I don’t know

The Delingpolar One has written about a compelling anti-warmist scoop in the Telegraph blogs this morning.. It’s well worth a read, because yet again it shows how an injudicious (oh alright then, deadly) combo of scientific hysteria, incompetence and hubris can transmute into a shibboleth. Nasty types, those shibboleths: never met a shibboleth I liked. An odd sect. Avoid them at all costs.

More broadly however, my problem with the entire climate debate is that I simply don’t know. If stopped in the street by some earnest clipboarder, I would answer “don’t know” to every question.
The reason I don’t know is because – like absolutely everything today – there are two contradictory and extreme points of view, called “all” and “nothing”. All we DKs are thus invited to tick is one or the other. But we never will, because we don’t know.
Tory v Labour are equally polemic articles of faith, to which I tick “irrelevant”. Because there, you see, I know: 67 years of frittered money and lost opportunities make the data irrefutable.
For United v City, I tick “United”, because while my team has a philosophy and a glorious history, City merely has a lot of money.
For Delingpole v East Anglia Uni I tick “Delingpole” because he is always right about everything, and EAU is clearly full of inane no-hopers who fiddled the data. (A large number of scientists do, and it’s called ‘ego’.)
But Liberal Right-on v Conservative B’stard I tick “neither” (or I would if it was allowed) because both Right-on numpties and B’stards irritate me enormously. And when it comes to the climate debate as a whole, I think there are numpties who, having lost the battle on socialism, are now determined to force everyone to have fifty recycling boxes and use lights that don’t work. But I also know there are B’stards who would like to press on with their earth-rape for all the wrong reasons. And both of them are crooked: they care (respectively) about only local government Unionised jobs, and the shareholders.
Further, Ozone hole v No ozone hole is a big tick for “ozone hole”, and the evidence of toxic sun-stuff  coming through that hole is hard to deny.
Peak oil/gas v Plenty of oil/gas is an even bigger tick for “we’re swimming in the stuff”. Although it’s harder to get at now, new forms are coming onstream. But it suited Obama, the Saudis, the Russians and the oilcos to say we’re running short (for, oh, only about 37 nefarious reasons) so I do know about that one.
Ice is melting v No it isn’t, well, I’m a “Yes it is” chap because you can go and watch it happening fairly easily. The key question of course is “why?” and I’m a don’t know re that burning issue too. Even though it may be cooling as an issue over time.
However, in 50 years the global human population has trebled, and in the last twenty, industrialisation of a ‘dirty’ nature has doubled. So that might have something to do with it. But for the  reason set out in para 2 above, I don’t know. I can’t even write “don’t know for sure”, because that would suggest I’m edging rapidly towards one side or other. But I’m not. I simply don’t know.
That said, I do know that NASA last year took some measurements at the top of the stratosphere, and these showed with alarming ease that the greenhouse effect was at most half as big a problem as had been originally thought.

Do I come out anywhere on all of this? It’s very hard to really, because I know Greenpeace to be cynical Communist liars (at the top); but I also know that every multinational pr corporate I ever met was a sociopath who would blow up the planet to get his or her bonus.
Usually, my bottom line is this: humanity always overestimates its effect and power on and over nature. But if some of this IS our fault, then an insurance policy would be nice.
I’m not sure, because I don’t know.

PS But I’m a tad clearer on this one: The role of  stalemate in three-dimensional Syrian chess.

122 thoughts on “I don’t know

  1. I cannot agree more with post regarding “Man Made Global Warming” er, or as it has benn rebranded, “Man Made Climate Change”

    I find the scientific evidence, particularily wrt the affirmative side is inpenetrably arcane, maybe necesseraliy some or even deliberately so (see I am ambivalent about my doubts) but the riposte from the other side is simpler, more common sense, and to my scientific mind more logical.

    The culprit is, in my opinion, the politicisation of science or, to be more precise, the economic politicisation of the funds for scientific research. The cost of everything the value of nothing springs to mind. So what do you do if you need funds for your particular field? Easy you create a scare story and the 24/24 press and tv will jump at, if it gets themsales or ratings; to Hell with the truth or reality.

    Once on that slippery slope, the scientists are comitted and need to make bigger and bigger cliams which need more and more funds. It is like Goebbels and the big lie; just ramp it up and there is a better chance of it being believed.

    Science, depite what the serial conman AlGore, said is NEVER settled. When I saw Goldman Sachs did with the CO2 derivatives market ( A G is a Director of GS????) and the hyper massive Vat carousel fraud it engendered I smell stinking fish, FFS Co2 is needed by trees, plants to grow. More CO2 is fixed by the algae in the sea than trees but why are we not doing that in warm sea areas and harvesting the dried algae as a fertiliser, animal feedstuff, or oil source?

    Yes there is climate change. The clue to that is in the word climate. Climate changes all the time as it is a consolidation of the weather. The Sahara was not always a big beach and this happened before farting cows, the internal combustion engine and jet travel. The North West Passage existed before Al Gore.

    Are we contributing as a species to the change in climate? Probably yes but how much I am not sure.

    It has all become a substitute religion, based on faith rather than informed debate based or repeatable and verifiable scientific evidence.

    • BtP

      The North West Passage existed before Al Gore.

      It did, only in the past the ships couldn’t get through the ice. Now they can. Something is up, and it can’t be verified by repeatable science: weather doesn’t do “repeatable”.

      • How back are you going? Only as far as European big ship settlement ot a few centuries before and the original Viking settlements in Greenland, when it really was green and European and Amerindian peoples lived side by side?

        Of course weather by its natural variation does not do repeatable and that is my point. To take what is a long term cycle, weather, and ascribe “minor” variations in that to one man made causitive factor is simply a false premis.

      • BtP

        I would still urge caution, especially when big corporations are paying for some of the challenging research. Big Science has an agenda just like everything else: it is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

        Ascriptions to man or not, something is up. If it isn’t us, then we are in real trouble.

      • Gemma –
        The NW passage was first successfully navigated by Roald Amundsen, aboard his vessel Gjöa. He entered the passage through Baffin Bay in 1903; passing by way of Franklin’s route, he completed the passage in 1906. The next successful trip was a 28-month journey made from west to east by Henry Larsen in his ship St. Roch, 1940–42; the return trip took 86 days. Afterward, many vessels, including United States submarines, navigated the Northwest Passage.

        The discovery of oil in 1968 on Alaska’s North Slope resulted the following year in the United States oil tanker Manhattan becoming the first commercial vessel to make the voyage through the passage.

        from:http://history.howstuffworks.com/north-american-history/northwest-passage.htm

      • Alexei

        yup. “The Gjøa was put into a natural harbour on the south shore of King William Island; by October 3 she was iced in. There the expedition remained for nearly two years” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

        The tanker Manhattan was an ice-breaker. I don’t think the vessels travelling in the summertime need to be ice-breakers any longer.

      • I’m sorry Gemma, but you are wrong when you say, “I would still urge caution, especially when big corporations are paying for some of the challenging research.” You are falling for more of the Greenpeace – WWF propaganda. Just take a cursory look at how much money goes on promoting AGW and how much on opposing it. You will find a ratio of hundreds or even thousands to one in favour of AGW depending on what figures you include.

        Aside from that, almost all big corporations now fall over themselves crowing about how ‘green’ they are and you should also note that big oil and big coal are now also big wind and big solar, after all they can spot a gravy train at a 100km.

        Climate is probably the most chaotic physical system it is possible to envisage, and it is little understood despite the billions spent on it. We have no idea what all the drivers of climate are, nor do we know what comparable effect each we do know about has. Climate science is a serious science, but it is akin to medicine in the seventeenth century as far as understanding goes, we are still at the stage of wild and largely irrational guesses and the entirety of predictions based on those guesses have failed to materialise despite intense searching.

        There are two graphs that encapsulate the AGW debate. The first based generally on historical, anecdotal and various forms of commentary and accepted as accurate for around 200 years shows temperatures over the last 2,000 years following a rough sine shape with temperatures above or equal to today during the Roman and medieval periods with intervening cold periods, particularly deep in the 200 years prior to our current warm phase. If you accept this graph, the current climate maximum immediately appears perfectly normal and unremarkable. The second graph concocted by Michael Mann shows an essentially flat 2,000 years of temperature with a sudden and violent uptick during the last 50 years, the so called hockey stick. Long an icon of the CAGW promoters this graph has been roundly and thoroughly debunked as based on selective data and dubious statistics, however if you accept that this reflects reality then one can only assume that CAGW is real and is going to destroy us all.

        If the hockey stick is representative then there could not have been Viking settlers farming in Greenland and the archaeological remains found there must be fictitious, the newspaper reports from the 1930s detailing the unprecedented loss of Arctic ice exposing sand and gravel shoals where there had always been ice before and the open sea ways of the north coast of the USSR must have been propaganda. I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture.

        Like most people, I have no idea what, if any, anthropological effect there is on climate, nor if any such effect is detrimental or positive in the long term. What I can say is that based on the available evidence I see very little chance of AGW being a problem, indeed I would consider an extinction level meteor strike more likely. Admittedly I have an advantage in that I hold a B.Sc degree and can for the most part follow both the science and the statistics involved, as well as like most here rarely looking to the TV or MSM for elucidation.

        One other point that should be raised, particularly in the context of John’s blog. Who benefits from promoting CAGW? When you look at it the answer is everyone except the man in the street who has to pay the bills, literally in our case in the UK. It grants government the right to impose more restrictions and regulation on people, empower governmental organisations, spread tax largess to cronies and expand government. It opens all manner of political and tax funding doors to the likes of Greenpeace and the WWF, generating real geopolitical power and remuneration. It opens vast opportunities for subsidy farming among big corporations. It has the potential to generate vast incomes for financial houses in fees for trading carbon and other permits. It expands the need for ‘scientists’ and ‘research’ providing gravy train grants to keep thousands employed and so on. Everyone a winner except you and me and guess who the biggest winners are, the elites that form the true stakeholders of government. And they get to claim the moral high ground and demonstrate their altruism and piety at the same time.

      • Peter C

        let us get away from the crooks and villains for a moment. If global warming is real, they will suffer along with the rest of us. Indeed they will probably suffer the more because that is when money will be worthless – you cannot eat gold. Midas discovered that a long time ago. It remains a fact. If you have food, you will want to keep it for the wintertime and not sell it for metals that you will have no use for.

        Climate is probably the most chaotic physical system it is possible to envisage, and it is little understood despite the billions spent on it. We have no idea what all the drivers of climate are, nor do we know what comparable effect each we do know about has.

        Climate and weather are made the harder by using “modern” scientific methods. What is needed here is a science that is inclusive of such seemingly irrational things as the weather. This can be done, but only if the appropriate manner of thinking is also used. That means the demands of evidence and logic cannot be held: by the time you have the evidence, it is too late. You have to be able to think outside the box on this one – and that means right outside, not at its outer limits where you think you are outside but are really still inside. (Read Chuang Tzu for more).

  2. The climate debate is funny if you think of it as cancer… if you went to a doctor, and he gave you a diagnosis of cancer… you would go to another, maybe even two for a second opinion. So why… after having been told by 99 doctors in a row that you have cancer why would people even listen to the one out of a hundred doctors that tell you it’s actually just upset stomach? Denial and amnesia are powerful human defense mechanisms… and it seems that when it comes to species extinction events that can’t be stopped, and would require a complete and immediate reversal of every single thing about our lives… people decide to believe the 1% of Exxon funded “science” that is out there… even the biggest climate change denying scientist, funded by the Koch brothers, the biggest sponsors of climate denial “research” (of American coal burning fame) cannot deny their own scientific findings that is why the recent story’s about the converted scientist. Ultimately… even if the science is a little off… with the future of human life on earth hanging in the balance… why are we risking it? People are stupid, lazy, and will deny something they can’t face or control. Now that the permafrost under Siberia is melting and releasing 900 gigatons of methane from below the earths surface… the process will move MUCH faster… so proof is coming in quickly… just last week, the surface ice of Greenland melted 97% in just 4 days… and a Grand Canyon size crevasse has split almost the entire North Pole in two from melting… confirmed by satellite imaging. These things have never happened have never happened… if you also add the fact that recent findings show that 30% of the worlds ocean are becoming too acidic… it’s a problem with about 1 billion people either getting food or work from the oceans wild life.

    • “… just last week, the surface ice of Greenland melted 97% in just 4 days”

      You might like to investigate further; your sentence above is hysterical nonsense ; “melted 97%” of what?
      The inference that the average ignoramus might take from your mis-statement could be cause for alarm.
      Apparently you have been badly affected.

      • It was 97% of the surface AREA, not 97% of the surface ice which is up to 2 miles thick! Surprisingly (not), the ice is still there, as no doubt will be this erroneous statistic for some time to come.

        And it has happened before, every 150 years, the last time in 1889 as the main researcher says, so hardly never before or unprecedented. And no-one can claim that the previous events were due to CO2.

        There are clear indications that the problem with using satellite imaging in places like the Arctic is that it can’t differentiate between surface melt (with ice underneath) and open water. So what may appear to be increased melting of the ice is not so when looked at from ground level. And anyway in summer the extent of the ice always reduces and increases again through the winter. That’s hardly science, just common sense.

        Cherry picking info to support an assertion is just that, cherry picking. It doesn’t PROVE anything. Calling people dumbass doesn’t help either and actually shows YOU didn’t read what the main researcher said before making your assertion. Maybe you should consider what else in your argument has cherry picked by your 99% then you may understand why some people prefer to make up their own minds.

    • http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/26/msm-finally-questions-unprecedented-nature-of-greenland-ice-melt/

      There is too much tax take been forged about the ‘climate change’ issue and too many people and organisations are making fortunes over it. If there were a real crisis – then making a profit would be the last thing on anyones minds.
      If an Asteroid was belting through space to deliver an impact of global proportions – would governments really be hiking the tax take in order to apply a fix – and subsidising profiteering companies and people in order to get something in place to deflect the incoming ? No they would not be giving a stuff about how it was all going to be paid for ! They would just get the fook on and build the proposed solution with co-operating nations across the world supplying resource where needed.
      I cannot accept that the cure for this is good for mankind (expensive and unreliable energy supply). Only the chosen ones (as per usual) will see any benefit from the ‘cure’. Nice however to be able to say that ‘we fixed it’ if nothing ever happens as predicted………good story line for a few movies…….nothing more :)

  3. I’ve been following all this for about 15 years and it is interesting to see how politicised the dabate has become. However if you are independent thinker and have a basic grasp of science and numbers, and indeed politics and human nature, then you can form your own opinions very quickly.

    My personal take is that the scientists can’t agree on either the science or even the basic numbers, there have been many bad predictions and missed forecasts, the IPCC has been proved be have been hijacked and even basic data has been falsified. Anyone questioning this is termed a “denier” to put them in the same camp as say a Nazi-Apologist. Climate change is big business and the new religion.

    There has been a long term slight warming trend which may be partially due to human industrialisation. Measures to combat this are broadly hysterically costly and inappropriate. See Nigel Lawson’s book for an insurance policy. Bottom line is human civilisation tends to do better in warm periods than cold periods. And CO2 is plant food, not poison!

    Plenty of blogs where this is debated at length. IMHO I hope I live long enough to see the whole scam comprehensively debunked.

  4. There is a real problem when it comes to the weather. It simply does not do evidence. Evidence is the kind of thing the Military need: you can turn a tank on it.

    Weather, like plants, can be coaxed. Hit a plant over the head (so to speak) with artificial fertilizers and you have a plant that is weakened. Understand how this happens and you have your first step outside the box.

    There is one thing I will say about the weather: it ain’t normal.

    What is this “normal”? Well, Europe doesn’t really have “normal” weather, does it. The moreso in Britain! But it does have a character. Furthermore, the character of June’s weather – nasty storms – is in anyone’s reckoning not normal.

    Whatever has caused this, it is difficult to change.

    The problem with “evidence” – especially in the lively world of weather – is that when you have the incontrovertible evidence, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is one big opportunity for the likes of Reagan and his cronies – and one sore problem for those who possess some morals.

    If the source is human activity, we can do something about it – if not, then we really are stuffed!

  5. Let”s hear it for acknowledged ignorance. I read something similar ages ago by someone who didn’t know if Britain should join the Euro zone. Quite right, most of us don’t know, and we should leave it to those who have a clear view and understanding to advise. Those people who do so honestly and without a political agenda are of course, hard to find.

    On global warming, I simply note that we are burning fuel that has been stored in the Earth over millions of years, feeding the energy as heat into the biosphere. We are held at a temperature of about 295 degrees above absolute zero by a balance of absorbing heat from the sun and radiating it out to space at the same rate. You can’t expect to add extra heat to this system and not expect the Earth to warm up a bit. And 5 degrees average warming over 295 is a very tiny bit.

    • Mark
      the problem is that “5 degrees average warming over 295″ may be “a very tiny bit”. However, it might be significant.

      By the time we know for sure, it will be too late to do anything about.

      • What would you propose we do about it?

        The answers are, of course, obvious…

        We stop driving vehicles for non-essential purposes (so no private cars). We stop flying large jet aircraft, except for essential flights (diplomatic, military and government, broadly). We stop burning fossil fuels for power generation (kiss goodbye to mains electricity at 100+ Amps supplied capacity – you now have 15A total to play with, the internet (it’s a HORRENDOUS power hog, taken globally!)), washing machines, dishwashers, etc. We bulldoze every city on Earth and return people to a semi-agrarian lifestyle; except that model can only support about one fifth of the current global population, so we best herd the rest into the incinerators toot sweet!

        If you’re convinced that man-made climate change is real, then fine. Myself, I’m with John.. I dunno. I’ve researched it independently and the ‘official’ figures have clearly been massaged to further the agenda of the politicians, corporations and scientists involved. As have the figures of the ‘deniers’. So with no reliable data to go off, either way, all you can reasonably left with is… “I don’t know!”

        But given the incredible drop in living standards the entire world would have to undergo (not the elite, of course) to even begin to address the problem, if indeed it can be proven (with reliable numbers!) to exist, well… Myself, I’d be fine. I have the skill-set necessary to thrive in a world with those limitations, as does most everyone in a developing country. 99.9% of the population in the First World, however, do not. And it takes years to learn them.

        No easy answers, are there?

      • Woodgnome… if the data is even remotely correct… in the course of the next 30 – 50 years, skill sets of any kind won’t be helping anyone, anywhere… heading for the hills will not suffice because even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions (which we can’t know that earth is in a negative loop and it is so warm that it melts methane in ice which adds more heating and so on)… ther is still another 60 years worth of built up gases sit right underneath the ozone… we already know it is stripping the ozone layer in areas… who can tell wher that will stop? one thing for sure… best case scenario an EMP takes out the worlds electrical capacity and we no longer produce warming gases… it will still get worse for at least another 60 years before it gets better.

      • Woodie

        I happen to agree with Ioannis, I would like to add that if people get used to a lower standard of living now, it might just help a little.

        For one thing, it will guard against what might happen – and if it does not, then what is the problem? Just because you don’t have as much money does not mean you won’t be as happy – it does mean that you will be planting cabbages rather than shooting soldiers in an online game.

        Look around you and try to find something that has not been mass-produced. Just one thing. Then realize how dependent your lifestyle is on modern industry. Remember in the 1930s most things would be made by hand – and when we moved to South Africa in the late 70s practically everything on the farm was handmade. The lorry and ploughs excepted. That situation changed very quickly. Oh, and there was running water when you used the pump – that was the amenity. Moving from a modern Asian city, it was a real culture shock.

      • @Woodgnome. The Amish people get by very comfortably without the technology we seem to think is essential.

  6. Goldman Sachs is the creator of the carbon credits scam. Anything they touch is bound to be toxic and not for the benefit of their fellow man. The Financiers have already suborned the Economics profession to support their false neo -liberal de-regulation philosophy.
    I see the same game plan at play here, they subvert the Science community with grants and sinecures to promote a false doctrine, Not to forget the culpability of the Mainstream press to promote this propaganda.
    They reckon the carbon credit scam will be the biggest one of all. In effect it captures the pockets of every taxpayer on the planet when he pays his utility bill and the increased cost on manufacture.
    A suitable cynical position is best maintained on this issue. QUESTION TO BE ASKED.? WHO IS MAKING MONEY FROM THIS,, WHO PROMOTES THIS DOCTRINE, WHO BENEFITS. WHO PAYS.
    answers on a postdcard.

    • The only one’s making money off of manipulating climate science are BP, Exxon Mobil, coal producers, etc. and as far as taxes from regular folks… these companies get more taxes from you pockets in the form of government tax rebates and subsidies than you are even being told about.

  7. There are only two questions I have that relate to factors which will impact on the ability of humankind to survive in relation to climate, given that as far as I know no-one has yet presented the case that climate doesn’t and won’t change over time.

    i) Is the climate going to change to warmer or colder temperatures?
    ii) Is that change effected in any meangful way by human activity?

    Given that we have *scientists* and *experts* arguing both extremes to both questions I don’t see how anyone can be certain of anything in relation to the whole, including scientists themselves.

    Stating the obvious I know but doing nothing is probably not an option so we need to assess the relative merits of all the arguments as best we can. What we rely on to do that is what sets us apart.

    Since this whole AGW stuff started my observations has led me to doubt the pro side because of their tactics, personnel and methods. But I could be wrong, after all just because you have a huge amount to gain by misrepresnting the truth about something, it doesn’t mean you are lying about the whole because you have gained and you have lied about parts. But then I try to avoid extremes (bankers and politicians being put on trial being my exception).

    What is more worrying to me is that more than several such experts are predicting extreme and global cold which I suspect will kill far more people, far more quickly than heat, if all the preparations continue to be made to ready us for heat, which doesn’t result.

    My answer would be to prepare for both, which given that most manufacturers of goods they intend to sell worldwild already do routinely, wouldn’t be impossible. Payment could be provided by all the funds currently being collected and spent on attempting to stop something which appears unstoppable. (But then, even that last sentence is likely to attract dissent.)

  8. Gemma

    Were are singing from the same hymnsheet, despite the fact that I accept Darwin’s theory of evolution rather than the Sky Pixie one.

    I agree that it in a case representing the possibility of our species being rendered nul and void, we must err on the side of caution.

    I really don’t care who pays for the science research so long as it eveidential based, reproduceable, the method used is published as well as the raw data set and extravagant claims are not made from it, unless they are really justifiable. That is not the case on some of the core studies used to hype the debate from one side.

    Science and scientific logic does not have a perceptual bias, it is or must be neutral. It is no longer so, because of the corrupting effect of the source of funding, on both sides.

    We are badly served by this.

    • BtP

      the knub of the problem here is your need for “science research so long as it eveidential based, reproduceable,” Weather simply won’t comply with the strictures of modern, logical science. It has its own ways, and you must allow for that. Each weather pattern is unique. Understand this, and you will find logic undermined.

      Logic requires repeatability. The weather will not do this for you. You either come up to its level, or you have nothing.

      As to logic: from which culture are you speaking? My point is that you can have logic just as long as you all agree the fundamental premises upon which it is founded. That is why you have such problems with weather science – do you “buy” what the scientists who are paid by the industrial concerns, or do you “buy” what the scientists from extremist groups say? Each is logical, each is different. It depends on your point of view. The logic follows from there – after all, logic can do only this for logic has no choice other than “yes” or “no”. I am saying that science and scientific logic have a perceptual bias. That you do not see this is neither here nor there, because most people do not see their own bias. I am an outsider on this blog because my perceptual bias is different from yours.

      • Never mind what you buy and what you don’t buy the incompetents (CRU/UEA) and charlatans (MANN et al) have not been maintaining the raw data (and cannot even reproduce their fudging) and have been producing bogus analyses.

  9. ‘Dont know’ is just a huge cop out…..its like not accepting cigarettes cause lung cancer because theres ‘no proof’…….thats a situation that prevailed for 20 years or so until most right minded people just put 2 and 2 together……some things are too important to have to wait for 100% conclusive proof…..by then we will all be dead or at the very least impoverished

    • Depend on which side the ‘right minded’ people you agree with as to whether they are ‘right minded’ people though, does it not ?

      Science requires PROOF before anything can be accepted as unquestionable. To declare ‘the science settled’ when there is a certain amount of disagreement is obviously trying to distort the subject towards your sort of ‘right minded people’. Saying it is so – does not make it so ! And following the money often reveals a vested interest in ‘inconclusive truths’ being promoted as facts. As to smoking – there is no proof – but it is advantageous to increase taxes (for political self benefit) for your own good………..if you follow the money…….. politicians love being able to buy your vote with your own money, to maintain their own position.

      • @Morningstar – As to smoking – there is no proof. Quite. There no proof for second-hand smoke either. But are diesel engines being banned? **proven** to be the equivalent of secondary smoking (under certain circumstances) LOL – It’s a joke, I’ve planted my own tobacco plants – now awaiting some warming so they grow! :)

    • mattej

      Actually I have been very interested in some of the comments – very revealing of personalities in some cases – which have given me a much better understanding of where some commentators are coming from.

      M.

    • @Mattej

      I may be wrong but I didn’t think this Blog was about AGW, rather it was about ‘not knowing’, as rational, intelligent human beings faced with the ‘evidence’ presented, by various *interested parties* but using the best (although contentious) example as subject matter.

      It is difficult to discuss that aspect though without referring in some degree to AGW.

  10. My Dear Slogger, With 40 years post PhD R&D experience I set out post ClimateGate to establish the truth about climate science. It’s a very clever fraud based on 5 items of incorrect physics. it started in the mid 1980s when Enron funded Gore and Hansen for carbon trading. The neat bit was to cover it with Marxism [Hansen wants a Chinese communist type US government], so it was dressed up in green clothes.

    There can be no CO2-AGW because it enters IR ‘self-absorption’ by ~200 ppmV. The positive feedback is created by putting in 5 times real IR into the models and offsetting it by exaggerated cloud cooling. The sunlit oceans evaporate more – a very clever trick.

    Correct the faulty aerosol physics from Sagan which is purported to prove the warming is hidden by global dimming and the story is complete.

    • Turned Out Nice

      so tell me: why was the weather in June so awful?

      What about the methane from the permafrost, what is this going to do to the climate? After all, if it isn’t our fault there is nothing we can do about it, right?

    • @ton. I don’t understand a word but I get the gist. My own philosophy is that it behoves us to treat our planet with the utmost respect and not expect her to mop up our filth. That can only be sustained for so long, surely.

    • turnedoutnice this stuff was in my degree course at uni in 1978 and the basic proposition of rising CO2 and the greenhouse effect was already several years old at that point, so it didn’t all start in the mid 80s. Can you provide a link to a paper setting out the errors you’ve identified. Also what about methane a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2? As far as I can tell the basic science was settled nearly 40 years ago, its just the human influence part thats controversial. And JW thats not a don’t know, its a don’t know how much. Clearly there is a whole load of scamming associated with AGW but thats the way our western civilisiation works from advertising (one of the worse plagues of our consumer society) through to built in obsolescence. Your no growth economy thoughts the other day suggested you were thinking more radically, but your belief that we are swimming in oil and gas suggests you need to refine your metaphors. Paddling in a temporary puddle would be more like it.

  11. We may not know how our actions affect the climate so we might as well behave as if we do have some effect.
    For example, visit a factory where they make disposable batteries and notice how many thousands they produce every minute. Then consider that for every one of those batteries one must be out there somewhere being thrown away on a rubbish dump. And it’s packed with toxic chemicals.

  12. Yeah… the vast majority of scientists that believe in global warming are actually evil Marxists, collaborating their tens of thousands of individual scientific findings with the express goal of creating a carbon trading scheme to make Al Gore rich… 98% of scientists are evil, communist enslavers of the world… and the 2 % (funded by oil and coal co’s) are the only ones telling the truth. 98 out of a hundred doctors tell you it’s cancer but the 2% have to be right because the other 98% just want to make money off treating you for cancer you don’t have… the inanity is smothering.

    • Ioannis

      “the vast majority of scientists that believe in global warming are actually” … just doing their job.

      The problem we face today is finding the honest brokers here. That goes for banks, politicians and businessmen. Oh, and scientists too – who may be scrupulously honest but chosen for their held point of view which affirms someone else’s agenda.

      That it is inane is a real problem. It is a very real form of evil.

      • Like I said denial and amnesia are the two biggest forms of mental/emotional self defense mechanisms… like someone who has witnessed a horrible atrocity will completely block it from their memory to unconsciously protect themselves… regular folks staring at the end of civilization and species extinction are just choosing NOT to believe (or in most cases, even think about it… effectively, VOLUNTEERING to avoid the subject because of it’s impending danger)… they just can’t handle it.

      • Others are just denying it outright and rabidly seeking out sources (no matter how few or questionable) to provide some alternate reality that is more easily digested for them…

      • Denial and amnesia are very powerful forces. It helps when you have to do a job you don’t like doing because you have a family to feed … yet that very job is affecting their future.

    • @Ioannis:
      No, they’re probably not Marxists but they’re all Lefties.

      The global warming scam began under Blair’s premiership by the bossman of the UK Met Office. He was appointed by Blair and has known connections to Friends of The Earth (ie a Lefty org). The top scientist at the East Anglia Uni is another member of FoTE (another Lefty). The IPCC unit at the UN was created and fully £funded by the Blair Govt without the UK taxpayer ever being informed.

      There are many other factoids in this saga which all strongly point to the whole AGW nonsense being yet another socialist scam, initially led by the quasi-fascist Tony Blair. He is a very dangerous man and should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

      • I agree. The very people that created our consumerist fossil fuelled way of life for maximum profits, using the continual unsustainable expansion of credit, resulting in the financial meltdown that we now face. Are the same bunch that want to blame the masses for the destruction of the planet, global climate change. Their objective is abject poverty and neofeudalism using the enviromental lobby(useful idiots) and Sustainable Development as the vehicle to sell it to the masses.
        I live in Edinburgh, and the council has a very nice sounding web page dedicated to “Sustainable Development”. They intend on reducing the carbon footprint of the city by a massive 50% by the year 2020. Theres a lot of positive sounding rhetoric with associated pictorial representations, but its ambiguous with no action plan. In all the lovely photographs and pictures associated with this promotion, there are no vehicles of any description to be seen. The coming financial disaster will give them what they need to fulfill all their requirements I fear!

      • BT it didn’t become a global warming scam until the oil companies like Exxon started a pr campaign against it much like the rear guard action fought by the tobacco companies. Campaigns based on a desire to protect profits rather than any interest in the science or potential impact on humanity. It seems easy these days to mess up respect for any profession and create confusion if you have the advertising and pr budget. The whole carbon credits fiasco was designed to help these guys keep polluting at a price. Your description of Tony Blair getting into bed with big business to screw cash out of this as quasi fascist is a good one. It must be discomforting to know the tory cabinet is right in there too.

        One of the problems with all the “lefty ” environmental organisations like Greepeace and FoE, is that they sold out their principles years ago and became corporate bitches led by people pretty much indistinguishable from the captains of industry. I don’t think this is socialism, its certainly reprehensible but probably just plain old human greed.

      • Sorry… first report I found on global warming dates back to the 1950’s (US) so… I think the whole “scam” as you put it pre-dates Blair by like 40 years. Additionally… I hope all these conspiracy theories (lacking any proof at all) will comfort you… if the majority of climate scientists turn out to have been right. Species extinction… not really a subject I feel comfortable gambling on. I hope your right… I would just feel more comfortable if as much research debunking warming existed as does proving it’s real.

      • @PhilE: “…it didn’t become a global warming scam until the oil companies like Exxon started a pr campaign against it…

        Phil, this is utter nonsense. It was ALWAYS a scam…from Day One.
        Big Oil only ran a campaign to counteract the bollix being spewed out by the Left which risked damaging the business. That is the chronological sequence of events, not as you now portray them in your rewritten version of history.

        If (repeat IF) the underlying issue of so-called AGW is *pollution* (atmospheric and otherwise) as the Left keep telling us, and that we need to pay more taxes to fly and higher taxes for gasoline etc etc, WHY has the Left done nothing to progress the development of new, clean, cheap energies? Surely that would be real progress. And WHY has the Left done nothing about improving the nation’s mitigation against the downsides of global warming by enhancing our national drainage infrastructure and flood defences etc etc? When the evidence to support AGW became increasingly discredited, WHY did the Left suddenly switch to using the term Climate Change, a much more general term which has been going on for approx 4.6 billion years?

        The answer is very simple: they don’t believe their own propaganda and know darned well that it’s all about justifying more taxes and more power and control over society. The Left have always hated the motor car because it represents personal freedom and liberty (individualism), something which is anathema to the Left’s collectivism (the bus).

        Please get real :-)

        On Blair screwing cash out of [whoever] … I don’t recall making such a comment. But to understand Blair one needs to understand fascism (let’s call it corporatism). I have long said that all political parties have been running a form of corporatism in Britain for years. In fact the British State has long been a corporatist state even when the Tories are in office. The difference is one of scale. Eg: I see the likes of Ofcom as an attempt to distance the State from industry to give the appearance of independence, but in practice it’s little different from when Hitler & Mussolini had henchmen on the boards of the big industrialists to provide state guidance. Ofcom seems to me to be mostly concerned with keeping BT in profit as the national telecomms flag bearer and allows it to rip off consumers endlessly.

      • @Ionnais: You don’t understand facts too well, so here’s a couple for you to chew on:
        1. The global warming scam started in Britain under the Blair Govt.
        2. Blair had created and funded the IPCC unit at the UN for several years (Brit taxpayers may still be funding it, I dunno).

        HTH :-)

      • 1953 — May 4 — Gilbert N. Plass presents paper on global warming at American Geophyical Unioin. The Washington Post story (May 5) says:

        World Industry, pouring its exhausts into the air, may be making the earth’s climate warmer, a Johns Hopkins physicist, reported here yesterday. Releases of carbon dioxide from burning coals and oils, said Dr. Gilbert N. Plass, blanket the earth’s surface ‘like glass in a greenhouse.’ So much carbon dioxide has been released in this industrial century that the earth’s average temperature is rising 1 1/2 degrees (F) a century, he said. Similar but more naturally caused changes in the air’s carbon dioxide content may account for the ice ages and warm intervals in geologic time, he added… Latest experimental and theoretical calculations, he reported, show that doubling the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere causes surface temperatures to rise four degrees (F) if no other changes occur. But, he added, still other earth warming factors mahy also be triggered by increased carbon dioxide in the air. It could cause less rainfall by its effect on the clouds and less cloud cover for the earth,’ both tending to make the climate warmer and drier,’ he said. Dr Plass said the newer calculatios bolster the theory first proposed in 1861 that decreases in the carbon dioxide content of the earth’s atmosphere caused the ice ages in geologic history. The theory, he said, has not generally been accepted because the effects ‘appeared to be too small.’ It appears now, he said, that even the physicists supporting the theory underestimagted the climate-changing effects of the carbon dioxide content in the earth’s atmosphere. (“Industrial Gasses Warming Up Earth, Physicist Notes Here,” Washington Post, May 5, p. 5, probably by Nate Haseltine).

        http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/envhist/7forties.html

        Gad yer thick… I was doing research papers in the 1980’s about Greenhouse gas warming… I assume Blair was a sperm somewhere at the time… at least use Google or something before you blabber like a fool

      • @Gemma: Not in the UK it didn’t. First we heard of it from the pols was Mr Blair and his cronies. I don’t dispute the concept of global warming may have arisen years ago, but then so did the concept of global cooling.

      • Ioannis:
        Since you’re so occupied with when the global warming scam began, perhaps you’d like to produce a list of UK govt policies put in place to deal with it before Mr Blair came along. (you can do the same for the US if you like). And then perhaps you’d like to provide the name of the UN organisation that preceeded the IPCC who’s job was/is to provide reams of solid scientific data to convince a sceptical public and also to co-ordinate global policy action against global warming. Finally, please provide the name of the carbon trading market that preceded the current one. All of this information has obviously slipped my memory :-)

      • BT… nope, I won’t spend my time doing your research… I will be happy in the knowledge that I have already proved you wrong about the basis of your comments… effectively displaying your ignorance about the subject. You don’t get to change the subject or lead me down your rabbits hole of guided questions that lead to your erroneous beliefs… you can spin around in your own mental cage… like I said, according to deniers, the whole climate science community in the world starting with US researchers in 1953 are Marxist commies that have been crafting and promoting this climate fraud to separate people from their gasoline fueled freedoms and carbon tax the world into enslavement… right.

      • Also… I am not the one that was fixated (and wrong) about when the Global warming paranoid fantasy “scam” started… you were.

      • BT As has been pointed out by Ioannis this area of science goes back to the 50s. To explain my point, it didn’t become a scam until it was branded as such by the oil companies many years after climate science had developed the greenhouse theory. To believe it was conceived as a scam by scientists all over the world who worked on this in an earlier era before “pure” scientific research was corrupted by the Thatcher/Reagan insistence on applied research generating immediate cash benefits, is in my opinion delusional thinking. The reason no governments have pursued cheap clean energy is because there are no tenable areas to pursue, to think otherwise in the face of decades of failure is magical thinking. Sorry for using the terms delusional and magical, I meant bollocks. The reason why governments are not doing anything to mitigate global warming effects, like sea level rise are because they are expensive and forecast to be occurring over the next 100 years. They have other serious priorities at the moment, like trying to get re-elected. Lets see what the greenland icecap looks like over the next 20 years.

      • @Ioannis: “I won’t spend my time doing your research
        Thankyou for confirming that you’re an absolute idiot who doesn’t understand plain English. I will waste no more time with you.
        HAND :-)

        @PhilE: “As has been pointed out by Ioannis this area of science goes back to the 50s. To explain my point, it didn’t become a scam until it was branded as such by the oil companies many years after climate science had developed the greenhouse theory.

        I have NEVER disputed when global warming theories first appeared. Is that clear? If you understand that, then you’re way ahead of our Greek friend @Ioannis who still doesn’t get it after three attempts {sigh}.

        But I still disagree with your view on the scam issue.
        My meaning of the *scam* is when GW/AGW was picked up by politicians and used/abused to create whole new lines of taxation and politics of fear government. That was Blair & Co as I have amply explained in these threads. Prior to that I guess GW was simply a matter of scientific research and debate (like global cooling was if you remember that nonsense).

        I am now out of this thread.

      • Changing the terms of a debate in the middle of it… sign of a failed argument… backtracking. Nice try…

      • Resulting to insults… sign of a weak mind, when you make baseless, factually wrong statements and someone calls you on it… change the ssubject and insult the person that proved you wrong… you are pathetic.

  13. I need a box marked for ” I don’t even know if I don’t know or not”. I’d tick that box. Dellingpole on the other hand I do know about. He is wrong about everything and when he’s right it’s because he’s lying. And has a face I’d never tire of punching.

    • I need a box marked for ” I don’t even know if I don’t know or not”. I’d tick that box.

      You aren’t allowed fluffy thinking in a world where logic says you have a “yes” or “no” answer to everything.

      • @Gemma. Right on the money there. Sadly for those who think in straight lines but happily for me the world is a fuzzy place, a place where it is entirely possible to have yes and no, also yes+no co-existing. Nature doesn’t need any scientist to explain itself to itself.

  14. Little comment on the mendacity of the keepers of the data.

    Of course there is climate change – with (deliberately?) fudged data (and processes) we have no idea of the magnitude or rate of these changes. This is starting to change with interest and input from people from other diciplines applying some scientific method.

    The crew at CRU/UAE were (initially) just sloppy and incompetent but without any significant statistical expertise. They didn’t even maintain their un-adjsuted data.

    Once the “political” interest ramped up they had to go with the flow.

    Once people started to request the raw data for re-analysis and their working processes they were sunk.

    Parallel here with fixing the LIBOR rate.

    Why haven’t heads rolled?

  15. JW,

    Surely you should of added, re Man U a shed load of debt along with their history.

    I confess, I am in the Chelsea greenhouse for fans so chuck away

  16. Climate changes – it’s a fact. history, archaeology and geology tell us so.
    So the big climate Change Debate reduces to the following:
    Q – How much of the current perceived (and hotly disputed) climate change is anthropomorphic?
    A- Some, probably.
    Q. What proportion?
    A. I don’t know, but then neither does anybody else for sure.

    The real point is that the Big Climate Change debate is a giant testicular distraction from the lunatic idea of eternal growth in a finite world.
    concomitant dirty industrialisation and population growth means that we will die from lack of energy, food, potable water or clean air long before any ‘Day After Tomorrow’ scenario plays out.
    Homo F*ckin Sapiens. Extinction’s too good for ‘em.

  17. John and all the others. Manmade global warming, induced by man’s emissions of Carbon Dioxide is bollox. And there has never been a scientific consensus, only a political one

    Firstly what we know: Our climate is always changing, has done for about 4.5 billion years. We do know we are currently in an ice age (the determining criteria being permanent ice at the poles) which has been going for 2 million plus years. We also know that every 100,000 years or so we have an interglacial where the temperature rises and the glaciers retreat. These interglacials on average last about 10 to 15 thousand years. Our current interglacial has lasted over 10 thousand years. We know that ice ages are NOT the normal climate for earth, it is usually much warmer, but a combination of the solar systems position in the milky way and having a land mass over one or more poles could be the factors that keep the ice present.

    What we don’t know is exactly how the atmosphere works. Notions that the atmosphere works like a greenhouse with CO2 controlling it are naive at best and ludicrous at most. There has never been any empirical data to back up the theory.

    Now to WUWT and Anthony Watts: Because you can’t prove AGW it follows you can’t disprove it easily. And if the political class accept the bollox you are left with trying to pick apart various aspects. Watts chose the instruments used to record the temperature in the USA. And he demonstrated they were not fit for purpose. His current paper is a follow on from that work.

    Many of our weather stations are fit for giving us weather reports, but inadequate for the purpose of measuring climate. This is evidenced by the number of stations that were once in the country and are now surrounded by urban development.

    If you accept that scientific rigor has not been applied to the temperature record then it follows that other areas could do with examination. The CO2 record is one that I’m suspicious of, and the other area where we have been let down badly is the scientific societies that were more interested in getting their noses in the trough than being scientific.

    But most horrific for the average man in the street has been the chronic waste of money especially the on-going waste on renewable energy. Solar cells have their place, which is not producing power for the grid. Windmills are just useless and technology from a bygone era. Even nuclear energy from uranium is a technology we should ditch. Using thorium is far better, cleaner and safe. It’s difficult to know which has been the worst scandal to afflict our world, the political banking mess or the political climate change scam. But one thing is for sure; at the heart of it are the same cretins.

    • Exactly. If you’re a scientist you need to have reliable apparatus. If temperature is your area of study that would seem to imply a thermometer whose output is valid. The Watts study was a convincing demonstration of the unreliability of the temperature record as a consequence of unsatisfactorily sited thermometers. Any arguments from untrustworthy data will likewise be untrustworthy.

  18. pollution is bad – I get that.

    but a couple of small points that may escape the unwary

    1 – thin ice at the pole is not new – we can discuss the Vikings in Greenland of course – but how about more recent evidence from the ’50’s -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)

    2 – what does oil extraction from the North Slope have to do with the price of fish? Oil is transported to Valdez via the Alyeska Pipeline – not by tankers – ice-breaking or otherwise!

    3 – Did you know “The Slope” is an arctic desert? If you see Greenpeace videos showing wild mountain ranges and acres of forest they are lying.

  19. [Jul 29}: 250 YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING: Berkeley Earth Releases New Analysis

    According to a new Berkeley Earth study released today, the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by 1.5 °C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions.

    Together with their most recent results and papers, Berkeley Earth also released their raw data and analysis programs. They will be available online at BerkeleyEarth.org on July 30.The new analysis from Berkeley Earth goes all the way back to 1753, about 100 years earlier than previous groups’ analyses. The limited land coverage prior to 1850 results in larger uncertainties in the behavior of the record; despite these, the behavior is significant.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-press-release-july-29.pdf

    • Correlation is NOT causation. This is the trap that the unwary and most of the population who, let’s face it, are not inclined to spend the time learning the science so they can understand it fall into.

      CO2 is at a historically low level in the atmosphere at 400 ppm. Originally it made up most of the atmosphere as it still does on Venus. But the earth is very different to Venus. For one we have a large moon which we believe keeps the core molten and this is why we have a magnetic field. It also probably gave us a thin crust which is why we have plate tectonics. Our planet lives and recycles itself. So now the majority of the CO2 has been recycled with the help of liquid water into carbonate and other types of rocks. Now only just enough CO2 exist for plant to grow.

      Back in the days of the dinosaurs CO2 was a large proportion of the atmosphere. We can deduce this for two reasons. It was needed to support rapid plant growth to feed monster animals, and it contributed to a much higher atmospheric pressure. We know this for 2 reasons. The flying dinosaurs could not fly in today’s atmosphere, and the large dinosaurs would not have been able to support themselves in today’s atmosphere. Bit like a blue whale out of water. Not only this, it would have been impossible for them to pump blood to their head.

      Sometimes we have to step back a bit and join up the thinking. When we do it becomes apparent that the theory that the puny amount of CO2 that enter the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels as compared to what nature turns over controls the temperature is simply preposterous. We didn’t have a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was 1000ppm or 10,000ppm or 100,000ppm before that. In fact we often had ice and lots of it.

      I think that human arrogance very often gets the better of us and turns perfectly good people into monsters who think we are in control of nature.

  20. Very few problems we meet in life are black or white, most are grey.

    With this in mind, I tend to evaluate the evidence available on both sides of an argument and make a sort-of quasi-judicial decision in my own mind of who’s more likely to be right or wrong/guilty or innocent. Plain commonsense & logic play a large part in my evaluation.
    I often end up using the judicial terms “balance of probabilities” (roughly equal to 60% guilt) and “beyond reasonable doubt” (roughly equal to 80% guilt) as to the rightness/wrongness of any particular case.

    [as a sidebar, it has been very obvious to me for many years that a lot of people in high places (politicians, pressure groups, experts et al) are incapable of using this logical approach to evaluation because they come at every issue with pre-conceived opinions - they already know what outcome they seek and only attend to evidence which supports it]

    On global warming & AGW (later discreetly changed by the Left to Climate Change for political reasons) it soon became a question of whether it was a giant socialist scam to justify major far-reaching social policy changes, ever higher taxes and a massive increase in global Big Govt Statism. Or whether it was all real and honest, and by God we are doomed unless we do as we’re told by the Blair/Brown government to get out of our cars and get on to the buses etc etc.

    My personal conclusions, based upon countless inputs and much evidence to the evaluation process was that “beyond reasonable doubt” it is/was a giant socialist scam.

    We should note that socialism has a long history of cooking up scams to frighten people into obedience: “the politics of fear”. Recall Blair’s endless public statements about terrorism. One of the problems for the socialist scammers has been that – due to the large numbers of people involved, many of them not directly connected to government and the scientific nature of their claims – there’s been plenty of material evidence available. In many other cases the Left are able to keep a lid on it, but not when it came to AGW.

    None of that should be seen as an argument against cleaning up our environment. Far from it. I have long argued for a global 10yr crash programme led by the Americans (they know all about energy) to develop new, clean, cheap, green energies to get the West off fossil fuels. Obama promised strong actions on this but has completely failed to deliver. We should also take a range of actions to mitigate the downsides of natural climate change (improving flood defences, improving drainage systems, dredging rivers etc), but in the UK I see little action on that over and above normal maintenance.

    No, all we see are ever higher taxes, ever more state apparatchiks and a nonsense carbon trading market fiasco.

    • Hmm, BT the war on terror was a scam dreamed up to keep the US public in fear and put the US on a permanent war footing with attendent loss of civil liberties and increased military expenditure, by that prominent socialist George W Bush. Following in the footsteps of the starwars scam which that predecessor socialist Ronald Reagan dreamed up using fear. And the gun lobby, based on fear, and promoted by the socialist Charlton Heston. Your political labels are worthless BT. Politicians of all shades use fear to control the voters.

      • Methinks you don’t really understand American politics nor what Left & Right really are. So your understanding of labels is worth exactly how much?

        Suffice it for me to repeat that in the UK the global warming scam was started by Blair and continued by Brown (have you forgotten that Brown had the sheer arrogance to claim that anybody who didn’t believe in AGW was a “flat earther”?). The UK politics of fear w/r/t terror was started by Blair and continued by Brown. By their own long histories and frequent admissions, Blair & Brown are socialists, albeit they come from different factions of the Left.

        I rest my case.

      • 1953 — May 4 — Gilbert N. Plass presents paper on global warming at American Geophyical Unioin. The Washington Post story (May 5) says:

        So Blair was alive in 1953?… apparently American too?

        Yer daft.

      • Plass pursued a thorough set of one-dimensional computations, taking into account the structure of the absorption bands at all layers of the atmosphere. In 1956 he explained clearly, for the first time, that the water vapor absorption lines did not block the quite different CO2absorption spectrum, adding that there was scarcely any water in the upper atmosphere anyway. He further explained that although some of the CO2 band itself was truly saturated, there were many lines to the side where adding more of the gas would increase the absorption of radiation. His arguments and calculations showed convincingly that adding or subtracting CO2 could seriously affect the radiation balance, layer by layer through the atmosphere, altering the temperature by a degree or more down to ground level.(10a)

      • @ioannis: I don’t know how to say this politely, but you have a reading and comprehension problem due to your obvious fear of, and belief in, AGW. Frankly, I don’t care if Gilbert N. Plass presented a paper to every man, woman and child on planet Earth in 1953. My comments above were about the scam that was created around AGW by the likes of Blair. At no time have I claimed that so-called AGW was first discoverd by Blair, just how to use it to run a grand socialist scam.
        Do you understand?

      • I understand that you are talking about a “scam” that exists only in your fragile, paranoid “mind”. You made ridiculous, easily proven wrong statements, at least have some class and stop trying to change the subject and be so pathetic to resort to insults…

  21. I’ve been following as closely as I can the entire global warming debate. I won’t say I have the last word in this (God forbid), but the warmists have many, many strikes against them, and Climategate isn’t the only one. For instance, it has been proven that the affirmation of the future Himalaya melting in an UN report has been made of whole cloth (there is no substantial data to support it).

    Besides, there has been very high-profile dissents (Michael Crichton, Professor Harold Lewis, Henk van Os, Adriaan de Groot, even NASA’s Charles Bolden, Jr.); individuals that don’t like at all the fudging of the data and the support-the-warmists-or-else approach. But they have been never publicized as Al Gore’s ramblings are, since the media already have heavily invested in the AGW theory.

    As a kind suggestion, in the Superfrakonomics book the theme has been treated with a warmist point of view, and the authors talk about how easy and cheaply the problem could be solved… with geoengineering. But although it is widely recognized that the human species has already geoengineered the planet, using it to reverse the global warming is a huge taboo.

    IMHO, there is no global warming while fudged data is still provided to us. I could believe in global warming, but first I need some truth.

  22. Oh, man.

    So now, because of Richard Muller’s hugely-embarrassing-for-the-skeptics volte-face, which is based on an extensive examination of climate records, Delingpole, not liking Muller’s conclusion, moves to a newly fashionied position that, solely in order to undercut Muller’s Koch-funded research results, now claims ALL CLIMATE DATA EVER COLLECTED ARE WRONG?

    While Nasa’s James Hansen, who’s scientific prowess is such that his models of climate change have proved accurate years down the line (see below), is of course a cryptocommunist in the pay of the Chinese government?

    To conclude, a projection from 1981 [by Hansen et al.] for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

    Whatever happened to Ockham’s razor?

    (BTW, I once had an AGW skeptic/Daily Telegraph reader tell me that Christopher Monckton was a credible source since he had won a Nobel prize. Very, very difficult to take such people seriously.)

    • American Physical Society
      @Anon,
      I do not pretend to have any scientific knowledge regarding climate change,
      I just try and take in whatever I read to try give myself a layman’s rudimentary understanding of the subject, there are however quite a number of very credible people, eminent in their field but probably without the same flair for self promotion that James Hansen has, who profoundly disagree with Hansen and his acolytes with regards to their climate change hypothesis.

      ——————————————————————————————————
      Part of letter of resignation of Professor Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
      How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
      It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.
      It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
      Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
      So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge?
      It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it
      I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation.
      APS no longer represents me.

      • Has Lewis produced a testable hypothesis and collected data to demonstrate that Hansen’s results are wrong?

        Ad hominems don’t cut it in science.

        Ockham’s razor does cut, though.

    • Read my replies above. CO2 has nothing what so ever to do with controlling the Climate. Any notion it does is preposterous and it only take about a day’s research to find that no one can demonstrated how CO2 warms the planet. Lots of theory, but no substantive empirical evidence. The whole thing should have ended there except just like bees around a honeypot the political class took to it hook line and sinker. Nothing changes.

      Find me a politician that can think, and I will show you an endangered species.

      • Anon… don’t bother… it is obvious this thread has been hijacked by loonies and oil co. sponsored bloggers…

  23. Ultimately… if the vast majority of science on this subject is right then we are already in a negative feedback loop of warming, leading to permafrost methane production. This means we are past the point of no return and the end result will be at least the end of civilization as we know it (especially since we are not doing anything about the problem)… so, why are we taking this chance?

      • Gemma get a good night’s sleep. Read my 3 posts above about CO2. There is no such thing as a tipping point. We have been past about three of them time wise and all they do is move the goal posts.

        What the temperature announcement was all about is demonstrating that the rise in temperature in the US has been grossly exaggerated. This proves nothing one way or the other about CO2, but it does demonstrate that the worlds temperature is not really changing at present and that our understanding of the atmosphere is long on theory and short on fact.

        But I can tell you this. During normal world times when we are not in an ice age the average world temperature is estimated to be about 5 to 7 degrees above todays. But that increase does not happen evenly. The tropics stay the same and it’s the poles that warm. The water cycle keeps the tropic at a constant temperature. There is no such thing as the runaway green house. And given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has historically always been more than now, its not hard to work out that the whole AGW meme is little more than a large amount of hot air that has more chance of warming the planet than does CO2. Nearly 10 years of closely following this debate gives me the confidence to dismiss it outright.

      • Tempest

        the thrust of my argument concerns more than any rise in temperature, or any other “threshold”.

        What concerns me is that weather systems are becoming increasingly chaotic and that spells danger. If – and it is still an “if” – it is due to mankind’s activities, then we have a chance to reverse it should we have the courage. If it is not, then we are stuffed. Period.

        I can only hope that we are the cause, a few of the dumb creatures waddling around this planet and calling themselves leaders might be brought to their senses.

      • @Gemma.

        “What concerns me is that weather systems are becoming increasingly chaotic and that spells danger.” Once again you are accepting what the MSM reports, without looking for alternate views. Weather systems are NOT becoming increasingly chaotic, if anything they are becoming less chaotic. The direct evidence shows that weather becomes more chaotic during climatory (I don’t think that is actually a word, but it should be :-)) cooling phases and less so during warming phases. The likes of Greenpeace and the WWF like to quote articles demonstrating how the cost of weather events is rising remorselessly based on insurance claims and takes that as ‘proof’ of deteriorating weather, claims the MSM simply parrots. In reality the costs are rising because the value of money has continuously shrunk in the last 70 years, buildings and infrastructure are becoming far more expensive in real terms as time goes on, western society in particular is much richer and has more value invested in things every year, expanding populations all over the world are encroaching more and more into flood plains (it is a real eye-opener if you research population densities in places like Pakistan, especially if you want to know why the recent floods there caused so much damage and loss of life) and so on are the real reasons why that and similar proxy measures have increased. Like bristle-cone pines, they are not in any way, shape or form appropriate proxies for climate.

        As many others here have said, if you take the time to research the claims that are routinely made, or study the counter claims and the arguments they put forward and if you have an open mind you will come to the conclusion that Catastrophic AGW simply does not exist, AGW might or might not exist, but there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny to suggest that our weather patterns are following anything other than normal, long cycle variability. In short, there is no need to panic nor spend commit billions of taxpayers’ funds as a precaution against what is currently a most unlikely scenario.

        Just imagine if the world had gone spending mad in the 1970s when the elder members of the AGW camp were almost unanimously claiming we were all going to have to get used to living like Eskimos or abandon our homes and countries and migrate south. If Michael Mann had been around then and had created an upside-down hockey stick graph it could well have happened. There was a similar level of ‘evidence’ for cooling then as there is warming now, and just as much likelihood the theory is right.

  24. 900 gigatons of methane, a gas 20 times more warming than CO2… are bubbling to the surface, and that is only in Siberia… CO2 is yesterdays news… methane will tremendously speed up warming calculations… people think we have 100 years to tackle warming according to flawed ipcc info… not any more, when all this freed methane makes its way to the atmosphere we can start expecting some REALLY weird and intense weather…

      • @farmerbraun. “Jesus will return tomorrow.” and this time it’s no more Mr Nice Guy. After what we did to him last time round he’s not taking s**t from anyone.

    • we’ve already had some of this freaky weather – caused by the deliberate release of methane, from ocean-bed methane hydrates, to trigger the earthquake-attacks on japan, haiti and spain. the difference between co2 and methane, in terms of being greenhouse-gases, is that methane has a far shorter atmospheric ‘half-life’ than co2 and thus has a greater climatic effect over a shorter period. yes, mad commie eco-terrorists really are attempting to bring forward the schedule of natural global warming regulated by the sun.

    • What complete bollox. Methane is the end product of decomposition and is part of the carbon cycle and hence part of the natural world. The atmosphere has dealt with methane for 4.5 billion years, and is not going to implode in less than 100 years. What has happened to our education system.

      Forget the greenhouse theory. It is not what makes us warm. It is the distance from sun, and atmospheric pressure. If you measure the temperature of Venus at the one bar pressure point it is exactly the temperature expected given the pressure and distance from the sun. And Venuses’s atmosphere is almost all CO2. Explain that! And don’t give me any crap about the temperature at the serface. It’s at 90 bar so of course it will be hot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s