It’s official. ACT is the party of climate denial. Not only have they been endorsed by the NZ C”S”C for their rejection of the ETS, but Rodney Hide has confirmed his status as a full-blown crank in an astonishing speech to the ACT Upper South Regional Conference in Christchurch on Sunday. The errors he makes and the ignorance he displays are so egregious that the speech amounts to a public suicide note from a politician with aspirations to a role in governing this country.
Here’s the relevant passage from Hide’s speech, annotated by me to highlight his deliberate mistakes:
A warmer climate with more CO2 in the atmosphere is an unambiguous benefit to New Zealand and to the world[1]. I don’t know what we are scared of[2]. A New Zealand that was one or two degrees warmer would be a better place to live and better environment for agriculture[3]. The same is true for CO2. We pump the stuff into our greenhouses to stimulate plant growth. It’s the number one nutrient with carbon through photosynthesis being the source of all life[4].
[1] Unambiguous benefit? An astonishing assertion in the face of the evidence – the whole of the Working Group 2 report from the IPCC AR4 would suggest otherwise.
[2] Argument from ignorance. Hide hasn’t read AR4, so the evidence doesn’t exist.
[3] Wrong. While gentle warming will bring some benefits to agriculture in some areas (Southland, Westland), increasing drought on the East Coast of both islands will bring huge challenges to our agriculture. Hide clearly hasn’t read the latest MfE advice to local government, which includes details of what NZ can expect. He could perhaps look at my contribution to the current issue of NZ Geo – it’s easier to read.
[4] Carbon dioxide is not now, nor has it ever been, the “number one nutrient” for plant growth. An astonishing mistake for a self-proclaimed “environmental scientist” to make.
New Zealanders who can afford it go to the Gold Coast for their holidays, not Invercargill. We would like it to be warmer. It seems strange to me that we are rushing to try to stop something that I can’t see as bad[5].
[5] Again, the argument from ignorance. The fact that Hide can’t see it as bad is a result of his refusal to be informed, or his rejection of the evidence.
The changes we are talking about are small[6]. The IPCC’s best estimate through their computer generated scenarios has the world two to four degrees warmer[7] by century’s end and the sea level 20-60cms higher[8]. That’s hardly catastrophic[9]. Indeed, dragging New Zealand temperature-wise closer to the Australia would be a good thing.
[6] The changes are anything but small. The numbers may look small, but the impacts are huge. The difference in global average temperature between the depths of an ice age and a warm interglacial is only about 5ºC.
[7] Hide is happy to contemplate allowing the global average temperature to soar well above any period in the last 4 million years – perhaps for 40 million years.
[8] Hide uses the lowest of the IPCC’s figures, which specifically exclude increasing contributions from ice sheet melt – an increase that is being observed.
[9] Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people who live in the Asian megadeltas (think Bangladesh) who would find a 60cm rise flooding huge tracts of land.
The world was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a time when civilisations flourished, the Vikings settled Greenland, the Polynesians explored the Pacific, and Maori sailed to New Zealand[10].
[10] Flat out wrong. Sounds like Hide’s been getting his speeches written by the cranks at the NZ C”S”C, because this has been known to be untrue for at least ten years.
We should remind ourselves too that while these scenarios are generated by scientists they themselves are not science[11]. They are projections based on computer models. They are educated guesses, not science[12]. Science is about theories and the testing of theories against the facts[13]. It’s not lab coats, high speed computers and committees of wise people.
[11] The models used are certainly scientific, and the process of using the models is equally a matter of science. The projections they produce are the best that science can muster at the moment.
[12] The observations of warming are unequivocal, the rise in greenhouse gases undeniable, and their source uncontestable. For the planet not to warm in the future would require a complete re-write of the laws of physics.
[13] Which is of course what climate scientists have been doing all along.
I remain sceptical that we know what the weather will be in a hundred years[14]. I remain sceptical that greenhouse gases are the cause of a global warming. That’s because of the facts[15].
[14] Nobody claims to know about weather in a century’s time, but we have a reasonable idea what climate might be like if we fail to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.
[15] No, that’s because you choose to ignore the facts. See 12 above. The radiation physics is not in any doubt – except perhaps by the lunatic fringe.
During the past 100 years there were periods, such as 1940 – 1975, when temperatures fell, even though CO2 levels increased. All official measures of global temperature show that temperature peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002, and this is in the face of an almost five percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998[16].
[16] Standard crank talking point. Requires statistical naivety, and ignores the facts. Simple truth? The last ten years have been warmer than the preceding decade.
The facts don’t fit the theory[17].
[17] If you get both your facts and the theory wrong, that’s hardly surprising.
These are not easy mistakes to make. They are a catechism of sceptic talking points, packaged to justify the political point Hide and his party want to make. Hide can’t plead ignorance – he described himself as the “only environmental scientist” taking part in last week’s ETS debate. He has clearly calculated that he can get away with this in his target market during the run-up to the election. He must believe that there’s enough uncertainty around for him to be able to get away with this sceptic stance in the wider community.
Here’s the bad news, Rodney. There is no doubt that you are wrong. There can be little doubt that you know that you’re wrong. You are – in essence – knowingly telling lies in support of your political position, and that makes you unfit to play any role in the governance of this nation. I can only hope that the voters in your constituency judge you on your words and wisdom and not on your carefully concocted image, because if they do, you will be unelectable.
Related posts:
- Raw Hide
- Egg/face interface for Hide and the climate cranks
- Who writes Rodney’s rubbish?
- John, I’m only dancing
- Gathering nuts in May: The Business Roundtable and the Toxic Avenger
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Hot Topic, the first popular science book to examine global warming from a New Zealand perspective, was 
{ 517 comments }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Gore was operating on the apron strings of Maggie Thatcher, who, through her purpose-established Hadley Centre for Climate Change set aside state funds to “find” evidence that coal emissions were warming(and so harming) the air, so she could smash unionism, starting with the coal miners. It was a right wing move, financially encouraged by Dupont and Shell, to bring in nuclear power for electricity generation. When the coal miners subsequently went on strike Thatcher was able to get the public mandate she needed to finish militant unionism off, channeling public energy into military conservationism. It was a case of taking the same people and spearheading them in a different direction. They were already marching – they didn’t really care where. Thatcher and Gore really kicked off the global warming scare. It was a money trail all the way. The scientific world laughed until generous research funding became widespread. At the time they particularly found Rowland’s claims very amusing. Job protection has altered science. Western governments now need the Green vote to retain power, and so appease them with ecolegislation. Climate or scientific truth has nothing to do with it.
I seem to be Australia and NZ’s only longrange forecaster, as far as websites and/or publications are concerned. Metservice and NIWA personnel describe themselves as “extended range”, or presumably they too would be putting out almanacs a year ahead the same as me. I expect that in 50 years time, i.e.2058, weather/climate patterns will be, in terms of warming or cooling patterns, like the years 1890, 1909, 1928, 1946, 1965, 1983, and 2002. There is no mystery and no need for panic, unless readers found those particular years unbearably horrifying.
We can look forward to a hot dry summer in 2008/9, the dryness ending in the first week of February, and a longer and colder winter next year, so cold that the Shotover River may freeze over. If that sounds like global warming to anyone then so be it. But it sounds to me like a cycle. If anyone has a different prediction regarding the Shotover, let’s hear it now. But if no one else does, then obviously, in this forum at least, no one else feels qualified to discuss future weather patterns even a year ahead.
Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.com
Blah, Blah, Blah, more crazy shit!
“I seem to be Australia and NZ’s only long range forecaster”
Well done Ken, looks like you cornered the market there. I would assume that as you are so dead set against people getting paid for their work in the climate field, you are doing all this because you love us.
Ken, it is a blatant lie to state that Sherwood Rowland did not prove anything. He convinced the world’s scientific community of the link between anthropogenic CFCs and stratospheric ozone depletion to the extent that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. You can read about it here if you can prise your mind far enough open.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/presentation-speech.html
You specifically stated in a previous exchange that Rowland had ‘retracted’ this work. I challenged you to produce evidence of this; you have been unable to do so. You have been caught out in a blatant fabrication, and your grasp of the scientific process can only be described as mediaeval.
Ken, my new man, you’re much more fun than Roger or Nick! I’m more than happy to make predictions about the weather in ten years time (does mean Gareth will have to keep this blog open til then though).
I have no idea how often the Shotover river freezes or whether it does or doesn’t at all. (Someone who knows will have to tell me, please.) But I take it from your post that it hasn’t for a while.
If it DOESN’T freeze over next winter, will that mean that global warming is true?
A hot/dry summer with rain (or something else that ends dryness) occurring in the first week of Feb. I could predict that. Could you be more specific. Location of hot and dry, temperature range.
The Mauna Loa CO2 record shows a very tidy near sinusoidal fluctuation in temperature with an annual periodicity. This is superimposed on a straight line with a slight upward trend.
The temperature records which are accepted by the IPCC show neither the annual fluctuation or the longer term trend. In short there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Jonno
Sorry, you are too irrational and rude. I can no longer reply to any of your posts.
Laurence
I am not against anyone earning a living doing what they think is correct. Climatologists and meteorologists – I know many personally, all nice people and they do a brilliant job in what they do. But even they admit they have no long range system. What is the problem?
Carol
Getting a Nobel Prize is political. Look at Al Gore, not a scientist but a politician. Rowland at a 1993 NATO Advanced Workshop on ozone depletion, got into difficulty answering a question on why there are no measured increases in UV if there is ozone depletion. Rowland put the blame on the measuring devices, but Dan Berger, inventor of the devices, said that was not the case. I shall continue looking for his retraction. See:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/OzoneTheory.html
Hilary
The Shotover freezes as to moon cycles. If it doesn’t freeze next winter it just means it wasn’t cold enough. Global warming is happening, no one denies that, but 0.8C over 127 years is insignificant and not caused by man.
“A hot/dry summer with rain (or something else that ends dryness) occurring in the first week of Feb. I could predict that.”
But you didn’t. I did.
“Could you be more specific.”
As specific as the Metservice? In longrange they declare for the North Island and the South island. Do you want a particular street? Are you prepared to pay for my time or are you just a freebie seeker? I have already told you of matching past years.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/530075.html
Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages. This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service.
Ken, it’s your only response to any scientific finding you don’t like, isn’t it? Just dismiss it as a politically motivated conspiracy and a cash cow into the bargain. Convenient and intellectually feeble.
And Roger, please tell me you don’t spend your days trawling the internet for articles about cold weather!
> Ken, it’s your only response to any scientific finding you don’t like, isn’t it? Just dismiss it as a politically motivated conspiracy and a cash cow into the bargain. Convenient and intellectually feeble.
The IPCC did get scientific papers but the ones they used are general edited by the bureaucrats to convey the message that they want. Some scientists have been so angered by the misinterpretation of their work that they have threatened to sue the IPCC. The stuff emanating from the IPCC is not science but propaganda laced with sufficient science to make it appear plausible to the gullible. As for the cash cow just look for the lawyers and accountants for have started climate change departments in order to share in the rort.
>And Roger, please tell me you don’t spend your days trawling the internet for articles about cold weather!
I do not. Like minded people just send them to me.
Ken and Roger… my loss, really… my life wont be fulfilled without you two crazies.
“And Roger, please tell me you don’t spend your days trawling the internet for articles about cold weather!”
Carol, you do mean newspaper articles eh? Cos it would be hard to find any legitimate peer reviewed sources.
Roger, Ken and I were not talking about the IPCC. We were talking about the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, which Ken thinks is a politically motivated conspiracy.
This is about as wrong as it’s possible to be. The IPCC process is a careful review of the literature (all of it), conducted by respected senior scientists. It is – explicitly – a conservative process.
The crank underground is very well organised – newsletters, mailing lists, etc, usw and so on. That’s how Roger gets his talking points – and that’s why his comments bear so little relation to reality.
Ken, however, is much more creative. His alternate history of the late 20th century (see earlier posts) is a majestic work of fiction.
But Roger, you can’t back that up with a credible example, can you?
Mr Ring, this statement is false on many accounts, but the principle non-sequitur is that you imply that because of the level of warning that it must not be caused by man.
Secondly, I think you do not have sufficient justification to label comment 402 as “irrational”. Rude, yes. But entirely rational to follow a cynical, rambling post with a curt post challenging readers to find any merit in it at all.
I apologies to everyone else (par the crazies) for my rudeness, however, I am sick of this stuff.
There is no point even discuss climate change with them, because they are so conceited. How bizarre, they seem to all agree on anthropogenic climate change and back each other up, but come on, does Roge really think that Ken is correct with his forecasts, and if he does, what would Augie say? Does Nick think that Ken is not crazy with his forecasts, but then go on about the crazies and 9/11 and their lack of science?
Well said, Gareth.
The link Ken provided in post 407 is an orchestrated litany of lunacy. It is devoted to undermining scientific orthodoxy in many forms – bring back CFCs DDT and leaded petrol!
For Ken to accuse people who don’t agree with him of being non-science-minded is just .. well, words fail me.
Still, I quite like the idea of him devoting his life to hunting for a retraction from Sherwood Rowland – keeps him off the street.
Carol
“Ken, it’s your only response to any scientific finding you don’t like, isn’t it? Just dismiss it as a politically motivated conspiracy and a cash cow into the bargain”.
You’re confusing me with the warmers’ stance regarding skeptics, all of whom are supposed to be in the pocket of the oil barons. I wish! The IPCC are NOT scientists anymore than Al Polar Bear Gore is. And I never said the Nobel Prize process was a ” politically motivated conspiracy”. However it is political, which is why Yasser Arafat, the world’s worst terrorist in history, won it one year.
Sam
There is no way man caused the last Ice Age, nor the warming since, nor the PREVIOUS interglacial. As regards “irrational” I will not be drawn into conversation with bullies, insulters and shin-kickers. I get more respect from dogs.
I’m still waiting to be challenged on the current forecasts I am putting out. Here’s some more, to keep it simple, based around today’s date: rain in Christchurch on 13 November, also 13/14 December and again 12/13 Jan next year. Give or take a day. By no means the only rain dates, but you can ring your calendar. This is Neptune/moon’s month cycle, and it works in threes. I further predict this will produce another behaviour pattern of scoffs, retorts and sniggers from Carol No Name, Hilary No Name, Gareth, Laurence No Name and co, that here passes for scientific discussion.
Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.com
Ken, it’s not too surprising that the Nobel Peace Prize has a political context – how could it not?
But it’s drawing a long and desperate bow to suggest that the scientific prizes are political.
Do you really believe all the crazy stuff on that site you linked to, for instance about leaded petrol being harmless?
That site is his own…
“But it’s drawing a long and desperate bow to suggest that the scientific prizes are political.”
Oh? What has climate got to do with peace? Gore’s “prize” was organised by Norway, hotbed of Green activism. In 1995 Rowlands was breaking new ground, but 13 years later his work has not been accepted. Science must change and update or it is not science.
Of course leaded petrol is harmful. But emissions, being mostly water vapour are not, unless one puts one’s nose into a tailpipe or sits halfway up a chimney on a cold fire-burning night. Remember gases dissipate, not accumulate.
Listen to the people who know, not the poltical ones tied into governments, like Jim Salinger at NIWA
“The latest data shows that both the northern and southern ice caps are actually growing. The recent studies of the ice core show that rises in temperature are followed by a release of carbon dioxide, not the other way around. I’ll be in New Zealand soon, and two of the major glaciers there are growing like the clappers. And from 1998 there has been no rise at all in the temperature of the earth. Indeed, all the sunspot data tells us we’re headed for 15 very cold years”.
David Bellamy
>There is no point even discuss climate change with them, because they are so conceited. How bizarre, they seem to all agree on anthropogenic climate change and back each other up, but come on, does Roge really think that Ken is correct with his forecasts, and if is does, what would Augie say? Does Nick think that Ken is not crazy with his forecasts, but then go on about the crazies and 9/11 and their lack of science?
I have never made any comment here or anywhere else on what Ken Ring has written. His forecasts aside, on which I do not propose to offer any comment whatever, much of what he is written here is factual
Ken, who – apart from you – does not accept Rowland’s work? Provide some evidence of the non-crazy variety or please just shut up and graciously accept defeat on this point.
Ken, quoting Bellamy approvingly isn’t helping your argument because (to coin a phrase), he’s wrong about everything.
“http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-climate-change-
unbelievers-958237.html”http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-cha
nge/the-climate-change-unbelievers-958237.html
Featuring David Bellamy, Ruth Lea, Piers Corbyn, Lord Nigel Lawson, Martin
Durkin and Hans Schreuder ALL WITH PICS! Interesting how our – ‘Climate
Sceptics’ – robust resistance to being denounced as Climate Change ‘Deniers’
has now got us called the less perjorative ‘Unbelievers’ .
We now have to change that into us being The Believers (in evidence-based
science) and the GWers labelled the fraudsters that they are.
“Of course leaded petrol is harmful. But emissions, being mostly water vapour are not, unless one puts one’s nose into a tailpipe or sits halfway up a chimney on a cold fire-burning night. Remember gases dissipate, not accumulate.”
Sorry Ken, once again WRONG. Lead petrol accumulates as lead dust on the side of the road. I remember doing an experiment for analytical chemistry back in the 1990s. The lecturer got the class to test road dust for lead content and had done so for years. The experiment showed that road dust had high levels of lead content. This lead level reduced once lead was removed from petrol.
You aren’t very smart, are you Ken!
Roger, you’ll find that Independent story is top post on Hot Topic at the moment. Click on “home” up above the banner, or go here.
Sam Vilain 10.13.08 at 10:42 am
>>Some scientists have been so angered by the misinterpretation of their work that they have threatened to sue the IPCC.
>But Roger, you can’t back that up with a credible example, can you?
Yes!
Paul Reichter? did threaten to sue the IPCC – if they did not take his name off the list of authors on their projected malaria scare with GW. He stated it in the GGWS . He was their malaria expert – but when he sw the draft of their summary – as prepared by the bureaucrats, he wanted nothing to do with it. But they wanted his name on it , as the leading malaria expert.
I will try and track down the reference.
Gareth 10.13.08 at 1:45 pm
> Ken, quoting Bellamy approvingly isn’t helping your argument because (to coin a phrase), he’s wrong about everything.
Put your qualifications and reputation up against Professor Bellamy’s and you are not even in the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bellamy’s qualifications are irrelevant. He’s making statements that are simply wrong. It’s embarrassing to see a bloke who has done a lot of good over his career go so far of the rails. He is now (more than ever) a laughing stock.
Bellamy can’t even press the shift key correctly and ends up getting a 5 instead of a % … what a laughing stock
Gareth 10.13.08 at 2:15 pm
> Bellamy’s qualifications are irrelevant. He’s making statements that are simply wrong. It’s embarrassing to see a bloke who has done a lot of good over his career go so far of the rails. He is now (more than ever) a laughing stock.
Has it occurred to you that he might be right and you wrong?
Paul Reiter not Paul Reichter.
Here is just one of the several URLs available by googling “malaria +
ipcc + paul reiter”.
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/IPCC/MalariaAndProcesses.htm
Just like he was right about the glaciers eh Roge?
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/
Thanks for linking to the swindle complaint, does that mean you agree with it… must be!
hahahhahahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahaha
“Of course leaded petrol is harmful. But emissions, being mostly water vapour are not, unless one puts one’s nose into a tailpipe or sits halfway up a chimney on a cold fire-burning night. Remember gases dissipate, not accumulate.”
Sigh.
Ken, what do you think happened to the lead additives in petrol after the petrol was used up? Did they disappear? Please, I am fascinated by your views on the biogeochemical cycling of lead.
jonno 10.13.08 at 2:28 pm
Just like he was right about the glaciers eh Roge?
http://www.monbiot.com/archive…..k-science/
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if you need Monbiot to support your case.
At least my barrel is correct, unlike your barrel of complete rubbish… Bellamy was wrong, just like you.
Did you even read the link you posted roge… the link just proves how wrong you are!
Hey Roge, your silence is deafening…
Has it occurred to you that we might be right and you wrong? Hahahhahahha
Jonno, I think he and Ken are out prowling the fringes of science, looking out for stray facts they might be able to pounce on ..
>Ken, what do you think happened to the lead additives in petrol after the petrol was used up? Did they disappear? Please, I am fascinated by your views on the biogeochemical cycling of lead.
I would be very surprised if there was not an anomalous level of lead in the soils surrounding main roads. This lead will become adsorbed onto clay and silt particles. Lead is not particularly mobile in this environment and thus it is not likely to move very far. The natural tenor of lead in soils in areas of lead mineralization (along with copper and zinc generally) is often 100 parts per million or more. It is not absorbed by plants though several absorb zinc and copper and thus is unlikely to present any particular threat to humans. There is, after, no threat to humans, sheep or grouse (except of course when hit by the pellets) in the grouse shooting moors in Scotland where tens or hundreds of thousands of cartridges each containing an ounce of more of lead have been discharged from the butts. The areas surrounding some of these butts must constitute veritable lead mines!
Where do you all find your correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature?
Hey roge, thanks for the link. From it I found
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/emails/MartinParryEmailRePaulReiter.pdf
This link tells us that Reiter resigning is a load of bull… nice one!
And from the ofcom complaint about that film full of rubbish
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p96.htm#C115
Re Comment 440
You can listen to Roge or else you can listen to real science
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2263033&blobtype=pdf
Yes. So I checked (had to go through this particular canard with a previous sceptic commenter calling himself Harry the Hat). Arctic sea ice is at record low volume, Greenland’s losing ice mass (upcoming post on that, soon), Antarctica’s losing ice mass, and as anyone keeping up would know, NZ’s losing ice mass (here).
He’s wrong.
Basic physics. Understood for more than 150 years. If changes in atmospheric CO2 didn’t affect global temp, we’d be living on an ice ball. Try reading Weart (Discovery of Global Warming – link’s in blogroll).
Roger, we are straying well away from climate science here, but seeing you are interested, there has been a substantial body of research carried out here in NZ on the link between lead in petrol and human health. You are right that lead is not particularly mobile, but lead aerosol was found to enrich roadside dust with lead, and this dust was found to be quite widespread through houses near busy roads. Children are particularly vulnerable to lead-contaminated dust.
Some further reading:
DM Fergusson et al. (1988) A longitudinal study of dentine lead levels, intelligence, school performance and behaviour: Part I dentine lead levels and exposure to environmental risk factors. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry volume 29, 781-792. [these are New Zealand authors, and the longitudinal study was based in Christchurch].
So actually you and Ken are categorially wrong when you state that lead in petrol caused no threats to human health. There is quite an extensive literature on the subject, which I am happy to point you towards. I’m sure you’ll be happy to become better informed.
For an international perspective, check out the following:
V.M. Thomas et al. (1999) Effects of reducing lead in gasoline: an analysis of the international experience. Environmental Science and Technology 33, pages 3942-3948.
And I didn’t have to search for these papers – they are in my files and on my bookshelf. I only mention this as you cast aspersions on my grasp of matters technical.
>Basic physics. Understood for more than 150 years. If changes in atmospheric CO2 didn’t affect global temp, we’d be living on an ice ball. Try reading Weart (Discovery of Global Warming – link’s in blogroll).
I do not think that anyone is denying that that effect exists. It is the magnitude of the effect relative to the factors that is in dispute. If CO2 is the major influence on climate there would be a good correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is not.
>Roger, we are straying well away from climate science here, but seeing you are interested, there has been a substantial body of research carried out here in NZ on the link between lead in petrol and human health. You are right that lead is not particularly mobile, but lead aerosol was found to enrich roadside dust with lead, and this dust was found to be quite widespread through houses near busy roads. Children are particularly vulnerable to lead-contaminated dust.
I am well aware of the dangers of lead in paint but I was writing about the dangers of lead in soil where most of the lead from petrol finishes up.
Gareth, Is this thread some kind of record for length and obtuseness?
Re comment 446:
This guy does:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/about.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Do you agree Roge? He too is a climate change liar!
Roger, sorry but you are plain wrong here. Go and read those references, there’s a good chap.
Carol 10.13.08 at 4:55 pm
>Roger, sorry but you are plain wrong here. Go and read those references, there’s a good chap.
What are you referring to?
Every reference that has been posted to show you how wrong you are
By a considerable margin on both counts…
It’s made me think we need a Hot Topic forum so that the “debate” can happen on a more organised basis. Easily organised…
>It’s made me think we need a Hot Topic forum so that the “debate†can happen on a more organised basis. Easily organised…
Of course. Just filter out any opposing points of view. Your lot are good at that.
jonno 10.13.08 at 5:49 pm
> Every reference that has been posted to show you how wrong you are
References merely reflect the view of the writer and the view of the person selecting the reference.
Deal with the lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2, as measured at you favourite site, Mauna Loa, and world temperatures as shown by your favourites in that field. Piss or get off the pot sonny.
Roger, please read post 445 again. You appear to have no knowledge of the very considerable body of knowledge that exists on the relationship between lead in petrol and public health concerns. Did you ever wonder why lead was removed from petrol?
I have kindly provided you with a starting point for becoming better informed on this topic.
You mean the way that I filter your views here?
A Hot Topic forum, if it happens (and I’m not convinced it’ll get enough traffic to be worthwhile), will have the same posting standards as the comments on here. All opinions tolerated, provided they break no laws and are expressed politely.
Re: CO2 correlation with global temp. Why so fixated on that, Roger? You admit the physics, so an increase in temperature is to be expected alongside the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years. The reason that the temp curve wiggles is because there’s more to it than just CO2 – other factors in play. It’s a complex system, not given to simple correlations.
“Piss or get off the pot sonny.”
Mate,no need to be like that, just cause you keep losing the battle and I keep pointing out how pathetic you are. So how is that Paul Reiter reference going.
Sorry Roge, you just crack me up, you can’t even keep up with me. You’re a sad old man who has nothing to do but cry in your sour milk!
Jonno, Carol, Science is completely irrelevant to Roger and Ken (and previously Nick who put himself out of contention by pointing out that he thought that science couldn’t be relied on to prove anything and therefore anything he said in defence of anything was unprovable and irrelevant).
Roger and Ken are fixated on the idea that other people are somehow making money out of climate change and they are not (and they think that the more people take climate change seriously the more money they will somehow miss out on. All their posts come back to this point. The people they are worried will make money out of climate change appear to include all women and some men.
If you said that you were a climate change skeptic, Roger and Ken would agree with anything you said and would think that you were completely consistent and logical, even if you said that it was going to be so cold next winter that the Shotover River was going to freeze and then straight away you said that if it didn’t freeze that was because it wasn’t cold enough. But because you point out that the Arctic isn’t freezing over any more in summer BECAUSE IT ISN’T COLD ENOUGH, well you’re just trying to get money off taxpayers.
Anyway, I predict that all future summers will be warm or hot. Bye for now.
This is an argument which contains a logical fallacy, known as the false dichotomy. Two options are presented, as if they are the only two options, and then one is demonstrated to be false, with the implication being that by elimination of possibilities, the remaining option is therefore true.
It is quite easy to expose the delusion present in arguments like this – you just have to demonstrate the existence of a third option. For instance, that there exists a type of correlation that hasn’t been considered – perhaps the system has internal feedbacks which dampen immediate response to the external forcing condition.
It’s important to note that to undermine a false dichotomy you don’t have to prove that the alternative is true, you just need to point out that the third option exists, and the dilemma presented falls flat on its face.
“References merely reflect the view of the writer and the view of the person selecting the reference.”
It is ironic that you posted that. So what does it say about you? A lot!
Roger
It is a waste of time here. They misquote you then spit and squeal over what they misheard. For instance I have never said lead in petrol is good for you, never said the globe is not warming, and did say I expect the next winter to be so cold Shotover may freeze and if it doesn’t then it does not mean AGW is any more a fact.
Have you noticed that what I and you do say, the actual facts, are never discussed. So what does that tell you?
This seems to be only a forum for Gareth groupies. When confronted with evidential science they behave like banshees, the reason being that the concept of AGW is so ludicrous it just defies discussion. When top scientists speak, with no axe to grind, like Bellamy, Augie Auer, Bob Carter, Tim Ball etc, folk hiding furtively behind phony names like “Carol”, “Hilary” etc, imagine they know better. What publications have they written?
Gareth thinks changes in atmospheric CO2 affect global temp, but fails to realise that CO2 100% saturates air at only 10C . The air simply holds no more CO2 after that relative coolness and so the excess CO2 just drops back into the ocean, yes, drops, because CO2 is nearly twice as heavy as air(CO2 MW= 44, air MW=29). 10C is very cool. Between most seasons in most locations, air temperature fluctuation exceeds that. Therefore, Gareth groupies, CO2 CANNOT cause changes in air temperature.
Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.com
Interesting concept you have there Ken, any danger of you explaining how that works.
Weasel words, Ken. I have tried hard to debate factual issues with you and Roger. Where did I misquote you on ozone depletion? The fact is, I challenged you to find evidence that Sherwood Rowland has retracted his work and you have been unable to do so.
Hilary
When did I say science cannot prove anything? I think I made it clear that there are massively chaotic systems, like climate, that are too complex to come up with “proofs” from narrow corridors of science.
God, you are a fisher. remember you are the one who looked me up and judged me because I worked for the Arabian American Oil company, like thousands of other Brits at the time. hey, we had an influx of 250000 Filipinos construction workers at the time. I suppose they are all now die-hard oil men. I was a f….ing computer programmer, hardly an oil executive.
You are a very sad person, Hilary.
You asked for papers and I thought it best to produce them as I get them rather than try and dig out old ones.
So, here’s one regarding Atlantic Hurricanes, and how they are NOT becoming more frequent or more severe, in direct contradiction to the predictions about global warming.
In fact none of the model predictions are happening, are they? Funny that.
http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=JD#id2008JD010036
Multi-decadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity: 1851-2007
Petr Chylek1 and Glen Lesins2
ABSTRACT
An analysis of Atlantic hurricane data (HURDAT), using a hurricane activity index that integrates over hurricane numbers, durations and strengths during the years 1851-2007, suggests a quasi-periodic behavior with a period around 60 years superimposed upon a linearly increasing background. The linearly increasing background is significantly reduced or removed when various corrections were applied for hurricane under-counting in the early portion of the record. The periodic-like behavior is persistent in uncorrected HURDAT data as well as in data corrected for possible missing storms. The record contains two complete cycles: 1860-1920 and 1920-1980. The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons were unusual in that two intense hurricane seasons occurred in consecutive years. The probability for this happening in any given year is estimated to be less then 1%. Comparing the last 28 years (1980-2007) with the preceding 28 years (1953-1980) we find a modest increase in the number of minor hurricanes (category 1 and 2), however, we find no increase in the number of major hurricanes (category 3-5). The hurricane activity index is found to be highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Mode (AMM). If there is an increase in hurricane activity connected to a greenhouse gas induced global warming, it is currently obscured by the 60 year quasi-periodic cycle.
1 Space and Remote Sensing, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544
2 Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Laurence
May I suggest you Google it yourself. CO2 does not fill the air linearly, but logarithmically. After a certain temperature, CO2 can be doubled, tripled etc in output but in the air, but no more can be held than about 3 parts on 10,000 . The level is 300-400 ppm and has been so for millions of years. If you want evidence and are serious about this, email me at enquiries@predictweather.com. I’ll be happy to supply.
Carol
Get past it. I have better things to do than appease someone hiding behind a pseudonym.
Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.com
I rather like the concept of “Gareth groupies”, but I guess they won’t look like Penny Lane.
Ken, your ingenuity never ceases to amaze me. Once again, normal physics is left gasping in your slipstream. You are wrong, of course, because the moon’s tidal effects on the atmosphere are strong enough to keep the CO2 mixed…
>Re: CO2 correlation with global temp. Why so fixated on that, Roger? You admit the physics, so an increase in temperature is to be expected alongside the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years. The reason that the temp curve wiggles is because there’s more to it than just CO2 – other factors in play. It’s a complex system, not given to simple correlations.
“other factors in play. It’s a complex system, not given to simple correlations.” EXACTLTY and the other factors are more important. Other factors being sufficiently significant to cause the ice ages, the warming in Minoan times, Roman times, mediaeval times, the Little Ice Age and the post Little Ice Age warming.
If CO2 is sufficient to cause the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age there would be some observable correlation between CO2 and temperature. But there is not. That is it sonny boy.
>I rather like the concept of “Gareth groupiesâ€
Neat. It sums you up well enough. It would have been nice if he could have dragged Genetic Fitz into the definition.
Roger, Ken, Nick, it is you that have the problems and cannot admit when you are wrong.
Roger, if I were you, I would stay quite for a while, how embarrassing it is posting a link trying to prove a point, when the link contradicts your point.
Hahahhahahaha
Ken, no one understands what you try to say, because it makes no sense.
Now answer me, Ken. You’ll find the issues haven’t changed.
I think I am outta here, the crazies are too crazie for me.
Good luck Ken, Roge and Nick, have happy deluded lives. How sad it is to be you guys.
Gareth, good work mate! I don’t think I am a groupie of yours, but have the most respect.
Everyone else, good luck wiht the taking the piss out of the crazies.
As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, its warming effect increases. 150 years ago, the few extra ppm made little difference – the 35% extra today makes a big difference. Have a look at this figure (SPM-4) from the AR4 Summary for Policymakers. The GHG signal only really takes off in the second half of the last century.
The existence of a statistical correlation (or its absence) doesn’t help much (correlation does not prove causation): we know the physics, we know the CO2 history (not Beck’s, obviously), and we observe that global temperatures are currently increasing at somewhere between 0.15C and 0.2C per decade. There’s still enough natural variability in the climate system to cause the temp graph to wiggle despite the GHG forcing, but the trend is clear.
Good suggestion there Ken, but it seems that I’m not very good at Google, and as you are so keen on discussing these problems with us I naturally thought you would want to share this wisdom. As for emailing you for a private consultation, I think that would be a bit unfair on the others and I really wouldn’t want them to miss out on the enlightenment.
Now, down to the nitty gritty. I presume that not all of this heavy CO2 makes it to the ocean, I mean, a fair chunk of it must fall on the land, right. Now if that’s the case how come we are not knee deep in this stuff. After all they have been making it for a long time so there must be a fair bit of it about.
OK, on to this 300-400 ppm bit. How is it that the air knows when it has reached that limit and it’s time to dump some of this heavy CO2.Bugger! Silly me I missed the bit about temp. Right got that now, CO2 is only heavy when it’s cold, or is that hot. Man, this science stuff is so confusing, we all should be so thankful we have you around to explain it to us.
>The existence of a statistical correlation (or its absence) doesn’t help much (correlation does not prove causation): we know the physics,
This effect is trivial.
>we know the CO2 history (not Beck’s, obviously),
No, you do not. You have tossed out everything inconvenient.
>and we observe that global temperatures are currently increasing at somewhere between 0.15C and 0.2C per decade.
It is not. Just look at the graphs provided by your gurus!
>There’s still enough natural variability in the climate system to cause the temp graph to wiggle despite the GHG forcing, but the trend is clear.
The trend is not clear. Are you blind? Just examine the temperature graphs, not mine but yours.
What do you suppose causes the annual cycle seen in the Mauna Loa (your guru’s) data?
If the AGW fearmongers, mammary gland suckers and feeders out of the trough are truly interested in finding the truth they would measure atmospheric CO2 and temperature in many other places, high latitudes north and south over the sea, over the Brazilian rainforest, over over middle and low latitude deserts using the same measurement technology. It would only need to do this for a few years to show whether you have a case or not. Until that sort of work is done you just have a hypothesis which suits those feeding at the trough.
jonno 10.14.08 at 9:17 am
> I think I am outta here, the crazies are too crazie for me.
Good riddance. Learn to spell before you come back and when you do have the guts to use a real name.
While I’m here Ken, something else that you may be able to help me with. All this CO2 that’s falling into the ocean would turn it acidic, right, so by now the oceans must be almost pure carbonic acid. Now if that’s the case how come the elastic in my underpants doesn’t melt when I go swimming.
“Gareth thinks changes in atmospheric CO2 affect global temp, but fails to realise that CO2 100% saturates air at only 10C . The air simply holds no more CO2 after that relative coolness and so the excess CO2 just drops back into the ocean, yes, drops, because CO2 is nearly twice as heavy as air(CO2 MW= 44, air MW=29). 10C is very cool. Between most seasons in most locations, air temperature fluctuation exceeds that. Therefore, Gareth groupies, CO2 CANNOT cause changes in air temperature.”
Huh?
I can’t make head or tail of this, Ken. Are you sure you’re not getting confused with water vapour, of which the level in the atmosphere has a strong temperature dependence? Carbon dioxide is a completely different beast – the sublimation point (change from solid to gas phase) at 1 atmosphere is around -78C, so it exists in the gas phase under normal environmental conditions. In what sense can the atmosphere be ‘saturated’ with carbon dioxide? If you could explain this in terms of the gas laws (the ideal gas law and Henrys Law) it would be very helpful.
Roger,
The “trivial” effect of CO2 is now running at a forcing of 1.66W/m2 over pre-industrial. Over a year, that’s a lot of extra energy.
Beck uncritically accepts all the readings for CO2 he can find, ignoring site and sampling problems. These were well known as far back as the 1930s, when Guy Callendar was doing his early work on CO2 and climate. The ice core record is the best we have.
Nobody relies simply on Mauna Loa: it’s one part of a global monitoring system. More details here. You clearly don’t know much about the data. There are even satellite measurements coming on stream, with global maps: see this recent NASA release.
Sceptics usually claim to “prefer” UAH temp figures derived from satellites. It has the lowest rate of increase, but it shows about +0.13C/decade (from memory). If you’re on about “cooling since 1998″ or something, then I refer you to the UK Met Office’s statement linked at the bottom of the Daydream post…
I have to wonder, Roger, why you seem to relish parading your ignorance?
I can help you here, Laurence. Ocean acidification is a major concern associated with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 is taken up by the oceans, not because it ‘falls’ in there, as Ken says, but because of its solubility dictated by Henrys Law, and then the dissociation of carbonic acid into protons and bicarbonate ions. NIWA organised a workshop on this topic in May 2007.
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/pubs/wa/ma/15-3/news4
You are not swimming in a sea of carbonic acid because of the existence of alkalinity in seawater in the form of carbonate ions.
Thanks for that Carol, I did take Kens advice and tried a bit of googleing myself. I came up with this http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/200810/20081013twt11-antarctic-co2.mp3 now I’m really starting to freak out about my fish and chip supply.
The underpants thing is not too much of an issue because there is not too much ocean where I live anyway, come to that there is not much water of any kind. I’ve got this sneaking suspicion that it’s got something to do with Climate change. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs16.pdf
I was sort of hoping that we could get the master of met to magic up a bit of rain for us so our sheep don’t die of thirst. I am going to need a few around so I can knit some woolly long johns for my visit to the frozen Shotover river next year.
>Beck uncritically accepts all the readings for CO2 he can find, ignoring site and sampling problems. These were well known as far back as the 1930s, when Guy Callendar was doing his early work on CO2 and climate. The ice core record is the best we have.
Callendar was a steam engineer (mechanic?) by training and was an amateur meteorologist.
He was also right.
>The “trivial†effect of CO2 is now running at a forcing of 1.66W/m2 over pre-industrial. Over a year, that’s a lot of extra energy.
If that is so it is having no noticeable effect.
Why do you insist that this miniscule slice of the history of this earth is so much more relevant than the millions of years that preceded it?
This is just outright denial, Roger. We have a huge quantity of evidence, handily summed up in the IPCC’s AR4 WG 1 and WG2 reports.
Perhaps because it’s the slice of time we live in?
Climate change isn’t the end of the earth, but it is likely to be a huge challenge for humanity.
Gareth 10.14.08 at 2:17 pm
>He was also right.
There are hundred or thousands of scientists who have some real qualifications and experience in this in field who do not share your views, whereas you have none.
There is marine deposit at least as far up the Thames Valley as Te Aroha, about 100 metres above current sea level, which could only have been deposited in one of the more recent interglacials. I have seen the deposit. In a recent glacial period, probably the last one rivers carrying magnetic andesite gravel and boulders spread over much of the seabed between Hawera and the South Island. These stick out like the proverbial canine testicles in aeromag maps prepared in the search for oil. There are boulder beds which extend well above sea level which are currently being quarried north of Kaiaua. These deposits date either from this interglacial or the previous one. There are raised beach terraces south of Kaiaua, near the seabird sanctuary, which were dated by Scholefield (1950s) at about 6000 year BP. The changes that you and others are ranting about are simply trivial and irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. What I see with my own eyes is rather more credible than the views of steam mechanics in 1938.
>This is just outright denial, Roger. We have a huge quantity of evidence, handily summed up in the IPCC’s AR4 WG 1 and WG2 reports.
That is not evidence it is mere manipulation and very selective use, for political purposes, of scientific reports.
The evidence simply does not support your claims. The very intermittent warming since the end of the LIA does not correlate with the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the early records of which has been very selectively massaged by Callendar and others.
>Climate change isn’t the end of the earth, but it is likely to be a huge challenge for humanity.
Our ancestors survived massive climate change. Humanity is capable of surviving climate change but not in the numbers now living. Climate change will decimate the population of this planet if we do not do it first. However it will be cooling and not warming that will wreak the decimation.
This is a method known as ‘proof by assertion’.
As opposed to ‘proof by evidence’.
Carol Stewart 10.14.08 at 2:55 pm
>This is a method known as ‘proof by assertion’.
As opposed to ‘proof by evidence’.
I suppose that the statement that the sun will rise next Thursday is also a proof by assertion.
Gareth and his groupies are the ones making assertions indeed assertions of events which are quite clearly contrary to what is actually happening!
Don’t be a hater Roge!! Can’t you just die with dignity?
Ken,
You are so wrong on many counts about the nature of your opponents. Firstly, I read with interest a great many of your (and CSC) essays on global warming. I’ve enjoyed a lot of it. I found myself alarmed by the alarmism as well. I investigated many of the points, occasionally finding I had to scratch off an argument because it was already covered. I debated it with those around me and in fact put up with many people not liking me because of my views. Such was, I decided, the price of sticking to principles of knowledge.
I felt betrayed when I came across the Weart climate science history, as reading through it I realised that almost every single challenge you and the CSC have presented as if the climate scientists haven’t thought of, was old hat. Some of it by many decades.
As a benefit, I think I’ve managed to figure out the story behind just about every denialist argument I’ve come across.
I do not post behind a psuedonym. This is my real name, and you can visit your local library and get my address from the electoral role. While I occasionally write quite cynical remarks I try not to be rude.
I’ve changed my mind on this whole topic many a time before and I’d certainly change back the other way if I found sufficiently convincing evidence.
A lot of CO2 goes into the ocean, yes, and the size of this carbon store is given in the section on the CO2 ecology in the IPCC report. It slowly acidifies it, which could spell the end of coral reefs which need a pH > 7.8 to maintain their calcium levels. In general the higher the pH the better marine life grows, as any owner of a marine fish tank could tell you. So it is not clear whether or not this can be considered a completely zero impact place for it to go.
But I’m going to disregard that as it’s not directly to do with AGW, and to investigate your claim about the saturation of CO2 in air, all I am interested in knowing is the claim A) correct, and B) not already covered by the atmospheric physics in the established atmospheric models.
Are you interested in this claim being investigated in this manner, or do you have a better one?
You’re a patient fellow, Sam.
I too am keenly awaiting Ken’s explanation of how the atmosphere can be saturated with CO2. I rather suspect he is getting CO2 confused with water vapour in the atmosphere, which has a strong temperature dependence. But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
Sam
I have not mentioned you in my calling for people to hide behind synonyms. Again, a misquote. Please desist.
As to CO2 and saturations, you can start here:
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
Extract
“There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming. Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance. carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it’s going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There’s no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances. Humans could not double the CO2, because they only put 3% of the CO2 in the air. If they put twice as much in, it would do whatever it does in 9.7m instead of 10m. If humans stopped putting any CO2 in the air, it would do whatever it does in 10.3m instead of 10m. In other words, nothing humans do with CO2 could be of the slightest relevance to global warming, even if oceans were not regulating it. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. The quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming. Nature puts 33 times as much CO2 into the air through decay as humans produce, and the oceans exchange CO2 with the atmosphere 19 times as fast as humans produce it. So humans produce a miniscule effect on CO2 which has a miniscule effect on climate. It’s statistically, scientifically, logically a non-effect. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is necessary for biology, and there is a shortage of it. Humans add 3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere, while nature adds 97%. To claim the human addition accumulates to 30%, while the nature addition does not is absurd. Species dying and disease? The temperature gets 0.6°C colder about every 50 miles further north. If it wasn’t a catastrophe 50 miles south, then it is not a catastrophe now. On a long term scale, CO2 in the atmosphere is at the lowest level it has ever been, because oceans suck CO2 out of the air and trap in in calcium carbonate. The amount in the air is so low that plants can barely grow. Greenhouses routinely double the amount of CO2 in the air to improve growth. Regardless of the energy shortage, emitting CO2 into the air is the only good things humans have ever done for the environment. And coal plants (non foreign) are being shut down creating an energy shortage, because coal emits more CO2 than natural gas. The know-it-all, non conspiracy theorists who deal in nothing but substantiated fact tell us that cutting back on CO2 emissions is the only chance of human survival. Our lives are being run by frauds, folks.”
then, another site..
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Extract:
“There is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the radiation from the sun or from the surface of the earth in the principal CO2 absorption bands. Doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker. Some people think that CO2 is rising dramatically. CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900. Many people have used tricks like these to exaggerate the amount of global warming, and this has made it into a political issue. Most people would have great difficulty feeling an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius. Any effects of such a small change would be slow and subtle. In general, if you are able to see or feel some change, that means it is almost certainly not caused by CO2-induced global warming. “
Ah, so Callendar was deliberately massaging data in the 1930s…. why? A prescient view that the future needed CO2 levels to be manipulated, obviously. The great global warming swindle has also mastered time travel…
Sorry, Roger, but that comment puts you in Ringworld – a strange place where the normal rules don’t apply. I won’t bother to respond to your posts in future…
Sam
“..put up with many people not liking me because of my views. Such was, I decided, the price of sticking to principles of knowledge”.
Goodness, if one only believed what made people like us the world would indeed be in a sorry state. It takes a brave man to think for himself, especially in this current PC environment. Good on you. Thinking independently and standing up for one’s views will save the world, not shorter showers. It is also the best legacy to leave our children, rather than a silly bunch of un-needed extra trees. Speaking of trees, I notice the member with the preoccupation with pissing has left the building.
cheers
Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.com
Carol
“I too am keenly awaiting Ken’s explanation of how the atmosphere can be saturated with CO2.”
I have now supplied it, at length, with links, as requested. So why the silence?
Ken Ring
On 14 Oct 2008, at 3:59 pm, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>> How about adding this to your blog?
>I’m surprised you want to reference a mere historian…
>I have no intention of engaging you in an email exchange. Please >post at Hot Topic, and if you want to refer to these graphs and >”papers”, provide links.
Just so that everyone knows what I asked you to post:
1. A plot of CO2 against time from 1800 to the mid 1900s. The data that Callendar chose to use are ringed. I will try and find the origin of this plot. The figure shows just how selective Calendar was in his choice of data to use.
2. A reconstruction of CO2 concentrations for the period 8700 to 6800 BP compared with concentrations derived from stomatal indices using B pubescens and B pendula. The sources are clearly indicated. I cannot post the figure or convert the panel of text accompanying the figure into text. To provide some balance Gareth should post it.
3. This is aitken.pdf Here is the first paragraph.
A Cool Look at Global Warming
By Don Aitkin
Planning Institute of Australia, Canberra,
19 March 2008
I thank the Institute for giving space and time to an Honorary Fellow who is venturing into dangerous space, at least for him. The title of this paper gives a taste of its content, and I had better start with a summary. Australia is faced,
over the next generation at least and almost certainly much longer, with two environmental problems of great significance. They are, first, how to manage water in a dry continent that may be moving into a long dry period, within a society that is used to having lots of good water very cheaply; and second, how to find acceptable alternatives to oil-based energy (which looks like getting much more expensive quite quickly) within a society that is used to cheap oil and lots of it. Global Warming, you will have realised, is not one of those two issues, atleast for me, and I see it as a distraction from the two I have highlighted. This paper is about why it may not be such an important issue, and why we should get on with the others, which are unquestionably important, and closer to hand.
I shall say something about the application to this issue of the precautionary principle at the end.
I can email the whole article as a .pdf file to anyone who is open minded enough to consider an alternative view.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.