Nice article :-)

I fully agree on your perspectives. I have written a short brief about the danish way of reducing co2 emissions on my blog www.cop15blog.com. Hope it can interest you :-)

Im going to follow your blog

Hello Everyone,

Interesting article, Mark. There seem to be pros and cons of the current economic problems – and the most important positive is that crisis can lead to change. Our main enemy is business as usual. If Obama wanted to get Detroit to change its ways and produce much more green cars, now is a great time.

I used to read Mark’s blog much more than I have done of late – but it did influence me to start up a market research agency to look at getting people to consider how we move to a low carbon economy.

We have started to produce market research reports, and there are free versions available to anyone if you log in. Mark – you ought to as well – to give you some survey data to work with.

Just go to www.haddock-research.com and it should be obvious from there. Let me know any difficulties.

Peter

Interesting article but the current clamber by politians to embrace the green agenda provides a convienient distraction from what might turn out to be the most disasterous collapse of the World economy in history. Rather like bread and circuss’ or the wait for the second coming of Jesus Christ, it gives the masses something to cling onto, to hope for when all around them seems to spiral disasterously out of control. Without labouring the point, as you know Mark, global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have seen a substantial drop since so the need for any action has been proved to be unneccessary but it’s a win-win situation for those in power to not only use the “crisis” to increase their tax revenue but also to divert attention away from the horrendous mistakes they have made over the past decades. I admire your faith in your belief that We all face a climatic disaster and wouldn’t dream of shattering your illusion in the same way I would hold back from telling someone who believes in God that there is no God or afterlife but how long your belief holds only time will tell once the lights start going out due to badly made energy policies and more proof is published showing how the Earths temperature is not increasing. Interesting that you talk of David Camerons commitment to the green cause. When People start losing jobs and all that goes with that start to bite on their lives the sight of Polititians spouting the occasional pious soundbite on how how much We are committed to the cause will ring more and more hollow. Now that the climate change bill has been passed it is out of their hands really which is ironic so they can tell us all that they have to build this or that windfarm or add this or that tax to our fuel bills because the law says so. I suggest that the Darwin awards for the year, say 2020 should go collectively to the UK for the most ingenious method of destroying a nations finances and all that follows once a Nation is bancrupted.

This article is seemingly contradictory in terms of the global action required on AGW. The acknowledgement of the temperature gain is not really relevant as what is matters is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for which James Hansen most recent work has decided that the Arctic sea ice is already under threat and hence that will threaten Greenland once the summer melt is completed of the sea ice. Then once we reach 425 to 475 (450 then) we will have doomed antartica as well and that then means a huge long term global land based iced melt which will rise sea levels significantly and ruin a lot of our industry and ruin around 700 million peoples lives and ruin glaciers in a way that will ruin rivers stable flow and lands grow growing abilities.

What I find somewhat amazing is the plethora of artciles by so called green companies and individuals who seem to lack the pervasive knowledge required of the global economic and energy system. Humans consume 14 TW at present and the IEA forcast a 50% increase to 21 TW come 2030. The recent oil price collapse will just enforce oil, gas and coals position at present as the cost of developing renewable infrastructure will be seen as too expensive until the global recession is over which is around 2011 (another two years lost). Yes Barrack Obama will make a difference but as the world was not doing much to reduce global emissions at this point Mr Obama will make a difference but the idea of 80% emissions reduction byt 2050 is not strategically defined as yet and hence a political idea at present for the USA and Europe. The other interesting thing is that the main producers of CO2 are now China (higher than the USA) and the rest of the world with the USA at 19%, Russia a 5%, Canada and Australia lower, Europe at 12% and this is the big problem. That additional 7 TW is not to be used by the USA and Europe etc but by China, India and the rest of the world so even if we the first world develop sustainables and has large scale efficiency drives for new houses and vehicles and energy sources then we will also have to supply it to the world. Who will pay for that? Where is CCS for coal right now with China building a new coal power plant every week. The political lobbying for coal and oil in the USA senate is mighty and Obama took money from them too I believe. What about the USA car industry borrowing $25 billion and flying around in provate jets to get there and now with the collapse of the price of oil will they build effiiency 60 MPG cars en masse for the american public to embrace or hybrid cars or electric cars etc. The whole thing is strategically inert.

Where is the 4th generation nuclear option to replace coal power if CCS is not deliverd in time. 450 ppmv of CO2 is only 30 years away.

The environmentalists of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth tried in 1991 to convince the US Government of the day and failed as per Jeremy Leggetts story. Their story has not change but where is the change in the real world. We have Obama now so lets hope the strategy is developed but as yet there is not one, no single coherent strategy for low CO2 emissions.

Why do green people always sing optimistically when Canadas heavy sands are being produced, more and more countries are looking to produce fossil fuels. Where does their optimism come from ? Are they looking at their own local blinkerd view of saving a field, putting up a wind turbine or two.

This whole subject is now becomming slightly infuriating for those in the realistic scientific capatalist know.

Most of the green activists are cynical about any future for humanity, or for our planet. They have given up hopes that anything reasonable will be done to solve the environmental crisis.

They degenerate into conspiracy theorists, and generally rejoice when the boat gets into trouble. This is their “Aha, I told you so” moment. You cannot deny them that.

But it is quite unfortunate that the ranks of environmentalists are populated with cynics and not with problem-solvers. We are clearly in trouble, and we need smart people to get us out of this.

Facts are sacred, and logical analysis is the need of the day.

Bad economic weather is a very bad time for the green movement. All the investments in alternative technologies will evaporate. Construction costs rise, making the high capital costs of environmental-friendly technologies all the more daunting. The fact that environmental-friendly technologies (whether public transport, or nuclear power stations, or energy efficiency) have extremely low operating costs, and will be a great investment in the long run goes unheeded by the people who have the money for investment.

It is stupid to rejoice in anything like this. This is the time to get our act together, and steer the boat towards the target.

Hi Steven!

Actually, it’s worse than that – I think you’ll find temperatures peaked in 1981. Oh, hang on – no I mean 1990. Ooops, you were right, 1998. Or maybe it was 2005. Hmmm… It’s a lot colder today than it was on Wednesday, oh no! It’s global cooling again!

If you’re at all interested in why we’re all smiling at your post, try something like:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

Meanwhile, we’ll all go off and try and remember how to spell ‘troll’.

In the UK’s Daily Mail, Thursday Nov. 13 2008 City & Finance section “COMMENT” about the Bank of England’s awareness of the looming economic crisis Ben Laurance commented ”.. to attack King … for being slow to deal with recent events is to abuse .. hindsight. Be honest. We were all caught out.” This is just not true!

We are all caught UP in this economic mess, but were NOT ALL caught OUT. There are still plenty of us around, especially the older generation, who understand the economic wisdom of “Never a borrower nor a lender be”.

The Scots have earned worldwide renown (and even some ridicule) for their financial prudence. It is almost unbelievable that the UK government, influenced so significantly by MP’s born, bred and educated in Scotland, should have presided over and boasted about 10 years of unsustainable British economic growth. Growth based upon relentless and reckless consumer borrowing in order to spend on non-essentials. Borrowing on credit cards for this, followed by further borrowing on different credit cards from other lenders in order to pay back the original loan and its interest imposed at extortion rates by greedy bankers. Added to this was the encouragement given to numerous potential house purchasers to borrow far more than their income could support. Well, pay-back time has come – with a vengeance.

So, what is our government’s solution? It’s simple household economics, isn’t it – BORROW MORE NOW to SPEND MORE NOW. Don’t worry about pay-back yet. Taxpayers money can be saved in some areas, such as bringing back significant numbers of our forces from Iraq. We can expect that to happen before the next election (votes have to be won somehow, don’t they) and it looks as though the Iraqis have already been warned of this if today’s news is to be believed. Of course after the next general election we’ll be invited to pay much higher taxes. Not direct taxes, of course, which would be too obvious. They’ll be more stealth taxes.

One might ask “but hasn’t he already exhausted these?” No, no. one beauty is still available – GREEN TAXES. People are daft enough to spend and spend what they don’t have on what they don’t need. They were daft enough to believe the myth about conquering the “boom and bust economics of the Conservatives”. They’re also daft enough to believe the myth about man-made global warming through burning fossil fuels.

Further comments on the global warming issue are available in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1

Please can we get an open debate going here, properly addressing the arguments of sceptics like myself. I have tried repeatedly to get Jonathan Porritt, Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, and other environmentalists to start an open debate on this issue on the Forum for the Future Web-site without so much as receiving a response. For some reason they are all afraid to have the well-founded sceptical science debated. I wonder why!!

Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Climate Change Agnostic

Why thanks Mark for that deeply considered comment of yours. Were it not for the name attached to your post I might have laboured under the impression that you, yourself, were indeed a troll . Incidentally you misspelt the word troll. The OED describes the word troll as ” a pseudo-environmentalist labouring under the delusion that He alone is the voice of the climate chaos aversion”. As you are aware there are plenty of those about. As for pointing out the maximum temperature records I do wish you would make your mind up. You’ve presented us with plenty of random dates but can’t seem to make up your mind which one to choose. I suggest that if you choose to use ad hominum methods to attack then be careful you do not make yourself look foolish when the tables are turned.

Can I just clarify that the ‘Mark’ above is not me? This implies no criticism, nor endorsement. Thanks…

Peter i am with you totally about the economics, this government has encouraged borrowers and lenders to spend wildly that which they did not have and could never hope to have. However on global warming I think you are wrong. If the world is not warming why are the polar ice caps melting and the galciers disappearing? The science seems fairly simple there don’t you think?

The economics of the day are not the issue with climate change its the perspective that humanity has researched obtaining energy from fossil fuels and knows how to cost effectively dig it up, drill for it and build stations and devices to use it efficiently and if you have the money extravaganetly. Fossil fuels fueled capatalism and has allowed science to come of age. We have improved yields of crops but oil derived inorganic fertilisers, preparing the soil and transport them globally for mass consumption. The entire state of the energy system is fossil fuels. The only other presently used alternative is nuclear fission which was used to create weapon fuel.

How does humanity change its energy matrix whilst propelling capatalist materialist standards forward under the banner of progress and political will?

Humanity at present has economically poweful countries and companies who are prepared to invest 10% in renewables and 90% in more fossil fuel presently. We need a massive change in scientific research, strategic planning, financial and political means to change this scientifically.

Renewables presently make up little of our global energy consumption and even if they are researched and invested in if they are viable and successfully ordained they will still compete with CCS when it is developed and other fossil fuel operations.

Its a dangerous time but Barrack Obama aside who is looking to bring the USA into the fray with CO2 emissions the USA is not the largest world consumer of fossil fuels, neither is the EU. Worrying.

Carl (Johnson), I make the assumption that you were responding to my post. Regarding global warming, the science is anything but simple and the propaganda is outrageous. I do not deny that warming may have been occurring in some locations around the globe over recent decades, although this is debatable. You have missed a very important point in my post. I refer to MANMADE global warming, which I reject as being at all significant. The basis for this opinion is covered fully in my paper which is accessible on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site as quoted in my post. I am pleased that you have started the debate going, but feel that you, like many others, are merely accepting the environmentalist propaganda without doing sufficient research to help you develop a valid opinion based upon climate science. I offer the following to hopefully stimulate further substantive debate and proper understanding of the issue.

GLOBAL WARMING MYTH EXPOSED The political myth that significant manmade global warming results from the use of fossil fuels has at last been laid to rest by detailed scientific analysis. During the last two years scientists have independently approached the issue of global climate change from three quite different viewpoints. Each approach shows that the burning of fossil fuels has negligible effect upon the global climate. Contrary to the propaganda foisted upon us by politicians, environmentalists and the media to support their own causes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is not responsible for any significant global climate change.

The politically orientated “Summaries for Policy Makers” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provide the basis for the global warming propaganda upon which vested interest groups depend. These SPMs are distorted misrepresentations of the scientific reports provided by the the IPCC’s Working Group 1, “The Scientific Basis”. These scientific reports (but NOT the SPMs) acknowledge the uncertainties surrounding their climate projections, but more importantly, they virtually ignore any scientific findings since 2005.

The latest science proving that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations through the burning of fossil fuels does NOT significantly warm the globe was undertaken in 2007 and 2008. Three groups independently analysed climate change with regard to the: - impact of changing CO2 concentration, considering not only radiation but also conduction of heat (ignored by the IPCC), by Dr. John Nicol, - effects of water vapour and clouds (ignored by the IPCC as a feedback) by Dr. Roy Spencer, - chaotic nature of the global climate, by Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, et al. The conclusion of each of these independent analyses is that climate change is driven by factors other than atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Their finding were presented as a challenge to several scientific supporters of the IPCC’s political position on man-made climate change. They were invited to prove that the recent research is flawed and refute the arguments of Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. No response has been forthcoming. Following that the same challenge was sent to the Chairman of the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission and to each of the commissioners. There has been no response. The challenge was then sent to the UK’s “Forum for the Future”, with no response. They were then invited to initiate an open debate on the latest science and again chose not to respond. Letters were even sent to 15 editors of English newspapers with no response. These findings have been summarised in a paper ” Politicization of Climate Change & CO2”. Abstract “Vested interest groups are abusing the issue of climate change to further their own causes. Climate scientists cannot predict climate and computer models have significant limitations. Model projections are flawed and the models cannot as yet be validated. The IPCC summaries for policy makers are merely a political interpretation of the IPCC’s scientific reports. These reports do not take into consideration recent research showing that increasing atmospheric CO2 content has negligible affect on global climate. The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world’s most deprived communities.”

This paper was offered to the Forum for the Future and the Sustainable Development Commission for posting on their INTERNET blogs to initiate open debate. Both of these environmentalist organisations are strong supporters of the man-made climate change theory, yet neither responded to the offer. The reason for this is that the supporters of manmade global warming through the burning of fossil fuels can provide no scientific evidence refuting the latest scientific research of Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. . Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC scientific reviewer, author of “The Greenhouse Delusion” booklet and one of 100 scientists who signed an open letter to the Director General of the United Nations challenging the IPCC’s political position has reviewed this paper and made it available on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 No-one is prepared or able to enter into worthwhile scientific debate challenging the conclusions in this paper. IT IS SETTLED. BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING. Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Climate Change Agnostic

Steven, I’m honoured that you replied! Now I’m getting confused. I know words mean what we use them to mean – descriptive not proscriptive – I did actually used to work for a company that made dictionaries, but here’s the definition I had in mind:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response¹ or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

That’s from Wikipedia. Is yours really from the OED? And I misspelt ‘troll’ as ‘troll’?.. This is getting a little too post-modern for me right here, let’s move on…

I was quoting years from NASA GISTEMP data set, and to fill in some background, 1981 was really hot, hotter than 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and so in the early 80s it looked like it was a peak, but then 1990 was hotter again, and indeed hotter than 91-94, so then that was the peak. Then 98 was, for a variety of reasons phenomenally hot, hotter than 99, 00, 01, 02 (just), 03 and 04. You see the pattern? Now 98 was a peak and it we were in a cooling trend, which is where you started us off. 2005 was even hotter than 98 in that data set (though some others got them really close) and so 05 was another peak as 06 and 07 were cooler.

Honestly I’m not trying to take the p*ss, it’s just that if you look at individual points in a data set you can show almost anything. (The daft extreme is something like the “It’s colder today than it was yesterday!” quip.) What you need to do is look at averages, either running averages or averages for the previous 8 years (longer is better but slower to respond to trends.) Really, read the realclimate article, they’re professionals.

I would suggest taking none of those dates on its own: look at the trend of the averages. If you do they climb pretty consistently. When we get another El Niño year it will quite possibly be hotter than 98.

My name really is Mark, though I am not Mark Lynas (sorry Mark, the curse of having a common name, I should’ve thought of that possible confusion.)

Ah Dr Vincent Gray, a coal chemist retired. Says it all about the propaganda and the zero peer reviewed science Pete Ridley of which they, the skeptics have none.

The science of climate change proves no warming is laughable and lamentable as for instance the skeptics always refer to the climate models but the climate scientists always refer to the paleoclimatic data as being foremost and the climate models being useful.

Utter tosh your post I am afriad.

Pete (Best) Thanks for your response. A debate at last. It is to be hoped that this debate will be open and CONSTRUCTIVE by supporters of both sides of the argument. One point though, please would you read my comments and paper a bit more carefully before responding, otherwise you may get the wrong end of the stick. I repeat my last line for clarity. BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING. Note the word SIGNIFICANT!

I have tried hard but without success to find anything in your post to convince me that my statement is incorrect. You made meaningless statements such as “skeptics always refer to the climate models” and “climate scientists always refer to the paleoclimatic data”, but these add nothing worthwhile to the debate.

As you appear to be convinced of your argument, are you prepared or able to accept my challenge to provide scientific evidence to refute the findings of the scientists in my paper, i.e. Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. Detailed scientific analysis of your own or someone else refuting the findings of these three is acceptable. That way we can have a peer review on the Web. Dr. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama) makes his research available to anyone in that way, as he develops it, e.g. you can see his latest report at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Having done a lot of research on the issue at numerous sites on the INTERNET, one thing that I find very frustrating is the enormous amount of worthless insults hurled between antagonists. Your contributions “Utter tosh your post I am afriad” and “Ah Dr Vincent Gray, a coal chemist retired” are prime examples of this. I suppose that in your view all the other 99 scientists who wrote to the Director General of the United Nations in December 2007 have similar base level credentials. What are yours by the way? Have you been involved in reviewing the IPCC’s scientific reports, as Dr. Gray has, or in any published scientific research? Perhaps not, but if I’m mistaken then please correct me and provide me with references to your work!

Enough of this, it does nothing to aid constructive debate about climate science and I hope that any debate permitted by Mark on his blog does not degenerate in this way. There are valid arguments on both sides and the climate experts are nowhere near developing a solid scientific theory of the global climate upon which to model and predict future climates. Open and constructive debate is essential.

Meanwhile, I refer you to my paper ” POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php

Challenge it by all means, but please resist the temptation to simply ridicule.

The science of earth science is all that matters and the paleoclimatic record is what convinces climate scientists of the issue of AGW along with the theory of GHG’s causing the warming which is physics and chemistry and hence correct and peer reviewed and borne out by the models and records.

What has caused the twentieth century warming 0.8C. It aint the Sun in any significant way, the GCR demonstrates that and hence it is GHG theory due to humans belting out these 28 billion tonnes per annum since 1750.

Demonstarte to me that it is not GHG theory that is responisble for the majority of the warming Pete Ridley? The skeptics never have an alternative theory of the present warming, or the warming present in the Arctic.

Pete (Best), I assume that your contributions of 26th “the climate scientists always refer to the paleoclimatic data” and of 28th “the paleoclimatic record” refers to ice core and other data offered by palaeontologists, geologists and other “ologists” about past global climate change. I have found no reference to this in the Fourth Assessment Reports of IPCC Working Group 1 “The Physical Science Basis” so please Pete would you give me the appropriate reference. Correct me if I am wrong, but you may have picked this up from “Six Degrees: Our Future in a Hotter Planet”, by Mark (Lynas). I have not read Mark’s booklet but understand from a Times article in 2007 that, of climate change papers that he had researched, “Some of the most interesting came from palaeoclimate studies .. ”.

The “palaeoclimatic record” indicates that global temperatures have fluctuated significantly during the ice ages of the Quarternary period. Quoting from “Prehistoric Past Revealed” by Dr. Douglas Palmer, of Cambridge University). “The ‘toings and froings’ of the glaciers and ice sheets of the Quarternary Ice Ages had a devastating effect upon the polar realms of North Aerica and Asia, Antarctica, New Zealand, Tasmania, and southernmost tip of South America”. The Quarternary Period goes back 1.8M years, long before man started burning significant amounts of fossil fuels. I have never denied that climate change occurs, but I am not convinced that our use of fossil fuels causes significant global warming. You still have not provided one scrap of evidence that it does. I have provided references to recent scientific research that shows to the contrary. You are obviously totally converted to the manmade global warming cause, so, take up the challenge if you are capable. Prove that the evidence I refer to is flawed.

Pete, you also say on 26th ” Says it all about the propaganda”, well let me give you an example of the ease with which fact and opinion can be merged to support a particular point of view.

If the Times is to be believed (and who believes everything that’s printed, unless it is peer reviewed, of course) Mark said in his chapter on “One Degree of Warming” that “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert”. The implication is clear, returning to a climate one degree warmer than now “requires no great feat of imagination”. What is missing is that twelve thousand years ago the melt-down of the last ice age was beginning. “The continental interior of .. North America .. had vast cold deserts with little or no rain and consequently no vegetation.”. (from “Prehistoric Past Revealed” again). It requires “no great feat of imagination” to appreciate that it would take thousands of years (no time at all in geological terms) to convert these deserts to the “American agricultural heartland around Nebraska” that we enjoy today. Of course, one degree of warming from the present “agricultural heartland ” status is a totally different scenario, impossible to compare with the conditions pertaining six thousand years ago.

Following your comment “Dr Vincent Gray, a coal chemist retired” I did a quick INTERNET search to try to find any peer-reviewed climate science submissions authored by any Pete Best. I found nothing at all, scientific or otherwise. Only one Pete Best contribution was fond, on the Daily Telegraph’s “New forum to channel debate on climate change” in 2007. It reads: QUOTE. A forum for informed discussion I hear you say? Well from the detracting comments from many DT reader over “its just another tax” and climate change is another government money raiser I can see where a lot of peoples priorities lie and it is not with the environment. As global warming is well global, I am doubtful that anything significant on the scale required to mitigate its effects will be done for at least another 20 years abd by that time we will be heading for that dereaded 2 C of warming in record time. The technologies to mitigate climate change are in their infancy, sure people can lag their houses and other such green measures but it will not be enough due to population growth, and additional energy demand. Prepare for a warming world, 550 ppm here we come unfortunately. Posted by Pete Best on May 4, 2007 8:47 AM” UNQUOTE. This sounds to me like the same Pete Best. I did appreciate the following comment from another contributor, though: QUOTE. We “Deniers” are asking for an open debate, discussing facts, sanely, instead of getting a load of abuse just because we do not agree with YOUR view. “You know when you have won the arguement when your opponent hits you”(For hits read “can only reply with abuse”) Posted by Mick Wood on May 4, 2007 12:33 PM UNQUOTE

On the basis of your previous submissions, both here and on the Telegraph blog, it appears that you are presently unable to make any constructive contribution to the debate on whether or not our use of fossil fuels causes significant global warming.

Is there anyone out there who is prepared to participate in REASONED, CONSTRUCTIVE OPEN-MINDED debate from a position of at least some understanding of the very important issue of alleged manmade global climate change? I appreciate that this blog is not the place to present detailed scientific arguments, but abstracts and conclusions of these would seem to be appropriate, with clear reference to the source documents. I understand that the Climate Science Coalition and other manmade global warming sceptics are eager to open full debate on the issue so I am sure that they would be happy to publish papers presenting both sides of the argument.

Pete (Best), In your post of 28th you say “The science of earth science is all that matters”. I doubt whether any of the “earth scientists” themselves would agree with you there. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say because you don’t say things very clearly.

Even if, as you claim, the THEORY of greenhouse gases “is physics and chemistry” this does not automatically make the theory correct. A theory needs to be PROVEN and nothing has yet proven that our burning of fossil fuels is causing significant global warming. I say all of this in my paper, which you obviously haven’t read, just as I have pointed out that the computer models are not yet validated.

You declare that “The skeptics never have an alternative theory of the present warming, or the warming present in the Arctic”. Here are just a couple of references to the arguments of sceptical scientists: 1. Dr. Richard S Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated to the House of Commons (available at http://www.parliament.uk/index.cfm) “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them” and “I cannot stress this enough—we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future”. 2 Dr. David Legates, Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, Newark, gave evidence to a US federal court in a case involving Friends of the Earth, (available at http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm) Dr. Legates challenges the evidence for the 0.6°C rise in the 20th century. He claims that the proximity of temperature gauges to cities has artificially elevated reported temperatures. He also points to natural variability as an important factor, citing a 2004 study that suggested solar variability may have contributed up to 0.25°C of the recent warming. Of course, the converts to the manmade global warming religion will say of each of these high-calibre but sceptical scientists “He’s in the pay of the energy industry”.

Pete, I gather from your comments in this and the Telegraph blog that your concern is purely and simply our pollution of and damage to the environment and I do not disagree with you on this. I do NOT agree that producing CO2 (and up to twice as much H2O) from burning fossil fuels and “belting out these 28 billion tonnes per annum since 1750” is causing significant damage to the global environment, although there may well be some local effects. Both water (by far the most significant greenhouse gas) and CO2 (a minor GHG) are vital to life on this planet. Incidentally, that 28 Gt/yr figure of yours is NOT “since 1750”. The measured figure for 2000 was 6.8Gt. The 28Gt/yr is from one of the implausible IPCC scenarios for 2100. The same scenario uses a global population 2.5 times that measured for 2000 and coal production of 10 times that of 2000.

Many years ago when debating the increasing wealth and changing living standards that I and my contemporaries had experienced since the second world war, I commented that standards of living had not necessarily improved, but our level of wastage had certainly risen considerably. I still believe this. Let me make clear that I abhor waste and detest unnecessary damage to the environment, however, in my book, human well-being comes first. It appears to me that those of us with more money than needed to exist, i.e. the majority of the developed world, are being awfully smug. We are effectively telling many more millions worldwide who can barely feed and cloth themselves and families that they should make further sacrifices in support of our own suspect opinions about human impact upon global climate. These opinions are not based upon proven fact but are instead based upon the opinions of some climate “experts”, massaged by politicians and environmentalists to arrive at a desired consensus. Opinion is opinion, regardless of its source, and is often flawed. Only proven facts are irrefutable. Consensus, especially political concensus, often has little basis in fact, but is driven by vested interest.

The consensus at one time was that the earth is flat. Some of earth’s inhabitants still hold that opinion. Scientific and political consensus in the 17th century was dominated by religious dogma. “Expert” opinion of the time was that the earth was the centre of the universe, with all solar bodies orbiting it. Poor old Galileo dared to provide evidence that in fact the sun is the centre of the solar system and was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. During the early years of the second world war expert medical opinion was that heart surgery was impossible. Thank goodness a lone military surgeon proved that “expert” opinion was wrong. What did that great Conservative politician Margaret Thatcher say about concensus after she had inherited another economic mess from a Labour government ”.. consensus .. is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects”.

Pete, I really don’t think that you and I will make any constructive progress in continuing our debate. You have your fixed environmentalist views that will probably only change when the next ice age starts (around 2020?). I can only be persuaded by logical argument based upon proven fact. When I was much younger I used to invite Jehovah’s Witnesses in for a chat, hoping to convert them from their superstitious dogma to evidence-based agnosticism. Despite hours of debate, neither side changed its opinions, although I have since then realised that religion of any kind is comforting for many people, if not for myself. Let us at this point agree to disagree about my belief that: BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING.

Best regards, Pete Ridley,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Tells is all about your three scientists of climate worth and even the credible seems slightly incredible.

The science of climate change is scientifically fine and the warming is correctly found to be attributed to excess GHG and land use changes and not the Sun or some other enigmatic propoganda source of information.

Maybe you can tell me exactly why you find the science incorrect and what source of warming you have found to contradict the offically peer reviewed scientifically factual one?

Mark (Lynas) your header to this blog included Jonathan Porritt’s recent statement “I’m nervous, .. Climate change is still tough for politicians to sell. This all feels very much like one of those periodic crunch moments for the sustainability agenda.” I now understand why Jonathan refused to take up my challenge to get involved in open debate on the issue of manmade global warming. The sustainability bandwagon is rocky enough as it is! Jonathan, like yourself, wrote a booklet which included misleading statements about manmade climate change. If only one misleading statement is identified in any publication then the whole becomes suspect. Let me comment on the Times Supplement article based upon your “Six Degrees .. ”, then briefly on Jonathan’s “Playing Safe: Science and the Environment”. I make the assumption that what was reported in the Times is actually what you said or implied in your book. If the Times misrepresented what you said in your booklet then please forgive me, but it still demonstrates how the media distort facts.

“SIX DEGREES .. ” “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now .. Nebraska was desert”. Nabraska’s status today is a totally different scenario, impossible to compare with the conditions pertaining six thousand years ago (see my posting of 28th November paragraph 4 for detailed justification of my comment). “Without knowing how much fossil fuel will be burnt, the best science can offer is a range of plausible ‘scenarios’” This is wrong. Science did NOT offer the scenarios. These scenarios were imposed upon the scientists by the politically orientated IPCC. Several are IM-plausible, e.g. Scenario A2 used a figure for CO2 emissions in 2100 of 7 times the measured figure for 2000. A global population in 2100 at 2.5 times that measured for 2000 and coal production in 2100 at 10 times that of 2000 was used in that same scenario. I don’t call these “reasonable or probable” (from The Concise Oxford Dictionary)! The IPCC itself admitted that “there is no objective way to assign likelihood to any of the scenarios.” (from “Climate Change Mitigation”) “They (the scenarios) vary so widely that the IPCC .. was able to suggest only that global average temperatures by the end of the 21st century will have risen between 1.4 and 5.8C above the average for 1990 .. last month pushed up to 6.4C ..” The IPCC has never claimed that temperatures WILL have risen and has acknowledged that “No judgement is offered .. as to the preference for any of the scenarios .. neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations” (from “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”).

“PLAYING SAFE: .. ” “We know that levels of carbon dioxide … are likely to reach 560 ppm .. by 2040”. We know nothing of the sort. All that the IPCC has been able to do is assign a range of highly uncertain concentration levels to the scenarios in accordance with levels produced by different carbon cycle models. The IPCC’s comments above about the deficiencies of their scenarios apply here also. Jonathan repeatedly claims that “we know” when in fact we only have opinions. Perhaps you’ll allow me to post more comments on Jonathan’s booklet and other sustainability arguments in a future contribution.

The clear purpose of the Times Supplement, these booklets and that of “The Politics of the Real World” from The Real World Coalition (organisations associated with Jonathan’s cause) is to merge fact with opinion (and even fantasy) to scare people. The popular media are full of this kind of scare-mongering propaganda about global warming.

Many of these aspects of political and environmentalist propaganda are exposed in more detail in Dr. Vincent Gray’s booklet “The Greenhouse Delusion” and at numerous INTERNET sites, including that of the Climate Science Coalition.

Regards, Pete Ridley

I’ve just watched Newsnight on BBC2 and My God it was just like watching a Monty Python sketch. Two utter ecoloons and a rep from the energy industry going head to head talking about how we will lead the World showing how the UK will lower its CO2 emissions. Were it not costing us all an arm and a leg to pay for this madness I would have felt sorry for Monbiot and the head of the climate change dept. whatever his name is. But alas it will not only cost us an arm and a leg but will lead to the downfall of a once great economy that even Adolph was unable to kill. “Nein, jus leeve ze ecofoolz to bankrupt Eengerland”. He would have been proud of them. Reading through some of the comments in this section of the blog I am really filled with despair. The pro global warming lobby really believe what they have to say when it comes to climate change. I have studied the evidence in detail and still find no proof of any such warming but still others do. It’s rather like talking to a middle aged man who still belongs to the Socialist Workers Party. Gawd help us all.

I read with interest, Mr Peter Ridley’s comments regarding the current economic crisis. (dated 23 November)...I too cannot understand why the government is trying to encourage already cash-strapped consumers to spend more and more. Isn’t that the last thing that they should be doing? For those who are already up to their necks in debt, wouldn’t further debt push them over the edge? How may frantic people could be considering suicide at this very moment due to threats of repossession, redundancy, or just trying to make ends meet? I was brought up believing that we should only buy what we can afford. It is true that when my peers were travelling around the world, buying expensive luxury items, I can say that I often felt envious. I am so relieved now that I didn’t get sucked into believing that it was okay to take borrowing to the max and worry about paying later. I am thankful that I can sleep at night. I, as a member of the general public, think Mr Ridley writes a lot of sense…and regarding his comments on man-made global warming, why are people reluctant to take up his challenge?

Mark (Lynas) your header to this blog commented that David Cameron seemed “scarcely to mention climate change any more” and alarmed environmental groups wrote an open letter to party leaders. It is anticipated that in a couple of years time a Conservative government will have taken control of the country’s economy (ruined again by years of Labour mismanagement). Rather than pay attention to alarmist environmentalists it (and all green supporters) would be well advised to pay more attention to the open letter sent by the 100 sceptical scientists to the UN Secretary General. I again refer to my paper “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php.

I was astounded to see your comment on the passing of Climate Change Bill in September. I have had a keen interest in manmade climate change and the associated politics since reading the Times Supplement on your “Six Degrees ..” yet I had absolutely NO idea that this bill was being debated even, let alone had been passed. In Nov. 2006 the BBC reported that “Government officials said it hoped the announcement of the proposed legislation in the Queen’s Speech would stimulate a debate among the public and within Parliament about the contents of the bill”. Since then I have seen nothing specific from the bill being debated by the general public. I have asked friends and associates (from window cleaners to chartered accountants) what they knew about its passage through the commons – nothing! As one commented “They’ve kept that one well hidden”. I have searched the Internet and found virtually nothing that would be seen by the general public and no significant coverage has been given to it in the popular media.

The politicians certainly took an opportunity to attract green votes and used “a good time to bury bad news” about the myth of manmade global warming behind the reality of global economic catastrophe. Government shenanigans following September 2001 spring to mind. The “surge of interest in green measures to address the crisis” is purely political. The general public has little concern about the mythical manmade global warming crisis, being presently largely concerned with the genuine global economic crisis. Let us pray that this act is repealed in 2010 by a Conservative government. I will offer comments on what this bill (act?) is committing us to in a future submission.

Taking up your points about the cost of “Developing a green economy”. You quote that “the incremental cost of completely greening the world’s energy system is certainly less than that ($700bn) per annum”. Also, “climate and economic solutions can support rather than compete with each other”. OWCH! The cost of solving the economic crisis alone will drive our country close to bankruptcy. We tax payers will be paying for this government’s economic mess for decades to come. If in addition we are forced by the politicians to over-indulge in the premature development of expensive renewable energy rather than exploit the relatively cheap fossil fuel resources that are available we will face twice the tax pain.

“Investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency, green buildings and public transport will bring huge job-creation and enterprise opportunities” reminds me of the situation during the early seventies. Britain was booming, the pound strong, people had money to waste, until it all went bust (admittedly under a Conservative government, but that was Heath, wasn’t it and it was he who took us into that other mess, the EEC), then came Labour and its job creation. Creating unnecessary jobs purely to revive the economy helps nobody in the long term. It took Maggie to sort it all out, then came Tony and Gordon, but ENOUGH OF THIS FRIVOLITY.

Premature investment in expensive renewable energy programs will further stretch the economies of the developed world, already in melt-down according to the media. It will seriously hamper the developed world’s ability to reduce the deprivation experienced by millions of individuals worldwide. If Oxfam’s estimated need “for this from the UK is about £1.6bn annually” and “would once have seemed like an INCONCEIVABLY large bill” then it will be IMPOSSIBLE for decades hereafter if money is wasted on the precipitate development of renewable energy sources. From the viewpoint of manmade global warming the “carbon market” is a pointless economic confidence trick. It is purely a mechanism for the rich to make more money. You do mention Mr. Al Gore, another rich politician from a privileged background. I’ll offer future comments on Mr. Gore and on the misrepresentations in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”. A few of these were recognised by a London High Court judge, but Viscount Monckton of Brenchley identifies ”..35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist ..”.

You make reference to Ban Ki-moon and his political associates the president of Indonesia, the prime ministers of Poland and Denmark, Barack Obama and to The United Nations Environment Programme which aims to help policymakers “recognise environmental investment’s contributions to .. poverty reduction”. This United Nations and the privileged politicians choose to ignore the concerns expressed in the open letter from the 100 sceptical scientists. That open letter concludes “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems”. That’s politicians for you!

Your header includes Cameron Hepburn’s statement “dematerialisation of the economy is feasible in a thermodynamic sense”. Political and environmentalist propaganda is full of statements like this, attempting to give a semblance of scientific credibility to their arguments. In my paper I say of propaganda “It is very easy .. to merge chosen bits of scientifically identified knowledge with our own opinions in order to present a persuasive argument supporting our preferred point of view” but Hepburn’s leaves me cold. As a Chartered Engineer, I have absolutely no idea what thermodynamics (the science of relations between heat and other forms of energy) has to do with economics (the wealth and resources of any community). Mark, you obviously understand the connection, so please can you enlighten me.

The ecological economist Herman Daly should try telling the world’s deprived millions that they should aim for “qualitative development”, not “quantitative growth”. These millions (who can barely feed themselves and families) will ask him to explain why he has “focused too much on the economy’s circulatory system” and neglected their digestive tract. This is “the ultimate question politicians, environmentalists and economists will have to focus on answering ..” if our human crisis is to be resolved in this century.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Pete, I will consider the argument won then.

As for your most recent posting you cannot believe anything the media states on global warming with literal truth but their is a lot of opinion out there on the subject, you have plenty of it obviosuly.

The Government’s waste of UK taxpayers’ hard-earned money trying to do the impossible (control the global climate) has started in earnest.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is established and on 1st December “urged the Government to commit unilaterally to reducing emissions of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the UK by at least 34% in 2020 relative to 1990 levels .. increased to 42% relative to 1990 once a global deal to reduce emissions is achieved. .. meeting these targets is necessary to contain the threat of climate change. .. the CCC’s first report sets out .. the proposed level of the first three carbon budgets covering the periods 2008-12, 2013-17 and 2018-22. The .. budgets can be met by using existing technologies, and by .. : - Moving away from using fossil fuels - using energy more efficiently in our homes .. office buildings .. industry, through better insulation, ..more energy efficient appliances and .. reducing waste by turning lights off, shutting down computers and using air conditioning less; - reducing transport emissions, developing electric cars, improving the carbon efficiency of engines, developing use of sustainable bio-fuels, better journey planning and more use of public transport. - purchasing offset credits .. These significant reductions can be achieved without harming the UK’s economy and at a cost less than 1% of GDP in 2020. In other words, an economy that might grow by 30% in the period to 2020, would instead grow by 29%. The CCC advises that this is a price worth paying … “

The economy is more likely to shrink in the period to 2020 that grow and how often do these projections fall short, e.g. the 2012 Olympics, the 2000 Millenium Dome.

It’s too easy for politicians to dispose of our taxpayers money on unnecessary projects, but you’d think they’d wait until after the present economic crisis ends!

Mark (Lynas), the debate here about the fundamental climate science behind the pro’s and con’s of Manmade Global Warming has much in common with what could be expected in a debate between the Pope and Osama Bin Laden about their fundamental religious opinions. Devotees on both sides have entrenched beliefs and refuse to be persuaded even to consider the possibility that the other’s arguments might have some validity. Others will listen to all arguments, accept facts and make a reasoned assessment of opinions, however the vast majority couldn’t care less because the have more important things to concern themselves with.

I must thank you for allowing all of my opinions to be published on your blog despite the fact that mine would appear to be totally opposed to your own. Carl Johnson dropped out of the debate after only one submission and I think it is a shame that only Pete Best and I have engaged in significant debate, even though we have made no progress. Pete and I have exchanged more than 3000 words yet neither of us has changed his opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and Pete and I should share the opinion that his and my debate is over without agreement being reached Pete still believes that “THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS SCIENTIFICALLY FINE AND THE WARMING IS CORRECTLY FOUND TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO EXCESS GHG AND LAND USE CHANGES”. I still believe that “IT IS SETTLED. BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING”.

I have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get others involved by challenging the arguments of supporters of the manmade global warming cause, particularly yourself and Jonathan Porritt. Jonathan won’t even respond to my E-mails, let alone take up my challenge to enter into debate and refute the sceptical science exposing the flaws in the theory of significant manmade global warming that both of you staunchly support. A debate on Jonathan’s blog under “Globalism and Regionalism” in September involving several individuals on both sides of the argument suddenly dried up after my final posting. This concluded that “The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world’s most deprived communities”.

You steadfastly refuse to respond to my criticism of your position as outlined in your booklet “Six Degrees .. ” or in the header of your blog.

Why is it that you, Jonathan and other supporters of the argument that our burning of fossil fuels causes significant global climate change refuse to disprove the evidence that I reference in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2”. This presents the scientific evidence showing that the burning of fossil fuels has no significant effect upon the global climate.

I repeat to you all again the challenge that I have issued repeatedly on this and other blogs, by E-mail and in my paper. PROVE WITH DETAILED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE ARGUMENTS REFERENCED IN MY PAPER ARE FLAWED. Refusal to take up the challenge IN FULL and simply repeating political and environmentalist propaganda, can be understood to mean only one thing THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

This whole issue around the claim that “global warming is a result of our burning fossil fuels”has me unconvinced if looked at from a scientific point of view. What is always true is that “anything is true if one believes it!”

Politicians know this only too well and have since time immemorial spent their time convincing the ignorant to believe! which they do very well, mainly to the detriment of all.

The real issue is not warming or cooling – it is simply the way that we trash and destroy the planet, and the way in which nature reacts to our continual abuse.

No civilization can last forever and nature has always found a way of balancing matters out. Maybe it is our turn to become another event in the mystical ways of nature – just to become another passing civilization embedded in the history of this amazing and beautiful planet of ours.

I am only a geologist, awestruck by the power of our universe and our little earth. “I have always wondered how beautiful and splendid this planet must have been until we arrived – what seriously stupid creatures we are to have done what we have done and now all we can do is complain! Do not be afraid – nature will take care of this splendid planet and all of us as well – and there are no theories, or other ideological nonsensical political postures that will prevent that – “Usually it is those who have everything that actually have nothing” -because they would’nt know the true value of anything if it bit them in the rear!

I know they do not care what they leave behind – I hope they enjoy their stay is all!

Pete Ridley, you explain to us the means by which the noted global warming temperature rise, the shrinking of glaciers, the warming of the Arctic etc is occuring by your scientific assessment and state your sources.

AGW is a noted scientific fact so prove it is false. I can not see why any of us should try and prove to you that CO2, methane, and other noted GHG levels have increased in the earths atmosphere and hence are irradiating heat.

In my contributions on 02 and 03 December I referred to the Climate Change Bill/Act and the associated waste of UK taxpayers’ money by this Labour government in an attempt to attract the environmentalist vote at the next election. I have already commented on the impacts on taxpayers of actions recommended to government by its Climate Change Committee and would now like to look at the key provisions of the Act itself. Before doing that, I think it is worthwhile repeating extracts from comments of the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker following the Bill’s 3rd reading, when he reported on “what is potentially the most expensive single piece of legislation ever put through Parliament” (expensive for the taxpayers, of course, not the Government).

TELEGRAPH QUOTE: As MPs droned on about the need to fight global warming, Peter Lilley drew .. attention to the fact that .. It was London’s first October snowfall for 70 years, and similarly unseasonal snow was carpeting a wide swathe of Britain. In all that .. debate, only two MPs questioned the need for such a Bill .. The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill – which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented – was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order .. the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible. Yet as we enter the worst recession for decades, our MPs while away their time prattling .. about the need to fight global warming.

.. One of the few specific policy commitments made by would-be president Obama is that he will support last year’s ruling .. that the US Environmental Protection Agency should treat CO2 as a “pollutant” .. The gas that no plant can survive without, and hence all higher forms of life depend on, would be regulated as if it were as dangerous as arsenic or sulphuric acid. .. Obama also supports .. the .. “carbon trading” scheme, costed at hundreds of billions of dollars. It seems the global warming scare may soon become as crippling to the world’s richest economy as anything our own politicians are hell-bent on imposing here. Yet last week ..nearly 180 places in the US, from Alaska to Alabama, have just recorded their coldest October temperatures or heaviest October snowfalls on record ..

Declining global temperatures continue to make a mockery of those computer model projections on which the whole global warming scare is based. .. has there ever in history been such a collective flight from reality? UNQUOTE (For full comments, reference should be made to telegraph.co.uk “Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading” dated 01/11/2008).

CLIMATE CHANGE ACT 2008 – KEY PROVISIONS extracted from the Department of Climate Change and Energy (DEFRA) web-site 01/12/2008.

DEFRA QUOTE: Two key aims underpinning the Act: - to .. help the transition towards a low carbon economy in the UK; - to demonstrate strong UK leadership internationally, .. taking our share of responsibility for reducing global emissions in the context of .. post-2012 global agreement ..

Key Provisions - Legally binding targets: Green house gas emission reductions .. of at least 80% by 2050, and reductions in CO2 emissions of at least 26% by 2020, against a 1990 baseline.. - A carbon budgeting system which caps emissions .. The first three carbon budgets will run from 2008-12, 2013-17 and 2018-22,.. - creation of the Committee on Climate Change, .. - Government will include international aviation and shipping emissions in the Act or explain why not by 31 December 2012. . Committee on Climate Change .. to advise the Government on the consequences of including emissions from international aviation and shipping in the Bill’s targets and budgets.. - Committee on Climate Change .. to advise on .. action at domestic, European and international level, for each carbon budget.

- introduce domestic emissions trading schemes .. ; measures on biofuels; powers to introduce pilot financial incentive schemes in England for household waste; .. a minimum charge for single-use carrier bags .. - Government to require public bodies and statutory undertakers to carry out .. risk assessment and make plans to address those risks. - Government to issue guidance .. on the way companies .. report their greenhouse gas emissions, and to review the contribution reporting could make to emissions reductions by 1st December 2010. Requirement also that the Government must, by 6th April 2012, use powers under the Companies Act to mandate reporting, or explain to Parliament why it has not done so.

Reference should be made to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/legislation/index.htm for full details.

This Labour government, an organisation that makes no productive contribution to our economic well-being, is committing us individuals to economy-destroying taxation and companies (the very organisations that make a positive contribution to our economic well-being) unnecessary, unproductive and costly activity.

Note the references to 2012, i.e. THE PAIN ONCE AGAIN CONVENIENTLY POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION.

In yesterday’s Queen’s Speech the government announced another blatant attempt to attract further votes, just as it has done with the Climate Change Act. This time it is targeting the “middle England” vote, traditionally Conservative when Labour is seen to have once again failed to deliver on its promises. Today’s popular press reports on the “Mortgage Safety Net For Middle Classes” who have mortgages below £400,000. Once again this Labour government is encouraging people effectively to borrow more money now (of course, to be paid back later, but don’t worry about that) with the risk of repayment default being underwritten by the taxpayer. Once again, the pain of this extended borrowing is postponed until – you guessed it – after the next election! Perhaps it is time for us to take a lesson from the citizens of Thailand and demonstrate this Government out of office right now.

By the way, Catherine (Short – may I call you Catherine) thanks for the comments, but please call me Pete.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Dear Pete Ridley, Christopher Booker is a known denialist and is not likely to agree with any climate change bill regardless and as he is writing for a right wing newspaper his articles contain no truth or facts, just right wing opinion of the paranoid and neurotic.

Go read the Guardian and get the balanced view on global warming and our huge requirements to deal with it, after all fossil fuels are approaching peak levels anyway and hence will cause us economic harm at some point soon enough, within 10 years.

Peter (Nel), thanks for the comments. I agree with much of what you say in your post on December 4th, 2008, but would like to respond to two of your comments. Being “only a geologist” you quite possibly have as much knowledge of climate science as does any other ‘ologists, almost certainly more than the majority of environmentalists and certainly more than most of the politicians who are pontificating on the subject.

Whilst there are many ways in which “we trash and destroy the planet”, there are many ways in which humans have improved the environment from the point of view of our own existence on it. This is not only regarding the very comfortable local environments that many individuals in the developed world enjoy. Our beautiful English countryside and that of other countries we love to visit is to a fair extent due to humans changing the environment ever since we started walking the planet. I for one would not wish to set the clock back at all.

What I do wish is that our hard-earned taxes were spent on reducing what damage that we do to the planet while at the same time help the worlds deprived millions to improve their lot, first economically then environmentally. That would be far better than the taxes being wasted by this (or any) government on totally fruitless projects such as trying to control the global climate. Nature alone controls that.

More and more we see this desperate Labour government introducing worthless scheme after worthless scheme that merely waste taxpayers money. Why? – because it is panicking over how it is going to attract enough votes to scrape into power at the next election. The first major panic action may well have been late this summer when ” .. ‘Labour were 20 points behind in the opinion polls and desperate times call for desperate measures’ says an old Labour MP ..” ... The “desperate measure” is here referring to the recall of Mr. Mandelson, described as ”.. the svengali of spin ..”, who was “Twice sacked from government – once for failing to declare a dodgy loan .. on his mortgage application ..” (NB: all quotes in this and the next two paragraphs have been extracted from “The Most Powerful Man In Britain?” by Quentin Letts in The Daily Mail of 4th December. I do not usually find Mr. Letts contributions in the Daily Mail worth reading, but I recommend this one).

In yesterday’s Queen’s Speech the government announced another blatant attempt to attract further votes, just as it has done with the Climate Change Act. Today’s Daily Mail lead report (Mortgage Safety Net For Middle Classes) covers another panic measure by this collapsing Labour Government. This time it is targeting the middle-England vote, traditionally Conservative when Labour is seen once again to have failed to deliver on its promises. Another bail-out funded by the tax-payer is to be offered, this time to those who have recklessly over-stretched themselves with mortgage loans as much as £400,000. Mr. Mandelson has brought together his personal experience of loans, morgages and Government spin to present another poorly camouflaged vote-catcher. Once again this Labour government is encouraging people effectively to borrow more money now (of course, to be paid back later, but don’t worry about that now) with the risk of repayment default being underwritten by the taxpayer. Once again, the pain for both the borrower and the taxpayer of this extended borrowing is postponed until – you guessed it – after the next election!

The Climate Change Act is another political confidence trick to both attract the votes of placated environmentalists and to justify the sustained milking of taxpayers. The environmental meaninglessness of Parliament’s 2008 commitment to almost stop our use of fossil fuels by 2050 will be clear to everyone by 2020 when the next ice-age gets underway. Perhaps it is time for us to take a lesson from the citizens of Thailand and demonstrate this Government out of office right now, rather than wait to vote them out at the next election.

Mark (Lynas), , I have a note that you talk about “now £300 Billion does not seem so difficult” (please correct me if I am mistaken about the source of the quote). This is suggesting that if we can do it to save the world’s economy, why can’t wee do the same for the environment? The difference is that the economy is on the verge of collapse. The environment is not!

We do KNOW that the economy is heading for disaster. We do NOT know that the environment is on a similar course. If we don’t save the world economy from collapse then we will set civilisation back hundreds of years. Perhaps some privileged members of society would love to go back to a time when most people new their place in society, did not question what their “superiors” told them and did as they were told. I doubt if many who, as rural and domestic employees, have experience of what things were like 80 years ago would want those days back.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm

Dear readers, my sincere apologies for regurgitating some of my submission of yesterday. Regards, Pete Ridley

Mark (Lynas), here are a few more observations on the global environment, global warming, global economy, and UK media distortion.

Governments of the developed world should not be wasting enormous amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned money in chasing after expensive, damaging and (in the case of nuclear) potentially dangerous renewable energy sources. Rather they should be encouraging further research into the economic exploitation of the enormous fossil fuel resources that remain untapped worldwide. Coal and methane deposits abound under the ground and the oceans in sufficient quantities to power the global economy for decades to come. Energy companies are financing research and development needed to enable the economical extraction these, but for selfish reasons and only paying enough attention to damage to the environment to keep activists and politicians quiet. Governments should be putting taxpayers’ money into supporting this research and development (not that of renewable sources) for the benefit of humans without causing unacceptable levels of environmental change.

Use of fossil fuels does not dictate that significant environmentally damaging emissions result. Natural gas is about 85% methane, which when fully burnt (oxidised) produces (by volume) 2 parts water vapour and one part carbon dioxide. Coal is about 80% carbon, which when fully burnt produces only carbon dioxide. Coal gas is about 4% methane, 45% hydrogen and 5% carbon monoxide. When fully burnt, hydrogen and carbon monoxide produce only water vapour. Both of these combustion products are essential life-supporting gases. Any remaining minor amounts of unwanted products of the combustion of natural gas, coal or coal gas could be captured and rendered harmless to humans or the environment.

The burning of natural gas to heat homes, cook food, generate electricity and even power motor cars has NOT unacceptably damaged the environment. There is every reason to anticipate that suitable utilisation processes can be developed at significantly less cost than developing renewable sources. For almost 50 years the UK economy has benefited enormously from the exploitation of North Sea natural gas deposits. Without the use of this fossil fuel resource UK taxpayers would be much poorer and the economy would be in an even more perilous state than it now is.

On 5th December the media reported on one hopefully good outcome of the current economic crisis, the start by Honda of the possible demise of that totally unproductive and environmentally polluting human activity, Formula 1 car racing.

Another report, this time illustrating the media distortions involving global warming, was in regard to money that is to be invested in training scientists and engineers to tackle the problems Britain faces in the future. The report claimed that Professor Dave Delpy, Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) had stated that use of the £250M donation by the Government (taxpayers hard-earned money, not the government’s) would concentrate upon climate change and energy. Prof Delpy did not say this. What he actually said was that it would be spent on a range of subjects, including climate change and energy. The EPSRC said they will tackle subjects as diverse as managing scarce water resources, keeping the UK’s aerospace industry competitive and developing artificial organs for patients, all much more worthy causes than trying unnecessarily to do the impossible, control the global climate.

Mark, I note that you and your associated environmentalist activists have still not responded to my challenge on this last issue. You are all giving us the impression of acknowledging that BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING. If you reject the evidence that I have referenced in my paper then you really ought to say so (and substantiate your position with the detailed science that I have unsuccessfully challenged you all to provide).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm Sceptic

Mark (Lynas), here are some corrections/additions which I should have made before sending my submission earlier today. Apologies to all of my readers – there are just so many opinions that I want to throw into the “melting pot” of this debate to hopefully inspire substantial reaction. At my age its so easy to get confused (no sarcastic comment please!).

ADDITIONS In Para. 1 middle, after “Coal and methane deposits abound under the ground and the oceans in sufficient quantities to power the global economy for decades to come.” ADD “Coal in particular is readily available to some major developing economies.”

In Para. 3, after “Without the use of this fossil fuel resource UK taxpayers would be much poorer and the economy would be in an even more perilous state than it now is.” ADD ” One truth in the evangelical booklet “Politics of the Real World” from the The Real World Coalition is “the engine of modern economies .. fossil fuels”. Long life and health to the engine!”

CORRECTION Replace Para. 2 with “Use of fossil fuels does not dictate that significant environmentally damaging emissions will result. Natural gas is about 15% ethane, butane and propane but 85% methane, which when fully burnt (oxidised) produces (by volume) 2 parts water vapour and one part carbon dioxide. Coal is about 90% carbon, which when fully burnt produces only carbon dioxide. Coal gas is about 40% methane, 45% hydrogen and 5% carbon monoxide. When fully burnt, hydrogen and carbon monoxide produce only water vapour. Both of these combustion products are essential life-supporting gases. Any remaining minor amounts of unwanted products of the combustion of natural gas, coal or coal gas could be captured and rendered harmless to humans or the environment. Then there is coal tar, the processing of which makes a vital contribution to the modern global economy.”

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm Sceptic

Mr Ridley, your comments in your repeat postings are somewhat inaccurate and slightly inflamed by ignorance it would seem. Cold weather is not climate regardless of what you are saying. The weather is random and as we have only had a small amount of global warming it will not rule out cold weather when we are having a winter, where the sun shines for little time at a very shallow angle.

Your posts are nothin short of hyped scaremongering of a kind due to your limited understanding of the problem. For example the endlessness of fossil fuels is limited and the end is in sight for oil, which being the most important fossil fuel requires us to demand replacement technologies to come online and be developed at this time. Gas is also limited in its future and reserves and coals horizon is much further away but we need sequestration technology in order to keep its energy source flowing.

The worlds 30 billion barrel per annum oil useage is going to limit us in the near future as the world will want more too and hence we must develop new and carbon free alternatives which if we want to keep our modern progressive capatalist world going we need to invest in now.

Here’s a chance to spread the word. I got this from from 350.org. They want us to comment on their YouTube video so it will get enough comments to be promoted by YouTube:

“I need your help with an experiment. Can you take 2 minutes watch an animation and help take over YouTube? A little background: starting a week ago, a few members of the international 350.org team have converged for the annual UN Climate Conference. It’s a little crazy here—over 9,000 people representing 190 countries have gathered to negotiate our collective future. Things are changing by the hour, and there’s both bad news and good news to report.”

Site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOAtbWHWJqk I’ve also added link on my name :)

Mark (Lynas), You suggested in your booklet “Six Degrees – ..” that there is a risk of global catastrophy (even the extinction of most life on earth) from the enormous amount of fossil fuel stored in the oceans. You say that: ”.. beneath the oceans, another monster stirred – the same that would bring a devastating end to the Palaeocene, and that still lies in wait today. Methane Hydrate. .. a small disturbance drives a gas saturated parcel of water upwards. .. as it surges upwards, reaching explosive force, it drags surrounding water up with it. .. hundreds of metres into the air as the released gas blasts into the atmosphere. .. Even in air-methane concentrations as low as 5% .. the mixture could ignite .. sending fireballs tearing across the sky .. Scientists calculate that they could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely. .. a large explosion could release energy ..100,000 times more than the world’s entire stockpile of nuclear weapons”.

Terrifying isn’t it! (by the way, you made another misrepresentation here. More correctly, “In methane-air concentrations between 5-15% .. the mixture could ignite”. No ignition should take place below or above these limits. Doesn’t sound so bad now, does it?)

To remove that risk of extinction we need to get those dangerous fossil fuel hydrates extracted and processed as quickly and safely as possible for use by the global economy. The energy companies are working on it. There’s money to be made, for decades. Estimates of reserves of methane hydrate range from twice to ten times the combined global reserves of oil and natural gas. The sooner we divert taxpayers’ money from developing renewables into developing the technology for extracting this fossil fuel the better. Risk-averse environmentalists must surely support this.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm

Dear readers, is there anyone out there who can make a CONSTRUCTIVE contribution to the main point of my involvement in this debate, which is that THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE. This part of the debate has been rather one-sided so far. I’m still waiting for any supporter of the theory of manmade global warming to provide evidence that refutes the arguments in my paper “Politicization of CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” which can be seen at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site.

Manmade global warming sceptics like myself are frequently referred to as “deniers” by evangelical environmentalist (e.g. see the Mark Lynas blog “The global warming deniers 04 July 08”). We “deniers” have tried unsuccessfully recently to get “priests” of the manmade global warming religion (e.g. Al Gore) to engage with them in honest, constructive and open public debate of both sides of the argument. Since becoming actively involved a couple of months ago in openly debating this issue I, as a “denier”, have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get honest, constructive and open debate going with “priests” such as Jonathan Porritt, his fellow members of the “Sustainable Development Commission and Mark Lynas. I have also emphasised repeatedly my preference that abuse should be avoided.

On 15th Oct. I posted a contribution to what was up to then a vigorous open debate between “believers” and “deniers” on Jonathan Porritt’s blog entitled “Globalism and Regionalism” which now has 29 comments posted. I posted another on 17th inviting “a bit more honesty and open-mindedness in these debates instead of mere scare-mongering” then my (and the debate’s) final one on 28th. My first two posts provided the debate with some of the detailed arguments in my paper “Politicization of CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” with an abstract from it. Only one other posting, a “denial”, was made before the debate stalled. Nobody has challenged my “denialist” arguments on the blog.

On 23rd Nov. I joined the debate on this blog, asking ” Please can we get an open debate going here, properly addressing the arguments of sceptics like myself”. I repeated similar requests on 24th, 27th and 28th, then on 30th Nov. I responded to one “believer” with “I really don’t think that you and I will make any constructive progress in continuing our debate. You have your fixed .. views .. I can only be persuaded by logical argument based upon proven fact”. On 1st Dec. I commented to Mark that “I now understand why Jonathan refused to take up my challenge to get involved in open debate on the issue of manmade global warming”. On 4nd Dec. I commented to Mark that “Jonathan won’t even respond to my E-mails. You steadfastly refuse to respond to my criticism of your position.”

I asked myself why it is that Mark, Jonathan and other leading “believers” refuse to disprove the evidence that .. THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE.” Then I remembered Mark’s one and only contribution to the debate on his blog other than his initial opinions and the supporting quotes from other like-minded environmentalists. On 24th Nov. he said “Can I just clarify that the ‘Mark’ above is not me? This implies no criticism, nor endorsement. Thanks…”. The significant words are ” no criticism, nor endorsement” – SO, NO “DENIER” CAN EXPECT ANY DEBATE WITH MARK!!

As the “denier” Dr. Vincent Gray told me ” Your experience is all too familiar. They will never debate the issues because they know they will lose”. This could be interpreted as suggesting that all of the leading “believers” are cowards with only unsubstantiated propaganda to offer.

So I next asked myself why Mark would invite comments from his readers? I read in the Times Supplement’s article on his booklet “Six Degrees – …” that took him a full year’s intensive research before he was able to start writing it. Perhaps the sole purpose of his blog is to encourage others to carry out on his behalf the detailed research involved in preparing his next booklet? I suggest the title “Manmade Global Warming – the Truth”. I look forward to seeing it. Hopefully he will be offering complementary copies to major contributors.

Let me make a couple of generalisations which are not applicable to every situation, but are to many. Those of us who refuse to face challenges are fearful of loosing. Those who refuse to take risks or explore are fearful of the unknown. Most of us have enormous respect for anyone who has a go despite their fears, whether the outcome is success or failure. A topical example of this is the frighting activities that participants in “I’m a Celebrity … ” undertake. Conversely, we have little respect for those who make no effort to overcome their fear.

Talking of fear and risk of danger brings to mind the Precautionary Principle (is fear of slight risk of danger the “Over-precautionary Principle”?). Jonathan Porritt expressed his opinions about risk and the Precautionary Principle in his booklet “Playing Safe: .. Science and the Environment” Here are extracts from a couple of his opinions, along with some comments of my own.

“A scientists ‘don’t know’ is the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach ink blot. Some will hear a cheerful, reassuring message, others will listen to the same words and hear the threat of catastrophe”. Scientists do not KNOW that the burning of fossil fuels causes significant global warming. In the above quote, for “Some” read “deniers” and for “others” read “deniers”.

“But a definitive cause-and-effect linkage remains elusive ..” and “Plucking a figure out of the air statistically to capture .. risk is just bad science .” These opinions apply emphatically to: 1) the claimed link between the alleged GLOBAL temperature rise and the alleged GLOBAL carbon dioxide concentration in the air (a CORRELATION does NOT dictate a DEPENDENCY) and 2) the IPCC’s claim that the probabilities they attach to their climate projections are good science just because they are plucked out of the air by scientists (a claim accepted by “believers” as sound science but recognised by “deniers” as no science at all).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic

OOOOPs – another typo. Please forgive.

“A scientists ‘don’t know’ is the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach ink blot. Some will hear a cheerful, reassuring message, others will listen to the same words and hear the threat of catastrophe”. Scientists do not KNOW that the burning of fossil fuels causes significant global warming. In the above quote, for “Some” read “deniers” and for “others” read “believers”.

Note: the last word is “believers”, not “deniers”

Regards, Pete R (Denier)

Tony Ridley, I’m afraid you’re chasing a lost cause on this or any other forum where the majority view is one where most believe in ACC (which has now replaced AGW). How can you argue with those who believe that the sun has virtually no effect on the Worlds’ climate. Pointless task really mate, I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Why is this debate on manmade climate change making no progress? I believe it is for the same reason that many debates between vociferous participants (especially where some have closed minds or lack self-discipline) stall – it has no structure! Mark (Lynas) has assumed the role of chairman but is exercising no control over the debating process. A chairman (ooops! – chairperson to be PC) normally does not get involved in the debate itself (and Mark is certainly adhering to that principle) but should ensure that submissions from participants are constructive and to the point. Involvement there is vital to effective debate.

Mark, may I suggest that you consider providing a separate blog for each category of topic being discussed here. I see four main ones “Climate Science”, “Politics”, “The Economy” and “Environmentalist Propaganda” but there may be more. Environmentalism is deeply involved in all three and I’ve taken a look at other blogs you have on your site (and many others elsewhere) and see similar problems.

In the absence of such a structure being provided I will try, where possible, to separate my submissions to a single blog into these three categories and any other that I think are warranted. This will hopefully help us make some progress towards the truth, especially the truth about the validity of the environmentalists’ manmade climate change theory.

Finally, Tony, thanks for your comment, but two points 1) I disagree that I’m wasting my time. Alex Salmon, SNP leader, was long ridiculed and told that he was wasting his time struggling for a Scotland that was independent of the UK. It took him decades but look where he is now, with independence just around the corner. 2) my name’s Pete.

I may not be around to see the argument accepted by environmentalists that burning fossil fuels has no significant impact on global climate (when the next ice-age starts kicking in around 2020) but I live in hope.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Mr Ridley,

I think you are intoxicated by the exhuberance of your own verbosity. I started to read your postings but became bored. I think you will find that if you wish to sway or perhaps as you would have it, educate, those of us who believe a little in global warming and are concerned about mankinds impact upon it, you need to be more concise in your postings. Sorry. Harsh but fair?

At the risk of making a fool of myself (again), perhaps someone can explain to me why, if the planet is not warming, the ice-caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting causing concern for freshwater supplies around many areas of the planet and sea levels are rising? Perhaps it’s not a problem really. Anyway Gordon Brown is now officially Superman so I am sure he will have it all worked out (NOT)! Lets hope Obama…..... well at least tries!

Dear readers, as commented previously, I am now trying to structure my posts. This one relates mainly to Economics, however, if there is some merging with Politics then I apologise.

ECONOMICS Gordon Brown has led us recklessly into the current economic disaster because of a fundamental flaw in the economic theory upon which his strategy is based. This fundamental flaw for defeating what he claims to be the “boom and bust” economics of the Conservatives is that borrowing beyond our means supports sustainable economic growth. This flawed concept flies in the face of the basic “household economics” law, proven through centuries of use by homemakers, that “You must not spend what you don’t have. Save before you buy”. This law is remembered by the aged, has been forgotten by the middle-aged and never heard by the young.

Gordon Brown has said repeatedly during the past year “The UK economy is in a stronger position than most to withstand a sustained downturn”. Had this been so the £ Sterling would have appreciated against most other currencies. Instead, since its peak last year it has devalued by 30% against the US dollar and by 35% against the Euro! It will fall much further next year. These falls are due entirely to the lack of confidence in the UK economy of the world’s major economies, not, as suggested in the media, to any lowering of UK interest rates.

Although the current economic downturn is a global problem, the UK has much more of a problem than most, especially the US and Europe, as reflected in the exchange rates. When UK credit runs out it will be 2007/8 all over again, only worse. Gordon Brown’s plans to spend our way out of economic recession using borrowed money will ultimately do just the opposite (as any elderly housewife could have told him). The UK is heading for the worst recession since the 30’s. I remember during the 40’s when I asked my mother for more to eat, she’d say “Times are hard. You’ll have to tighten your belt”, another fundamental rule of “household economics”. This also is something probably never heard by the younger generations, but they’ll get used to it as it regains popularity. Those of us who are still around will be suffering from this economic mess for decades. This is reflected in the recent words of the German finance minister, Peer Steinbrueck, in his criticism of Gordon Brown’s master plan for “saving the world” economy. Steinbrueck has rejected Keynes as being inappropriate during this economic meltdown and prefers the economics of the Friedman school, so successful in bringing about Chile’s economic recovery in the 70/80’s following decades of socialist mismanagement. This is at the core of the Conservative economic message announced yesterday. We must act on it, all of us. Steinbrueck says “All this will do is to raise Britain’s debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off”. Younger generations take note!!

Where is Gordon Brown looking to find all of the money he’ll need to pay back the borrowed money plus interest? Ultimately the UK taxpayer, however, the process has already started, very well hidden (better than is normal for Gordon Brown’s stealth tax increases) behind the myth of significant manmade global warming. Jonathan Leake’s article “The Fool’s Gold of Carbon trading” in the Sunday Times of 30th Nov. covers it. Using the pretext of trying to achieve the impossible (controlling global climate) the Government has already raked in £54m from the sale of Carbon Dioxide Permits, with another £1b anticipated over the next four years. At a global level CO2 trading raked in £55b and future trading will dwarf this. But it is not only the trading of CO2 permits. Organisations who are involved in playing the carbon dioxide reduction game get issued with Certified Emission Reduction (CER) certificates. These are the currency of the carbon market, worth about £14 each. Russia and other countries are stockpiling these to cash in later.

My next submission will cover associated political aspects.

PS to Carl, thanks for your helpful comments. The detail in my postings really arises because of the reluctance of manmade global warming “believers” to enter into open and constructive debate at any level. As you see from my earlier posting, I am trying to improve the structure to make it easier for us all. Also, I am working on showing how normal it is for the North Pole’s ice caps to be melting as the earth comes out of any ice age. This will be included in my further analysis of the flaws in Mark Lynas’s booklet “Three Degrees … “

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Dear readers, in response to harsh but fair criticism, herewith a more concise structured SPECIAL BULLETIN using media style headlines for Carl and any readers with attention deficit.

TOPIC 1 – POLITICS 1) World Messiah Brown trips himself up in commons. 2) Labour’s election slogan “We Saved the World” scuppered. 3) Labour’s Top Spinner Skittled. Mandelson furious with Gordon. 4) Labour Pretender & Conservatives Exstatic. 5) Snap Election to be Called by Mid-2009?

TOPIC 2 – ECONOMICS 1) Ladbrook’s Offer 7:2 AGAINST Snap Election so Money to be Made. 2) Ridley’s Only Offer 7:2 ON Snap Election so no Money There. 3) Lay Bets Now as Odds will Shorten Fast.

TOPIC 3 – CLIMATE SCIENCE 1) Ice Caps Always Melt Between Ice-ages. 2) World Heading Into Next Ice-age. 3) Claims of Sea Levels Increasing are Unfounded. Alarmists Provide No Sound Scientific Evidence.

BULLETIN ENDS

Dear others, for anyone who doesn’t get bored by always reading the very important small print (as well as between the lines) verbose detail can be made available on Topics 1 and 3, however it will take time which I would much rather spend writing my two next papers: - “Six Degrees – The Truth”, which will aim to expose all of the “believer” propaganda presented in Mark’s “Six Degrees … ” ( I have already exposed some in my previous submissions). - “the Flaws in the Ice Cores”, which will go some way towards further demolishing the IPCC position on manmade global warming, using “Spencer’s Hypothesis”.

These papers will be offered to the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/ And I’ll let you know when they are published.

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

“Mr Ridley,

I think you are intoxicated by the exhuberance of your own verbosity. I started to read your postings but became bored.” Yeah well what do you expect from the middle class eh? To roughly quote….....”A man hears what He wants to hear and disregards the rest.” That just about sums you up Carl, just about sums you up matey.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Ha ha – that says nothing and probably means he does not understand science but thinks he is good with politics and economics instead.

He has replaied to none of my posts in any meaningul way due to my posts containing scientific sentiment and links to scientific work.

He aint worth replying to Tony, he is a climate cynic and denier, probably a bit right wing too.

Pete, judging by your last post you don’t read anyones comments merely post up your own opinions. You would reach that conclusion if you read my last post which wholeheartedly agrees with Pete Ridley. I would suggest termination of this particular thread as it’s going nowhere really. The pro-warmists have their own agenda and refuse to engage in meaningful debate with the realists. I feel as though I might learn more about the issue if I were to watch Simply come dancing.

Oh, by the way, congratulations to all the greenies who helped in the future bankrupting of not only Our but other nations having successfully got the agreement they wanted at Poznan. Your children and their childrens’ children will be asking questions of you in years to come – namely why you decided to fall for the greatest delusion in the history of Mankind since the organisation of the Catholic Church.

Tony, get a grip. The body of scientific knowledge and not religiois belief (rubbish try with the catholic church analogy – typcial of a cynic I would inagine) is in favour of warming both theoretical and empircial. You and Pete obviously have the same anti scientific rhetoric rolled up in political and economic terms.

Its a shame really but as I have said in my posts here regarding the cynics, explain the 0.8C of 20th century warming another way and don’t mention the Sun either, its a lame attempt.

Come on then either of you, explain it please ?

Dear readers, here is an extract from my draft book “Six Degrees … the Truth” to add to the list of omissions and distortions that Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees …” uses for propaganda purposes (my submission of 8/12/208 to Mark’s “The global warming deniers” blog presents others that are to be included.

QUOTE In his “One Degree” chapter Mark says ” .. the Arctic may already have crossed that critical line. ..Alaska and Siberia are heating up particularly rapidly .. Warming in the Arctic will continue to accelerate .. tearing apart the fabric of the landscape and ecosystems alike. .. In other parts .. entire lakes are draining away into cracks as the impermeable permafrost layer thaws … ”. What horror! The earth is doomed! Let us all commit suicide!

What Mark omits to say is that this is perfectly normal and has happened over and over again whenever the ice caps retreated during every ice age in the world’s history. We haven’t had Armagedon yet! This misleading omission was neither an accident nor down to Mark’s lack of understanding of the science. It was quite deliberate, in order to mislead and scare the reader, however, like all propagandists, Mark slipped up. He knew it all but chose to leave it out, or so he thought. He acknowledges in the very beginning of his propaganda-filled booklet that he knew of the natural nature of today’s events with ” .. during the deepest freeze of the last ice age … 6 degrees colder than today .. North Oxford, would have been just a dozen miles from the southern edge of the ice sheet, a freezing polar desert blasted by dust-laden winds .. the ground beneath my garden shed .. underlain by permafrost hundreds of meters thick. Few animals .. and only plants .. cold-tolerant tundra species eking out a living by summertime glacial melt .. ”. That sounds just like the fringes of the Arctic right now. What catastrophe does the future have in store for the Arctic then? Mark unintentionally tells us. ” .. lush English countryside .. fruit and vegetables .. ”. Of course, it took man to destroy the natural environment that followed as the ” .. climate warmed .. several degrees in the space of a decade and then cooled again” by changing it from forest to today’s “lush English countryside”. What a shame that is how the Arctic could end up in a few thousand years time, before heading once again, like Northern Europe, into the uninhabitable next ice age. Of course the reduced temperatures will lead, once again “to desiccation, with prolonged droughts across Africa and the Middle East.” But hang on, isn’t that supposed to happen because of manmade global warming? We are all doomed either way!!

NB: Another propaganda trick that Mark uses to confuse the issue is to blur the distinction between different but related occurrences. It is for Mark conveniently misleading for the term global warming to be used ” .. interchangeably with ‘climate change’”. It is absolutely wrong to do this.

Dear Pete (Best), perhaps this will clarify your understanding of WHAT the natural phenomenon of global warming (followed by global cooling) is and satisfactorily resolves your repeated concern as to why it is doing so again. If you are able to identify a complete scientific explanation of WHY the climate does this then I and all of the scientists would love to know.

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming “Denier”

Pete Best, I’m sorry, really, really sorry. I’ve just watched a dvd of the film “The day after tomorrow” and how wrong I was. It’s going to be terrible. It really is. Skyscrapers are going to be covered with a deadly ice layer (IN SECONDS GODAMMIT!) and millios will perish. We have to do something. Now! A friend lent me “An inconvenient truth” and boy was I wrong on all aspects of this issue. Polar bears will drown and poor little Indian boys will suffer from rising tides due to the greed of big business everywhere. It just aint right is it? I mean a fox is just a human with four legs right? I feel reborn. I feel reinvigourated now that I have seen the light. Tell me what can I do? I feel a rush now but don’t worry I’m fine. I’ve joined the Catholic Church as well. Boy you really showed me the light there, thank you. Now if there are any major airports I can disrupt please tell me which ones are the best strategically as I wouldn’t want to disrupt the flight plans of any fellow ecowarriors out there who may be on a mercy flight to , say, the Arctic to check out the local Innuits problems assocciated with catastrophic global warming (or do I say climate change for Gods’ sake I’ve forgotten I’m just no good at this). My road to Damascus and it’s all down to you. How can I thank you? I know! I’ll make sure I tune in to radio four at half past twelve next Saturday and listen to Markus Brigstock or whatever his name is. He always has something to say about the fascist, evil, greedy global warming deniers. I can’t promise I’ll laugh at his jokes because let’s face it He’s not that funny but He makes some very pertinant points. Oh God Oh God Oh God. I feel great and ready to take on “The Man”, You know big business and greedy multi-national corporations and the Blair/Bush cabal. One thing though. Do the lizards (you know the elite illuminati and suchlike) have any bearing on this? Just saying that’s all because if they do, well they’re in for it. I really mean it!!!!!!!!!

Dear Pete (Best), Carl and any other believers who are of the opinion that humans have any SIGNIFICANT impact upon the global climate, I have based almost ALL of my “humanmade global warming agnostic” comments on the writings of numerous exceedingly well qualified and internationally recognised scientists. I have quoted them on several occasions, particularly in my paper ”POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php.

Neither of you have bothered to read this, even though I have challenged anyone to refute the scientific claims made in it. I have also issued this same challenge to Mark Lynas and Jonathan Porritt (both senior members of the Environmentalist priesthood), to believers on his blog and to numerous scientists. Again, none are prepared to accept the challenge and provide detailed scientific evidence showing categorically where the scientific findings which are the basis of my paper are flawed. All that the supporters of the humanmade global warming myth can do is repeatedly quote the same old unsubstantiated Environmentalist propaganda. I have no recollection of a SINGLE quotation of scientific opinion from either Pete or Carl.

Let it be quite clearly understood that there will be flaws in the science used by either side of the argument. There are far too many unknowns about the factors impacting global climate. Global climate science is in its infancy. It was only in the second half of the last century that the existance of a global climate system was recognised. The major global climate sub-systems (the sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, the rivers, the ice and snow, the biosphere and lithosphere) are each complex, some very complex and their interactions equally so. None of the individual sub-systems is fully understood, let alone the interactions that take place which result in the various climates around the globe and the changes that take place over time.

No scientist of group of scientists has ever claimed to be able to predict local climate change, let alone global change. Only the politicians and environmentalists make this claim and that is for vested interest reasons, not for the benefit of humans in general.

I quote from the open letter sent by 100 scientists to the Secretary General of the United Nations READ IT AND TAKE HEED. THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THEY ARE THE WORDS OF WELL QUALIFIED AND HIGHLY RESPECTED SCIENTISTS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE!!!

QUOTE: It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. .. .. it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers .. are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are .. approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: · Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. · The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. · Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. .. the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems. UNQUOTE

Don’t you think it is time you environmentalists either “put up or shut up”?

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Humanmade Global Warming Agnostic

Mr Ridley, It appears that you and I are in agreement at least on the politics and economics of the day! It is a shame however that you have missed entirely my point and have resorted to petty induendo. For the record I do not suffer from “attention deficit” disorder and am educated with a degree gained at a time when they were worth more than the paper they are printed on. My point is simply that if “scpetics” about global warming and it’s causes are to redress what you see as an imbalance in the reporting and policy making of the world’s governments of the day towards the issue, then you must try to find a way to express your views without recourse to detailed scientific analysis that most of the general public will not understand. Where is the sceptics Al Gore? Of course there isn’t one. So what might work for your arguments? For my part, I am not a scientist. When presented with balanced and seemingly well researched work, like that of Mark Lynas, together with the very strange weather patterns we have witnessed in recent years here in the UK you should understand why people are concerned about climate change and global warming. Mankind’s responsibility for this, I think you will find, is only a part of what is concerning most people and indeed gives hope because perhaps if this to some degree a man made problem then perhaps we men can solve it. If mankind is in no way responsible for the climate changes we are witnessing then we really do have a problem! Watch the churches fill up on Sunday! Make no mistake the climate is changing, many of the facts in Mark’s books are beyond dispute. You can argue about the cause until the end of eternity but the effects are to be felt by everyone at some point. I remain much more convinced by Mark Lynas. Over to you.

Hi Tony,

Just wanted to let you know “matey” I am very working class and proud of it! I am not, just so you know for future reference, a lefty, a greenie, a liberal, a hippy or a hillbilly. I have no memberships to anything or anyone other than my local gym. I work for a living and pay my bills as I go along. My opinions are entirely my own, to which of course I am entitled as you are to yours. I still think Mark Lynas as has a better case than that of the so called “sceptics” based on what I have read, the points presented on this blog and that which I have seen. But I am there to be convinced, like most of us!

I hope today is a better day for you Tony!

I agree that we need to move towards “qualitative development” rather than “quantitative growth”. The major qualitative development that we need right now is replacing dirty sources of energy with clean sources. Here is a practical step in that direction:

PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MESSAGE WIDELY

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MP ASKING HIM OR HER TO SIGN EDM 123

Dr Howard Stoate MP has very kindly posted Early Day Motion 123 08-09 in support of the DESERTEC concept (“Concentrating solar power and the creation of a high voltage direct current supergrid”). Many thanks to Dr Stoate for his support.

The DESERTEC concept is probably the single most effective means of cutting worldwide emissions of CO2. The worldwide potential of the DESERTEC concept is so large that, on its own, it could provide all seven of Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow’s “stabilisation wedges” , and more.

Information about the DESERTEC concept may be found on www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.desertec.org . Endorsements of the concept by high-profile organisations and individuals may be found on www.trec-uk.org.uk/endorsements.html .

It would be good if as many people as possible would write to their MPs, asking them to sign the EDM.

To make this as painless as possible, an example letter has been provided, with a link to the free WriteToThem service, on this page: www.trec-uk.org.uk/lobby.html#EDM123 .

It should take only a few minutes to write a letter and send it off. If you are a UK citizen, do please write to your MP soon.

Many thanks,

Gerry Wolff

Coordinator of DESERTEC-UK

gerrywolff65@gmail.com, +44 (0)1248 712962, www.trec-uk.org.uk

PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MESSAGE WIDELY

Dear Carl, I apologise if I have upset you but I am getting rather frustrated by those who accept without question the writings of supporters of the myth that humans are responsible for any significant amount of global warming. My experience is that those degrees “gained at a time when they were worth more than the paper they are printed on” helped to develop in the undergraduate the ability to think for themselves, research a particular topic, analyse the facts. These are then applied in coming to considered opinions and working solutions. Admittedly my degree and those of people I worked with were in engineering and science, in preparation for work in a profession that demanded such skills, but I imagine most other “worthwhile” degrees did the same.

The sceptics Al Gore is none other than Martin Durkin with his Channel 4 production “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Channel 4, March 8, 2007. Haven’t you seen or heard of him/it? Neither of these individuals is considered by either side of the debate to be a reliable source of unbiased information about global warming. The only difference between them apart from their viewpoint, is that this Labour government chose not to distribute Martin Durkin’s propaganda to all UK schools because to do that would have been against the Government’s vested interest of capturing environmentalist votes whereas Al Gore’s propaganda supports it.

I made reference to Al Gore in my post of 2nd Dec. and in Section 4 of my paper in which I say “Al Gore’s seriously flawed film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, copied to UK schools at the instigation of the government. In October 2007 a London High Court judge, aware of errors in the film, indicated that the Government’s earlier distribution of the film .. had been an unlawful contravention of the 1996 Education Act prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. .. Ref. 19 identifies ”..35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist ..”

Surely any educated person is aware that ALL effective propaganda appears to be “balanced and seemingly well researched work”. It wouldn’t be effective otherwise. In my paper “Six Degrees – The Truth” I say “Mark Lynas is a very skilled and experienced writer who has authored several quasi-factual booklets. He is also a fervent and devout environmentalist. This is a very powerful combination of skills and ideals perfectly suited to authoring propaganda for the environmentalist movement”. Any piece of effective propaganda cleverly merges fact with unfounded opinion, so it stands to reason that “many of the facts in Mark’s books are beyond dispute”. That is one of his skills!

You “remain much more convinced by Mark Lynas” because you have been scared by the environmentalist and political propaganda into believing that perfectly normal climate change such as we are presently experiencing is abnormal. It is NOT. I am presently drafting my paper “Six Degrees – the Truth” which will expose many if not all of the missing or distorted facts in Mark’s booklet, meanwhile I refer you again to previous posts here and on Mark’s blog “The Global Warming Deniers”.

You said on 11th Dec. ”.. perhaps someone can explain to me why, if the planet is not warming, the ice-caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting causing concern for freshwater supplies around many areas”. I don’t see how I can be more concise than what I said in response on the 12th, i.e. “Ice Caps Always Melt Between Ice-ages” and my post of 15th says quite clearly ”.. Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability”. The globe has experienced numerous ice ages in the last 1.8M years. They are distinguished one from the next by INTERGLACIALS when the globe WARMS UP then COOLS DOWN AGAIN. Life on earth still abounds, perhaps somewhat changed, but still abounds. Try to look beyond the environmentalist scaremongering and listed to the sceptical scientists (or if this is too much for you, watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” but don’t believe all that it says!)

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Humanmade Global Warming Agnostic

Pete Ridley, really mate you are wasting your time. To convince you I’ve copied this final sentence from a piece written in the Independent (an oxymoron if ever there was one). This should convince you. “I am not suggesting that the BBC should transform itself into Greenpeace. But that does not mean abandoning its duty to report the truth. Like the opinions of religious maniacs, flat-earthers, tobacco lobbyists and HIV-Aids sceptics, the views of global warming deniers do not deserve significant airtime.”

This is a (mercifully) short piece written by our esteemed blogger who You have tried in vain to convince to look at the other side of the argument. The full piece is here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-lynas-he-bbc-was-wrong-to-scrap-its-day-of-special-programming-on-climate-change-463914.html

Go home and prepare for more rubbish like this. Take care Peter.

Carl, please call me Pete and add (Ridley) or® afterwards, just to distinguish me from others. If another Carl gets involved I’ll do the same for you.

In order to make my submissions more readable by the general public, I’ll present the main points only, then make reference to the supporting detail through NOTES. If you doubt the validity of any of my arguments or want to see additional comments then you can ask me to post the relevant note. I have reread our submissions to this blog in the light of your two constructive suggestions regarding less verbosity and no innuendo and your concern over global warming (Note 1).

I have come to the conclusion that you are starting out in this climate change issue just as I did 18 months ago, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Before then I had little interest in environmentalism, climate change (I’ve seen lots of it in my 70+ years on the planet), politicians (I don’t trust any of them) or economics (boring), then I read Times Magazine’s précis of Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees .. ”. My reaction was “Uugghh, thank goodness I won’t be around to fry in it” then I thought “But what about my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, they’ll be here”. What can we do about this pending global catastrophe?”.

So I started researching the subject to see what needed to be done, first visiting Internet blogs. These showed me that there were plausible arguments on both sides so I researched not just the environmentalist argument but also that of the sceptics and even the arguments of the centre. I have studied both emotive and scientific arguments (Note 2) and used my engineering training and career experience to arrive at a considered opinion. It was not easy but after 18 months of intensive research I am now where I am, denying that our burning of fossil fuels has any significant impact on global climates.

The science of GLOBAL climate change is not simple. It is so extremely complicated that even the scientists (respected intellectuals on both sides) are still just learning and debating the basics. True scientists acknowledge that there are significant uncertainties surrounding global climate science. This is because it is a NEW science, only being seriously researched since around 1950. Because of their limited (but improving) understanding of global climate change, there can be NO consensus among true scientists, despite IPCC and environmentalist claims to the contrary (Note 3).

I probably have the drop on you in that I am now retired and have had the time to research the issue in careful detail. It is not surprising that the general public find climate science hard to understand, so do the scientists, but please don’t be fooled by the propagandists on either side. In simplifying it for general consumption they are able to present plausible yet totally wrong arguments. An ex-air-force associate of mine had a saying that applies perfectly to global climate change “Where there’s confusion there’s opportunity for profit”.

In future I will try hard to drip-feed my findings, rather than blast them at you. I shall do this by submitting the contents of my paper “Six Degrees – The Truth” (an exposé of the propaganda in Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees..”) as I draft it. I shall try not to repeat those that I have already presented in this blog, but please read them again. If any human-made global warming theory supporters have the time then a similar attempted exposé of sceptical publications such as Vincent Gray’s “The Greenhouse Delusion”, Nigel Lawson’s “An Appeal to Reason”, Prof David Bellamy’s “The Global Warming Myth” or any other relevant booklets/papers would be informative. Is anyone up for that, I wonder?

If you continue to find my submissions boring then let me know what I’ve overdone and I’ll try to improve. Lynas and other professional writers are trained and skilled in popular authorship so have the drop on me there.

The good thing about this debate is that we are being forced to think about what is being claimed. Meanwhile, if you are still not convinced you may appreciate some opinions from a cynical “believer” at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan

For any ardent environmentalists out there, Poznan looks to have been a political stitch-up of environmentalists. Reading between the lines of Gordon Brown’s final 2008 press conference talk on 19th Dec. fossil fuel will remain the major source of fuel for the developing world economies for decades yet. Money raised allegedly to combat global warming will be spent on further developing technology for capturing the damaging or dangerous emissions from burning fossil fuels, not the major life-supporting emissions of carbon dioxide and water.

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

PS: Tony, isn’t the full saying “Animals are just for-legged humans. Foxes are politicians, sheep are environmentalists and vampire bats are financiers”?

Pete, I havent actually heard that expression before but I have heard a mad anti fox hunting loon actually saying that a fox is just a human with four legs. It just about sums up the mindet that is “fighting global warming.” It smacks of panic and hysteria of the times and has been seen manifest itself over generations. The same people use totally useless phrases like that in order to “snap people out of their complacency”. Sixth formers all really.

I used to detest these people and then started feeling sorry for their misplaced idealism but I have started to hate them again when I see how pervasive their policies are and how they are being enacted by no less a person than Obama, President elect.

Now there really is no hope. If you thought the recession was bad now, hold onto your hat cos it’s gonna get alot worse. Aided and abbetted by virtually every other Western leader, We are all truly, erm, shafted.

Why don’t these people take up proper religion or something. At least they can just go off to their weekly meetings and talk amongst eachother and not bother anyone else.

Dear readers, here is another extract from my draft exposé “Six Degrees … the Truth” to add to the list of omissions and distortions that Mark Lynas uses for propaganda purposes in his “Six Degrees …”. This extract is from the “ONE DEGREE” Sub-section “The Parched Amazon” of his booklet:-

QUOTE “In the summer of 2005 .. As temperatures soared and the rains failed to arrive, the tributaries of the world’s mightiest river began .. to run dry. One .. fell so low that miles of exposed riverbank dried out into sand dunes, with winds whipping up thick sand storms .. As the entire Amazon basin gradually dried out in the worst drought for 40 years, massive forest fires began to lay waste to this formerly pristine tropical wilderness. .. Yet this was not a natural disaster ..” UNQUOTE. (and going on and on about the associated catastrophe, Mark hints at the horrors awaiting us as humans warm up the globe).

So, human-caused global warming did this! It must be stopped immediately, mustn’t it? Ah, but just a moment. Here Mark demonstrates beautifully how effective Chinese Whispers can be in distorting the facts for propaganda purposes. Mark’s “IN the worst drought for forty years” came from the BBC report’s “ESTIMATED TO BE the worst in 40 years”. Already we see an “estimate” (otherwise known as a “guesstimate”) become a certainty. What the original scientific paper actually said was “In 2005, large sections of southwestern Amazonia experienced ONE OF THE MOST INTENSE DROUGHTS OF THE LAST HUNDRED years”. We’ve gone from “the worst in 40 years” to “one of several intense in 100 years”. Since, according to the wonderful IPCC “hockey stick curve” atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much lower than today, I wonder what caused those earlier “intense droughts”. Perhaps it “WAS a natural disaster” after all.

Mark fails to make it clear that this is not an unusual event within the flat, low-lying, drainage area of the Amazon. The Amazon flows lazily from a height of only 200m for about 4000 km to sea level In a normal year the Amazon’s drainage area falls from 350,000 km2 in the wet season to 110,000 km2 in the dry season. In a similar way, the width falls from 45 km to 11 km. Many of its tributaries (such as the Rio Solimões that Mark’s propaganda focuses upon) are very slow running, very shallow and very sandy! The Rio Solimões has sandy colored waters which, from the “Meeting of the Waters” near Manaus, Brazil, run alongside the dark waters of the Rio Negro for over 6 km without mixing. It is not at all surprising that during a normal drought tributaries dry out as described in “Six Degrees .. ”. to some degree. Singling out one particular bad dry season as Mark does is simply deliberate scare-mongering propaganda.

Mark did not mention that Peter Cox, professor in climate change dynamics at the University of Essex in the UK, thinks the same factors which caused the drought are likely to be repeated. Professor Cox also said “We can’t say for sure that any individual drought such as the one in 2005 is caused by global warming”. Phew,

The original researchers said “The drought conditions were intensified during the dry season into September 2005 when humidity was lower than normal and air temperatures were 3°–5°C warmer than normal” so why does Mark include this disaster in his “One Degree” chapter??!!. What a difference several (deliberate) misinterpretations or omissions make. Perhaps Mark simply misunderstood the science. Well, he admits he’s not a scientist, doesn’t he!

As a matter of interest. there is a large Australian lake that can dry out in days and reappear OVERNIGHT (much to the surprise of many a camper).

There was an interesting bit of news today on the BBC reporting on global warming and Obama’s concern about it (but not on a personal level) as he boarded his jet to fly to Hawaii for Xmas. Politicians, eh! The BBC| also showed the effects of global warming on the poor Eskimos of Alaska, with permafrost melting and village infrastructure collapsing (but see my post of 14th Dec.). Although no explicit connection was made to human use of fossil fuels, the BBC cleverly flashed a shot of a large power stations towers belching out emissions. The implication was clear. What the BBC didn’t make clear was that the emissions clearly seen were merely of the life-supporting gases, CO2 and H2O, without which none of us would be here. The media, eh!

I wish you all a lovely Xmas in your cosy, fossil-fuel-produced local environments (releasing tons and tons of life-supporting CO2 and twice as much H2O into the atmosphere) Keep warm, it may be cold outside (unless you stand next to your boiler exhaust), but then again, it could be warm. That’s normal, isn’t it?

Best regards and have a great 2009, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Hi Pete (Ridley), Thank you for your more recent posts, no apology is required by the way. I am all for debate, whichever side of the debate you are on, debate is healthy and claerly for whatever reasons climate change is creating a need for action and policy to deal with the changes. Of that I am sure we are all in agreement. I think for my part, and I can only speak for myself, there are two main issues that concern me. (1) The effects of climate changes and (2) the depletion of natural resources. Whether mankind is actually responsible or not, for me is almost secondary. If we are responsible, and Mark Lynas is right as I currently believe he is, then perhaps we can do something to stop or perhaps slowdown the rate of global warming. If Mark is wrong as you suspect, then perhaps our problems are greater to some degree. The causes seem to be to becoming almost irrelevent. You certainly have the drop on me in relation to time Pete so I will expand on my two points at a later date. I think you get the thrust of where I am coming from though, water running out, fuel becoming scarce and EXPENSIVE as natural resources dwindle etc etc. PS I love the RAF man’s quote and he was certainly right!

I like the 100 or is it Infohoe’s 650 nonsense scientists who attempt to smear the good name of science finds that mostly everyone has been misquoted or are outraged at being on this list in the first place when contacted.

The day after tomorrow eh, never seen it myself as it bound to be a load of hollywood hype but the real world of expanding hadley cells and melting summer arctic sea ice is and has not answer outside of science but we should believe you skeptics as you have all been peer reviewed, no. Ah well even a better reason to believe you then ;)

You are all just posting nonsens here and have no answered any of my posts refuting Mr Ridleys nonsense regarding some recent papers and postings by some NZ scientist whos recent work has been scientifically refuted. As Mr Ridley continues to repeat his political and economic hyperbole on the costs of reducing carbon emissions (peak oil and gas obviosuly elude him anyway) and it not being worth it so lets experience the projections of 500 ppmv and upwards anyway as we can all turn our central heating off for the winter for those who have not drowned or lost their home around the coasts of the world that is and hence reduce the chances of peak gas for decades to come. Problem solved eh. Nice work Mr Ridley.

Our childre and their children to the end of the century needs and wants should also be ignored in the face of long term climate change because the changes we are experiencing now are tiny and not worthy of merit. We live an energy extravagent life and we teach our kids to do so too, its the only way to live in the west. Come on, we all love this prosperous time (recession if just a temporary blip of course and not harmed a soul) and our lovely companies acting in our best interest and that of everyone around thr world never polluted anywhere or destroyed anything meaningful or beautiful anywhere in the world.

Global warming, bah phooey. The science is tripe I guess, what do you mean it is based on physcis and chemistry, those sciences are obviosuly nonsense, big bang, relativity and quantum physics are obviosuly wrong and hence so is climate change science. All nonsense.

Hmmmmmmm, lets prove it but taking a look at a few dissenting scientists (allegedly) who have rewritten the scientific consensus of the thousands of other scientists who we shall ignore due to them ruining our lives of bliss and joy with their climate change science of obvious nonsense and politicise this science for our own gain into the future of the new energy technology of hydrogen (not), nuclesr power (to some degree but not all) and dredging the Arctic for more fossil fuels to deliver us from energy poverty, our kids will be so proud when they grow up as we melt the Arctic to get at the oil and gas, cool eh.

Carl, I fully understand where you are coming from but can’t understand why you are so concerned. I am not aware that water (or food, for that matter) is running out because of climate change, There is stacks of it around (and we are fortunately adding more as we burn fossil fuels), but not always in the places where it is needed. Overpopulation where water has always been scarce will of course cause problems, but these are because there are too many people in that particular area. There have always been and will always be times when natural climate fluctuations affect water and food supply in localised areas globally. Humans have had to live with that since we trod the earth, other forms of life a lot longer. Population growth exacerbates the problem and there are some people who advocate that it should be controlled. The major areas of growth are in Africa and Asia and until we have a world government we’ll have to trust each country to do its bit, China is trying, I understand (1 child per couple ??)

Fossil fuel is plentiful and will be for decades yet, it just needs exploiting economically. Poznan ensures that this will not be hindered in any way. Brown and Obama have both indicated in the last few days that public funds will be put into developing these (coal and natural gas), along with methods of capturing harmful emissions (not the harmless H2O and CO2 of course). In the longer term (decades away) there will be a need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel and both Brown and Obama have indicated that money will be made available to aid the energy companies in developing alternative sources and researching other technologies. These may well be more expensive than fossil fuel, but we have stacks of time to adjust to that.

The shortage of other natural resources is in many cases a direct result of our wasteful lifestyles. As resources run out we’ll be obliged to waste far less and recycle far more (properly though, not in the current dishonest manner of local governments pretending to recycle domestic waste then tipping it into landfill). I eagerly await your “etc etc”’s. As I’ve said before, there’s plenty of fossil fuel around for decades yet

As for the RAF quote, yes it tickled me as it is so true.

Pete (Best) have you tried reading your own submissions, never mind anyone elses. May I suggest that you calm down, take a long, relaxing hot bath, then have a good stiff drink.

Enjoy the Xmas/N-year break and may you feel much better next year.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Carl, I fully understand where you are coming from but can’t understand why you are so concerned. I am not aware that water (or food, for that matter) is running out because of climate change, There is stacks of it around (and we are fortunately adding more as we burn fossil fuels), but not always in the places where it is needed. Overpopulation where water has always been scarce will of course cause problems, but these are because there are too many people in that particular area. There have always been and will always be times when natural climate fluctuations affect water and food supply in localised areas globally. Humans have had to live with that since we trod the earth, other forms of life a lot longer. Population growth exacerbates the problem and there are some people who advocate that it should be controlled. The major areas of growth are in Africa and Asia and until we have a world government we’ll have to trust each country to do its bit, China is trying, I understand (1 child per couple ??)

Fossil fuel is plentiful and will be for decades yet, it just needs exploiting economically. Poznan ensures that this will not be hindered in any way. Brown and Obama have both indicated in the last few days that public funds will be put into developing these (coal and natural gas), along with methods of capturing harmful emissions (not the harmless H2O and CO2 of course). In the longer term (decades away) there will be a need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel and both Brown and Obama have indicated that money will be made available to aid the energy companies in developing alternative sources and researching other technologies. These may well be more expensive than fossil fuel, but we have stacks of time to adjust to that.

The shortage of other natural resources is in many cases a direct result of our wasteful lifestyles. As resources run out we’ll be obliged to waste far less and recycle far more (properly though, not in the current dishonest manner of local governments pretending to recycle domestic waste then tipping it into landfill). I eagerly await your “etc etc”’s. As I’ve said before, there’s plenty of fossil fuel around for decades yet

As for the RAF quote, yes it tickled me as it is so true.

Pete (Best) have you tried reading your own submissions, never mind anyone elses. May I suggest that you calm down, take a long, relaxing hot bath, then have a good stiff drink.

Enjoy the Xmas/N-year break and may you feel much better next year.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Pete Ridley, are you a rational human I wonder. probably not. Obviously someone who cannot take advice or superior knowledge I guess. We have a lot of coal but not gas or oil but we have a large abundance of all three in relation to climate change but as you are a avid agnostic but not through knowledge you make no sense.

I have replied to your ramblings about your NZ buddy. I will repost the post so you can read and learn reality from the realists.

================================ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Tells is all about your three scientists of climate worth and even the credible seems slightly incredible.

The science of climate change is scientifically fine and the warming is correctly found to be attributed to excess GHG and land use changes and not the Sun or some other enigmatic propoganda source of information.

Maybe you can tell me exactly why you find the science incorrect and what source of warming you have found to contradict the offically peer reviewed scientifically factual one?

Glaciers are shrinking but its normal I guess Mr Ridley, The Arctics present prediciment is a well predicted and forcasted cliamate one although natural variability might have accelerated it a little bit.

You have no rational argument in the long term and hence your posts are just repetition of repetition.

Carl, reading again your last comment perhaps your concern about (1) the effects of climate changes would be lessened if you read Bjørn Lomborg’s “Cool It – The Sceptical Environmentalists’ Guide to Global Warming”. He makes many very sensible points about the impact of global warming, good as well as bad. As to believing that Mark Lynas is right and humans are responsible for this warming, perhaps the following comments from a highly regarded scientist (rather than the propaganda of a non-scientist) will help to change your opinion..

Dr. Roy Spencer comments in his October 8, 2008 RESEARCH UPDATE #2 “This paper should answer the previous criticisms of our August 2007 .. paper on negative feedback .. that (1) it only applied to the tropics, and (2) that feedbacks diagnosed on short time scales might not apply to long-term global warming. … we diagnose feedback .. from 5 years of NASA .. satellite data over the global oceans AND perform exactly the same diagnoses on all possible 5-year periods in transient CO2 simulations from 18 IPCC climate models. ..NONE of the five year periods from ANY of the IPCC climate models show the negative feedback behavior seen in the satellite data:

… the negative feedback was entirely in the reflected shortwave (solar)…suggesting that low clouds increase with warming. .. the IPCC AR4 report .. admitted that feedbacks related to low cloud behavior were the most uncertain in the models. .. it will be difficult for the IPCC to ignore this kind of evidence.

.. WHY the IPCC models would be so far off is .. related to what I discussed .. in my Research Update #1: In previous analyses of natural co-variability between clouds and temperature, only feedback has been assumed to be operating, when in fact some of the variability is actually cloud fluctuations causing temperature change. .. there has been a mix-up between cause and effect, and that has led to climate models being built upon faulty assumptions.

Another contributor to Dr. Spencer’s blog, Anna V said (along with many more scathing comments:- QUOTE: That the GCM models cannot be correct in “projecting” far into the future is inevitable. 1) The bands around each “projection” are not error bands. They are estimates of bands for what errors should be according to the feelings of the modeler. .. If true errors are used the “projections” will be all over the temperature space. 2) More importantly .. the GCMs are using linear approximations of the putative solutions of the many coupled differential equations that control the .. climate/weather. Linear approximations work up to a point. .. when used for weather predictions .. some days.. When .. transformed into climate models, i.e. more linear approximations (averages) the effect does not disappear. It changes scale, but still there will be an N1 number of steps after which the non linearity of the true solutions will appear in force. Even if all the differential equations that apply have been taken into account, (which is not true) still linear approximations will inevitably fail. .. It is inconceivable that the true errors are not plotted for the “projections” so that the hoi polloi can see what nonsense is being pushed down their throats .. .. direct quote from the AR4 .. chapter 8 .. supposed to evaluate the models ”.. the development of robust metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical reasoning, as has been the norm in the past”. We should insist on seeing true errors on the “projections”. UNQUOTE (These comments are extracted from my draft paper “IPCC Climate Model Deficiencies” which quotes from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog. Dr. Spencer refers to his “August 2007 .. paper ” which is referenced in my paper ““Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” – see my post of 24th Nov. Dr. Spencer’s latest research is outlined on his Web-site (see my post of 27th Nov. For a more complete understanding of what Dr. Spencer says it is best to refer to his papers direct.

Although this is not simple to follow, I do hope it helps, Best Regards & Merry Xmas, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic.

There he goes mentioning Dr Roy Spencer again who is known to be slighty off on his treatment of climate change. Quote him and you become slightly unreadable Mr Ridley, probably explains you not replying to my post on his work scrutinised over at real climate.

Agnostic, more like denier.

Maybe you can tell me exactly why you find the science incorrect and what source of warming you have found to contradict the offically peer reviewed scientifically factual one? Wow when you type things like that in huge typeface it really makes me think “Hey this guy is right”. Thanks for that I have seen the light. Oh the power of one sided debate it’s so enlightening.

Hi Carl, I hope you’re having a great Xmas break. Another book that you should find of interest is Nigel Lawson’s “An Appeal to Reason” (referenced in my post of 20th Dec. Both this and Bjørn Lomborg’s “Cool It – The Sceptical Environmentalists’ Guide to Global Warming” are by non-scientists and provide a welcome, easily read counterbalance to those non-scientific publications that support the significant human-made global warming myth, such as Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees ..”.

As I have repeatedly suggested since my first post of 22nd Nov. anyone who wants a proper understanding of climate science should read the relevant scientific reports. I know it’s difficult for us non-scientists to get our heads around much of the science, but it is totally wrong to simply accept the distorted science of those who are pushing a particular vested interest, even if it does (on the surface) appear plausible. I say in my paper (see the reference in my post of 23rd Nov.), which provides several references to scientific reports, “the Fourth Assessment Reports of IPCC Working Group 1 “The Physical Science Basis” (Ref. 7) should also be read, but NOT the politically orientated IPCC summaries for policy makers”. Both Lawson and Lynas provide about 40 pages of references, many of which are from highly respected scientists.

If you want the full picture and have the time then read the science. As I also say at the end of my paper “quotations given .. are not INTERPRETATIONS of what was said, but a presentation of those EXTRACTS from the sources which support the opinions presented in this paper (this is another clever trick of the propagandists). Anyone who wants the complete picture should read the original papers, not just this selection of extracts”.

Hi Pete (Best), I hope that you’re also having a wonderful break. Although I concluded some time ago that you and I were wasting our time trying to debate this issue, I still hope that it is possible to get you to think a little more about the other side of the argument. Did you watch the debate on BBC about the Pope’s pre-Xmas pronouncements on homosexuality (“the season of good will towards all men” and women – as long as they’re heterosexual, that is)? There were two people presenting opposite points of view. The Pope’s supporter was adamant that men and women are different and are here for one reason only, to pro-create. As far as sexual and emotional relationships between two people are concerned nothing else matters. Any homosexual relationship is WRONG. Her opinion, like the Pope’s, will never be changed. There would be no point in debating with them. I live in hope that you are a bit more open minded about the significant human-made climate change issue than that. Let’s try, eh?

When you say “We have a lot of coal but not gas or oil” you appear to be talking about the UK. Other countries, especially (but not exclusively) those in OPEC and the recently formed natural gas cartel have stacks of these.

You throw in http://www.realclimate.org …. (from May 2008) then say “Tells is all about your three scientists of climate worth and even the credible seems slightly incredible”. I can counter with http://whatsupwiththat.com (from October 2008). I could then say “Maybe you can tell me exactly why you find the science incorrect and what source of warming you have found to contradict the offically peer reviewed scientifically factual one?”. This is that scientists themselves acknowledge that they do not really understand how nature controls the global climates.

You say “The Arctics present prediciment is a well predicted and forcasted cliamate one although natural variability might have accelerated it a little bit”. I counter with regard to climate model prediction/forecasts (actually called projections by the IPCC) “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate”. You may well respond with “More propaganda from the sceptics” but in fact this was stated by Dr. Trenberth, who is anything but a sceptic and is referenced twice in the Realclimate article (comment 152 of which sums up our attempted debate).

Finally, you say “the warming is correctly found to be attributed to excess GHG and land use changes and not the Sun or some other enigmatic propoganda source of information”. Lawson says that The Hadley Centre has given “the most recent global temperature series to date” (oC up from 1961-1990 average) as 2001=0.40, 2002=0.46, 2003=0.46, 2004=0.43, 2005=0.48, 2006=0.42 and 2007=0.41” and that 1998=0.52 Does this look like a significant warming trend to you? Of course, humankind’s emissions of H2O and CO2 have continued on their rocketing climb, haven’t they!

Regards & all the best for 2009, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic.

Pete Ridley: Quote: ‘Having done a lot of research on the issue at numerous sites on the INTERNET…’ Precisely. YOU do your ‘research’ on the internet, no doubt picking and choosing sites you like which fuel your prejudices, the climate scientists around the world who are researching the issue do their research in the real world. You have no argument, you merely regurgitate the bad science and non-science that denies anything is happening. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Philip Janus: ‘The pro global warming lobby really believe what they have to say when it comes to climate change.’

Well yes, it’s based on facts and is self evident to anyone fully conscious – noticed anything about the climate lately? Live in a box?

‘I have studied the evidence in detail and still find no proof of any such warming’

Hmmm, care to share that with us in a little more detail, along with your qualifications for dismissing the work of thousands of scientists out of hand? Or did you just not understand?

The trolls should be left to carry on with this thread as they clearly don’t read or understand any serious attempts to prove them wrong, and post achingly long posts that only the dedicated or those with too much time on their hands could possibly persevere with. We should be past the point when we bother with these clowns, it only encourages them, like all trolls.

I’d like to wish all my readers a very happy New Year, despite the economic gloom. After the disappointment over Poznan, more bad news for us environmentalists I’m sorry to say. The current 10-year averaged global temperature (as shown in the diagnosis of the Met Office Hadley Centre observations data sets – see Note 1 below) shows not a warming trend but a cooling one.

Of course we have to be very suspicious of any trends like that, which would indicate a flaw in the irrefutable Greenhouse Theory. The Hadley Centre is quite properly trying very hard to remove this anomaly by having “recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate estimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading”. We wouldn’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that our use of fossil fuels does anything other than cause significant global warming, now would we?!!

They’ll also have to do something about the abnormally cold winter we are experiencing at the moment. This could further distort the 10-year trend, which we all know must be upwards, since we are continuing to use that horrible fossil fuel stuff. The old way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated was fine when we had unusually hot summers and warm winters like we had in 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2005. These helped to prove the validity of the Greenhouse Theory, but we mustn’t let the more recent abnormally cold winters of 2007/8 and 2008/9 do anything to undermine our faith in the importance of stopping our use of fossil fuels. That would be sacrilege.

Another trick the Hadley Centre has up its sleeve in order to convince those mindless sceptics is to average the averages of averages. You know, that thing your hated secondary school class swot did to put you in your place if you had a series of superior results in exams. For example, that time you had average marks of 90%, 85% and 95% in three papers (you worked out all by yourself that this gave you an average of about 90%,). That swot waited for your one bad result, 10% for Maths (always your worst subject), before showing you smugly that your overall average was only (90% + 10%)/2 = 50%. That put you back in your place, didn’t it? He deserved that punch on the nose!

The Hadley Centre does something similar for calculating the global average temperature. As well as recently changing the way that the smoothed time series of data are calculated (we can’t have abnormally cool winter and summer temperatures affecting the average for the year, can we? That’s not what averages are about!) “Calculating the global mean as the mean of the northern and southern hemisphere averages helps prevent the value becoming dominated by the Northern hemisphere, where there are more observations”. I must check what the data show for the measurements of temperature in the Southern Hemisphere (much poorer “quality control” exercised there, I’m told by the sceptics). Sceptics will expect that those measurements show a greater increase in temperature over the past decade than do Northern Hemisphere measurements, but I think that it will be the other way round. We know that the Hadley Centre statisticians wouldn’t do something underhand like that, after all they are mostly environmentalists, aren’t they. Of course any self-respecting environmentalist will agree that if well-proven measurement techniques produce data that conflicts with the desired data, then the measurement must be invalid and should be ignored. That’s perfectly reasonable, isn’t it? What’s your problem, you sceptics? Don’t you trust us?

Enough of this festive frivolity, there is a bleak (cold) future ahead, both climatically and economically.

The Hadley Centre uses a blend of global land-surface air temperature and sea-surface temperature data and makes available a best-estimate value for the surface temperature and a comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates. Along with the tricks described above, this is all very confusing for those of us who don’t really understand the intricacies of statistical manipulation. As a well respected predecessor of the Hadley Centre’s paymasters (Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli) is supposed to have said “There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics”. A much simpler approach is to just ignore or manipulate directly any data that contradicts the desired outcome. Prof. Jaworowski’s 2004 paper “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” demonstrates beautifully how the IPCC does this.

Following up on the final point in my post of the 26th December, the Hadley Centre’s graph of global average temperature for 1850 – 2008 shows the average rate of increase over the last 100 years to be about 0.6Co and falling. Even if that rate were to continue, which is highly unlikely, then the global temperature in 2100 would be a little over 0.5Co higher than at present, so why the panic? It’s simple – far too many people are treating un-validated computer-based projections based upon unrealistic IPCC scenarios as being gospel predictions. This is despite the IPCC and associated scientists themselves admitting that they CANNOT and DO NOT make ANY predictions.

I’d like to finish the year by misquoting (with apologies to) F. A Hayek (economics analyst), who wrote in 1967 about “The Economy, Science and Politics”. He could just as well have been writing about “The Climate, Science and Politics” and our current limited scientific knowledge about WHY the global climates are WHAT they are, as well as how life on earth always has and always will adapt to natural climate changes (Hayek’s words are shown [thus].

(MIS)QUOTE Survival [Competition] produces an adaptation to countless circumstances which in their totality are not known and cannot be known to any person or authority … We know the general character of the self-regulating forces of the climate [economy] and the general conditions in which these forces will function or not function, but we do not know all the possible circumstances to which they bring about an adaptation. This is impossible because of the general interdependence of all parts of the climate [economic] process; that is, because, in order to interfere successfully on any point, we would have to know all the details of the whole climate [economy], not only of our own country but of the world”. UN(MIS)QUOTE

The UK and UN politicians should invite economics specialists (rather than environmentalist propaganda specialists) to advise them on global climate changes. A careful economists’ rule which is equally applicable to global climate change is “Don’t project beyond the range of the known observations”.

NOTE 1) HadCRUT3 is a gridded data set of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The data set is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM3 land-surface air temperature data set and the HadSST2 sea-surface temperature data set. As well as a best-estimate value for the surface temperature, a comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates are available.

Regards & all the best for 2009, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic.

Peter (Simmons), May I suggest that next time you submit a comment you try to add to the debate, rather than merely regurgitating environmentalist propaganda. If you tried reading those “achingly long posts” you would notice that much of what I post is taken from the IPCC’s own reports, from research undertaken by scientists, from text books which quite clearly support the myth of significant human-made climate change and even from out own Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees … ”.

Best Regards and have a great 2009, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Angnostic.

Its always good to see that the guys at GISS have commented on Roy Spencer recently stating that his disconnect between his scientfiic papers and his lame erroneous public statements say a lot about him. He is most likely incorrect and hence no single contrarian should use his statement as an argument for anything Mr Ridley.

Pete Ridley, the idea of an argument regarding catholicism and the popes ideas on sexual orientation can gain you a grand two sided argument as it involves no empirical evidence whatsoever does it! It is a typical media event that the media loves as nothing empricial settles the argument either way regardless of the damage it does to humans.

AGW however has masses of empirical evidence which when amassed and looked at in terms of what is scientific truth renders the theories and projections of this science true, ie the world is warming at around 0.19C per decade as projected. Once again GISS over at GISS and realclimate.org have reported on the data and find the projections true. There is a big difference between climate and weather but you appear to fail to see it or understand it like many of your own interested people.

Your arguments about climate models and reality are also nonsense I am afraid. Natural variability which is seemingly accounting for summer arctic sea ice to be thinning more rapidly and making the models looks to be responding too slowly is the reason for the disparity between them. It is not that AGW is not happenning.

Take a look around at coal reserves data and gas and coal, gas is scheduled to peak around a decade after oil which may have already done so although the IEA WEA 2008 paints a picture of 2020 and not 2010 as other independent bodies have done.

As I can see from your posts, you would rather paint picture of obsurdity regarding energy and climate change rather than one even approaching scientific reality. Your comments are odd and somewhat media driven and hence most likely false.

Dear Peter (Simmons) and Pete (Best), you both appear to be convinced that the IPCC’s position on human-made climate change is well-founded upon peer-reviewed science. If you are open-minded (although I have no reason to believe that you are) then you may be interested in the following two sets of extracts.

The first is taken from an open letter from a scientist who contributed to the IPCC’s activities as author and reviewer and was one of the “thousands of scientists” to whom both of you have made reference. He is NOAA scientist and hurricane expert Dr Chris Landsea, who resigned from the IPCC, in dismay at the ‘pre-conceived agendas’ and ‘unsound science’ inherent in its operations. QUOTE: ”.. I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). .. because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. .. when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists. I .. cannot .. continue to contribute to a process .. motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4. Sincerely, Chris Landsea.”. UNQUOTE

I believe that the full text of Dr. Landsea’s open letter is available at http://hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima/Klima&cmd=list&range=0,100&Datum==*&cmd=all&Id=334

The second is from IPCC Reviewer Professor Kellow. QUOTE: I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment’, and made .. the criticism…that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models. It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite willful. It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts. The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be. But then I’ll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!” UNQUOTE

The UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has made other criticisms of the structure, workings, pronouncements, and reports of the IPCC. Clearly, substantial reform of the UN IPCC is overdue. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf

May I respectfully suggest that you both give a little more consideration to what the sceptical scientists say, just to help balance your own opinions. Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic.

Pete Ridley: ’...As to believing that Mark Lynas is right and humans are responsible for this warming, perhaps the following comments from a highly regarded scientist (rather than the propaganda of a non-scientist).’

If Mark Lynas was the only person claiming this, you might have an argument, but actually the data [not propaganda] comes from thousands of highly qualified and experienced scientists doing field research. They also may not be simple to follow, but they have consensus on their side, which your lone [non-scientist?] sceptic doesn’t.

Pete Ridley. Re so-called benefits of climate change which you’ve alluded to, if these aren’t of the usual ‘nicer summers’ variety, have you actually stopped to consider the effect on our highly complex, specialised and dense human society of much arable land disappearing under, if not permanent, then seasonal flooding, and of the majority of major cities round the world being on the coast or rivers? Then there’s the islands which will disappear, the Netherlands [how high can sea defences be built?] most of East Anglia [which includes Sizewell] as well as the violent storms which are predicted to increase, not just in the usual areas, but others which have never seen hurricanes. Read anything recently about what’s happening in Greenland? Of course it’s political, why wouldn’t it be? It seems to me you nitpick incessantly, but fail to address fundamental issues. You can obfuscate all you like, but it’s all theory until you’re up to your neck in water and screaming for help.

Dear readers, I’ve investigated why the Hadley Centre/CRU has started calculating the global mean as the mean of the northern and Southern Hemisphere averages. The current 10-year average global temperature FALLING trend can be very conveniently masked by increasing the significance of measurements taken in the Southern Hemisphere at locations which are nearer the equator than those in the Northern Hemisphere. These locations also happen to be where the climate does not experience the large seasonal swings from hot to cold that occur at most of the Northern Hemisphere measurement points. We wouldn’t want the global average to be “dominated by the Northern hemisphere, where there are more observations” and which on average show much colder conditions that those conveniently located Southern Hemisphere measurements, would we?!

What was it that Disraeli said about lies, damned lies and statistics?? Anyway, can we really place much credence in statistics derived from measurement samples that are relatively small in relation to the global coverage being attempted, taken at locations unrepresentative of global geography (biased) and over which little in the way of quality control is exercised.

RealClimate (a popular Web-site for AGW supporters) includes a relevant comment about the temperature measurement stations “GISS and CRU disagree so much with each other .. often the samples are wholly inadequate, and then as a rule the derived mean temperatures are always high on the scale, that it`s very difficult to take them at a face value, if you are a rational person. .. Anthony Watts has already proven how unreliable many of these stations are”. You may find Chapter 3 of “The Greenhouse Delusion” enlightening.

If that isn’t convincing enough for you then try the following:- Drs. C D and K E Idso, President and Vice President of CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org) who conclude “there has .. been little net warming of the planet over the past 70 years, during which time the vast majority of all anthropogenically-produced CO2 has been emitted to the atmosphere ..since there should have been a sizeable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing over this period, there must have been a suite of compensatory negative feedbacks that largely overwhelmed the standard “greenhouse” impetus for warming. .. there would appear to be little reason for supposing that any further man-induced increases in the air’s CO2 content would substantially warm the planet either”.

Or Robinson, Baliunas, Soon & Robinson, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) “ABSTRACT A review of the .. environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge”.

Both of these make numerous references to scientific works of believers and sceptics.

For the religious amongst you who do not trust any sceptical scientist, perhaps you’d prefer to read from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/). This says that “First, the ubiquitous claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record and the 1990s were the hottest decade on record for United States surface temperatures got thoroughly debunked. Instead, it turns out that 1934 is the hottest year and the 1930s were the hottest decade. The ten hottest years since 1880 are now, in descending order, 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939, with three of the top ten in the last decade but four in the 1930s. NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has quietly-no press release, no public announcement, no explanation offered on the website-changed its posted graph to show the new data”.

I expect that the environmentalists will argue that these must all be wrong because they are “deniers” of the “consensus”, but the vast majority of the general public also reject the “consensus” opinion!

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic.

FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES Pete (Best), I’ve taken your advice for me “Take a look around at coal reserves data and gas and coal” and here’s what I found.

Coal, gas and oil (from www.worldcoal.org ):- Coal provides 26% of global primary energy needs and generates 41% of the world’s electricity. Coal reserves are available in almost every country worldwide, with recoverable reserves in around 70 countries. At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 133 years. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 42 and 60 years at current production levels respectively.

Gas (from www.cia.gov ) Proved reserves 175×1012 cubic metres, half of which are in Russia, Iran and Qatar.

Gas & Oil (from www.eia.doe.gov ) Oil 1,143.355 – 1,237.876 (Billion Barrels) Natural Gas 6,185.694 – 6,395.050 (Trillion Cubic Feet) Figures from BP Statistical Review, Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil and CEDIGAZ. Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions.

Using these figures it is clear that we are fortunate in having lots and lots of currently recoverable fossil fuel around for decades to power our global economic development. Taking into consideration the potential for new methods of extraction, which over the next couple of decades will significantly increase our reserves, we don’t have to panic into developing renewables for the near term. We can all relax and let the energy companies get on with what they are best at, keeping us supplied with readily available and affordable energy supplies. This will help our under-developed friends in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East fuel their economic development and bring their living standards more in line with our own.

I expect you’ll reject these figures, since in your opinion I “would rather paint picture of obsurdity regarding energy and climate change rather than one even approaching scientific reality”. Also, my “comments are odd and somewhat media driven and hence most likely false” but these are only your opinions, aren’t they.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Dear Mr Ridley, your assessment of oil is correct in terms of our alleged reserves but incorrect in your interpretation of them. We use 300 billion barrels a decade and growing at 2% per annum making 400 billion barrels within a decade of present use. The 1.1 trillion barrels of reserves is estimates taken from counries (OPEC ones) where they have not issues credible results for several decades although Saudi Arabia has had 262 billion barrels in reserves since the 1980’s and still does even though they have pump 3.5 billion barrels a years for the last 20+ years yields some very incredible statistics does it not. Hence your research has been limited to the bleeding obvious much like your climate change diatribes. In the 1980’s OPEC countries wanted to pump more and hence doubles their reserves overnight which is documented by BP in their annual statistical report on reserves. Something is incorrect somewhere and the 1.1 trillion barrels includes the Canadian Tar sands too, a vast resource of gulping water and gas to produce oil. Is that not alchemy?

For example Realclimate is not a pro AGW site (well it is for the seemingly political in nature) but a scientific one and never argues anything but the science. Your interpretation of them is then seemingly incorrect and wrong. Maybe for example instead of quoting a single scientist amongst many many more you seem to find that more arousing than the IPCC’s thousands. What a strange finding. One is right and thousands are obviosuly wrong.

Bonkers mate.

On your assessment of GISS and CRU figures you once again speak of a single scientist or fellowship who continually question the stations temperature findings and results etc.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/langswitch_lang/fr

Another scientific answer from real climate on all this nonsense from the skeptics on this subject. Real and maybe learn.

Peer review is the most promising idea of truth and reason and acts as a good starting point for scientific truth. So let us listen to the guys that perform the science and do the sums for they understand and try to teach us.

Pete (Best) and Peter (Simmons), have you read the article in The Independent 02/01/09 “Poll of international experts by The Independent reveals consensus that CO2 cuts have failed – and their growing support for technological intervention” along with the numerous comments from readers. The article is the most ludicrous piece of science fiction that I’ve seen to date supporting the myth of significant human-made global warming. A related article appeared in today’s Mail on Sunday. Anyone who supports the opinions expressed in those articles really should see a psychiatrist.

Climate scientists on both sides of the argument acknowledge that they have little understanding of what kicks off significant climate changes that has cause the earth to swing (suddenly) between ice-ages and inter-glacials so many times during the last 1.5M years. Given this uncertainty, the suggestions for human attempts to control climate change has just as much chance of forcing us into another ice-age as preventing any warming experienced during the 1970’s-90’s.

I covered consensus in my post of 30 November. For your benefit I repeat what I quoted on 16th December “The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts”. I also repeat my comment of 20th December “Because of their limited (but improving) understanding of global climate change, there can be NO consensus among true scientists, despite IPCC and environmentalist claims to the contrary”. As I have repeatedly recommended, you really must try to read the “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” of the IPCC’s Assessment Report No. 4 rather than the vested interest propaganda.

Pete (Simmons), you really must try to make up your mind what you want in this debate. You first complain about “achingly long posts that only the dedicated or those with too much time on their hands could possibly persevere with”. You then declare “Hmmm, care to share that with us in a little more detail, along with your qualifications for dismissing the work of thousands of scientists out of hand?” If you could make the time to refer to my “achingly long post” of 16th December you would see what my qualifications are (by the way, what are yours?). If you tried reading more of the detail in the agnostic argument then you yourself would acquire a much better understanding of the issue. Neither side really understands how nature controls the many changes in global climate and that is why the models are so inadequate. Don’t forget what the IPCC itself acknowledges in AR4, that climate models continue to have significant limitations, because the development of robust metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations are based primarily on experience and physical reasoning ( Ref. 8) and the possibility of developing model capability measures has yet to be established (Ref. 6). The references here can be found in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” if you care to read my “achingly long” first post of 23rd November.

As far as “noticed anything about the climate lately?” you might even learn a little from Pete Best who gives us the benefit of his great wisdom about global climate change. He discloses that “cold weather is not climate regardless of what you are saying” and “there is a big difference between climate and weather”. Well did you ever!!

You must stop letting yourself be confused and scared by the propagandists into thinking there is catastrophe just around the corner. The science shows that this is NOT the case. There is NO firm scientific evidence that sea levels are rising at all, let alone significantly, or that flooding is exceptional, or that there will be more violent storms. It is all speculation. Relax, humankind will survive for a long time yet.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Dear Readers, following up on my post of 31st December and 4th January, that “How-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons” tutorial has been useful for both sides, until exposed (e.g. the famous “hockey stick curve”). Now it’s the Hadley Centre/CRU’s turn. Their earlier global average temperature graphs suggested that during the past decade we have experienced global cooling but they are adjusting their manipulation of the data to restore a global warming picture. They have “recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated” and are now “Calculating the global mean as the mean of the northern and southern hemisphere averages”.

I have a further suggestion to help them do this. As well as averaging the Southern Hemisphere average with the Northern Hemisphere average they could also average these averages with the average for the Southern part of the Northern Hemisphere averaged with the Northern part of the Southern Hemisphere, etc. etc. etc. That way everyone will be so confused that nobody will be able to challenge what they are saying. They’ll even be able to prove that we have already passed the dreaded 6Co of warming and are all dead.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

The Media seem to have a tendency to either be deniers or pro and for that reason alone they cannot be totally trusted much like yourself Mr Ridley with your contentious dross on the GISS/Hadley CRU issue which is put about by people like yourself as fact because one of your kind seem to think they have found an issue that explodes the idea of global climate change which of course it does not.

You spout the usual rhetoric on the subject and will not listen to the people who have written accurately about the subject.

The IPCC FAR is written by 650 scientists and hence a consensus is an accurate and scientific explanation of AGW. Your words of simply false and twisted but you are not interested in the truth only your version of it which is limited intellectually relative to the IPCC.

How can someone of your status state that there can be no consensus amongst true scientists!!!??? This is a ridiculous statement to make and one of little scientific understanding of the complexity of paleoclimatic evidence, the physics and chemistry of GHG’s and the models.

No one is talking of a catastrophe as yet, just a lot of issues relating to:

Summer Arctic Sea Ice melt which is a projection of AGW theory and accurate especially considering natural variability issues. WAIS and Greenland ice sheet melt. Glacial melt and the relaince of a lot of people to there existance and summer river runoff. Expansion of hadley cells around the equator pushing deserts ever northwards. Precipitation changes and increased drought and hot summers.

Lots of issues to consider, the IPCC are worth listening to and you ought to take the ear plugs from your ears.

Mark (Lynas), Re-reading the Guardian’s article “Climate change catastrophe by degrees” of 7 August 2008, I now realise that it was you who wrote it, not just the Guardian doing its usual media embellishment of what had been said by a dedicated environmentalist (see Note 1). In the article you try to frighten readers with your usual distortions of climate science. You conclude “The harsh truth is that the latest science shows that even two degrees is not good enough, never mind four. And since four degrees would be a catastrophe that many of us, or our children, would not survive, it is surely our absolute duty to do everything in our power to avoid it”. Frightening, isn’t it, until it is carefully scrutinised!

There were numerous derogatory responses to your Guardian article. MoveAnyMountain quoted and challenged your article item by item. PinkTaco provided key quotes from scientists participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change (Note 2) and said “Let’s hear about the IPCC from some of it’s members and see if they think that cutting carbon emissions is the way forwards: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport.” (Note 3). Leicestersq said ” .. the American Physical Society .. has now become sceptical as opposed to a believer”. Presidio said ” .. global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001”. You responded with “PinkTaco .. thanks for your list of deniers, most of whom have zero credibility”, “westcoaster and JustMax .. the planet’s ecological boundaries are non-negotiable ..” (Note 12), ” MoveAnyMountain .. I haven’t got time to refute all your ‘refutations’, but you really ought to do some basic research. .. just going through my piece line by line and writing ‘I doubt it’ after each bit isn’t very convincing – you do need to provide some evidence to support your opinions. In my book all the statements are referenced back to the peer-reviewed literature. I find it helps – and also avoids cherry-picking” and ” .. leicestersq and presidio .. American Physical Society .. doesn’t count as .. expert literature .. (Nor does anything I write, .. I’m just a hack. But then I’m not taking the wisdom of 99% of experts, saying they’re wrong ..)

All of this does ring a bell. In my draft exposé “Six Degrees .. The Truth” I have refuted much of what you say in your science fiction booklet “Six Degrees … ”. I have done this after doing careful basic research of the science. Let me (mis)-quote you “I’d recommend the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report on The Physical Science Basis but I doubt you’ll go there since you already appear to know everything, or think you do”. Although many of your statements are referenced back to other literature (peer reviewed or otherwise) you not only cherry-pick but also distort by omission or alteration much of what is presented in those references in order to support your own vested interest. I provide evidence of this in my exposé, as you well know from those that I have posted on your blog. In all you responded in one single post to five of those who challenged the opinions in your Guardian article. You haven’t responded once to my challenges on your blog, but suspiciously observe your right to remain silent. Is this because you cannot provide any evidence to refute any of my refutations?

Although you are a reasonable science fiction writer, I’m sure that no scientist would disagree that as far as the true science of global climate changes is concerned you are “a dull, uninspired writer” (“hack” in “Concise Oxford”). So, how can a “hack” like yourself: - claim that “99% of experts” support the myth of human-made global climate change, - judge the credibility of over 650 distinguished international experts (Note 4), - pontificate about the science behind the almost chaotic global climates, - claim that ecological boundaries are non-negotiable? If anyone has no credibility then it has to be the “hack”. May I respectfully suggest that you stick to writing science fiction for a living and leave real science to those qualified to do this.

Hi Carl (Johnson), haven’t heard from you in a while but hope to soon. You said on 22nd December “If we are responsible, and Mark Lynas is right as I currently believe he is”. Maybe it is time to for you to reconsider. Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic.

NOTES: 1) Professor Watson is Professor of Environmental Sciences and Director of Strategic Development for the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre. Responsibility for strategic development usually involves obtaining future funding. Climate science research does attract plenty funding. 2) “As far as the science being ‘settled, I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists” (Note 5). “This conference demonstrates that the [scientific] debate is not over. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide” (Note 6). “If we are facing [a crisis] at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing” (Note 7). “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented. .. 1500-year [temperature] cycle .. implies that recent warming is part of natural trend” (Note 8). “There are lots of skeptics .. all over .. the world. [Global warming] has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly” (Note 9). “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. .. worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. .. world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that” (Note 10). “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded .. that there is little basis . that we are going to have catastrophic global warming” (Note 11). Comments such as these from 100’s of highly qualified and respected international scientists with proven credentials are far more credible than those of self-proclaimed experts such as those contributing to RealClimate and similar Web-sites. The major difference between these groups of scientists is that the “believers” claim to “know-it-all” and the “deniers” acknowledge that there is still far too much to be learnt about the almost chaotic global climate changes for any reliable predictions to be made. 3) This report was updated and released on 11th December 2008 as “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008”. Quoting directly from the previous version of that report:- “The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields …. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the .. IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with .. Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide .. ” It is worthwhile noting that the Nobel Prize was instigated by a scientist to recognise outstanding international contributions in science, literature and world peace. The “world peace” award in 2007 was made by Swedish politicians to a political organisation and a skilled politician (who trusts politicians?). It was not awarded by Swedish scientists for outstanding achievements by scientists in the field of global climate science. In fact four sceptical Swedish professors were among the 100 signatories to the “Open Letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations” in that same year. That award in 2007 has as much merit as the award of The US Presidential Medal for Services to Freedom made by President Bush to Tony Blair in 2009. 4) These scientists come from numerous prestigious global institutions include Harvard; NASA; NOAA, NCAR; MIT; IPCC; Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. Experts working in diverse fields such as climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; bio-geography; meteorology; oceanography; paleoclimatology; environmental sciences; engineering; chemistry; mathematics; physics and economics. 5) Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, who resigned from IPCC in protest. 6) IPCC scientist Vincent Gray of New Zealand. 7) Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. 8) Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements. 9) Hurricane expert and Meteorologist Dr. William Gray. 10) UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. 11) Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman. 12) Humans have been modifying their relationship with the environment since they started walking the earth, without encountering any significant non-negotiable boundaries. Humans will continue stretching ecological boundaries for much longer, despite the efforts of the environmentalists to prevent it. According to Fiona MacRae, Daily Mail science reporter. it’s “only a matter of time” before scientists bring back the woolly mammoth, the sabre-toothed tiger, the dodo, possibly even a Neanderthal or two.

Pete (Best), have I found another reference to a Pete Best on the Internet? That name is on a file I picked up in September 07 from Realclimate (you know, that Web-site that you keep swearing by) on “A Saturated Gassy Argument” at comments 2, 71, 117 and 118. That Pete Best didn’t have much worth reading either.

As well as other ludicrous statements, that Pete Best said “I do not know what you mean by the term theory but in scientific terms in means a law or model of reality. There is confusion here as laid out by lay people as theory means talking nonsense but in scientific parlance it has a totally different meaning. Evolution is a model of how organisms evolve and through genetics we now appear to have the mechanisms of how they do it to. Gravity, Einsteins special and general relativities are models of how gravity works. Conservation laws, again a model of how matter and energy interact. Simple really”.

That Pete Best needs to try to understand science before pontificating on it. A scientific THEORY is NOT a scientific LAW. In simple terms for simple people a scientific theory is an attempt to describe a scientific outcome in such a way that it always applies to each scientific outcome of the same type. It only becomes considered to be a scientific law when most experts in that field accept it as being valid in every case. This does not mean that it will never in future be violated, but only that its has not as yet been violated and is expected never to be. Once violated the theory has to be modified to cater for the violation. Do you think that is simple enough for him? Perhaps you can explain it more clearly?

I was tempted to post Realclimate with an outline of my views but find that I have been beaten to it by PHE in Comment 96: 29 June 2007 at 1:18 PM. He/she also said, in comment 17 “but the ‘Review comments and responses’ of IPCC WG1 AR4 are now on line. A fascinating read: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html”. What was your reaction to these Pete, or did you not bother reading them (as I suspect)?

You say in your post of 08 Jan that “The IPCC FAR is written by 650 scientists and hence a consensus is an accurate and scientific explanation of AGW”. In my post to Mark Lynas yesterday I quote from the U. S. Senate Committee on Public Works and Environment Report released on December 11, 2008. “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus in 2008”. In my ignorance, it seems to me that if the IPCC’s 650 scientists support the myth of human-made global climate change and the above 650 scientists reject it, then there is not a CONCENSUS but a major disagreement. Why this major disagreement? – because, as I said to Mark, “The major difference between these groups of scientists is that the “believers” claim to “know-it-all” and the “deniers” acknowledge that there is still far too much to be learnt about the almost chaotic global climate change for any reliable predictions to be made”. Does this answer your question of “How can someone of your status state that there can be no consensus amongst true scientists”. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and “take the ear plugs from your ears”.

In his posts of 9th and of 18th December 2008 Tony advised me “Pete Ridley, really mate you are wasting your time” and “I’m afraid you’re chasing a lost cause on this or any other forum where the majority view is one where most believe in .. AGW”. There are times when I think he may be right, but I live in the hope that people like you will eventually see the light.

By the way, Gordon Brown’s expressed determination to cut the UK’s CO2 emissions by 50% (or was it 60% or 80%) by 2050 seems to be evaporating. Ed Miliband has just approved the construction of an £800m natural gas storage facility under the Irish Sea, due to become operational in 2014. Miliband says “North Sea gas will be our main source of gas for years to come”. Then there’s all that imported stuff to keep us going after that. There’ll be plenty human-made CO2 and H2O emissions to keep those crops growing to feed the billions more humans well into the next century.

Keep smiling, Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic.

Laws are not the same as theroies. Thermodynamics is a theory but it gave us laws, conservation of energy, increasing entropy etc. Quantum phyiscs is model of how energy and matter interact, not thermodynamics only in statistical terms of large numbers of things. Different would you not say. Simple indeed.

I doubt your 650 scientists are A, all scientists and B, climate scientists. Inhofe has some nasty list of hundreds last year and they provedto be either A, not aware of being on it. B, not scientists at all. So it will be no surpise to anyone that someone of your ilk will be postulating this once again tired line of argument. However let me have a look at the matter and report back in all fairness.

I have dicovered a Pete Ridley, here in fact and all of his rantings of useless argument and hey all his posts are rubbish to.

The UK will always go for the gas argument, due to its north sea jobs commitment and present reliance on Gas for electricity creation and heating homes etc. Gas to only released 2/3ds of the carbon as coal does and hence it might be seen as part of the answer. Hansen is relying on the elimination of coal power stations by 2030 and is seemingly given up on oil and gas elimination.

Pete (Best), I thought your post on RealClimate was trying to define “theory” in a simple manner for the benefit of “lay people”. Your definition involves reference to ” theory .. law .. models .. evolution .. genetics .. gravity .. Einsteins special and general relativities .. conservation .. thermodynamics .. entropy .. quantum physics ..statistical terms . ” and you conclude with “Simple really” and “Simple indeed”.

I doubt if many lay people will find that at all simple, so let me (mis)quote from Dr. John Holden in the W H Allen “Made Simple Books”. “THE METHOD OF SCIENCE: .. with all branches of science .. knowledge is obtained by .. careful observation of .. Nature. A particular natural event is called a PHENOMENON. The scientist .. first uses his training and background in making an intelligent guess as to what .. is happening. This .. is called a HYPOTHESIS. He then .. permits the phenomenon to occur over and over again under carefully controlled conditions. .. he gathers evidence which either supports his hypothesis or causes him to reject or modify it. When the weight of evidence seems to indicate that his hypothesis is sound, he then announces his findings as a THEORY. If his theory is subsequently proven to be a non-varying performance in Nature he is said to have discovered a natural LAW”. Most lay people should find this definition reasonably easy to understand, don’t you agree?

The section concludes with “The equation for .. progress might be stated thus: Careful observation Persistent search for truth + Intelligent thought = Progress”. It may help you if you tried memorising and applying this equation. It is encouraging that you are now at least prepared to ” .. have a look at the matter and report back in all fairnes”. Try having a look at this: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

Keep smiling, Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic.

Pete, I did have a look and its full of the usual stuff from Inhofe ( and well known right wing political denier) who tried to put forward his list of 400 alleged scientists. However when the list was look into it was bogus and a pack of nonsense. If this additional 250+ is in the same arena of Inhofe’s original 400 then it is of limited value mainly due to the limited nature of scientific disciplines crossing over into other disciplines unless it has been done in a well disciplined manner as proper climate change research has been.

We know the tactics of the bogus and this is once again as bogus as it gets. How much more nonsense will educated people like yourself put forward in order to attempt to refute AGW in order to seemingly throw off the political and economic work required to limit the damage from fossil fuel use and burning.

It is so wrong to be wrong. Your agnostic status is not correct but you appear as a denier (to me) for you refute real climate (GISS) and the IPCC and others but have put forward no rational and objective argument but appear arrogant in your lack of objective thinking forever rejecting the work and the history of climate science research.

In your analysis of scientifc methodology does not GHG theory, land use and albedo (boundary condistions) fit the observed data best and the deniers have no objective peer reviewed alternative to this. It is not the Sun (0.2 w/m2) as measured and observed in the data.

Come on Pete Ridley, its time for you to do real reading on the subject. Go to real climate and go through their objective and scientific trained articles. It is enlightening and real. Sorry but anything with Inhofe’s name attached to it is not worthy of merit. Show us the peer reviewed evidence from the argument that demonstrates that GHG theory, land use and Albedo is wrong in the AGW science ?

Pete (Best), I have no disagreement that anything supported by a politician (including that highly politicised organisation the IPCC, Gore and Inhofe) has to be regarded with suspicion. This does not mean that I accept without substantiation your claim that the people listed in the “Minority Report” are what you call “alleged scientists” or that the list is “bogus” just because Inhofe is involved on the sidelines. That would be like you rejecting significant human-made global warming just because the IPCC and Al Gore are involved. The report includes quotes claimed to be from numerous scientists, including IPCC participants and Nobel science prizewinners. As I would expect it also includes the scientists that I reference in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2”, since they have already expressed similar opinions in their individual papers. Are you able to provide substantiation of the claims you make about the report, rather than simply repeating environmentalist propaganda that you’ve picked up from RealClimate or similar. Can you provide clear evidence that the people listed are not scientists or have personally objected to their inclusion in the list or have denied that they said what is claimed in the report?

The impression I get from much of what you say is that you are only capable of repeating what others tell you as long as it supports your own opinion and that you cannot critically analyse what is said. It would be very helpful to know what qualifications and experience you have which would encourage me to take any notice of what you claim. I’ve summarised my credentials (on 16th December) so how’s about letting us have yours?

Assuming that you are an intelligent person, I have to ask some fundamental questions. Why is it that two intelligent people have such opposed opinions when both claim to be considering the same evidence. This question applies just as well to the two extremes, the “believers” and the “deniers” (but let me repeat that my disagreement is about the SIGNIFICANCE of human impact upon global climate, not about whether or not humans have ANY impact). Another question is why do people like myself find it perfectly normal to expect temperatures to rise between ice ages so giving no reason for concern, while people like yourself find this abnormal and frightening? My opinion is that we have these opposing views because the science is at present unsound, leaving much room for alternative interpretations, but what’s your opinion?

As I see it, far too many uncertainties (Note 1) surround climate science for any open-minded scientist to claim that “it is settled” or to make confident predictions about outcomes. This is acknowledged not only by the sceptical scientists but by the Hadley Centre and even by the IPCC in its AR4 WG1 report “The Physical Science Basis”. Chapters 2 through 11 assesses key aspects of climate change research up to 2005 (although research since then must be taken into consideration). Altogether the IPCC report uses “uncertain” or “assum…” or versions of them about 1700 times (Note 2). I shall address these uncertainties and assumptions in more detail in future posts, meanwhile your opinions (ideally with substantiation of them) are welcome.

The final question that has to be asked is why the total numbers of “deniers” and “believers” is insignificant compared with the total number of people who simply couldn’t care less about the issue and have no intention of changing their life-styles. I can’t speak for the last group, but can only say that it is typical of attitudes towards religion, politics, world poverty, etc. Perhaps it boils down to the fact that we are all inherently selfish. As long as “I’m all right, jack” nothing else really matters (I use the terms “selfish” and “I” to embrace loved ones, not just the individual self).

Hot off the press – the Government continues to “make it absolutely clear” that it does not accept the myth of human-made global climate change through the use of fossil fuels. It confirmed today that it plans for the continued expansion of air travel and the supporting transport infrastructure by approving a third Heathrow runway and sixth terminal. Politicians could have a greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions by stopping spouting hot air about what they will not be doing about it. Don’t imagine for a moment that Gordon Brown or any new or expanded regulatory body will do anything about controlling emissions or noise if it threatens economic growth. Years ago the Liberals (in 2003), the Bank of England and the FSA (in 2005) recognised the economic problems looming because of excessive consumer borrowing. The regulatory bodies did nothing and Gordon Brown ridiculed Vince Cable (Note 3). Anything that places economic growth in jeopardy pales into insignificance for politicians and the general public. Sounds to me like another nail in the coffin of environmentalism.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

PS: Come on Pete, play fair. I don’t criticise your abuse of the English language, so let me call myself an “agnostic” even though it’s not strictly correct.

NOTES: 1 Please don’t anyone throw “The Manufacture of Uncertainty” book at me. Richard Pauli had more than enough to say about that on RealClimate last year! Politicians, environmentalists, RealClimate’s Raymond T. Pierrehumbert and his supporters/sponsors write with great conviction on the subject, rarely mentioning any uncertainty. Perhaps they can learn something from the IPCC WG1 report. Raypierre is writing a book, isn’t he. I don’t suppose it’ll be free issue so he’ll be looking to sell it (vested interest?) 2 “Uncertain…” (“assum ..” is used 54 times in Chapter 1 206 (64) times in Chapter 2, 63 (15) times in Chapter 3 and its suplement, 36 (11) times in Chapter 4, 37 (4) times in Chapter 5, 57 (16) times in Chapter 6, 80 (16) times in Chapter 7, 58 (12) times in Chapter 8, 304 (29) times in Chapter 9, 246 (57) times in Chapter 10 and 150 (15) times in Chapter 11. 3 Extract from my paper “Political Economics” (ask if you would like a copy). On 22nd December Robert Peston, the BBC’s buisiness editor, reported in Panorama’s “How Close the UK Came to Economic Melt-down”. His report included interviews with FSA Chief Executive Hector Sants, BoE Deputy Sir John Gieve, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alister Darling and Lib/Dem Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable. Santa stated that the approach to near total economic collapse “came about by some attitudes in society towards borrowing and credit” and claimed that “a National Regulator .. could not control .. where we have got to .”. Gieve admitted “we did see something coming .. we did spot some crazy borrowing going on . asset prices looking unsustainable. We said for a couple of years before the crash that a correction was coming .. If we’d used interest rates to try to address price/credit growth .. people would have said this is a willful reduction in the prosperity of the country .. ”. Darling claimed that in August he had predicted the worst economic down-turn for 60 years and said “Never again must we allow the banking system to come so perilously close to collapse ..”. Gieve said of the Lehman Brothers’ collapse “It was a huge shock. We started worrying about the banks in Britain. We came right to the brink of collapse”. Vincent Cable said “I think Bordon Brown just didn’t understand the problem and just overlooked it completely. I first raised with him I think in the Autumn statement in 2003 the issue of rising personal debt and the bubble in the housing market. He contemptuously dismissed it and said I was doom-mongering and that was very much the view of the financial establishment”.

I read the document head to toe and several scientists quoted in the report are dead (from a further search) and several are known to have had flawed research. Fred Singer for one, Michael Mann for another and some others who are not worthy of mention.

The language of climate change is that of science. The report is drafted by the scientists and then politicised afterwards. if the politics get too naughty then the scientists fight back. All I see if constant arrogance from the agnostics and deniers over and over planting the same duff efforts to thwart the perfectly scientifically valid IPCC and others.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/all-that-needs-to-be-said-about-inhofes-650-scientists-refute-man-made-global-warming/

Starts this one off for me and its links to other articles says it all.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-inhofe-report-over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/

Plenty of non scientists on the list and it has been well documented.

They have also not been through the peer review process where the start of scientific knowledge comes from.

There is only a load of uneductated bilge coming from the right here over and over and over.

Religion, politics etc has not methodology and process of accumulating knowledge, just a load of opinions and hot ideas that no one can actually put through a sound process.

Science is not about denial and belief is it, maybe at the hypothosis stage but not once the data is in and cause and effect can be determined within acceptable limits of error.

People are taking AGW and polticising it due to its implications, physics and chemistry hardly matters and I do not see you denying that and hence AGW is a empirical science of as good a emprical nature as both those sciences are used in AGW.

You do deny ecolution as well I wonder ?

Pete (Best), what you offer is not substantiation of your claims that the 650 are merely alleged scientists and are bogus. I have already acknowledged that any claims by politicians should be treated with suspicion. Senator Inhofe and the IPCC are no different so I accept the probability that he is liable to distort the facts, just as the IPCC does in its summaries for policymakers. Senator Inhofe’s claim to have listed 650 scientists is suspect, however, I do recognise several of those listed and have no reason to believe that many more are “bogus”.

I have scrutinised your sources at “The Way Things Break” and “Climate Progress” and am less than unimpressed by the credibility of the people behind these sites. Nothing of significance appears at the former, which was a waste of time visiting. Climate Progress is edited by Joseph J. Romm (born June 27, 1960), a confirmed environmentalist, author, lecturer and scientist who makes a living out of the significant human-made global warming myth. Mr Romm has similar vested interests and approach to those of Mark Lynas and Jonathan Porritt.

Mr Romm claims without any substantiation that “economists, .. are pervasive within this list”. I find that about 39 of the 650 are either highly qualified economists or scientists associated with economics departments/interests. Although for effect a writer might use poets’ license to call this pervasive (i.e. widespread), a more accurate (scientific?) statement is “economists comprise a small minority (5% or less) within this list”.

Mr Romm also claims without any justification that Ray Kurzweil, Freeman Dyson, Steve Baskerville, John Coleman, Vincent Courtillot, Louis Le Mouël, Claude Allègre, Frederic Fluteau, Yves Gallet, and Agnes Genevey are unqualified as contributors to climate science. I have to ask how well qualified Mr Romm is to pronounce judgment over the competence of these individuals. I find totally unconvincing Mr Romm’s comments “I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those have no expertise in climate science whatsoever”. They all have a valid scientific contribution to make to this poorly understood subject.

You’ll have to do much better than this to persuade agnostics like myself that there is a looming climate catastrophe.

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic

Dear readers, climate science is NOT settled. The IPCC knows it, scientists know it (Notes 1 & 2), so why won’t the politicians and environmentalists acknowledge it?

In trying unsuccessfully to undermine the validity of the list of 650 (previously 400) sceptical scientists (Note 1) Pete Best made reference to comments on the Climate Progress blog. The fundamental deceit that pervades the argument of self-proclaimed climate change experts is that the science is settled. Someone called Boris on December 22nd, 2007 exemplified this beautifully in the Climate Progress blog when stating “That’s the interesting part: asking these skeptics for their arguments. One of the “400″ complains that water vapor is the most important GHG and therefore the IPCC is wrong. The IPCC knows all about water vapor, so this is about as dishonest or ignorant as it gets”.

In fact, the IPCC repeatedly acknowledges the lack of understanding of the impact of water vapour on climate in its WG1 report. For example it says ”.. the (radiative forcing) RF from the increase in stratospheric water vapour .. is estimated .. with a low level of scientific understanding. Other potential human causes of water vapour increase that could contribute an RF are poorly understood” and ” Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources of tropospheric water vapour is not evaluated here, .. and a strict use of the RF is problematic”.

If the IPCC knew “all about water vapour” there would be no reason in October 2007 for the National Ecology Research Centre and the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council to sponsor PhD Studentships at University of Reading, Imperial College London and University College London to study “water vapour continuum absorption at visible and infrared wavelengths and its relevance to climate change. .. study the water vapour continuum, a slowly varying, and rather poorly understood component of the absorption spectrum. The existence of the continuum has been known for decades, but an understanding of its cause and its characteristics, remains a source of controversy .. ” The student will .. quantify the impact of the water vapour continuum on our understanding of the present day Earth Radiation budget and climate change. .. to improve our understanding of the Earth’s radiation budget ..”.

Professor Keith Shine of the Department of meteorology, University of Reading is a leading figure in this NERC research program. He is quoted in the IPCC WG1 report ”.. Shine .. noted that because the water vapour observations over the period of consideration are not global in extent, significant uncertainties remain as to whether radiative effects of a water vapour change are a significant contributor to the stratospheric temperature changes”.

I repeat, climate science is NOT settled. The IPCC knows it, scientists know it, so why won’t the politicians and environmentalists acknowledge it?

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic

NOTES: 1. U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” December 2008. 2. Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by 100 Prominent Scientists December 2007.

Lets take the Co2 vs water vapour claims no shall we. Co2 is a forcing GHG whilst water vapour is a feedback GHG. What does that mean, well put simply water vapour cannot increase in the atmosphere unless something else (a forcing agent) allows it to and starts the feedback process. GHG such as carbon dioxide, methane etc are those forcings. So as more energy is trapped in the atmosphere by GHG so will more water vapour accumulate and thus it will absorb more energy as a feedback.

As for Inhofe’s 650 so called scientists, as they are not all scientists in the list then how can you believe any of it? Your selective thinking is an issue with me and reeks of denialist tendencies which is of course typical of the anti scientific mind overtly political mind.

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/12/11/134543/71?show_comments=no

Say what you want Mr Ridley and just keep on going on about the same old alleged uncertainty in the science but rememeber to admit it when you have condemned us and future generations to a lot more warming if indeed we have the fossil fuels to do so.

Pete (Best), where on earth are you getting your psuedo-science from? May I suggest that you try to understand a topic before pontificating on it. It is clear that you are no scientist but there is still time for you to learn. I’ll help as much as I can but you must try to be open-minded about something that you clearly do not understand. A wise man once said “If you want to understand something then try changing it”. Pete, try changing your local environment then you might learn something about it.

I quote from the IPCC WG1 report “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. Much research is in progress to better understand how clouds change in response to climate warming, and how these changes affect climate through various feedback mechanisms”. I repeat the IPCC quote in my post of 17 January “Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources of tropospheric water vapour is not evaluated here, .. and a strict use of the RF is problematic”.

Water vapour (H2O) is a GHG just as are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), etc. but is much more significant than any other. Atmospheric concentration of water vapour can and does vary just like the other GHGs do. Twice as much H2O as CO2 is produced from burning CH4 and will have a much more significant impact upon global climates than the other GHGs. These impacts are as yet poorly understood, but much-needed scientific research is being undertaken, e.g. at universities in Reading and London.

Try this http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402 for water vapour, although you may find it a bit too complicated. To help you understand a little better, I quote from Chapter 3 “However, as is often the case with atmospheric processes, the situation is not quite this simple. Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate.

Your statement that ” .. water vapour is a feedback GHG. .. water vapour cannot increase in the atmosphere unless something else .. allows it to and starts the feedback process” is scientific balderdash. OK, the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere cannot increase above saturation, but do you really believe that the atmosphere is saturated continuously? By the way, why do you steadfastly refuse to give any indication of your qualifications or competences? Knowing your capabilities would help others to help you, so come on Pete, open up!

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic

No it will tire you out too much Pete Ridley. Water vapour is not a forcing, it is a feedback whilst GHG are forcings as defined by the IPCC and as per the forcings charts where water vapour is not featured. However once again though you go your way and stop thinking thay the accepted science on the subject could be right. Call me thick if you want to but I have read the accepted scientific findings on the subject and accept them whilst you do not and continue to attempt to argue the case the other way around but accept no orthodoxy.

My reasoning stands, water vapour levels in the atmosphere have increased but thats because of the forcings which have caused the atmosphere to hold more energy (warmth) and hence can hold more water vapour and less when aerosols from volcanoes are emitted. Think what you will but thats the orthodox science on the subject. Water vapour aint a forcing, well except from the contrails of aircraft that is.

I will annoy you of course and post two articles from Real climate which of course you will not read because the science is true.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/langswitch_lang/in

and the forcings charts:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/efficacy_fig28.gif

My actual official qualifications on the subject are zilch, zero and nowt. I am only academically qualified to Masters level in a unrelated computer based subjects. I consider myself reasonably educated on the climate change subject after two years of extensive researching on the subject. I am not a indepth mathematical person but can see the arguments put across.

All of the skeptics go on about water vapour and why it is seemingly ignored by the science. It is not ignored it is just treated as is needed, as a feedback.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

The climate change science and models is right.

Pete (Best), thanks for clearing up the matter of your qualifications. You appear to have come from a similar background to myself. I specialised in computer engineering when graduating in Electronics Engineering and I too have been researching climate science for a couple of years. The puzzle for me is that two intelligent people have arrived at totally opposed opinions after seemingly looking at the same evidence. You infer that I do not consider the arguments of the supporters of significant human-made global clmate change, such as those presented in RealClimat. I assure you that I do look at these very carefully with what I hope is an open mind, but I remain unconvinced. I do not get annoyed when you post references to sites supporting your opinion. I read them and just wish that you would do the same with the references that I give you. Let me make it quite clear that I have never deliberately suggested that you are “thick”. If that is how I have come across then I am sorry and I’ll try not to repeat it. My comments about simple and complicated arise from my frustration when you keep insisting that climate science is simple when it is just the opposite. All that I am trying to do is open your mind to the scientific arguments presented by the sceptics and you must admit that so far you have shown no sign of being prepared to do this.

At last I do see signs of progress in our debate. You at least now acknowledge that water vapour should be regarded as a forcing when saying “Water vapour aint a forcing, well except from the contrails of aircraft that is”. It is not only aircraft that pour out water vapour but also anything else that burns fossil fuels. It comes out of car exhausts, natural gas boilers and fires, coal burners, etc. etc. to an even greater extent than does CO2, so why relegate it to being merely a feedback. On top of that, it has a far greater impact as a GHG than does CO2 or CH4 or all the rest of them put together. But more to the point, it has other effects upon global climates that are not yet understood by the scientists, hence the research that’s going on. Can’t you accept that?

You argue that “Water vapour is not a forcing, it is a feedback whilst GHG are forcings as defined by the IPCC and as per the forcings charts where water vapour is not featured”. I quoted on 17th and 18th January the IPCC’s acknowledgment that water vapour is the MOST IMPORTANT GHG. It is not taken into consideration by the IPCC (that’s why it doesn’t appear in the “forcings charts”) because inadequate research has been undertaken so far. One of the major deficiencies in the current science is that the analyses are made assuming a well-mixed, dry atmosphere. Hopefully the research being sponsored by NERC/EPSRC will shed light on this vital aspect of climate science. Another problem is that the scientists so far have concentrated much more upon the radiative forcing mechanisms within the atmosphere and need to spend just as much effort on the convection and conduction mechanisms within all of the global sub-systems that affect the various climates. Until this is done there can be no argument that “the science is settled” and any predictions about future climates is pure speculation.

Under these circumstances do you genuinely expect any intelligent individual to agree that the “accepted science on the subject could be right”. Up till now you have given the impression that you refuse to accept any science that undermines the environmentalist arguments. I honestly believe that your claim to “have read the accepted scientific findings on the subject and accept it” is only a stance that you have adopted because it suits your purpose. This is to try to persuade us all to change our lifestyles for environmentalist reasons. I believe that you know that the science is not settled but wish for the environmentalist argument to be settled. In my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” I say that “This could be suggesting that even if significant anthropogenic global warming is a myth, then use it anyway to promote the cause – the end justifies the means”. I am sure you haven’t bothered to look at my paper yet, but give it a try, along with the references therein – see my post of 23rd November.

If I am doing you a disservice and you still genuinely believe that the science is settled in favour of the “believers” then I sincerely apologise, but remain very puzzled about why you are so convinced, in spite of the evidence.

I support much of the environmentalist argument but reject the claim that using fossil fuels has significant impact upon the global climates and is driving the world towards catastrophe. I reject the notion that we must all reduce our use of fossil fuels at the expense of economic growth. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be living comfortably in the developed countries could well cut back on our gross overindulgence. Economic growth for us only enables us to waste even more, however, we have no right to deny those deprived people in the underdeveloped countries the opportunities for a better life that economic growth offers. Fossil fuels will provide the power for this growth throughout this century and they have the right to use it.

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic

I personally do not believe it is a belief but a valid scientific theory which is such due to the available empircial evidence which presently bears out the theory.

There are many forcings both warming and cooling and your assessment of water vapour somehow belittles the scientists who define it as a feedback and hence determine it a such and that is the present orthodoxy and is correct. That is an unaceptable stance and not a logical or objective one from the present known science. You cannot simply call in a query due to a possible single unknown (in your eyes) when the orthodox scientific stance is in.

This is what sort of makes me despair, its an irrational stance from the deniers who has already managed to delay action since 1988, 20 years and its time they shut up in my opinion, Their stance is not scientific valid enough for anyone to be listening to them.

If AGW is wrong then proper science carried out by the appropriate scienticic bodies will find the issues in the theory. Water vapour is not acceptable as a valid argument, sorry but thats my position on this matter.

As for the media and its stance, its what your stance is that makes the media you read. I read all of the newspapers and take no stance, the deniers have their scientists and if they have valid points then go through the scientific process and then let us see. A lot of them blab through the blogs and media. Not acceptable again as they know its easy to cause a conflict of coherent and known knowledge and information. Deniers take no such stance.

I’m not an expert in anything, but I’ve done quite a lot of travelling round the world. Just been to India and the environmental degradation and water/air pollution is horrendous. Nobody seems to mention overpopulation – there are 1.3 billion people in India.

Meat eating is another issue – 20% of global emissions relate to the production of meat. To be honest from what I’ve seen, I feel the human race is rapidly heading to extinction. This is a natural process anyway, but it’s going to happen sooner rather than later. Unfortunately we’ll take a lot of other species with us.

By the way, I’m vegetarian and have no children.

Why the ice is melting!

I have just come across this blog. I haven’t read it all yet, but I note that Pete Best has asked several times for an explanation of melting ice at the poles, if it isn’t caused by global warming.

So far, no-one has answered this point, but it does deserve an answer if we sceptics are the be credible. And the answer is surprisingly simple.

We often hear heart-rending accounts of how the polar bear would soon become an endangered species because its Arctic habitat was melting. And, not only was this affecting their ability to catch fish and seals, we were told, but they were being left many miles from shore and drowning. Man-made global warming was blamed, as it always is, but that is totally wrong.

The real cause

The 1,800 km Gakkel Ridge runs beneath the Arctic ice sheet from Eastern Greenland to Siberia, passing close to the North Pole. Originally thought to be non-volcanic, recent surveys have found that the Gakkel Ridge is extremely active.

In 2001, a team of researchers from Columbia, the University of Hawaii at Manoa and Tulane collected data along the Gakkel Ridge using a nuclear powered submarine. Bathymetric data and sidescan images of the eastern Gakkel Ridge depicted two young volcanoes covering approximately 447 square miles of the seafloor.[1] The location of a western volcano is the site of some 250 teleseismic events detected in 1999. The researchers say: ‘We found more hydrothermal activity on this cruise than in 20 years of exploration on the mid-Atlantic Ridge’.

In 2003, Henrietta Edmonds, a marine scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, found at least nine hydrothermal vents on the ridge.[2] The water that spews forth from hydrothermal vents can reach temperatures of 662ºF (350ºC).

Is it any wonder the arctic ice is melting? But ‘global warming isn’t responsible.

Incidentally, far from being an endangered species threatened with extinction, the polar bear is doing very nicely, thank you. Satellite images now show that polar bear numbers are at record – high – level.

It’s the same story at the other end of the world.

In a press release in December 2007,[3] timed to have maximum impact by coinciding with the tenth anniversary of the Kyoto agreement and a climate change summit conference on the Indonesian island of Bali attended by world leaders, officials and environmentalists, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) warned that the number of penguins in the Antarctic was declining rapidly because of global warming.

Launching its report at the summit, the WWF said the Antarctic peninsula was warming five times faster than the average in the rest of the world and was affecting four penguin species: the emperor penguin – the world’s largest penguin; and the gentoo, chinstrap and adelie ‘are struggling to survive as melting ice destroys nesting sites and reduces their food sources’, WWF said.

WWF’s Anna Reynolds said that sea ice covered 40 per cent less area than it did 26 years ago off the West Antarctic Peninsula, and that ‘The Antarctic penguins already have a long march behind them. Now it seems these icons of the Antarctic will have to face an extremely tough battle to adapt to the unprecedented rate of climate change.’

This, WWF said, had led to a fall in stocks of krill, the main source of food for the chinstrap and gentoo species. They went on to warn that ‘Warming is fastest in the northwestern coast of the Antarctic peninsula’.

Again this was emotive stuff which masked the truth of the matter. What apparently went unnoticed was their claim that the ‘Antarctic peninsula was warming five times faster than the average in the rest of the world’. This raises the question: If the rising temperatures and melting ice in the Antarctic are caused by ‘global’ warming, why should a small area of Antarctica warm five times faster than anywhere else?

The answer is, again, surprisingly simple: The Peninsula is volcanic, part of the Pacific ‘ring of fire’. The melting ice at one part of the Antarctic is entirely natural; it has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘global warming’, man-made or otherwise. Apart from that one peninsular, the Antarctic ice sheet is actually getting thicker.

References 1. Edwards MH, Kurras GJ, M. Tolstoy, DR, et al. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge. Nature 2001; 409: 808-812.

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html

3. WWF. Antarctic Penguins and Climate Change. Press release of Report to Bali summit, 11 December 2007.

Barry (Groves), Thanks for that excellent and detailed contribution to this debate. Why not join us on Mark’s other blog at http://www.marklynas.org/2009/1/23/a-new-green-era-is-already-unfolding. You can get direct to the “submissions” at http://www.marklynas.org/2009/1/23/a-new-green-era-is-already-unfolding/comments/8222#comment-8222

Regards, Pete Ridley

That volcanic ridge is not significant enough.

Hi Pete (Ridley)

I can see why you tried to lose Pete Best. Despite all the evidence, his adherence is religious and it’s very difficult to fight blind faith with fact.

For example, although atmospheric CO2 concentrations have continued to increase in linear fashion from last century into this, every year since 1998 has been cooler (globally). But, if the ‘warmers’ models are correct, this simply cannot happen. So who is wrong?

Let me give Pete Best an analogy:

If you are standing in the middle of a flat plain at a point where your map says there is a mountain, surely it is your map that is wrong, not the land.

It’s the same with AGW. Computer models (the map) say one thing, but the climate (the plain) says something else entirely. I’ll go with what is actually happening in real life. Computer generated models can suffer from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) syndrome. What is actually happening cannot be denied.

The ‘climate deniers’ are those who simply refuse to look arond them.

Regards, Barry Groves

Mr Groves (Barry), let me express this. 1998 is a deniers charter for that length of time is solely a weather time line and not a climate one. I forget the amount of times that this has been stated by the climate scientists. Your anaology of GIGO is silly and a little easy to say but it has not reality as GCMs are simply a tool to feel our way into the future on large scales. The paleoclimatic record is more worrying still for it reveals earth sensitivity to changing GHG levels and it does not appear to be a barrel of laughs.

It’s obvious that fossil fuels, especially oil, are a particular problem. Even though the amount of resources seems huge, the cost of extraction (in terms of fossil fuel resources, man-hours, and fresh water) increases greatly after we have extracted the easy-to-extract oil, natural gas, and even coal. Substitutes (such as ethanol and solar voltaic) are expensive in terms of fossil fuel use, man-hours, and fresh water.

My sympathies to PeteBest. The denialists are certainly out in force around these parts! Interesting on the face of it. I suppose the recent George Will hit-piece has given them a new lease on life. Or perhaps they are reproducing.

In my darkest moments when the deny-o-sphere is sounding more loopy than usual, I stop and reflect that it isn’t really their fault. AGW is the perfect storm; it manages to duck our moral angels, and at the same time appeals to our personal demons. Those who harbor more than a particle of gluttony raise their eyes to glimpse the prospect of retreat from greatness and, shaking, outright deny it can ever be so. It takes a great spirit to contemplate the approaching end of anything important and familiar and not blink. It takes no spirit and less intelligence at all to say that the end is impossible because it cannot be accepted.

So in the end, perhaps, we have to accept this fate. Whatever our fate is to be. Any optimism I ever had regarding our actual fate is long since eroded; we are headed for a worse fate than can be imagined by anyone who has ever imagined the worst; we are set to devour our offspring.

It is time to mourn our dead, in advance, and count our children and their children among them. And then I was wondering a while back, what sort of people will emerge into the world after civilization is swamped under a sea of human misery, set off by our current happy experimentation with the global climate. In my mind’s eye, for a moment I could see them a few hundred years hence, perhaps a thousand years, sitting around their fires at night and talking about how the Old Ones turned all the world to dust, and how future generations would need to proceed differently. It was sort of a “seven generations of the Iroquois” moment. Then it struck me, rather, that they would have no more insights into what befell them than would a turnip. And the obtuse deniers of that future time will be busy denying there ever were Old Ones, or a world not consumed in dust, or that there was “ice” all around in places on the ground. Such rubbish! They will be a Congress to grasshoppers and ashes, and will likely think themselves intellectually potent.

And that’s the sad truth of it; we are clever enough to harness fire to our will, but stupid enough to burn up the world with it. Happily, now that we’ve burned up most of the fossilized fuels (and all the easily available ones) we’ll have less material with which to wreck our ruin the next time around should we give another try at this global civilization thing. Maybe, next time around, we’ll grow within our means and live at peace with the planet, having used up all the ready siege weapons we turned against it in an earlier time. Wait, there I am being optimistic again. It is a weakness, I’ll admit it. But I find I’m getting over it.

Oh yes, woe is me for taking the orthodox scientific line of a consensus approach. It has been demonstrated that groups make better decisions than individuals so consensus science is not a bad baseline to have. Does science work on overwhelming evidence to support the position due to the limits of the knowledge of the subject. The denialists proclaim that the scientists do not know enough about the mechanisms affecting the climate to demonstrate that warming is indeed overhwelmingly human made via fossil fuel burning and land use changes as primary causes of the recent warming which is again in dispute because the denialsits do not understand the notion of a significant climate time line of around 17 years and not just since 1998.

They proclaim lots of things which are successfully argued against and the consensus remains. Recent data and Post IPCC meetings have laid the projection of increasing temperatures and the effects starting earlier.

Dear CougarW, over the centuries there have been plenty people like yourself declaring that the end of the world is nigh, but it’s still here and will be for millennia, barring some unforeseen catastrophe. That will not be due to our continued use of fossil fuels to power our global economies.

As for you Pete (Best), I still await your yes/no responses to my simple questions of February 6th. Please try to answer the questions so that we can move our debate forward rather than you merely repeating the same old party line.

Regards, Pete Ridley. Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Dear Mr Ridley, why, don’t you know the answers to your own questions?

I do not take any party line, only the scientific one which exactly explains your own line or reasoning which is not scientific but only stupidity I am afraid. Politics and short sightedness I would summise.

I have no purpose politically (obviously something you are struggling to comprehend). We easily reduce our global population by 6 billion if we want to burn all of the remaining fossil fuels but that is no strategic thinking and possibly a bad evolutionary approach and it is this appraoch that demonstrates a limit purpose of sily minds. Mainly right wing minds, the camp of deniers and skeptics who see science as some kind of elitist understaking unless it results in weapons of destruction and power.

Pete (Best) if that is the best you can do why do you bother pretending to indulge in debate. Can’t you see that what you say does not move the debate along one iota. I expect contributors like Barry Groves and Tony will think that I’m wasting my time trying to get something constructive out of you, but I’m an optimist.

It appears that I somewhat confused you with my reference to “party line”. It was a figure of speech, Pete, not to be taken literally. I’ll try to make it simpler for you.

“As for you Pete (Best), I still await your yes/no responses to my simple questions of February 6th on Mark’s ‘A New Green Era’ blog. Please try to answer the questions so that we can move our debate forward rather than you merely repeating the same old environmentalist dogma”. There, does that help? Although I think I know the answers, I do not know if you would agree with me, hence the questions. It’s a starting point to mutual understanding. Surely you want that as much as I do. Once we clear up what we agree on we can then find out where we disagree then attempt to clear up the specifics of the disagreement. We won’t end up agreeing on everything. Even the climate scientists can’t yet do that.

Now can you try to answer the questions (it shouldn’t take you long) then give me some back. That way we might get somewhere. I am only trying to make a contribution (small as it may be) to removing the enormous scientific uncertainties that surround global climate science. Until I remove my own uncertainties I’ll never be convinced one way or the other.

Regards, Pete Ridley. Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Dear readers, you may be interested in seeing my comments on Jonathan Porritt’s “Sustainable Population” blog about the Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen and the myth about significant sea level rises.

Regards. Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic.

Thanks Pete, I will be happy to read that article. But first I want to thank you for this article, such a long one and full of interesting facts. But how much of this is merely rhetoric? The financial storm has already inflicted grave damage on the clean energy sector; shares in wind and solar power companies have tumbled in the last quarter, some by as much as 75 per cent, as credit funding for capital projects dries up and power companies cut back on their investment plans. “If you can’t borrow money, you can’t develop renewables,” says Kevin Book, a senior vice-president at the investment firm FBR Capital Markets. Anyway, thanks again. Tom from porch awnings guide.

Sorry folks, the correct Web reference in my previous submission should have been http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html. A good summary of the proceedings is available at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php.

Message for Alexandre: Have you read any research papers about ancient and historic atmospheric CO2 levels. The impression you give is that you haven’t, but simply accept the environmentalist and political propaganda based upon the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers, which I presume you pick up from environmentalist “blogs and op-eds”. As well as “all the science that shows AGW” there is all of that science that shows that humans have insignificant impact upon global climates. Perhaps you “could point the natural carbon source that” became “incredibly active” PRIOR to the last century?. I quote from my draft paper “Interpretation of Ice Core Air Samples”. QUOTE Using the results of numerous direct and accurate atmospheric air measurements covering large parts of the globe, Ernst-Georg Beck (Ref. 9) presented evidence that CO2 concentrations varied considerably during the period 1812 to 2004 with peaks exceeding 470ppm. Alternative proxy measurements of ancient atmospheric gas concentrations suggest much larger variations in CO2 levels (Ref. 11). Recent research has suggested that the diffusion effects can alter the gas concentrations in ice cores so as to minimise variations and reduce the maximum values that pertained in the original atmosphere prior to being trapped (Ref. 17).

The IPCC’s FAR did not generally take into consideration climate research findings more recent than 2005, therefore the above research (and other significant recent work) has been excluded. This research is in sharp contrast with the dubious evidence presented by the IPCC (Ref. 10) from measurements of air trapped in ice core samples at a few Arctic and Antarctic locations and the direct measurement at one location on top of a volcano (Mauna Loa). The IPCC evidence suggest that CO2 concentrations remained relatively steady at around 280ppm prior to 1700 then started rising smoothly at an increasing rate to a level of about 320ppm in 1950 (then to today’s level of around 380ppm). It should be noted that a seamless relationship between the ice core and direct measurements at Mauna Loa was only achieved by carrying out an arbitrary 83-year time adjustment of the trapped ice core air measurements (Ref. 11). Figure 1 (Ref: 15) gives an indication of the disparity between the IPCC position and that of scientists sceptical about the hypothesis that historical and ancient atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be derived from air samples in ice cores. UNQUOTE

The above references are included at the end of this submission. Perhaps you’d like to present your challenge to the research scientists who produced these findings. I eagerly await your scientific response.

Message for “Anon”: Please have the courage of your convictions and put your name to your comments. As for identifying with “stupid”, try your own medicine as well as trying to add something constructive to the debate. As Professor Bob Carter, James Cook University says “The problem is NATURAL climate change, stupid!”

Message for Lynn: There are some very interesting comments about James Hansen on the Climate Science Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=448&Itemid=32 which include QUOTE John Theon, retired senior atmospheric scientist at NASA, accused his former underling, James Hansen, of “embarrassing NASA” with his increasingly strident alarms of imminent death and destruction from the effects of global warming. UNQOTE.

The same site reported a comment by U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock QUOTE James Hansen, the notorious NASA astronomer who has urged that global warming skeptics face a Nuremberg-style trial for crimes against humanity, in 1971 warned of a coming deadly ice age, but lately has made front-page news by warning of a deadly global warming. UNQUOTE. If Hansen is still around in 2050 I expect that he’ll be reverting to his 1971 position. Those NASA research funds have to be justified somehow, don’t they.

Why do you environmentalists choose to accept without question the political scare-mongering propaganda about climate change? Rather than just accepting what you’re told, seek out the evidence presented by both sides before reaching a rational conclusion. The reason there is so much disagreement on this issue is that our understanding of the science behind what controls global climates is incomplete hence significant uncertainties exist. These uncertainties are exemplified in “Heat capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” by Stephen E. Schwartz, June 2007 in Journal of Geophysical Research, which concludes “The empirical determinations presented here .. lead to a .. global climate sensitivity of 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2) .. This .. with the increase in global mean surface temperature over the twentieth century .. is consistent with an additional forcing over the twentieth century of –0.30 ± 0.97 W m-2. The .. large uncertainty range could be consistent with either substantial cooling forcing .. or substantial warming forcing ..”. Self-seekers, politicians and activists play on these uncertainties and distort the facts for vested interest reasons.

Message for Pete Best: I’m still awaiting your answers to my simple questions (see my submission to Mark’s “World Saved” blog on 9th March). Try to stop the procrastination Pete. Simple responses will help us to move the debate forward.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

References: 9 “180 Years of atmospheric CO 2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” by Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. in ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 2, 2007. 10 “Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing” IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2. 11 “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” by Z. Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc. March 2007 15 Sourced from http://www.biokurs.de/ 16 Sourced from “Clathrate Hydrates by Werner F Kuhs. 17 “Analysis of CO2 and other atmospheric gases” by B. Hurd, 2006 in AIG News, No. 85.

Mr Ridley once again. What wat the question again, its gets lost in all the other useless background noise of your other procrastinations.

Now lets talk about Arctic summer sea ice surface area and thickness. Both are down on the mean in a statistically significant manner as recorder and presented by www.nsidc.org (a reputable scientific body). So lets speak of the natural PDO and other methods of washing sea ice out of the Arctic resonating with the Arctic GW component. Got an alternative and do not say the Sun as that nail has been in th coffin in hundreds of peer reviewed papers.

What represents the statistically significant Summer Arctic sea ice surface area diminishing and the winter sea ice thickness also being significantly down on the mean?

Pete (Best), my 9th March post makes it quite easy for any intelligent person to find those questions that you keep refusing to answer. On Arctic ice melts, Barry Groves on February 8th gave you one explanation which you simply rejected without any scientific debate. I’ve tried without any success to get you to debate logically. You seem to have no comprehension of what scientific debate means, simply offering dogma instead. Please try harder next time.

Best regards,Pete Ridley

I wouldnt say that our planet is doomed I think but anyways, in the future I mean long distant future, it might be.

Hi there Jumping dude. According to reference 3 of my post today to Mark’s “A New Green Era” blog we’re onmly here by extremely good fortune and are definitely doomed a few billion years from now, if not sooner. Excluding a major nuclear war, you and I (or Pete Best) will not be around to see the end, so we should just keep enjoying life as best we can. This includes continuing to use fossil fuels to power our global economies, especially those in the under- developed countries.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Global Climate Change Agnostic (I’ve changed my sign-off to placate Jim on Mark’s “Climate Change Explained .. ” blog)

I agree with you Pete R, I think we should keep enjoying our life as best as we can. Your post surely intrigues the readers, especially PB. Thanks for the stunning post.

Your statement that ” .. water vapour is a feedback GHG. .. water vapour cannot increase in the atmosphere unless something else .. allows it to and starts the feedback process” is scientific balderdash. OK, the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere cannot increase above saturation, but do you really believe that the atmosphere is saturated continuously? By the way, why do you steadfastly refuse to give any indication of your qualifications or competences? Knowing your capabilities would help others to help you, so come on Pete, open up!

Best Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global warming agnostic

I quote from the IPCC WG1 report “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation.

John, I’m flattered but do you have anything of your own to add to the debate?

Ryan, I’m not sure that your second and third sentences are quotes from the IPCC AR4 WG1 report. Also, can you clarify the point your making about the water vapour at the equator in relation to global climate change.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic