Tide in, mind out

homer.jpg No surprise: the NZ climate crank coalition has rushed to support the ACT/National review of climate policy. Rear-admiral Jack Welch issued a press release on Sunday welcoming the coalition deal, and ACT’s demand that the science of climate be reviewed:

We are confident that once the Select Committee has an opportunity to hear all sides of the scientific debate on the man-made global warming hypothesis, it will conclude that climate variation is natural and cyclical and does not justify the costs and restrictions on human activity which have been proposed on the basis of computer projections rather than what meteorological observations and the earth’s history have demonstrated over the centuries.

So this committee of parliamentarians is going to judge the work of the entire climate science community and decide that it’s wrong? Wishful thinking (I hope). But it gets better:

Admiral Welch said qualified coalition members look forward to assisting the Select Committee and to serving on the proposed advisory group of government officials and private sector experts.

Allow me to point out the obvious. The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee, and if any of them get anywhere near any “advisory group”, New Zealand will be going to hell in a handbasket.

Time for the NZ scientific community to make it clear to Nick Smith and National that the starting point for any review of climate policy has to be an acceptance of the IPCC’s Fourth Report, and the NZ Royal Society’s statement issued earlier this year. Anything else would be like appointing Ken Ring to run MetService.

[Title reference]

68 thoughts on “Tide in, mind out”

  1. Actually I was rather disappointed by the response, or lack of it, by New Zealand climate scientists to the outrageous Leyland story in last week’s DomPost, and to Jack Welch’s press release, which, needless to say, featured on the front page of yesterday’s business pages in the DomPost. It’s very unfortunate to leave the public with the impression that the NZCSC’s version has any authority whatever.

  2. >So this committee of parliamentarians is going to judge the work of the entire climate science community and decide that it’s wrong? Wishful thinking (I hope). But it gets better:

    For you of course it is only those who believe the same nonsense who are part of this ‘climate science community’.

    In reality there are more outside than in the community.

    >Allow me to point out the obvious. The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee, and if any of them get anywhere near any “advisory group”, New Zealand will be going to hell in a handbasket.

    Rubbish. Carter, de Frietas, de Lange and Tim Ball come to mind immediately. I would suggest that any geologist who has actually worked in the field rather than ‘worked’ as a teacher or bureaucrat is entitled to ‘assist’ as you put it.

    I have asked around the mature working geologists that I know and none of them believe in the AGW nonsense and they do not know any geologists that do either. It looks as though pretty much the entire non teaching/papershuffling/public-mammary gland-sucking community of geologists share my view of it.

  3. A small quibble Roger, but Chris de Freitas has previously told me that he is NOT a member of NZCSC and has no control over what members say or write and that he is merely their scientific advisor but is seldom called upon to offer advice.

    Has that changed?

  4. No. But that is a microscopic quibble. Certainly he has no control over what members say. He may not be asked to offer advice but he sees the views of others and can pass whatever opinion he likes on those views.

  5. “No. But that is a microscopic quibble”

    Um, no you said…

    “Rubbish. Carter, de Frietas, de Lange and Tim Ball come to mind immediately”

    In response to :

    “The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee,”

    Why, oh well Roge, do you contradict yourself all the time. You are wrong again.. it’s all black and white with you.

  6. “Certainly he has no control over what members say”

    For the sake of his reputation one would certainly hope this to be the case. Nevertheless, does your earlier comment mean that you expect to call upon him to provide advice to the select committee under the NZCSC banner? (I suppose it is no different from the amicus deal – one that Monbiot would have us remember in the yars to come).

  7. Chris de Freitas may or may not choose to make a submission. That is his choice only. If he does I would expect it to be broadly compatible with the submissions of others in the NZCSC. However I suspect that his interests lie in the science rather than the politics.

  8. >>Allow me to point out the obvious. The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee

    Hmmm did you mean …

    Dr Willem de Lange, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, The University of Waikato. Shouldn’t he have at least some credentials or don’t you think that Earth and Oceans Science has anything to do with the climate.

    Or

    Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

    Or perhaps you meant one of the founding members Prof. August H. (“Augie”) Auer Jr, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (now deceased).

    I see your point. They’re missing an Economist/Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering graduate as their spokesman. Then maybe they’d have some clout.

    >>”Time for the NZ scientific community to make it clear to Nick Smith and National that the starting point for any review of climate policy has to be an acceptance of the IPCC’s Fourth Report”

    Which one? the pre-draft report or the one made to conform to SPM.

    Well if you mean the one made to conform then I guess they should should definitely make sure they take note of the massive uncertainties in aerosol effects (to the point where their effect is virtually unknown) into their calculations on possible future projections or maybe they should be worrying about the massive 7 to 21 inches of sea level rise by 2100 projected by the IPCC . The main sticking problem will be the models of course. But happy days, they found a possible way around the discrepancy between the model projects of a tropical mid-troposphere hot spot and the actual measurements, which show no hotspot, made by the weather balloons. Just ignore the temperature readings and maybe the wind shear calculations will bring things more into line. Hey keep faith I’m sure they’ll find it to some confidence interval.

  9. Dr Willem de Lange, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences
    about 90% of his publications are on tsunamis and there are some on climate hazards. So whilst I would trust him to have a bet understanding of climate science then, say, Ken Ring, I don’t think he would be my first choice when it came to review the science of climate change.

    Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen
    I can’t find any publications under this name. So I’d be interested to hear what you think makes him qualified? That he calls himself “climate change consultant”?

    Prof. August H. (”Augie”) Auer Jr
    The one who demonstrated his grasp of atmospheric physics with gems like the following?

    The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper.

    Say no more.
    If he wasn’t dead already (may he rest in peace) you could ask him to take a few mg of, for instance Alpha-amanitin, which would also be just a drop compared to a human body, but still be lethal. Arguments like these are just smokescreens. They seem to sound reasonable but do so by over-simplifying reality.

  10. >The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper.

    >Say no more.

    Perhaps you would like to explain exactly why you think Augie was wrong?

  11. Perhaps you would like to explain exactly why you think Augie was wrong?

    I dealt with Augie’s arguments a year ago. They were nonsense then, and still are.

    The real mystery is how an extremely able, intelligent and charming man could go so far off the rails (scientifically speaking). I know that many of his friends and colleagues in the NZ meteorological community were amazed when he started spouting stuff he must have known to be tripe.

  12. Is there any AGW supporter contributing to this blog who has any relevant expertise? If so who and what.

    We have a very diverse readership: scientists and academics, business people, activists, inactivists… I am constantly surprised by the people who turn up. Last year, not long after the blog launched, I posted about news of surface melting in West Antarctica. Within hours, someone who had been there at the time had commented on the post.

    Generally, if a technical issue is being discussed, someone who knows their stuff will pop up with references or clarifications. And if they don’t, NZ’s climate scientists are usually more than happy to help out. As indeed you are, Roger… 😉

  13. “I dealt with Augie’s arguments a year ago. They were nonsense then, and still are.”

    You did? Have you got any qualifications to “deal” with them?

    Is in not time that you draw Jonno’s attention to your rules?

  14. >Augie is an atmospheric physicist, so you might expect him to get his numbers right. But he doesn’t. He asserts that water vapour is responsible for 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect. It isn’t, according to RealClimate, or the page about CO2 myths in New Scientist’s new Climate change: A guide for the perplexed section (or the IPCC, etc, etc). Putting an exact number to the contribution of the various gases in the atmosphere to the greenhouse effect is not simple because they have overlapping effects – as you might expect an atmospheric physicist to know. New Scientist suggests:

    >A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.

    >Once that’s established, the remainder of Augie’s argument falls apart. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are driving climate change. It’s relatively simple physics, and it’s been understood – in some detail – for a very long time.

    Real Climate is hardly a reputable source. It is far to closely associated with that data fiddler, Mann. As for the IPCC!

    The art of staying on the UN payroll is a matter of knowing what the authorities want to be told. That is all. I have worked for the UN. A travesty of bumbling inefficiency populated by individuals saying what is necessary to keep them on the payroll.

  15. Funnily enough, Roger, Augie’s arguments are dismissed by his peers (atmospheric physicists and meteorologists), and I report that fact.

    And yes, I would prefer it if Jonno toned his comments down a bit…

    Incidentally, regarding your earlier comment:

    It looks as though pretty much the entire non teaching/papershuffling/public-mammary gland-sucking community of geologists share my view of it.

    You might like to refer to the position statement of the US Geological Society on climate change. It suggests your view is not supported by the facts.

  16. Real Climate is hardly a reputable source. It is far to closely associated with that data fiddler, Mann. As for the IPCC!

    Not so much shooting the messenger, but nuking an entire communications infrastructure.

    Ah, the luxury of blinkers.

  17. Perhaps you would like to explain exactly why you think Augie was wrong?

    Bloody Nora Dewhurst, do you really need to have it explained to you what is wrong with that piece of garbage. Why would you expect CO2 or any of the other greenhouse gases to heat the bath water? Is it any wonder that you Sceptics are going backwards?

    And before you get of your bike I do understand that you aren’t talking about a real bath.

  18. WHY AN INCREASE IN CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A PROBLEM

    The basic definition of the greenhouse effect which essentially defines the greenhouse effect as the numerical value of the temperature difference between the basic temperature of a planet and the actual temperature of a planet because of the atmospheric effects. There is nothing in the definition that states that this is the effect of
    any specific atmospheric component.

    AGW is based on a definition of the greenhouse effect that only includes the so called “greenhouse gases” but in fact the albedo from the atmosphere (i.e. excluding the portion of the albedo from the Earth’s surface) is the sole contributor to the greenhouse effect.

    The Earth’s albedo reflects back 30% of the incoming solar energy. This includes 4% from the Earth’s surface, leaving 26% for the atmospheric components and it is this 26% that causes the greenhouse effect of 34°C.

    It is reasonably well established that clouds represent 20% of the 26% and the rest of the atmosphere which is presumably the atmospheric gases represent the remaining 6%.

    The 26% atmospheric portion of the Albedo is therefore 20/26=76.9% from clouds and 6/26=23.1% from the rest of the atmosphere.

    Clouds block thermal radiation independent of wavelength for the entire spectrum radiated by the Earth. This means that the proportion of the thermal energy that is prevented from being radiated into space resulting from clouds is also 76.9%, and this leaves 23.1% for the atmospheric gasses which are primarily water vapour and CO2 with other gases contributing insignificantly to this process.

    While it is very easy to argue that water vapour has over four times the effect of CO2 there is no one, including the most fanatical supporters of AGW, who will disagree that water vapour has at least 2.5 times the effect of CO2. With this 60/40 ratio the remaining 23.1% of the greenhouse effect
    can be shown to be .6×23.1=13.86% due to water vapour and .4×23.1=9.24% due to CO2.

    Considering the total greenhouse effect to be 34°C:

    Clouds cause 76.9% of the greenhouse effect or 26.146°C
    Water vapour causes 13.86% of the greenhouse effect or 4.712°C
    CO2 causes 9.24% of the greenhouse effect or 3.142°C

    I attached a very good illustration of the break down of the albedo that is representative of what is generally and universally accepted.

    The second attachment is from Archibald that shows the effect of CO2 on global temperature. If you add up all the 20ppmv increases the temperature effect comes remarkably close to the 3.142°C for CO2 that I computed here.

    I think that this is the whole problem with the promotion of the AGW concept; the most important factors are ignored and removed from public perception and insignificant factors are presented as the only factors and the effects of these is blown out of proportion.

    All of the discussion tends to centre on returning some sense of proportion to these insignificant factors, but the insignificance of these factors is never demonstrated.

    Consider also that Mars with no clouds has a greenhouse effect of 5.5°C Earth with 50% variable cloud cover has a
    greenhouse effect of 34°C and Venus with 100% dense cloud cover has a “runaway” greenhouse effect of over 400°C.
    Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2, which in absolute value because of the very thin atmosphere is still over 9 times more CO2 than the Earth’s atmosphere, but without clouds the greenhouse effect is 5.5°C while here on Earth with clouds it is 34°C.

    The thermal band that CO2 captures is 99% saturated just as it is on Earth and the only reason that the greenhouse effect from CO2 on Mars is 5.5°C compared to 3.142°C (to use the number that I presented above) is that the Martian surface heats up hotter than the surface of the Earth leaving more
    energy for CO2 to capture; the percentage of the thermal energy captured is virtually identical.

    Norm Kalmanovitch

  19. Laurence 11.20.08 at 1:37 pm

    > Bloody Nora Dewhurst, do you really need to have it explained to you what is wrong with that piece of garbage. Why would you expect CO2 or any of the other greenhouse gases to heat the bath water? Is it any wonder that you Sceptics are going backwards?

    One drop of hot water, idiot.

  20. Roger, I understand you think you have a mission to convert us godless “believers”, but could you please post links rather than whole articles? Makes the thread very unwieldy.

  21. Roger, I understand you think you have a mission to convert us godless “believers”, but could you please post links rather than whole articles? Makes the thread very unwieldy.

    I do not have a link for the bit on carbon dioxide. It was forwarded by Professor Carter an acknowledged climate expert.

    As you will see above I did provide a link for the Scoop article.

    Are you going to apply your rules to jonno?

  22. the albedo from the atmosphere (i.e. excluding the portion of the albedo from the Earth’s surface) is the sole contributor to the greenhouse effect

    Wrong.

    Albedo is reflection of incoming radiation. The greenhouse effect is absorption and re-radiation of outgoing radiation by the atmosphere. Not the same thing. That piece is nonsense.

  23. One drop of hot water

    Wrong again, Co2 is part of the insulation, not the source of the heat. Make the insulation better and you trap more heat. Now that’s as simple as I can make it, so even you should be able to understand that. And stop singing yourself out as Idiot or we might take you seriously.

  24. Roger, providing a link to a NZCSC press release hardly counts as producing quality science to back up your position.
    I guess there was a certain inevitability to the appearance of Jim Sprott as a climate change doubter. He’s best known for his alternative theory on the cause of cot death – an example which shows quite clearly the dangers of becoming too attached to a theory and ignoring the evidence.
    To state the completely obvious, if Jim’s theory about barycentric science has any merit, he needs to get it published in a reputable journal. Then, and not before then, you can link to it and we can discuss it.

  25. Roger, providing a link to a NZCSC press release hardly counts as producing quality science to back up your position.
    I guess there was a certain inevitability to the appearance of Jim >Sprott as a climate change doubter. He’s best known for his alternative theory on the cause of cot death – an example which shows quite clearly the dangers of becoming too attached to a theory and ignoring the evidence.
    To state the completely obvious, if Jim’s theory about barycentric science has any merit, he needs to get it published in a reputable journal. Then, and not before then, you can link to it and we can discuss it.

    Silly girl. He has just summarized the work of Rhodes Fairbridge. I have given you a reference to that. Fairbridge’s work is peer reviewed. Much the same stuff has been published in peer reviewed journals elsewhere. Read the references. I have provided them. Fairbridge has published seminal work in palaeoclimatology.

  26. >Wrong again, Co2 is part of the insulation, not the source of the heat. Make the insulation better and you trap more heat. Now that’s as simple as I can make it, so even you should be able to understand that. And stop singing yourself out as Idiot or we might take you seriously.

    Carbon dioxide has trapped all the heat it can and increasing the tenor in the atmosphere will make no difference whatever.

  27. Thanks Roger, I’ll check it out.And there’s no need to sling insults around – I don’t do it myself, and I don’t expect to be on the receiving end either.

  28. Really, you lot. We have millions of years of the history of this earth to use and you choose the last 50 years. You are all worse than Bishop Ussher. Just how myopic are you?

  29. >Thanks Roger, I’ll check it out.And there’s no need to sling insults around – I don’t do it myself, and I don’t expect to be on the receiving end either.

    You could have done that first. Then perhaps you would not have copped an earful.

  30. Really, you lot. We have millions of years of the history of this earth to use and you choose the last 50 years.

    No, we choose all the data available. There just happens to be a hell of a lot more data from the last 50 years on every aspect of climate. If you can provide hundreds of temperature readings from around the globe on a monthly basis from, say, the late Paleocene, then I’m sure climate scientists would be pleased to have it.

    Carbon dioxide has trapped all the heat it can and increasing the tenor in the atmosphere will make no difference whatever.

    Demonstrate with reference to peer-reviewed papers, please.

    Some of the contributors here would be a bit more plausible if they had the cojones to post over their real names.

    My real name is Ed Wilson. But since I’ve posted on the ‘net as “fragment” for years, it’s actually more consistent to keep using that – persistent pseudonyms are, in fact, as good as real names. Ask Sam Clemens, I’m sure he’ll agree. Plus there’s a distinguished scientist I share my name with, so I avoid that potential confusion, too.

    Now, if that’s the reason why you didn’t respond to my post earlier, you have no more excuse. Do you understand why saying “the albedo from the atmosphere… is the sole contributor to the greenhouse effect” is nonsense?

  31. Nice one Roger. I’ve not insulted you one bit, you ask for real names, I give you mine, and you act dismissive – while failing to address substantive points. Your social graces appear as non-existent as your understanding of radiative transfer in the atmosphere.

  32. OK – Back to the topic. Answering Carol Stewart’s earlier question about why scientists have not responded to Leyland’s article in the Dominion Post. Well there was a response by an Environmental scientist from Victoria University earlier this week. However, I think most climate scientists think it really a waste of time responding, the contributors from the NZCC have completely closed minds and will not be swayed by data, weight of evidence, or reason. Sadly they find it all to easy to get their views and deliberate lies published in the likes of the Dominion Post giving their crackpot views an air of undeserved repsectability. Skeptics tend to view themselves as being intellectually rigorous, yet wouldn’t recognise reason if bit them on the bum.

  33. > jonno 11.20.08 at 10:10 am

    >No matter how many times you and your sad mates keep lying Roger, does not make it right.

    > “independent scientists” Yer right. More like liars.

    >fragment 11.20.08 at 9:03 pm

    > Nice one Roger. I’ve not insulted you one bit, you ask for real names, I give you mine, and you act dismissive – while failing to address substantive points. Your social graces appear as non-existent as your understanding of radiative transfer in the atmosphere.

    Sleep with dogs and you can expect to catch fleas.

  34. >Richard 11.20.08 at 11:26 pm

    > OK – Back to the topic. Answering Carol Stewart’s earlier question about why scientists have not responded to Leyland’s article in the Dominion Post. ……….

    Your problem is that you do not have any science. You started with Mann’s hockey stick which was comprehensively rubbished because not only was it statistical nonsense but he fiddled the data, got his mates to peer review it and it simply does not match the historical record anyway. Then you rely on the warming effect of carbon dioxide but disregard both the minute contribution it makes, disregard the various negative feedbacks and disregard the logarithmic effect. Then you rely on various numerical models, none of which produce the same result, none of which have any predictive value and none of which is based on a comprehensive climate theory, because there is not one.

    There is not a scrap of climate science in this blog supporting AGW. There is nothing here except derogatory attacks on anyone and everyone who is sceptical about AGW.

    Nobody replies to Leyland because none of the warming fraternity can present a coherent argument. There is nothing except recourse to the irrelevant ‘consensus’ argument and appeal to the UN, about the most corrupt and incompetent organization which ever came into being.

  35. Lots of them here. Have you the courage to read the whole article?
    Richard and Carol take note too.

    Have you had the courage to check the references? Took me five minutes to discover that there’s been an editing failure somewhere. I read “Alternative calculations by independent scientists suggest an increase of only 0.2-1.0℃ for a doubling of carbon dioxide (Isdo 2001).” For one thing the guy’s name is Idso, and for another neither appear in the reference list. Got anything that’s in a form fit for publication?

  36. > Smart guy Roger, please explain this then

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/c…..oct-pg.gif

    >Looks like global warming is back on for the month of October.

    NOAA graph is a bog standard version of the official ground temperature record.

    The high October figure is an artifact of Hansen’s widely known miscalculation.

  37. The high October figure is an artifact of Hansen’s widely known miscalculation.

    No, it’s not. It’s a different analysis, produced by a differenrt organisation after the original error had been corrected.

    You might want to read this page which includes the following:

    During October, anomalous warm conditions were present over much of the world’s land surface, especially across Asia, Australia, eastern Europe, eastern Brazil, and northern Canada, where temperatures were 2°-5°C (4°-9°F) above the 1961-1990 mean. Above average temperatures were also observed across the western contiguous U.S., northern and southern parts of Africa, and the southern countries of South America. These warm conditions brought the October 2008 global land surface anomalies to be the warmest since records began in 1880. Elsewhere, cooler-than-average conditions were present across the United Kingdom, Iceland, eastern and southern Alaska, southern and eastern continental U.S., and parts of western Europe.

    But then, I guess the blinkers are on…

  38. You hang your case on one month?

    You might care to read this:

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/5956/

    There are far more important issues for humanity than carbon dioxide. The most important is overpopulation. If you care to get stuck into that I would be on your side. The loss of rainforest and the ever increasing areas of concrete do have an effect on climate through the change in albedo. But that is not the principal problem. Britain is now facing shortages in water supplies. These will get worse as the population increases. As population density increases there is increasing friction between people exacerbated by racial and cultural differences. When I came to this country fifty years ago it had a population of about 2.5 million. It had a standard of living among the top three in the world. Crime was a fraction of present levels. Criminal gangs did not exist. Most did not even bother to lock their houses when they went out. There was no armed offenders squad and the police were unarmed. I could carry a .303 rifle down Willis Street or onto a NAC DC3 without comment. Now we have a population of 4 million. Our standard of living is well down the list. Crime is rampant. Restrictions abound etc etc.

  39. One out of how many? Nit picking is all you are good for.

    What? Are you seriously going to defend scholarly incompetence? You linked a review article, which means that to assess the actual science I have to look at the citations. The Idso reference was the second one I looked at.

    Have you checked the references out to see if the scientific evidence matches the assertions? Or did you just take that on faith?

  40. When are you going to come to your senses and realise that you are just useful idiots for big oil? Do you really suppose that the big oil companies did not see which way the wind was blowing long ago? They did. They put their money into wind farms etc, funded useful mega-idiots like Al Gore, though he may be too thick to know that, and backed both horses in the race.

  41. They put their money into wind farms etc, funded useful mega-idiots like Al Gore

    Smart move I’d say, maybe there’s a buck to be made in being green after all.

  42. I don’t follow the argument. We propose policies that will discourage the use of their products by promoting energy efficiency and renewables and we are supporting big oil? In the words of one of my favourite bands that’s Pretzel logic.

    My take on the minuscule amount invested by big oil in renewables is it’s mostly greenwashing and, maybe maybe some realisation that they are in a dieing business due to CC and Peak oil. So it could be part of their exit strategy, but if so it is pretty half hearted.

    Doug

  43. Doug Clover 11.22.08 at 2:24 pm

    >I don’t follow the argument. We propose policies that will discourage the use of their products by promoting energy efficiency and renewables and we are supporting big oil?

    Try putting whatever passes for your mind into gear. Finding an pumping oil is a highly competitive and risky business. Milking the taxpayer for subsidies is money for jam. Big oil is smart enough to see that even if you and the rest of the useful idiots are not.

  44. I don’t deny that the oil industry actively and successfully seeks subsidies with respect to oil exploration and production, and the protection of their markets. But this activity is overwhelmingly in regard to their oil business. What money and effort they spend on renewables (or in promoting energy efficiency) is trivial (window dressing).

    In addition the amount of money spent by oil companies, of which Exxon is the most well known, in funding lobby groups to delay any effective efforts to mitigate emissions your theory that big oil is behind a “AGW conspiracy” so as to get move into and dominate the renewable energy sector seems tenuous.

  45. It’s great to see the Christian right saying:

    “My own view is that the elections in USA and NZ shows the death of the white, evangelical voter which have traditionally lined up on anti-abortion, pro-‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ and “global warming is bunkum” issues.”

    Dr. Michael Kidd: The Family Party

    What a joke!

  46. Most scientists these days are agnostic whether pro or anti global warming. I have not met any geologist who indicates that he has any religious belief since about 1960. On second thoughts I can think of one exception, a Mormon in Australia. Abortion and corporal punishment are not common subjects for discussion in geological circles anyway.

Leave a Reply