The annotated Rodney Hide: treating parliament with contempt

rodenymorph.gifHow far can a Minister of the Crown go in misrepresenting the facts of a matter before he is guilty of misleading the House? That’s not an easy question to answer, but any sensible reading of Rodney Hide’s speech in response to prime minister John Key’s statement to the House yesterday would suggest that if there’s a line to cross, Hide’s not just trodden on the chalk but taken a flying leap into touch.

Hide is certainly parliament’s highest-profile climate “skeptic” (his spelling), with a long track record of spouting the standard climate crank arguments, but yesterday Hide combined a complete misrepresentation of the so-called “climategate” affair with a scurrilous attack on the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, based entirely on the discredited smear campaign emanating from the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition and Richard Treadgold’s “Climate Conversation Group”. Here’s the relevant section of Hide’s diatribe, annotated by me to show just how far from the truth he strayed…

After an opening dig at the ETS, Hide climbs straight into the so-called “climategate” affair:

Climate-gate is now the greatest scandal in the history of science.

Astonishing hyperbole, but straight out of the denial campaign’s play book. Try Googling “greatest scandal in the history of science” and see where the hits are coming from…

It turns out that the prestigious agencies involved in leading climate change science were breaking official information laws,

Where does he get the plural from? One agency — the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK might have failed to meet the relevant freedom of information standards, but it was the subject of a coordinated campaign of frivolous FOI requests at the time, emanating from the Climate Audit blog — details here.

arbitrarily adjusting raw data,

Wrong. The “raw” data, supplied by national met services around the world was processed to create a global temperature record — a far from arbitrary process, and one fully described in the literature.

hiding the reasons for those adjustments,

Wrong. The methodology is fully described in the scientific literature.

then somehow contriving to lose the original unadjusted data so that it could not be independently checked,

Wrong. Most of the temperature data is freely available from national met services. Anyone wishing to independently check the CRU process could obtain the data in the same way as the CRU. Some met services do not make their data available free of charge (NIWA, for example, charged for access to its data until 2004), but will often provide it free to bona fide researchers.

thereby making claims that were not remotely justified by the state of the science,

Wrong. The various global temperature datasets produced by the Hadley Centre and CRU are very similar (though not identical) to those produced by NASA’s Godddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the various satellite data series.

and in some cases simply making it up.

Complete nonsense.

The so-called scientific agencies responsible for the climate-scare have ruthlessly suppressed competing theories and contrary data controlling and manipulating the peer review process.

More nonsense. If this were true, how did McLean et al (2009) slip through the net? The simple fact is that the most vocal sceptics are not working scientists, and do not submit papers to the peer-reviewed literature.

Government sponsored climate science has proved to have more in common with the Spanish inquisition than Popperian science.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Falsifiability is difficult to arrange with only one planet upon which to experiment.

Climate-gate, Glacier-gate, Africa-gate has left the once vaunted IPCC totally discredited.

Although “gates” are certainly proliferating in the media, when the substance of the allegations is examined the “mistakes” turn out to be minor. The IPCC’s fourth report is over 3,000 pages long. It would be a miracle if there were no mistakes in it, but it has certainly not been “totally discredited”.

I have always been a skeptic.

In mid-2008 (well after the publication of AR4). Hide was apparently happy to accept the state of the science as contained in the IPCC reports. Not so “skeptical” then. I wonder what happened to change Hide’s mind? Anything to do with ACT receiving large donations from millionaire climate sceptic Alan Gibbs?

When I started studying environmental science in 1975 many of the same so-called scientists were trying to scare the pants off us all with the coming of a new ice age. That’s because the world had been cooling for thirty years.

Hide studied for a Masters of Science in Resource Management at the Centre for Resource Management studies at what is now Lincoln University. One of his classmates at the time reports that Hide could have passed the paper without any reference to the primary scientific literature. Climate science wasn’t covered.

The “global cooling scare” never happened. There were a few media reports based on some speculative studies, but no “scare”.

It then warmed apparently for twenty-three years. So the same scientists turned global cooling into global warming. When the warming stopped in 1998, and the earth started to cool, the scare switched to climate change. That way the alarmists couldn’t be wrong. They were right whatever the temperature.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. Republican strategist Frank Luntz suggested in a notorious memo in 2002 that Republicans should stop talking about “global warming”, and refer only to climate change as less “frightening”.

The world did not stop warming in 1998. Hide is repeating one of the oldest and most widely debunked canards in the crank catechism, but here’s the real irony: 1998 is only the warmest year in the record in the global temperature dataset produced by… wait for it… the Hadley Centre and CRU, the very body Hide has accused of “making stuff up”.

Our own NIWA is caught up in the scandal and its scientific credibility shredded.

NIWA has had nothing to do with any “gate” that Hide has mentioned.

NIWA’s raw data for their official temperature graph shows no warming. But NIWA shifted the bulk of the temperature record pre-1950 downwards and the bulk of the data post-1950 upwards to produce a sharply rising trend. Their warming trend is not a consequence of measurement but of manufactured adjustment.

Hide appears happy to forget that stations that have not been adjusted show the very same rising trend.

Well, there may be good reason for the adjustment.

So, before Christmas, I asked NIWA to disclose the adjustments and their reasons. They said they would.

But they have just told the Climate Science Coalition they don’t have the record of the adjustments.

As I discovered a couple of days ago, that’s not what NIWA told the CSC and Treadgold. The adjustments are described in the literature, and references were provided. Hide is clearly misrepresenting the facts of the matter here, taking his cue from the NZ CSC and Treadgold.

NIWA’s entire argument for warming was a result of adjustments to data which can’t be justified or checked.

A straightforward lie, and a direct attack on the scientists working at NIWA. The shareholding ministers for NIWA are finance minister and deputy PM Bill English, and minister for research, science and technology Wayne Mapp. They should immediately demand that Hide withdraw his allegation, and apologise.

It’s shonky. The entire thing is.

What’s shonky is the “work” done by Treadgold and the CSC. That Hide should rely on stuff that had already been widely and publicly discredited says a very great deal about his willingness to play fast and loose with the facts in order to pursue a political agenda.

But on the basis of shonky science, our government is whacking Fonterra with a $100 million-a-year bill, taxing the average dairy farm $10,000 extra and hiking fuel and power costs to every business and householder in the country.
Even if the science was perfect you wouldn’t have an ETS. But the science is not just settled. It’s descended into a farce.

The only farce here is that a member of the government, the minister for local government, should be prepared to tell lies in the House and participate in a smear campaign concocted by the Climate “Science” Coalition and the “Climate Conversation Group”.

Hide’s performance in the House yesterday was scandalous, and he should be held to account for it. His comments on climate science amount to a pot pourri of misrepresentation, lies and innuendo, and a direct attack on the reputation of NIWA and the scientists working there. Members of Parliament are free to speak their minds in the House — they have absolute freedom of speech, and cannot be sued for libel. But they are also obliged not to mislead the House, and it is clear that Hide’s performance yesterday was misleading in the extreme. There is a wider issue too: if a minister of the crown can lie with impunity about matters outside his ministerial responsibilities, how can the public have any confidence in his statements about areas in which he works? John Key needs to make Hide aware that credibility is hard won and easily lost, and he now has none. But I won’t be holding my breath.

[Update: At the same time as Hide was asserting that NIWA couldn’t justify or check the adjustments made to the temperature, NIWA was publishing on their web site that very data. Did he think to check with NIWA before attacking them? Obviously not.]

90 thoughts on “The annotated Rodney Hide: treating parliament with contempt”

  1. How far can a Minister of the Crown go in misrepresenting the facts of a matter before he is guilty of misleading the House?

    Long way. Suspect you can’t see it from here. My impression is the bar gets higher with every attempt to enforce it. Last time there was mention of the amtter having to be to do with the member’s direct experience or something.

    1. That’s why I’m not holding my breath… 😉

      On the other hand Rodney does claim to be an environmental scientist, so maybe there are grounds for it being within his experience.

  2. “Hide appears happy to forget that stations that have not been adjusted show the very same rising trend”.

    Stations that have been adjusted and show an upward trend are combined into the seven-station series. Stations which are unadjusted and show an upward trend are combined into an 11-station series. As the database contains histories of over 6,000 stations, it is not difficult to cherry-pick a few for the result you want.

    Of course, I’m not saying that is what happened. I don’t know what happened. Nobody knows – until NIWA is a bit more forthcoming.

    1. Don’t misrepresent what actually happened, Australis. Faced with the Treadgold/CSC nonsense, NIWA chose stations from around the country that had long continuous unadjusted temperature series, free from urban influences, and constructed a new national series. It shows more warming than the seven station series.

  3. “…, when the substance of the allegations is examined the “mistakes” turn out to be minor.”

    Still in deep denial about what has come out since November I see.
    “It’s only a flesh wound”
    “‘Tis nothing but a scratch”
    “I’ll bite your legs off!!”

    1. What a remarkable post! It appears to have escaped David’s notice that Hot Topic is only syndicated to Sciblogs. is 100% owned, operated and paid for by me.

  4. I think Poneke’s attack on Sciblogs is a silly attempt on his part to silence scientific comment. Reminds me of McCarthyism and Mao’s red guards. Typical wich hunt mentality relying on the climategate hysteria.

    Poneke has been censoring some, not all, comments on his blog. Specifically ones containing information conflicting with his wild assertions.

    All consistent with an attempt to prevent information getting out and to smear those people who actually have the information.

  5. Curiosity piqued, I went and had a look at Poneke – I reckon it has to be a clever parody of the tin-hat denialist brigade typified by our Minister for Perks, Rodney Hide.

    I mean, no journalist could really be that obtuse, right?

  6. Gareth,, you clearly are taken in by the climatechange scam, was it Al gore? I hope not considering an inconvenient truth was found recently in the high court of England to have 32 mistakes and was to be sent to schools with 77 pages of corrective guidance attached, the biggest lie being the "hockeystick graph" which says temp follows c02 levels when infact common concensus it the very opposite. Climatechange is a worldwide hoax, the world has been warming and cooling ever since its inception, according to global warming theory the temperature increases with the increase of c02, which has been getting higher ever since the industrial age began, according to global warming theory temperature should follow that co2 increase quite consistently, yet how do we explain the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s during the post economic war boom, and the cooling since 2002 which you will find if you look at any temperature records. I urge you to check out the independent science and also check out cryosphere today a site of the University of Illinois, Phil jones former head of the East Anglia university and a prominent author in the ipcc reports now admits " there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Also watch utube videos of Lord Monckton. Id love to hear back from you, cheers

      1. Surely you can do better than that Gareth, I should say I believed climate change was a problem until about 6months ago until I took the time to research for myself. like most global warming alarmists you won't give an answer for temperature fluctuation, (when according to global warming theory says temperature should follow co2 increase). What say you about the medieval warm period? which featured in the ipcc 1990 report but then was suprisingly gone from the 1995 report which introduced the ridiculous and now disproved "hockeystick" graph, what say you about the climategate emails and the dodgy ipcc predictions that have been exposed? what say you about the coldest winters in America and Europe for in some cases 100 years or more?. you're a dying breed the numbers falling for this political scam are dropping by the day. Americans, British and Germans are leaving this scandal by the boat load. This is about politics and big business and an ETS scheme.I agree the world has been warming but only up to about 1998,and that was for natural reason. after all the world was recovering from a mini ice age. but all temp graphs even the Hadley and MSU satellite temp readings show cooling since 2002 despite a notable increase in co2. How do we explain that?

          1. I will. Of course there are debunkers on both sides and everything Al Gore said has been debunked by a high court judge who analysed the science on both sides also Al Gore is being sued by 30,000 scientists. Every single temp record doctored or not shows cooling from 1940s to 1970s,and cooling since 2002, NASA, Hadley, IPCC, Niwa if you think thats been debunked you clearly haven't done your research, who debunked the medieval warm period? there is a very clear concensus on the science for that. are you saying that the there was no cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s just to be clear? and do you think Al Gore is a fraud or not? and clearly the climategate emails are true and shed much light on this. How can you say all my arguments have been debunked? you can't debunk official temperature records. Cmon Gareth give me something of substance here. you can't win a debate like that!

            1. Remarkably, nothing in your comment is true.

              The Uk judge explicitly cleared Gore's film to be shown in UK schools. Gore is not being sued by 30,000 scientists, etc & etc.

              There's no "debate" to be had, until you get up to speed on the facts.

            2. Remarkably the judge cleared an inconvenient truth on the premise that it was to be accompanied with 77 pages of corrective guidance adding " The armageddon scenario Gore suggests is not based on any scientific opinion" nice try though. Please tell me what temperature record you are looking at because EVERY single temp graph shows cooling from 1940s to 1970s even the ones used by snake oil salesman Al Gore. Whats not true? the whole world knows that America and England just had ther coldest winters for a number of years, Texas had its first snow for 100 years, Beijing had its coldest winter on record. You can continue to say these facts are false but, thats really not true and the New Zealand public is coming around also. I have temp graphs from Norway, Russia, Australia, Scott Base, Japan, Hawaii and the list goes on. They all show recent cooling as well as the cooling from 1940s to 1970s which EVERY temp graph shows. And still I have no comment on the medieval warm period. This is all too familiar; someone denying the facts without a shred of evidence to the contrary apart from the precious IPCC which loses credibility withevery passing day and every year of cooling since 2002. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

            3. Why won't you respond regarding the medieval warm period in which much of greenland was colonised due to lack of ice which also happened despite a lack of human co2 emissions? and the 1940s-1970s cooling which is indisputable according to any temperature record, despite the unprecedented raise in co2 levels occurring in the post war industrial boom? My guess is they are the achilles heal of global warming alarmists and there is no answer for it. you mention the Hedley centre and the Nasa goddard institution they both show cooling from 1940s to 1970s and Hedley have a co2 versus temperature graph which shows cooling since 2002 and a curve showing co2 increasing alongside it. 1998 was the warmest year on record due to el nino due to ocean currents not co2 emissions. Some facts would be good here Gareth,

            4. You'll need to do some reading. Go and read about the questions you ask at Skeptical Science. When you show up here with some a little more intriguing than a list of standard crank talking points, you'll get a substantive response.

            5. Well thats fantastic Gareth how condascending! If you were sure of all the facts you would have given me an answer even a short one regarding the 1940s-1970s cooling. I'm simply speaking what a large proportion of people around the world are thinking including many scientists( like the 9,000 PHds with their names down in support of sueing Al Gore) I'm getting those temperature readings from all the same sources so as you are how am I wrong in saying there was cooling during that period?look at the records again its there! If you look at the websites regarding the hacked East Anglia university you will see several emails in which Phil Jones a prominent author in the last IPCC report asks employees to delete emails and talks of hiding trends and much more, this is all in the public domain and many people are aware of this infact it was a major factor in the Copenhagantreaty failure. There is areason why polls around the world show significant drops in the publics belief that climate change is a concern. Its a sinking ship in fact more people now believe it's not a problem than do check all the worldwide opinion polls in most cases there is a 10-15 % drop in the last 2 years. In 2 more it will be even more

    1. James is totally correct in saying that 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore. And that includes 9,000 PHD's. The man heading it up is John Coleman founder of the weather channel. He has appeared on tv stating that this group of scientists is suing Al Gore for fraud on the basis that Gore is quite happy to stand up and give his slide shows but is completely unwilling to engage ANY scientists in a public debate. Coleman says that the only way they can draw Gore into a debate situation is if they sue him and force him into a court room.

        1. Obviously it's easier to say than to do, but there is something to be said for the fact that 30,000 scientists including 9,000 Phd's are intending to sue Gore. Think about it, 30,000 of them all completely disagreeing with Gore and trying to sue him. What does that say? It's not only scientists, many of the corporations and companies that were supporting Gore's cap and trade policy are withdrawing there support left right and center. Not to mention huge companies like BP, Conoco Philips and Caterpillar are withdrawing there support from Obama's ETS. All rats deserting a sinking ship. And lastly the head of the IPCC, the dodgy Rajendra Pachauri is very close to being taken to court and prosecuted for fraud, Lord Monckton is quite confident that Pachauri will be going to prison at some point. Face it Gareth, the world is waking up to the fraud more and more everyday, even the main stream media in America is now reporting that global warming is big scale fraud, and many of the main newspapers in britain are waking up and exposing the scandal. The evidence it all being a scandal is growing everyday and the more time goes on the more you Gareth are running the risk of looking like a bit of a tool. . . And dont post a reply telling me to "prove it". Go to the newspapers websites and watch the main stream media news coming out of America everyday and see for yourself that you are becoming a dying a breed. And it wouldn't hurt for you to look up some polls aswell, they will show you that an ever increasing percentage of the worlds population believe that global warming is a fraud and as time goes on the percentage will only grow as the fraud continues to be exposed. Of course i understand why you have to maintain your stance, after all you have written a book on it. I might read it, i need a good laugh.

          1. Oh dear! This is silly stuff, Ben, and the laugh is on you, I'm afraid. Like your "friend", you have nothing of substance to say, no evidence, only conspiracy theories, the whole denialist works.

            You've been conned, and there is more than an air of desperation in rubbish like this.

            Yes, you do need to prove it, Ben. We've seen all this hogwash before, and it has all the substance of a fart in the wind. It stinks too.

            1. Mate none of what i said are conspiracy theories, these are things that are now being reported in mainstream news in America and in the UK. And nothing of substance to say? Why dont you read what you've just posted and see if there's anything of substance in there at all, in fact its quite naive and a little childish, and where's your evidence. I've looked up so much science on both sides of the argument and there is more and more science all the time coming out exposing the fraud, the IPCC version looks shakier all the time. And its not a conspiracy theory to say that the IPCC are being exposed at every turn. And its definately not a conspiracy theory when the IPCC admits they've manipulated their science. They admitted they lied about the glaciers in the himalayas melting by 2035, they admitted they lied about the amazon rainforest. And they've admitted that there has been no warming since 1998 and cooling since 2002. Not conspiracy theories mate, admissions from them that have been printed in the press. And its no theory that are huge companies and corporations are abandoning ETS's all over the world. Watch Fox news the biggest network in America and read the london newspapaers, its been reported by many of these. And answer this, If global warming is an exact science then why do the IPCC feel thay need to doctor their findings(again, not conspiracy theory, their admission)? Hogwash? Fart in the wind? It stinks? Clearly the words of a well informed academic. Good One.

    2. sure carol, go to youtube and simply type in "Al Gore sued by 30,000 scientists then watch the 5 or so minute clip where Mr Coleman, founder of the weather channel explains it all.

  7. James, your posts are strikingly short on facts and credibility. If you expect people to take you seriously, you need to provide actual evidence. You haven't done that.

    1. O.K i've stated that there was cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s, which as i,ve stated SEVERAL times can be found on Hedley centre and NASA's Goddard institute, Its funny you say i'm short on facts because I am actually the only one providing any facts! it appears to me to be pretty straight forward that to find proof of the medieval warm period as i've stated would be pretty easy to look up so i needn't bother providing them all on a blog. I have stated that Al Gores movie was ruled by a judge to contain 35 errors in which the Judge quoted " The Armageddon scenario gore depicts is not based on any scientific opinion" he also ordered that 77 pages of corrective guidance be sent to schools who would play the movie for children, this is very easy to look up if you have the right resources, Look up cryosphere today which is the website of the university of illinois; it has satellite photos of the cryosphere (Arctic) from every day dating back to 1980 it has a split screen and allows you to do comparisons showing two dates side by side. I can tell you that the increase in ice around the areas even south of the artic from 2007 to now is phenomenal and eclipses any other ice volumes going back to 1980. please check it out.
      When will someone answer why there could be 30 years of cooling despite unprecedented c02 emission levels from 1940-1970? is that to much to ask ?after all EVERY temperature graph shows notable cooling. I have numerous graphs from stations all over the world which I am more than happy to email anyone who wants to see them I only mentioned Hedley and Nasa because global warming alarmists always refer to them and then call me uninformed when I point out that really inconvenient period of cooling from the 40s to the 70s.

    2. Mate here is so much evidence to support what James is telling Gareth, in fact there,s far far to much to put down in a blog. But the evidence is so easy to find. With this being such an important issue why don't you go and look up the evidence yourself. Many countries have made their temperature records available on the net, they show a global cooling in the last 8 years. Go to the University of Illinois website called Cryosphere today. They have been recording the land and sea ice levels in the arctic for 3 to 4 decades. Its been on the increase since 2007. Polar Bear numbers are on the rise also despite what Al Gore says. So if you dont believe these readily available facts, go and look them up for yourself. Its really easy to find. Watch Lord Moncktons Video on youtube called Apocalypse No. He completely breaks down global warming science and gives you sources to check the validity of his lecture, ie tells you where he gets his science from. The video starts making sense straight away and makes alot more sense than than the suedo scientific bollocks fed to us by the IPCC. Much of which they've admitted themselves has been doctored or adjusted.

    3. O.K i've stated that there was cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s, which as i,ve stated SEVERAL times can be found on Hedley centre and NASA's Goddard institute, Its funny you say i'm short on facts because I am actually the only one providing any facts! it appears to me to be pretty straight forward that to find proof of the medieval warm period as i've stated would be pretty easy to look up so i needn't bother providing them all on a blog. I have stated that Al Gores movie was ruled by a judge to contain 35 errors in which the Judge quoted " The Armageddon scenario gore depicts is not based on any scientific opinion" he also ordered that 77 pages of corrective guidance be sent to schools who would play the movie for children, this is very easy to look up if you have the right resources, Look up cryosphere today which is the website of the university of illinois it has satellite images of the cryosphere from every day from 1980-today you can match any day side by side from within this period and i can tell you that from 2007 to now there is a phenomenal increase in ice even especially south of the Artic. Please check it out.

  8. Ben, if you make the kind of claims you do, you need to provide real evidence. That means you need to provide research evidence, real data. What you are tossing up here is simply not true, and has been repeatedly debunked.

    People who read and post here know that and know a great deal more about global warming science than you seem to. The sources you're pointing to don't cut it. They have no credibility at all.

    If you want to have a discussion here, you will need to do much better. I'll say it simply again: If you believe this stuff, you've been conned.

    1. Dude the evidence is on the net for anybody to look up, and as i've suggested go look at it yourself. As you say, research evidence, real data. It's easy to find so if its an important issue to you, go find it. I'm not going to go gather it for you. Take James up on his offer to e-mail it to you, he can provide you with the evidence that you seem so unwilling to go look for yourself. Can you at least explain to me why the IPCC has lied and manipulated many of it's figures and admitted it later on? Ben Santer and Phil Jones have admitted it on film. How has this been repeatedly debunked? It hasn't. How about you supply some evidence not just condescending denials that aren't backed by anything. Simply saying my sources have no credibility doesn't make it so. Sounds to me like you've been conned actually and you need to wake up as the next few years prove to you.

      1. "Dude the evidence is on the net for anybody to look up, and as i've suggested go look at it yourself"

        No the evidence is in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you're getting your information off the net you need to be very careful because anyone can write anything on the net. Is the rubbish you're referring to supported by peer-reviewed scientific papers? No.

        Most of what you're saying are outright lies and some of it borders on libel.

        1. Yes despite the fact most of the world is jumping off the global warming band wagon alarmist's like yourself cling like dying men on the last life preserver to the "peer reviewed literature". Dont worry, I've read it all myself, the journals and the IPCC reports. And i used to believe it. Problem is it's all so easily debunked by using basic scientific records which are readily available. And you haven't said anything about Ben Santer and Phil Jones admitting they manipulated the results on film for all to see. Phil jones has even admitted on film that the planet has been cooling for the past 8 years. Care to explain why a prominent author of IPCC reports would be saying that.

          1. "Dont worry, I've read it all myself, the journals and the IPCC reports."

            If you're going to write off the science and make up lies then it's not possible for us to have any agreement except that we disagree. Bye.

  9. Mate here is so much evidence to support what James is telling Gareth,
    Sure there is, and lot's for the fake moonlandings as well, and for the controlled demolition of the two towers and we musn't forget that grassy knoll either.
    And Monckton gets his nod direct from God.

    1. Ah i see, so i'm a conspiracy theorist right? And if i say global warming isn't true then i must in turn believe all that other stuff huh? Very typical thing for an alarmist to say. Have you been to Universtiy of Illinois' website where they keep the scientific records of the arctic ice(Cryosphere today)? It shows there's more ice now than in any year since 1980, not theory, scientific fact. And go to each country and look up their temperature records, they show a cooling in the last 8 years. And they all show the "hockey stick" graph to be completely inaccurate. Go check then out, no conspiracy theory, just scientific data. Dont be like the other guy and say that unless i provide the data myself i have no credibility. just go look, its easy. Cryosphere today, or are you scared of what you might find?

      1. "Ah i see, so i'm a conspiracy theorist right?

        No, not necessarily, even if I think that is highly likely.
        I'm merely agreeing with you that there is plenty of evidence "out there" to deny AGW. Lots of it.

        But very, very, very little material, well lets be frank – there's none – in the scientific literature that supports that denial. On the contrary, there exists an overwhelming body of evidence in the scientific lierature that simply demolishes your claims. In fact, so much contrary material exists that NO major scientific body on the planet supports your claims. None.

        But sure, you can find lots "out there" to support you, on Fox news and from the Heartland Institute etc, right along with proof that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS and that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

        1. I see you're quite fond of attempting to draw parallels. Much of the litererature you refer to has itself been bought into disrepute and had many questions asked about the motives of those writing them and who is paying their salaries. I'm simply refering you to records that have been kept and added to for many years, cryosphere today, how can you deny what their records show? And temperature statistics for each country supplied by the individual countries own research facilities that they quite happily post for anyone to see and do show a cooling in the last 8 years. They are simply statistics not scientific theory and require no peer reviewing. Many governments have come out recently and criticised the IPCC and other journals for incorrectly representing their data. And the university of illinois is a fairly substantial scientific body, my claims match up to their records and they aren't the only ones so what you're saying isn't entirely true. And i'm pretty sure you haven't read all the scientific literature so you're probably not in a position to comment on what they all say. You like most alarmists try to quash any argument by claiming an almost complete consensus on all the science. Trouble is thats just not the case and unluckily for you and luckily for humanity, the pendulum is swinging the other way rapidly. Try looking up polls why dont you, popular opinion is swiftly turning against you. The sheer fact that 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore for fraud shows that there are plenty in the scientific community that do share my thinking. 30,000 is a huge number not to be readily dismissed. You can keep flogging this dead horse all you like but as time goes on you will be proven wrong.

          1. Ben, you are overlooking the obvious points that I and others here are making to you.
            1. Your sources aren't remotely representative of the scientific consensus on AGW.
            2. You are simply wrong in saying that there is not scientific consensus on most of the science underpinning AWG and conclusions of the IPCC reports.

            (Although I suspect it's pointless to do so, I nevertheless recommend that you actually read the IPCC reports, after all, these are in essence the world's most comprehensive and authoritative surveys of the current state of scientific knowledge on the subject. I suggest you read that recommendation again. And once again for its implication to sink in.
            – Or, of course, it's all a clever conspiracy.)

            So Ben, how about going away, do some real research, (or better still, come back after the 30,000 plaintiffs have won their case).

    1. Great another unintelligible response with not a fact to challenge anything I'm saying; discredited by who? Al Gore? u can't discredit even one fact i have up there and i'd love to see you try, cmon has anyone got anything other than sarcastic commenrts with no debunking facts whatsoever, everyone dodges the questions and the facts and only believes it because they've been made to believe it. cmon it's been cooling since 2002 look at any temperature records.and it cooled from the 1940s until the 1970s. This is about political control and big business and the U.N are right behind it and therefore so are we. Hence Niwas nicely adjusted temperatures.

        1. Sure it may have been easier to try and discredit that stuff a couple of years ago when not that many of the real facts were widely published. But now an increasing number of the worlds population are waking up to the real facts and despite you not having the time nor the inclination to respond, the number of people sharing james' views are continuing to grow at a huge rate. In several countries people that believe as you do are in a minority. So keep burying your head in the sand if you wish but pretty soon you will be swamped with "trolls". Look at the public opinion polls.

            1. What the public opinion polls do show is that with all the conflicting data out there the public find the data disproving global warming to be more believable. And its heading more in that direction all the time.

            2. There are no data disproving AGW. There is plenty of propaganda saying that, but the data are still comprehensively showing that there is a problem.

  10. I'ts an interesting thing to say to someone that they should go away and look up the facts before you are to be taken seriously because it implies 2 things
    1) In order to engage in substanrive discussion on this issue I must come round to your way of thinking first and then return (great attitude for debate on a contentious issue that!) OR
    2) I haven't done any substantive research.
    I have done plenty of research, I've made it my business to find every temperature station record for every country that keeps them that i can possibley find, and I've noticed one thing; very rarely, infact never do the match up with th IPCC temperature records. I have all these records. does anyone want to see them? I understand global warming theory very well, therefore i understand that according to its theory when co2 levels increase at a certain rate (and it has increased very steadily over the last 100 or so years) temperature wil follow it due to the increase in the greenhouse gas, what I have a problem with is how with increasing co2 levels there could be peaks and troughs in a temperature record and how there could ever be any substantive periods of cooling e.g. 1940s-1970s particularly given the post war industrial boom producing unprecedented levels of co2 emissions at the time. It is impossible to dispute the 1940s-1970s cooling period and I challenge anyone to show me a temperature graph that will do so. I can explain the cooling; it was natural, just like the temperature increases that followed it which are now flattening out. Theworld has been warming and cooling ever since its inception; how could we ever be sure that i't wouldnit do so today. often people say to me "so what? 1940 to 1970 wasn't a long time frame" yet the very same person will say that the warming from the 70s til recently is a significant point. Can anyone give me a good answer?

    1. If you have done so much research into this, how come you missed all the research about aerosols? It is pretty well established that the massive increase in industrial output in the 40s was accompanied by a massive increase in aerosol output – sulphates and black carbon – which are negative forcing agents (i.e. they cool the atmosphere). See for example here.

      The aerosol output in the 40s to 70s was enough to counteract the increased forcing from CO2. As clean air acts began to be passed in the 60s and 70s, sulphates and soot were removed from the output of coal power stations and domestic fires – but they still produce CO2, which is why the warming began to get faster again.

      It's really quite astonishing that you haven't been able to discover this yourself. Why do you think that CO2 is the only forcing agent, or that there are only positive forcings? That is certainly not what the science says. You might want to think again about some of the sources you have been reading, because it sounds like someone has been lying to you. I strongly recommend RealClimate if you want to understand all that is going on in the atmosphere – click on Start Here and follow the sources. And beware of blog science.

      1. But what about the warming before the1940s? if that wasn't indeed natural warming then it must have been according to increased co2 emissions according to global warming theory, so why would there be an increase in temperature if the sulphates and soot were still present in coal power stations and domestic fires at the time of the warming? why weren't the aerosols countering the temperature increases from the co2 at that time? and why then would an increased output in the 40s cause aerosols to suddenly become the bigger factor in influencing climate than co2 that doesn't really add up .And if it is to be claimed that the increase in temperature before the 40s wasn't from human emissions etc then that has to be an admission that natural warming was occuring.

        1. so what? of course natural factors have an impact. it's just that in the last few hundred years humans have deforested most of the planet and then dug up and burned much of the carbon that has been sequestered over millions of years and that is having a major measurable and observed impact.

          If you really think your logic has the power to disprove AGW please do take your revelations to a higher authority than the comments on a blog. The heartland institute and Exxon urgently need you to get this stuff published because so far there is not a single credible scientific paper that has passed peer-review successfully challenging the basic tenets of AGW. I know you're probably going to go ahead and ring the scientist conspiracy bell. We all love that…

          Good luck with that.

          This might help answer some of your questions about aerosols: and there's a good documentary called 'global dimming' to look out for as well.

        2. There are many factors that influence climate. The major forcings are (in no particular order): solar, CO2, methane, volcanic activity, aerosols. Then there is water vapour and clouds, which actually contribute most of the greenhouse effect – water vapour is considered a feedback rather than a forcing, because water vapour changes in response to other changes, rather than driving changes in the energy balance of the atmosphere itself. See here for instance.

          If you are interested in attribution, read here and here to start with.

  11. James, the debate is much more meaningful when everyone is on the same page as it were. It is painfully obvious from your comments that your "substantive research" hasnt included reading IPCC WG1 so you know what the science actually is about instead of taking the word of denialist blogs for what it says. This is very different from AGREEING with anything in the IPCC reports, but it sure stops pointless straw man arguments.

    So far, you havent come up with anything that hasnt been well debunked at skepticalscience either. You also dont have to agree with any counter argument there either but it means that the debate can start with why you dont accept the published science that it references.

    Also, note the AGW is really a theory of climate build from multiple supporting lines of evidence. Its common for skeptics to regard it as a house of cards where doubt on one aspect will bring it all down. Its not. The theory has foundation is basic physics. Around that are many lines of supporting evidence. The direct, and strong ones, are measurements of energy emitted by the atmosphere. Next up would be model validation in things like stratospheric cooling, arctic amplification, 30 year trends in the temperature record, sea level rise, glacial loss, and ocean heating. Things like paleoclimate provide weaker but important validation. If you really want to bring AGW down without producing a better, alternative theory, then you need to attack the radiative physics and the observed direct validations. Good luck on that.

    1. Since you like to reference the IPCC, can you explain why they've manipulated their findings(their own admissions) and why one of their most prominent authors phil jones has admitted that there has been cooling for the last 8 years. He also said that he was at a loss to explain it. None of you seem willing to explain the IPCC's shortcomings and self admitted lies and errors. Because there sure are several of them. If all the "denials" have been successfully debunked then why do the IPCC feel they need manipulated data. Surely if all the science was agreed upon then this would not be necessary. Your last paragraph sounds good but things like, temperature records, sea level rise, glacial loss and ocean heating have been manipulated. Love it how they say the sea is going to rise by 23 feet. Ha, at the most 23 inches, how do they get these things so wrong. But please, explain the IPCC admitted falsifications.

      1. Ben, a word to the wise. All of your claims are false.Please do just a little bit of research here or at Skeptical Science before attempting to engage in "debate". If you're not willing to put in the hard yards to understand the problem we face, then I'm certainly far too busy to respond to your comments.

        1. I have looked at skeptical science, several times now. And I've done plenty of research, so there should be no need for you to keep saying that. And i used to believe the same as you. If you guys think that website is the gospel in spite of all the other sites and data available out there then perhaps you are not so wise and should do a little more research. Probably not a lot of point in your case until you are prepared to open both eyes. And i reiterate the IPCC are on film admitting their lies and it has been reported numerous times. Simply saying the claims are false doesn't mean or prove anything. And for the umpenth time can someone on this site explain why the IPCC lied on so many issues? They've admitted it, its on film, saying its a false claim is not even remotely true. The final report that was to go before the copenhagen summit had in it 5 paragraphs where the UN's own scientists said they no definate evidence linking man to global warming. The report went before Ben Santer who edited out those 5 paragraphs before it was presented to the summit. He is on film admitting that he did this, get it, ON FILM. Therefore not false, explain please gareth.

            1. You mean you havent seen it? And you had me believe you had all the facts down. Go to youtube and type it in, pretty obvious really.

    2. The problem I essentially have is that from what I have looked at including Nasa and Hedley centre both show that cooling has occurred since 2002, also the University of Colorado have a temperature graph from 1979-2008, which is readily available and shows that since 2005 the earth has given back most of its warming since 1980. Also I have referred to the University of illinois' website which does side by side analsis satellite pictures of the cryosphere in which you can match any day of any month of any year side by side and it shows massive increases in ice `content especially south of the arctic from 2007 onward eclipsing any ice levels at any time before that as far back as 1980, these are very reliable sources surely, where can i find proof that it hasn't in fact cooled since 2002? Also i have mentioned the medieval warm period in which vikings colonised much of greenland and is acommonly held concensus among most scientists despite lack of co2 emissions what say you of that?

        1. Consider this Gareth, with several institutes and universities having conflicting data and findings to skeptical science not to mention the actual temperature records supplied by many different countries that dislike the IPCC for their lies. Is there not the slightest chance that skeptical science could be wrong. Especially with many doubts being cast from all corners about the peer reviewed literature. Doesn't carry the same weight it used to, with all the funding from people that expect certain outcomes whether they be true or not. One thing is definate gareth you are not quoting an exact or even agreed upon science. There are many dubious claims and statements about the consensus side of things on your infallible website.

  12. Oh, and as for your analysis of temperature stations not matching GISS or like. Well publish it then. I look forward to reading it and seeing how you treated your data and what your methodology was.

  13. Hi guys thats an intersting comment regarding the 1940s to 1970s cooling and I welcome the fact that someone has actually addressed 1 of my issues and I will endeavour to learn more on this fact. One thing has leapt to my mind and that is this: Saying that aerosol was the cause of the cooling implies that it had and has more of an impact on climate than co2, and infact does much more than neutralise its warming capablity which is as explained by global warming theory.
    Before the 1940s, despite using fossil fuels albeit at a lower rate. the co2/aerosol ratio would still have remained the same and should still have had a cooling affect as opposed to a warming affect from the co2? how is it that a large increase in the use of fossil fuels would cause aerosol to become a bigger factor in temperature change than the previous period when the co2/ aerosol ratios were the same? that doesn't make logical sense to me at all.

    1. James – please avoid the straw man arguments. This is all addressed in WG1. For a quick look, try
      for more.

      Don't guess the forcings – look them up. Basically, increased CO2 emissions hang around for a long time so you get a cumulative effect whereas aerosols are very short lived.

      Lots of factors affect climate. Noone disputes this. The basic issue is not what affected climate in past but what is causing the CURRENT warming because the forcings that we measure suggest that anthropogenic factors, primarily GHG, are to blame. If you are going to insist on "its natural" – then kindly venture WHAT natural cause you think is doing it because so far science struggles to find one. You would also need to explain why an extra 3-4W/m2 of warming from increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere is NOT warming us.

      For the past, see WG1 for papers that have modelled past forcings and compared to temperature record. Chapter 6, 6.6.3, p476 forward.

    1. Most worldwide polls show less than 40% support for the theory that anthropogenic warming is an important issue. Every poll shows a decrease in public support of anthropegenic warming being a problem in the last 2-3 years in most cases by between 10-15%. My point being the disdainful arrogance displayed by most on this site, which is highly condascending; should at least be sensitive to the fact that this is a far from settled deal. The bible of this site is clearly skeptical science and despite the many competing website e.g science and public policy, cryosphere today, University of Alabama, which clearly dont rate a look in. This issue is far from settled and its quite staggering that in all the abuse and condascension there hasn't been any word to the contrary on the Medieval warm period which was warmer than today and the cooling since 2002, I bet no one has looked up the hacked climategate emails which completely villify Professor Phil Jones one of the leading scientists at the IPCC who is now disgraced and resigned, his emails are appalling and all but prove the massive corruption going on, these emails are truely appalling look them up. Gareth responded that "Remarkably nothing you just said is true" in a passage of mine that referred to the cooling from 1940s to 1970s yet I have received a response regarding the cooling from another on this site. If Gareths statement is true there was no cooling then. Interesting

  14. I've made it my business to find every temperature station record for every country that keeps them that i can possibley find, and I've noticed one thing; very rarely, infact never do the match up with th IPCC temperature records

    The hell you have, son! All you've done is memorize some routinized drivel we've all seen 73 times already (yes, I made it my business to count them all and then averaged out the result!)

    Rightwing student-union types – sheesh!

    (And: me fail English? That's unpossible?)

    1. And do your averaged out results confirm the common concensus that there has been cooling since 2002?, and include 1940s to 1970s cooling? that would be an appropriate average if it did. the reason my routinized drivel remains routinzed is because it is the achilles heal of global warming alarmists and it can't be answered i'e Medieval warm period, 1940s to 1970s cooling. also the central england temperature records from 1659-2009 show more warming from 1700 to 1730 than the whole of the 20th century thats 9 times the rate of warming. ( i'm not sure if you've heard that particular drivel but have a look) or mayb thats more conspiracy theory from me!

  15. Hi guys thats an intersting comment regarding the 1940s to 1970s cooling and I welcome the fact that someone has actually addressed 1 of my issues and I will endeavour to learn more on this fact. One thing has leapt to my mind and that is this: Saying that aerosol was the cause of the cooling implies that it had and has more of an impact on climate than co2, and infact does much more than neutralise its warming capablity which is as explained by global warming theory.

    1. A couple of points, James. First of all, there is no such thing as "global warming theory". There is Greenhouse theory, first proposed by Fourier in the 1820s, subsequently expanded and confirmed, notably by Arrhenius in 1896 and Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. There are no climate scientists who dispute the basics of Greenhouse theory, not even sceptical climate scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer etc. If the Greenhouse effect did not exist, Earth would be a frozen ball of ice with a mean global temperature of about -18°C.
      All of the items you have brought up are easily explained by Greenhouse theory, which accepts that there are many factors other than CO2 that influence climate. I wonder why you think a warm MWP would invalidate Greenhouse theory?
      Second, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hypothesis (strictly a collection of hypotheses) that posits three things:
      1) Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing since the 19th century
      2) Mean global temperatures have been increasing since the same time, and
      3) The increase in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel emissions.
      1 and 2 are observations that have been confirmed by several sources. 3 is confirmed by changes in C12/C13 isotope ratios.
      The only real question that is debated by scientists is over exactly what the contribution of CO2 is. Some people suggest that CO2 is only responsible for a tiny fraction of the recent warming, and it is other factors that have been at play. The problem with that is that none of the other known factors have changed enough in recent times to have been the main cause of warming, whereas CO2 has. All of the evidence to date indicates that it is the combination of burning fossil fuels and land use changes that have increased atmospheric CO2, and that this is causing warming of a large enough degree that significant climate changes are in store.

      1. Thanks, CT, for such a clear exposition of the essentials of AGW that even an ACT droid should be able to follow it – not that I'm holding my breath…

Leave a Reply