At last, the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition publish their response to the Royal Society of New Zealand’s recent statement on climate change. As I predicted, they’ve made my day. Let’s consider the circumstances. We have the nation’s leading science organisation, and a panel of the nation’s leading climate scientists – including a few Nobel prizewinners – presenting the evidence for climate change. And then we have the Climate “Science” Coalition:
It beggars the imagination that an expert committee can launch a public statement about climate change that is so partial in its arguments and so out of date in its science.
Yeah, right. It “beggars the imagination” that a bunch that seriously believes it has a chance of influencing public policy can issue a statement so seriously factually incorrect and so deliberately misleading.
The NZ C”S”C’s statement is long on bombast and short on reality. Let’s look at our tame cranks’ conclusions:
In particular, the statement makes no mention of three critical facts:
(i) that the best available extended atmospheric temperature record (based on weather balloon radiosonde measurements) shows no warming since 1958;
Pardon? No warming since 1958? Now this is a remarkable assertion that I’ve never heard before – and for something this original to emerge from the NZ C”S”C is indeed a novelty. What on earth are they on about? Perhaps it’s this graph (hat tip: Sam Vilain)? Unfortunately it shows that stratospheric temperatures have cooled since 1958 (which we expect), and that over the last 50 years the lower troposphere (where we live) has been warming. Did one of the “independent climate scientist rationalists” make that basic an error? Certainly looks like it.
(ii) that all global temperature indices show cooling since at least 2002; and
It’s good to see the “cooling since 1998″ lie make an appearance – I’d expect nothing less. Unfortunately for our rationalists, if you look at the figures for the ten years up to 1998, and the ten years since, you find that the world’s warmed up. Climate is measured on decadal (preferably 30 year) timescales – unless you’re a climate rationalist, in which case it can be measured by the month.
(iii) that the quiet period between solar cycles 23 and 24 continues to extend, pointing to greater near-future cooling as it does so.
Ha! It’s the sun what done it. Another sceptic trope makes its appearance. I suppose it’s inevitable, because earlier they’ve announced:
The RSNZ statement commences with the bald, and wrong, statement that “The globe is warming, because of increasing greenhouse gas emissionsâ€.
They want to rewrite physics. Good luck to them.
In the meantime, a word to the wise. If you want to influence public policy, it helps to at least pretend to be credible. With this latest release the New Zealand Climate “Science” Coalition reveals itself to be so divorced from reality that it descends to the level of comedy. And that would be funny, if the problem weren’t so serious.
[Update: within minutes of posting, I find that the blogger formerly known as Tamino has weighed in on the Dalton Minimum (a period of low sunspot numbers fro 1790 to 1830 that's often associated with "global cooling". Here's his conclusion: "Honestly, I haven’t yet seen any reliable evidence to indicate that solar output is headed for another Dalton-like minimum, just groundless speculation by those who desperately want to deny the influence of greenhouse gases on climate. But even if the sun does go through another Dalton-like minimum, based on past observations I don’t expect much impact on global temperature." ]
[Update 2: Jafapete offers his take...]
Related posts:
- When Gray turns to blue/Flung a dummy
- Winter wonderland
- Chris hates Greenpeace
- Being economical with the truth, or lying through her teeth?
- Cool for cats
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 
{ 140 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Gareth. “gratuitously rude”??? I’ve been abused by you, Cobbly and Tushara. I don’t mind, as long as those that give it, can take it. I have to admire your nerve Gareth. Evidently it’s okay for people on here to actually be abusive to me, as long as I don’t reply in kind, is that correct?
Tushara. I don’t know why you think that your points of reference are any better than mine. I do not get my education from a junk science web site either. I get all my data from UAH, RSS, and HadCRUt. For the Arctic data I go to NSIDC. Various blogs graph data. The blog may be ‘junk’ to you, but the data is still valid. Pity that you cannot see the difference. The two links I gave you above come from Climate Audit, and the Met Office. There is indeed a big difference from Google and peer reviewed science. One’s a search engine and the other is a method of ensuring some level of accuracy. Well done for spotting that!
Now back to the tropo. I said that there has been no net warming in the tropo in 30 years. Now, that’s a FACT. You evidently don’t like it, so you ignore it. It’s a human thing. But the FACT remains. The fingerprint of CO2 induced warming should show up the tropo over the tropics. It does not. It’s childish saying “The discrepancy in regards to the tropics has not been proven”, and it does your thought processes no favours. The reason I gave the tropics was to be indicative of the point. Not only has the ‘fingerprint’ of CO2 not shown itself, there has been no net warming in the troposphere for 30 years. FACT.
If it is being claimed that this graph:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/tropic53.gif
shows no warming in the tropical troposphere, then that is being asserted by someone who cannot read graphs.
(Hint – look at the areas between the graph and the 0 axis, at the start of the graph they’re largely below 0, by the end largely above.)
PS Realclimate on the basic flaws in Douglass et al, and also on the latest corrections to sonde data.
Peter Thorne.
No, you gave the tropics as an example, because there are some discrepancies in this area.
A fact, really, can you provide anything to back your so called fact please.
Can you please they me why you are right (someone who is not a climate scientist and learn their science from the web) and why these real scientists are not?
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/
Do you get pleasure in being so deluded? It must be great living in your world, but a sad sight for the rest of us.
Can you explain ‘no warming’ Hat if
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5769/1914
or:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114867v1?rbfvrToken=57bfe68dd33136ee413f21221631abf93113a577
You should really give this game up Hat, you had lost even before you started. These are real science articles and not a sad website.
Poor misguided Tushara. I’ll state it yet again for you as plainly as I possible can: There has been no net warming in the lower troposphere
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
The graph that started out around an anomaly of -0.15 is back to around -0.15 (if you don’t like the website, then go to the actual data that is clearly shown). And for those who cannot read properly, let me yet again state the word “net” – and simply (yet again!) giving a link to realclimate doesn’t mean any controversy is solved! Ha, ha – that made me laugh. I’ve read that page a number of times, and Gavin’s attempts to parry are amusing.
Temperature is always going up, or going down. So one has to measure it with certain start and finish points. You can have an average, and measure it against that, but then you have a baseline which is somewhat arbitrary. If you choose a certain period you’re left with the obvious question ‘why that period’? Tropo temps have only been recorded since 1978. To the end of 2006 the temp was most certainly up. However, there has been an amazing drop since then, so over that 30-year period, THERE HAS BEEN NO NET INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE.
Plain enough?
At considerable expense to my lunch hour I have even dug up the data for you: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Read it and weep. Oh, and John Christy is a real scientist.
…and it looks like Anchorage in Alaska is about to have its coldest summer EVER!
Hey Gareth and Cobbly, how’s that Arctic melting going? Are we going to be ice-free?
Tushara. My brother says I should explain it to you this way, and then you may understand. He thinks you don’t understand what ‘net’ means. Okay then, imagine I gave you money to put in your wallet, and that I’ve been giving you it on a regular basis. Sometimes you’ve given me back a little of what I have given you. However, after 30 years we decide to look at the money you’ve made out of me by looking in the wallet – and we find it is zero as of right now (this year), or maybe just a dollar or so. What would have proven that I’ve given you substantial money would have been that a section of your wallet wouldn’t have allowed money back out, only in (200 hPa). Do you ‘get it’ now?
So, there’s no way that we would be at a position as of right now of no net warming if the tropo had of heated over the tropics – and that we would finally have had the “fingerprint” of CO2-induced warming that has long been promised. But we haven’t had it – go check for yourself at HadleyCrut, the figures are all there.
The FACT remains, there has been no net warming in the lower troposphere in 30 years. You exhibit your confusion by linking to the Tamino page. I’m not arguing that thr tropo doesn’t match the surface! It does fairly well, and Christy acknowledges this. What I’m saying is that there has been no net warming, and to show that, no ‘fingerprint’ either – that would mean that the tropo is doing what it’s supposed to according to the models.
…ran out of time to add to the above. Let’s forget all the bitter stuff and concentrate on the point I made, which you incorrectly challenged on July 26th at 11.09:
What was the temperature of the lower troposphere in 1978/79?
Answer that alone, and I’ll respond, okay?
Let me explain to you.. you keep changing your story… it’s really funny how you jump from one thing to another. And you are still wrong, it seems you don’t understand a best fit line, my friend just thinks your are stupid and I should leave you alone to yourself.
And btw Hat, I gave you several links (scientific) for you to read, so maybe you could learn something, but alas, seems not. I give up, you are a Muppet and that’s that.
Okay, last time I will discuss this with you Hat, imagine it’s winter, today’s temperature is 16 Ëš C, six months later, it’s summer and the temperature has warmed up, then one summer’s day, the temperature is 16 Ëš C, this does not mean that there has been no net warming, the temperature has increased over these months. You seem you think that going from point A to point B gives you sufficient answers to what is going on, sorry, this is basic science, you have to take as many points as possible to get a clearly answer. A BEST FIT!!!!!
You should really take a basic analytical chemistry course you understand this, then you may get a clue.
Harry
Thanks for the link to the junkscience graph – I normally don’t bother to go there because, basically, it is what it says it is.
But, that is a good graph and I’m surprised you link to it.
Casting my (engineering trained) eye over it I see:
a) an upward trend in the peaks
b) an upward trend in the troughs
c) an upward trend in the entire record
which, curiously, pretty much matches the gradient on the Mauna Loa CO2, and okay, I know that is an artifact of the scaling but it tells an interesting story doesn’t it.
Tushara
Keep up the good work. But (note to self included) – Don’t feed the troll! (no need anyway he has gorged on cherries!)
Thanks Andrew, you are right… there is no point feeding the trolls… it wont change the fundamental problem, that of unsustainable behavior patterns
Andrew. Oh dear, another one who cannot understand the difference bewteen an opinion on a blog, and data represented direct from a trusted source (UAH). Oh well, I’ll leave you to yourself on that one. Maybe you’ll figure out the difference, maybe you won’t.
I don’t have any problems with the data at all, and (yet again!) if you had bothered to read earlier replies to Carol, you’d would have seen that I ‘admitted’ in the previous rises, and of course (yet again!) if you’d had bothered to read my replies you would have seen that I point to the trend of 0.13 degrees per decade! But then you wouldn’t have seen that with your ‘engineering trained’ eye would you Andrew? Please tell me you don’t work on Aircraft! With engineers like you, who needs terrorists? What I was pointing out was NET. It really is quite clear. And full points for getting “troll” and “cherries” in the same post! I see you got that time machine working then.
Tushara. A muppet now! Keep ‘em coming, all you’re showing is your lack of ability to reasonable argument, a resort to abuse, eh?
Okay, as much as I usually enjoy a jolly good discussion, I’ll be happy to clear this one, as you evidently cannot understand english. Right, first of all, you quite obviously misinterpreted my July 25, 7.58 post. I very clearly used the word “net” not just in reply to you, but if you look above you’ll see I used it in three replies to Gareth, Frank, and Carol. You re-used the word in your reply, but then immediately started writing of “The so called flaw in AGW eh?”. The confusion was yours alone. Since you brought that up then I countered with the lack of the “fingerprint” of CO2-induced warming. You then had the temerity to accuse me of changing my story! You then produced a number of links which were not representative of the point I am making, that there has been no net warming in the lower troposphere in 30 years. If the modelled warming above the tropics had taken place, then I couldn’t possibly be stating that there is no net warming (over the entire tropo data). So it’s not me who changed the story, but you – because you mistakenly confused no net warming with no correlation. Everyone here can read back and see that Tushara. I haven’t spoken of ‘best-fit lines’, you did! And you have a friend, Tushara??? Oh come on! This is not a matter of ‘science settled on difference between surface and tropo’ – which it isn’t, by the way. But, if you want to talk about that, we can…
The Douglas paper says, “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs”. The required ‘hotspot’ in the mid tropo is simply completely absent. Also, the ‘settled science’ on surface and tropo that you allude to is no such thing, as it concerns only global averages. The tropic discrepancy remains unresolved, I can assure you. Realclimate have challenged the Douglas paper, of course, on error bars, and all they managed to do was to show that if you make the error bars wide enough then even a total lack of any heating within the troposphere is STILL consistent with the global warming theory! Pathetic.
Finally, you and other Warmists cannot carry on believing that everything that supports your theory is correct, and that anything that doesn’t is in error. Never let the truth get in the way of a good theory, eh? The required ‘hotspot’ that would occur in the tropic tropo isn’t there. Also, over 30 years there is no net warming in the lower troposphere. Also, between 07 and 08 we saw a year-long drop in global temperatures which is the largest ever recorded movement in temperature – up or down. Also, despite a growth in the emissions of CO2 and the fact that oceans are not absorbing them as they did before, global temperature has remained flat for over a decade. Also, the supposed association between warming and hurricanes has been proved to be false. Also, the oceans have cooled slightly. Also, sea levels have recently dipped. These are all facts and they ALL counter the idea of CO2-induced global warming theory. Deal with them.
The facts, Tushara, are that we are releasing a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere; an experiment of which we don’t know what the end result will be. Ocean acidification could be a worry. However, all the scare stories and pathetic alarmist over-reactions based on poor models have been proved wrong. We’re currently in a period of global cooling. It could be short, but it could be long, but either way, no model predicted it. Greens here in the UK moaned about lead in the air. When that improved fantastically they moved onto nitrous oxide. As more people bought diesels they moved onto carbon monoxide in the cities. Now they see the rise of electric cars, so they’ve moved onto congestion. When people have been priced off the road they’ll complain that there’s too many of us for public transport. Witness the childish screamings on this year’s Arctic ice extent. These ‘next-cause-please’ people are typical of ‘the boat is sinking’ rants of the new green brigade. The Left have taken the subject over and brought shame upon the eco movement. When it’s proved to be false they will move on to something else, just the same as unnamed (though they know who they are) contributors here who will go on to the next thing they see to worry about – just as soon as September comes and the Arctic doesn’t melt. Mind-numbingly crass. These people are knowledgable, no doubt, but lack the ability to see their theory isn’t true, but grind on regardless – just like the religious, which is exactly what they are.
If you want to reply with yet another abusive term, then fine, but I’ve laid out the facts, not just my take on them, and there is nothing more for me to say on this particular issue. My apologies for the Cobblyesque length of this rant.
I figured out HtH’s problem, I think. All this going on and on about NET temperature differences, and start points, and end points. HtH does not seem to understand the difference between weather and climate, or noise and signal.
In 1998, Harry was a “swallowist.” Today, Harry mocks the “swallowists” with great contempt–how could we be so stupid as to not understand the FACTS that he lays out for us? How’s that arctic sea ice going, eh? EH?!?
Well, Harry, the amplitude of the noise in temperature is as big as the anthropogenic warming signal to date. Get it? I’ll wait while you think about that for a bit…
…got it now? No? Well, what that means, is that any given year can easily be as much warmer or colder than the average of the reference period as the absolute value of the recent warming. But, if you compare temperatures across long enough periods, you’ll see the trend–the baseline around which this short-term noise is happening. And that trend is very clearly rising. 1998 was a huge anomaly above the baseline one would expect from looking at the trend. 2008 looks like it will come in below the baseline one would expect from the trend. That’s WEATHER. Subtracting an endpoint from a start point tells you nothing useful about CLIMATE.
The same thing goes for the arctic ice. 2007 was a RIDICULOUS anomaly in terms of ice extent. In terms of regression to the mean, it would be silly to expect 2008 to be as extreme. I know, some people predicted 2008 would be even more extreme than 2007, but I think that prediction is as ill-advised as it would have been to think that 1999 was going to be hotter than 1998. Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 will probably not reach the (totally amazing) minimum extent that it did in 2007. But look at the trend over the past couple of decades…any question what direction the arctic sea ice is headed now? Think climate, not weather. Once again, subtracting an endpoint from a start point tells you nothing useful. The trend is down, and it now looks as though the Arctic could be seeing ice-free summers by mid-century.
Put another way, Harry, let me ask you this: the next time we have a year that is warmer than 1998, and/or an Arctic sea ice extent lower than September 2007, will you become a “swallowist” again? Because by your logic above, as soon as there is net warming or net ice area loss again, subtracting an endpoint from a start point, your argument flips polarity. If you really think the net difference between two given points is significant, you could EVEN NOW be arguing either that there is warming or cooling, depending on which start date you choose. That’s what your bizarre emphasis on net differences between discrete points leads to. If you do the sensible thing and look at the trend, with enough data for statistical significance, the warming is obvious (as most people seem to have already noticed).
The amplitude of the noise, i.e. of temperature differences due to weather phenomena, oscillations like ENSO, etc., is as big as the anthropogenic warming signal to date. If you look at a sufficient amount of data to resolve climate, the signal is clear. If your time series is too short, the noise swamps it. Harry doesn’t seem to get this, or does and desperately wants to keep other people from getting it.
And of course, HtH keeps telling people that there’s no stratospheric cooling, that critical fingerprint of greenhouse warming. And of course he’s lying:
Satellite observations confirm that the stratosphere has cooled since 1979
Stratospheric and mesospheric cooling trend estimates from u.s. rocketsondes at low latitude stations
Tortoise. Thank you for your reply, blinkers on again then Tortoise? I was arguing about noise in signals back on the BBC boards many years back. I’ve no enthusiasm to rise to your attempt at being condescending, pathetic as it is.
Arctic? Aimed at Gareth and Cobbly – for obvious reasons, though not obvious to you, apparently. Oh, and the Arctic sea ice extent has been poorly recorded in the past, by the way.
I’ve explained at length about the fact of the NET measurement. If you cannot be bothered to read it then I can’t be bothered to explain it again to someone like you.
Oh, and Tortoise, you’re a LIAR. I have never said there is “no stratospheric cooling”. What I said, is that there has been no stratospheric cooling since 1994. Actually, there’s been a slight warming. That’s a FACT, Tortoise. I know you have trouble apologising, but give it a go, go on. Bet you don’t. The data is graphed here http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif Surely even you can see it. Maybe not. The atmosphere works on a pivot point around the mid to upper tropo. So as the tropo warms, the strato cools. That’s how the theory of warming works – but you wouldn’t know that. In the past five or six years there has been a warming in the tropo, but no cooling in the strato in that same period. Why not?
Tell you what Tortoise, as your ignorance is so immense, I thoroughly recommend that you go away and stop being silly. Best to read-up on basic climate science then come back here with some points you’d like to discuss. Now that’s condescending, but throughly deserved!
PS
You’re not supposed to be talking to me, because I’m a troll. I’m also a muppet and a clown. Gareth and AndrewH have asked people not to respond. There’s blog democracy in action.
Thw swallowists are going to love this:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvansmissingsignature.pdf
One last time… Harrythemuppet, you clearly don’t know how to read a graph or interrupt data, this is a basic skill need to understand science. There is no point continuing with you till you learn these skills. I am not the only one here pointing this out to you. You should listen to everyone else here. I tell you what; here is what you should do.
Take all the data from
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Plot it into an excel spreadsheet. Then create a graph, notice how the trend is UPWARDS!!! Then plot a best fit line, and then take note, the gradient of this line is positive. If you cannot get this simple thing, then you live you you’re sad deluded world.
Oh, I’m disappointed, that’s not a new abusive term, you’ve already used it.
Again, again, again…I’ve pointed out the trend of 0.13 degrees per decade many times now, but that’s not what I was talking about in my reply – I was talking about a NET temperature over thirty years in my reply to Gareth on July 23rd, 2008 7:17 am. You continue in your inability to recognise the difference. I could, and have, talked about trends – both in the tropo and the strato MANY TIMES! But on this occasion I was talking about a ‘net’ temperature – and I even explained why. You (amusingly now) confused yourself and thought I was talking about a lack of correlation between surface and tropo. As I said, everyone here can read back and see it. I think it best for you to stop digging when you’re so far down your hole. Seriously Tushara, you’re just making yourself look stupid now.
“a NET temperature over thirty years”… which has been positive… it is you Muppet that is stupid.
Sorry to the rest of you guys, that will be the last time I will reply, of course he does not get it.
Let me explain…
“I’m not arguing that the tropo doesn’t match the surface”
Well, if the net surface temp has increased over the last thirty years, a trend upwards, then from your statement above, the net temp of the tropo has also increased. As the net surface temp HAS increased, then so has the net tropo temp.
You clearly don’t know how to understand data, but you do know how to pick cherries, harrythemuppet.
Tortoise. A point on Arctic temps:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/nyt-expert-says-arctic-ocean-will-soon-be-an-open-sea/
Tushara. Dig, dig, dig. Now, I would advise that you should never play chess. I was fair to you, but now you’ve gone and made yourself look completely stupid in front of all your friends. Want to see why…
ready…
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg
Now go back at look at the graph on the lower tropo for midway 1988. Ah, never mind Tushara, try coming up with a point of argument that makes sense. So far on here, you’ve confused yourself, made errors in reading, and now completely proved my point for me! Thanks.
Do you even understand what the word ‘over’ means Muppet?
(sorry guys that was the very last time)
The basis of your argument is over, yes, there never was one! I know how you must be smarting! How much does it hurt? Thanks again for proving my point for me – most unexpected, but welcome. Checkmate.
How deluded are you, the graph you linked to, anyone (apart from yourself) can see you don’t understand what a best fit line would look like, you cannot even read graphs… The trend is upwards, a net increase in the tropo. Stop providing data which you cannot understand.
Checkmate, sorry, you don’t even know how to play the game, you lost, but still if you think you won, pat pat, well done, keep trying Muppet, a high school science class maybe a start.
Tushara. Seriously…stop doing this to yourself. Tell you what, take time out and read back through all the posts. You’ll learn something. I know, I’ve been wrong on forums before, but you learn. I’ve been doing this for years. You’ll learn too…to accept that you’ve confused yourself and written stuff that makes you look silly. You’ll get over it. Btw, I’ve actually not been beaten at chess since I was 15 – and I’m 49 now. Strategy, cunning, knowledge, and upsetting your opponent if you can.
Well Hat, you should stick with chess, it is obvious that you don’t understand climate science.
A lot of harry’s confusion seems to stem from a common source. He continues to say things to the effect of “here’s point A, here’s point B, point B is lower so there’s been a net decline, or point B is higher so there’s been a net increase.” He honestly doesn’t seem to understand why that type of analysis is meaningless in this case, which would be understandable had it not been repeatedly explained to him. There’s no understanding of trends, noise, or statistical significance. No understanding of proper data analysis at all. Just a bunch of confused arm-waving and then a declaration of VICTORY!!
So, a question to everyone here except Harry–has there been a statistically significant warming trend in the stratosphere since 1994? Has there been a statistically significant cooling trend in the stratosphere since 1978? Do your answers to these questions shed any light on what Harry is trying to claim?
Does the fact that Harry trusts david evans but distrusts every scientific body of national or international standing shed any light on what Harry wants you to believe?
What’s is Harry taking about gloabl cooling? I can cherry pick data too, in the last ice age, global temperture was around -8C, today it is around 15C. This is clearly global warming. One point to another.
Harry the Hat states:
Do Not Feed The Troll.
Tortoise. As I said, I HAVE talked about trends, but in this particular instance I was talking to Gareth about a period of time of thirty years from one point to another – which is a perfectly valid position to take. Your inability to understand this very simple point is amazing. I’ve been discussing trends and future temperature scenarios for many years, but in this one instance I was talking about a NET temperature over thirty years. Yes, there have been periods of rising temperatures, and some periods of lower temperatures, and yes the trend is currently running at 0.13 degrees C per decade – a point I have already stated. BUT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NET DIFFERENCE OVER 30 YEARS! Are you lacking something?
Ah Cobbly, a troll it is then! How childishly pathetic. Grow up man, for goodness sake.
Tortoise, why has no one answered your question on a statistically significant warming trend in the stratosphere since 1994?
Can harry the troll be banned, he clearly is just here for trolling. Surely, no one can be that stupid. He is clearly lacking something.
Tortoise,
You are not wrong. But I’m not engaging because The Troll is getting even worse.
Troll,
Silly little schoolboy.
Gareth,
There’s an HTML problem that’s is turning the whole page into a link after the last link in post: “tortoise on July 30th, 2008 2:02 pm”
Swallowist: I believe everything Gavin Schmidt says because he is God – and I will link to realclimate at every opportunity.
Gareth, as well as the immediate html problem down here in this section, it’s also affecting the “The book is available…” link under the book graphic – top right of this page.
Page should be fixed now. Tortoise munged a link. Let me know if it isn’t…
← Previous Comments
You must log in to post a comment.