of the fraud appear, they’re so convincing / assertive that people give them too much leeway. It is only when the fraud is blatant that the scam collapses and is reported by the victims that the authorities take action.
“Since running the editorial on Dr. Costella’s latest exposé, the Tribune-Review’s (local paper) found its circulation jumped 14.8 percent from 146,520 to 168,218 on the back of Costella’s story.”
Amazing.
This should be a lesson to other newspapers. Start reporting actual facts instead of standard myths, and you’ll quickly raise your circulation substantially!
Clearly there’s a pent-up appetite for truth, which newspapers have been stubbornly refusing to satisfy.
Dr Costella has performed an immense service to science and quite possibly democracy. He would be a deserving winner of both science and journalism awards.
I am very grateful for someone in science to provide the explanation and understanding of what was actually transacted in these emails.
And emails are only one form of communication – if those involved were willing to express so much of their attitudes and agenda in emails, imagine what passed between them in phone calls and get-togethers at conferences.
Thank you Mr. Costella
How can any government pass legislation based on this? The article exposes Mann but what is happening with Holgren and Hansen at NASA? We should be hearing about them in due course I suspect.
Splendid!
“Alabama State Climatologist and UN IPCC lead author, Dr. John Christy … has demanded that the IPCC seek to restore its damaged reputation in their next climate report by providing “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists.””
I believe that the “well-credentialed climate scientists” will prove to be the same ones who have been destroying the credibility of the IPCC. The restriction serves only to exclude the rest of the scientific community. Few of the best critics (the ones with well researched work, not political opinions), would qualify. People like Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, and Anthony Watts to name a few.
In addition there are gaping holes in the climate models that exist simply because of the “well-credentialed climate scientists” limited understanding of many areas of mathematics (especially statistics), physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, evolutionary biology, engineering, and economics, et cetera. Just adding a new section from the same old people will not help. They need to add input from people qualified to say “Wait a minute … this [area of study] does not work the way you seem to be assuming it does.”
How many taxpayer dollars were spent in the 13 years leading up to climategate? “We want our money back.”
“John Costella’s study has been accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless exposure… etc”
Deniers is no longer suitable! You people need renaming as Queens – from Alice in Wonderland:
“said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Seriously,“accepted by all sides”… “faultless exposure”. What planet are you on? Costella’s massively insinuating “analysis” is just an excrutiatingly nit picky equivalent to the types who metaphorically see the mole on Cindy Crawford’s face and scream out “look she’s totally ugly – all those who say she’s beautiful are just trying to bring in a world government, get more research funding (insert numerous other paranoid conspiracy theory type garbage ideas of your choice here)”.
Costella himself hosts on his website http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/, that he edits with Fetzer, the theory that the most famous film of the Kennedy assassination was faked frame by frame and uses his paranoid style thinking to analyse this conspiracy theory too.
It’s also worth looking at their homepage http://www.assassinationscience.com/ and the bizarre and crazy link list before you give too much credibility to Costella’s analyses…
Believe him, Climategate.com readers, and all the others like him, if you want but you’re just going to look even crazier and less able to come to a rational objective view about anything than you already do!
Nick, just because there exists a document found on a “fringe” web site does not mean the document (John Costella’s Analysis) is bogus. If you are content on continuing this rant, then you must also take a-part a similar posting, but by another blog.
http://www.joannenova.com.au
At this site there is currently another documentation of the immense fraud perpetrated by the “AGW Climate Scientists.” Argue this as well.
Also, There is a four-series video on You-Tube which a careful viewing will refute any and all attempts by the AGWarming crowd. Also, will you refute what Dr. Carter has to say?
Climate Change: Is CO2 the Cause? Analysis of the facts of Climate Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&NR=1&feature=fvwp (pt 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related (Pt 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY ( pt 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related (pt 4)
Finally, Dr Henrik Svensmark’s theory on climate being driven by the interelatedness of the Magnetism between the sun and earth, coupled with the cyclical flow of cosmic radiation from inter-galactic space has been accepted as the very plausible (primary) causitive agent behind the Earth’s climate. Refute this? It is (for me) an incredibly facinating video documentary. Also, please note how the AGWaming representative attempts to attack Dr. Svensmark! Appalling lack of scientific procedure. Refute this?
See the You-tube six video clip series: The Cloud Mystery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA
Then there are the six papers in defense of Dr. Svensmark’s theory: Niche/Modeling blog
http://landshape.org/enm/cosmic-ray-flux-and-the-ipcc
and Finally, the instructive hour-long video relating climate to cosmic rays. This is an instructional video and reveals a piece of how the Physicists worked to understand what might be happening with cosmic rays in our atmosphere, and how to best develop methods for experimental testing.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Now, Nick, should you want more real data sets, I suggest you search out the awful scientific process of your own UN-IPCC. Their stated scientific process reveals a huge gap in what they have actually done. It is absolutely laughable, and would be so if not so painful to the peoples’ of our world; ie glacier-gate, amazone-gate, hurrican-gate, etc. etc. etc. Reprehensible science (for me anyway).
Sometimes the most difficult thing we do as people is to reconsider our point of view. Especially when the dogma has become cemented in our psyche! Good luck Nick.
Hi Mike,
Instead of answering your “Gish Gallop” like post, I’ll cut to the chase.
Most denialism and denier’s beliefs are caused by an unholy mixture of red herrings, strawmen and misdirection often accompanied by the cognitive difficulties not to see through them. Genuine sceptics are somewhat harder to characterise.
However, one of the widely quoted darlings of the deniers is Richard Lindzen – no doubt you are familiar with him. He is one of the very few “sceptical” scientists who has any actual credibility in the field.
Amongst the huge smoke screens of his “in the public eye” utterances, the denialists never seem to notice what he actually says about climate science.
Here’s as close to a non-cherry picked exposition of his basic views as I can find:
Taken from his article for the “Independent Institute”
“Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?”
October 21, 2005
Richard S. Lindzen
Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Link to article
“Nevertheless, for the most part I do not personally disagree with the Consensus (though the absence of any quantitative considerations should be disturbing). Indeed, I know of no serious split, and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at. However, I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion this agreement constitutes support for alarm.
Let us view the components that comprise this consensus a little more precisely while recognizing that there is, indeed, some legitimate controversy connected with specific aspects of even these items.
1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past 60 years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6 ±0.15 degrees Centigrade (C). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is, in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2%.
3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.
In some respects, these three pillars of consensus are relatively trivial. Remaining completely open is the question of whether there is any reason to consider this basic agreement as being alarming.”
Where Lindzen differs from just about all the rest of the IPCC mob is that he thinks the climate sensitivity is much less than the figure arrived at by the IPCC’s large majority concensus (he doesn’t dispute that there is one – another denier meme crashes and burns!).
The only definitive way of establishing the sensitivity beyond doubt would need an experimental method – the cornerstone of the best science. It would require a time machine to return to the past multiple times, each time persuading civilisation to adopt a different set of industrial emissions then returning to the future to see what the final effect was.
Sadly, that experimental method is not available to us so we have to rely on inference from the paleo-climatological records. Looking at past climate changes, and the forcings they were subject to, the sensitivity just cannot be as low as Lindzen’s work suggests or we wouldn’t have got the changes that we did in the past. He must have missed something, no doubt subtle, in his reasoning. He is simply wrong.
Consider also a risk analysis of the situation. This means considering the consequences if the various “sides” are wrong. The climate sensitivity is a real world figure, hard wired into the planetary system, but it is not known for certain because we have not derived it experimentally yet – but we are “running the experiment” now with our only life support system – Earth. Seems rather risky to me.
If Lindzen et al are right, then global warming will prove to be not much of a problem at all – indeed some areas will find it beneficial. If they are wrong, and the IPCC sensitivity estimate is right, then we will be in a whole heap of trouble ranging from difficult to severe, assuming we don’t alter our output of all significant greenhouse gases pretty sharpish. If both he and the IPCC, and even Hansen and Lovelock, are wrong and the sensitivity is greater than the worst estimates, even by a little bit, then we will be well and truly screwed and human civilisation’s game would be over.
The problem with trusting in Lindzen’s figure is that he is not a paleo-climatologist, so his credibility in that area is low. His estimate of sensitivity rests more or less solely on his own work and his very own hypothesis the “Iris” hypothesis and his recent revamp of that idea.
Frankly, the situation we all face when deciding what to do and who to trust is rather like the situation of the punk facing Dirty Harry’s Magnum.
I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
The only difference is that instead of there maybe being one dangerous bullet left in the climate science chamber, there are five. The majority of credible working climate scientists think the derived sensitivity figure mean we will have big problems (five bullets). A very few credible scientists think it will be lower (one or no bullets).
Remember that we are gambling the future of our civilisation on who is right. If we do nothing and screw the climate up then it will be be screwed up for a very long time – probably thousands of years.
Do you feel lucky, punks?
Hi Nick,
I am NOT saying that CO2 does not cause warming as a greenhouse gas. I am saying the record incidates that CO2 does NOT drive climate change. I am aware of Dr. Lindzen from MIT> Have you read any of his papers since 2005?
The material I have already provide comes from very repudible scientists. Before you again choose to ‘blast’ me with name calling, please search the very valid information I went through to determine for myself whether there exists ‘real empirical’ evidence for CO2 driven climate warming. I used to be on the AGWarming side. But when the US EPA resorted to declaring CO2 a hazard to our health, I decided to become an active researcher. Al Gore has made a couple million on this fraud. And there are more than 9 inconvenient truths in the film he made. So don’t think call me a “denier” or a “punk” will solve YOUR problem. YOU need to start giving proof. and don’t forget to add results from this latest source too. In the mean time go ahead a view DR. Carter’s video, it would be especially good as he does go back in time for over 6 million years to put the argument in proper perspective. An you seem to like the perspective of paleoclimatology.
One of the issues I have with any data derived from Climategate scientists is that there is overwhelming proof that the data has been manipulated and the scientific method perverted. Such acts reveal a definite lack of integrity and spotlight a character lacking in honor. As a scientist, I can not in good faith believe, or hold their data in good standing. It is for this very reason that scientists realize that any experimentation must hold judgement until other scientists are able to repeat the experiment. No one can repeat their science. Big Problem. It must all be repeated.
Another issue you bring up is that there must be something wrong with skeptic scientists when they can not duplicate the science for the AGW camp. Sorry, it is my understanding that one of the problems is a self-reliance on computer models. And the models cant make accurate analysis: Climate is just too complex to try to assess and still account for all the climate variables.
Nick if you don’t want to take the time to view what I have already made available, my only assumption must be you are afraid to actually overcome some bias held within yourself. Do you seek the truth, or just a desire to be vindicated? If you can show me empirical proof I would love to learn from it.
Finally, google Solar Sun Cycle 24 predictions. You also might find reason to be more cautious from a possibility of our entering a new ice age is the next decade. But it is for you to decide.
Thank you Nick. But there is nothing more for me to say unless you can tell me where/why the scientists’ I have listed are wrong. Michael
Oh, one more thing Nick, here is a paper by Lindzen, 13 pages, and one can see various, certifiable reasons for rejecting the theory for Catastrophic Climate Change resulting from human added CO2 (greenhouse gas(s)). It is a good read. I hope you enjoy it. Mike
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/Lindzen07-EnE-warm-lindz07.pdf
Sorry for the time all this takes out of a person’s life, but if one wishes to really know the truth, especially when to be on the wrong side will end up relagating almost all of the world population to being slave of a one world government. Oh, and there will still be the use of CO2 production going on. It will just have to be taxed by the UN Government, move the carbon credit from one country’s carbon bank, to the bank of the country in which the carbon will be used.
Wait, that sounds like one just pays for the air, since the Carbon really doesn’t change hands. My, oh my… people being charged for nothing tangible. Great idea. Tell that to Peter Spencer of Australia, he had his property confiscated (essentially) because it was claimed as a carbon sink site. Too bad Peter. Nick, would you like the government to arbitrarily decide to take power over your property? Also, you will still have to pay taxes on the property, even though you can’t use it as you wish. Darn.
Well Nick, g’day mate! Another reason to account for the level of cheating one sees in regard to AGWarmers, and the large need for clever indoctrination of the public and media.
In the analysis Costella refers to the emails questioning the origin of figrue 7 c. in IPC 1 (Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Ages). He concludes that the emailers only get concerned when the graph that appears to be unsupported by data is used against their hypothesis, saying:
5, 2007: email 1168022320
Phil Jones to many:
I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.
Wonderful! Fake graphs presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report—but only disclose that once the skeptics take note of it?
I see that McIntyre at William Connelly’s challenge seems to have discovered that the source is one of the fathers of it all Lamb in 1965.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
This only strengthens the case agains AGW and the claime of “unprecedented” global warming.
Great article!! Nice to see the media in Pennsylvania is finally after him. Mr. “Hokey Stick” Mann probably freaked out when he read this article!!! I wonder how he feels at work these days??? A crook with no conscience. MMMMMMM. Probably just another day at the office for him. His office door probably says ” Dr. Con Mann: Dept. of Fraud and Deceit. In reality though, I hope this scum is very worried. Lots of lawyers could be foaming at the mouth to get his ass in court. Penn State may pay the price also for having such a “rock star” working for them.
Mike, I refer you to the bit where Lindzen admits that first the globe is warming and that if CO2 continues to increase, that the global average temperature will go up due to AGW – he further acknowledged that the CO2 increase we have seen since the Industrial Revolution is more or less down to us. As you point out, in the paper you mention, his theory just does not think that it will be catastrophic warming. Catastrophic warming is on the low end of the IPCCs probability scale but, as Terry Pratchett wrote, “one in a million chances happen nine times out of ten”.
Lindzen’s is just anther minority theory and he is just one man – he might be wrong. Are you still feeling lucky, punk?
Darling of the deniers Lindzen says these things because the basic science is certain. The only argument is about the degree of warming. He is in the tiny minority of credible climate scientists who think it will be small. All of the current hand waving and manic noise and misdirection from the denialosphere about the IPCC’s antics, justified or otherwise, is completely irrelevant.
Svensmark’s theory is interesting but it is just a theory and he is just one man – he might be wrong. If cosmic rays indeed are contributing to some warming then that puts us in an even more dangerous situation. If “natural” causes are warming us and we are adding to that natural warming by desequestering carbon and sticking excess back into the atmosphere, then we are metaphorically throwing supertankers of petrol onto an existing natural forest fire. Bonkers beyond belief.
OK I got my chuckle for the day. Thanks Nick.
Hi again Nick. I appreciate the more detailed documentation. It give me more to look at.
A couple of things: Dr. Svensmark is not just one who is behind the theory regarding cosmic rays striking arousals in our atmosphere which in turn affects the climate. There was a video by Kirby which reveals a portion of the difficulty facing scientists as they dealt with ways to set up experiments that might provide information. Good stuff.
The papers associated with Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s theory used in his defense (he recently died- I understand it was from a heart attack) reveal an even larger number of scientists aligning with his theory. I refere you to these papers.
I am suggest that an attempt to slough off the validity of the theory didn’t pass scientific muster. Look at them again, it is apparent you missed something (large).
Also, there is the Dr. from Jerusalem, he brought into focus the abiltity to find proxy data in the level of 10BE isotobes, and a couple of other relevant areas. There is the Fly’s Eye in Utah that made available the progression they went through to be able to even study said cosmic ray affecting atmospheric arousals.
“If cosmic rays indeed are contributing to some warming then that puts us in an even more dangerous situation.” Yes indeed, but NOT from overwarming! Professor Bob Carter reveals why warming is not a danger to the earth, but there is a real danger currently due to the Solar Cycle #24′s having a strong possibility of impacting temperature into a negative vein: COLDER. This would be much more disastrous for Earth.
“he [Lindsen]further acknowledged that the CO2 increase we have seen since the Industrial Revolution is more or less down to us”.. YES. There is no denial that CO2 acts as a GHG. The fact of the matter is that CO2 in known to retain some level of heat. However, and this is the important factor that has been proved: CO2 does NOT drive Climate! Ice records reveal this as fact. Secondly, CO2 has a logrithm relationship to absorbtion of heat: each successive molecule of CO2 absorbs less than the previous molecule. Eventually the ability to effect any additional warming acition ceases, as a function of increased “power” to heat. This IS why CO2 can never be a threat to our world! And this is what all the Climate Scientists you support have been trying to prove.
If you think the science is settled, then you can settle it by proclaim one piece of evidence, which Terebrn (sorry, I am misspelling the name. When I get a chance I will look up the spelling) made clear hadn’t been discovered when he made the statement,”… there should be warming in our data, and we can’t find it. It is a travesty we can’t find it.” Absolute travesty
Please visit http://www.co2science.org It is an amazing site. The scientists are wonderful and have been extremely transparent. Taste what they have made available, write them if you need more information to extend your personal knowledge. They have certainly helped me make my decision regarding the whole AGW issue.
This is where you can visit joannenova.com.au blog and look up in her Skeptic Handbook what the “hotspot” is, and where it should be found. It isn’t found and it is important because the whole theory regarding catastrophic Global Warming as a result of increased CO2 REQUIRES a hot spot approximately 8km to 12km in the tropical atmosphere. IT IS NOT THERE… case closed. One must now move on to any of the competing theories.
And this is just from the idea of a scientic study being done to prove AGW theory. It doesn’t speak to how said scientists have disgraced themselves and science by manipulating data, refusing to share data, keeping competing scientist from being able to access the review process, and the IPCC being fraudulent in their administration of the whole process.
Ultimately, a scientist must reject any of their findings because of their fraudulent behavior. Sadly, this means that some very pertinent data will be included. But, science is a precise process. We, all of us, have been violated. Beginning with Gore and Jensen, on through the range of people involved.
The Good News: the cost of a ton of carbon on the fraudulent UN driven market has dropped from $30 a ton to $0.10 a ton. And the people of this world will be able to avoid the one world government which had so meticullously, and secretly pieced together.
Finally Nick, I am an environmentalist. I got into researching AGW because it made absolutely zero sense for the US govt to declare CO2 a toxic, hazardous material. CO2 in one of the four basic building blocks from which life exists. Can’t be toxic under normal biological levels, which can be quite elevated. I believe we need to make sure the world has clean air. I am also certain that the US has come a long way in the past 50 years. Our atmosphere is indeed much improved. It is remarkable! China is another story and for another blog.
Good luck Nick. If there is more you think I am missing, please send it. After all, scientists are extremely skeptical and nothing is certain until it is a law (maybe).
Nick, I apologize for the spelling and grammatical errors. I hve to be at a dinner and if I am late my wife will present a different type of Global Warming which will impact my life. lol
Svensmark’s theory appears to be based on some very strong correlations, both current and going way back in time. In fact, his theory pointed to cooling back in 95 before anyone else was talking about that (unless, of course, you go back to when the hot discussion had to do with our forthcoming ice age!) My understanding is that oceanographers and astronomers, who collaborated with Svensmark, have temperature data that jibes very well with our positions in the Galaxy. There may be refinements, but I can’t imagine how his theory can be far off. Those pieces fit together very nicely.
A more recent CERN Colloquium by Kirby reviewed a lot of those same correlations. I don’t recall hearing any differences of opinion in that video.l
I don’t have enough background to understand how the recent paper by Lu, a Canadian physicist, fits, or conflicts, with Svensmarks’ theory. Anyone care to comment on that?
Is it true that Svensmark died, or is that just more disinformation from the IPCC and its PR group?
Thank you Denis. Yeah, I agree with the incredible correlations, especially when one considers the Beryllium 10 isotope proxy evidence. It is my opinion that Nir Shaviv “The Cloud Mystery 4/6) of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem does a very good job of relating the importance of this isotope as a proxy record.
Again I refer to the Defense of Dr. Svensmark’s theory by 6 different papers. The quote I am attaching comes from the third paper listed: “The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds” by Pallé, Butler and O’Brien 2004
http://landshape.org/enm/cosmic-ray-flux-and-the-ipcc/
Is attribution of recent warming 20:80 solar to GHG’s, or the other way around? This is a quantitative question, and I would like to get some discussion going on this issue of the relative proportions of factors involved in recent warming, but I realize you can’t just turn discussion on. Personally, I feel like a goose that I wasn’t converted to the CRF theory earlier, as I am blown away by the strength of the evidence. But others may feel differently, and I like to test my faith.
“The delightfully modestly titled The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds by Pallé, E. Butler, C. J. and O’Brien, K.(2004) modeled atmospheric ionization to calculate the climatic impact of cosmic ray flux (CRF) over the last 150 years, based on the correlation with observed low cloud cover.”
“While the IPCC attribute most if not all warming in the last 30 years to GHG’s, until the recent IPCC report, the AR4, most warming this century was also attributed to GHG’s. Pallé shows the possible temperature contributions of solar and CRF.While the IPCC attribute most if not all warming in the last 30 years to GHG’s, until the recent IPCC report, the AR4, most warming this century was also attributed to GHG’s. Pallé shows the possible temperature contributions of solar and CRF.
Pallé finds that the sun’s combined effect from increasing radiance and decrease in low level cloud, could potentially explain over half the increase in temperature in the last 150 years: that’s at least a 50:50 ratio of CRF vs GHG at least.
But wait! There is more. It’s instructive to compare the geographic distribution of correlations, and of modeled ionization with observed warming.
Each of the six papers represent very strong evidence that earlier science suggests CO2 and GHS have little to do with being a climate driver.
NEXT:
From what I read, Dr. Henrik Svensmark died during a presentation on his findings. I had an opportunity to view the video but chose not to follow through. I will attempt to locate any data I can find regarding this unfortunate ending. It hurts to think he did not get to experience justification for all that he has done to increase our understanding regarding climate drivers.
I am unaware of Dr. Lu, but do remember the name. After a quick research on Dr. Lu I found several sites regarding Dr. Lu’s reseach: http://www.techmonitor.net/techmon/09may_jun/ozo/ozo_science.htm
Which in part states: In his study, Dr. Lu analyses reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period 1980-2007 which cover two full 11-year solar cycles. The data unambiguously show the time correlations between cosmic ray intensity and global ozone depletion, as well as between cosmic ray intensity and the ozone hole over the South Pole. “This finding not only provides a fingerprint for the dominant role of the cosmic-ray mechanism in causing the ozone hole, but also contradicts the widely accepted photochemical theory,” Dr. Lu said. “These observations cannot be explained by the photochemical model. Instead, they force one to conclude that the cosmic ray mechanism plays the dominant role in causing the hole.” Which lends itself very well to the ICR theory to driving climate.
I am not certain either Denis, but it appears (without actually purchasing the full text of his study) there exists some strong form of correlation with regard to CRF’s affecting the Ozone layer and thus creating cloud seeds in the process. And this fits the theory of Dr. Svensmark et el. Would you agree? Anyone?
While searching for Dr. Lu’s research, I found another set of experimental data which lends itself to supporting Dr. Svensmark’s theory. If any would also read the results and comment I would appreciate the extended analysis. Thank you in advance. The issue of the Earth Magnetic Field as it also corresponds to the protective Solar force seems to additionally support Svensmark’s theory. Anyone?
Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection.
Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Climate_Change/E-E_Clr_Abstracts.pdf
I also think that the Professor Bob Carter’s video clips on youtube which display a very good section on the long-term climate data also correlate extremely well with Svensmark et el. The graphic data are (for me) incredible as it relates to the ‘big picture.” Thoughts?
As a side note to Nick, you can find a Video Clip from Prof Carter in which he presents 5 answers to why CO2 is NOT related to climate change. Pretty much debunks the AGW point of view.
A very long post, thank you for your patience. mike
“Is it true that Svensmark died, or is that just more disinformation from the IPCC and its PR group?”
No, it’s true that he had heart attack or malfunction of stimulator, but he is recovering.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/henrik-svensmark-collapse-at-copenhagen/
Thank you Mr. Kiik For clarifying the status of Dr. Svensmark! Makes my heart much happier. His work is incredible.
Mike wrote:
As a side note to Nick, you can find a Video Clip from Prof Carter in which he presents 5 answers to why CO2 is NOT related to climate change. Pretty much debunks the AGW point of view.
What’s the point in watching Carter? – Lindzen way outranks him and Lindzen admits that continuing to increase CO2 will increase average global temperatures. As does Christy and Spencer.
BTW, did you not notice that when you claimed that CO2 does not drive climate, that that was directly contradictory to what you yourself had acknowledged – that Lindzen had said that increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperature?
Michael: I’m just an interested bystander. After reading Singer’s book a couple of years ago, and then hearing about all the scientists protesting the claim that the “science was settled”, I tried to get a bit more information, to figure out what the h—- was going on, so can’t give you any useful responses to your queries.
What do you (and/or Nick) think about the two German scientists ? These guys are arguing that the green house process (which is obviously closed) is dissimilar to what happens in an open atmosphere. As I understand it, they would not agree that CO2 will have much effect on temperature. As I recall, there also was also a Hungarian scientist who seemed to be claiming something that (to me) sounded similar. Either these two or the Hungarian posted the claim and the analysis a couple of years ago, and challenged anyone to disprove his (?their) calculations.
There’s a brief article within this website and you can search for that summary, if interested (for starters), first by searching on “German physicists”.
Nick, as you stated,
“What’s the point in watching Carter? – Lindzen way outranks him and Lindzen admits that continuing to increase CO2 will increase average global temperatures. As does Christy and Spencer.”
First(and all I am going to restrict myself to in this post), Carter is a valid scientist, he presents valid results, and provides verbal narrative to better explain his evidence. Additionally, he provides explicit proof as to why all science fails to prove, ” human caused CO2 input into the atmosphere drives a global climate change which will cause catastrophic damage. Watch the two videos, than tell me where he is wrong, and give me science to support it. I am presenting scientific evidence which supports my view. By the way, in scientific terms, I don’t really have to present data to dispute AGW. It is the task of any scientist to present “data” to effectively support their theory. Unfortunately for AGWarmers, they are without supporting evidence. Professor Carter presents ‘actual data’ which refutes AGW, and there are 5 areas pertinent to AGW’s position. Check it out.
Secondly, the ‘rank’ of a scientist is not what is important. It does provide a level of validity; however, that validity is only applicable up to and including past scientific explorations. Their next theoretical excursion will be measured on its own merit. And that is the way it should be. So, any data some seemingly under-scientist presents is measured in equal fashion by the collective scientific community.
Here-in lies a significant problem for the current scientific community which actively supports the AGW theory: They have rather “damned” themselves, as their emails testify: When any scientist chooses to pervert data, manipulate ruling ‘peer-research’ jounals in an attempt to keep opposing views from being presented, actively work to avoid revealing their data, and to actively work to demean valid scientists’ in an effort to make the demeaned work scientifically ‘null and void’ (not to mention degrade their personal and professional reputations). To behave in such a manner totally makes any data they have presented INVALID. Therefore, it must all be repeated, but in a very much more transparent manner.
The bigger and more pressing problem: even by twisting all their data, fudging the computer models, these scientists were still UNABLE to manipulate the data to such a level to enable actually presentable empirical evidence to support AGW. Do you think these scientists would have missed an opportunity if they indeed had empriical data to support their theory? NOT
Now, what I am presenting in this collection of video/papers/a large number of ‘valid’ scientists doing valid, reproducible science is why there is room for major skeptism. The fact of the matter is that there isn’t proof to substantiate CO2 working as a GHG which would cause the necessary amount of warming to occur as one would need if it were to support AGW theory. AND there is a significantly large amount of data which disproves AGW while now pointing science toward a generally more acceptable reason for climate change being a part of a natural CYCLE, and the level of GHG’s present in the atmosphere exist as aerosols which absorb the incoming cosmic rays, resulting in elements which act as seeds for creating new clouds, which then help the earth cool
A more common theory now is that the recent warming during the Last 7 thousand years, or so, is actually a result of percent of global cloud cover. For instance the more recent warming from the past 80 years seems to correlate quite nicely with a decreased percentage of cloud cover, which varies with the level of CRF able to actually enter Earth’s atmosphere (as revealed by 10Be). Which would, if current experimental data concurs, account for why claims that human induced GHG’s actually have not inspired the warming. I remember that the AGW crowd seemed to say that the only thing which could account for the warming woud be CO2 from the industrialization. The new theory says nope, there is another, before now unknown(the past 5 years to be sure, at the very least). And in the least, offers another reason for what might be causing the warming.
NOW, professor Carter’s data is a statement for why this new theory is much more likely, and the evidence provided by scientists like Henrik Svensmark(note: Dr. Svensmark is NOT an isolated scientist) supports a theory which correlates wonderfully with what might be very valid for isolating what actually works as the primary driver of Earth’s climate. Professor Carter’s graphical data going back 6 million years makes it very clear to me where AGW made an initial mistake in their claims: they refused to consider the sun, and/or the picture 6 million years of historical climate data presents. We do owe a partial debt to the AGW cause because it helped stir the scientific pot, as it were.
Nick, please watch both videos from Professor Carter. It might prove very helpful, either way.
Thanks for making me think and do more research on this subject. Michael
Denis, http://www.co2science.org is a great site for anything involving CO2. I believe that they presented a video discussing this very thing.
A brief summary is that a ‘greenhouse’ effect in the context of a gardener, is much different than one would find in the atmosphere. The primary difference is that the atmosphere is an open system and as such is exposed to a tremendous variety of forces, which make it very difficult to use in comparison to the greenhouse one would more normally find in a nursery. This presents a huge problem for scientists trying to prove AGW. In my limited understanding this is precisely due to there being such a large number of variables it makes it impossible for the computer models to accurrately reflect natures reality. That is one reason Dr. Jones et al became so frustrated. Secondly, I have read that an important area which was overlooked was the hugh impact water vapor has on climate temperatures. And another difficultly the AGW camp encountered was the level of credibility to give to positive and negative feedback in our natural system. Some of this rests in undervaluing water, and some rests in overstating in their computer models the [possible positive feedback. The greater the positive feedback, the greater the temperature gain from GHG’s. Almost all scientists seem to be saying it has indeed been over-estimated (and this would include the IPCC scientists). It seems to be the fuel which provided the failure of achieving their ultimate goal.
That is a very quick assessment. I was merely a high school teacher of Chemistry, Biology, and Environmental Biology. I too became attracted to the study because of what I felt were inappropriate declarations that CO2 was toxic and therefore a hazard to our health. What utter Nonsense! I couldn’t believe it. So, I decided to see what the science actually was saying. What I discovered was a master plan which would use CO2 as the reason for a huge catastrophy coming at the human population. And this would allow persons with much power and money to make a huge amount of money, create a one world government, and end up enslaving the world by ‘marketing’ CO2!
At first I was very skeptical about the one world government, untill I heard the Prime Minister of England proclaim that the Copenhagen Convention would set in motion the final steps of just such a system. Scared the heck out of me.
The next thing I discoverd was the
http://www.joannnova.com.au
blog. It had several scientists discussing what they called ETS (?), and this was comparable to Obama’s ‘cap n trade’ legislation, only in Europe and Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. Jo’s site published three pamphlets, the first was ‘The Skeptics Handbook.”
The other two were very good at putting light on the reality of the efforts to create a World Government.
The rest was just an attempt to find good scientific data. I have found that almost all supporters of AGW will mostly attack by trying to bully and/or call you names. My idea was to just treat them as if it were I, because at first all I could find was evidence supporting AGW. Then ‘Climategate’ opened up the portals, and whoosh, the trading on the carbon market went from $30/ton to $0.10/ton. Today I read where India was with-drawing from the UN IPCC. The fraud has been caught, now the question is has it been caught in time. AND that is why I am actively trying to have a voice when ever I hear/read of a person working to support AGW.
I would really enjoy getting my hands on that slimy Al Gore! His net worth has shot up from $2mill when he left office to $200mill now. And he has postioned himself by becoming a partner in a global business which receives money by trading Carbon Credits!
Any way, I do verbally process. I often wish I could process differently (and so does my wife-lol). Good day.
Nick and Michael:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
An interesting, up to date, article from Lindzen.
My uneducated take on it is that yes some warming may be happening due to CO2 but our tiny contribution is not going to cause the catastrophic problems that the IPCC reports suggest.
The fraudulent data sets collected from warmer areas only, the changing of these data sets to make the warming appear greater than it is and the false scare tactics over the years strongly suggests to me that manipulation is the norm.
If this is the case then why?
If catastrophe was imminent why would they need to fudge the results in their favour? I hate being lied to and this appears to me to be one huge lie therefore I do not trust anything they say anymore!
Just a thought.. surely even Lindzen would have used the global temperature data that the CRU compiled? I’m assuming then that any calculations he has done to come to his conclusions could also have been based on fraudulently adjusted data?
Mike said
“I too became attracted to the study because of what I felt were inappropriate declarations that CO2 was toxic and therefore a hazard to our health”
That’s a straw man, created by the denialists to impute misdirection to the true science whilst being hugely bigger misdirectors themselves. Basically, too much of anything can have bad effects (be seen as toxic). CO2′s clearly toxic in excess amounts – an atmosphere of 100% CO2 will kill you within a couple of minutes. It’s also directly toxic to the environment (leaving aside warming concerns) at levels three times current ones. There are very few tipping points known with certainty but one is that when CO2 went past 1000 ppm (three times our current level) in the far past, most of the species in the sea, and many on land, died off – a mass extinction event – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
This type of (already happened so no disputing it)) event is one of the really serious consequences of jacking up atmospheric CO2 levels too high but it is just too academic and doomy for the general public to get a handle on.
In the last few decades, a lunatic yuppie culture has developed where people think their glass is always half full and that “the sun’ll come out tomorra, bet your bottom dollar”. In short, they feel entitled to the excess life and that nothing bad will ever happen because of what they do without thought of the consequences – they are bonkers. Somehow, this mad philosophy has infected people’s judgement so much when thinking about AGW that they go to extraordinary lengths to believe any other theory that reassures them that the observed warming and the increase in CO2 is not down to us but is rather some natural cycle or other.
Have a look at this very recent piece of “all lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” (Paul Simon – “The Boxer”) http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138 from the UK’s Daily Express “CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY”
This is an exquisite example of the Gish Gallop – even the title is a major piece of deceit, carefully crafted to mislead people right from the start.
As far as Bob Carter’s Youtube talk is concerned, I presume you mean this one “Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4″?
Carter is an Australian but has little credibility in the Oz climate science community as stated http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
I can’t believe this man has the nerve to come out with such twisted garbage. I lost count of the straw men, false attributions, inappropriate assumptions and assertions etc etc etc in the first 5 minutes. He is blinding his audience with (pseudo) science, by which I mean he is, for example, taking a simplified graph – often with the scale on the y axis just labelled warmer/colder instead of in degrees – he is then making many false assertions/conclusions in his rhetoric based on his distorted representation of the meanings in the graph. If he realises he is doing it, he is evil – if he doesn’t, then he is stupid. His predominantly deceptive tactic is in what he leaves out of what he is saying – he lies by omission. It is a text book example of the Gish Gallop http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop method of swaying an audience with propaganda like thought. “Gallopers” do it because dismantling their tsunami of bullshit would take maybe ten to a hundred times as long as it takes to make each Gish gallop (if you’re “galloping” an unsophisticated audience who don’t know enough to see through your deceptions and misdirections). Even if there is a knowledgeable person questioning them in the audience, there simply isn’t time to correct more than one or two of the hundreds of deceptive points so the bulk of the audience is left with the idea that the majority of the points must be valid because no-one challenged them!
As far as Svensmark and clouds go, he found a correlation between clouds and cosmic rays – no doubt there is some effect but the correlation has broken down often since the 70′s. http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
His ideas are a potential explanation of a small part of climate forcing but cannot explain the majority effects we have seen over the 20th century. None of the myriad (at least 60) other denialist “alternative explanations” can. Only the inexorable rise in CO2 does.
Nick,
How you do twist things. I am presenting a ‘strawman’ argument? All I am stating, in an attempt to be open, is why I begin to research the issue of AGW. No, strawman there.
Certainly, too much of anything could become bad. But one could expect that any discussion we are having need be kept in the realm of reality. Check the studies Nick, even those on your side of the argument admit they have exposed their computer derived data to a significant “over statement” regarding how much CO2 can be expected to increase in the atmosphere during the next century. You are being rediculous!
I expect you to watch “all four of the videos” by Dr. Carter, and the separate one dealing with the “5 questions.” In regard to the Svensmark, there are six papers marked by my references to “In Svensmark Defense.” Within these six scientific papers you will find the data and narrative to support Svensmark and refute the documents you referenced (and I believe Yu is today more in Svensmarks camp. I could be wrong) But, you will need to READ each of the papers and work out what it means for you.
You stated, “His ideas are a potential explanation of a small part of climate forcing but cannot explain the majority effects we have seen over the 20th century. None of the myriad (at least 60) other denialist “alternative explanations” can. Only the inexorable rise in CO2 does.” I find it amazing you have the gall to reference how climate is so very complex, and filled with a majority of effects. etc. etc but wish us to believe these multiple effects don’t exist when you wish to expound on AGW, and by the very small and comparatively small amount of CO2 growth. Ironic! And there are many things which might be the cause of our increased temp (which has decreased since 1998, even while the amount of CO2 continued to increase. Amazing huh. I guess the basic point here is that you are scientific illiterate?
Sir, The graph used by Professor Carter is legitimate. But even if you have contempt for the x/y labeling you need to understand that to encompass 6 mill yrs of data, expressed so all can ‘see’ it as a ‘representative of the reality, then you are CHOOSING to try to ignore just what the data is saying in regard to global warming alarmists. The reason for the graph is to reveal that the “huge growth in temperature” (in these last 100 years) is really, when taken in context of the history available in the earth, etc, really is NOT that big a deal! And, in analysing the repetitive cycles, one can easily ‘see’ that a definite temperature rise and fall, and rise and fall again, CYCLE has in fact actually functioned on earth through out all time. And you woud note that the high temp in these cycles have many times been much higher than anything we have seen in todays cycle. In fact, history reveals that the temperature actually was greater many times in our past and the most recent was the Midieval Warming Period from 800 to 1300 AD. Funny, there didn’t seem to be any excessive CO2 contributions by humans. Why? Because the industrial age hadn’t yet happened! And, the ice date reveal that the temperature rose before the CO2 level rose, and that by 800 years in advance! Gasp!! Deal With That FACT!
Nick, I have tried to treat you with respect and yet you still try to make my arguments null and void by actions other than proving AGW is going to cause catastrophic events to the earth. Because even before one can have catastrophe there must be evidence that it is really happening. I refer you to the fact that there must be atmospheric warming at BOTH the North and South Poles AND above the Tropics. It is called by both sides in this argument as the “Hot-Spot.” IT Does Not EXist.
If you want to win this argument, all you have to do is get one of your beloved AGWarming Scientist to tell us where the empirical evidence is for this ‘hotspot.’ All actual measurements of real temps reveal that it does NOT exist!
Now NICK, I have supplied you with multiple opportunities to find and view actual scientific web sites ran by valid Scientists. You seem to have decided NOT to fully utilize them. Sad. This is mimicking the self-protective actions of an Ostrich: When confronted with anything which threatens the self-held ideas of how the world surrounding it must operate, rather than dealing with the revelation it simply buries it’s head. And like a very small infant, it seems to be saying, “if I cant see it, it must NOT be there!”
Well NIck, the truth is here. Take your head out of the darkness of your false religion and welcome yourself to reality, please.
Any post other than your providing me with empirical evidence shall go unanswered. Good Day.
Oh, one more thing, by labeling me as a “Gish” type of person only allows YOU to have an excuse to keep from actually looking at, and studying, the evidence offered by any other people. Basically, you act as if the fact that you might be found wrong can actually rip apart the reality you are trying to safe-guard. I, on the other hand, simply seek the truth. If it leads to AGW, then so be it, and If it leads to ‘it is all part of a bigger cycle, that has happened many times before’ great. If the latter happens then there is no need to become a world of people taxed beyond ability to survive as we do today, being kept responsive to what would be a one world government established to provide immense wealth to a comparatively few individuals, and watching my children and grandchildren (as well as yours) be kept slaves to these bitter masters. It seems to make me want to know if I really need to respond to the alarm regarding Al Gore et al, bull.The answer I found was that AGW is a massive swindle. A fraud. ETC. There is also proof in the manner the IPCC has behaved. Pity your head is so deep in the sand you are not even aware of this. However, until there exists empirical proof I shall do all I can to continue to raise the alarm that “We The People” are being sold out! NOT SAVED! Why? MONEY!
Nick: A lot of generalities and rants in your piece, but nothing of value. Please provide at least some evidence of AGW. (Nobody ever does, of course.) Also, if you prefer to call skeptics deniers, then it seems appropriate for (some of us) to identify you as an alarmist, no doubt a member in good standing in the Church of AGW. I guess that also makes you a Gore disciple.
Nobody is claiming that we should wait until CO2 gets to 2 or 3 times what it is today. At the current growth rate there’s plenty of time (do the math), so not a crisis. Incidently, Obama’s science czar, Holdren, not too long ago claimed, among other things, that the earth was in need of more CO2. Perhaps you should inform him of your concern.)
Svensmark’s response, some time ago, to that bogus claim about the failure of the theory in the 70s was that the person making the claim did not understand the theory. I have to go with Svensmark. The 70s data was around before his theory evolved, so he certainly checked against that data as well as other historic data and knows whether and to what extent there may have been some problem areas.
You talk about “oz Science”. For the IPCC, it’s CRUs, and their various (well-paid) affiliates, all involved in criminal acts, “Oz Science” would be a complimentary title.
Mike the strawman related to the argument that CO2 is portrayed by the “warmists” as a pollutant. I pointed out that a lot of things in excess can be seen as a pollutant. The US’s Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the most evil set of deniers on the planet, put out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA a notorious piece of propaganda which finished with the gross phrase of black propaganda “carbon dioxide – some call it pollution – we call it life.” I didn’t say you were introducing a strawman – go back and read what I actually wrote.
In fact you and Dennis Able should also go back and read though my posts again because you haven’t absorbed what I said, which renders most of the relevance of what you say, particularly about Carter and Svensmark irrelevant.
I am reposting the quoted section below from my previous post to show that I absolutely do not, Dennis, need to:“Please provide at least some evidence of AGW. (Nobody ever does, of course.)” I simply am staggered at the nerve or stupidity of those who could post a flat out lie like “nobody ever does etc”! There is mountains of evidence, gigabytes of it posted, printed and published. As I posted before, even major sceptic scientists and darlings-of-the-deniers Lindzen, Spencer and Christy accept that AGW is real, that CO2 is the primary cause and that the increase is primarily down to us. I previously posted a link to Lindzen actually saying this in an article he wrote himself – not just a journalist’s interpretation.
Mike, I refer you to the bit where Lindzen admits that first the globe is warming and that if CO2 continues to increase, that the global average temperature will go up due to AGW – he further acknowledged that the CO2 increase we have seen since the Industrial Revolution is more or less down to us. As you point out, in the paper you mention, his theory just does not think that it will be catastrophic warming. Catastrophic warming is on the low end of the IPCCs probability scale but, as Terry Pratchett wrote, “one in a million chances happen nine times out of ten”.
Incidentally, do you all remember that the denier movement used to claim that there was no measured warming – until the evidence became overwhelming – then they changed their propaganda to claim that the warming would not be significant and now finally they are starting to claim that it’s too late to do anything about it and the best move is to adapt to the coming changes. They simply change their story to whatever is most likely to fool the public using the “useful idiots theory”. Please don’t be sucked in by them.
Nothing changes the basic physics that increasing CO2 will warm the planet. Lindzen has to admit it because the basic physics has been known for well over a hundred years and nothing in the tidal waves of propaganda, deceit and misdirection from the denialist movement (which you lot seem prejudiced to give credibility to) will change that “settled”fact.
Svensmark’s theory *(geddit? THEORY – not measured fact) and just about all of the many other conflicting theories that come up with other explanations for the measured warming has been seriously abused by the denialists to back up their ideology. The deceit is best shown by the following analogy.
Someone on the sea shore watching the water’s edge will see waves coming in and going out. Occasionally there will be periods of bigger waves going further up the beach and then retreating further due to (past) temporary effects of wind etc out in the deep ocean.
These cyclical, variable waves are El Nino, Svensmark’s cosmic rays, PDO, sunspots, ENSO or any of the other cyclical phenomena that denialists seize on to discount or traduce the basic science. What AGW is, is the slow, inexorable change as the water’s edge mark advances up the beach due to the tide coming in. Individual El Nino or cosmic ray waves may crash much further up the beach in a few seconds than the tide advances in half an hour but it’s the tide coming in that will drown you if you don’t move.
It’s true what the scientists say – one can’t argue with a denier – they are in denial of reality. Like an alcoholic who denies they have a drink problem – even if you show them videotape and liver analysis samples.