The roots of denial

200802082044.jpg In Hot Topic, I relegated discussion of climate cranks and their arguments to an appendix. In that section I look at the roots of denial, the influence of politics on scientific debate (or not-so-scientific debate, in most cases), and tried to highlight the irrelevance of sceptical views to our predicament today. UC San Diego historian of science Naomi Oreskes – already well known in climate circles for her paper testing the reality of consensus amongst climate scientists – gave a lecture titled The American Denial of Global Warming back in December last year, and it is well worth 58 minutes of anyone’s time. The first half deals with the history of climate science, and just how much agreement existed by the ’60s. In the second half she looks at how the George C Marshall institute developed the tactics of denial to defend Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiative, and then applied it to tobacco, the ozone hole, and, eventually, climate science. The roots of all the sceptic tropes used by our tame NZ CSC are laid out for all to see. Highly recommended.

Hat tip: dbeck in comments at RealClimate, John Mashey and Tim Lambert at Deltoid.

111 thoughts on “The roots of denial”

  1. “In Hot Topic, I relegated discussion of climate cranks and their arguments to an appendix.”

    Whereas for me, the way ideology motivates people to take a position on AGW, and single mindedly maintain that position against all the scientific evidence, is the most fascinating aspect of the whole debate.

    Naomi Oreskes covers this ground very well, introducing material that I wasn’t totally familiar with, and it’s apparent that if ideology hadn’t taken over from science in the MSM debate things would be very different today.

  2. It fascinates me too, Andrew, but in the context of what I was trying to do in Hot Topic, it was a distraction. Which is, of course, the whole point.

    In NZ, you can clearly see the links to the US neo-con, free-market thinking in the Dutton/McShane denial axis. The Gray/dan der Lingen thing is something different, because they clearly believe that they’re right. I think it’s a bit like Ken Ring – you can’t change his world view because he’s so committed to it that contrary evidence simply can’t be right. The cognitive dissonance must be intense…

  3. Thanks for drawing attention to this lecture Gareth. I found it very helpful in both its parts. I hadn’t before struck such a detailed account of the development in the decades preceding the 90s of scientific awareness of the likely effect of CO2 emissions. Nor had I seen the denialist response opened to inspection so clearly. The ideological motivation she posits for the scientists involved certainly sounds likely. I find the ideology concerned frightening enough in itself, but even more so when it triumphs over science, at which point it seems quite deranged.

  4. “In NZ, you can clearly see the links to the US neo-con, free-market thinking in the Dutton/McShane denial axis.”

    “I find the ideology concerned frightening enough in itself”

    Well, in terms of the wider economic policy I would agree more than I would disagree with Owen (whom I doubt could be fairly labeled a neo-con), I’m 100% in favour of the free market.
    When I said: “the way ideology motivates people to take a position on AGW, and single mindedly maintain that position against all the scientific evidence.”
    I was refering to any and all ideologies, anyone taking any position on AGW based on ideology rather than science was included.

    If that’s confusing a simple analogy is that someone throwing a brick through a window for ideological reasons doesn’t make that ideology (be it capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism or whatever) bad, evil, or wrong, it makes their individual actions wrong.

  5. Andrew in the context of the science of global warming your free market preference and my mixed economy preference ought not to matter one little bit, however much they may affect our thinking about political questions. I agree that the fact that I find the social consequences of free market ideology frightening is not relevant here and it was something of a distraction that I let that slip. But the denial of the science by well educated people is both puzzling and alarming, especially when it is pursued as vigorously and with such political intent as it has been. Naomi Oreskes concludes that ideological motivation may have triumphed over science in the case of the people she talks about. You seem to be saying that means those people are bad apples rather than that there is something wrong with the ideology itself. I would be glad to think you are right and hope that means we will soon see free marketeers no longer flirting with climate change denial – though the recent activities of the Business Roundtable don’t seem to point in that direction. I don’t want to argue with anyone politically on this issue – I am simply fearful of the prospect for the human race if we don’t get down to the task of lowering emissions and very much want to see it happen by whatever political or economic means.

  6. Dear Friends,

    If you will, please forgive me for saying that I believe my not-so-great generation of elders is literally on the verge of devouring the birthright of its children and mortgaging their future, while not giving so much as a thought to the needs of coming generations. My generation may be remembered most for having ravaged the Earth and irreversibly degraded its environment, leaving our planetary home unfit for life as we know it or for human habitation or both.

    The fiascos in Iraq and on Wall Street will be seen as symptoms of venal administrations.

    Unfortunately, many too many of our brothers and sisters as well as virtually all the political leaders, economic powerbrokers and ‘talking heads’ in the mass media are not yet acknowledging the distinctly human-induced predicament looming ominously before humanity, even now visible on the far horizon. Because human overproduction, over-consumption and overpopulation appear to be occurring synergistically, at least to me it makes sense to see and address them as a whole. Picking the most convenient or most expedient of the three aspects of the human condition could be easier but may not be a good idea. The “big picture” is what we need to see, I suppose. At some point we are going to be forced to gain a “whole system” perspective of what 6.6 billion (soon to be 9 billion) people are doing on Earth. That is to say, the human community needs to widely-share a reasonable and sensible understanding of the colossal impact of unbridled production, unrestained consumption and unregulated propagation activities of the human species on Earth……. and how life utterly depends upon Earth’s limited resource base for existence.

    If human beings can share an adequate enough grasp of the leviathan-like presence of the human species on Earth, then we can choose individually and collectively to behave differently from the ways we are behaving now, lest my generation could lead everyone to inadvertently precipitate the massive extinction of biodiversity, the irredeemable degradation of environs, the pillage of our planetary home and, perhaps, the endangerment of humanity.

    Sincerely,

    Steve

  7. Hello, I’m a layman. I have just recently been active on the Yahoo ASK boards where people discuss different topics. In the Environment category, it is surprising to me how many people seem to have been won over by the GW skeptics. It is alarming to me. The answers and questions are almost entirely dominated by what seem like young people who are ranting about Al Gore being a scammer to make money and It’s a conspiracy to raise taxes etc. You can read my answers under the screen name frflyer.

    But I mainly have a question for you experts. What is the real percentage of climate scientists who are believers in GW verses skeptics. I have a feeling it is quite different than the ratio on these Yahoo ASK boards. Perhaps with that info, I could influence some of these young minds to at least be environmentalists.
    If someone could email me information or a link, I would appreciate it.

  8. Hi Richard,

    I think most climate scientists would be uncomfortable with being characterised as “believers”. They work with what science has established – which involves accepting facts, not believing in them. You don’t have to “believe” that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas, because that was first worked out 150 years ago.

    If you look at working climate scientists, those publishing relevant stuff in mainstream journals, I would guess that you might find a handful who could be classed as sceptics. In the post I referred to an earlier Oreskes paper which looked at how widespread acceptance of global warming was amongst published work: of 928 papers she looked at, she could find none that rejected the basic consensus. Of course, that got her attacked by the usual suspects: Skeptical Science provides a good overview, and also provides some good stuff about the real consensus amongst scientists.

    Hope that helps

  9. Guthrie, I’m responding here rather than there to make sure you don’t miss it. In short the Wikipedia article is quite good (although the second sentence has a mistake) and includes the basic plots for recent times. It should be possible to find whatever details you want through the links there. One of them is to a paper projecting another 30,000 years or so for this interglacial, and I suspect it would include specifics about the Holocene up until now.

  10. “Whereas for me, the way ideology motivates people to take a position on AGW, and single mindedly maintain that position against all the scientific evidence, is the most fascinating aspect of the whole debate.”

    What ‘scientific evidence’ ? If there really was such a thing we wouldn’t have all the bitching.

    “The Gray/dan der Lingen thing is something different, because they clearly believe that they’re right.”

    Like all who are passonite about their work.

    “I think it’s a bit like Ken Ring – you can’t change his world view because he’s so committed to it that contrary evidence simply can’t be right.

    I think it’s a bit like Gareth Renowden – you can’t change his world view because he’s so committed to it that contrary evidence simply can’t be right.

    “The cognitive dissonance must be intense.”

    Yes, and it’s rife at this site.

    “I find the ideology concerned frightening enough in itself, but even more so when it triumphs over science, at which point it seems quite deranged.”

    Yeah so when are you lot going to wake up and smell the roses ?

    “But the denial of the science by well educated people is both puzzling and alarming, especially when it is pursued as vigorously and with such political intent as it has been.”

    Your right, those AGW alarmists sure are a bunch of cranks. Oh well, as long as they get their grants they’ll stay loyal to the cause.

    “I would be glad to think you are right and hope that means we will soon see free marketeers no longer flirting with climate change denial.”

    I don’t think anyone, even I, deny climate change, just the cause.

    “I am simply fearful of the prospect for the human race if we don’t get down to the task of lowering emissions and very much want to see it happen by whatever political or economic means.”

    Oh how touching. I’m fearful that you cranks are going to f#@k up the human race with all this CO2 BS.

    “the mass media are not yet acknowledging the distinctly human-induced predicament looming ominously before humanity, even now visible on the far horizon.”

    Oh give me a break. If you are as old as you imply you probably the same sh!t back in the 70’s when we were all to succumb to global cooling.

    “Because human overproduction, over-consumption and overpopulation appear to be occurring synergistically”

    So what, you support a eugenics program also ? You first buddy.

    “it is surprising to me how many people seem to have been won over by the GW skeptics.”

    That’s because intelligent people can see AGW for the scam it really is.

    “It is alarming to me.”

    Probably because you have failed to do your homework and refuse to belive that the UN and those 2500 ‘worlds best scientists’ would pull a fast one on us.

    “But I mainly have a question for you experts.”

    Ha ha lol, sorry but you wont find any here buddy. Just a handful of regular crank alarmists trying to convince us that if we don’t follow the UN adgenda then we’re all doomed. Sad really.

    “Perhaps with that info, I could influence some of these young minds to at least be environmentalists.”

    Maybe it’s you that needs to be convinced or is it true what they say, You can’t teach an old dog………..???

    “of 928 papers she looked at, she could find none that rejected the basic consensus.”

    Cheery picked just like the info in the IPCC comic books.

    Todays link for my AGW friends.

    http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

  11. My word, bat, did you forget to take your little white pills? Or was it the blue ones?

    From bat’s link:

    Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

    From an email from Ken Tapping to Steve Bloom (here:

    Hi Steve,

    The article is rubbish.

    I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or where the tipping point may be.

    The lateness of the start of the solar activity cycle is not yet enough to be something to worry about. However, even if we were to go into another minimum, and the Sun dims for a few decades, as it did during the Maunder Minimum, it could reduce the problem for a while, but things will come back worse when the cycle starts again.

    We are looking at the downside of the freedom of the web. Its freedom extends to bad information being circulated.

    Says it rather well, I think.

  12. “I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or where the tipping point may be.”

    Umm….no mention of CO2 here.

    “We are looking at the downside of the freedom of the web. Its freedom extends to bad information being circulated.”

    Wow, sounds like a direct reference to RC and the likes.

  13. batnv: “What ’scientific evidence’ ? If there really was such a thing we wouldn’t have all the bitching.”

    There’s plenty of scientific evidence bat, You don’t know about it because you choose to avoid it, no doubt you’ve also chosen not to watch the Oreskes video.

    You’re type of single minded belief is what David Horowitz is refering to here:

    “I conclude that truth supported by reason is insufficient to dislodge from the human heart, a lie grounded in desire”

    It’s very important to you and other denialists that AGW isn’t happening, and no among of evidence to the contrary will change your minds.
    You people continually seek out evidence to support your position, usually what you come up with is shown to be a blatently dishonest misrepresentation, as with your link, but still you wriggle about trying to justify a belief that flies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

  14. Gareth the only thing amusing around here is you and your merry band of fanatical preachers.

    Andrew W, your ‘evidence’ doesn’t convince me or other open minded people throughout the world. It’s mainly the sheeple like yourself who can’t think without government help.

    Actually it is because of my open mind that I can see through the BS that is AGW.

    Speaking for myself, no it is not important that AGW is not happening. An yes REAL indisputable scientific evidence WILL convince me. Sadly I somehow don’t think that you would be convinced if things were reversed.

    Gee talk about the pot calling the kettle black !! You Andrew W certainly are full of it !!

    If your going to get so upset reading these posts it might pay to pop a couple of Valium before getting online.

  15. And yes REAL indisputable scientific evidence WILL convince me.

    OK. What evidence will it take, bat? Tell us what will convince you that human-caused global warming is happening, and that it will be a problem?

  16. “It’s mainly the sheeple like yourself..”

    You’re the sheeple bat, you follow the call of your ideological idols without questioning where they’re leading you.

    “it is because of my open mind that I can see through the BS that is AGW.”

    An open mind is listening to and trying to understand both sides before deciding who you agree with. As I said, I doubt you watched the video.

    “If your going to get so upset reading these posts”

    Heh, don’t worry bat, chatting to you isn’t taxing.

  17. Gareth how about you point me to what you consider to be irrefutable scientic evidence showing man made CO2 being responsible for global climate change.

    Andrew W, I have no idols and worship no one or no thing. I decide for myself and am only swayed by who I consider to have the most compelling information. I follow no ones path but my own.

    You I’d guess, would be the classic socialite, giving in to peer pressure, doing anything to fit in with the crowd, a typical government conformer who dare not do as he’s told.

    Todays link.

    http://thenewamerican.com/node/7009

  18. I can’t escape the feeling that I’m embarking on a fool’s errand…

    OK; do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? [Hint: this is basic physics, established for over 150 years]

    If you do, then it’s also obvious that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to warm the planet. [This isn’t rocket science.]

    Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. It’s now about 385 ppm, and we know from the isotope ratio of C13 to C14, that the carbon is coming from fossil fuels being burned.

    A lesson from history: during the depths of the last ice age, CO2 was about 180 ppm and the global average temp was 5C cooler than now. So a rise of 100 ppm was enough to bring us out of an ice age. We’ve now added another 100+ ppm…

    So, basic physics suggests we should see some warming. And we do. What’s more, it has a greenhouse gas “signature” – more warming at night and in winter, more at the poles, and the stratosphere cooling. [If it was the sun doing it, the stratosphere would warm first].

    The “debate” is not about the fact of warming, but about the details of what will/might happen. It’s just about credible to argue that it might not amount to much – but that position is getting harder to justify based on recent events such as the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

    So: what evidence is going to convince you we need to do something? There is no global scientific conspiracy to impose socialism on the world. There’s just a bunch of people who are very worried about what their work is telling them is happening, and who would like to find some solutions. Instead of denying the problem, why not come up with solutions that work in your political world view? Because if you don’t, the rest of the world will just get on without you.

  19. “You I’d guess, would be the classic socialite, giving in to peer pressure, doing anything to fit in with the crowd, a typical government conformer who dare not do as he’s told.”

    OK, that’s a reasonably specific description, what did you base it on?

  20. Gareth regarding your comment at 8:45 this morning, and bat’s response, the full text of the letter, which is at this site:
    http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/
    Does mention “the problem of greenhouse gases”:

    “Hi Tom,

    Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

    It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

    It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

    Thanks for the heads-up.

    Regards,

    Ken”

    The way the letter was shortened with editing (I don’t know by whom) is disappointing.

  21. I want to know how bat knows you’re a “classic socialite”. I mean, that’s like Dorothy Parker meets Noel Coward in Princess Di’s boudoir, isn’t it?

    (PS: I hope you like the new comments system. Allows you to edit your posts for 15 minutes…)

  22. It’s a shame that bat didn’t reply to my question as to what he based his “guess” about my character on.
    So I’ll draw my own conclusions.

    Q. Why motivated batnv to guess he could pin me with those characteristics?

    A. He associates an acceptance of AGW with those social/political views.

    Q. Why did he think he was in a position to “guess”

    A. He is arrogant enough to think he could make such a judgement with no evidence supporting that conclusion other than his own preconceptions, this is exactly the same way he draws his conclusions on AGW itself.

    Q. Was he right? Am I “the classic socialite, giving in to peer pressure, doing anything to fit in with the crowd, a typical government conformer who dare not do as(sic. other than) he’s told.”

    A. Not unless that includes cow cockies who spend most of their time with their family when not working. I think I would be a little out of place in the Dorothy Parker meets Noel Coward in Princess Di’s boudoir picture.
    I seem to spend plenty of time bucking the accepted view of any crowd. try to lump me in with almost any group and I’d be the non-conformist, I’m lousy on etiquette.
    I’m a supporter of small government and liberal social rules, but will argue for Capital punishment for criminals who won’t reform.

    So batnv is as wrong in his guess about me as he is in his guess about AGW.

  23. Let me answer for batnv and we’ll see if he agrees

    “I can’t escape the feeling that I’m embarking on a fool’s errand…

    OK; do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? [Hint: this is basic physics, established for over 150 years]”

    correct

    “If you do, then it’s also obvious that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to warm the planet. [This isn’t rocket science.]”

    Incorrect
    The science confirms CO2 concentrations is a cause of temperature changes, and this is widely accepted

    “Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. It’s now about 385 ppm, and we know from the isotope ratio of C13 to C14, that the carbon is coming from fossil fuels being burned.”

    Incorrect
    CO2 has been measured over the last 200 years by various scientists, including Nobel prize winners, show CO2 has varied significantly and has been as high or higher (440ppm) than currently 3 times.
    Beck 2007

    “A lesson from history: during the depths of the last ice age, CO2 was about 180 ppm and the global average temp was 5C cooler than now. So a rise of 100 ppm was enough to bring us out of an ice age. We’ve now added another 100+ ppm…”

    Incorrect
    Again CO2 concentration follow temperature rise, also there is discussion lately as to the accuracy of the ice core data. From further testing it appears CO2 is under represented by 30-50%.
    Jaworowski 2007

    “So, basic physics suggests we should see some warming. And we do.”

    see above

    “What’s more, it has a greenhouse gas “signature” – more warming at night and in winter, more at the poles, and the stratosphere cooling.”

    how about a reference for this? more warming at night???? at the poles????
    the poles are decreasing in temperature, snow is piling up on both Antartica and Greenland. Where do you get your facts????

    [If it was the sun doing it, the stratosphere would warm first].

    Dr John Christy has shown that the greenhouse signature is absent from the scientific data. There should be an increase in temperature above the tropics but there is none. However sun effects earth temperatures more than by irradiance alone. Cloud formation is a major factor. (see Svensmark 2007 The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change)

    “The “debate” is not about the fact of warming, but about the details of what will/might happen. It’s just about credible to argue that it might not amount to much – but that position is getting harder to justify based on recent events such as the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic.”

    The debate is dominantly about the cause of global warming, more than what will happen. The loss of sea ice in the arctic is nothing new, its happened twice (that I know) in 1905 when Amundsen sailed the NW passage and again in the 1940’s.

    “So: what evidence is going to convince you we need to do something? There is no global scientific conspiracy to impose socialism on the world. There’s just a bunch of people who are very worried about what their work is telling them is happening, and who would like to find some solutions. Instead of denying the problem, why not come up with solutions that work in your political world view? Because if you don’t, the rest of the world will just get on without you.”

    His point is I will suggest, the science does not back up the claims by the IPCC et al. Show us your irrefutable evidence, AGW still has not been proved, it has been forced upon us politically. That at least should concern you. Its widely proven that taxing us more in the form of Carbon credits and offsets will have little effect on the IPCC’s forecasts.

    Here’s one question for you, why is the infamous hockey stick graph of Manns ommitted from the current IPCC report? Satellite data shows NO increase since 2003 and little from 1998, certainly not conforming to IPCC forecasts.

    It will soon be self evident that this is all a scam, wait for Winter I predict it’ll be the coldest in yeasr, just like what the Northern Hemisphere as seen during our summer.

    I suggest you read this http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf

    and this
    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

    It looks like you 3 have a bit of catch up reading to do. Please respond once you’ve read the references.

    Or come visit me at http://www.itsascam.co.nz

  24. Hi itsascam, Thanks for putting Swindle on your site, I hadn’t seen it before, it raised no issues that surprised me and has been discredited:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

    On Beck:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

    On Jaworowski:
    http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

    The Kauffman link you provide argues on the basis of the discredited high nineteenth century CO2 claims and so is a waste of time.

    Here’s a thread where I deal with a few issues, including (at the end) the ‘other worlds are also warming’ nonsense, as I see you refer to that stuff on your site.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/04/another_warming_hypocrite.html

    Do you base all your umderstanding of the AGW debate on the lightweight denialist sites you link to? Do you read sites supporting the mainstream arguments at all? Have you actually bothered to watch the Oreskes video? It didn’t sound like batnv did.

  25. I have tried to reply to you itsascam but it looks like I had too many links for the spam filter, perhaps you could do some reading yourself at realclimate, all the claims you advance regarding the science of AGW are refuted there.
    Or aren’t you brave enough to read things that don’t suit your preconceptions?

  26. Please reply here I’m sure others will be hanging om your every word. Please point out where I’m wrong, as I did to gareths post. You may be suprised that I have read quite a bit and that is why I have concluded that Man-Made Global Warming Is A Scam.

    A quote from NOAA “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

    and this from Hadley “The global surface temperature anomaly data from the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temp anomaly is plotted below) has just been released, and it shows a significant drop in the global temperature anomaly in January 2008, to just 0.034°C, just slightly above zero.

    This caps a full year of temperature drop from HadCRUT’s January 2007 value of 0.632°C”

    0.6 degrees celsius in one year, what was IPCC predicting 1-2 degrees warmer by 2100
    Doesn’t seem that much of a worry as its barely more this current annual variation.

  27. I just looked at realclimate, unfortunately its associated with Mann, and since his hockey stick graph has been so thoroughly debunked, and is now not even featured in the latest IPCC report, its just like this site one eyed and full of innaccuracies and cherry picked data.

    Looking forward to your response to the above post

  28. As you are no doubt unaware, various claims made by Beck on the paleoclimate record, Jaworowski on icecores, Michaels on model forecasts, Lindzen on tropospheric temperature trends, Spencer on tropospheric temperature trends, Singer on just about everything, Shaviv on GCR’s, Svenmark, Ball, Lawson on forcings etc, and Calder on the recent history of the debate have all been proven to be false, often involving lies and deliberate desception.
    As you can’t possibly expect me to bother looking at anything these discredited people say, or the contribution of anyone who is in any way associated with them, it appears a debate between us is impossible.

    If I was serious about that last sentence I would be an arsehole, I’m not, but you obviously are serious about dismissing the people at realclimate on an identical basis, (even though you don’t understand the inticacies of where the errors were and the effect of those errors on the Mann et al paleoclimate reconstruction), I don’t waste my time discussing AGW with such people.

    However, if you want to demonstrate that you aren’t an arsehole feel free to refute the points made in this link:
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

  29. Naomi’s fine video has been mentioned on many blogs. I heard an earlier version of it a year ago at Stanford, given to an audience with many climate scientists, including US National Academy of Science members. Given that audience, she spent less time on the science history, and more on George C. Marshall Institute … and she has a *lot* more material.

    However, it is interesting that in many blogs, junior-grade denialists immediately pop up to divert the discussion away from discussion of Naomi’s video into the usual arguments … which is exactly what’s happened here.

    So, why don’t we go back to that, and simply ignore people who don’t haven’t seen it and don’t want to discuss its content.

    Here are a few relevant items:

    1) Americans may recognize Washington, DC’s
    K street” as the center of lobbying, not in general of scientific research organizations. The George C. Marshall Institute is located at 1625 K Street.

    2) You can learn more about it at:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute

    3) Such organizations have their own spinoffs, like companies do. Fred Singer’s SEPP is one of these:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project

    To get a good sense of Singer’s worldview, try http://www.sepp.org . Try mercury or smoking in the search box.

    Junior-grade denialists: read up! This guy is YOUR HERO.

  30. Andrew your as convinced as me, but obviously of the total opposite opinion, you can find arguments dismissing anything you want on the internet. However you cannot dismiss the evidence, prove to me that the globe has warmed since 1998 and then we’ll discuss whether man has anything to do with it.

    Actually, your right its impossible to debate this issue with people like you, hopefully it will become self evident to everyone soon that the earth has stopped warming. The only concern is that people like you will be greatly affecting the world that my kids will have to live in.

  31. As you can see from the first graph on this link, using the usual denialist reasoning, there was also no warming between 1977 and 1985, there was no warming between 1981 and 1993, and there was no warming between 1990 and 2000.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

    The explaination is obvious to someone with an inclination to look at the data objectively, the noise in the sample is large enough for people to dishonestly claim trends that are simply noise and aren’t statistically meaningful.

    As you will have discovered, had you bothered to study the links I’ve provided, this dishonesty is pretty standard fair for many denialists.

    The difference in our approaches, itsascam, (as evidenced by the tag you chose) is that I study the issue and decide on the evidence, you decide whatever suits your ideology and then go looking for the evidence to support that preconception.

    Frankly, there is nothing that you have presented that I haven’t already looked at.

    Oh, one of your links claims the scientists use an arbitrary 83 years difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air trapped in the icecore sampling, can you tell me why they do this? The answer is very simple, but sadly not simple enough for Dr. Kauffman to get to grips with.

  32. I do agree that the earth has (on average) warmed from 1975 to 1998, I asked for evidence that the earth has warmed since 1998.
    If you look at the data before 1975 you’ll find approx 35 years of cooling, and previous to that 35 years of warming. It was warmer in the 1930’s than it is now, and if you look at the latest NOAA data you would have found that the earth has cooled .6 of a degree celsius since last year. Yet co2 production has still been increasing. What is your explanation for that?

    As I said show me a correlation between man made co2 and warming, because I’m sure theres a few skeptics like me who are yet to see it.

    I like most people, believed the media unquestioningly, however a few things did not ring true, having a science background I decided to investigate the subject, after a lot of reading I came to my conclusion that the theory of Man-made global warming is not backed by the scientific evidence. Seeing this truth and knowing that the political consequences I decided to start a web site to promote the other side of the debate. Not one person I have met and discussed this with believes in man made global warming.

    Please tell me whats wrong with Kaufmanns interpretation.

    Its a shame gareth can’t add anything to the debate yet, must be still reading the information I provided earlier.

    And my id tag is itsascam because thats the name of my website. http://www.itsascam.co.nz

    Everyone is invited to visit to get the other side of this important debate.

  33. “It was warmer in the 1930’s than it is now, and if you look at the latest NOAA data you would have found that the earth has cooled .6 of a degree celsius since last year.”

    I think you need to check out some of the basic stuff that my views are based on to get us on to the same page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

    I’m not sure where you get the .6C drop in temperature, I think it’s a misinterpretation of data, possibly it relates to a regional temperature result (as “the 1930’s are as warm as today” refers to the USA rather than Global data). Denialists often play fast and loose in this way.
    You get all sorts of regional trends, storms, heat waves, etc. that mustn’t be blown out of proportion, and yes, alarmists do it, and then denialists do it, as was covered in the “illconsidered” link I posted earlier.

  34. What did I miss?
    Regarding the difference in the age of the ice and trapped air in each layer of a core sample:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
    Because it takes time for the snow to build up and compact under its own weight, the air can circulate freely through the snow for sometime after it has fallen, it takes from a few decades to hundreds of years for compaction to properly trap air in the firn, so the air in each layer is younger than the ice.

    Moving on to “no warming since 1998”, 1998 was a strong El Nino year, during El Nino the air presssure is higher over the Western Pacific than over the Eastern Pacific, resulting in more easterly winds over the tropical Pacific – a reversal of the normal wind flow pattern, this results in the warmer surface water of the Western pacific being pushed eastward, overlaying the cooler water of the Eastern Pacific.

    There is a high corrolation between warmer years globally and El Nino events, even the well known denialist Dr. Bob Carter acknowledges this link, though he still promotes the claim that global warming peaked in 1998.
    http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

  35. I am aware of the basic stuff that you mention, I do not however put any credibility in Wikipedia as a source for information. The site shows a graph of surface temperature record, which has been proven without a doubt to be affected by Urban Heat Island effects. It is commonly realised by most scientists that this can not be relied on. The only accurate source is either Satellite data, which however only goes back to 1979 or long term rural temperature sensors unaffected by Urbanisation, like the US data I mentioned above. Both these show that the IPCC data is not correct.
    The 0.6 degree drop in temperature from January last year can be found here and its confirmed by 4 independant sources, (sorry not NOAA) Hadcrut, RSS, UAH, GISS, so no not an error.
    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/#comments

    And concerning forcings. That graph you link to shows two periods of temperature increase. The first is 1905 to 1945, the second 1980 to 1990? These have about the same slope, yet the first is not associated with an increase of any of the forcings while the second supposedly is. Can you explain this. Also by solar influence I assume it refers to Irradiance, it has been shown there is more effect from the sun than just that, included from flares, winds, and ionisation causing cloud formation. When these are introduced there is a strong correlation between temperature and the sun.

    The IPCC predictions are based on models, these models vary in their results from a 1 to 6 degree change in temperature depending on what is inputed into the model. Are you telling me that we can rely on these models to predict the future, just because they can predict the past by changing the variables to fit? The evidence is proving the models wrong and showing up the convoluted rejiging of the scientific data used to prove their theories, like the GISS temperatures, which were base lined to the 1950 to 1980 period which was when the earth was going through a cold phase (so called global dimming).

  36. “Regarding the difference in the age of the ice and trapped air in each layer of a core sample:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
    Because it takes time for the snow to build up and compact under its own weight, the air can circulate freely through the snow for sometime after it has fallen, it takes from a few decades to hundreds of years for compaction to properly trap air in the firn, so the air in each layer is younger than the ice.”

    And they calculated it to be 83 years??? please a reference to this paper.(no not wikipedia please)

    “Moving on to “no warming since 1998″, 1998 was a strong El Nino year, during El Nino the air presssure is higher over the Western Pacific than over the Eastern Pacific, resulting in more easterly winds over the tropical Pacific – a reversal of the normal wind flow pattern, this results in the warmer surface water of the Western pacific being pushed eastward, overlaying the cooler water of the Eastern Pacific.

    There is a high corrolation between warmer years globally and El Nino events, even the well known denialist Dr. Bob Carter acknowledges this link, though he still promotes the claim that global warming peaked in 1998.
    http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

    I recognise that 1998 was an El Nino year, It would be good to have a temperature graph that accounted for these one off events. We could then also account for the other El Niño events in 1983, 1988, 1991, 1996, 1998 and 2003. and the effects of volcanic eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). My point being The temperature record is not robust enough to make an accurate assessment, more of a qualitative one. There appears to be an increase of temperature(Hadcrut) up till 1998 peaking through 2002, and minor decrease from 2002 till 2007. Looking at the new data we may (or may not) be heading into a cooling trend (which happens to be corresponding with a period of extreme inactivity in the sun).

    The science on this topic is not settled as Gore said, and hence the increase in us denialists.

  37. “The site shows a graph of surface temperature record, which has been proven without a doubt to be affected by Urban Heat Island effects.”

    The surface and satellite data are in agreement, there had been a discrepency between the two but that was found to be due to drift in the satellite orbits:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

    Most scientist denialists have now moved on from arguing that the temperature data is affected by the heat island effect, the screening out of stations for this is rigorous. Of the stations used in establishing global climate trends those showing the most rapid rise in temperature are those inland and at high latitudes – Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, Siberia, this is as GCM’s predict.

    So the temperature drop is for a small unit of time rather than a small unit of area – noise.

    “That graph you link to shows two periods of temperature increase. The first is 1905 to 1945, the second 1980 to 1990? These have about the same slope”

    GHG’s, solar, and volcanic each contribute about equally prior to 1945. the total is the sum of the parts in this case.

    “…it refers to Irradiance, it has been shown there is more effect from the sun than just that, included from flares, winds, and ionisation causing cloud formation. When these are introduced there is a strong correlation between temperature and the sun.”

    Scientists have investigated alternative solar effects, they’ve come to nothing, denialists have tried to argue for GCR effects etc. nothing has stood up to rigorous scrutany.

    “The IPCC predictions are based on models, these models vary in their results from a 1 to 6 degree change in temperature depending on what is inputed into the model.”

    The input that has the largest effect on the models predictions is the emissions scenarios, given any single emissions scenario the range of the temperature predicted is far smaller:
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/031.htm

    “The evidence is proving the models wrong and showing up the convoluted rejiging of the scientific data used to prove their theories”

    You’ve been the victim of denialist propaganda again, the 1990 models are still holding well.

    “And they calculated it to be 83 years??? please a reference to this paper.(no not wikipedia please)”

    Why all the question marks???
    As you may know the icedomes these cores are taken from are well inland in Antarctica, the further inland the lower the precipitation, the vast majority of Antarctica is a polar desert, this means it has an annual precipitation of less than 50mm/yr in many areas much less, as the wiki link explains, the time for the air to be sealed in varies from site to site, this is largely dependent on this precipitation rate.

    “The science on this topic is not settled as Gore said, and hence the increase in us denialists.”

    Many things in science aren’t certainties (is evolution certain?) AGW is a very good bet
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

    The claim about the number of denialists increasing is more propaganda, have you watched the Oreskes video yet? I endured “Swindle” 😉

  38. Two things, I started reposting that comment because it didn’t seem to have gone through the first time and;
    If you don’t like the references I use refute them, don’t fn tell me to use others, I thought I had made that point, that will be my policy towards the references you use.

  39. I thought that the ‘1998 thing’ was thoroughly gone by now? e.g. NASA http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    …saying “Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what’s significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino.”

    I don’t know too much about the more technical points, admittedly.

  40. “The surface and satellite data are in agreement, there had been a discrepency between the two but that was found to be due to drift in the satellite orbits:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurement

    Are you sure, look at reference 17 on that page. It clearly states “CSL show how they intercalibrate each of the eight satellites separately to remove the biases that result from various factors. Specifically, CSL performed the adjustment to account for drift-error and cyclic fluctuations. This is relevant to the WS article in that the analysis by CSL removed a large part of the bias created by orbital decay, even though they were not aware of it at the time.

    I suggest you read this http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/m%26m.jgr07background.pdf

    You’ve yet to show a reference for how the 83 years was calculated, nor why the earlier temperature increase last century was not related to any increase in forcings, nor proof of the warming being due to man-made co2. CO2 is still increasing yet the world is cooling.

    I’d appreciate it if you didn’t swear, I’m sure the web master would not like his site to degrade into a slanging match.

    Wikipedia is open to anyone to post material on, in this respect it is obviously not the ideal reference material to use, it is also highly biased (in my opinion). look at this unbiased article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    I don’t see a list of scientists agreeing, lets assume the remainder do then.

  41. Stephen my point being that the science is not good enough to make a judgement on whether the warming is anything more than normal fluctuation. On your link is this quote “Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F” yet as shown in my post above the world has cooled .6 degrees in the last year counter acting the previous 30 years of warmth. Once you take out el ninos/la ninas volcanic activity etc etc what is the underlying temperature trend. Who knows, we can’t base our and childrens futures on interpretation of data which is not 100% accurately known.

    Also that Nasa data is flawed as stated earlier. Continuously monitored temperature stations in the US ( and other countries )show that the 1930’s was warmer than now. Go do your research, prove me wrong. Don’t accept the media and political hype, come to your own conclusions.

  42. It’s useful to figure out why people believe what they believe:

    “itsascam” (who is probably Simon J. living near Warkworth, NZ) says:

    1)
    “I like most people, believed the media unquestioningly, however a few things did not ring true, having a science background I decided to investigate the subject, after a lot of reading…”

    So having cited this as a reason to believe you:

    a) Which media did you believe without question? And do you have evidence for the assertion that “most people” so believe?

    b) What does “science background” mean? That covers a rather wide range of possibilities, and it is harder to answer your questions without knowing.

    2) Also:

    “Not one person I have met and discussed this with believes in man made global warming.”

    How many people is that, and can you characterize them?

    That comment has a wide range as well, ranging from:
    – One frequently talks with world-class experts on the topic, i.e., senior researchers, Nobel-prize-winning physicists, etc.

    to

    – One talks with one’s neighbors, who might happen to be experts, or might happen to know nothing.

    So, help us calibrate where on that spectrum you are.

  43. Excellent lets get into a background and qualifications then, when you can’t refute the points I make lets attack the person instead.

    Yes I live near Warkworth, have a MSc with firts class honours in Applied Geology from the University of Auckland, although have not worked as a geologist for 10 years.
    The media being the local papers TV and Film An Inconvenient Truth.
    Yes neighbours, friends, people on the street and at the local markets (when wearing the shirt I have advertised on my site)

    My site is totally funded by myself, (hence its basic format) and recieve no money.

    Now John Mashey, and Andrew W your turns.

  44. Here’s the balance of that earlier comment again:

    Most scientist denialists have now moved on from arguing that the temperature data is affected by the heat island effect, the screening out of stations for this is rigorous. Of the stations used in establishing global climate trends those showing the most rapid rise in temperature are those inland and at high latitudes – Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, Siberia, this is as GCM’s predict.

    So the temperature drop is for a small unit of time rather than a small unit of area – noise.

    “That graph you link to shows two periods of temperature increase. The first is 1905 to 1945, the second 1980 to 1990? These have about the same slope”

    GHG’s, solar, and volcanic each contribute about equally prior to 1945. the total is the sum of the parts in this case.

    “…it refers to Irradiance, it has been shown there is more effect from the sun than just that, included from flares, winds, and ionisation causing cloud formation. When these are introduced there is a strong correlation between temperature and the sun.”

    Scientists have investigated alternative solar effects, they’ve come to nothing, denialists have tried to argue for GCR effects etc. nothing has stood up to rigorous scrutany.

    “The IPCC predictions are based on models, these models vary in their results from a 1 to 6 degree change in temperature depending on what is inputed into the model.”

    The input that has the largest effect on the models predictions is the emissions scenarios, given any single emissions scenario the range of the temperature predicted is far smaller:
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/031.htm

    “The evidence is proving the models wrong and showing up the convoluted rejiging of the scientific data used to prove their theories”

    You’ve been the victim of denialist propaganda again, the 1990 models are still holding well.

    “And they calculated it to be 83 years??? please a reference to this paper.(no not wikipedia please)”

    Why all the question marks???
    As you may know the icedomes these cores are taken from are well inland in Antarctica, the further inland the lower the precipitation, the vast majority of Antarctica is a polar desert, this means it has an annual precipitation of less than 50mm/yr in many areas much less, as the wiki link explains, the time for the air to be sealed in varies from site to site, this is largely dependent on this precipitation rate.

    “The science on this topic is not settled as Gore said, and hence the increase in us denialists.”

    Many things in science aren’t certainties (is evolution certain?) AGW is a very good bet
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

    The claim about the number of denialists increasing is more propaganda, have you watched the Oreskes video yet? I endured “Swindle” 😉

  45. “Most scientist denialists have now moved on from arguing that the temperature data is affected by the heat island effect, the screening out of stations for this is rigorous. Of the stations used in establishing global climate trends those showing the most rapid rise in temperature are those inland and at high latitudes – Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, Siberia, this is as GCM’s predict.”
    references please

    “GHG’s, solar, and volcanic each contribute about equally prior to 1945. the total is the sum of the parts in this case.”
    And in the other case its caused by Greenhouse gases alone”?

    “Scientists have investigated alternative solar effects, they’ve come to nothing, denialists have tried to argue for GCR effects etc. nothing has stood up to rigorous scrutany.”

    They have not come up with nothing, they have come up with a better theory for global warming as the IPCC has, as it actually correlates witht the raw data.”

    “You’ve been the victim of denialist propaganda again, the 1990 models are still holding well.”
    Who’s in denial, the models projections have been reduced 3 fold.

    “Why all the question marks???”

    Because it amazing that that number makes the ice core data match up with the Mauna data.

    “As you may know the icedomes these cores are taken from are well inland in Antarctica, the further inland the lower the precipitation, the vast majority of Antarctica is a polar desert, this means it has an annual precipitation of less than 50mm/yr in many areas much less, as the wiki link explains, the time for the air to be sealed in varies from site to site, this is largely dependent on this precipitation rate.”

    Again show me the paper that calculates the 83 years.

    “Many things in science aren’t certainties (is evolution certain?) AGW is a very good bet”

    Aah so you agree that the world is betting on their future by holding to this AGW theory. Don’t get me started on evolution.

    There are a number of reports and petitions out that show an increase in the number of scientists opposing the IPCC view. Including a good number of prior IPCC reviewers.

    No I haven’t watched the video,

  46. “itsascam, don’t get too excited about the january figure, if you check the second graph in this link you’ll see you get a wide distribution of data points using monthly data.”

    Its the last year of monthly data showing a consistent downward trend, resulting in the total 0.6 drop not an outlier.

    We will await the February result with bated breath then.

  47. “Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, Siberia, this is as GCM’s predict.”
    “references please”
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    Knock yourself out.

    “And in the other case its caused by Greenhouse gases alone?”

    No, it’s always a sum of the different forcings, the evidence points strongly towards GHG’s being the dominant positive forcing since WWII

    “They have not come up with nothing, they have come up with a better theory for global warming as the IPCC has, as it actually correlates witht the raw data.”

    Reference please. (is this where I’m supposed to say: not from Singer, Michaels, Christy, Spencer etc?)

  48. “Who’s in denial, the models projections have been reduced 3 fold.”

    Again, reference please.

    “show me the paper that calculates the 83 years.”

    It’s not a calculation, its a measurement of the gases and impurities within the cores.
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/
    http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html

    “Aah so you agree that the world is betting on their future by holding to this AGW theory. Don’t get me started on evolution.”

    You take bets everyday, as rather a lot is at stake with AGW it’s reasonable to take out insurance by working to minimise it, you insure your house I assume?

    “There are a number of reports and petitions out that show an increase in the number of scientists opposing the IPCC view. Including a good number of prior IPCC reviewers.”

    Really? Evidence please.

    “No I haven’t watched the video,”

    Says it all really, if it doesn’t agree with your convictions, you don’t want to know about it.

  49. “show me the paper that calculates the 83 years.”

    It’s not a calculation, its a measurement of the gases and impurities within the cores.
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/
    http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html

    You still have not shown me the scientific paper that answers my question, A link to a schools science lab doesn’t quite do it in my books.

    I don’t have time now to reply further, but I must say that nothing that you have sad is very convincing to me, as I’m sure you feel too. The good thing is that this record is on file here to show other people that the science is not settled with links to go and find the truth.
    Anyway as you and John have said I should watch the video. I’ll try to do that tonight. My posting here was not in response to the video but to Gareths response to batnv posts.

    Tell me then your view of An Inconvenient Truth.

  50. Sigh, itsascam.
    You were the one who raised “science background” and “people talked to”, not me. If you want to cite such things to support credibility, you might expect people to ask.

    0) This thread was supposed to be about Naomi’s video. You’ve done your best to divert it.

    Naomi’s BSc is from Imperial College, often called the MIT of the UK.
    Her PhD in geosciences / history of science is from Stanford.
    She’s a full professor at UC San Diego, will shortly be a Provost of one of its schools, and is an award-winning and well-published researcher.
    http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html

    An MSc from U of Auckland is worthwhile [I’ve given lectures there, as I have at the 3 others mentioned.] But, is your knowledge so strong you have nothing to learn from Naomi?

    With all due respect to U of Auckland, it has some good people, but overall, is not quite in the league of the other 3 schools mentioned.

    If you believe you can simply dismiss what she says, especially without even looking at it, then you might want to look up Dunning-Kruger Effect, which often applies.

    1) Again, you were the one to raise “science background” and “everyone I talk to”. If, after you watch Naomi’s video, you really want to hear my background & who I talk to, I’ll be glad to comment further, since the most relevant items may not show up online. It is trivial to find me via Google & Google Scholar. Of course only the science really matters.

  51. The wiki ice core link has plenty of references to scientific papers, if you have the inclination to look.

    I understand your inability to provide references supporting your own claims.

  52. “The wiki ice core link has plenty of references to scientific papers, if you have the inclination to look.”

    So you don’t have a link to a reference. Thought as much.

    John “If you believe you can simply dismiss what she says,” I have done nothing of the sort as I have not looked at the movie. I am only posting in response to Gareths post concerning batnv as said before.

    I never presented myself as a climate science expert just as a well read layman with a scientific background.

    You can dismiss whatever you don’t agree with, the core of this arguement is that the science is not settled, and there is continuing debate on this matter. Do you deny that.

    Can I suggest also Andrew that to attack me personally is old hat, and does nothing to prove your case.

    John “Of course only the science really matters”
    why ask me about my credentials then?

    You guys are so arrogant, its incredible.

    John Mashey please provide your credentials. And Andrew, I’m assuming you have none, by the lack of your knowledge of specific scientific references backing your claims. As i said I will look at the movie and then make a response to it.

  53. “You guys are so arrogant, its incredible.”
    “So you don’t have a link to a reference. Thought as much.”

    This from someone who has only provided 3 references in this whole discussion, one to a paper by a biochemist with no relevant qualifications, and another on icecores by a nuclear physicist also with no relevant qualifications.

    And still you are unable to provide anything supporting your latest claims.

    Because I have no relevant qualifications I must rely on the those who do, the qualifications you have scam, only seem to give you the arrogance to believe you’re better at understanding the AGW than those who’ve actually studies this branch of science for years.

    Obviously given the above you will be familiar with the tendency of some scientists to believe they’re qualified to comment on other disciplines. Interestingly, in climatology it seems to be geologists who most commonly think they’re the new experts.

  54. Naomi’s video does a pretty good job of showing that the core argument was settled before 1990. I agree with her, and so did George H. W. Bush, and so do the real experts, as it’s really pretty basic physics.

    One last time: *you* introduced science background and agreement by all who you talked to, in support of your (anonymous) opinions.

    Like I said, after you’ve seen the video, IF you still want my refs, I’ll happily spend the time to post my relevant info beyond that trivially available on the web.

  55. “Tell me then your view of An Inconvenient Truth.”

    Basically sound with a few minor errors, but does give an impression of immediacy and likelyhood of the worst scenarios that I’m not comfortable.

  56. Hi all,

    Just checked in from sunny Queenstown to find a comment explosion. I’ve approved all the stuff that was in moderation. Sorry if that screws up the flow…

    To Simon: I won’t attempt to join the fray at this point, but I will point out that the presentation of the science on this site and in Hot Topic (the book) is as close to the mainstream as I can make it. Given that an IPCC lead author wrote the introduction, I am reasonably confident I achieved what I set out to do…

    Your points have been extensively and repeatedly debunked. Read Andrew W’s replies – he sums it up well.

    And John, thanks for chipping in. Not sure I agree with Imperial College as MIT. I prefer older universities with rivers nicknamed for Egyptian gods… (not Bob Dylan songs).

  57. Gareth: Not a matter of preference.

    I’ve spoken at that one also. My wife did her undergrad work at The Other Place (and I’ve spoken a few times there as well), but she did her PhD at IC, and we do a lot of events with IC folks.

    We recently attended a fine 100-year (yes, I know, really young school) IC event in Cambridge (the US one), as IC + MIT have a cooperative deal going. Great event, including climate talks by excellent folks like Professor Jo Haigh and Professor Sir Peter Knight, with lots of time for side discussions.

    Anyway, although correspondences can never exact, I’ll still stick with my comment, mainly on the relative emphasis on engineering, which is a bigger chunk of MIT & IC than of the others. Like I say, not a preference issue or quality issue, but more one of emphasis and style.

  58. Interesting article, don’t you think people?

    “According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

    “We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

    Another couple of interest

    http://www.weather-in-canada-observer.com/global-warming-facts.html

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-spot-check-of-global-warming/index.html?hp

    The comments on the above link make good reading

  59. Gareth I suggest that you defend your views as my original post was directed at you and Andrew try as he might can not provide the answers. And John I see is the roving fireman, dousing the flames of AGW denialists before they catch on to the public.

    So Gareth, please can you show me proof of Man-Made Global warming. If you want to start a new thread thats fine by me.

  60. The first of your links is total bunk, “the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.”
    No model I’ve heard of claims this as a possibility.

    “It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics.”
    These people are talking nonsense, thermohaline circulation is not believed to be powered by “ice melt” as claimed.
    We also have this lie:
    “Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.”
    Which has already been refuted on this thread!

    The second link was also dishonest, if you click on a spot on the map in the middle of Canada a list of the nearest rural weather stations appears, if you check out the data from each station the majority show a warming trend.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    Regarding your third link, I’ve already linked to “open mind” which shows the data sets from the different sources, and, yes there was a divergence between them last year largely (I understand) because giss includes polar temperatures while the others don’t.

    Isn’t it about time you gave references supporting your previous claims?
    Why do you almost always use populist denialist sites as your sources, surely as a scientist you should be able to handle reputable scientific sites?

    On another matter, I see that on your site you claim that other planets are also experiencing global warming, in the cases of Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto you actually link to reasonable articles to support this claim. Did you actually read the articles? the astronomers interviewed attributed the warming to orbital influences, or in the case of Jupiter (where “global warming isn’t even claimed), to atmospheric circulation changes resulting from the development of a huge storm system.

  61. gareth I responded to your post at 22 with mine at 29

    Andrew I have just looked at the temperature data as you suggested. Of stations with the longest record of the ones that show a increase over the hundred years have a pattern of an increase in temperature to around 1940 a decrease to around 1980 and in increase to 1998 and decrease to now.
    Look up fairview Alaska, Fort Smith, The Pas, Fort McMurray. As the original paper says the majority have little discernible trend. It certainly does not make a convincing argument for global warming, and shows the earlier hot period in the 1930’s.
    Also has the urban heat island effect been taken into account fully? Where are the stations positioned, have the been moved, built up around etc. The photos of weather stations in the USA are astounding, how are they not compromised?

    http://www.surfacestations.org/

    I reiterate that the data set and the science is not robust enough to allow a definitive conclusion to the question of global warming. Surely once we know the globe is warming (not just fluctuating on a 35 year period) we can then determine if man has anything to do with it. Big Business and politicians have jumped the gun. All I’m advocating is a bit of sense before we commit ourselves to any radical attempts to change things that may not even need changing.
    In this world the population growth, is a consequence of fossil fuels, if we limit fossil fuels we limit our population. Or in other words, a lot of people are going to suffer.
    World headlines already predict a massive jump in food prices this year 40% wheat is at record highs, as is corn. Theres riots in Mexico over corn prices. Ethanol from corn is a gross emitter of co2 and takes 30% of corn out of the food stocks. Blaming man for global warming is going to kill us, and you warmists are basically advocating sending us back to pre industrial times.
    No real alternative energy can replace coal for, wind and solar is fickle, hydro destroys land utilisation and is also fickle, the only real alternative is nuclear but whats the chances of that.

    I have better things to do than bang my head against a wall, (especially as theres only a handfull of people here), all my points I’m sure you’ve heard before, as all your points I’ve heard. You obviously have no inclination of seeking the truth, fortunately in time the truth will be evident to all.

  62. Andrew, you’re right the jupiter article is not relevant, (and once I can access my site I will remove the link) however the others are. The articles show that the sun is a factor and that the scientists differ in their opinions ie. the science is not settled.

    And your sites- warmist sites and wikipedia. The argument is endless.

  63. Gotcha!

    Your 9:56 comment simply confirms what was already known, your motivation for denying AGW is economic and ideological, You see AGW as too much of a problem to overcome without causing too much economic hardship so you try refute not just the economic and political aspects, but also the science.

    I’m all for nuclear and am optimistic that the cost of solar is dropping fast enough that it’ll soon be competative with traditional energy sources.

    You may have noticed that the availability of oil is low at present, if we are near peak, and it’s looking more and more likely that we are, alternatives will be essential. my views on biofuels is here:
    http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/is-biofuel-really-the-answer-for-nz/

    For you the science comes second.
    Me, I’ve never claimed that mitigation was better than adaptation, though I think it likely that the best course is probably a bit of both.

  64. No for me the science comes first, there is no warming problem!! The problemis the wrong interpretation of the science by you warmists. The IPCC is political was set up to show a link for warming to man and heavily funded, suprise suprise the results it obtained. Smacks of Big Tobacco. This is going to lead us down the path mentioned, which is why I set up my website, to promote the science and that there is no consensus.

    Solar prices is dropping but not fast enough, new technology is out that I think reduces the cost to a tenth of what it is now.but will it see the light of day.
    Nuclear-well its ok till you have to get rid of the waste
    Peak oil is another scam, there’s evidence that oil is abiotic (google it) and not a finite resource. These scams are all about control.

    Movie-haven’t had time as my broad band makes movie extermely slow loading but from my quick preview looks like a conspiracy theory.

    You warmists can say what you like the truth is the facts are stacking up against you.

    You’re calling me idealogical? You like most warmers take whats shoved in your face as gospel, so that you can save the world, and promote your own idealogical stance.

    As John said in an earlier post all that matters is the science and as Schopenhauer said

    “All truth passes through 3 phases: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed, and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

  65. “there’s evidence that oil is abiotic”

    From a geologist????!!!

    Everyone else accepts peak oil, though they disagree on when:
    http://www.trendlines.ca/scenarios.htm

    “These scams are all about control.”
    That’s your Ideology talking.

    “You like most warmers take whats shoved in your face as gospel, so that you can save the world, and promote your own idealogical stance.”

    OK, how exactly does my ideology dictate my stance?
    How I’ve arrived at my position on AGW is; there is warming, and the theory of GHG’s, (which is over a hundred years old) explains that warming. For the warming not to be a result of GHG’s we need to (a) explain away how increasing concentrations of GHG’s wouldn’t cause the warming that theory says they would and (b) come up with an alternative cause for that warming.

    That’s it! no ideology! I suggest nuclear and solar as alternatives but I haven’t actually accepted that GW is a catastrophy, I have argued against the alarmists in that respect (check the rest of the kiwiblog thread I posted at 9:37pm)

    Your answer to the observed warming? Lindzen’s Iris effect and GCR’s?
    Come on, that’s just desperate!

    Or are you saying it’s some “cycle”? fine, tell me what drives this claimed cycle. The sun? Sorry no such 35 year solar cycle’s been observed.

    Another thing, have you moved on from your earlier claim that (globally) the 1930’s were as warm as today?

    I can’t get over this: “there’s evidence that oil is abiotic”.
    That’s another theory by a scientist making claims outside his field (astronomer Thomas Gold).

    “All truth passes through 3 phases: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed, and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

    Couldn’t have put it better myself, you’re still in phase 1 itsascam, but moving into phase 2.

    If you apply it to me, well, I ridicule the Flat Earth theory, does Schopenhauer’s quote mean you expect I’ll one day accept a Flat Earth as self evident?

  66. “For the warming not to be a result of GHG’s we need to (a) explain away how increasing concentrations of GHG’s wouldn’t cause the warming that theory says they would and (b) come up with an alternative cause for that warming.”
    I have given you other scientists alternate theories, however your closed mind refuses to entertain any possibilities outside of your warmist focus.

    “Or are you saying it’s some “cycle”? fine, tell me what drives this claimed cycle. The sun? Sorry no such 35 year solar cycle’s been observed.”

    I don’t have to, all I have to do is point out the evidence, clearly evident in the raw data mentioned above. This shows that the science is not settled. As the CO2 does not correlate with temperature.
    And no for the usa dataset, the 1930’was hotter than now.

    On Abiotic oil go here.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55476

    Its hard to tear myself away but this arguement is going nowhere.

    I’ll check back in a year and see how you’re doing with this.

  67. “And no for the usa dataset, the 1930′was hotter than now.”

    I’m not disputing that the USA dataset shows America was as warm in the 1930’s as it is now, you’re dodging again, I asked if you accept that globally temperatures are warmer now than they were in the 1930’s.

    “I have given you other scientists alternate theories, however your closed mind refuses to entertain any possibilities outside of your warmist focus.”
    And the scientific literature is awash with evidence refuting solar forcing as an alternative explaination.

    “As the CO2 does not correlate with temperature.”

    Been there, you’ve seen the graph showing how the combination of different forcings produce a result that matches observation.

    As far as abiotic oil goes, there are so many faults with the claims in your (again not a reputable scientific source) link that I’m not going to waste time going through them, as a geologist you should be able to see most of them, try being objective about the link.

    By the way, complex hydrocarbons are cracked down to the C1 – C4 level, with rare exceptions (cooler spots in the Earths crust)in petroleum fields at greater depth so these are gas fields.
    Methane is found in volcanic gas, but it’s not a major constituent and vents that do have high levels are in regions where the surface has been pushed downward through plate movement, so the foremost theory explaining higher methane is that it’s from organic matter transported down from the surface. Isotope ratios in oil fields point to a biotic origin for the carbon.

    Again you’re arguing for a ideological motivation for a scientific theory that has been accepted well before the ideological motivation existed.

  68. So, despite John Mashey’s guidance we are still way off the hot-topic du jour. But, what the hell – it’s good craic.

    Abiotic oil – great!, now if only we could encourage old Gaia to squeeze it out at the same rate we are using it that will be one doomsday scenario we don’t need to worry about anymore.

    And to go back a long way in the thread

    From Mr Scam
    “Why all the question marks??? Because it amazing that that number makes the ice core data match up with the Mauna data.”

    Assuming that you are referring to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements which started in 1957…then measuring the same CO2 as at Mauna with an 83 year offset would mean a measurement series running between 2040 and 2091.

    Is time travel among the amazing properties of abiotic oil?

    Yours sceptically
    Andrew

  69. I think the dream of the abiotic oil crowd is that all we need to do is drill deeper to find bountiful oil supplies, but it’s all a very long pipe dream because the high temperatures at greater depth makes anything other than the simplest hydrocarbon gas molecules impossible.
    And of course even that can be ruled out because of the very low hydrocarbon gas content in volcanic vents.

    Regarding ice cores, the offset occurs because 1957 atmosphere is trapped in 1874 ice (in that particular ice core), it takes 83 years for the fallen snow to become compacted to the point at which air within the ice in truely trapped ie. isolated from the atmosphere, so the air in the core is 83years younger than the ice around it.

  70. Abiotic oil, Peak Oil, New Zealand

    Among other things, I used to help sell supercomputers to oil companies, for both seismic analysis and reservoir modeling. Hence I spent time with good petroleum geologists in Houston, Denver, Calgary, San Ramon, Perth, Dhahran, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Rio de Janeiro, talking about how they found oil, how they managed reservoirs, and why they were willing to spend $Ms on computers & 3D visualization systems to help them do it better.
    [A: the easy oil was already gone in the 1990s, so they had to work a lot harder to find it and optimize its recovery.]

    Would these folks have liked the idea ofinexhaustible abiotic oil?
    A: YES!

    Did these folks think abiotic oil was real?
    A: HA!

    Thomas Gold was an interesting guy, with a lot of sometimes-wild deas, some of which turned out to be right … but even if there is a “deep hot biosphere”, that doesn’t mean there is substantive abiotic oil, and even if that were true, it wouldn’t be appearing anywhere fast enough to fend off Peak Oil.

    A friend’s 13-year-old asked him “Daddy, are you adults going to leave any oil for us?”
    A: sorry, not much, and almost none for your kids.

    Lord Ron Oxburgh, among other things, is a PhD geoscientist who was the rector (head) of Imperial College in UK for years, and later was brought in to clean up mess at Shell as Chairman. Is it possible that one might attach some weight to his opinions? He said:

    http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2004/06/ron-oxburgh-chairman-of-shell-oil-im.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/jun/17/scienceinterviews.oilandpetrol

    Is that clear enough? this is not a quote-mine or press misquoting, you can Google: ron oxburgh climate change

    Peak Oil:
    David Strahan, “The Last Oil Shock”
    Matt Simmons, “Twilight in the Desert”
    Kenneth Deffeyes, “Beyond Oil”
    ASPO, http://www.peakoil.net

    NZ
    I’ve visited NZ a dozen times over the last two decades, and among the 40+ countries I’ve visited, it’s one of my favorites. I’ve met many good folks there, ranging from the people who took us on horse-trekking from Wanaka to Arrowtown, my first time on a horse, or easier on the backside, working with truly world-class groups like Weta Digital. As a friend, I got to see about 30 minute of LoTR a year early, although the non-disclosure agreement was fierce [movie folks always are, but in this case, there were words to the effect that if I told anyone anything, they’d send orc-lawyers after me, a threat to be feared.]

    NZ is also the most geographically-isolated first-world country. The last I heard, the NZ economy depends a lot on international trade, including agricultural exports, and tourism.

    [I used to talk to NZ government folks, and in the late 80’s early 90s they were always complaining about the damage done to NZ ag exports by UK joining the EU, and how NZ was far away. I kept telling them:

    1) You have some good software people, bits are cheaper to ship than lamb.
    2) You can fake being anywhere, and you really should be making more movies here, and they’re cheap to ship.
    3) You have fabulous scenery, you should have more tourism.

    When the Travel Channel carried Helen Clark doing a “Lord of the Rings” tour, I knew the government had finally gotten it. 🙂

    But I hope the NZ government is thinking about peak Oil & global warming, of which the first will clobber NZ faster than the second.

    At least NZ is hilly, and has a lot of open space, but on the other hand, the bigger towns all start at sea level, there’s a huge percentage of infrastructure there, including the big airports, although I think they’re high enough to last through the end of cheap oil and then it won’t matter much. Here in the SF Bay Area, SFO and Oakland Airports will need dikes.

    In terms of building future infrastructure, the following is useful:

    http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-40.9135,173.2764&m=1

    You will have to figure out which areas to dike, and which to abandon, and where development should be disincented.

    When things have to be rebuilt “up the hill”, recall that cheap petroleum will be gone, which has some implications for prices of steel & concrete, and cost of bulldozing. The Dutch are doing interesting things with floating buildings.
    At least Auckland is better off than, say New Orleans or Miami.

  71. Bugger! – I hate it when that happens

    Thanks Andrew for sorting out my ice trap thinking (or lack of it)

    Now I guess I should apologise to Itsa Scam – “sorry” (8pt subscript)

  72. And with a few more minutes of thought I’ll jump back to your original question. “Why all the question marks???”

    Surely Itsa (MSc) has heard of calibration?

    ie it is perfectly reasonable for the ice researchers to pick on 83 years if they know it takes between say 5 and 12 decades to seal off from the atmosphere (ie they are in the ballpark) and then they can trace a change in the CO2 content which matches known data from another source. So what’s his problem?

    But then I don’t need to tell you this (just the nefarious other readers and perhaps Itsa himself)

  73. Well, it seemss that itsascam (Simon) has given up here. If Simon’s geology work had anything to do with coal, I might understand why he’s so vehement. However, as denier websites go, he has some work to do.

    ====
    Of the serious denialists (i.e., like those in the video that started this thread), Burton Richter mentioned some with disgust in a talk to a 30-person group in our town in 2004 or 2005. Al Gore could have swapped in the first third of this (the part on climate) and not changed his talk, unsurprising, because both of them got them from the same scientific sources anyway.

    So, who’s Burton Richter? and did he know these denialists personally? [yes]

    Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, Director Emeritus of SLAC, Stanford Prof, i.e., world-class senior scientist:

    http://www-group.slac.stanford.edu/do/brichter/presentations/2004_10_05.htm

    Some of it’s a little technical, and he skipped some of the slides for a general group, although not too many. [Our little town, Portola Valley, has odd demographics: of adults, 10% have PhDs, 40% other advanced degrees, and 44% 4-year degrees.]

    Now just because someone has a Nobel Physics prize doesn’t mean they are automatically right … but one either be truly brilliant or really dumb to simply ignore them.

    It helps to live a few miles from Stanford, and be able to often talk to Nobel prize winners, IPCC authors, members of the US National Academy of Sciences, UK Fellows of the Royal Society, top climate researchers, etc. World-class people say what they know and what they don’t, and usually show amazing patience in answering skeptical questions that they’ve heard many times and pointing people at useful sources.

    Personal contact really helps, but if geography gets in the way, these days at least one can get good information from the Web if one starts with *science* websites like those of:

    IPCC:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    NASA GISS:
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

    UK Met office Hadley:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

    Of course, if one starts with denialist websites, has little or no contact with working scientists, and has the right economic or ideological leanings, one can easily get trapped in a strange “alternate universe” where the laws of physics have been repealed.

    For a good discussion, one of my favorite books is William Ruddiman, “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum”,
    http://www.amazon.com/Plows-Plagues-Petroleum-Control-Climate/dp/0691133980/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204846686&sr=8-1
    [see reviews, and read Chapter 18, as a clear-headed senior scientists talks about denialism.]

  74. Hi John

    Thanks for your many attempts to keep this thread on track.

    You mentioned back on Feb 24 that Naomi had a lot more material on the George C Marshall institute. Is any of that accessible too? (or does sourcewatch and Burton Richter cover it).

  75. re: more material

    Naomi has more stuff:

    a) When I saw the earlier version of this talk at Stanford most of the talk (instead of just half) was about GMI, not just half of it. I haven’t seen this version anywhere online.

    b) Then I talked to her some.

    c) And later there were some email conversations.

    So, as far as I know, not public, sorry.

  76. Here’s a link to a free PDF of the article by Peter Jacques: looks very interesting.

    I’ll quote the closing paragraph. Jacques has earlier referred to Jared Diamond’s Collapse, and its discussion of the ecological factors underlying the fall of civilisations;

    Skeptics however wish to postpone this change. Their placations sound good to the elite who are part of the dominant world order. From Diamond’s lessons, this skeptical song is like lulling the boiling frog to sleep, ignoring that someone put the frog in the pot to begin with, and then telling the frog that things are, “in fact,” getting better all the time.

  77. I thought it was massively interesting. Sorry, I forgot to provide a free link, it’s just automatic where I work! And just so others know, the article is much more than just ‘bashing the messenger’. There is analysis!

  78. Yep – I’m with the other Andrew on that one. Having just spent a big chunk of the weekend going through it. I skirted around bits of the story as it unfolded last year but never really put it all together. It is clear that you, John, saw something fishy about the whole affair from the very start (judging by your comments on the various blogs) and I think the motivation of keeping a record of events is very worthwhile.

    On a lesser note I have been thinking we should keep track of NZCSC’s comments over a few things recently (like Arctic sea ice extent).

  79. Andrews:

    Thanks for the kind words.

    You might well consider doing a shadow site that debunks things over there. In particular, it is often very instructive to track people over time:

    a) Most of the arguments change, except:

    b) No regulation.

    Sometimes, someone may actually sound plausible the first time you encounter them, but tracking them over time…

  80. I wonder if I might not squeeze a little wiki into this site somewhere. For the purposes of keeping tabs on NZCSC/ICSC activities.

    I’ve just been digging around at Parliament, and found the submissions made by NZ CSC members to committee considering the ETS bill. It’s all good stuff. Plenty of wild assertions: viz Vince Gray “There has been no significant temperature change in New Zealand for at least fifty years. All measurements of global temperature agree that there has been a fall in temperature since 1998, and that last month was the coldest for many years. Global warming is not happening. Arctic Ice is growing, New Zealand glaciers are advancing.”

    Not much of that is true. What does that make Vincent? And is it legal to lie to a Parliamentary committee? Contempt of Parliament, perhaps?

  81. A little wiki sounds like a good plan (as does a little whi’ky – I might just execute that).

    Gareth, with your previous form (in debating with the NZCSC) I am sure you have a lot of info that the rest of us would be very interested in.

    I’m not quite sure how a wiki would operate but I would try to help.

    Andrew

    PS. Nice presentation (World Peace) the aging of the arctic sea ice tells a very compelling story. Which is the perfect answer to CSC claims…..do you think you are on a winner with Mr Stoat?

  82. I’ll have to think about the wiki – I can do that on my own site, but I’ll have to see what HT’s publishers think.

    As for my bet with William the “Stoat”; I still think the odds are about 50/50. The loss of multi-year ice despite a colder than recent average winter argues in favour of my winning, but a continuing La Nina might slow down the spring melt – and the new 1 year ice was more than last year (though still well below the average). I shall be watching Cryosphere Today with interest – it’s showing quite a sharp dip at the moment…

  83. so much for ken rings prediction that there would be a cold snap in the first week in april marking the start of winter, how wrong can he get….quiet frankly the man is a crack-pot and has lost the plot…..wonder how much he makes on his books as he is scamming the new zealand public outta money….on a different note has anybody seen the satellite images taken of the poles, there doesn’t seem to be much of the so called dramatic changes as they say that has taken place, perhaps the earth has gone thru these climate changes in the past and we are going through the same changes that occurs over the centuries.????

  84. Hi Torn
    Better read this
    http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/the-ban-of-ddt-science-that-wasnt/
    “Thunderstorms, tornado hammer South Island
    11:43AM Wednesday April 02, 2008
    Severe thunderstorms lashed the South Island last night bringing lightening, hail and heavy rain to the West Coast and parts of Canterbury.
    Metservice forecaster Bob Lake said there have been media reports of a tornado in Westport and although he could not verify the reports, Mr Lake said the conditions would have been conducive to tornadoes.
    He said by the time the bad weather got to the North Island it had died down and it is now sitting just north of Auckland..” etc

    This was not a cold snap? Then what is..!
    And as for my books, you don’t have to buy them. As long as farmers do, and they do, I’m happy writing them.
    cheers!
    Ken

  85. Ken,

    just for the record: Do you think (as you wrote in your submission to Parliament) that CO2 is too heavy (molecular mass 44) to make it above a “haze layer of a few hundred feet”. (Because “air” has a molecular mass of 29). ?

    That submission of yours contained some other points that it might be interesting to go over some time as well. Like your ideas about ozone. They used to be also posted on your website but have now gone. Have you changed your mind?

Leave a Reply