Climate change explained: the impact of temperature decreases.

-1.0c. Not seen since the little ice age much denied by many prominent climate change hysterics. – Affects-

Since the incarceration of Al Gore who will probably serve his prison sentence until his death following a federal investigation into a massive multi-million dollar fraud involving carbon credits and cap and trade scams the climate change/environmental/green movement has hardly recovered. Such was the overwhelming hit following the scandal that many other Ponzi type schemes folded and the protagonists involved did their best to disappear to what remained of tax havens and hideaway countries beyond the jurisdiction of the US authorities. Many other less successful in their attempt to go undercover paid the price with massive fines and lesser prison sentences. Others who did not gain financially but who put themselves up as spokesmen for the environmental movement suffered greatly in terms of their own personal prestige and reputation. Some, unfortunately, took refuge in alchohol, embittered that they had invested time and intellectual energy into what later revealed was the Mother of all lost causes. Some of the minor players went as far as taking their own lives which serves as a reminder to the author not to take things too seriously.

Since the “science” of Man-made global warming was discredited in the early teens of the 21st century it has taken many decades to put right the economic and political fallout produced by the now considered “insane” dash for a carbon free world. Political, business and scientific leaders have found themselves struggling with intense cynicism from the populations they represent. With energy and food shortages since the onset of the global cooling period civil strife has reared its head not seen in developed nations since the early 20th century. Grain and other staple harvests having decreased by a factor not seen since the last global cooling period has destabilised every facet of economic and political life on the planet.

Ironically the increase in cases of malaria which climate experts originally predicted would rise during the expected rise in global temperature has in fact increased because of other, unforseen consequences due to the latent world crisis. What used to be refered to as the “third world” is no longer considered to be a priority leaving overseas aid and support sadly lacking to the point where the continent of Africa really is a “basket case” economically speaking.

The desperate race to fill the energy gap has had to rely on more antiquated technology and ideas in order to extract as much as is possible within the confines that allow each nation to fulfull its own desperate energy needs. In America, for example, coal and nuclear as well as oil are plugging the gap reasonably well as can be expected under the circumstances considering the massive rise in the oil price from the far east. Venezuelan oil however still remains unobtainable since the refusal of their Government to supply the US with any oil at all.

In Britain older coal pits which were closed under successive administrations from Prime minister Thather onwards have been draind of water at great expense and commandeered back into service. Mark Lynas who was once a great campaigner against the use of coal and oil has been featured on posters digging coal sporting dirty overalls in an attempt to convince the nation that coal energy, alongside oil and nuclear is the future of cheap energy and will help save the nation. The posters were rather cleverly made to resemble the World war 2 posters where the population were encourage to dig for victory.

Jonathon Porritt now runs his own talk radio station in a ship moored one mile outside the twelve mile limit and features a mixture of now rather elderly environmentalists from the early 21st century and German military marching music.

Me? Well I was lucky enough along with other enlightened individuals and invested in energy companies who were at one time considered to be contrarian. I now live with with my family somewhat south of the United Kingdom using my millions to enjoy the inherently warmer climes while others have to endure the ravages of global cooling. Gosh it’s hard being right on some things but someones got to do it.

Tony: you’re really on to something there. You should look for more answers here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

This is all getting a little surreal. Tony you write the alternative view very well but if you are not to be convinced by Mark’s theory what’s the point in your responses? Most of us I think are able to make an informed decision about Mark’s theories and are not likely to be swayed to think otherwise by someone simply taking an alternative stand. Sorry but this is all a bit dull now for me. It must be two years now since 6 Degrees was first published, where is the subsequent scientific evaluation? In the absence of anything as concise or informative as 6 Degrees my money is still on Mark being right. Call me a lemming if you wish but I think the clock is ticking.

Carl, I think you have inadvertantly summed up in one sentence the position taken by all those who subscribe to the global warming religion. You say this “Most of us I think are able to make an informed decision about Mark’s theories and are not likely to be swayed to think otherwise by someone simply taking an alternative stand”.

Read your words again very carefully. Read them again. Can you not see the folly of your position? What you are saying is this.

“Even if over time science disproves the theory of Man-made global warming as long as Mark Lynas still follows the same line then I shall not be persuaded to the contrary”. This is in essence what you and your camp follow as doctrine. I will stick my fingers in my ears and scream to drown out the noise of the sound of truth.

You also say “In the absence of anything as concise or informative as 6 Degrees my money is still on Mark being right”.

Therefore from what you say you have not taken it upon yourself to read any other scientific paper which puts the other point of view. Marks book might have rung the right bells for you but delve deeper and you will find other, more concise and informative matter on the subject.

You say that the clock is ticking. If so can you tell us all exactly how long we all have until this ticking clock goes off or stops or goes ding a ling a ling? Or will it explode? How long do we have. Five years, ten years, one hundred years? According to Prince Charles we have only….....erm…..well that’s a difficult one. At the last count it was only a matter of 98 months. Some months previously it was five years. Frankly I’m confused. I do wish he would make his mind up.

Oh and Max. Max, Max, Max, Max, Max.

How could you? I mean how could you? I’ve never been so humiliated in all my life. Rick-rolling a fellow poster. How will I live this down. It’s all too, too, too, too much.

Actually Max it was funny. Good man. It’s good to see someone with a sense of humour among the enviros. Nice one mate.

Call me a lemming if you wish but I think the clock is ticking.

It’s a lot safer to be a lemming now that Walt Disney isn’t around, or anyway, isn’t anywhere near room temperature.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Tony, I have taken some time to read on the matter and if ‘science’ produces conscensual and evidential information that indicates global warming is a myth and of no consequence to the human race then I will abandon my beliefs on the matter. Until then I will listen to reason and balance MY opinion accordingly. My response was of course aimed squarely at your sarcastic response to Mark Lynas’ update and explanation on HIS theory of some time ago. My point, again just in case you failed to understand it, is that to simply take an alternative stance without explanation or indeed evidential material is ultimately fruitless. Mr Lynas has published his eveidence and theory some time ago in 2 books I have read. The alternative opinions I have read from others on the subject/s in MY opinion are not as plausible or convincing. On top of that Mr Lynas has that rare ability of being able to make complex science interesting and understandable to his reader. I am certain Mark Lynas is not 100% correct on all the topics he covers on the subjects concerned but it strikes me that the future he outlines is highly likely and that his reasoning behind its causes are highly plausible. To you Tony I would say this, spend less time trying to belittle people and their opinions and more time examining and explaining the reasons for your alternative position. Positivity is always much more endearing. Perhaps you are already compiling your own publications that will soon adorn the bookshleves of the world having visited many parts of the planet talking to scientists, local peoples and photographing the changes in their landscapes and its effects on their lives. If so I look forward also to reading with enthusiasm your books Tony and then I can further balance your opinions on the matter. Seems fair I think.

No, no, no. This really is getting ridiculous. I’m fast losing the will to live. It’s getting to easy to demolish the AGW argument. There no longer exists any challenge whatsoever in my favourite sport.

I’ve just read George Monbiots article in the Guardian warning us that the population of the Carteret Islands. Of course he blames climate change for …....ahem “sea level rise”. However if he did his homework and checked his source beforehand he would have discovered that the Carteret islands lie in a part of the world which is constantly on the move. Up, down and side to side it’s been happening for erm, millenia.

It’s bang in the middle of one of the most active volcanic regions in the whole wide world. The Ontong Java plateau was formed well over 100 million years ago. It has to be said that if I lived there I would consider legal action against the village elders who should have taken it upon themselves to take this sort of action decades ago. Not a good spot to set up ones dream home methinks. Rather like expecting to live in Bangladesh in quiet contemplation silly people have always been drawn to live in dangerous parts of the world. Why would I choose to live in a place which is in danger of sinking or regular flooding? Madness I say, madness.

Oh well another myth bites the dust unless some bright spark on this blog can give me another explanation as to why the Carteret islands are disappearing. I won’t hold my breath.

Sorry should have read

“I’ve just read George Monbiots article in the Guardian warning us that the population of the Carteret Islands have been forced to leave”.

Hello Tony and Carl. Its good to hear from you both again. As you will be aware, I have highlighted numerous distortions and errors in non-scientist Mark’s “Six Degrees ,.. “ propaganda booklet (see his “World Saved .. “ blog 1st, 7th 14th, 21st December 2008 and his “The global warming deniers” blog 8th December) His “updated précis” repeats the same old propaganda. Although I have great sympathy with humans who have no decent place to live, I can’t get at all upset about polar bears losing their homes.

Carl, I am most surprised that you are still prepared to accept Mark’s distortions of the truth. Mark is not a scientist, so any theory that he might dream up has no scientific validity. In fact I do not believe that he has ever claimed to have a theory about human-made global warming. He merely uses “cherry-picked” hypotheses that support his cause and embellishes these with irrelevant scare-mongering illustrations. It seems to me that you have not tried reading any of the IPCC scientific reports (as I suggested to you on 26th December) or any publications by scientists rather than merely accepting the “easy-to-read” propaganda of environmentalists like Mark and Jonathan Porritt. If you had bothered to read any of the references in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” (see my post of 23rd November to “World Saved ..”) you would not be saying “In the absence of anything as concise or informative as 6 Degrees my money is still on Mark being right”.

Try “Earth Shock” by Andrew Robinson (a scientist). He is inclined towards believing in human-made global warming but does present a lot of relevant and very understandable science acknowledging the high degree of uncertainty behind our current knowledge of climate controllers. This book covers in a balanced manner many of the topics that Mark distorts.

In sharp contrast is the book “Earth .. the Power of the Planet”” by Iain Stewart (TV presenter) & John Lynch (TV producer and director) for the BBC’s program of the same title. This starts (Prologue) and ends (Rare Earth) with sections full of environmentaslist scare-mongering propaganda, just like Mark’s “Six Degrees ..”.

For anyone other than the islanders themselves who are concerned that the “the population of the Carteret Islands have been forced to leave” you may find my post of 23rd March on Jonathan Porritt’s blog “Green New Deals of interest.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

PS: I expect we’ll be getting some more pearls of wisdom from Pete Best soon.

Mark, If you can provide the expected CO2 ppm levels that cause the corresponding rises in temperature (1 centigrade to 6 centigrade) that will be very helpful. This can be provided in two tables : (1) which tells the static levels of CO2 (and H20+CH4) that need to be present in the atmosphere to sustain that rise in temperature (2) the required CO2 levels that create tipping points which enable further CO2 rise in the atmosphere and how that will affect the temperature

Well, at least we can move to Antarctica after all the Ice there melts…

Why in the world doesn’t Greenpeace support nuclear power?! It’s too good to be true, 4th gen reactors are 100 to 300 times as efficient!

Well judging by the comments section in this particular blog it appears that the panic surrounding global warming has died down somewhat. How refreshing. At last common sense is starting to prevail.

Come on Mark admit it – the theory of Man-made global warming is dead.

There is a God.

I’m sure in 1936 people thought, those who were certain war with Germany was inevitable, were alarmists or even terrorists. But war happened.I think James Lovelock is probably right : we’re heading for 5 degrees but to the ordinary mind, including me!, it’s incomprehensible.

Vakibs, not quite what you asked for but you can use the spreadsheet tool at http://www.primap.org/ to estimate the probability of exceeding 2 degrees for a given emission load. A useful summary graph is at http://www.realclimate.org/images/carbon_NV.jpg

A nice graph giving temperatures over 1/2 billion years is at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

John, good you should bring up the war. As Churchill once broadcast to the nation – “Never before in the field of human gullability has so much been owed by so many to so few”. He didn’t mention Al Gore but I’m sure he would have had him in mind when making the speech.

Have you ever bothered to find out how much this scammeister has made out of the climate fraud? It runs into the many tens of millions. But of course he’s only doing it to …....erm…...ahhhhh…..”SAVE THE PLANET”.

Hey ho keep believing what you want. I choose not to but then I’m quite cynical when it comes to ex polititians jumping on the gravy train.

Since the “science” of Man-made global warming was discredited in the early teens of the 21st century it has taken many decades to put right the economic and political fallout produced by the now considered “insane” dash for a carbon free world. Political, business and scientific leaders have found themselves struggling with intense cynicism from the populations they represent. With energy and food shortages since the onset of the global cooling period civil strife has reared its head not seen in developed nations since the early 20th century. Grain and other staple harvests having decreased by a factor not seen since the last global cooling period has destabilised every facet of economic and political life on the planet.

Tony, what a load of crap you are talking. AGW is alive and well unfortunately and the science is stronger than ever. Care to list your grievences against the science please ?

Pete (Best), AGW is alive and well? So you positively rejoice in the World’s imminent demise? Get yersel a sandwich board and go down Oxford Street with “The end of the world is nigh” painted on in large letters. Ok here’s the deal.

I asked the question first. Give us all a substantive answer and I’ll promise to give you proof on no AGW. Earlier in these responses I asked what was happening in the Carteret Islands. Are sea levels rising or are the islands sinking?

Pete, or anyone, give me a straight answer and like I say I’ll lay my cards on the table. Remember, I did ask first.

Tony, I am sure that these islands could be doing what they are doing for many reasons and AGW might not be a factor at all regardless of George Monbiots article. None of those disproves anything about AGW for the earth science people have said nothing about it in relation to AGW as far as I am aware. You are just chasing the obvious media stories and not the science from what I can tell.

Doom is along way off, end of the century before we hit that fabled 550 ppmv but only 30 years for 450 ppmv which once latencies are taken into account means some uncomfortable warming come 2070. The science is relatively speaking hardly a killer aspect but it the whole idea of acting now I suppose which gets you wound up?

Tony, on Mark’s “World Saved ..” blog during December 08 and January 09 you suggested to me on several occasions that I was wasting my time trying to debate with people like Pete (Best) and here we are still trying to move along the debate with him. Other contributors to the debates here, on Jonathan Porritt’s blog and elsewhere make some statements and claims that are worth investigating and responding on. Pete is not one of those. He refuses point-blank to offer anything substantial or even to respond to questions with any worthwhile answer.

Regarding those poor drowning pacific islands, I believe that I covered this topic thoroughly in my post to Jonathan Porritt’s “Green New Deals” blog on March 23rd, after which that blog dried up. Anyone care to challenge what I presented there? I doubt it, just as no environmentalist has responded to the challenge that I refered to in “World Saved ..” on 24th November , made directly to Pete (Best) on 28th November and have issued to many others before and since. Environmentalists cannot scientifically prove any significant flaws in the findings of the scientists to whom I make reference

Pete (Best). As I said to you in my March 4th post on Mark’s “World saved .. ” blog “I still await your yes/no responses to my simple questions of February 6th on Mark’s “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 party line”, then on March 9th ” 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”. You haven’t improved at all and still do nothing to help the debate on human-made climate change progress, just make useless comments and pour out your environmentalist dogma.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Pete Ridley, You repeat what you need to know from me and I will reply in course. From what I can remember you just invoked none peer reviewed science which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. If you understand science correctly then you will know that science tries to being itself down from within (disprove itself) and hence as AGW has not been scientifically invalidated it is as yet correct. Show me the peer reviewed science and its subsequent follow up work that shows otherwise.

I like people who are not earth scientists who think they have demonstrated it to be wrong but have no valid proof or work published to show it is so.

So Mr Ridley come fight the edifice that is science itself and prove me wrong that AGW is scientifically valid and our world is warming by the 0.19C per decade as it is.

Tony, I am now forced to fully agree with you – I am asting my time trying to get Pete to debate intelligently

egards, Pete R

Pete (Ridley), I know how you feel I really do. But this is exactly what they want. They want to end the good fight. Bugger them I say! They can sit back from behind their keyboards and smugly think they have won the fight. People like some of the warmist contributors can safely be ignored, don’t worry about them. It’s the like of Mark Lynas and friends of his like Monbiot and Milliband and the Prince of darkness his royal carbunkle who need to be exposed and ridiculed. Forget the useful idiots and keep doing what you do well which is arguing for common sense. Your Grandchildren will thank you for it.

It’s an upsidedown world we live in so as they say dont let the bar*ds get you down.

“the theory of Man-made global warming is dead.”

I think some of you have been misled by industry/think tank propaganda. (You think billions of dollars is not sufficient motivation for them to lie?)

CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas and cause of ocean acidification? Fossil fuels no longer load the carbon cycle to excess?

Basic science is not on your side.

These are not Mark’s theories any more than they are Al Gore’s. These come from hard-fought and rigorous works by thousands of qualified professionals.

And religion? Religion is where you believe what you are told on blind faith, suffering an inner twinge of unfaithfulness for even listening to the other side.

How about actually learning some science, sufficient to discern for yourself who’s telling the truth and not. Better than regurgitating pre-packaged junk from those who would use you.

Or would that cause an inner twinge of unfaithfulness to those who have told you what to believe?

Tony and Pete, your analysis is incorrect about me, accusing me of being politicial and somehow unhinged because of it. My arguments to you are correct and hence you seem to be disagreeing with the entire edifice of science and its methodology and hence you have to argue harder for you are in the minority in this regard for as I have pointed out the way science works is to shoot itself down. It is because of this that denialists can never be motivated by anything other than self interest and not science.

So go on once more please lay out your criteria for why AGW is incorrect scientifically. None of the media centric nonsense please, just the argument of why NASA GISS, The UK MET office etc etc are all incorrect whilst you two in your infinite wisdom have got it right. Been reading WUWT by any chance ?

Welcome Bill, hopefully you can add something scientific to the debate by responding to the challenge that Pete (Best) is incapable of responding to in an intelligent manner. You can find the references to it if you read my comments of 19th May.

Tony, don’t worry, I’m not giving up on the debate, only on trying to have a scientific one with Pete.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Hman-made Global Warmng Agnostic

Its a good post Bill but one whose rationale will fall on def ears where Tony and Pete Ridley are concerned. They have already set out their stall in my opinion it has not legs to stand on.

There will always be this difference between sensible scientific types (thats me and thee Bill) and the other side although I am sure feel unable to argue against other sciences, you know the ones that do not seemingly threaten the politicial status quo or our freedoms etc. Strange really considering that the natural sciences never have any rational counter arguments outside of science until you come to sciences that involve humans at a personal level.

Psycology and religion, medical science and religion, evolution and religion, AGW and politics, evonomics and for some reason religion.

Its an irrational stance by some, none peer reviewed, none rational and mainly argued on the the Internet on forums and blogs based around media articles.

The following is from the science fact sheet on the EPA’s site:

1. Heat-trapping greenhouse gases are now at record-high levels in the atmosphere compared to the recent and distant past.

2. These high atmospheric levels are the clear result of human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

3. Warming of the climate system is now well documented, as is evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

4. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. Most of the warming cannot be explained by natural variability such as variations in solar activity.

5. Future warming over the course of the 21st century, even when assuming emissions growth will be low, is very likely to be greater than observed warming over the past century.

6. The effects of climate change observed to date and/or projected to occur in the future include, but are not limited to: more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.

7. The changes to our climate may increase the likelihood of extreme and high-impact events such as more intense hurricanes.

The EPA proposal is, from its endangerment FAQ sheet, that:

“The Administrator is proposing two distinct “findings.” First, in the “Endangerment Finding” the Administrator proposes that the mix of atmospheric concentrations of six key greenhouse gases threatens the public health and welfare of current and future generations. These six greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These greenhouse gases in the atmosphere constitute the “air pollution” that threatens public health and welfare.

The EPA’s finding on endangerment can be found at http://epa.gov/climatechang/endangerment.html

The Technical Support Document (TSD) available on the EPA’s endangerment webpage explains why greenhouse gases are considered to be an endangerment to the public. The document is packed with scientific and technical findings, and is particularly helpful for those who wish to have the matter summarised in one place.

Turning to this site, Mark has done an excellent job in delineating the climate change by degrees scenarios. It has captured the imagination of many around the world and clearly spells out the dangers.

We have a condition of endangerment. A perilous condition. It is incumbent on everyone to make an effort to correct that condition.

For some a consideration should be to not get in the way and waste the time of others, especially when the findings already speak for themselves … and are well documented (as in the TSD above).

You obviously havent been following very recent news stories concerning the EPA. Type EPA smoking gun into the search engine of your choice and discover what others think of that odious organisation.

Or better still, I’ll save you the effort.

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2009/05/senator-finds-epa-smoking-gun-.html

CO2 molecules are apolitical and do not care about anthropogenic vested interests or economic organisational forms.

“Welcome Bill, hopefully you can add something scientific to the debate by responding to the challenge . . .”

Thank you for the welcome.

Two problems with citing references, etc., in this context:

1) More vocal deniers obviously have no idea what they are talking about, save for a few memorized talking points gleaned elsewhere. They have managed to convince themselves thoroughly without having a real understanding of the material. Bringing references into that discussion degrades into a my-guy-says/your-guy-says debate. Pointless when you are dealing with people who cannot tell fact from fiction.

2) Having others (e.g., me) do their homework for them is presumably how people become so shamefully misinformed.

However, I will suggest that those doubting the science actually bother to learn some of it.

Go to this link and download the (free) climatology textbook, and read it. If you don’t understand something, stop and learn what it is you don’t understand, then pick it up again. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

Until one has at least a basic understanding of the science, one is left defenseless against the slick anti-science PR campaigns.

Also, do a YouTube search on “global warming crock of the week.” Certainly no substitute for real understanding of the science, but nevertheless very well done and worth the time.

I think it is always wise to see what the other side says, don’t you?

..............”Also, do a YouTube search on “global warming crock of the week.” Certainly no substitute for real understanding of the science, but nevertheless very well done and worth the time.

I think it is always wise to see what the other side says, don’t you?”

........next on channel 4…

Tony, not if they do not have any proper scientific work published and accepted into the scientific debate. Your debate is a media based one and not a scientific one now is it ?

Tony,

Whatsamatter? The textbook was too much?

Seriously, you should check those YouTubes. It will at least give you a starting point about why people like me know with complete certainty that you have no idea what you are talking about.

.....ho hum.

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

there’s more…..

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1

.....by a REAL scientist!!!!

Michael, I think you are being a little premature in quoting what you refer to as FINDINGS when in fact they are merely PROPOSED findings from the EPA administrator, Lisa P. Jackson. Although she has a Maters in Chemistry, Lisa Jackson has no credentials relating to climate science research. Her chosen profession since leaving university has been government regulation, not scientific research. Lets await the outcome of the public comment on her proposal. I anticipate that scietists on both sides of the debate will be expressing their views.

Bill, if you check out my references properly you will find that my challenge relates to scientific research findings showing that factors other than CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are responsible for global climate change. These scientific findings remain to be refuted by environmentalists. You’ll find my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2 ” (which summarises those scientific findings) on the site referenced by Tony on his latest post.

Go on, have a go at directly and scientifically demonstrating the flaws in their findings. No-one has done so yet, despite my numerous challenges to those who believe that humans are resppnsible for significant global climate change.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Just a heads-up. The arctic methane releases cited in this post are already starting to happen, both in Alaska & in Siberia, & presumably in northern Canada as well – & if you search for it you can find video of them on YouTube.

Those in denial about man-made climate-change always do the exact same things: false analogy between climate science & religion (or better still a cult), only referring to it as “Global Warming” (whereas the best models predict BOTH colder winters & hotter summers in temperate latitudes during its current phase), pointing to temperature shifts on Neptune or Mars, ad hominem attacks on Al Gore & anyone else that has the foresight to see what’s coming & just how ugly it’s going to get … & ignoring little “externalities” like the appearance of a brand-new Northwest Passage. That one’s sort of hard to deny & it’s a bit of a stretch to attribute it to anything other than a massive shift in global weather patterns. Reconciling a vanishing Arctic icecap with a dimming sun while denying mankind’s role in the event must be very taxing, but there are still those willing to give it a shot even now.

They also ignore the recent dire warning that global climate-change – not terrorism – will be the #1 threat to America’s national security before long, if it isn’t already … & after all, why shouldn’t they – it comes from those famous pot-smoking tree-hugging hippy-dippy pals of Al Gore: the Pentagon.

Toughest of all is how to reconcile their POV with the simple nasty fact that our global climate has already gone beyond the worst-case scenarios for post-2000 from the 80s & early 90s … those same numbers are now our BEST-case scenarios. Transforming scientific conservatism into ignorant hysteria – the classic textbook definition of Orwellian doublethink – appears to be the price of admission if one wants to be a “voice of reason” crying out in the wilderness of “Global Warming Panic.”

I don’t think ignoring a +95% scientific consensus in an age of computer-modelled algorithms makes you an “Agnostic” – it makes you a mystic.

Forgive me if I don’t accord such mysticism that respect which others seem to think it deserves – because from what I’m seeing starting to develop in this case, that mysticism also includes an epic level of unwilling human sacrifice.

Pete Ridley, Your quote:

Bill, if you check out my references properly you will find that my challenge relates to scientific research findings showing that factors other than CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are responsible for global climate change

You mean other GHG’s or the cooling factors that addup to all of the forcings that scientists and the IPCC draw up charts for?

Factors such as clouds, aeresols, BC etc. The ABH (atmospheric Brown Haze) and the like. Or are you talking about the bogey man?

Pete Ridley, your article is interesting but simply confused.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1

The current predictions of AGW are 0.2C per decade and are born out by oservations at 0.19C per decade. You mention scientists who have been demonstarted to have been in error, Roy Spencer for one and hence the AGW theory stands up under the scientific method. You are calling into question science itself, not only earth scientists work in the climate change field, many physicists and others do to and hence the process itself is on a sound scientific footing.

My feeling on this matter is that your issue is with the media and the people who are in pressue groups much like fossil fuel lobying groups who have blocked action on climate change at every term. For some reason it seems to be a painful issue, one in which the worlds wealth and economic prosperity is under threat, however it seems to me that fossil fuels are coming to their useful end due to their costs in the first half of this century. EROI for oil and gas is being called into question by the IEA recent report which signals the end of easy and hence cheap oil and calls for the tar and shale sands mining and extraction to be speeded up to around 7 Mb/d a level that is just silly to ask for as it presently stands at 1 Mb/d. These energy sources are extremely damaging in terms of CO2 emissions and in land use changes destroying a lot of forest that is needed to soak up co2.

Therefore in light of these new falling rates of flow from global oil reserves it is best to go after new energy sources and ones that are low carbon emitters. Its time to recognise this and act accordingly.

You are being extrermely myopic in your outlook, no one denies that all of the easy oil and gas will be used but harder oil sources and coal needs to be either developed to sequestor its carbon or be left where it is and alternatives found.

Mr Ridley (at 0953), I trust that the words from my post (at 0900):

The EPA proposal is, from its endangerment FAQ sheet, that:

“The Administrator is proposing two distinct “findings.” First, in the “Endangerment Finding” the Administrator proposes that …

will be read properly as the EPA making a proposal.

Pete (Best), let me make it very simple for you. My paper is at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 (or it was when I looked two minutes ago). My challenge is for environmentalists to identify, with sound scientific arguments, the flaws that you claim exist in the findings presented in those researchers papers which I summarise in my paper. If those papers “have been demonstarted to have been in error” simply direct me to the scientific papers that clearly prove the existance of flaws . If such papers are availble then it’s quite easy for you really, but no-one has yet done so.

Jim, it is a shame that all that lovely methane is being wasted instead of being used to help power our economies, but the energy companies will find ways of capturing it. If “a massive shift in global weather patterns” was unheard of in the past I might take some notice of you. The fact is that it’s all happened before – up and down by many degrees within decades and even involved “vanishing Arctic ” and other global ice, thousands of years before humans started using significant amounts of fossil fuel. Anyone “denying mankind’s role in” such events is not terribly taxed. (Maybe those thousands of years ago it really WAS all down to “the bogey man” – although we mustn’t take too much notice of Pete’s psuedo-scientific offerings) . You seem to be suggesting that the existance of a Northwest Passage is a new phenomenon. I’m not convinced that the Vikings would agree with you, but prove me wrong. I cover this topic in my latest post today to Mark’s “A New Green Era” blog. Take a look and get back to me with any flaws that you identify.

Michael, although the EPA’s Technical Support Document that you refer to claims to be primarily based upon the IPCC’s reports is not of itself a scientific report or an accurate interpretation of the IPCC’s WG1 scientific reports. It is a distortion of those reports, just as is the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers. Lets await the comments that scientists make on this proposal from the Administrator.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic (Jim, just to keep you happy I’ll try to remember to use this in future)

Pete Ridley, yes thats the load of rubbish that I read citing all of the usual suspects in climate idiocy that I have come to remember and loathe.

It is all complete nonsense and has no respect in the scientific literature.

One example:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Zbignew_Jaworowski

The top peice shows the article in question and the rebuttals demonstarte its idiocy.

The same goes for the rest of it. In fact its all so tedius and demonstrates your lack of scientific understanding of AGW that its just plain annoying now. For a moment I thought you had read around on both aspects of the argument but alas it is not to be, only the dissenters side.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

Says it all really.

Your passion for dissent can only be coming from a political and economic perspective I imagine and certainly not a scientific one. Its just errant nonsense and one that is potentially damaging.

Jim, your ”.. ignoring a +95% scientific consensus in an age of computer-modelled algorithms .. ” reminds me that on 16th May I responded to a similar comment on Jonathan Porrit’s “UK is Right … ” blog – you may be interested enough to read it. Regarding this ” .. makes you a cmystic”, Ref. 2 Page 18 of my 15th May post to Mark’s “A New Green Era ..” blog does refer to global climate models as “the crystal balls of climate science” and the IPCC does enormously depend upon these crystal balls when making its global climate change policy recommendations!. Although “the best models predict BOTH colder winters & hotter summers” you must not accept the output of computer models as gospel in the way that the IPCC’s politicians do – even the most convinced scientists don’t do that. You will no doubt understand the term GIGO, but it’s not only that. The other great deficiency in the models is the uncertain scientific theories upon which they are based. You cannot accurately model something that you do not fully understand, even if the model appears on the surface to be correct. That is why computer models are normally subjected to careful and intensive independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) processes, something that has never been undertaken on the climate models upon which the IPCC is so dependent. As Ref. 3 Page 273 says under the heading The Challenge of Climate Modelling “If climate models are to have any hope of forecasting .. they must be fed with accurate and detailed information about conditions in the oceans, on the land and in the atmosphere. At present .. we have neither enough data nor enough computing power nor enough understanding of the manifold interactions in the Earth system to make accurate models of it”. By the way, both of these excellent books are very much on the side of the supporters of the theory of significant human-made global climate change.

I repeat the references here because the Ref. numbers didn’t display on Mark’s blog – something to do with converting from Word/Wordpad. References: 1) “Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa” by C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf. 2) “Earth – the Power of the Planet” by Iain Stewart & John Lynch, BBC Books. 3) “Earth Shock” by Andrew Robinson, Thames & Hudson 4) “Analyses of CO2 and other atmospheric gases.” by Hurd, B. 2006. AIG Vol. 41, pp. 4.18-4.22. 5) http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison. 6) html http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/ 7) http://www.ghgonline.org/co2sinkocean.htm 8) http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-00197197/en/

Regards, Pete Ridley, Humanm-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Ok let’s cut through the carp.

This should be the first thing anyone who engages in the debate should address. It should be the starting point for any real discussion, in my mind and is among the points that warmists refuse to address let alone give any answers to.

It involves the amount of carbon dioxide that actually exists in the atmosphere and how much of that comprises of Man-made emissions.

It is generally accepted that our atmosphere consists mainly of nitrogen and oxygen plus a few trace gases.

Nitrogen takes up roughly 78%.

Oxygen takes up between 20-21%.

Argon takes up just less than 1%.

Now it gets interesting. Carbon dioxide takes up roughly 0.038%.

It is generally accepted that man-made emissions which contribute to that figure of 0.038% amount to (being generous) .......3%.

So, 3% of 0.038 works out to roughly…........wait for it….......

0.00114.

So this means that the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by Man to an already measly figure is a mere 0.00114%.

Put another way, imagine a million red smarties laid on the floor. Replace 380 of those smarties with yellow ones and that is the total number of carbon dioxide molecules in the air.

..........But then replace eleven of those yellow smarties with blue ones and you will see how much man-made smarties are in the atmosphere.

How on Gods Earth are eleven blue smarties going to affect our climate?

Huh?

Huh?

Come on then let’s hear it. Put us all out of our misery.

No you can’t answer that one can you?

I’ve always detested religious zealouts – they can never give a straight answer to a straight question.

Tony,

Come off it, in your statements you are branding science itself as some kind of fraud! Your statements are daft at best and anti scientific at worst. THIS IS THE SCIENCE!!!!!!!! regardless of what your so called common sense is telling you.

The smarty analogy is not applicable because the science is in and regardless of how you wan to dress it up in analogy it is correct. GHG levels cause radiation to be reradiated significantly enough to cause an atmospheric warming. The lag of warming from the oceans guarantees more warming thats at a rate of 0.19c per decade. Its not a huge amount but it is cumulative.

Just get over it will you. Science is not religion and stop trying to brand people who actually read up on the science to be religious belivers just because you are a political animal and want to brand us this way for your only convenience.

You are Pete Ridley seem like astroturfers to me, paid members of the denialist club.

Tony, may I add a little to your post. The composition you quote is with regard to a hypotherical well-mixed dry atmosphere. I have not come across an analysis of the impact of these two assumptions about atmospheric constitution on the validity of IPCC “projections” of future climates. Questions that also need to be convincingly answered scientifically are what impact have the: - localised variations in atmospheric structure? - 3% water vapour content?

Can anyone (scientist) out there help on this?

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

Thanks for the informed comment Pete. Good to see you are true to type and are unable to combat the issue in any serious way.

Is it not strange that Mark Lynas tends to put up a talking point on an irregular basis and then lets Pete Ridley and myself come back with the other side of the argument but refuses to get involved in any substantial debate. Is this because he is unable to engage in any discussion where the science might be called into question. I know he has a fan club but this is ridiculous. Pete Ridley is the only expert who is qualified in any way shape or form and yet still the trolls keep coming back with their adolescent comments more fitting to the forth form.

Listen. The idiots in charge of running the country recently passed the most stupid law ever passed since the word law was invented, namely the climate change act.

This is going to cost us big time. So while crime on the streets is increasing, the UK is falling down the league table of the worlds richest nations, education levels are in decline and this country is going to the dogs at least the fools who recklessly put climate religious dogma can sleep safe in their beds in the knowledge that they are “doing something”.

What fools. What utter fools. This is the politics of the sixth form. This is a pack of swots at the sixth form leaving party getting together to change the world.

And the idiots who fall for this rubbish on this blog and many thousands like it really need to take a long hard look at themselves and the way they think about things.

I hazard a guess that those on this blog who support Marks truly ludicrous claims are involved in either social work or local government.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ll bet a pound to a penny that this is the sort of “work” they are involved with. They read the Guardian or Independant and get into some kind of a lather reading about the state of the world as it is from their own narrow perspective.

Sorry would this be considered to be an ad hominem attack?

Is this because he is unable to engage in any discussion where the science might be called into question.

Lol… what a bunch of empty rethoric.

Let´s start with climate sensitivity, shall we?

Here are a few peer-reviewed papers that indicate an important role of CO2 on the planet´s temperature.

Gordon, H. B., and S. P. O’Farrell 1997. “Transient climate change in the CSIRO coupled model with dynamic sea ice, Mon. Weather Rev. 125, 875–907. Excerpt: “The transient experiment (1% increase in CO2 compounding per annum) gave a 2°C warming at time of CO2 doubling.” http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0493(1997)125%3C0875%3ATCCITC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Allen et al. 2009. “Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne” Excerpt: “Total anthropogenic emissions of one trillion tonnes of carbon (3.67 trillion tonnes of CO2), about half of which has already been emitted since industrialization began, results in a most likely peak carbon-dioxide-induced warming of 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, with a 5–95% confidence interval of 1.3–3.9 °C.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08019.html

Meinhausen et al. 2009. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C”, Nature 458, 1158-1162 This graph showing the climate sensitivity of several studies: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/fig_tab/nature08017_F1.html#figure-title

I could go on with dozens of references. This last one gives you an idea of it on the graph. Papers ranging from 1896 to today, from calculations to computer models to empirical observations.

But you were saying you miss engaging a discussion where science is called into question. I´m sure you´ll seize the oportunity now.

Models, schmodels.

So these represent the zenith of the case for man-made global warming – computer models???

As they say crap in, crap out.

You can put in as many variables and spurious data you like into any computer model to prove a theory you hold already. It’s all in the wrist action really.

Listen, a computer which is able to really analyse the complex climate model of the entire Earth just does not exist at this time. A computer which is supposed to analyse the climate model for the entire Earth for the next one hundred years will NEVER exist.

The Uk met office has been using a massively expensive computer to predict weather events for the forthcoming week for some years and it is rarely accurate. The same weather forecast can generally be made much more cheaply by observing satellite pictures taken recently over the British isles and reading data from monitoring stations dotted over the same area and at sea. But still their local forecasts are reliably unreliable unless of course there is either no cloud or a big white mass covering our shores which really makes the job childsplay.

Ironically they have just taken charge of a brand new supercomputer costing £30 million. But they have admitted that they could still get the forecast WRONG.

The UK is a tiny speck on this planet and these chumps and many like them still reckon they can stare into the meteorlogical crystal ball and predict what is going to the worlds climate in one hundred years time?????

The fools.

Models, schmodels.

So these represent the zenith of the case for man-made global warming – computer models???

As they say crap in, crap out.

You can put in as many variables and spurious data you like into any computer model to prove a theory you hold already. It’s all in the wrist action really.

Listen, a computer which is able to really analyse the complex climate model of the entire Earth just does not exist at this time. A computer which is supposed to analyse the climate model for the entire Earth for the next one hundred years will NEVER exist.

The Uk met office has been using a massively expensive computer to predict weather events for the forthcoming week for some years and it is rarely accurate. The same weather forecast can generally be made much more cheaply by observing satellite pictures taken recently over the British isles and reading data from monitoring stations dotted over the same area and at sea. But still their local forecasts are reliably unreliable unless of course there is either no cloud or a big white mass covering our shores which really makes the job childsplay.

Ironically they have just taken charge of a brand new supercomputer costing £30 million. But they have admitted that they could still get the forecast WRONG.

The UK is a tiny speck on this planet and these chumps and many like them still reckon they can stare into the meteorlogical crystal ball and predict what is going to the worlds climate in one hundred years time?????

The fools.

Tony, Models, schmodels – lol and you think the UK Government is doing sixth form politics!!? You really are a very daft person arguing against yourself.

As people have stated here many times, the models are not the whole AGW story, they are a tool and just because they are not 100% (no science is) does not mean that we just discard them, they are useful. This is your real problem, the real world! The paleo data also tells us many useful thing about past climate and climate sensitivity and the projections of the models currently stand at 0.19c and its presently correct regardless of Pete Ridley’s assertion that the world is cooling nonsense based on false statistics of too short a time scale.

Its all a shame really that we do not have a discussion but waste precious paragraphs.

Alexandre, the paper by Meinshausen et al. to which you refer depends almost entirely upon “.. ensemble simulations of simple climate-carbon-cycle models constrained by observations and projections from more comprehensive models to simulate the temperature response to a broad range of carbon dioxide emission pathways”. As I said in my post of 22nd “You cannot accurately model something that you do not fully understand”. Tony expresses similar sentiments to mine but much more eloquently.

Even that staunch environmental activist George Monbiot acknowledges that “The average global temperature is affected by the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere … It is not an exact science – you cannot say that a certain concentration of gases will lead to a precise increase in temperature – but scientists discuss the relationship in terms of probability”.

Instead of repeatedly dishing up your references to sites devoted to supporting the human-made global climate change cause, try opening your mind. Think the unthinkable and consider the possibility that the skeptical scientists have as much to offer as have those who support the hypothesis that humans are having a significant impact upon global climates.

When you’ve done that put your efforts into responding scientifically (rather than with mere dogma and insults) to the challenge in my post of 19th. Be the first environmentalist of the many that I have issued it to (including Mark Lynas, Jonathan Porritt, Forum for the Future, The Sustainable Development Commission and even Pete Best) to respond to that challenge.

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

The Hadlet Centre’s diagnosis of global temperature statistics shows a clear cooling trent over the past decade. Do any of you experts on significant human-made global climate change have any worthwhile comments to make about Svensmark’s theory. He predicts global cooling increasing over the next few decades and says “Now after studying this for 10 years, I think it’s completely certain that solar activity ..which affects how much cosmic radiation reaches the Earth—is changing the Earth’s climate” .

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

Tony,

So to try to descredit models is the best you can do to refute climate sensitivity?

Not so fast. Models are used because the climate system is too complex to be understood in a dozen of equations solved on a blackboard. So you need computer-run models to solve all the iterations involved in a reasonable time.

But your cliché answer “models prove nothing” made you miss the point.

Some of the climate sensitivity studies don´t even use computers, like all of the ones before the 60s. For example:

Arrhenius, S. 1896. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground” Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, pages 237-276. http://www.kuuvikriver.info/uploads/science/Arrhenius.pdf

Even if there are studies of climate sensitivity that use models, this is a physical fact that can be studied without its aid.

Besides, there are studies based only on empirical observations, like these:

Lorius 1990 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347139a0.html

Hansen 1993 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Tung 2007 http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

Oh, and the limited knowledge provided by models (after all, any human knowledge is always finite) is enough for pretty accurate projections. This study below compares 17 years of the IPCC projections with the observed reality. The major mistake was sea level rise: it was bigger than projected.

Rahmstorf 2007 “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

Just to check one detail: I´m assuming you know what climate sensitivity is.

For someone who was bandying out his eagerness for a scientific debate, your answer was quite dodgy… From your heavy rethoric above, one would not think you would miss this opportunity.

Pete Ridley,

Instead of repeatedly dishing up your references to sites devoted to supporting the human-made global climate change cause, try opening your mind.

I confess I have difficulties opening my mind as far as to consider Nature, Science, Journal of Geophysical Research and even a nineteenth century scientific journal a “site devoted to supporting human-made global warming”.

• When you’ve done that put your efforts into responding scientifically (rather than with mere dogma and insults) to the challenge in my post of 19th.*

First: I´m providing plenty of scientific references that go unanswered. I have the strong feeling they even go ungrasped, let alone debated.

Second: The irony I´m using is a proportional reaction to your and Tony´s gleeful mockery tone. Don´t complain.

Third: By your vocabulary, I can see you tend to think in a religious fashion. I respect that, but if it does not offend your principles, I suggest you could have a look at the science available.

Pete Ridley, stop this nonsense please, you know full well that 10 year is weather and not climate, its tales longer for statistical significance to be attributed to AGW. You know this full well and yet you continue to lie about it!

Peter Ridley said:

“You cannot accurately model something that you do not fully understand”.

Erm, by definition nothing can be modelled because we don’t understand anything fully.

Therefore we need to stop using computers to do any simulation!

Hmmm, but we don’t do that. We find that computer simulations do a good enough job to be confident in what they do.

Despite the fact that Newtonian physics is an approximation to how the universe works, the games I play on my computer still work well enough.

Tony said: “The UK is a tiny speck on this planet and these chumps and many like them still reckon they can stare into the meteorlogical crystal ball and predict what is going to the worlds climate in one hundred years time?????”

And the relevance of the UK being small has on weather prediction is? And weather predictions have what relevance to long term climate?

If you make comments, please at least justify why you believe a comment is made. You make a lot of claims which frankly have little merit outside the context of science, let alone having any scientific merit.

Incidentally, if anyone is wondering what climate scientists think of Mark Lynas “6 degrees” book, check out the review at realclimate.org. The general gist of the review is that Lynas’ book is alarming (the consequences of climate change are very scary indeed!) but not alarmist (the scientific literature backs him up).

See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees

I’ve read “6 Degrees” as well as Lynas’ earlier book “High Tide”. Both excellent.

Pete (Best) I look forward to seeing your argument in a few decades time when we’re well into the next cooling phase. Alexandre, QUOTE “I confess I have difficulties .. to consider Nature, Science, Journal of Geophysical Research and even a nineteenth century scientific journal a “site devoted to supporting human-made global warming ” UNQUOTE. Are you deliberately trying to distort what I said by missing out the words “the” and “cause” or was it just a slip? I’ve checked your references. 1) In Nature’s “Climate Change” section I can find no articles which challenge the view that human CO2 emissions are responsible for significant global climate change, hence I assume that Nature “supports the human-made climate change cause” (but accept that it may not be “DEVOTED to supporting” it. If you are able then please give me some evidence to change my opinion. 2) The site that you reference when mentioning the Journal of Science (http://www.kuuvikriver.info/science.html) says “climate model simulations indicate that Arctic near surface air temperatures will continue to warm-up during the course of the next century, due to humanity’s odd inclination to ritually pollute the atmosphere on a massive scale with heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Furthermore, Arctic temperature increases, and also year-to-year Arctic temperature variability, are projected to be much greater than the global average over the next one hundred years .. ”. This and other comments indicate to me that that particular site is “supporting the human-made global climate change cause” and is “devoted” to it. 3) The Journal of Geophysical Research does not appear on first inspection to be biased either way, but I cannot find any references that you have given to it. Have I missed something here? Although you may well be “providing plenty of scientific references” you have made no attempt to provide a scientific report that directly answers the challenge that I issued to you. No environmentalist has done this yet, despite my repeated attempts to pursuade one of you to do so. I keep issuing this challenge because I think it is the easiest way for anyone to change my opinion that humans are not responsible for significant global climate change. As for those “references that go unanswered”, please would you tell me which ones I haven’t responded to or to which I haven’t given an adequate response and I’ll try to rectify that. I think that you have gone over the top with “The irony I´m using is a proportional reaction to your and Tony´s gleeful mockery tone”. I wasn’t aware that I was being in any way “gleeful” but have on occasions fallen into the trap of being sarcastic, for which I sincerely appologise. When I started contributing to Mark’s “World saved .. ” blog in November 2008 I repeaedly asked for open debate. When responding to Pete Best on 27th November 2008 I said ”.. 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 do not like exchanging insults, but, being human, I do get frustrated and angry when people with whom I’m trying to debate seem unprepared to consider the possible validity of the alternative arguments. I think the debate here has improved recently with some new voices being heard. Lets carry on with it in an open and reasoned manner. If your comment that “I can see you tend to think in a religious fashion” is using the Concise Oxford Definition 1 of “religious” and of “religion” then you are way off-beam. I’m definitely agnostic, just as I am about significant human-made global climate change.

Paul, please try not to distort what people say. I said “accurately model”. Let me try to correct what you say to better reflect what I was trying to convey. “Erm, by definition nothing can be (ACCURATELY – or perhaps precisely) modelled because we don’t understand anything fully”. The degree to which we can depend upon the results of using a model depends upon how precise that model is. GCM’s and AOGCM are no more accurate models of global climate science than is our present knowledge of the same. Our knowledge, although improving, is still very incomplete. Ask the scientists. Gerry (Beauregard), I’ve read “Six Degrees … ” and posted comments on Mark’s “World saved, Planet Doomed” blog highlighting some of the distortions and misrepresentations he offers. Perhaps you’d like to challenge those comments of mine.

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

Oh dear! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Just as an aside to the debate there is bad news on the environmental front in terms of the energy gap predicted by some which will affect every single one us in the UK. It will be interesting if Mark comes out of his shell and manages a comment or two on this issue knowing his newly found leanings towards nuclear energy.

Basically, EDF are considering pulling out of any deal with the UK government regarding the building of new nuclear power stations in the UK. The Government have blankly refused to subsidise any new build saying that new schemes should be able to stand on their own two feet in the energy market place.

EDF are not happy with this, citing generous subsidies given to the (hopeless) wind, wave and solar energy (an oxymoron if ever there was one).

This could really put the cat among the pidgeons. You can just imagine the toe-curling, stomach churning being felt by those in charge of keeping the lights going thinking to themselves “What in God’s name have we done? Why did we even fall for this global warming myth. Oh my God please let them find out some anomaly with my expenses so I might resign and let some other poor soul put this mess straight”.

Alexandre, your reference http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347139a0.html says “Data from cores drilled in polar ice sheets show a remarkable correlation between past glacial–interglacial temperature changes and the inferred atmospheric concentration of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane”. I don’t recall ever denying that there is no correlation between temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations. From what I remember of my statistics, a correlation does not equate to a cause and effect relationship. Could not part of this “remarkable correlation” be due to CO2 increases being caused by rising temperatures, e.g. of the oceans, or do you reject this possibility?

Your reference http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1993/Hansen_1.html says “Understanding the causes of observed global temperature change is impossible in the absence of adequate monitoring of changes in global climate forcings and radiative feedbacks. Climate forcings are changes imposed on the planet’s energy balance, such as change of incoming sunlight or a human-induced change of surface properties due to deforestation. The considerable variability of observed temperature, together with evidence that a substantial portion of this variability is unforced, indicates that OBSERVATIONS of climate forcings and feedbacks MUST BE CONTINUED FOR DECADES. It will also be possible to obtain valuable TESTS OF CLIMATE MODELS on short time scales, if there is precise monitoring of all forcings and feedbacks during and after events”. I highlight those items which I notice most here, plus there is no mention is made of human emissions of greenhouse gases as forcings. Since Hansen made those observations decades have not passed and no test of any sort have been undertaken by a competent and independent VV&T organisation. If I am still around when these things have happened then I expect to be more able to accept whatever “concensus” is arrived at by the majority of scientists.

As you correctly assumed in your comment of 23rd May on Mark’s “Green New Era” blog I did had “just eyeballed the graph” so I followed up on your suggestion that I “run a linear regression over the last decade´s time series .. you must restrain your cherry picking to an even shorter period”. This led me to http://landshape.org/enm/example-of-simple-linear-regression/ which covers both the trend over the past decade and the matter of “cherry picking”. What is your reaction to the arguments presented there as well as to the comments about Svensmark at http://landshape.org/enm/henrik-svensmark-2009/#more-1978?

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

I applogise for the rather unhelpful presentation in my last post. The layout here is different from the original Wordpad and I don’t know how to correct it before hitting the “submit” button. Any ideas?

Pete Ridley, your understanding of the scientific process is the problem here. The paleoclimatic findings from nay areas are good science and demonstrate to us the sensitivity of the modern planet to such forcings (not simply feedbacks).

Please give me peer reviewed literature to mull over. Some of the alleged people whos none peer reviewed work you have claimed on I have asked some climate people about but it was too laughable to post the reply.

So lets go down the peer reviewed only work otherwise its just lamentable and laughable. Has the argument now stopped, your website certainly has.

Pete(Best), I’m afraid that there is nobody alive in this entire world who will manage to move you from you position. Even if the arch con artist Al Gore himself changed his mind in the light of all the evidence and George Moonbat and Mark and everyone else who serve as useful idiots to the cause had a complete turnaround in your mind the science is settled and the world will burn and oceans will over-run us all. In your case, my friend, it is too late.

Like an alchoholic in the last days of his addiction there is nothing to be done. In the light of all the evidence presented to you of the dangers of the road you travel you and others like you will refuse to change your ways.

So even presented with a million peer reviewed papers citing the ridiculousness of the now discredited theory you will still ask for more proof – more peer reviewed pamplets in an effort to convince yourself that you must have been right to believe the science.

You and others on this blog who still fall for the myth are in denial.

Tony, Unfortunately I have the proper scientific process behind me and its findings whilst all you have is the opposite, the pete ridleys of this world whose anti scientific stance much like your own are worrying from the pespective of a religious zeal for in your eyes the scientific process itself is somehow wrong on AGW but right on everything else ?

Tony, your readiness for scientific debate is astonishing. I´m impressed how you seized the opportunity to engange the debate.

To quote Peter Ridley again: “You cannot accurately model something that you do not fully understand”

My point is that there are no accurate models of anything because all knowledge is incomplete. Yet we use them all the time. So really your views about climate models are not relevant. Our knowledge is always incomplete but we still use it to make decisions, it is what has been done throughout human history, predicting the future is what makes us human and allows us to do everything we do in life.

You are predicting cooling, you can’t actually do that because your knowledge is incomplete. You have to accept climate modelling in order to validate your own beliefs when confronting others with a differing point of view.

Pete Ridley,

I posted an answer on the other thread. Maybe it would be easier to concentrate the dialog here, from now on. I´ll repeat it here for convenience.

And about the text presentation: I had my own difficulties here, too. Maybe the site´s webmaster could make a link with a brief tutorial…

One thing I accidentally discovered: The text becomes boldface if you type it between asterisks.

Pete Ridley,

Apparently Anthony Watts could find two series that show a downward trend in10 years.

And yes, he is cherry picking:

- Other time series don´t show the same trend (which is really slight). He had to do some research to find those that fitted his purposes. As mentioned before, sattellites show a specially high spike in 1998 (they are specially sensitive to ENSO, for some reason), and even those don´t all show an inequivocal downward trend.

- If you run the same linear regression with 11 or 9 years, it turns upwards again. If you keep it with 10 years, but just shift it a few months back or forth, it turns upwards again. Watts had to do this in that specific month with a momentary cold spike to achieve that slight downward trend, and have the excuse that “the present is not cherry picking”. That cold spike on Jan 2008 did not sustain itself. He had to do it in THAT specific “present”. Try to run that same linear regression with today´s data and see what you get. Check the data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uahncdc.lt

If you´re talking about long-term trends you cannot cling to instant shots of momentary situations. By the way, that´s one of the reasons they use smoothing in this kind of graph.

Then again, what´s your point? You´re saying that this virtually stable decade proves that CO2 does not absorb heat? Just consider the following: 2008 looks cold only if you compare it with his neighbouring years. It´s still the 10th warmest in record. What´s the reason for this? Not because of ENSO, since it had a strong La Ninã (a cooling event). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is on a many-decade low. The sun has been stable since mid-XX century, as well as cosmic rays. Why, then? There is an explanation.

About Morrill´s statement “14 degree rise in a period of decades”: the link you provided was an informal article mentioning her. I´d like to see what her paper really says. Sometimes journalists end up distorting scientific information. Please tell me if you know where I can find it. As you can see in the Vostok data, Antarctica (for one) did not experience that same variation. But then again, what´s your point? Let´s say we find out the centuries just before the Younger Drias had a natural and steep warming. Are those natural causes present now?

About my references on climate sensitivity: First of all, it´s important to be clear what climate sensitivity is. I´m assuming you don´t know. Feel free to correct me if I´m wrong in this assumption.

Although the original meaning was more generic, climate sensitivity came to mean how much temperature responds to CO2 variation. More specifically, when someone says they calculated a climate sensitivity of , say, 3ºC, they mean “a 3ºC global temperature rise in response to doubling pre-industrial levels of CO2” (which would be aproximately 280ppm x 2 = 560ppm).

So if you want to refute AGW, this is a central subject. Actually, it is THE subject itself. You can even say “I know something about the sun nobody else does, and I know its activity will plummet in the next few years, and temperature will decrease”. Even if this were right, you still did not disprove the influence of greenhouse gases in temperature (please tell me if you did not follow this particular reasoning. It´s important).

This has been studied for a long time. The first study about human induced temperature rise (1896) was that one by Arrhenius I provided to Tony above. Even before that, the natural greenhouse effect was already known to trap heat in the atmosphere. The human-caused one is just an artificial variation of this long-known phenomenon.

Also, the absorbance of heat by carbon dioxide is something known since the XIXth century. You will find no one challenging something as settled as Beer-Lambert Law or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which are the basis for these findings.

Not surprisingly, all climate sensitivity studies point to an importance of CO2 in temperature, although (as I said in my first posts) its quantification is a bit trickier. The most widely accepted consensus is that this lies in the range between 1.5~4.5ºC. I posted a bunch of references about this already. I can do it again and even add even more if needed, but it´s important to make sure you know what I´m talking about first.

This reference, for example, is based on empirical observation and confirms the findings of the models you try so hard to discredit. Excerpt: “The real-world data indicate that climate is very sensitive, equivalent to a warming of 3ºC plus/minus 1ºC for doubled atmospheric CO2.” http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf (I already posted this to Tony before)

When asked, you said you did NOT claim that climate sensitivity was low. Do you understand now this is as good as saying AGW is real?

Come off it guys. You’re all searching for the elusive piece of scientific data, that definitive paper which will prove once and for all that the world is doomed. The holy grail that will prove once and for all alongside all the other peer reviewed research findings your case once and for all.

The inconvenient truth is that it doesn’t exist. Unfortunate for your side but that’s the way it is. The poor are poor, one feels sorry for them but that’s the way it is as someone once said.

The truth is that predictive models of the future rarely come to pass. Tomorrows World on the Beeb would have us believe that we would all be getting around on moving pavements. Commuting to work for the masses would involve mini flying plane/cars. The head of IBM thought that there would be a very small select group of consumers in need of a desktop computer. For generations men wearing sandwich boards have been warning us of impending doom and to eat more nuts ( or was that not to eat nuts I’m not quite sure now).

The theory (to be polite) of AGW has grown from a small fringe belief to a magnificent belief system. Never before has such a thing happened so rapidly in the history of Mankind. Even Christianity took many, many years to spread round the globe though it would have been quicker had the internet been invented earlier but then the man who invented the internet, Al Gore wasn’t alive then.

It gives a facinating insight to the human condition. It provides us all with every aspect of human greed and human frailties. Fear, greed, panic, exploitation, political intrigue, power grabs, herd instincts, those who oppose the line and are castigated in doing so. Absolutely facinating and historians will delight and write many books about the subject in years to come.

Strangely enough when they do much of this which is so important to us right now will be of minor interest to those in the future. It’s hard to believe but just as one forgets one’s Grandparents this burning issue will be forgotten except by sociologists, anthropologists and advertising exectutives who will learn much from what is happening today.

I don’t need scientific proof. It’s common sense to me having read extensively on the subject from both sides. Why would I need peer reviewed proof in order to believe in the existance of God when any fool can tell you God doesn’t exist?

Tony,

“I don’t need scientific proof.”

This sentence of yours settles it. Who was talking about religion again?

Alexandre, I no longer need scientific proof because I have already seen for myself both sides of the argument. Why do I need further proof? It would be silly to chase ones tale till I end my days looking for further scientific proof when my mind is now made up.

I have asked basic scientific questions to others on this blog and have not recieved one single answer. Rather the reverse – attacks on me for asking those questions. Odd really.

One question. Why does it feel cooler when the sun goes down and hotter when the sun is overhead at midday? Does this have anything to do with man-made global warming?

Tony, itsnot a both sides of the argument debate, its science, it has its own process of demonstrating when something is incorrect. We do not have a debate about it in that regard. You have to read science and not the medias interpretation of the science which is often sensationalising the information in order to a story and sell newspapers. Plenty of it around unfortunately.

Your quote: One question. Why does it feel cooler when the sun goes down and hotter when the sun is overhead at midday? Does this have anything to do with man-made global warming?

What sort of question is that in all honestly. That is weather, we just cannot keep on repeating ourselves endless;y to you, you know it to but choose to reply with the same old same old.

Pete, there´s no point arguing anymore.

Tony saw “both sides” so deeply that he concluded CO2 has no influence on temperature only because it´s a trace gas. I guess that´s a fact that went overlooked by all the scientists that studied this so far…

(by the same reasoning, no medicine he takes has en effect either, since they weigh so little compared to his body)

And this “deep analysis” had such an effect upon his opinion that he no longer needs the science.

No point arguing anymore.

Peter (Ridley), you asked me “Perhaps you’d like to challenge those comments of mine”. No thanks, I’ve got far better things to do… like get to bed so I can get up early to bring my daughter to school (by public transport of course), and then walk/run the remaining 5km to get to my office – which I happily do for reasons quite apart from global warming, specifically: 1) I don’t like traffic jams, and don’t want to contribute to them, and 2) commuting on foot is a great way to stay in shape.

BTW, for someone who claims to be agnostic, you seem to be remarkably sure about your beliefs! :-)

Well done Gerry (Beauregard), that is just how all of you environmentalists have responded to my challenges – ignored them. What an excellent way of substantiating that your opinion! Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic.

Pete Ridley, we ignore them for a reason, because they have no reason, no scientific one anyway. No rationale, no peer review and hence no scientific basis on which you can be reasoned with.

Just once again spell it out as to what exactly makes you question the authority of science on this issue. Oh sorry, I forgot, its the media and the environmentalists you have a problem with. Not the science so much as you cannot have a problem with that apart from nit picking and picking scientists who have no pedigree in this field.

So keep on having a go at the enviros I suppose.

Pete (Ridley), you said: “What an excellent way of substantiating that your opinion!” I’m not sure which opinion you’re refering to. Let’s see… the only opinions I’ve stated thus far on this site are that 1) I don’t like traffic jams; 2) Commuting on foot is great exercise; 3) You’re very sure of your beliefs for an avowed agnostic; and 4) Both books by Lynas that I’ve read were excellent.

I’d be surprised if you disagreed with 1, 2, or 3. So I guess it’s just 4 that you’d like me to substantiate. Why do I think Lynas’ books are excellent? They’re well-written, seem to me to be well-researched, and I just genuinely enjoyed reading them. Are they perfect? No. Do they have some errors? Almost certainly. Do I agree with the general thrust of them? Yes, certainly – largely because they agree with so much other material that I’ve read on the subject (IPCC, NASA reports of ice cover, Stern Review, etc.). But even if I didn’t agree, I’d still think they’re excellent books. By the same token, I think that Bjorn Lomborg’s book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is also an excellent read, and I would recommend it – even though I disagree with some of the analysis in it.

Happy?

Gerry (Beauregard), thanks for your response, which I find perfectly adequate. It seems that we simply disagree on two issues relating to “Six Degreeas .. ). You give me the impression that you believe:

1) “the consequences of climate change are very scary indeed!)” whereas I see no reason to be scared of climate change, which is not a new natural phenomenon.

2) that the book is “not alarmist (the scientific literature backs him up)” whereas I consider it to uses distortions of the scientific literature to create unwarranted alarm.

We are entitled to express our individual opinions but I choose to back mine up with the evidence on which I base them. I did this in my comments on Mark’s “World Saved ..” blog. You choose to keep to yourself the details of the reasoning which formed your opinions. So be it, but it doesn’t help a poor agnostic like myself to change my opinion.

Keep enjoying your way of life.

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

Pete Ridley,

Any progress on climate sensitivity? Taking your time to let it sink in or did not grasp its importance?

There´s no point in debating your challenges if you don´t understand the basic underlying science.

Alexandre, please have some patience. I am looking more closely at the data behind the various global temperature change graphs.

Regarding climate sensitivity, “The most widely accepted consensus is that this lies in the range between 1.5~4.5ºC” derives mainly from computer models. Your own reference (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf) acknowledges the importance of water vapour and clouds and admits “This wide range is a result mainly of differences in cloud simulations. .. but cloud modeling is so primitive that even the sign of this feedback is uncertain. But there may be other significant feedbacks not included in present models. So the models alone leave great uncertainty about climate sensitivity”.

On the matter of Paleoclimatic empirical indicators of climate sensitivity, it acknowledges that ” .. CO2 changes.. lag .. temperature changes. chaotic fluctuations must also contribute to the climate change”. It goes on to say “There are many uncertainties and limitations in paleoclimatic analyses”.

Drs. Spencer and Tsonis have investigated these factors and show that temperature changes can be accounted for without refwerence to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Don’t you agree that these factors alone justify a degree of agnosticism?

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

Pete Ridley,

I will have patience. Please take your time. Depth and rush don´t usually go together.

H2O is an important feedback, hence its appearence in any climate sensitivity study.

CO2 lags temperature, yes, and we can talk about that too. But I still insist you take your time to grasp the sensitivity issue first.

“CO2 lags temperature, yes, and we can talk about that too”.........

Alexandre you’ve just destroyed the argument you put forward in one fowl swoop. Well done you’ve finally got the message.

Pete (Ridley), on the “alarming” / “alarmist” stuff, it was pretty clear from my post that I was paraphrasing the review on realclimate.org.

As to my own opinion, regarding the consequences of the rapid climate change described in the IPCC assessment reports (up to 5.8C rise from pre-industrial by 2100) and elaborated upon in “Six Degrees” – yes, they sure sound scary to me. If the predictions are true, a lot of heavily populated places on the plane will become rather unpleasant – some within my lifetime, many more within the lifetime of my children.

As to whether the scientific literature backs up “Six Degrees”, the climate scientist who reviewed the book was of the opinion that it did.

http://www.forexyard.com/reuters/popup_reuters.php?action=2009-05-28T222242Z_01_LS1002309_RTRIDST_0_CLIMATE-HUMAN-EMBARGOED

Heh, heh, heh, heh, this story just gets better and better. Our Great Grandchildren will be in utter hysterics when they read this sort of stuff in their history lessons at school.

Tony, it wont even marginally effect the growing world population as yet but it will probably around the time your grandkids are annoyed at your attitude.

Alexandre, be careful with Mr Ridley, he thinks that water vapour is a forcing and not a feedback, somehow climate scientists have it wrong on this one. He fails to graps the fact that of itself it cannot increase its atmospheric concentration, only GHG can.

Oh no Pete, you really are a worrier. Not satisfied with climate change you are worried about over population. What else stops you sleeping at night?

If you read my last link you may have noticed that the authors of the report cited extreme weather events for killing hundreds of thousands of people a day. Now according to you weather is not climate. I’m suprised you didn’t mention that in your reply.

Ironically the reports main author is up in arms about the report. He says that it totally misrepresents his findings. Read more here.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/a-methodological-embarassment-5314

Weather is not climate in its statistical sense but climate will effect weather events duration, intensity, scale and frequency.

There are lots of reports on AGW and its impact. People will die. I am not a worrier Tony, I just believe its a good thing to be strategic and think over long time lines when necessary.

“Weather is not climate in its statistical sense but climate will effect weather events duration, intensity, scale and frequency”.

prove it!

Hi Tony,

The climate at a given location is essentially the statistics of the weather at that location over some extended period (say, 30 yrs). Average temperature and average annual rainfall would be part of those statistics. Over short time frames, there will of course be a lot of variation around those mean values.

Now suppose you’re interested in a heat waves (one kind of weather event), a stretch of several days of unusually high temperatures. The threshold for “unusually high” depends of course on the the location and time of year. For example, if it’s 20C in January in Montreal for 5 days, that’s a heat wave; in Singapore it’d be an unprecendented cold snap :-)

Because of the short-term randomness of weather, even without climate change, you’ll occasionally get heat waves. Now suppose for a particular location and time of year, you keep your heatwave temperature threshold constant, but the mean temperature rises by, say, 2C. Even if the statistics of the variation around the mean don’t change, you’ll cross the heatwave threshold more frequently, the maximum temperature will increase, and the maximum duration of the period above the threshold will increase as well.

In other words, if the mean temperature goes up in a given location, the frequency, duration, and intensity of heat waves at that location will increase as well.

Makes sense?

Thanks Gerry. How does the ten year cooling period fit into all this? Would this be described as a blip, an extreme weather event or confirmation that the world is warming. I, along with many others are confused as to where the experts put this into perspective. So when so called experts (who in general are nothing of the sort Stern, Gore, Monbiot, Lynas etc.) tell us that the floods in the UK are the result of AGW they are wrong but tell us that the last ten years of cooling are weather and have nothing to do with climate change.

So in essence how long must a weather event or events last until they are no long weather events but events caused by climate change? Is there a scientific formula?

Tony, you cannot any weather event directly to AGW but you can determine the overall trend in weather events and if the atmosphere contains more heat energy through increased GHG concentrations then it can hold more water vapour (which it now does) and hence that water vapour wants to fall from the atmosphere in its various froms. More of it surely means more weather events of the precipitation kind including lack of it in some places as well as increases in others.

Is it worth taking the risk in your mind ?

Pete, I’m fast coming to the conclusion that you lot are clinically bonkers. You are not answering the question (there’s a first). I’ll try again.

How long must a weather event or events last until they are no long weather events but events caused by climate change? Is there a scientific formula?

What is the IPCC position on this? Can we now categorically state that floods over the past few years in the UK and the 2003 heatwave had nothing to do with climate change but were mere weather events?

Tony, I did answer the question but I will go on some more if you like. It takes 17 years to measure climate over weather. Thats the statistical stance that I have read and has been reported many times by the climate scientists. It is why people who say it has cooled in the past decade are incorrect as it is not a climatic, the duration is too short.

The UK weather events of the 2003 and 2006 heatwaves and any flooding that has occured, Boscasltle, Hull etc cannot be directly linked to AGW as they are weather events and no single weather event is correlerated to AGW.

Its just how often they happen (frequency), their duration, their intensity etc that is set to increase. 100 year weather events will occur every 20 years etc. Its quite simple really but as AGW has as yet only resulted in 0.8c of atmospheric warming then its early days for direct correleration between weather and climate. As we approach 2C then I am sure that the link will get clearer and clearer.

Sorry Pete you are completely and utterly wrong on that one. Virtually every single warmist cites the recent UK (extreme) events can be put down to AGW. The Met office, Mark Lynas himself, Caroline Lucas, Al Gore, George Moonbat the list is endless – all of these and others tell us that.

Something is wrong somewhere. Someone is misinformed regarding this matter. So who is it Pete? Are you disagreeing with the consensus on this one aspect of the debate?

Careful now, they’ll be calling you a denier if you continue to take this line.

Dear readers, I have been trying to get environmentalists to take up my challenge that they should provide a direct scientific analysis that shows the flaws in a June 2008 paper “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” by Dr. John Nicol (see www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc. This claims that greenhouse gas concentrations are well over the level at which further increases cause significant increases in global temperatures. Dr. Nicol’s findings support similar arguments put by Drs. Beck and Barratt back in the 1990’s but with much more detailed scientific analysis.

I have searched high and low for any detailed scientific analysis showing any flaws in Dr. Nicol’s argument and can find none. Are you aware of any. Any physicists out there should be able to spot any if they exist. Meanwhile, I hope you find the following extracts from Dr’ Nicol’s recent (12th May) comments interesting (posted to http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_centrality_of_co2/P25/ inrelation to critisms of fellow sceptic Professor Ian Plimmer) QUOTE: It is most disappointing to find that an academic of Professorial standing such as Michael Ashley should have seen fit to denigrate a fellow scientist … ..the reason for his attack .. was because Plimer was daring to question the holy grail of global warming, alias Climate Change, the role of carbon dioxide. ..A reading of .. Chapter 8 of the IPCC Report, AR4 2007, provides no confidence whatsoever, that the “fundamental physics of greenhouse gases” has even been looked at beyond the simplistic, some might say trivial arguments of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius, all pre-1896, let alone understood. In an effort to gain such understanding I have sent emails .. in 2008 .. to both Professors Ashley and Pitman .. asking if they could provide me with such information in the form of the physics or standard recent references. They .. ignore my requests. I then contacted the head of the Climate Group .. of CSIRO .. and have spent twelve months .. in an effort to obtain from them such relevant information as the basis of the theory which they so obviously use to justify injecting heat into their models to account for their belief that carbon dioxide is a significant contributor to the warming of the globe as concentrations increase. I have to show for it two simplistic papers .. written by a Polish scientist who .. had a go at the physics, but made two very fundamental mathematical errors which totally discounted the findings in his paper, which .. showed anyway that the forcing factor used by the IPCC was about four times what it should be! .. I advised my contacts of this but they remained unmoved, and while promising several times to provide some references or internal reports .. I remain empty handed to this day. However, they did advise me to study their Major Report, Australian Climate Change which would give me an insight into the fundamental science. What I found was, apart from continuous favourable appraisal of the models, the very profound statement and I quote: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”! Very likely, indeed! .. I presented some arguments upon which I would appreciate your .. comments. I have written these before but have not yet had the pleasure of receiving ANY criticism or even scientific comment on them, which is very disappointing given the intensity of this debate. All discussion should properly be directed to the basic science (Physics {molecular or atomic}, chemistry if you are aspectroscopic chemist) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not melting ice or sea level rises which can have many causes. The science requires an explanation of the energy transfer process which implicates carbon dioxide, not the the results from models which have already been seeded with an assumed forcing following the suggestions of Arrhenius in 1896 before gases could be properly analysed. UNQUOTE

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

PS: Alexandre, perhaps while I’m “taking my time” looking more closely at the data behind the various global temperature change graphs you’d like to do your own detailed scientific analysis highlighting all of the flaws in Dr. Nicol’s paper. Regards, Pete R.

Is it peer reviewed and accepted and published at all?

I’m sure there must be a name for the condition which afflicts those who constantly demand something to be peer reviewed.

Anyone come up with any answers to my last question?

Pete Ridley,

Being a layman, I am not able to follow the reasoning behind those equations. I assume you are not either.

All I can do is follow the conclusion and assess some formal aspects.

On the conclusion, it says: “The proportion of this free radiation, relative to the amount of excitation energy trapped in the Greenhouse gas, is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of both the total heat energy present and the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.”

In my layman´s analysis, this does not make sense. It concludes some heat would be absorbed by a greenhouse gas, and the this amount of heat has no relation to the concentration of that gas. This implies that if we had 1 ppm of CO2 it would absorb as much infrared as 5000 ppm. By the way, this is something different than your statement “greenhouse gas concentrations are well over the level at which further increases cause significant increases in global temperatures”.

The same principle is used, for example, to determine the composition of a distant planet or star. Analysing the “spectroscopic fingerprint” they are able to identify both which gases are present (qualitatively) as well as its proportional quantity (like here http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961112a.html). If the absorbance of that spectrum were not dependent of the quantity of the gas, this kind of measurement would not be possible.

Well, and about formal aspects. You have a non-published document that claims something that contradicts a whole history of peer-reviewed studies that begins with Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and has been confirmed and perfected by dozens of other studies until today. I have provided references that confirm these findings through calculations, computer models and empirical observations. They range from the XIXth to the XXIst century.

Can you provide any peer-reviewed source that confirms Nicol´s claims? Peer-reviewed documents have to at least meet some basic scientific prerequisites. The kind of literature you rely on can literally claim anything.

Here´s a brief text about this issue: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html

Repeating another question: Can you provide any peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study that quantifies CO2´s influence on temperature, that was based on Nicol´s text and therefore concludes that CO2´s concentration is irrelevant to temperature? (sorry, I won´t call it “study” or “finding”. It´s just a text.)

Tony,

I am not wrong on this one. Many things are said in the media that are hyperbole and an exaggeration of the science. What I state is factual as far as I am aware. I do not know exactly what you have read and angers/dismays you?

As for peer review, science requires it in order to function. Without it we can all bleet on like the media and politicians do often and not be held accountable talking nonsense. Science requires a far more exacting method. If it is not peer reviewed then it does not equate as science regardless of how fancy it looks even with masses of mathematical equations.

You will only get the science from me and not hyperbole. There again maybe my answer has nothing for you to aim at as you only seem to read media related stories on the subject.

This makes interesting reading.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/peer_review_needs_improvement_1.html

Tony, you can’t blame the peer review process for GHG/AGW being the best scientific fir to the data.

Blimey, what next.

Tony,

This is very interesting indeed. So interesting that I encourage you to elaborate your argument instead of just copy/pasting the link.

Mind you: the freedom to publish stuff without any review is already reality. It is possible to publish anything on websites or virtually anything in non-scientific journals. The problem with that is that it does not convey the same credibility of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Now do you advocate perhaps that the peer review should be forbidden? Or should we force people to associate credibility to any text they see in the internet? Please elaborate on your argument.

Dear readers, it gets very boring hearing the lay contributors to this blog harping on pseudo-sagely about “peer review”, “the science is settled” and “scientific consensus” instead of open-mindedly trying to understand the scientific arguments of both sides. I have spent some time over the past few days reviewing the contributions to Mark Lynas’s and Jonathan Porritt’s various blogs and see that over the time that I’ve been involved we have made virtually no progress at all in resolving the differences between our opinions. I am only aware of one scientist (Phillip Bratby) being involved in these debates. As a physicist he does at least appear to contribute from a position of knowledge. The rest of us are laypersons with only a top level understanding of all of those different branches of science that have a contribution to make to our understanding of what causes global climates to be what they are. Our meagre understanding is far outweighed by our ill-informed opinions. As thinking laypeople we should be trying hard to understand the science from both sides of the argument without cherry-picking what we read. Without that understanding all we can do is develop our opinions based upon our own experiences, which for each of us will be slightly different. On this basis we will favour those arguments that fit in with our individual experiences.

My experience tells me that that time passes at regular intervals which cannot change in any way. What has passed has passed. The fact that scientists can prove mathematically that time can be bent is for me incomprehensible. If a scientist comes along with an analysis showing that time cannot be bent but just passes, then I willingly accept his analysis as correct, rather than the contrary argument. Why? – because it fits in with my own experience. (I was also going to use the example of aerodynamics engineers proving that Humble Bees can’t fly but decided agains after reading http://keelynet.com/interact/archive/00001691.htm). Regarding global warming, my experience tells me that in the middle of summer at noon when the sky is clear it gets very hot because of the sun, whereas if the sun is hidden by cloud it gets cooler. At night when the sky is clear it gets much cooler, sometimes cold, whereas when it is cloudy it stays warm. When it is very humid it feels uncomfortably hot. In the winter it is warmer when the sky is cloudy than when it is clear, cold when there is snow and much warmer in the British Isles than in Ontario. These and other experiences lead me to readily accept argumaents claiming that solar radiation and water (in all of its forms) have a very significant impact upon temperature and climate.

I believe that I have a reasonable understanding of the greenhouse effect and can accept that water vapour has a significant impact upon global temperatures but I have no equivalent experience with carbon dioxide or methane (neither of which I can see, feel or smell) on which to form an opinion that these so-called greenhouse gasses have much impact at all. If a well respected scientist publishes an analysis which supports my opinion and I can see no flaw in his argument I am ready to accept it unless some other well-respected scientist reviews the analysis and identifies the flaws in it. This is the case with Dr. Nicol’s analysis, which was published exactly a year ago. As well as offering it up for review on the Internet he has invited criticism from other respected scientists such as Professor Andy Pitman and Professor Michael Ashley. No such criticism following review by his peers (which Professors Pitman and Ashley surely qualify as) has been forthcoming. Under those circumstances I have to assume that Dr. Nicol’s peers can find no criticism of his analysis, therefore it must be valid (but only until acceptable peer reviewed criticism revealing flaws in his analysis is made available – hence my challenge).

Alexander, regarding your response. I initially thought, when you acknowledged once again your layman status and said that you don’t understand the science, that you would drop your unjustified superior attitude. Your “You have a non-published document that claims something that contradicts a whole history of peer-reviewed studies that .. has been confirmed and perfected by dozens of other studies until today. Can you provide any peer-reviewed source that confirms Nicol´s claims?” indicate that I was misled. Your reference makes no suggestion that peer review is restricted to those undertaken by journals prior to publications, merely that “The peer-review process commonly takes place as a prerequisite to the publication of a scientific paper”.

When reading a scientific report, whether peer reviewed or not, I try to understand more than just the summaries. You should try reading and understanding the rest of Dr. Nicol’s analysis e.g. his clarification of the difference between actual green house heating and heating within the real atmosphere, where he says “In the case of the open atmosphere, where there is no constraint to movement of the air as in the glass greenhouse, conduction and convection play very important roles in the process of removing heat away from the surface of the ground” (other analyses that I have seen, including the IPCC AR4, concentrate upon radiation, with little attention to convection and conducton). Also try to understand his arguments about conduction and convection that justify his statements in the paragraph before the summary, which says “The above analysis appears to indicate that the warming of the earth by Greenhouse gases takes place through the effects of downward radiation .. arising from molecular emissions at frequencies outside the resonance bands of any atmospheric gases, which could include those not nominated as being a GHG. It further shows that the actual level of GHGs in the atmosphere, .. is almost of no consequence in determining the increase in surface temperature from the Greenhouse effect. It is thus apparent that Greenhouse gases act only as a conduit through which flows the radiation energy captured initially by certain gases in the atmosphere. It moves from the internal energy of the absorbing gases into a relatively stable thermalised volume of local air. This energy flows almost independently of the number of Greenhouse molecules present just as water from a fixed source, flows through a pipe independent of increases in the diameter of the pipe. Collisions between these radiatively excited molecules and the many other neutral molecules, cause the energy to be converted to kinetic energy of an ensemble which is thus heated. This sample of air then transfers most of this effectively trapped energy upwards through convection to a more transparent region in the upper troposphere where the energy may progressively escape upwards through radiation, but from which most of the corresponding downwards radiation will be recaptured at a significant height above the earth’s surface by the denser warmer air at these lower levels. However, some radiation from the excited molecules is radiated at frequencies to which the atmosphere is almost totally transparent. It is this radiation and this radiation only, which will be in a fixed proportion of the energy radiated by the earth, and will be emitted in all directions – 50%+ above the horizon, 50% – below horizontal thus contributing to the warming of the earth”.

I cannot argue with Dr. Nicol’s analysis but do agree with much of what Mitchell Porter said on 27th October 2008 (Ref. 1) “I think someone somewhere will have to tackle Nicol’s opus. (I cannot see that anyone has done so yet.) In the spectrum of greenhouse skepticism, it’s a rather radical piece: the guy says (see his Conclusion) that the warming experienced by the Earth due to greenhouse gases is actually independent of their concentration! I have not yet attempted to reconstruct the argument, but given the extremity of the conclusion, I should be able to predict that there is a serious error buried in there somewhere.”

As for your arrogant comment “Repeating another question: Can you provide any peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study that quantifies CO2´s influence on temperature, that was based on Nicol´s text and therefore concludes that CO2´s concentration is irrelevant to temperature? (sorry, I won´t call it “study” or “finding”. It´s just a text.)”, I cannot find any peer reviewed study “based on Nicol’s text” but refer you again to the paper “The Climate Catastrophe – A Spectroscopic Artifact?” 1998, by Dr. Heinz Hug available at http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm (referenced in my paper as Ref. 11 and Ref. 12 if you’d bothered to read it). I also refer you to “Hug & Barrett versus IPCC” by Heinz Hug and Jack Barrett, available at http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm with a peer review at http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/review.htm. Dr. Nicol’s analysis supports those of Drs. Hug and Barrett.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic Ref. 1 http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/22/nine-policies-to-drag-ourselves-out-of-the-climate-change-mire/

Pete Ridley, Dr John Nicols 2008 paper regarding Athe Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect is not scientific. It has no references and hence cannot be cited as one. It is anti scientific in many regards as it needs more than one persons say so regardless of how well it appears to have been written.

http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/esef_thread.txt

Anyone who believes or who tries to demonstrate that CO2 is not a GHG is just trying to decieve lay people and cannot possibly be taken with any credibility in the scientific literature. It would have been demonstrated by now that CO2 is not responsible. Dear Pete Ridley, stop trying to make out science as if it is stupid because it is done by groups of people and for some reason only people working along can tell the truth.

I think the problem here lies with the culture of australis and NZ . It seems to me that you have a problem with authority and are mavericks a lot of people of the USA are in many ways. There is of course nothing wrong with that but the IPCC seem to be annoying (we know that republians in the USA do not trust them at all) and maybe the same goes for Aussies and NZers to.

This is a culture issues and not a scientific one. Got a issue with the world limiting GHG concentrations I would imagine ?

Pete (Best), even allowing for the fact that you are merely a layman, you do present some absolute rubbish. Can you name anyone subscribing to this blog as ” who believes or who tries to demonstrate that CO2 is not a GHG”? I can’t name one and Dr. Nicol certainly doesn’t. He makes it clear again and again in his paper that he recognises CO2 as a greenhouse gas. You appear either not to have read or have not understood his paper. Let me give you a good example of what he says on the subject. “This result of course relates only to CO2. A similar analysis for water vapour, a much more aggressive greenhouse gas, would be expected to show significantly more additional absorption at both levels of concentration of carbon dioxide, resulting in a much smaller value for the escaping energy at both 380 ppm of CO2 and the projected 760 ppm thus reducing the difference between these two cases. Absorption bands in all other GHGs could be treated identically and the combination with CO2 would show a further reduction in the escaping energy”. His paper is a detailed analysis of the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Your reference is a rather dated (1995) and does make the point that Dr. Barrett’s paper was only two pages of analysis. Dr. Nicol gives 20 pages of detailed analysis which has yet to be shown to be flawed. It requires, as he has requested , peer review, but none of his peers has responded in the year since it was made public. I have repeatedly tried to get a peer review, again without success, so what can we do to get those of his peers who reject his analysis to detail their objections – anything to help move this peer review process along?

I propose to try to contact some of his peers to publish a review, e.g. Dr. Keith Shine, who reviewed Dr. Barrett’s paper and with whom I have had recent correspondence on the significance of water vapour. Can anyone else help with this. As Mitchell Porter said “I think someone somewhere will have to tackle Nicol’s opus”.

Returning to your ludicrous comments about mavericks from australis and NZ ” etc. ”, I have no issue with the world limiting GHG concentrations if it were necessary to avert s catastrophe, but no-one has convinced me that we are heading for one.

Keep trying Pete. Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global CLimate Change Agnostic

Pete Ridley, What makes you think that 100+ years of science on the climate (GHG etc) suddenly makes a single paper from a single scientist correct at the expense of the edifice of science? Einstein I suppose or Newton I would assume the reality is very different especially today.

What gives you the right to dismiss science. Come on please let us all know why science is wrong on GHG and how they work? Science tries to prove it wrong and has not, its out best science as yet and no single paper change that.

He should submit it to many other journals on the subject as well. Does he have a history of good peer review in his chosen field of physics?

Pete Ridley,

“My arrogant comment”? lol!!! I am not aware of this blog etiquette that considers asking for a scientific reference to be arrogant.

Anyway. You do not have a peer reviewed reference that supports this view. Why do you think it is so?

And again: What is your alternative explanation for the warming observed on the last decades? Is there an alternative theory, after all?

“Pete Ridley, What makes you think that 100+ years of science on the climate (GHG etc) suddenly makes a single paper from a single scientist correct at the expense of the edifice of science?”....

Lol, were they using computers to create models 100 years ago?

Alexandre, once we’ve sorted out the issue of peer reviewing Dr. Nicol’s paper (Note 1) I’ll tackle Dr. Tsonosis’s paper. That has some suggestions to make about what causes the changes in global temperatures. I see you have ignored my invitation for assistance in getting peers to review Dr. Nicol’s paper (that his peers, not ours). It would help, but perhaps you don’t have any contacts who qualify.

Tony, there’s no point in trying to have an intelligent debate with Pete (Best).

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

Note 1: I am not arrogant enough to say “It´s just a text” – although strictly speaking all “original words of an author or document” are merely text, aren’t they – see The Concise Oxford Defn. 2.

Pete Ridley, There is not point having a rational conversation with you either now is there as you cannot even tell me why AGW is wrong!!!!!! You have no idea why it is wrong. Is this because you are anti science or just a very mistaken political and economic animal.

Tony, your ignorance is astounding. AGW was first studied by a swedish bloke in the 19th century. It hash been scientific fact since then and no one scientifically has refuted it and plenty have tried because that is how science works.

This is why Pete Ridley is so wrong in what he is trying to do. The paper that I have found printed in 2008 about the principles of the GHG effect has no references or anything. Does Pete Ridley want to post a link to the copy that he has please and we will see it if is fit for peer review. I take it that no journal will consider it suitable for peer review and hence there must be a reason for it, one which Mr Ridley is not coming forward with.

http://www.auscsc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=53

Dr John Nicols heads up a climate deniers site so he is not very objectively scientific now is he? This is the problem, he and others seem to overtly reject the sciene of AGW for some reason even though they have not followed the proper scientific path to knowledge.

The summary of Dr Nicols is not exactly painting him as a classic climate scientist or a exceptional physicist.

Dear Readers, since we are getting so much ill-informed criticism of Dr. Nicol I have asked him if he can make time to join in the debate here as well as challenge Realclimate to detail the flaws in his paper. That should help to remove concerns about peer review (Note 1).

You may be interested in coments he E-mailed me yesterday and today. QUOTE: This debate, if one can give it that description, is as you point out so well, purely political. Your reference to the IPCC report is very telling and I have of course also spent some time on reading through their descriptions of the modelling processes, concentrating more on Chapter 8 than Chapter 9. It beggars belief, that any one, let alone someone with an ounce of scientific training, could possibly place any faith whatsoever in the models, given the apologies for uncertainties contained in that chapter! In the end they admit that none of the output parameters appear to be accurate – BUT, “we are confident that the demonstrated temperature rise is correct” – or words to that effect. How on earth could they come to that conclusion when obviously ALL of the parameters, precipitation, clouds, convection etc are coupled together, that is of course, but for the temperature!!!! Total nonsense.

Unfortunately also, a number of people who should almost instinctively know better have entered this debate with comments which show they have a purely political agenda and no scientific interest, although in the two cases I am about to quote it is difficult to see they would have a monitory interest in pushing the myth. This relates first, to the claimed example of Venus as having a runaway green house effect with loads of CO2 and a very high temperature. I am about to send an email to an Emeritus Professor of Physics at Queensland University – my alma mater. David Whitehead was head of department for about ten years and admittedly his field was the ionosphere, not molecular physics or thermo dynamics. However, in a blog yesterday, in response to a letter in the Australian by Bill Kinninmonth, whom you probably also know, and in relation to Ian Plimer’s book of course, David repeats the incredible example of the “runaway green house effect on Venus” which one sees from time to time, pedalled by people who are struggling for the cause, claiming that the apparently very high (measured??) temperature on Venus,which David claims will melt lead, is caused by high levels of carbon dioxide. This is blatant nonsense since the temperature on Venus, in equilibrium with the sun, is not much higher than ours on earth – about 20% higher in fact. The fundamental fact is that to acquire a higher temperature from the sun alone, no matter what mantle may shroud it, contradicts one of the most fundamental principles of physics, the second law of thermodynamics which simply states that heat cannot of itself move from a colder to a warmer body. This is somewhere between first and second year physics and has been taught in some schools at grade 11 or 12!! If this were to be the case, we would obviously be able to produce perpetual motion. However this does not prevent its use a very effective piece of propaganda.

Secondly, Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at UNSW made the incredible comment recently (Australian 12/5 Letters) that the reason carbon dioxide is blamed for global warming is that its concentration in the atmosphere is “the only parameter that is rapidly increasing”!!! Since when did something’s rate of increase allow one to assign to it a physical causality, in this case global warming. One could go on and on. UNQUOTE

Lets hope we can get someone commenting on this blog who really understands the issues surrounding the human-made global warming hypothesis. I lool forward to Dr. Nicol’s contributions.

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

BTW Those of you who keep harping on about “peer review” should try reading (and understanding) “The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science by Horace Freeland Judson” – enjoy!

Pete Ridley, so AGW is a scientific fraud but all the other sciences are ok? This whole idea of being critical of peer review and hence the scientific process itself applies to all sciences but they are true I suppose as you are using science to argue against AGW and hence AGW is nonsense even though it has also followed the same standard scientific procedure as all of the other sciences. AGW theory is as good scientifically as relativity, quantum physics and thermodynamics.

Can you demonstrate otherwise through the correct scientific procedure?

Your arguments are in my opinion in error.

Pete Ridley,

once we’ve sorted out the issue of peer reviewing Dr. Nicol’s paper (Note 1) I’ll tackle Dr. Tsonosis’s paper.

So, your answer is “we´re working on it” (or is this a misinterpretation of your words?)

The greenhouse effect explanation is already past this phase, though. There are already lots of peer-reviewed papers confirming it for over a century now.

Again my question: why do you think it is so?

*I see you have ignored my invitation for assistance in getting peers to review Dr. Nicol’s paper (that his peers, not ours). It would help, but perhaps you don’t have any contacts who qualify. *

I encourage you to go on in your quest of getting it reviewed. I stress, though, that the science showing the anthropogenic greenhouse effect does not have to resort to seeking help on blogs to get their papers reviewed.

Why do you think it is so?

Just to add another example: here´s a published paper attributing the warming of the last decades to our interference in greenhouse gases, on NOAA´s website. You said a few days ago that “to suggest that NOAA sponsors the publication of fiction is going rather too far”. Have a look at this, then: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

Or, if you prefer a less technical text, you may have a look at this educational page of that same institution. It´s a global warming FAQ: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q10

Why do you think NOAA has this view, whereas Nicol´s paper is on a rural business website?

It’s as if there are people who post up comments who are desperate for the climate apocalype to happen. They won’t be able to rest until they see blood or reports of millions of refugees trawling from one continent to another. Then they can say “I told you so and you didn’t believe me”.

Well sorry but it just ain’t gonna happen folks. Sorry but that is just the way it is. I can provide you however with a war if you so wish. In all likelyhood it seems that over the next year or so an all-out war will ensue between The United States and its allies and North Korea.

This is not unfortunately a peer reviewed projection but then again such hypotheticals rarely are. They rely on ones use of common sense, lessons from history alongside an awareness of what is happening in the world.

Funny thing about peer reviewed material – they are not always correct in their theories or conclusions. Just because a few eggheads have read anothers research and told themselves that what they read is correct this does not automatically mean that their collective conclusion IS correct.

Well sorry but it just ain’t gonna happen folks.

Excellent, Tony.

So the summary is: peer review = rubbish your word = fate, just because you said so.

Keep it coming. Ellaborate on this one too. It would be fun. Above I asked you to post some more about other ideas of yours, with no response, unfortunately. Don´t get discouraged!

You know what they say, carp in, carp out.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Tony, come off it, you are forever just trying to convince the rest of us of something you are convinced of simply because you never even bothered to find out if the science was right in the first place.

You entire desire to demonstrate that AGW is nonsense if based on more nonsense. You make it all sound as if the scientists are not aware of the limitations of the stations and the measurements.

Hmmmn, Alexandre that was rather a rant wasn’t it?

If scientists are so aware of the limitations of the stations then pray why do they still use the spurious data that these stations record?

Dear readers, for those of you who keep harping on about the validity of climate science “consensus”, even staunch environmentalist Professor Barry Brook has to admit that “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. I particularly like the last part of his comment.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic

Pete Ridley,

And you “forgot” that Brook added

“But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem. It’s an unscientific and disingenuous claim. As is his oft repeated assertion that a single apparently contradictory piece of information axiomatically overturns all other lines of evidence.”

Tony,

Do you agree with those claims? Could you please tell us why do you think they deserve credibility?

I´m sure you would not say something is believable just because it claims what you want it to claim… Why, then?

Tony, the so called suprious data is handled by the statistical analysis used as part of the scientific method otherwise it would not have passed peer review. The hole thing is articuately documented and discussed over at realclimate in the latest thread. You and Pete Ridley should read it and learn something scientific.

Alexandre, its the way of deniers, they look for the little stuff in a vain attempt to thing they can bring down the AGW scientific edifice. Its just nonsense on their part to be fair but they can think what they wanna I suppose.

Dear Alexandre, I repeat the part of Professor Brook’s statement that is most significant “or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. Read the words carefully. We don’t know anything much about the most important aspect of climate change, the processes that drive it, i.e. those numerous factors which control climates. If we don’t know anything much useful about these control factors then how can we In my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” I concluded “Proposed reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling global climate change”. Perhaps I should have said “The current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers, therefore it’s an unscientific and disingenuous claim that the proposed reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels will do anything significant about controlling global climate change”.

Try reading more on that blog. the comment by Peter Ravenscroft on 30th April relating to uncertainty about processes is very interesting. The debate there is much more rational than what is going on here, but I will persist on all of them. We all have a lot to learn!

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

Pete Ridley, “We all have a lot to learn” – yes but you are not learning it from the scientists are you ?

You are assuming that because something may not be exactly right it all must be wrong. This unfortunately brings you into conflict with the previaling view of AGW science which is proven beyond all reasonable doubt (90% accurate). As complex science is often statistically driven then we must taken the consensus viewpoint and you unfortunately not seem to be doing that.

Pete Ridley,

In that context, you can see clearly that Brook is not saying we don´t know anything. It takes some effort in cutting some words out of context to conclude what you did.

But even if he had said that. He would be just wrong.

I have already posted a study comparing 17 years of IPCC projections compared with reality. They were correct. The limited science (it always is, after all) that shows AGW is accurate enough to make that kind of prediction. You conveniently skipped that subject (among others) and never answered.

I have added above information from NOAA – an institution you considered credible yourself – but no comments from you.

Maybe the only way to stay a denialist is to cling to small, out-of-context, or informal claims and selectively ignore all the science that shows what´s happening.

Alexandre, you really should try to understand the significance of Professor Brook’s statement. He acknowledges that “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. If, by this climate science expert’s own recognition, “the current consensus on some points of climate science is .. sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers” then I find it ludicrous to suggest that we can somehow create computer models (using mathematical models of processes and drivers that we don’t know much about) which can make worthwhile projections of future climates. The IPCC’s AR4 WG1 admits that climate models ”.. continue to have significant limitations” and “The possibility of developing model capability measures … has yet to be established.. ” yet the supporters of the significant human-made global climate hypothesis persist in claiminmg that the models are sound. You may be interested in the opinion expressed by physicist Dr. Phillip Bratby, posted yesterday to Jonathan Porritt’s “UK is Right to Trial Carbon Capture” blog QUOTE: I find the statement by Prof Ashley “Many independent, carefully validated computer models show that if you change CO2 by as much as we are doing, it will have a large warming effect. And if you don’t trust computers, you can fall back on the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases which is very well understood. The model predictions have been confirmed through many independent measurements of temperature and sea levels” to be complete nonsense. The models are not indepenedent and none has been validated. They all produce warming due to CO2 because of the use of an invalid assumption of positive feedback from water vapour and cloud. I suspect Ashley has no knowledge of of the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases or he wouldn’t make such a patently ludicrous statement (he’s an astronomer). I’m pretty sure 99% of the “climate scientists” contributing to the IPCC reports are not physicists and have no idea of the physics of the earth’s climate. UNQUOTE So, the science is settled, is it. Not according to sceptical scientists who know about such things. Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Pete Ridley,

Oh my, you really clinged to that sentence. Go ahead. I think that´s the best you´ve got.

Not according to sceptical scientists who know about such things.

Tell me Pete, are these “scientists” able to do science to contribute to the scientific process? Can they do something good enough to appear on a respected scientific journal or can they only post texts on a rural business website?

No words about Rahmstrof´s analysis? Or those NOAA webpages?

There are a lot of uncertainties in science, indeed there are but that does not make them wrong now does it and it does not mean throw it all away as you Pete Ridley seem to be stating in your posts to both me (in the past) and Alexandre now.

This is the main crux of the argument is it not? That there is uncertainty in the projections of AGW simulations and models and those projections are proving to be conservative in fact whilst the real world runs its own reality model and demonstrates to us that the political process in the IPCC tones things down. In the main the projections are correct, sea levels are rising, glaciers are thinning, arctic summer sea is is disappearing every year more than it normally would if GHG theory was no taken into account and the bernard cells are expanding increasing desertification.

Its just not an argument to be had regardless of the total accuracy of the models that you seem to require. No complex statistical science is that accurate but accurate enough that we can place faith in it.

Pete Ridley says: >> it gets very boring hearing the lay contributors to this blog harping on pseudo-sagely about “peer review”

Pete, do you have any personal experience with the peer review process for technical/scientific journals & conferences? I presume not. I do – not in climate science, but in one of my fields of expertise (audio signal processing) – and I can assure you that peer review is very effective at raising the quality of what gets published. It’s no guarantee of infallibility, but it raises the bar.

Here’s how it works: you write a paper, and you submit it to a journal. The editor sends it to reviewers. The reviewers give their brutally honest appraisal of the paper. Even in the best papers, they’ll find flaws. If the flaws are big enough, the reviewers will likely recommend that the paper be rejected. If the paper is basically sound, but has minor flaws, the reviewers may recommend that it be considered for publication after those problems have been addressed. A paper may go through many revisions before the reviewers and editor finally give the green light. It’s hard work, both for the reviewers and the authors. (I’ve been on both sides of the process – i.e. being reviewed, and serving as a reviewer).

Key point to note: papers don’t get published in journals until they’ve gone through peer-review.

In the case of Dr. Nicol’s paper, it appears that he “published” it on the web, then invited some scientists to criticize it. You assume that since nobody has bothered to criticize it, it must be valid. That’s a very strange assumption!

Think about it – why would working scientists even bother criticizing Nicols paper? They’ve got enough work to do on their own research, writing papers, attending conferences, teaching (if they’re university profs). Reviewing / criticizing the work of other scientists who are using the accepted process (i.e. submitting papers to peer-reviewed scientific journals and real conferences) is a lot of extra (unpaid) work already, but at least it’s part of the process… unlike reviewing (normally rebutting) every random bit of climate pseudo-science posted on the web is tedious and repetitive. For a climate scientist’s perspective, check out the latest post on RealClimate.org: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/langswitch_lang/in

Getting back to the question of peer-review… What sources would you trust more? Ones that have gone through (or at least are based on and cite) peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or postings that have been “published” on the net with no peer-review whatsoever?

On that note, I’ll bow out of this discussion… as I have some real work to get on with!

Gerry (Beauregard), “I presume not”!! Be wary of presumptuous statements. I too have experienced the peer review process for publication of papers in learned society (The IEE) journals.

Regards, Pete R

I see Marks mate the veritable moonbat is at it again. Possibly the biggest fool on the planet in respect to this issue because he is one of the useful idiots who isn’t making millions out of the scam. What a nutter eh? You would think that rubbing shoulders with the rest of the twerps who believe in AGW he would think to himself “Hmmn how can I make some filthy wonga too?”.

But no he has relegated himself to making desperate, ad hominem attacks on the realists without engaging in serious debate which he knows he would lose hands down.

Check out the comments, it’s a hoot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

Dear readers, I hope you don’t feel that I have been neglecting you recently, but I’ve been debating on bravenewclimate and await a response from Professor Brook regarding his acknowledgement “that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. He’s usually quite quick at responding to questions and comments on climate change from people like myself (in numerous occasions within the hour), but in this instance I’m still waiting after a couple of days. Perhaps his comment on processes and drivers was a Gordon Brown” slip of the tounge (remember “we saved the world”). Gordon probably genuinely believes what slips out and I suspect that Professor Brook does also but is reluctant to admit it.

Here’s a follow-up on recent comments about peer review. In his “expert’s” guide to the peer review process by journals Gerry (Beauregard) overlooks the following deficiencies in it. 1) The jounal editors select reviewers “in camera” on the basis of the journal’s own agenda. 2) The reviewers undertake their reviews to a depth that depends upon the time and interest they have at their disposal. 3) The reviewers give their appraisals as honestly as their vested interests allow. 4) Even in the worst of papers some reviewers will overlook flaws, either accidentally or deliberately. 5) Even if there are no flaws, if it is in a reviewer’s interest an attempt will be made to have it rejected 6) The author is given no idea of who has reviewed the paper or who made specific comments. Yes, I do appreciate, also as one who has been on both sides of the process, that it can be extremely difficult if not impossible to get a contentious paper published. Galileo encountered enormous peer review rejection of his findings (http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html) but he wasn’t wrong, was he! I also appreciate how peer review can totally fail to identify misrepresentation (anyone who read the “4Q2” article published in Wirless World will understand).

I could do worse than quote a submission on the subject from Professor Ian Entng (a staunch supporter of both the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis and the “significant AGW” hypothesis – see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)

QUOTE: However, for actually getting a paper taken seriously, publication in a peer reviewed journal is important, but .. isn’t sufficient. Maureen Christie did a PhD at Melbourne, published by CUP as The Ozone layer: A philosophy of science perspective that tracked through the history of the real scientific debates, especially over the ozone hole: solar or dynamics or chemistry. And then how, after the science was settled (i.e. the main proponents of other ideas accepted the evidence of chemistry) a political debate was continued using old discredited arguments. One thing she pointed out was that poor stuff that got through the peer review process often just got ignored, rather than anyone taking the time to refute it. Putting this another way, the most important form of peer review is not the bit that is done at the time of publication, but the ongoing review by the scientific community. UNQUOTE

It is the last two sentences that are significant here. Questionable scientific hypotheses get through the peer review process and are used by propagandists and others (e.g. environmentalists and politicians) to influence public opinion. The ongoing scientific review of all hypotheses is vital and the Internet is a wonderful tool for achieving this. Professor Enting is himself running an informal peer review of sceptical scientist Professor Ian Pliming’s book “Heaven and Earth” formally launched in April. Professor Barry Brook (whom I quoted on 4th and 5th June), another staunch supporter of the two hypotheses, says (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/) that this book claims to show that “The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.”

Regards, pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic PS: Alexandre, Professor Ian Plimer is one of those many “sceptical scientists who know about such things”.

Pete Ridley, it aint perfect (what is) but you still have to do it if you want to have a scientific leg to stand on.

1) The jounal editors select reviewers “in camera” on the basis of the journal’s own agenda.

... and that´s where the conspiracy theory comes in: virtually all major scientific journals in the world are colluded in a plot to convey a “lie”.

One thing she pointed out was that poor stuff that got through the peer review process often just got ignored, rather than anyone taking the time to refute it. Putting this another way, the most important form of peer review is not the bit that is done at the time of publication, but the ongoing review by the scientific community.

Exactly. The science that shows AGW has passed this test. The “other”... has not.

Professor Ian Plimer is one of those many “sceptical scientists who know about such things”

I see. Again that answer: was he able to do some work that is good enough to be published in a respectable scientific journal? What did he claim in that paper?

No words about Rahmstorf´s analysis? NOAA? Maybe too busy lately?

Hi Peter (Ridley), apologies for assuming you had no experience with peer review. From your previous comments, I honestly got the impression that you had no experience or understanding of it (especially when you said ”...I have to assume that Dr. Nicol’s peers can find no criticism of his analysis, therefore it must be valid…”).

As for myself, I don’t claim to be an “expert” in the peer-review process, only that I do have some experience in it and can see that it’s effective despite its flaws.

Maybe it would be good to tone things down a bit, and figure out what (if anything) people on this site do agree on. Maybe then we can begin to see where opinions diverge.

I’ll start with something from the IPCC AR4 SPM. Does anyone disagree with this statement?

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”. [“very likely” means ”> 90% probability” in IPCC-speak]

Unless people agree with that, there’s not much point discussing, say, what the impact of X degrees of warming would be, or whether it’s worth trying to prevent it.

Gerry (Beauregard), it’s good to hear the voice of reason again, but I suspect you’re doomed to failure with some subscribers. When I first started posting back in November last year I had one hope, to move the debate along in a respectful manner, without insults, just sensible open debate. I refer you to my posts on Mark’s “World Saved .. ” and “A Green New Era” as well as Jonathan Porritt’s “Green New Deals” etc. I also tried repeatedly to get one contributor to respond to several very simple questions with simple “Y” “N” responses in order to establish what were the saources of our disagreement. I received not a single answer.

OK, we should try again, so I’m all for it and hope it works this time, but let’s stick to science if we can, not politics. The IPC SPM’s are not scientific documents. Please use the scientific report from AR4 WG1, which contains far fewer political distortions.

I think you are missing one of the main points of the sceptical argument, which is that there is no overwhelming evidence that humans are the cause of significant global warming or significant global climate change, rather that the changes that are being claimed to occurr are due to natural causes beyond human control. This is why I am so eager to get Professor Brook to clarify his statement that I’ve referenced above several times. If he, a dedicated supporter of the AGW hypothesis acknowledges our ignorance of climate processes and drivers how is it plausible (or scientific) to claim what you quote from the SPM.

Regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic.

Well Gerry, in the interests of transparency it is vital for us all to at least discover the names of the scientists and their qualifications who sit on the IPCC. Without that as a starting position then there is not much point in going further into the discussion. I have yet to find out a complete list of these experts. Provide us with a full list and perhaps we can move on. After all when “sceptical” scientists provide us with their side of the argument your side are the first to tell us that so and so is in the pay of big oil or some type of corporation who benefits from carbon. The same cannot be said of these anonymous types on the IPCC. I mean let’s face it, those who push the AGW position are not climate experts. The list is long and includes Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, The Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Nicholas Stern, The BBC environmental correspondents (all of them), Hilary Benn, Ed Milliband…..........etc etc etc.

Pound to a penny you won’t be able to provide us with a full list.

Hi Peter, that’s fine, we can stick to the science. The bit I quoted, though, doesn’t have any political slant to it – it’s just a statement, presented as “very likely” fact. You disagree with the statement, at least in its entirety.

Maybe we can agree on parts of it. Which of these statements do you agree/disagree with? - Global average temperatures have increased since the mid-20th century. - Concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) have increased since the mid-20th century. - Much of that increase in GHG concentrations is due to human activity. - The increase in global average temperature is primarily due to the increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

My guess is that the only point you disagree with is the last one, but I may be wrong.

Phwee, that a lot of “one question at a time”! I agree that it is claimed, based upon the limited global data available, that the mean global: 1) surface temperature may have increase by less than 0.8 degrees C over the past 160 years (Met Office Hadley Centre Observations Dataset), 2) lower troposphere concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases appears to have increased over the past 60 years (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14179235/NIPCC-Report), 3) an uncertain portion of this increase in CO2 is possibly the result of human use of fossil fuel , 4) there are numerous possible reasons for the claimed increase in mean global temperature (see 1 above).

Does that help?

BTW, Alexandre asked some time ago for a possible cause of the apparent small global mean temperature increase. I had wondered about that other, much closer, source of global surface heating, the earth’s core (about the same temperature of the sun, I understand, generating heat energy via the same physical mechanism). In pursuing my debate on Professor Brook’s blog I came across this interesting “sceptical scientists who know about such things” (http://www.pool.org.au/image/peter_ravenscroft/a_bridge_too_far_for_thought)

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

Dear Pete Ridley, go and post on real climate (run by NASA GISS scientists and others) in your vain attempts to convert people to the dark side of science (anti science).

Here is a paragrpah from their latest peice:

However, recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions – all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Plimer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made-up ‘facts’ in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling – and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn’t something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background. (As an aside this is a good video description of the now-classic Dunning and Kruger papers on how the people who are most wrong are the least able to perceive it).

It says it all: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/

They are what you need to come up against. Please post there and see if you get a reply from them. Its time you posted where the scientists do!

Pete Ridley,

I had wondered about that other, much closer, source of global surface heating, the earth’s core (about the same temperature of the sun, I understand, generating heat energy via the same physical mechanism).

Go ahead. Any consistent scientific data that supports that? Or just wondering?

Pete Ridley, thanks for responding to that series of questions. It’s very helpful – I’m now getting more clear how early the divergence of opinion starts!

If I understand you correctly, you agree that C02 is a GHG (from a post regarding Nicol’s paper); that CO2 concentrations have increased since mid-20th century; and that temperatures have increased since the mid-20th century – but you believe the increase in temperatures is mainly due to factors other than increased GHG concentrations, perhaps a recent increase in heat generated by fusion in the earth’s core.

Is my understanding of your position correct?

........

Slightly different topic: I just finished reading “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming”. Worthwhile read. He doesn’t dispute anthropogenic global warming; mainly he discusses how to respond to it, and whether there are better ways to spend our money than to reduce CO2 emissions.

From the Foreward to the Vintage Books Edition: “Indeed, we need to get around the double facts that 1) global warming is both true and man-made, but 2) dramatic and fast CO2 cuts are a poor way to deal with global warming and an extremely poor way to help the worl and its inhabitants”.

Lomborg and Lynas disagree on a lot, to the point that Lynas famously threw a pie in Lomborg’s face in 2001. But it seems they would both disagree with folks who claim that recent global warming is not anthropogenic.

Deep geomagnetic shifts as the driver, anyone? Start at the link, perhaps with the climate change for preschool kids’ kit.

Regards,

Peter

Gerry (Beauregard), you’re nearly correct in what you understand as being part of my position. A more accurate understanding would be that I believe the increases and decreases in temperatures since the mid-20th century, along with the steadily reducing rate of increase suggested by the mean global annual temperature statistically derived from the best available global temperature measurements (including the decrease during the past 10 years) are mainly due to processes and forcings other than increased GHG concentrations, apart from perhaps water vapour. (I remind you of the comment by Professor Brook about our poor understanding of processes and forcings that change climates). Perhaps a recent increase in heat generated by fusion in the earth’s core is one of those processes and forcings (and could well be the cause of localised sea warming and ice-melt) but there are others, such as the “Deep geomagnetic shifts ” mentioned above by “one of those scientists who know such things”, Peter Ravenscroft. (Of course, level of knowledge is always relative. I recall Professor Sir Michael Howard saying just last year “the more you know, the more you realise how ignorant you are”, which applies to most if not all disciplines, including those .) I hope that mouthful helps, but it looks as though we may, at long last, be able to move the debate on Mark Lynas blogs forward in an open and non-insulting manner. Too many bloggers simply throw insults at each other, which gets nobody anywhere.. Yes, I also found Bjorn Lomborg’s book a worthwhile read, however, “He doesn’t dispute anthropogenic global warming” because he is not a scientist (something else he shares with Mark Lynas – and Jonathan Porritt), he’s an economist. Their opinions, or those of any other non-scientist (like you and I), are just that, while even the informed opinions of scientists are open to question. (“Electric Universe” scientists are challenging the Big Bang hypothesis and Einstein’s relativity, are they not – see http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df&keywords=big%20bang#dest for some exciting ideas. Even the Royal Society is publicising a book “Electric Universe – How Electricity Switched on the Modern World”. The less the scientists understand about a subject, the more questions there are (I refer you again to Professor Brook’s comment on climate science quoted previously). I didn’t know until this afternoon that Bjorn Lomborg had once been a member of Greenpeace. I’ve just found this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7730449.stm). QUOTE:”The environmental groups are as irrelevant now as they ever were. Bjorn Lomborg realised this when he jumped ship from Greenpeace to write his own book that sensibly looked at the issues. All the environmental groups just want us propelled back into the dark ages, if we spent a tiny fraction of what we currently spend in a more guided way we could make a far bigger difference to society. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a busted flush created by a left wing environmental movement who saw it as the perfect issue since, according to them, it can only be fixed by massive reductions in consumption. If they genuinely thought it was a problem they would be supporting Nuclear and Carbon Capture actively rather than banging on the same old tired drum” UNQUOTE I don’t agree with the bits about “created by” (he overlooked the political motives relating to the security of energy supply and tax revenues) or Carbon Capture but the rest is fine. Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Gerry Beauregard,

I have read the earlier “Skeptical Environmentalist”. Well, actually I have just read some chapters I was more interested in.

He cuts the data as he pleases to make up his argument. The part that he claims there has been virtually no forest area loss in the last 50 years is the “best”, in my opinion.

There has been a trial in Denmark´s Ministry of Science in wich Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. The veredict was that: - the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is scientifically biased and dishonest - Lomborg is not guilty, because of is lack of expertise in the fields in question.

Not very flattering.

Here´s a text on the Independent about the episode:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/bestselling-scourge-of-the-greens-accused-of-dishonesty-601110.html

Hi Alexandre, thanks for the link. Lomborg’s treatment of some numbers in “Cool It” is rather suspect too. Nonetheless, I think Lomborg makes some valid points, e.g. that money should be spent in ways that do the most good, and that while global warming is definitely a big problem, it’s not the only problem the world can and should tackle this century. IMO, it’s worth reading… but take whatever Lomborg says with a pinch (or bag?) of salt :-)

Pete Ridley, Fusion in the earths core! Are you sure about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor

Its disputed and cannot be taken as fact. Far from it as the earths core consists of mainly Iron, the end process of fusionable reactions.

I think there is some confusion about earth core temperature and fusion. The earth core temperature is more or less the same as sun SURFACE temperature, around 5500°C, which is way too low for nuclear fusion. To compare the sun CORE temperature is of 15*10^6 °C with huge densities allowing for nuclear fusion. Earth mantel and core is mainly heated by nuclear decays (not same as fission). There is maybe some fission process in the core contributing, but this is an unproven hypothesis.

wincz, thatnks for your help on this.

Regards, Pete Ridley, H-MGCCA

Pete Ridley, the problem is that it is you who is not listening to rational scienticic knowledge but posting monologues of nonsense about the subject matter.

When it comes to the science you seem to make statements about the environmentalist movement using data from Bjorn Lombourg and others who are known to have been very incorrect in their assertions and knwoledge but you keep on bringing it up.

You then attempt to turn it upon us (the so called rational scientific types) who you call religous and fanatical. You entire attempts to argue against AGW is just not arguable here and hence I would suggest that you go to real climate and attempt to debate there where the scientists reside so you can see if your analysis is tolerated.

This ‘Six degrees’ article was also published in the Dutch version of National Geographic Junior (aimed at kids). As parents we were very unhappy with it. Lynas essentially tells children that they have no future. He scares the hell out of them. If his predictions were right (which we do not believe in the slightest) then grownups ought to solve these problems instead of educating the children to little green soldiers. Luckily, though too late the editor in chief of NGJ has agreed with our protests and has distanced himself from a ‘very pessimistic theory that children can do nothing with. It is unjustly presented as truth’. How about donating the money you made with that piece to Warchild.org Mark?

Theo Richel, Which predictions do you not believe in the slightest exactly?

I am sure that parents should solve these problems but do your countries children not get driven anywhere, turn on the central heating in the winter to keep warm, never use an aeroplane, never cook their food with gas or electricity, get given gifts for birthdays and xmas made of plastic using energy from fossil fuels to make them and transport them to you, eat food which has a very large scale energy input to produce them etc etc etc.

Its a difficult situation but all adults should be out there trying to reduce CO2 emissions for the future generations or else the kids future will not be as rosy as your has been. Fossil fuels have a limited future anyway as they are all approaching the economic limits of affordability so we need alternatives but most of all we need changes in our culture to use less energy and live more efficienctly.

Its just a bit of a situation that we could do without but fossil fuels were always only going to last so long.

Which prediction I do not believe in? Well none actually, but simply start with the polar bear. He is thriving currently and I do not believe that a temperature increase of less than 2 degrees will harm him . If it does: how about migrating him to the southpole, plenty of space there. But I am not convinced that there is a climate crisis. CO2 keeps getting up but temperatures are not. CO2 has an effect on climate, no doubt about that, but other fenomena are more important. Besides it looks like negative feedback effects are way more important than positive, see the latest from Lindzen. I do not intend to decrease my CO2 production. It helps to grow food, and for future energy supply I would say let the market decide. Price is what matters most and I suppose that will amount to a choice between coal or nuclear. Both perfectly allright with me, but stop scaring the hell out of our children. I tell them to switch of the light because the electricity has to be paid for, not because of some greenhouse astrology.

Well said Theo, well said. It’s great to hear from more sensible people on this forum – I was starting to despair.

Theo (Richel), I’m with you all the way. Did you know that the UK government had its hand slapped for issuing to schools copies of Al Gore’s seriously flawed film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. A London High Court judge, aware of errors in the film, indicated that the Government’s distribution of the film had been an unlawful contravention of the 1996 Education Act prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

The Netherlands has some experience of protecting itself against rising sea levels, I believe. IF nature changes its mind and MAYBE starts raising mean global temperatures again (unlike over the past decade) and IF mean global sea levels rise significantly then you guys will be well place to help the few countries (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/) that MIGHT need to take action BUT that MAYBE won’t happen.

Oh dear, here I go again with all of those IFs, BUTs and MAYBEs. I’m starting to sound just like a climate scientist.

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

Theo, I cannot really see what polar bears have got to do with the science but can you post your evidence of temperatures not warming. The science states that on relevant and meaningful statistical time levels decadal warming is still 0,19C (0.2C) as predicted.

Polar sea ice is well below nominal levels each summer as predicted by the science to. 2009 is presently as low as the previous record of 2007, quite lot below the 1979-2000 average.

Mr Ridley, not more WUWT nonsense from you. You can never sound like a climate scientits as you do not have the integrity that they do.

Tony, your despair is odd as you have read no science, just lots of misleading politics and anti science.

Pete: you ask me which prediction I do not believe and I told you that I didnt believe any and I started with the first your leader offered us, which was about polar bears. Lynas thinks they will become ‘homeless’ and I supposed that was based on science, but from your reaction I gather that this prediction has nothing to do with science. That is a bad sign.

I am not going to post evidence on the absence of warming. You belong to the people who say that there is a problem. It is you who needs to show proof. I have not seen signals of any global (that means all over the world, Pete!) warming in the past 10-15 years, and your references to ‘the science states etc.. do really strike me as odd. I know that some scientists do say so, but I do not understand you promoting these individuals to be The Voice Of Science. As far as I am concerned they are a vocal minority that have been able for some time to convince politicians, but they are losing ground fast. Your statement: ‘The science states that on relevant and meaningful statistical time levels decadal warming is still 0,19C (0.2C) as predicted’, is hilarious and I couldnt have given a better example when I mentioned greenhouse astrology. After a failure to predict the direct future (I mean the past 10 years which were supposed to bring warmer temperatures) you flatly claim that you know what will happen afterwards. You really make it too easy so I will help you: you cannot prove anything about the future. If there is one thing that we have learned from the past then it is that the future cannot be predicted. Also: the way you talk about ‘science’ suggests that it is some secret holy medicine, which you have taken, but others have not. That is nonsense Pete, science should be simple and transparant. If a thermometer does not go up that means it is not getting warmer. Everybody can see that. If some ‘scientist’ needs incomprehensible and usually uncontrollable statistical exercises to nevertheless be able to claim that there is warming you have to be very suspicious. Steve McIntyre has shown that conclusively. And that was deadly: many people simply do not believe climate scientists anymore.

Theo, Pete is still waiting for moving pavements to take him to the shop (or the nearest kool aid outlet). He is also holding out buying a car and has done for some years in the forlorn hope that flying (green electric) cars will spirit him to work in the mornings. You are quite right in your fisking of his response – couldn’t have put it better myself.

I read with some glee news regarding the upcoming Copenhagen treaty with the prospect of an agreement further away than ever. I hope my expectations will not be dashed though following last minute meetings in non smoked filled rooms coming to some sort of last minute deal to fark up things for us all in terms of the world economy and energy policies. Anything the greenies touch when it comes to these matters spells disaster and a massive hit to the wallets of nations and individuals pockets.

Theo, Well seeing as you are quoting Steve Mcintyre then I know you are probably a plant as he has not climate science credentials and no work that has been peer reviewed. He is as believeble as you are I am afraid. 10 – 15 years is not statistically scientific. Fortunately for the world the IPCC has greater credentials than the politically paranoid as yourself and Tony come over to me anyway.

0.19c is correct from the climate science, sorry but you have no scientific stand point to stand on once again I am afraid. Science is not simple and transparant it is predictive, that is science. Climate science makes predictions and as yet it is more correct than not statistically. Statistical science is perfectly valid and on sound footing. Physics and chemistry are the bedrock of climate science and hence very sound. You will be telling me next that it is all made up and hence an agenda, if only this were true.

Is the IPCC a vocal minority in climate science then ?

Tony, I am not green m8, there is not magic to resolve the issues of fossil fuels usage and climate change. The figures of energy usage speak for themselves, the BP energy review and the IEAs to speak volumes. I suggest you read them but my suggestion will not be listened to. That much is true.

I do not know why 10-15 years of non warming would have to be significant. It pleases me though that you do not deny anymore that they happened. But do not overinterpret this. Anything may happen in the future: it may warm and it may cool or remain stable for some time. The only thing that we know for sure is that for these past 10-15 years your supposedly scientific predictions have failed. CO2 has continued to increase and warming hasnt. The talk about significance only serves to suggest that there is or is not enough proof to talk of climate change. But that is not the point here, what is important is that the past 10-15 years didnt heat up as predicted. That’s lethal.

By the way: science is a way of viewing facts or what passes as facts with utmost skepticism, one might say even paranoia. It has been shown time and again that that method has way better chances of getting to the truth then your obedient and credulous attitude . Is the word ‘authority’ for you enough to bow humbly, would it make life easier if IPCC scientists could be recognized by uniforms? You really thinkl they are some sort of gods don’t you? Government appointed gods. ‘Statistical science is perfectly valid’ you say, and I completely agree with you. However you seem to confuse ‘perfectly valid’ with ‘always right’. May I remind you that one of the big men in statistical science, prof Wegman in evaluating the hockeystick science had some verye hars words for your climate scientists. It is too late to look it up now, but I remember it was something like being completely disconnected from the statistical science community.

Theo, the heat has turned up as predicted, beyond that of natural variability, ie AGW. It is in the oceans and hence continued decadal warming for another 30 years is guaranteed. 0.19c per decade in line with the scientific projections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

You mean all of this. Plenty of criticism on both sides but balance of evidence in favour of Mann.

Wikipedia is on this particular subject just as controversial as the hockeystick itself, so not very useful as a source. Anyway no reason whatsoever for government measures. Dozens of other subjects are more important. Plenty of time and browse back smiling through the many many predictions in the past 30 years that we were running out of time getting past oh so many ‘tipping points’. I do think however that we have passed one tipping point: that is of the credibility of AGW. It is true: governments still seem to believe you, but that is only because once a government has a policy it is seldom discontinued openly, it has to fade away. But ‘Kopenhagen’ will possibly a ‘tipping point’ ;-). Well let’s now just wait for Mark’s new book. Does it already have a title? How about ‘Emergency science: what to do when you children are having fun’.

The hockey stick is ancient climate history and you probably did not like what you read anyway so as a denier just ignore it and carry on denying, its easy that way and sciene should be ignored except for when it improves our lives and not when it gives us a warming sign. We should ignore that because our kids will stop having fun and so will we.

Thats a pretty all or nothing conclusion and not very rational. As for tipping points, do some science and less media and you will probably learn something about climate science. Tipping points could arise but the earth system has a lot of inertia and we have time to turn back the clock of carbon emissions.

To anyone looking for signals of global warming in the past 10-15 years (Theo?), take a look at this graph from the NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) for January-December Global Mean Temperature over Land and Ocean:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

The strong rising trend over the last 30 years or so is rather hard to miss.

See also the NOAA’s report for 2008: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/ann08.html “The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth. [...] The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.”

See also the NASA 2008 report: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ It puts 2008 as the ninth warmest year on record (since 1880), and says the ten warmest years all occured within the 12-year period 1997-2008.

Theo, while you looking at the graph that Gerry points to, take note also of the last 10 years. No significant rising temperature there, is there, and I wouldn’t call that 0.25 centigrade degree rise over the past 30 years (of course, that is if we can depend upon the data and the statistical manipulation to which that data is subjected) a “strong rising trend” as Gerry suggests. Why should we get all excited because one year (2008) is claimed to be the eighth warmest in 130 years or that the ten warmest years all occurred within the 12-year period 1997-2008. This is only weather, as a certain individual posting comments here keeps mentioning (e.g. “stop this nonsense please, you know full well that 10 year is weather and not climate”.

Although a non-scientist may claim that “continued decadal warming for another 30 years is guaranteed. 0.19c per decade in line with the scientific projections” I don’t see any scientists predicting anything of the sort. Even the IPCC does not make predictions and is quite adamant about that. It merely makes projections based upon implausible scenarios (which it imposed on the scientists). Why does the IPCC not make predictions? Because, as Professor Brook, a staunch supporter of the “significant human-made global warming” hypothesis has clearly said “the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. Without knowing anything useful about climate processes and drivers we cannot possible predict climate change. We may be able to project global temperature change based upon our limited knowledge of the processes and drivers of global temperatures, but we have no science that can reliably predict changes to global climates.

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

I wouldn’t call that 0.25 centigrade degree rise over the past 30 years [...] a “strong rising trend”

If you’re looking at the same graph as I am… http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif ...it’s much closer to 0.5C over the past 30 years.

Gerry, Dont worry Pete Ridley obviosuly cannot read a graph or understand the understand 0.2C per decade projections of the IPCC ( it is there and it is a correct projection due to the thermal inertia of the oceans).

Its wrong then is it Pete or is that uncertain maybe ? LOL, you have got to make your mind up and stop speaking for the scientists will you. You just keep on taking the deniers line and telling us all about that.

I would post another link to real climate but there is no point, it will never be read.

Gerry, I’ll settle for about 0.35 centigrade for the period 1979 to 2009, but would not get into a heated argument about a mere 0.15 degrees (by the way, I use the Hadley Centre graphs at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/). These small temperature changes have made little difference to global climates. Even the claimed 0.6 degrees during the 20th century has had no significant impact.

Claimed changes to mean global temperatures do not equate to actual changes in global climates, the causes of which we know so little. As Prof. Barry Brook so eloquently puts it “There are a lot of uncertainties .. and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is .. at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. If we don’t understand the basic climate processes and drivers then obviously we cannot reliably predict future climates. The IPCC categorically states that “Models continue to have significant limitations” and makes it absolutely clear in Chapter 8 of AR4 WG1 that the model projections, although plausible (i.2. seemingly reasonable), are highly unreliable, e.g. QUOTE:.

Assessments of our relative confidence in climate projections from different models should ideally be based on a comprehensive set of observational tests that would allow us to quantify model errors in simulating a wide variety of climate statistics, including simulations of the mean climate and variability and of particular climate processes. The collection of measures that quantify how well a model performs in an ensemble of tests of this kind are referred to as ‘climate metrics’.. . A number of diagnostic tests have been .. but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed. UNQUOTE

Environmentalists and politicians deliberately ignore the IPCC’s statements about the unreliability of the climate change projections from computer models that are based upon such uncertain science. For Governments to claim to be using these projections to guide their policy-making is simply dishonest. They have other (not-so-well) hidden agendas (see my comments of 12th June on Jonathan Porritt’s blog “Nuclear Comes Clean”.

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

You are right Pete B, ever since they defended the Gore nonsense I have scrapped RealClimate from my list of reliable sources. RealClimate is a dangerous sect. It is funny, this is supposed to be a list about the gruesome future that awaits us, and all you guys are doing is defending a few scientists who claim to have found a minute rise of temperature. They cannot proof that it is because of CO2, they cannot proof any consequences of it, but you are clearly so obsessed with this that it just doesnt matter how many people are currently suffering and dying from other causes, you have decided that there is only one problem on this planet that deserves attention, and that is some vague unspecified uncommitted crime of the future for which you already have found the perpetrator. I will do whatever I can to prevent your green police stat becoming reality.

Theo, yes we shoulf ignore peer reviewed scientists in the earth science realm and they are obviosuly liars and have a vested interest in keeping their job I suppose? Its time for you to wake up and study the science.

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

its 0.2C per decade (well 0.19C) in actual fact regardless of what you say and Pete Ridley because iI will trust the scientific method and not the nonsensical blogosphere of sites such as WUWT and Climate Audit who attempt to smear valid and peer reviewed science.

The next thing you will be telling me is that the Arctic summer sea ice loss is due to natural variability and not GHG emissions and land use changes.

You can spout all you like and not listen to the 300 + or peer review papers completed by GISS but that reminds me of Ostrich.

Pete (Best), you really should read more widely. Your one and only reference to any proof in the ridiculous warmist argument always points us back to realclimate. If you use internet explorer you are able to use a button called favorites which will enable you to find other websites which give the opposing view and you can go back to those sites which are usually updated very regularly.

For your convenience I have listed a few here for you to peruse at you undoubted leisure.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

http://climatedepot.com/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Just a few to get you started. If you get bored or want any other links (there are hundreds out there by REAL scientists just let me know.

Tony, used to go to all of those odd ball anti science right wing sites (joke) but they were useless and stated nothing objective. Realclimate and climate progress diss the alarmists as well as the deniers and tell it as the science says. Objective you see.

Pete B: You must be confused. At one point you say study the science and refer to a blog (RC) and next you talk about the nonsensical blogosphere.

Can you refer me to a publication (not a blog) that proves that the disappearance of ice from the Arctic is caused by human emitted CO2? As far as I know it is caused by some regional warming and according to Nasa also for a large extent through changed winds and currents that had nothing to do with warming. But show me that ultimate paper that shows: human emitted CO2 melts polar ice.

And another thing: you seem to confuse Peer Review with Pope Review. The first is a human thing which implies errors (and some fraud), the second is unquestionably holy and no errors are made there Pete. I think you are a Pope Review adept. I never said to do away with peer review, but if you follow it as unquestioning as you do, then you treat the peers as popes and that amounts to asking for fraud.

But Pete, there is work to do: the publication that proves that the arctic melts because of CO2 emitted by humans.

Theo, Peer review is just the start but you cannot avoid it if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific method and process.

Its a prediction of GHG/AGW theory, that more warming takes place in the high northern latitudes. If CO2 had not increased by 100 ppm then the summer sea ice would not be disappearing at all, it would be as per normal. Therefore you perspective is not correct for currents and wind change due in part to this warming. Pulses of warmer water niblle at the ice from beneath and it is thinning and shrinking in the summer. Its all down to additional heat that comes from the GHG effect.

So I suggest that your good self rather than berating the scientific process learn from it and trust it but you can’t. Quantum physics and relativity are fine as they allow you a more materialsitic lifestyle not less so ye haw eh but AGW/GHG theory must be wrong because it is going to take it all away from me (sniff). That is the line you are taking theo.

Pete I asked for proof, not for your personal ideas. About the importance of currents you can read here: Nghiem, S. V., I. G. Rigor, D. K. Perovich, P. Clemente-Colo´n, J. W. Weatherly, and G. Neumann (2007), Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L19504, doi:10.1029/2007GL031138.

Now, please produce your proof that the warming in that area (yes there has been some) was caused by human CO2. And your attempts to explain my psychology or my materialistic lifestyle are a waste of energy, you know nothing about them. But it is informative to hear – most warmers usually deny that – the policies you guys propose are going to make us all alot poorer.

Theo (Richel), there are many confused supporters of the “Significant Human-made Global Climate Change” hypothesis. Many non-scientists blindly accept the political and environmentalist propaganda surrounding this issue, an act of faith just like the acceptance of religious beliefs. On Sunday I was debating with a well-educated and intelligent individual, who is nearing the end of the Forum for the Future’s course, Masters in Leadership in Sustainability. That individual had swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker and could only declare “The science proves it”, without having any real understanding of the science upon which this opinion was based.

This is at the root of why we make no progress in the debate with those supporters of the hypothesis who have put on their blinkers and refuse to budge from their positions. Those people consider it perfectly reasonable to insist on the sceptics using only arguments that have been through the (flawed) peer review process (as though that process sanctifies the argument) while they themselves use the arguments of any self-declared “climate science expert” (such as those running RealClimate). As long as the argument supports the hypothesis then it is considered valid. Sceptical arguments are rejected out of hand, using whatever arguments sound plausible. If nothing else is available then its from someone who is “in the pay of the energy companies”, “a paid member of the denialist club“, merely “a coal chemist retired“, “not a climate scientist”, or any other irrelevant argument. Reasoned debate is an anathema.

Dr. John Nicol, a physicist who is a hypothesis sceptic, has published a paper on the Internet showing that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations above a value lower than present day values has negligible impact on global temperatures. He recently said that the only reason CO2 is being fingered as the cause of the claimed small global warming trend during the past 150 years is that there was nothing else that the scientists could find that might account for it. Scientists who have given their full support to the hypothesis will lose so much prestige when it is proven to be flawed that they will do their utmost to cast doubt upon alternative arguments. It’s all about self-preservation.

The sceptical scientists don’t have this problem as their careers don’t depend upon preserving the hypothesis. Of course, the politicians and the environmentalist have their own agendas which justify supporting the hypothesis.

As I mentioned again on 15th, scientists cannot provide reliable projections of future climates based upon such uncertain science. That is fact. As well as atmospheric CO2 concentration, other factors (as yet poorly if at all understood) are the processes and drivers of global climates. It will be many decades before scientists have a decent understanding of these factors.

The most important compound involved in controlling global climates is water, in all of its forms. As was concluded in the recent paper “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming” (http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf) “Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined. The indirect and substantial role of the oceans in causing the recent continental warming emphasizes the need to generate reliable projections of ocean temperature changes over the next century, in order to generate more reliable projections of not just the global mean temperature and precipitation changes (Barsugli et al. 2006), but also regional climate changes.” (By the way, for the devotees of peer review, that paper makes reference to another 50 peer reviewed papers).

Another important area still to be understood is that of “Cosmo-climatology”. As Henrik Svensmark says “Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness. A recent experiment has shown how electrons liberated by cosmic rays assist in making aerosols, the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei, while anomalous climatic trends in Antarctica confirm the role of clouds in helping to drive climate change. Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth episodes. A new contribution to the faint young Sun paradox is also on offer”.

(Please don’t anyone refer me to RealClimate – been there done that! I’d rather await the conclusions of the CLOUD experiments at CERN – http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/)

The policies proposed for limiting our use of fossil fuels will certainly take away significant amounts of taxpayers money. More to the point, there are far too many people across the globe who are living in poverty and these are the ones who will suffer most from the actions of this ridiculous political/environmentalist action.

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

Theo, there is not point in provising you with evidence as it is the crux of the scientific evidence that due to the Arctic being surrounded by land mass, Ozone depletion and raised GHG levels (enhanced albedo) then its warming levels are amplified. If you require proof then I would suggest that you learn about AGW theory and study it for yourself for I am providing no evidence for you as you already have that evidence.

My reference to materialsim referred to all fossil fuels using people and not you per se.

Pete Ridley is now showing signs of paranoia. The peer reviewed process is flawed, no one is listening to us etc etc. All science is peer reviewed and it has not flawed as you would have us believe.

Now that you mention Svensmark I know you to be a earnest yet misled individual. As far as I understand it his hypothesis is sciwntificly incorrect and has been demonstrated to be so.

I have been reading up on all of these people who you put forward to have someone crumbled the edifice of AGW theory and found them all wanting. They and you are incorrect I am afraid but keep on digging if you like Pete.

Svensmarks cosmic ray hypotheisis have been commented on several times over a real climate and her is one of the threads:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

If you have posted at real climate Pete then who have you posted as please? I follow the site quite closely so it would be interesting to know ?

Back in March 2006 there was a reasonably literate and comprehensible Pete Best making sensible comments and asking useful questions about climate change. That Pete Best was clearly agnostic about the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. Pete Best contributed again in March, October and November 2007 then in October 2008, but by this time sounded more and more like the rambling person we have come to love on this and other blogs.

By June 2009 Pete Best had become a committed supporter of the hypothesis and a “paid-up member” of RealClimate. As he declared then, “I have learnt to only come here for science .. ”.

That could be one of the reasons that Pete Best is unable to debate in an open-minded manner. He’s been brain-washed by RealClimate. I suggest he gets them to identify the flaw in the statement “as it is the crux of the scientific evidence that due to the Arctic being surrounded by land mass, Ozone depletion and raised GHG levels (enhanced albedo) then its warming levels are amplified”.

One important acknowledgment on RealClimate in response to a Pete Best question was that “The best answer to your question is simply that the climate sensitivity is a probability distribution. We don’t really know its shape”. Why don’t we really know its shape? – because, as Professor Brook says, we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers of global climates.

Regarding Svensmark’s hypothesis, I prefer to wait for the peer-reviewed facts from the CERN “CLOUD” experiments.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Dear Mr Ridley, Fine, you wait and wait and wait if you want to, I have seen many sites and read many books on the subject and unfortunately come to realise what the media means. Objectivity belongs to science only. Physics is the hardest science and fundamentally AGW theory (thats the earth system being driven primarily by GHGs and other emitted particles) is based on valid and empirical physics and chemistry.

As to the social, cultural and politicial impact of AGW then this what we are really disagreeing about and you are using misleading science scientifically rejected which for some reason you are crying foul over. I go with the current theory of AGW based on good empirical science which has large scale valid consensus. The nature of science is to shoot the messenger and due to AGW being a theory at present I will take it as such. Its time to act!

Thank you for your response by the way. Its appreciated and I do note your posts. However I have spent 3 years studying this subject and you keep on bringing up the deniers that I have real about over this time and chosen to dismisss their work based on the scientific process and method used since Isaac Newton invented its modern form.

Thats my thinking on the subject.

A word of warning Pete (Best). Stay well away from those scientology websites. Heaven knows what it will do to you. If you do there are other (sceptical) websites exposing the dangers of joining that particular cult but in your case I don’t think they will do much good if you do become ensnared.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm

Says it all from the genius of the JPL. Big brains work there.

Hi Peter Ridley, thanks for that Hadley Centre graph… http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ You’re right that it certainly does appear to show some recent cooling. It’s remarkable how different it is from the NOAA one, given that they’re both showing global average temperatures.

Incidentally (and somewhat confusingly), the Hadley center has a note here… http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/index.html ...saying in part ”...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”.

The word “misleading” links to a Met Office page on “Climate change – Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise” which explains that 1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event – no surprise that recent subsequent years weren’t quite as hot.

The page is just one of many under the Met Office’s page of climate changes facts and myths. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

Worth having a look.

According to Richard Lindzen temperatures have not been getting up significantly since 1995. El Nino was an anomaly apparently, but already before that the correlation between CO2 and warming was weakening. I think they are using the word ‘misleading’ where they actually were apologizing for the unbecoming behaviour of nature. ‘Lowering temperatures when all the models say you should do otherwise, who do you think you are!’ But doesnt their reference to El Nino say in fact: ocean currents are – a lot – stronger then the CO2 effect?

Theo, because you bring up the name Linzden who is a well known denier with his Iris effect hypothosis shown to be incorrect then I cannot being myself to actually believe what is being said here.

Can you post any reference to this work and if it has been peer reviewed.

This very recent report by 30 scientists within the USA demonstrates otherwiseand hence I cannot accept what you are attempting to demonstrate.

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616133944.htm)

Gerry (Beauregard), I’m glad you found those Hadley pages helpful and refer you to my comments of 31st December 2008 on Mark’s “World Saved .. ” blog regarding the manipulation of raw data through the application of statistical procedures. Theo’s remark above is very much along those same lines and I would go further than he does regarding the oceans. The entire aquasphere has a far more significant effect on global climates than atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. CO2 by comparison has a negligible impact.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Chnage Agnostic.

Theo, we can be sure that what Lindzen says about global climates is much more reliable than the meaningless projections of those useless computer models. None of the models has been subjected to independent Verificaton, Validation and Test procedures (perhaps the computer sysem equivalent of independent peer review). No professional computer system implementer within any successful industrial or commercial enterprise would consider supporting the use of an unproven computer system as part of important decision-making processes. Only the politicians do stupid things like that.

The use by any number of scientists of the projections from these computer models in order to get a report into publication does not impose any degree of credibility upon those projections. Only proper and independent VV&T would do that. Until this happens none of us should accept what those scientists are attempting to demonstrate.

Regards, Pete R

Pete Ridley, even though MIT (his employer) recently amended their warming projections (they all must be wrong obviously) and saw warming inline and even more alarming than the IPCC have. I could post the stuff to it but Linzden is such a known denier that it is laughable for you to mention him in such a way.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

You will not doubt have no respect for the site and hence attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.

The only contributor to say anything worth listening to on that particular blog at Climateprogress was Neil Wyatt on 15th March and Neil afterwards.

Probably the most rediculous comment was the reponse to Neil by JR: The two “camps” are science and anti-science. Anybody who isn’t alarmed right now doesn’t understand the science or is anti-science. Sounds like another individual who has been brainwashed by RealClimate.

Regards, Pete R

Pete Best,

You ask me for a reference, but may I remind you that first you stil owe ME one? Looking forward to it!

TR

Theo, AGW is the consensus view hence no proof required. You have to provide the reason why the science is wrong not me prove that it is right.

Mr Ridley, You do not get brain washed at real climate (you get that at WUWT and CA), you just get educated on proper science, its objectivity, its method and process.

Pete (Best), come on give it up mate your boring the hell out of us now. You are not a scientist but merely an enthusiast who likes to see the dark side. It’s an interesting aspect of human nature but when you are unable to put forward a credible case without pointing to the “big boys who know what they are talking about” well really it’s time to give up. For you own good leave well alone and go on holiday or something. Enjoy your life, the world isn’t going to end today or over the next one hundred years.

Richard Lindzen may be a “denier”, but he’s certainly no idiot, and it looks like he has a lot of peer-reviewed publications: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Not so many in recent years though, perhaps because his views are so unpopular (though that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong).

From what I’ve read, Lindzen agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration will cause warming. His main gripe is what the sensitivity is (expected warming for doubling of concentration). In the absence of any feedback, the sensitivity is modest. With positive feedback, it’s of course much bigger (which leads to alarming projections), with negative feedback, it’s much lower (meaning increasing CO2 isn’t such a worry after all). Very interesting!

Gerry, he is a peer reviewed but just because of that does not make him right, he has already been demonstrated to have been incorrect (Iris effect) and he is arguing agaisnt his own employer, and has yet to demonstrate to other scientists that he is right. Hence at present he is not right is he.

Tony, Where is your credible case then? You do not even bring up the big boys who do not know what they are talking about. I have never mentioned that the world will end only that its going to be problematic for a fair few billions on this planet but sod them eh so long as you are ok.

Pete B: You belong to the people who say that there is a problem and that measures should be taken. You should give the reason for that in the form of scientific proof. Your view may be the consensus view, but that is no proof whatsoever. It should make it a lot easier for you though: if the science on your side is as you guys usually say ‘overwhelming’, it should be easy to produce a relevant example of a study that proves your case. The fact that you constantly evade this makes me suspicious. So put up or shut up.

Theo, the WWW abounds with the theory of AGW. Here is a good objective article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

From new scientist which is recommended reading apparently.

The consensus is the scientific proof, AGW is a theory of science which means it has sufficient emprical backing to be a theory and the reason why the earth is warming. I cannot put it any stronger than that. Deniers have to follow the scientific process to demonstrate otherwise. All earth scientists would love to prove AGW theory incorrect (thats there job) but so far it has not happened. Rantings on blogs does not count.

I know the New Scientist. It is science journalism. Nothing wrong with that but it is not science. I know that article too and it cannot be considered a scientific proof, it is a compilation of all sorts of information they consider to be supportive of their views, but I am not interested in their views, I want to know which study proves that the earth is warming because of human CO2.

And ‘the consensus is the scientific proof’...Not too difficult then, but what is your criterium for consensus? If two people have a consensus that you are too dumb to think and chew gum at the same time, are they right by your standards or do there have to be more, say 100 and at least of the rank of 4-star general, or should it be ‘everybody’, but how do you count ‘everybody’?

Pete (Best) you posted up a link to prove AGW. This one….

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Has this piece been peer reviewed??

We have to know!

For the sake of humanity please tell us

HAS IT BEEN PEER REVIEWED?

Theo, Let us just say that that is how science works. If you want to demonstrate that something is wrong/incorrect then you must follow the scientific process and method. Otherwise it is correct until demonstrated to be otherwise. GHG theory is well understood and empircially shown to be correct. Some gases absord radiation of certain wavelengths and reradiate it. It is not in question and hence is seen as universally (consensus) true.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Your term everybody I presume means all people who it matters to? ie scientists whose work impacts this subject matter. Theory = consensus

But Pete, if a scientist as Richard Lindzen does not agree with the consensus it is not UNIVERSAL anymore. One dissenter is enough – and there are many more. So try again to define ‘consensus’.

And when can I expect the proof I have asked for? I know you are convinced of all sorts of things that are proven, so just pick the paper about that convincing experiment from the treasure trove of your mighty peer reviewed library. Prove it to us so that we can say: Pete has convinced us that immediate action is necessary. We are the people who block that now, so you have an important task waiting for you: convince the deniers!

Theo, consensus is not the same as unanimity.

The fact that there are a few criationist scientists, for example, does not mean that Darwin´s theory is not a scientific consensus.

Likewise, there is always someone that says HIV does not cause AIDS, or that the man was never on the moon. They usually have to resort to some conspiracy theory to explain why so many people have shown evidence that contradicts their “alternative” view.

Theo, consensus is not the same as unanimity.

The fact that there are a few criationist scientists, for example, does not mean that Darwin´s theory is not a scientific consensus.

Likewise, there is always someone that says HIV does not cause AIDS, or that the man was never on the moon. They usually have to resort to some conspiracy theory to explain why so many people have shown evidence that contradicts their “alternative” view.

Theo, Linzden has lost credibility due to his errobeous Iris effect which was demonstrated to be incorrect and his lack of any recent counter AGW peer reviewed material of late.

I posted in my previous post a article on the history of CO2 and its undeniable status as the primary driver of AGW. Its comes it two parts written by scientists in teh field of peer reviewed AGW. I suggest that it be read objectively and without prejudice. Its an interesting story and tells us a lot of about science and its workings.

Now Theo tell me exactly what troubles you about AGW theory and what the science says and I will attempt (if you are really interested that is) to post relevant articles of science concerning your concerns. That would be a better way of doing it I suggest.

Thank you Pete, as requested I will tell you exactly what troubles me about AGW-theory: it is a theory and nothing more than that ( I have asked you for proof and you didnt deliver). And whats more, the theory is losing credibility rapidly since temperatures have not gone up in the past 10-15 years and CO2-concentration has gone up. There should be warming according to the theory, and there is no warming, so bye bye theory. That is how science works my man. You are defending a dying theory.

Theo, first up is the idea of the world not having warmed for 10-15 years. 10-15 years is not climatically significant in terms of time and I doubt it is true. Can you point me towards your findings on the subject?

Of course that is climatically significant, the models predicted a constant warming and they didnt deliver. Now they say the warming has taken a ‘pause’... next it is a lunchbreak. I come with references once you have delivered on the proof regarding human induced warming.

Theo, 15 year is not statistically significantly long enough to determine changes in climate. I have read documents and articles so many times on this subject that I am sure that is the orthodox scientific position. Others may think differently and hence can you show where you have read this ?

To establish whether climate changes ‘definitively’ 10-15 years surely is too short as is the period of less then 30 years that people say the Arctic is melting. But what we are trying to establish here is whether CO2 is exerting an influence. For that you at least need a dose-effect relationship. That is not enough – the relation may be a coincidence – but it is a start. Now the 20th century has started with a period of warming that no one could relate to increased CO2, then came (from 1940-70) a period of cooling, though CO2 was increasing, again no correlation. People said: that is because of aerosols. Could be, but it was not warming. Then came, thank you God a period where warming and CO2 correlated. That is the basis for the whole hype. But in the past 10-15 years the correlation failed again: CO2 increases and there is even a slight cooling in the past several years. Will that persist? or will the warming start again. We do not know, but whatever happens, the relationship with CO2 is broken again. There is not even a dose-effect relationship (and you couldnt deliver the proof either) and I many people consider that a very significant event. It is climatically significant to conclude that CO2 has no important influence. We can stop the whole charade.

What will the future bring? Warmers say: oh sure we know it will warm Coolers say: we do not know but it looks like cooling will continue for some time. That certainty of the warmers is the certainty of idiots, peer reviewed or whatever, for the simple reason that no one can predict the future. People who claim they can ought to be mistrusted. They behave like astrologers, fortune tellers and other crooks, irrespective of the amount of computer power they have access to. And that is the last time I comment on your comments, I have to fight the warmers here in the Netherlands. They say the same idiotic things as you, but they are a bit closer physically. One little battle, against Mark Lynas was won anyway, the National Geographic will think again before scaring the hell out of children. That was why I came here.

Dear readers, let’s not overlook the very important FACT that mean annual global temperature is only one of many drivers of global climates and “we know nothing much useful about processes and drivers” (Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University climate expert).

Peter Ridley

Pete (Best) you must be seething with rage, and rightfully so, that the latest prediction by the Hadley centre on what our climate will be like in eighty years time has not been peer reviewed.

Oh the pain, the pain.

I have to fight the warmers here in the Netherlands

You might start with your own Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management, as they seem to genuinely concerned: http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/environment/ “Global warming is a big issue for the Dutch delta. We have to make the Netherlands ‘climate proof’ to protect against flooding, and work together at international level in order to deal with climate change and reduce CO2 emissions. “

Don’t waste your words here. Tell your government to stop wasting your tax money worrying about such foolish things! You know better.

Theo, now I know you are rattling off the standard deniers mantra that I read about so long about and once I had read around and learnt enough dismissed it as bad science which it is. The 1940-70 cooling is explained by sulphates from large scale industrial processes. The Arctic summer sea ice melt is measured against and 1979-2000 (>17 years) backdrop and longer and it checks out.

Real climate has covered these denialist topics many times are scientifically answered them to a degree that in earth science satisfies the scientists. Once again you have come up with nothing but the standard denialist dogma refuted many times but you carry on with it all if you want to but I have moved on from that period of learning.

Pete Ridley, your assertion that there are other mean of measuring warming has been answered to by the science but you are not listening I guess. Shame really but closed minds are simply that I suppose.

Tony, only you are in pain ;)

Frequency statistics on skeptic arguments are provided at

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

A useful site to point to as it saves going round so many wasteful loops addressing the same old chestnuts.

On the following page

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

John Cook states “Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.”

That is really the challenge for those holding a skeptical position. Produce a general circulation model which reproduces the observed temperature profiles with the GHG forcings excluded from the model.

Gerry, I understand that for centuries the Netherlands has been dealing effectively with the problem of flooding due to sea level changes. I’m sure Theo (Richel) is more knowledgeable about that than any of us here.

Tony, am I correct in thinking that you are referring to results from the UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) tool from the Met. Office being heralded by DEFRA through today’s media. Even if not, comments that I submitted to Jonathan Porritt’s “Ashden Awards” blog yesterday and today are relevant. I’ll summarise these for anyone who can’t be bothered to go to Jonathan’s site.

QUOTE: Jonathan .. is persisting with the environmentalist and political propaganda presenting a “doom and gloom” picture based entirely upon the projections of flawed computer models. .. The DEFRA site says “The UK Climate Projections .. contain information on observed and future climate change, based on the latest scientific understanding”. The most significant part of that DEFRA statement is the final clause. .. Current climate models such as the UKCP09 tool are structured on this unsound foundation of significant scientific uncertainty regarding the processes and drivers of global climates. Until the science of global climate processes and drivers is reasonably well understood there can be no worthwhile projections from any source, computer generated or otherwise.

.. Wishing for people to accept without question the propaganda from politicians and environmentalists about the use of fossil fuels and climate change will not make it happen. Neither will using scare-mongering tactics. The majority of the population are not that gullible. In particular, anything claimed by politicians (national or local) is automatically distrusted. .. None of the computer models upon which organizations like the Met Office are basing their projections have been subjected to independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures. Even the politically driven IPCC acknowledged this in their Assessment Report 4, report “Climate Models and Their Evaluation”” (see Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 ).

.. I have looked at the DEFRA Guidance notes for UKCP09 at http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/514/498/index.html. Although it is a very good piece of political propaganda intended to communicate to the wider public the “Significant Human-made Global Climate Change” hypothesis (myth?), from a practical point of view it is not at all impressive. .. The .. tool is based upon computerised climate models from the Met. Offices Hadley Centre and similar models from around the world. These models are merely a development of models used for weather forecasting. We all know how uncertain the Met Offices weather forecasts (another word for projections) are for even just a few days ahead. Weather is difficult enough for the Met. Office to model because of their limited understanding of its processes and drivers. Even though they use actual live measured data relating to those drivers still gives us little confidence in the Met Office forecasts (projections) for just a few days ahead. Their long range forecasts (projections) are close to being a joke.

The most revealing part of the .. Guidance is .. the matter of “Uncertainties in climate change projections”. .. Summarising this quotation, the climate forecasts available from this latest tool (UKCP09) about which the media is trumpeting today, are no more reliable than they were in 2002. This quotation is repeating what climate expert Professor Barry Brook .. acknowledged two months ago “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is .. . sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers..”.

If we don’t know how global climates are controlled (i.e. climate processes and drivers) then we cannot possible forecase (project) future climates in a reliable manner. UNQUOTE

Michael, skepticalscience saying “The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming” is not “really the challenge for those holding a skeptical position”. All that it indicates is that present climate models are based upon poorly understood climate processes and forcings (see Professor Brook’s acknowledgment). Anyone with an understanding of the model can prompt even the worst model to output plausible results. It depends upon the inputs used. One of the best examples of the use of computer models for aiding risk management is the Insurance industry. No professional insurance company would consider bringing a computer system into operation without undertaking thorough and independent professional VV&T procedures. Such procedures have never been undertaken on any of the numerous different computerised climate models. The forecasts produced by these models are even less reliable than the long-range weather forecasts produced by the computerised weather models from which they have been derived.

Looking at the political aspects of this issue, DEFRA is a tool of Parliament. This Parliament comprises a significant number of dishonest and dishonourable MPs, as the expenses scandal has confirmed for us. Only a fool will accept what our politicians tell us about their expense claims and the same goes for what they tell us about climate change. Politicians are renowned for playing with words to hide the truth. In relation to disclosing their disgraceful expense claims they hide the detail behind “redaction” rather than the better recognised “censership”. On climate change they opt to speak about climate “projections” rather than climate “forecasts” because the public is sp scathing about the Met Office’s attempts to forcast next week’s weather, never mind decades ahead. What causes climate change? – long term changes in weather. We can’t reliably forecast long-term weather so we can’t reliably forecast (project) climates.

The present high profile being given to climate change is a part of the Government’s “Communicating Climate Change” propaganda program. The objective is to frighten people (unnecessarily) into believing that they should be happy to pay higher taxes imposed by the Government (on the pretext of reducing climate change) in order to reduce the enormous debt being run up by this incompetent set of ministers.

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

PS: Despite what has been said previously, supporters of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis have merely “attributed” the cooling which caused the “new ice age” scare in the 70’s to industrial emissions into the atmosphere as an explanation. These same supporters of the hypothesis also “attribute” the apparent increase summer arctic ice melt to global warming arising from our use of fossil fuels. Scientists have not unanimously accepted that these are the only possible causes of these weather events.

RealClimate is not the only source of climate science that has not been subjected to the formal peer review process (in fact it is not a source of proven climate science, being simply able to repeat the findings of other scientists about the greenhouse effect, a limited aspect of climate processes and drivers). There are plenty sites that present equally plausible alternative scientific explanations of the poorly understood subject of global climate change Perhaps someone can point me to where I’ve made the “assertion that there are other means of measuring warming” (which I assume is referring to claimed increases in mean annual global temperature). I don’t recall ever doing so.

By the way, at least one other scientist (Dr. Roy Spencer) has a similar hypothesis to Prof. Lindzen regarding the climate controlling effect of clouds. Team at reading U under Prof. Keith Shine is also studying the issue and we have that CERN team working on the CLOUD program. Watch this space folks.

Research into geomagnetic/cosmic ray influences on climate also are looking promising, e.g. see “Is there a link between Earth’s magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?” January 2009 (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/71 ) and there is plenty more. Is Svensmark brighter than the average climate scientist?

Geologist Peter Ravenscroft (see posts on 9th and 11th June E-mailed this http://www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/the_ice_age_driver a couple of days ago, in which he says “I think it is hence now fair to say that the anthropogenic greenhouse warming model of climate change of the IPCC, of governments all over including Australia and of carbonists such as Al Gore, Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery, etc,, etc., is dead in the water”.

Regards, Pete R. HmGCCA

Real Climate is run by NASA GISS scientists mainly and they are all heavily peer reviewed Mr Pete Ridley. As such they are scientists employed by GISS are excellent ones.

Your summisation of them is simply incorrect. They have many successful peer reviewed materal to their names.

Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, Dr. Michael E. Mann, Dr. Caspar Ammann, Dr. Rasmus E. Benestad. Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf , Dr. Eric Steig, Dr. Thibault de Garidel-Thoron, Dr. David Archer

Regarding the latest nonsense scare from the met office/hadley centre whoever the hell they are, they reckon that they can provide the British public with a 25 Kilometer grid map of the whole of the UK including information on how future climate will impact on each and every one of those grids.

Liars, liars, liars! There is not a computer in the world which is able to compute those sort of figures and offer such information. It is lies pure and simple. But I guess it gives wet dreams to the likes of Pete Best so he can go off to the pub and gloat on the various ways the world will come to and end and talk about putting the world to rights. God that sort of conversation goes on night after night in bars up and down the country but this sort of alarmist rubbish is grist to the mill for warmists such as him.

Tony, The science is warmist, not me. Continue to emit carbon at present and future levels and the world will continue to warm.

Where is your evidence of warming not taking place? Why are you so adamant that the science is wrong and you are right?

Tony, you really needed to get that off your chest, didn’t you. Feel better now? I hope so. Sceptics like you and agnostics like myself feel the same frustration about the gullibility of those who accept without question the climate forecasts from computer models that have never been subjected to proper and independent VV&T. These models from all around the world (including those used by the Met. Office/Hadley Centre) produce such incredible forecasts because they are based upon “guesstimated” climate processes and drivers. That is why they have to be “tweeked” with prompts in order to arrive at results matching experience of past climates.

As I keep stating (see my posts of 5th, 9th, 14th, 15th 17th, 18th and 19th June) it has just recently been acknowledged by Professor Barry Brook, a leading climate scientist supporting the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis, that scientists “know nothing much useful about” climate processes and drivers. But that is only one (albeit leading and formally peer reviewed numerous times) climate scientist. What about others?

As I’ve said before (e.g. my comment of 17th June), the aqua-sphere (water in all of its forms) has by far the most significant impact on climate processes and drivers. What do the experts say about this? Professor Keith Shine, Director of Research in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading and Fellow of the Royal Society advised me at the beginning of the month that the paper “The role of ocean-atmospheric interactions in the CO2 climate problem” by V. Ramanathan (yes, peer reviewed for Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 1981) is still one of the key papers in this debate over CO2. So what does Professor V Ramathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA. have to say about “the processes which contribute to the surface warming”?

In discussing his preference for his “surface energy balance” approach over the “top of troposphere energy balance” viewpoint from which “Climate model studies have traditionally examined the climate sensitivity problem” he says that “the analysis also reveals the deficiencies of current schemes of coupling ocean and atmosphere in complex climate models”! “A global increase of CO2 may not necessarily lead to significant warming of the continents first .. Consequently .. their equilibrium response will depend on the ocean thermal inertia which is still poorly understood”! (Professor Ramanathan makes other important points about the impact of taking into consideration ocean-atmosphere interaction on inconsistencies in climate modeling. The paper is not easy reading and I’m puzzled over comments regarding latent heat of vapourisation heating up the troposphere but perhaps some expert out there will clarify for me.)

For me, the important points made by Prof. Ramanathan are that: 1) CO2 is not a significant climate driver, 2) the aqua-sphere is far more significant, 3) the response of the continents to global temperature changes depends significantly upon ocean thermal inertia, 4) climate scientists have a poor understanding of ocean thermal inertia.

It’s not only Professor Barry Brook who acknowledges that climate experts “don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”.

So why all this concern about our use of fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 concentrations suggesting that these are the most significant factors affecting climate processes and drivers? It is summed up perfectly by another staunch supporter of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis, astrophysicist Dr. Michael Ashley, Professor in the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales. In response to a challenge to his criticism of the excellent book “Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: the missing science” by Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Ashley said “To put it simply, the reason that climate scientists are focusing on CO2 as the climate driver with most influence over the next 100 years, is that CO2 is the one variable that is changing rapidly.” (see http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns673.entry) As Dr. John Nicol (sceptic) commented to me a few days ago about this QUOTE: profound explanation for blaming carbon dioxide .. Another pearl of wisdom .. from Michael Ashley .. ”. Fair comment!

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

Sorry about the link on my last comment. I’m not sure that it will get you through OK. Try going to http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/Blog/ which also has some very interesting posts from sceptics.

Regards, Pete R

Pete Ridley, Explain this then ?

http://www.biomarine.org/index.php/gb/content/download/3657/47322/version/1/file/D3ClimatechangeSCedit.pdf

Prof Ramanathan says that there is enough Co2 in the atmosphere to warm the planet by 2-2.5C.

I am surprised that reference has been made to something that has not been formally peer reviewed before publication in a recognised scientific journal. After all “You have to read science and not the medias interpretation of the science” (comment of May 26th, 2009 at 08:36 PM) and we must use those with “greater credentials than the politically paranoid” (comment of June 13th, 2009 at 10:29 PM). Never mind, we can’t expect consistency, can we.

Ok, what are the credentials of this organisation, Biomarine. It’s a recently formed and little-known regional French organisation, founded and presided over by Pierre Erwes, a serial entrepreneur (not a scientist) who, since 1995, has earned a living doing consultancy with international companies and government agencies. So, there’s no climate science pedigree there and no history of publishing peer-reviewed papers!

What do we know of what Professor Ramanathan said at this minor regional debate? He is reported as saying “We have already put enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to heat up the planet by two and a half degrees Celsius” and “iconic events”. “We know that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were around 270 parts per million in the 1880s. Today they are around 385 parts per million,” “Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see our models proved wrong, because that would be good news for the planet. But what we are actually seeing tends to correspond with the worse case options of the models,” That is all that is quoted. We have no idea where the rest of the ideas on that Web page came from, although it is claimed that he said “For the moment, global temperatures have not risen by that much because dust, dirt, smog and other particulate emissions in the atmosphere are casting a shadow over the earth and keeping temperatures down” and “Average temperatures had also risen far more quickly than ever recorded during the past 100 years”.

It would be very surprising if he did actually say any of these things. There are no references to any peer-reviewed papers confirming anything that Professor Ramanathan is alleged to have said. On the contrary, in his “Testimony to the House Committee on oversight and Government Reform” only one year earlier Professor Ramanathan testified on the “Role of Black Carbon in Global and Regional Climate Changes “ QUOTE: The estimates of BC heating by this author’s group (Chung et al., 2005 and Ramanathan 2007), using observationally constrained data from satellites, ground stations and field observations is that the current BC radiative forcing at the top-of-the atmosphere (the so-called radiative forcing as per IPCC) effect is as much as 60% of the current radiative forcing due to CO2 greenhouse effect. Thus, next to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), black carbon (BC) in soot particles is potentially the second major contributor to the observed twentieth century global warming (also see Jacobson, 2002). UNQUOTE

No-one should believe that Professor Ramanathan has completely reversed his opinion in just one year until someone points to his peer-reviewed paper that shows why his opinion has changed.

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

Pete Ridley,

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram-&-Feng-ae43-37_2009.pdf

The abstract lays out his view point. Sounds like you are not quoting him correctly for some reason.

Dear readers, I refer again to my quotation above (June 20th, 2009 at 09:08 PM) from what is RECORDED as being Professor Ramanathan’s “Testimony to the House Committee on oversight and Government Reform” on 18th October 2008. That was only one year prior to what he is CLAIMED (in an unconfirmed report) to have said in forum on 22nd October 2008. I’m more inclined to pay attention to what people actually say and the context in which they say it rather than what they are claimed to have said with no means of checking what precisely they were talking about. (Note 1)

Anyone thinking that I am “not quoting him correctly for some reason“ can check for themselves. For anyone unable or unwilling to use an Internet search tool, here is the link http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/testimonials/BlackCarbonHearing-testimony.pdf.

My approach when using quotations is not to distort what has been said but to use only those items that are relevant to what I am discussing. Rather that than include what I see as being irrelevant. Anyone is at liberty to check the original for the full context. As I said in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1) QUOTE: Unlike in the statements of The Real World Coalition, quotations given in this paper 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. UNQUOTE

But I digress. The references in recent blog comments suggest that in just two years Professor Ramanathan has changed his mind completely regarding the influence of aerosol pollutants, from cooling to warming to cooling. This hardly seems credible, so we have to question the credibility of the claims in publications from BioMarine and Elsevier. I am seeking clarification on this, meanwhile, “Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives” by V. Ramanathan*, Y. Feng is an interesting paper (Note 2). It takes a lot of effort to understand the whole, rather than just scanning the abstract, but the following struck me on a first read:

- In section 2.3. “The climate system: basic drivers” considers only a single driver, i.e. radiation and absorption of energy. No other climate drivers (or processes) are mentioned.

- It then goes on to say in 2.4. “The greenhouse effect: the CO2 blanket” On a cold winter night, a blanket keeps the body warm not because the blanket gives off any energy. Rather, the blanket traps the body heat, preventing it from escaping to the colder surroundings. Similarly, the CO2 blanket, traps the long wave radiation given off by the planet. This could be interpreted as suggesting that warming arising from the greenhouse effect merely raises night-time temperatures, which many would say is nothing to be upset about.

-It goes on to say in 2.6.” CFCs: the super greenhouse gas” .. the CO2 absorption is close to saturation … So it’s a lot harder for a CO2 molecule to enhance the greenhouse effect .. This could be seen as supporting the findings of people like Beck, Barrett and Nicol that further increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have negligible effect on global temperatures.

I’ve submitted a comment on this to the Rocket Scientist’s Journal (Note 4) and hope to have more worthwhile comments soon.

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

NOTES: 1) Here’s a light-hearted example of how reports out of context can give a false impression. The Pope of Rome comes to the U.S.A. The moment he appears in the doors of the plane, a journalist runs up to him. - Your Holiness, what do you think about the problem of brothels in New York? - Are there brothels here? I’ve never thought of it. Let’s discuss it at a press conference. In the morning, the paper reports: “The Pope of Rome has arrived on a visit. His first question was, “Are there brothels here?” (http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=mosaic&root=3&page=2). When chasing this up I found the following regarding the Pope’s visit to Australia in 2008. “Sydney brothels say Pope’s visit will give business a leg-up” (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2901,Sydney-brothels-say-Popes-visit-will-give-business-a-leg-up,AFP). Interpret as you choose. 2) This paper is in the journal Atmospheric Environment published by a subsidiary (Elsevier) of that extremely large commercial publishing organisation ( Reed Elsevier Group plc.) whose Science Direct subsidiary is full of encouragement to buy – http://info.sciencedirect.com /buying/ ). Perhaps there’s some vested interest here! I’m not aware that Atmospheric Environment is a peer-reviewed journal, so can any paper in it be relied upon? After all “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” by Dr. Jaworowski was ridiculed by supporters of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis because it was published in EIRScience. Surely what’s good for the sceptic is good for the believer. 3) One of the fundamental assumptions in the science of greenhouse gas impacts is that they are well mixed in the atmosphere. NASA/JPL evidence (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA09269) demonstrates that this is not the case. This picture of diffused concentrations at 7km altitude indicates quite clearly that this assumption is incorrect and that there are significant deviations at lower levels. 4) Any open-minded reader looking for sound sceptical science from “scientists who know about such things“ could do a lot worse than http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com. Even RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt takes a buffetting. I’ve asked tham to do the same for the rest of that gang (see comment on June 19th, 2009 at 09:02 PM).

Pete Ridley, as I understand it some agents of climate change have both a cooling and a warming part. Cooling from incoming light being reflected (from above) and warming from infrared radiation being absorbed (from below). I see no contradiction in what I have read about this subject matter but you seem to.

Thee is great uncertainty still remaining regarding certain forcings of climate change and more research is being carried out to narrow down the error bars. He is only stating that BC could have as much as 60% of the forcing of CO2.

So what exactly are you accusing him of ?

Dea Mr Ridley, You do not have to use peer reviewed material exclusively in order to quote it and use material from people who are peer reviewed as you well know so suddenly getting the hump and calling for me (and others I am sure) to use such material only is just a little peevish when the vast majority of deniers sources are not peer reviewed and amount to little more than ranting.

So back to the topic at hand:

http://www.envirosecurity.org/ccis/afterthevote/reading/Tipping_Points.pdf

It speaks of hidden warming due to the ABH and other agents of cooling which has masked warming. We know that there are cooling and warming agents and that present day AGW is not like any in history due to the complex interplay of many forcings (water vapour is not on of them) of which some both warm and cool.

I am suggesting that you stop doing science mischief and own up that when all the forcings are added up we get the projected warming of 0.2C per decade which is true!

Dear readers, I see that those loonies from Greenpeace are at it again, this time involving EON’s Kingsnorth coal-powered generating station. What they don’t realise is that these childish gestures have the opposite effect to what they’re trying to achieve. Every stunt like this loses them more and more public support. Sound scientific debate would have much more effect, but they have to resort to these stunts because they don’t have the science to support their argument. It’s a shame that over the last few days the debate here has degenerated into a monologue on sceptical science interspersed with bursts from a disruptive heckler. Please would intelligent contributors return to the debate?

Let’s get back to Professor Ramanathan (Note 4). Rather than accusing him of anything, I was merely highlighting the fact that he appears to express conflicting arguments about the effects of aerosols (Note 2). I repeat some of what Professor Ramanathan is reported to have said about the impact of aerosols on global climates:-

18/10/2007 “next to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), black carbon (BC) in soot particles is potentially the second major contributor to the observed twentieth century global warming” (Note 3a)

22/10/2008 “We have already put enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to heat up the planet by two and a half degrees Celsius. For the moment, global temperatures have not risen by that much because dust, dirt, smog and other particulate emissions in the atmosphere are casting a shadow over the earth and keeping temperatures down” (Note 3b).

Jan 2009 “Globally, the surface cooling effect of ABCs may have masked as much 47% of the global warming by greenhouse gases, with an uncertainty range of 20–80%. This presents a dilemma since efforts to curb air pollution may unmask the ABC cooling effect and enhance the surface warming. Thus efforts to reduce GHGs and air pollution should be done under one common framework. The uncertainties in our understanding of the ABC effects are large, but we are discovering new ways in which human activities are changing the climate and the environment. Essentially, aerosol concentrations increased in time along with greenhouse gases, and the cooling effect of the aerosols have masked some of the greenhouse warming”. “aerosol induced radiative changes (forcing) are an order of magnitude larger than that of the greenhouse gases” (Note 3c).

These somewhat conflicting statements about the effects of aerosols (cooling – warming – cooling) indicate significant uncertainty about the impact of aerosols on global climates, confirmed by professor Ramanathan’s admission that “The uncertainties in our understanding of the ABC effects are large”. This also substantiates the acknowledgement by Professor Brook that “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers“. But the most significant statement in that entire paper is “Section 6.1 The primary conclusion is that without a proper treatment of the regional and global effects of ABCs in climate models, it is nearly impossible to reliably interpret or understand the causal factors for regional as well as global climate changes during the last century”. Here we have a confirmed supporter of the “significant human-made global climate” hypothesis substantiating the claims of the sceptics that it is impossible to rely upon the projections of today’s climate models. Climate science is too uncertain for dependable modelling.

The reason that Professor Ramanthan and his fellow supporters of the hypothesis are now pointing the finger at the cooling effect of aerosols is that the projections of the computer-based models of climate science on which they have staked their careers and reputations are not being realised in the real world. Unwilling to acknowledge that the reason for this is the dearth of understanding among scientists of the fundamental drivers of global climates, they prefer to find alternative explanations for those flawed computer projections. Aerosols were claimed to account for the inexplicable cooling trend experienced in the 70’s. The impact of these aerosols suddenly vanished during the 80’ and 90’s but now that another natural cooling trend is occurring those aerosols are somehow at it again. It’ll be interesting to see what the sceptical scientists at RocketScience Journal make of it.

At long last we seem to be making progress with at least one person involved in this debate. For months we have had dogmatic comments (Note 1) such as “The science of climate change is scientifically fine and the warming is correctly found to be attributed to excess GHG and land use changes .. ” (a), “Science is king, it is the one knowledge based subject that humanity should believe in” (b), “you seem to be disagreeing with the entire edifice of science and its methodology”©, “You are calling into question science itself” (d), “THIS IS THE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!” (e), “I have the proper scientific process behind me“ (f), “what exactly makes you question the authority of science on this issue” (g), “AGW theory is as good scientifically as relativity, quantum physics and thermodynamics” (h), “the prevailing view of AGW science which is proven beyond all reasonable doubt (90% accurate)” (i), “No complex statistical science is that accurate but accurate enough that we can place faith in it” (j), “Statistical science is perfectly valid and on sound footing. Physics and chemistry are the bedrock of climate science and hence very sound” (k); “rather than berating the scientific process learn from it and trust it” (l), “All science is peer reviewed and it has not flawed” (m), “AGW theory (thats the earth system being driven primarily by GHGs and other emitted particles) is based on valid and empirical physics and chemistry” (n), “The consensus is the scientific proof” (o), and finally “Shame really but closed minds are simply that I suppose” p). At long last we have “There is great uncertainty still remaining regarding certain forcings of climate change and more research is being carried out to narrow down the error bars.” (q)!! It may not be the big breakthrough that I have been hoping for during the last eight months, but maybe?!!?

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

PS: Oh dear, I spoke too soon, before seeing that comment today at 07.28

NOTES: 1) Mark’s various blogs are the source of these comments. The letter in brackets after the comment refers to the following: (a) “World Saved ..” 1st Dec. 2008 17.23; (b) “A new green era .. “ 25th May 2009 11.01; (c) this blog 20th May 2009 07.22 ; (d) this blog 21st May 2009 07.42; (e) this blog 23rd May 2009 08.58; (f) this blog 26th May 2009 11.51; (g) this blog 28th May 2009 08.22; ( h) this blog 3rd June 12.26; (i) 5th June 12.22; (j) this blog 6th June 09.23; (k) this blog 13th June 22.29; (l) this blog 16th June 07.32; (m) this blog 17th June 07.24; (n) this blog 17th June 11.02; (o) this blog 18th June 09.20; (p) this blog 19th June 08.23; (q) this blog 21st June 20.04; (r) this blog 20th June 21.36.

2) The word aerosol derives from the fact that matter “floating” in air is a suspension (a mixture in which solid or liquid or combined solid-liquid particles are suspended in a fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol).

3a) Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate Change Testimonial to the House Committee 3b) BioMarine Forum Climate change is happening, we must act now Climate change and the oceans 3c) Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives Ramanathan & Feng

4) For the record, I am always suspicious of comments/reports/papers that appear in commercially driven publications (e.g. Atmospheric Environment, the source of Professor Ramanathan’s paper (Note 1r) regardless of what claims they themselves make about their credibility.

Pete Ridley, its nice for you to quote me so much but have a read of this then:

http://www.envirosecurity.org/ccis/afterthevote/reading/Tipping_Points.pdf

I see nothing wrong here and it has a long list of references. No deniers work does!

Dear Pete Ridley, let us agree to disagree on this subject matter. I doubt many people are even reading these monolithic posts about this subject. It time to call it a day on this one. I hear you and now know that many people seem totally unconvinced by the science of AGW and maybe not even convinced about evolution, condensed matter physics, quantum physics, relativity and cosmology, biology, chemistry etc etc etc.

I know that a lot of people do not like the message from environmentalists and cannot bring themselves to accept the science but whatever the reasons this debate might as well end for it is not really going anywhere. I am not to convince you and you not me.

What is being declared at http://www.envirosecurity.org/ccis/afterthevote/reading/Tipping_Points.pdf is based entirely upon the climate forecasts of flawed computerised climate model which a based upon science which is acknowledged by scientists to suffer from a serious lack of understanding of climate processes and drivers. The science is understood less than the science of weather and computer models cannot forecast next week’s weather reliably. Thelong-range forecasts are a joke. There is no justification for believing the longer-range clomae forecasts.

Anyone out there want to indulge in open and honest debate on the issue?

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

You are entitled to your opinion (which is what they are) in my opinion yours is not correct and once again as you are not someone who is a man of science otherwise you would acknowledge that what you are stating is incorrect and belittles th entire scientific process. I wish I had your recklessness and confidence to feel that you are so right when it stands to reason that AGW is as much a part of the scientific process as any other science. They are fine but AGW must be wrong for some reason.

Computer simulations are used for many things but you are not moaning about them now are you. Why not I wonder ?

Pete (Best) despite that you said you were going to “call it a day on this one” you’re not, are you? That’s a shame, but let me once again remind you (Note 1) that we appear to agree on much more than we disagree on. In fact I think we only disagree on one thing and that’s the validity of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis with regard to our use of fossil fuels. Specifically, whether or not our emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing SIGNIFICANT changes in global CLIMATES.

I have no disagreement with anyone who wants to make a contribution towards reducing pollution, waste, poverty, environmetal damage, etc. etc. etc. Go ahead (just don’t disrupt my enjoyment of life in the process). What I do disagree with is the fallacy that scientists understand CLIMATE processes and drivers enough to be able to make reliable forecasts. They themselves acknowledge that they quite simply do not. If our use of fossil fuel happened to be the ONLY possible cause of the (apparent but small) increase in global temperatures over the past 150 years then I would have no argument, but this is not the case.

Scientists have identified one POSSIBLE cause (of many) of the (apparent) increases in mean annual global temperatures that humans can do something about. The science underpinning the “greenhouse effect” is one of the better (but not fully) understood areas of climate science. Many other areas are poorly understood and that is why so much scientific research (and debate) is taking place.

Knowing that there are many other possible causes, but on the basis of the precautionary principle, politicians have been encouraged (especially by environmentalists) to introduce restrictions on our use of fossil fuels that will be highly damaging to global economies if fully implemented. I believe that this is totally unnecessary and do not believe that the politicians are really going to follow through on these “climate change strategies”, They are simply playing politics for there own reasons (We all know to apply the precautionary principle with regard to trusting politicians).

Much more research is required into the processes and drivers of global climates before we will have enough understanding to be able to model the total climate system in such a manner that computers will be able to provide reliable forecasts of future climates. Long before that we will be getting reliable weather forecasts.

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

Notes: 1) See Mark’s blog “World Saved .. ” 30th November 2008 @ 19.05

Pete Ridley, Your treatment of science and scientists due to your enjoyment of life being seemingly under threat is what upsets me. Your understanding of the climate science is not as good as theirs is and hence your posts and concerns just simply wrong.

Fossil fuels are a limited finite quanity and peak easy oil has already arrived. Its only a matter of a few decades before gas and coal follow along. I have no idea hw old you are but its the generations that follows your that I feel for, you are not helping them in my opinion, you are condeming then for science is more likely to be correct on this subject than you are.

Plenty of research is going on as we speak and the denialists have stopped us doing anything about this proble for 3 decades already. How much longer do you want when the science is more certain now than ever of it being GHGs that is causing the phenomena of AGW?

The funny irony of this issue is the discovery that when the world was forecast to fry from the depletion of the ozone layer tree huggers like some on this blog managed to get the world to change from cfc’s to hfc’s. So by replacing one chemical with another they have unwittingly made the road to armageddon even shorter.

Apparently hfc’s have a greater impact as a greenhouse gas many hundreds of thousands times worse than carbon dioxide.

I was barely able to drink my morning cuppa reading that report through the laughing that ensued. So once again the greenies shoot themselves in the foot. No change there then!

Of course once the full impact of the depletion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is realised what will be the implications for us all then? We have to know.

Tony, I doubt that greenies were involved in the decision to stop the depletion of Ozone. I also doubt that hfc’s have an effect a strong as you are stating ;)

When you say no change there then, that in itself is laughable for greenies as you call them probably want a very different world but one that most ordinary people think they would not like.

Depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere! What do you mean by that exactly me wonders ?

Use your noddle Pete. When I refer to the depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere I’m talking about the unbelievable efforts by the Climate change warriors to lower emmisions.

As Churchill once famously said,

“Never before in the field of human endeavor has so much time, money and brains been wasted by so many to stop phew!”

LOL, Yes I am telepathic and know exactly what you are wittering on about. Now that I do know I have to day that there is presently no plan in place or conceived of that I know of other than planting trees that would absorb CO2 from the atmosphere but as we are presently cutting down more then we are planting the climate change warriors much your amusement Tony are obviosuly not being listened to.

Fortunately though President Obama is looking at a bill in the USA and trying to get it through this weej and has come out heavily in its favour. Phew, it means that we may have some decent results when it comes to Kyoto2 in Copenhagen later this year.

However I will save the cheering and winding you up for then after something constructive comes out of it.

A country with virtually no manufacturing base, no prospects for the future economically heavily reliant on others to subsidise their economy, where the public sector is the main employer, where health problems blight their population. Now what plans do you suppose they have to turn their situation around?

Here goes…...

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/-MSPs-get-power-to.5399645.jp

Tony, think we are going to starve to death? Thats highly unlikely and hence getting businesses and houses to come round to a less weasteful way of life is not bad thing. It probably is in your eyes and its perfectly acceptable to burn baby burn, use landfill for everything to keep everything as cheap as possible, recycle nothing as its a waste of time and expensive I suppose?

Same old same old with the capatalists. lowest cost is all that matters, end of story!?

Gentlemen please! United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 164 days, 15 hours and 10 minutes is about drastically reducing our use of fossil fuels. This is a totally unnecessary and economically damaging strategy allegedly for controlling global climates, despite the fact that humans only have control of their local climates such as in the home, or office, or greenhouses. By comparison. reducing waste of any sort is an admirable objective. Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Pete Ridley, since when does the USA listen to the UN? Fortunately they have issued their own target CO2 and AGW report recently which should get their to be voted on bill (tomorrow or soon) through the senate (or whatever it is) and then we can begin in earnest to get China on board and begin the long march to renewable energy sources. Seeing as how fossil fuels are now on limited time and drastic CO2 emission paths it is not before time but Kyoto 2 is not to be implemented before 2012 so there is always time to use up lots more fossl fuels as you would like to see.

If humankind has the science and the ability to tap into energy sources and make the efficiency gains requires for a more prosperous world without the AGW threat then there is nothing wrong with that. If energy costs more to use then we will use it more efficiently.

Personally I doubt that much gas and oil will be left unused but coal should be, its a nasty subtance and of all the fossil fuels it is more easilly replaced.

Coal is good. It is abundant and we have resources to last many hundred of years. I think that the reason the tree huggers hate it is because it is black. Not in a racist way but black has always been associated with dark and evil forces. Maybe if it were white or green even then the eco-warriors might accept it.

You may recall me congratulating Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister Sammy Wilson for having the courage to stand up against our politicians who are supporting the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. I was delighted to find another equally courageous politician, this one in Australia. It’s worth reading his blog at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/assessment_of_penny_wongs_response_to_my_3_questions_on_climate_change/ which challenges the position supported by Australia’s Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong.

It’s also worth reading the comments of some of those sceptical scientists “who know such things” at http://www.sciencemedia.com.au/downloads/2009-6-24-1.doc.

It’s also reported that the Obama administration is back-tracking on much of the pre-election posturing. It looks as though more and more politicians around the globe are acknowledging the truth about political backing for the hypothesis (and it’s not because they believe it).

What’s that saying, a week is a long time in politics. It will be interesting to see what really comes out of Copenhagen (23 weeks away – that’s a lifetime in political terms).

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

Pete Ridley, Fortunately for the children of today and those as yet born your post is delusional. Fortunately Obama and Chu as well as others will come good to some degree and come 2050 those 80% cuts will be factored in creating lots of jobs at the same time. Change is a fact of life today so factor it in.

You may be interested in the opinion of this Australia’s “Greens” spokesperson, reported one week ago (see Note) at (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/17/2601128.htm?site=news).

QUOTE: Greens ‘pessimistic’ over Copenhagen meeting Posted Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:00pm AEST

Greens Senator Christine Milne says she does not hold out much hope that world leaders will agree to properly tackle climate change at a meeting in Copenhagen later this year.

Senator Milne says US President Barack Obama gave promising signals when he came to office, but his country’s legislation on climate change is not progressing well.

She is worried world leaders will not set ambitious emissions reduction targets at the meeting.

“Copenhagen is looking pretty pessimistic because the developed countries have not lived up to their part of the bargain, to put an ambitious target on the table with the ones on the table at the moment,” she said.

“The 16 to 24 per cent it is not enough.”

She says her party will be willing to negotiate over the Government’s emissions trading scheme right up until next week’s vote in the Senate.

The Greens have vowed to vote against the bill unless the Government raises its emissions reduction targets.

The Government has offered a target range of 5 to 25 per cent, but the Greens favour a 25 to 40 per cent range.

Senator Milne says the Government is unlikely to change its mind, but she has not given up all hope.

“Clearly the targets are the issue, they’ve know that for a long time, they knew that on December 16th last year, they’ve known it all this year,” she said.

“They have no intention of changing the targets and they have closed the door. But if they have a change of mind I’m happy to talk to them about an increased target.”

UNQUOTE

NOTE: “A week is a long time in politics.” Harold Wilson, ex British Politician and Prime Minister

Regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic.

Yes I can understand her position in the land right wing sport obsessed people baking to death in future decades. Australis has a lot to lose and I doubt the Aussie greens would seem anything as good enough. However as the USA use 1/4 of the world fossil fuels consumed and China catching up fast and when it comes to coal roaring ahead to make Amercias goods and crap it is a good plan domestically that will resonate well at Copenhagen.

If it does not work out and we cannot commit to 80% cuts by 2050 then its bye bye for some of us on planet earth but no one lives forver right and mortality is worth keeping warm in the winter, using a PC and driving a monster Aussie truck across beaches as I have seen them do. For a moment there I thought I was in the USA.

I have done for some while felt myself fearing for the sanity of Prime minister Gordon Brown. I’ve just read that he wants £100 BILLION to be given to third world counties to deal with the effects of climate change.

I suggest that the man is clinically mad. There can be no other explanation. The thing of it is that it’s not his money but ours.

It’s like me asking for £100 billion in order to do something about gravity.

Bonkers, clinically bonkers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-climate26-2009jun26,0,5647633.story?track=rss

This article states the scope of the USA Climate change Bill, its a good start if it goes through but its by no means a given.

In the USA House of Representatives today by a 219-212 vote their climate change bill (its not very good but its a start) is passed!

Now we can all move on to Copenhagen and draw up a ost Kyoto bill that might just mitigate CO2 emissions enough to stop >2C warming.

Tony and Pete (Best), it looks as though we have managed to kill off any worthwhile debate on this blog. I wonder what has happened to the likes of Max, Carl Johnson, Tony, G.R.L. Cowan (8th May), vakibs, Zack, john, Michael, Bill, jim, Alexandre, Paul, Gerry Beauregard, Peter Ravenscroft (his “The core of the greenhouse gas problem” on his blog is worth a read) and Theo Richel. I appreciate that G.R.L. Cowan and Yakibs were only touting for business but Peter Ravenscroft’s his “The core of the greenhouse gas problem” on his blog is worth a read.

Come on you guys, get involved again, otherwise we’re not being fair to Mark Lynas. You know that he uses his blogs in order to get others to do most of the research for his next book.

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

Dear readers, I’ve just been watching the BBC News item “The Price of Going Green” on the predicted rises in the cost of energy resulting from this Government’s “green” policies. The National Energy Action charity has estimated that energy prices could rise by 10% in the next year, pushing the present 500M people in fuel poverty up to 5.5M. That is only in one year, a year in which taxpayers’ will be paying subsidies to the energy industry to help develop renewable sources. In years to come these subsidies will fall, so energy prices will increase even more drastically. Meanwhile, the cost of energy produced from the much more economical fossil fuels will also be pushed up by the energy companies way beyond any increase in the cost of fossil fuel but on the basis of “what the market can stand”.

The BBC item finished with “In the long term we’ll reap the benefits” of renewable sources. I have no disagreement with that. When fossil fuels run out we’ll need the alternatives. But that is decades away. Intense and speedy action to develop renewable sources is totally unnecessary. The only reason that the energy companies are showing an interest is because of the financial support (from the poor old taxpayer) that could be available. Why use their own funds to do development that is essential to their long-term existence. If it was left to the energy companies to pay they would pursue these developments at a much slower pace. They’ve done the risk commercial analysis which confirms no need to rush. It’s a shame for us taxpayers that adequate and independent (of the influence of the IPCC and its supporters) risk analysis has not been undertaken into the impact on global climates of our continued use of fossil fuels. Considering the low level of understanding scientists have of climate processes and drivers (Note 1) such an analysis would surely show that action against our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is totally unjustified.

Why are politicians supporting this precipitate action. It’s not because of a belief that it will have any impact upon global climates. That’s just a pretext. It’s in order to raise extra taxes to help pay off the enormous national debt this Government has created through its economic mismanagement over the past 12 years plus the need to attract environmentalist votes at the next election. From then on we’ll all be paying through the nose for our stupidity.

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

Note 1) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth especially 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12

Pete Ridley, your analsis is utter errant nonsense. You have no proof of your conclusion and hence you are spouting pure right wing speculation to frighten anyone who happens to be reading you much like some of the republicans did recently trying to claim that each US housegold would have to pay $3000 rather than the $175 that was actually stated.

I do not want to get into the politics of all of this but the right are not telling the correct story but nor are they as well organised as they are in the USA and obviosuly Australia over here in Europe. Still the bill in the USA has now gone through and onto the senate and then Copenhagen.

Fossil fuels are finite and limited, we need to go for something else. Science is a powerful tool and has spoken. Its time the right listened.

I seem to have missed the ‘fun’. Still:

My question is, what’s the plan? Supposing the AGW hypothesis were correct, then what?

What ‘renewables’ can actually deliver the bulk power we need?

Wind farms are more carbon intensive than existing plant, partly due to the massive backup (50-80%?) of conventional or nuclear on-line capacity they require (in case the wind drops). And they require an additional national distribution network. They are only ‘viable’ when subsidised heavily by the taxpayer.

The Severn barrage has a very questionable future, the projected benefits in terms of power are looking highly optimistic while the costs, economic and environmental, are huge and increasing.

Ethanol and bio-diesel can’t deliver, being also carbon-heavy, and they cause a sharp rise in the price of food.

Nuclear? A report on the Institute of Physics website infers that the UK goverment will have to build 30 power stations by 2015 in order to have a chance of meeting its own Climate Act 2008. DEFRA’s website, meanwhile, languidly declares there will be no action on this until 2010.

The US government has narrowly succeeded in heaving the Cap & Trade package over its first hurdle: I see lots of stick, but where is the carrot? Why is it so hard to find any evidence that the Administration is interested in fostering the development of new technology? New technology that will actually work, that is.

There’s no mention of where the power is coming from. Not much on this side of the Atlantic, either.

Any ideas?

LPG from the Gulf? Little windmills on our roofs?

I think we should be told, since ‘us being told’ is the sole current modus operandi.

So Pete (Best) which big oil company does this bloke from the EPA work for?

http://www.northstarwriters.com/eb115.htm

RobinL, welcome to the debate. Your question “Why is it so hard to find any evidence that the Administration is interested in fostering the development of new technology” is quite simple to answer. The administration comprises politicians. Politicians say whatever they believe will attract support from the populace. The present US administration believes that the majority of Americans have swallowed the scary propaganda surrounding the myth that the continued use of fossil fuels will cause significant and catastrophic global climate change. As we all know, we have to be very cautious when trusting what politicians say. More important is what they actually do.

The politicians know full well that fossil fuels will be the major source of energy for decades yet, with that lovely clean fuel, natural gas (virtually all methane at the point of delivery to customers) becoming the mainstay of developed nations like the US and UK. Virtually pollution free, all that this fuel emits when fully consumed is life-supporting water and carbon dioxide (twice as much water).

Cap and trade is purely a means of acquiring money, whether for in taxes of for personal gain. That is the carrot for politicians. New technology is being developed, particularly for utilising the enormous amounts of natural gas, but also for the cleaner and more efficient utilising of coal, another abundant fossil fuel. QUOTE: “At present, research into clean coal technology is going on in many developed nations. There is already some co-operation between China and the US. At the latest session of the strategic economic dialogue in Beijing earlier this month, it was announced that an “EcoPartnership” had been formed between Energy Future Holdings of the US and China Huadian. Both companies are pursuing the development of sustainable business models for “clean energy”, particularly clean coal. China and Britain, too, have jointly launched a near zero emissions coal initiative that aims to capture and geologically sequester carbon dioxide generated by coal combustion. It is expected that a demonstration near-zero-emissions plant will be built in China by 2014” UNQUOTE (Note).

Eventually new alternative energy technology will become competitive with fossil fuel but not for a long long time. The title of a high-life political comedy from 1912 by Louis Esson fully applies here “The Time is Not Yet Ripe”.

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

Note:- see http://energy.cleartheair.org.hk/2008/12/23/clean-coal-best-way-to-fuel-asias-growth/

There is no panacea technology for the replacement of fossil fuels and everyone knows that. However there are technologies that can create more efficient energy grids whose energy sources are more intermittent than fossil fuels and require careful planning and more cabling to tie it all together. This subject has been covered many times on many sites and it books.

In the USA the issues revolve around the lobbyists and the fossil fuel industry has a lot of money to seduce politicians to keeping the status quo going and in making states that are reliant on these industries for employment and hence prosperity. Keeping every state happy whilst phasing out these technologies by 2050 is very difficult but not impossible. The USA has excellent wind corridors, some desert for CSP, nuclear capability, geothermal and the advanced science to achieve these aims if it so wishes much like they did in the second world war when it was needed as it is now.

Large scale DC grids covering the entire continent is possible and can tie all of the energy supplies togetehr and route it accordingly. New thnking is required and hopefully under Obama we will witness the start of it. There is no perpetual motion machines etc so lets start getting efficient and planning that carbon free future. Not easy but by no means out of reach.

Pete (Best) I’ve just been reading a little piece regarding your favourite warmist website. It’s not the only source you choose to use is it?

http://climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving—Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice

Hi Tony, that’s the best one yet – beautiful!

HA HA HA HA – This bloke – Dr. Roger Pielke !!!!

He is a denialist, pure and simple.

“HA HA HA HA – This bloke – Dr. Roger Pielke !!!!

He is a denialist, pure and simple”.............

Is that the best you can do Pete (Best)? feeble beyond words my friend.

I can see you now in ten years time when mainstream opinion amongst even warmist scientists who have changed their minds is that they were wrong – you will be sitting in front of your keyboard frantically typing to this blog “DENIALISTS, CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, IT’S SO UNFAIR, SO VERY UNFAIR….......HALLO?.....................................................HALLO…......................IS ANYBODY OUT THERE?

Pete you’ve missed the boat. I suggest you leave propaganda to the professionals and concentrate on the evidence which is staring you in the face.

There are some interesting comments at the US’s Energy Information Administration’s “Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030” (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html) of April 2009A table produced from these data (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/27/discussion-thread-is-the-eia-forecast-of-2016-energy-prices-realistic/) suggests that the real cost of using natural gas will be about 4/5 that of cleaned up coal and nuclear, 4/7 of on-shore wind, 1/3 of off-shore wind, 1/5 of photo/voltaic (solar) panels, 1/3 of solar thermal and 4/5 that of bio-mass and hydro. So, the future looks good for natural gas and cleaned-up coal (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates removed), both set to become the most economical fuels available and lots of it around with no harmful emissions (only life-supporting H2O and CO2). Then there’s nuclear once the power stations have been built.

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

Tony. 10 years time. I hope not as thats too late for a lot for some people. I have orthodox science on my side and you lot have nothing but rhetoric and a lot of blogs with no peer review and hence only anti science.

However seeing as how Mr Ridley is now talking about the energy to replace fossil fuels I reckon its a victory.

Tony, please give us your references published in scientific journals. All you hace cited thus far are blogs.

Ha ha ha great name highertony but I’ve gone one better. Good to see some humour on this site.

I can’t give you the references you ask for, life’s too short and it probably wouldn’t make any difference to you position anyway. Rest assured that there are many thousands of perfectly credible reports which do not see the light of day in the mainstream media as they do not fit in with the line that those publications and news outlets follow.

I think one of the best references to point you towards is the one sitting on top of your shoulders. It’s called a free thinking mind and that allied with some semblance of common sense would lead most sensible people to the conclusion that AGW is merely another scare story. There have been many over the years but it has to be said that this is probably the most fantastical and the most costly.

Gullible folk all over the world who consider themselves reasonably intelligent have managed to allow themselves to be duped, pure and simple.

It is, however, a brilliant opportunity for future researchers of the mind and others in the field of observed human behaviour to write about the human condition and how fear has the ability to completely alter the mindset of Man.

Strangely enough I attended the hospital earlier today and ended up in the waiting room reading a copy of Coast magazine (for those who like to live by the coast of Britain) dated summer 2007. On nearly every page there were references to eco-this and eco-that. Eco holiday adverts to Kilamanjaro, articles on climate change in virtually every aspect and more adverts along this line. Maybe this date represents the zenith (or nadir?) in terms of the scare stories produced over the past ten years. Mind you, nothing about rising sea levels…..........hmmmn interesting don’t you think?

Not good for their circulation to scare people away from the coast now is it?

Tony (the real and original).

Dear readers, there’ an intersting discussion of “orthodox science” at http://www.bib.hatton.btinternet.co.uk/dan/Mathematics/A_Bayesian_Perspective_on_Recent_Epistemological_Developments/node7.html and another on “anti science” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience . Perhaps at least one of you should take a long long long time trying to understand it!

As for seeing humour ot this site, I prefer serious debate myself, although there are times when you can’t help laughing at some of the claims made in the name of open debate. Not that it is a laugh at anything humorous. It’s more like the sympathetic laughter from fellow MP’s that greets comments from politicians like Gordon Brown when saying “we saved the world” or “I always tell the truth” or “total spending will continue to rise. There will be a rise in spending in 2013/14 of zero percent” (now I understand how a God-fearing church minister’s son would be able to say, without a word of a lie or a blush, that “we have killed off Conservative boom and bust” or “the UK economy is stronger than most” or “since 1997 the UK economy has to grown steadily and will continue to do so under my leadership”. There I was thinking that he was just applying his vast economic knowledge being economical with the truth.

Someone hadn’t been reading my comments properly, has he? I’ve been talking about the limited role of alternatives to fossil fuel for months, e.g. here on 11th June and on Mark’s “World Saved, Planet Doomed” blog back on 6th & 7th December, 4th January, etc. Please wake up, especially to the flaws in the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. It does not go unnoticed that the majority of those scientists who support the hypothesis earn a living from climate research. If the science was settled there would be no reason for taxpayers to fund any more research, then most would be on the scrap heap. So why is research continuing? Because, as Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University said (Note 1)“There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”

We know so little about the very complex process and drivers of global climates that we cannot possibly build reliable models upon which to forecast future global climates. Scientists are searching in the dark at the moment and any action based upon model forecasts is precipitate, economically damaging and futile. More attention should be paid to adaptation to any climate change nature decides to throw at us, whether it is local or global. But those “honourable” MP’s of ours have their own interests to protect (back to Gordon again).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Notes: 1) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth especially 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12

Pete Ridley, you know very little but you cannot answer for the earth science community as you have no knowledge of AGW, just anti knowledge and anti science. Stop speaking for people you know nothing about please !

You know very little about the complex drivers but science knows enough although more is always welcome I am sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

It just means that they do not understand it so they take a different perspective. Science is practiced by humans so it cannot be 100% error free but working together under the same method makes it good enough to trust what they say if only the media would not interrupt until the science is finalised.

How can you finalise climate science?

In the meantime watch this scary video. Fast forward it with the slider bar as it is quite long but most enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHvrjX7AP-8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Feureferendum%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

You cannot finalise any science but that does not mean that you do not use it.

Dear readers who either support the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis or are unsure about it, try the “climate change test” at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html. Enjoy and relax. We’re not heading for a climate change catastrophe because of our use of fossil fuels.

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

The link does not work and yes we are heading for warmer times. Catastrophe is a strong word not very well used by deniers.

It’s just as well we are not living in 1930’s Germany. The warmists keep going on about the “deniers” but put a peaked hat on these people and you can only imagine the outcome.

“Ver are your papers?”........”Hmmmm I see you are noted by authorites as a climate denier”............”Hans arrest this man”.

Good God almighty I’m heartily sick of the purile, sixth form opinions that the warmists keep pushing.

One day these people will grow up and get a proper job and make the effort to read some history.

Useful idiots? We’ve got plenty of them in this world.

Dear old Pete (Best), I’ve just copied the link from my previous post (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html) and stuck it into Internet Explorer and it worked fine for me. 10 simple questions similar to the ones that I asked you to answer months ago (see my comment on 19th May @ 15.04). You never managed to answer those either. and really must try harder. I’ve copied the same link that I’ve re=posted and it works as well, so have another go. I bet you 10p that you get most answers wrong ((I only beat on certainties ).

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

PS: is there anyone out there with something to add to the debate.

Pete Ridley, Science is more certain then denier sites with awful usage of words. The site your link to is a laughable excuse of a webiste asking silly questions badly worded. Global Warming means anythin whilst AGW means something specific which is not mentioned. It just drones on about the media, what a surpise much like you do.

I salute your for your endurance and commitment to your cause of denial but its wearing a little thin now .

Dear Pete (Best), I’d be very reluctant to disagree with you that Monte Hieb’s site “.. is a laughable excuse .. asking silly questions badly worded”. Your expertise in laughable excuses and wording things badly is obvious to anyone reading your comments here and elsewhere, but keep trying. I did a search on Monte Hieb and some of the sites it took me to had me splitting my sides.

Dear other readers, I’ve just been looking at Australian geologist Peter Ravenscroft’s “Open letter to Bob Brown and the Greens” (Note 1). His letter includes some interesting comments about one of those processes and drivers that “we don’t know anything much useful about” (Note 2), geomagnetism. Peter makes some very interesting observations at the ABC Radio National Pool – ‘an on-line “town square” for all Australians’ site (Note 3) and has submitted many sceptical comments to bravenewclimate, some covering the subject of geomagnetic climate impact. All of Peter’s observations are all well worth a look at (and you’ll have a laugh or two in the process).

There is no sound scientific basis for accepting the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis or for believing that the use of fossil fuel as a source of energy to power global economies is other than beneficial to humankind. There are numerous climate processes and drivers other than CO2 and H2O about which scientists know nothing much useful (Note 2).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Sorry, I forgot to include the “Notes” in my previous post.

Dear Pete (Best), I’d be very reluctant to disagree with you that Monte Hieb’s site “.. is a laughable excuse .. asking silly questions badly worded”. Your expertise in laughable excuses and wording things badly is obvious to anyone reading your comments here and elsewhere, but keep trying. I did a search on Monte Hieb and some of the sites it took me to had me splitting my sides.

Dear other readers, I’ve just been looking at Australian geologist Peter Ravenscroft’s “Open letter to Bob Brown and the Greens” (Note 1). His letter includes some interesting comments about one of those processes and drivers that “we don’t know anything much useful about” (Note 2), geomagnetism. Peter makes some very interesting observations at the ABC Radio National Pool – ‘an on-line “town square” for all Australians’ site (Note 3) and has submitted many sceptical comments to bravenewclimate, some covering the subject of geomagnetic climate impact. All of Peter’s observations are all well worth a look at (and you’ll have a laugh or two in the process).

There is no sound scientific basis for accepting the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis or for believing that the use of fossil fuel as a source of energy to power global economies is other than beneficial to humankind. There are numerous climate processes and drivers other than CO2 and H2O about which scientists know nothing much useful (Note 2).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Oh dear, I’m realy getting in a twist here – must be hunger. Ignore my previous post. Here are the notes, one at a time, then I’m going for lunch.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/open_letter_to_bob_brown_and_the_greens

NOTES: 2) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth especially 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/8520514/Sammy_Wilson_N_I_Environment_Minister_bans_global_warming_propaganda/ Change Agnostic

NOTES: 3) see http://www.pool.org.au/group/climate_change

Phweeww. Regards, Pete Ridley

There is no sound scientific basis for accepting the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis or for believing that the use of fossil fuel as a source of energy to power global economies is other than beneficial to humankind. There are numerous climate processes and drivers other than CO2 and H2O about which scientists know nothing much useful (Note 2).

I suddenly realise that no one listens to Australians except for other Australians of course. Phew!!

It’s, it’s, it’s…........it’s an own goal!!!!!!!

EnvironMENTALISTS score own goal. What a match.

Very exiting match today with the complete and utter lunatic fringe from somewhereposhshire versus the might of the British judicial system. Lead own goal scorer Beth Stratford played a blinder when she took, ahem, “direct action” and lost it big time.

Unfortunately, expecting a welcome home parade via a vain attempt at grown up writing on the envirorag, The Guardian, she failed in this respect as well if the comment section what anything to go by.

Match report here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/05/drax-protest-trial-beth-stratford

Don’t forget to check out the punters opinions as they are representatives of the People, the real People under one flag, the flag of Socialism and one world government.

Climate change deniers of the world unite. What do we want? Coal!

When do we want it? Yesterday! The lights are about to go out.

Tony, no argument from me but some of the environment lobby/group always feel that grand statements need to be made in order for the public to be informed about king coals crime against the planet in order for Governments to act. This is how they see it for some reason. Its how they see the system working and how they feel they need to combat it. Plane Stupid, father4justice etc. They all protest in public to achieve their subjective objective.

So you don’t have a problem with me doing the same in order to highlight the massive scam of man-made climate change?

For example, let’s suppose I take some sort of action which will cause disruption to hundreds of thousands of people maybe holding up the traffic for several hours, would you regard this action as acceptable? Not me that’s for sure.

Eco-warriors cannot really expect special treatment from the courts merely because they cite impending doom to Mankind. This is the road to anarchy surely?

In fact they do their cause some considerable disservice by their actions. Most sensible, law abiding folk tend to get very bored with this sort of behaviour. Rather like a child with a whistle, after five minutes even the most even tempered of parents tend to take the whistle away placing it on the top shelf.

Tony, its not only so called eco warriors who protest. Many citizens deem direct action necessary to put their point across on many subjects so picking on the eco activists is a little odd. You got a problem with eco people ?

Pete (Best)

My mother has been in declining health for some years and she suffers severe attacks daily. Over the last few years she has visited some of most highly qualified doctors, psychiatrists and therapists with over 300 years practicing experience between them in both the public and private health sectors. They all tell her the same thing, that she suffers from chronic and acute anxiety and they all prescribe the same course of action which involves her taking medication and undergoing drastic changes to her lifestyle which will require considerable effort and discomfort on her part.

Each time she hears this she refuses to believe it, will not take the prescribed course of action and then tries to pin her illness on another ever-increasingly tenuous, pseudo scientific syndrome that the healthcare professionals have missed. As a result her health continues to decline.

The problem here is a deep rooted psychological one where the individual will refuse to accept an idea which directly contradicts their beliefs and the subconscious will go to any extreme to refute the evidence which is being presented. This is a form of cognitive dissonance which can be impossible to overcome as the individual is unable to change their own view point and is more inclined to distort their perception of the world around them in order to continue the status quo. In extreme clinical cases of the condition I have discovered that the more you try to change the mind of the sufferer, ironically, the more you reinforce their beliefs.

Whilst I appreciate the effort you have made to date with your persistent and often amusing antagonists, I suggest you divert your efforts where they can contribute to positive change amongst those of a more rational and open persuasion.

JB, Point taken.

JB, I started out being very concerned for our future after reading a Sunday Times article which summarised Mark’s booklet “Six Degrees …”. After doing my own research over a couple of years I came to the reasoned conclusion that it was nothing but environmentalist scare-mongering propaganda, fully supported by politicians and others for their own vested interest reasons. The more I research the more my opinion is confirmed, but I still try to keep an open mind to new ideas, but there aren’t any from supporters of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. All of the new ideas come from the sceptics, increasingly demonstrating the flaws in the arguments of the supporters.

I see that Mark has stopped posting to his blog and producing his science fiction journal articles to concentrate on his new book. He’s obviously collected enough from subscribers to his blogs to earn another crust, although he appears to have recognised that there is no more money in horror stories about climate change. He says that it will be about “ecological limits – scientifically-defined and quantified limits to our interference with nine ‘planetary boundaries’, from climate to biodiversity loss”. Perhaps he’ll try harder this time to make his science fiction more closely relate to real life than he did in “Six Degrees .. ”. I’d hate to have to point out more distortions and omissions to his devoted readers.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

Pete Ridley, funny that as I think the opposite to you, you know the orthodox scientific viewpoint that you cannot bring yourself to see for some reason. Your reasoning must be incorrect as the science is good and better than the other viewpoint.

Let us start this discussion again shall we to determine the outcome of rational scientific thought vs other thoughts. You go first, when you started two years ago what brought you to your conclusion?

JB, have you cut and pasted that last rant from one of those forwarded emails We all get from time to time from sentimental friends? It’s soooo sugary sweet and convenient that I wonder if you really have a Mother who is suffering these complaints you talk about. I was expecting the end of your comment so say something like “Please pass this message on and spread some light into someone else’s life and make them happy”. Yuk!

Anyone can come up with simplistic analogies such as you have written but they are in the end meaningless and do nothing to further debate. Analogies are the last bastion of the desperate who is losing the argument. Come on let’s face it if you listened to every doctor who ever walked the face of the Earth you would be living like a monk. No coffee (cancer, high blood pressure, increased heart rate), no alcohol (endless list of dangers too numerous to mention), no meat, no bread, no fat whatsoever and so on and so forth.

You are a free thinking human being and not a little boy. You are a man. Behave like one all those who are spoon-fed the propaganda. Learn from history and wake up and smell the coffee (or perhaps not) the roses. The world is being browbeaten by big Government. Look what nu-labour has done to this country. Virtually every single piece of legislation they have passed since 1997 has done its best to, bit by bit, take away freedoms hard fought over the centuries and the biggest cheerleaders to this pox on our country are the liberal eco-fascist pseudointellectuals who smugly revel in their favourite hobby which is telling others how to live their lives. Get a grip and grow up and think for yourselves.

JB, re-reading my last comment please accept my apologies for any offence caused by my assertion that you made up the story of your Mothers condition. It was unnessarily harsh and not knowing you personally and your circumstances I am in no position to question your integrity. I hope your Mother recovers from the problems you talk about.

Ooops!

http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article89500.ece?lang=EN

Tony

Your apology is welcome as, unfortunately, that is the genuine state of my mother’s health and thanks for the concern but it is very unlikely that she will get better as she is unable to accept that she is psychiatrically ill!

Thanks also for reinforcing my point as lashing out angrily is a common initial response of an individual when they are confronted with ideas contradictory to their deep held beliefs.

Thanks even more for the invaluable contributions that you and others have made above which, along with many other heated debates going on in the blogosphere, are forming a valuable contribution to my thesis on cognitive dissonance, about half of which is on the topical phenomenon of climate change denial.

Please accept my sincerity when I say that I am in no way questioning your intelligence, motives character or even sanity but you have stood out as fitting the psychological profile of this form of self-delusion better than anyone I have come across in this fascinating subject.

I am not going to present you with any arguments for AGW as I know from experience that this would be an exercise in futility, but I would appreciate hearing more on your notion of big government generating AGW propaganda to further their own agenda? What are their motives here and how does promoting AGW achieve them?

PS Love the last link about Narsaq – again an ideal example of selective use of evidence that supports your opinion but does not disprove climate change.

JB, you may be interested in visiting http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/assessment_of_penny_wongs_response_to_my_3_questions_on_climate_change/#comments. as well as http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/06/ashden_awards_1.html and his other blogs. And let’s not forget Mark Lynas’s other blogs. oh, and http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 and the rest of the posts at that New Zealand Climate Science Coalition site.

I’m sure you’ll find lots of useful material.

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

Its all a matter of scientific rationale and not the popular scientific media circus which seems to get some people riled up, maybe because it smacks of socialist politics.

JB, what you regard as lashing out in my book can also be interpreted as feeling passionate about any given subject. I don’t know whether you are qualified in the field of the science of the mind or are merely quoting pop psychology when you describe me “fitting the psychological profile of this form of self-delusion better than anyone I have come across in this fascinating subject”.

If the former is the case then I can’t seriously be expected to regard those comments with a great deal of scepticism. If you are indeed well versed and qualified in the psychological sciences I would be grateful if you could supply me with more on this aspect of the field, if indeed, there is such material – peer reviewed of course otherwise there will be hell to pay from Pete Best. He does insist on everything being peer reviewed. When you say you are doing a thesis I assume you are at University on a degree course.

I have to say from what I know of cognitive dissonance it’s not quite as straightforward an idea as it first seems. The rules, if you can call them rules, seem to be quite loose in their terms of reference as to exactly what cognitive dissonance really means. So cognitive dissonance to one person is not quite the same cognitive dissonance to another. In trying to define the term to the satisfaction of all corners must be cut and tradeoffs made and points of views taken into account in order that the term cognitive dissonance can be used in a way which is actually useful and fulfills some sort of purpose. This is where the term cognitive dissonance has the possibity to fall flat on its face – at least when the concept is misused deliberately or accidentally as is the case when trying to apply cognitive dissonance to the subject of Man-made global warming.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the term has been used of late in the perjorative sense. I’ve noticed people using the term in order to close their position in a debate in order to give the impression that by saying that someone is guilty of cognitive dissonance then the argument has been won and the opposition is suffering under some sort of delusion.

This, ironically, has been the tactic of those who believe in AGW over many years and they have used the tactic to great effect judging by the influence it has had on the mindset and opinions of very many people worldwide.

So by condemning people as “flat Earthers”, “deniers” (as in holocaust deniers), “in the pay of big oil” etc. etc. they have managed to skew the debate where science is thrown out of the window and politics and manipulation enters by the back door.

It’s a classic debating technique and has been used for millenia quite successfully.

When master manipulators ( perhaps you should be doing a thesis on this subject instead) such as Al Gore tell us that the debate is over ask yourself a simple question. – Did I miss something or was there ever really a debate in the first place?

My friend let me tell you there never was a debate. What happened was that the master manipulators got in there first and trumped the opposition. Hats off to them they did a first class job.

G8 are on the right track and the G17 -G20 might be also brought on board. However its only a what to do agreement and not a how to do it one, well not yet anyway.

Dear readers, have you seen Andrew Alexander’s article in yesterday’s Daily Mail “Hysteria is the real threat, not global warming”. Excellent article and interesting to see that of the 23 comments from readers so far 21 support his opinion. That’s very encouraging. If that is a true reflection of UK opinion, over 90% of the population reject the opinion of those who support the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis while less than 10% support it. Wonderful – perhaps people aren’t as gullible as some would have us believe.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic

Yes Pete (Ridley) I read that article as well. When you refer to the comments section I do find it encouraging that there are others out there who haven’t fallen for the propaganda.

What you may well find even more entertaining is reading the comments in Moonbats occasional (thankfully they could be daily after all) outbursts in the Guardian. Most of those who do make comments on his “thought provoking lol” pieces generally manage to rip his prose apart very easily. And these are Guardian readers.

Now here is the really interesting thing about Monbiots latest offerings. Presumably because he is so undermined by those offering an opinion on his rantings his latest piece forgoes the usual end of the world hysteria and concentrates on what exactly should be done about these people. His solution is beyond the bizarre and tells us much about his state of mind.

Read the article here. I have to warn you though that this particular bloke has the ear to many with power and influence and do not be suprised to see his particular solution acted upon. After all how we all joked a few years ago about the climate police – Now they do actually exist. The link to that little gem can be found on the second link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/08/climate-denial-astroturfers-pseudonyms

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece

The Daily Mail is not even a newspaper but a load of opinion and mostly wrong. Since when does a popular newspapers understand science or you two for that matter.

Fortunately the G8 and G18 think othewise, phew for that.

Pete (Best) The Daily Mail does have its faults but the same can be said of most newspapers ie. loads of opinions and mostly wrong. They are not unique in that respect.

See what you think of this article in The Spectator.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Tony, When it comes to reporting on science some do it better than others. The Daily Mail could not report the truth on the science of climate change for it sticks in their throat much like it does yours and Pete Ridley but the sounds of it. As for the spectator, its all wrong wrong wrong but I am sure you find it to be right, right, right as it just backs up your mindset which just ignores the science and feeds of politics (the way you feel).

Pardon my ignorance folks, but I’ve been puzzled for some time by the use of “lol” on these blogs. I’m sure it doesn’t mean “lots of love” so please someone enlighten me.

As for you, Pete (Best), yes, of course, how can anyone possibly disagree with such well-considered prose as yours, so well expressing your infinit logic and wisdom. Well done. Is it correct that you have been nominated for a Nobel prize?

Regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

LOL = laugh out loud

Its just based around the science, is yours ?

Dear readers, have you seen the nonsense in the Times today at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6196286.ece

And the consequences of this nonsense in http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6684912.ece

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic

Yes Pete, it’s all very depressing really. The wheels of the gravy train are well and truly in motion. Too late methinks to sound the alarm. Isn’t it strange how a only a few years ago every large company was eager to advertise themselves as organic or fair trade? Not a peep on that front now that they all carry some sort of green footprint type logo. It’s so flippin transparent but as per usual the wackos and the proles just carry on as if it’s the most natural thing in the world.

I managed to watch Vivien Westwood on the Jonathon Ross show (I hasten to add this is not my usual selection of public broadcasting material) after my wife told me she watched her latest offering. So over to iplayer and, true to form, there the good lady was holding forth about how she had listened to the Gaia meister himself Jimmy Lovelock and how it had changed her life. Oh yes the usual “We’re all about to perish” nonsense and the audience inevitably lapped it up with not the slightest questioning of her beliefs from Wossy.

Two things struck me though and they both come together rather well in terms of what both you and I have been pointing out.

The first is that this woman has listened to the ramblings of an obviously unhinged nonaganarian in his final years and has swallowed his pronouncements hook, line and sinker with no regard to checking out the facts and at least finding out what the other side of the argument might be.

The other equally interesting but slightly more sinister aspect of this is when we learn that she contacted the BBC in order to use the Jonathon Ross show as a platform in order to espouse her blatently naive viewpoint. This is fact as partway through the interview she thanked Ross for giving her the chance vent her spleen.

I wonder if she had contacted the BBC in order to tell the world that she thought the idea of AGW as laughably stupid in the extreme and wanted to warn the world of the great green con would they still have let her on the show?

Answers on a postcard please.

You see folks and you thought the BBC was unbiased and gave you the truth when it comes to following world events.

Didn’t I tell you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling—bosses-scared-it.html

Now I suppose your’ll be telling me he’s a rubbish newsreader.

Every deniers nightmare. UK listens to orthodox science (actual relevant scientists that is) and goes for an alleged renewable/low carbon energy future. First up is 34% emissions drop come 2020 and then for the big one by 2050 of 80%.

Get on board to stop 2C from occuring.

And by that time Pete you among many others will be shivering in you basement flat next to a candle unable to pay the energy bills and praying for some wind.

Tony, No one said it was going to be easy and I doubt gas and oil are going to go. Mainly coal so turn on your CH and drive your car, just conserve and economise if you can.

For those who insist on their studies being peer reviewed I suggest they take a peek at this piece of news.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907155494/energy-and-environment/un-models-on-global-warming-fundamentally-wrong.html

Tony, Full of typcial misquotes from the media i am sure and if its such an amazing peer reviewed paper then we wil find out soon enough if it makes all of AGW theory look silly but its extremely doubtful to do that. Pitiful media nonsense as per usual.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm

The article is repeated here and states that AGW is going to be worse than thought but I thought that methane was responsible for the temperature surge as it is 20x more a GHG than CO2 is and hence Co2 ends up releasing lots of methane. It could happen again.

Dear readers, a subscriber to Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s blog (Note 1) brought to my attention a topic that I had not come across, Global Governance. This sounded ominous (“Big Brother” big time) so I looked further. I discovered a UN supported organisation, the Commission on Global Governance produced a report in 1995 (Note 2) QUOTE: The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000. Among those recommendations are specific proposals to expand the authority of the United Nations to provide:  Global taxation;  A standing UN army;  An Economic Security Council;  UN authority over the global commons;  An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;  A new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (NGOs);  A new “Petitions Council”;  A new Court of Criminal Justice; (Accomplished in July, 1998 in Rome)  Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;  Expanded authority for the Secretary General. UNQUOTE

Interesting comments appear in “Global Governance: Why? How? When?” (Note 3) in which the names of many supporters of the “Significant Human-made Global Climate Change” hypothesis keep cropping up, including pseudo-environmentalist politicians Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Robert Mueller and James Lovelock – the “Gaia” hypothesist – (Note 7).

No doubt the global economic crisis has put things on hold for a while, but watch out. If you want something to really panic about, forget the “significant human-made global climate change” propaganda and look at the plans for Global Governance (and the individuals who are involved).

The UN is driving the Global Governance movement, just as it is driving the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. I’ve looked further into the background and current activities (they’re still pushing it along Note 11) of our friends Gore, Strong, Mueller and associates like Timothy Wirth, Richard Benedick, George Soros and it’s frightening.

In 2007 Zbigniew Jaworowski said (Note 8) QUOTE: The concern at the top about “climate change” is not genuine and there are hidden motives behind the global warming hysteria. ..

Maurice Strong, who dropped out of school at age 14, established an esoteric global headquarters for the New Age movement in San Luis Valley, Colorado, and helped produce the 1987 Brundtland Report, which ignited today’s Green movement. He later become senior advisor to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, and chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “UN Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Strong, who was responsible for putting together then Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Strong elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliberate “quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption. . . and set levels of mortality control”.

Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy”

Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” UNQUOTE

As expected, Jaworowski was ridiculed by the supporters of the hypothesis, accused of being just another “conspiracy theorist”.

(Note 9) QUOTE: In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:

“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”

These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:

“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House. UNQUOTE

I could go on and on and on, but it’s too frightening for the gullible. Global Governance (actually Global Dominance) is far far more dangerous and frightening than anything the scare-mongers tell us about climate change and much more likely to happen.

Supporters of the hypothesis defend their position with anything they can turn to, including insults and vilification, but, as A Schopenhauer (1788-1860) said “Truth will first be ridiculed, then violently opposed, and finally accepted as self-evident”. The truth about the hypothesis is that it is reaching the stage where it is becoming more and more self-evident.

Returning to the “Significant Human-made Global Climate Change” hypothesis, Timothy Wirth is reported (Note 10) to have commented recently about the US “cap-and-trade” climate change bill which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26. QUOTE: And there’s nothing in the bill promoting the use of natural gas, which should be in a good position to cut the nation’s CO2 emissions, Wirth said “Natural gas is a domestic fuel, that can support the grid and provide electricity in when renewable sources such as the wind or the sun don’t operate, and which emits less CO2 than coal or oil when burned, he said. UNQUOTE From my high-school chemistry I understand that domestic natural gas is virtually methane (CH4), ignoring the impurities coal is carbon© and burning means combining with oxygen (O). CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O and C + O2 = CO2. In simple terms this tells me that burning coal produces less greenhouse gas (CO2) than burning methane (CO2 + 2H2O). I’m obviously missing something very fundamental here so would someone kindly explain for me.

Regarding concerns about food shortages in some parts of the world, it is interesting that despite the claims of the environmentalists, the UN organisations directly involved appear not to consider that climate change is the problem. Rather, it appears to be due to agricultural mismanagement (Note 4, 5 & 6)

NOTES: 1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/assessment_of_penny_wongs_response_to_my_3_questions_on_climate_change 2) see http://sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm 3) see http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Global_Governance_1.htm 4) see http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31318&Cr=food+crisis&Cr1= 5) see http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31328&Cr=food+crisis&Cr1= 6) see http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31051&Cr=hung&Cr1=agriculture 7) see http://www.scribd.com/doc/3448720/Robert-Mueller-the-UN-and-the-Gaia-Worshippers 8) see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf 9) see http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6485 10) see http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/07/06/daily55.html?ana=from_rss 11) see http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/al-gore-global-governance-london-july-7-2009/ and particularly http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/gore-on-global-governance-what-the-climate-change-scam-is-really-about/

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

Tony, that’s a reassuring message in the article that you linked to. Perfectly valid scientific arguments, as you’d expect from scientists like Dr. Tsonis (I quoted from his excellent paper Note 1 – of 2007 in my paper “politicization of Climate Change & CO2” Note 2) and Dr Gray who reject the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. Even supporters of the hypothesis such as Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Renwick are admitting the deficiencies in the hypothesis and hence in the models upon which the IPCC depends for its climate forecasts (crystal-ball fortune telling).

As I said in my previous comment, Global Governance (i.e. Dominance) is a much more frightening prospect than anything the IPCC models can foretell and is much more likely.

NOTES: 1) “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts” by Dr. Anastasios A. Tsonis et al. in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L13705). 2) http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1

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

Pete, extremely interesting stuff. I did see the headline about global governance a couple of days ago and sort of passed reading it. It seemed to fantastical, too conspiracy theory but thanks I’ll read more about it, it looks facinating and worrying.

The funny thing is that I spent my teenage years during the 1970’s learning history at school and the thought always struck me (naively of course but I was a mere schoolboy) that the stuff I learned about – the two great wars, the Russian revolution and all the other trouble and strife was just that – history. Nothing bad could now happen. World leaders would have learned by these mistakes.

How wrong I was. People are still as greedy, ruthless, stupid, prone to panic. World leaders continue on their course to fug things up for the rest of We mere mortals.

I guess in sixty years time, post the next great world war, schoolboys and girls will be thinking the same way I did. Mind you they at least will get a big laugh about the current obsession with the end of the world caused by a trace gas. I wonder if nursery rhymes will be written and sung in the playground much like Ring a ring of roses or The grand old Duke of York.

The world is gonna burn, the world is gonna burn, e i addio the world is gonna burn. The polar bears is dead, the polar bear is dead, e i addio the polar bear is dead. The silly scientists, the silly scientists, e i addio the silly scientists are swinging from hempen rope.

Mr Ridley, you are as per usual trying to obfuscate the knowledge of the subject matter and posting a lot of dross. They accept the warming of CO2 so it is a problem but in one epoch of time the spike of heat was huge and models cannot reproduce the effect, only half of it. First up is need to prove this is indeed correct for James Hansen has already proposed a doubling of climate sensitivity for 2x CO2 levels to 550 ppmv from 280 ppmv due to the rewriting of the charney limit and boundary conditions.

Stop trying to demonstrate that the science is incorrect when you are citing one peer reviewed paper and another lot of dross from Vincent Grey etc. Utter baseless nonsense.

You trust James Hansen? Christ on a bike the man has been exposed as a fool. It’s public knowledge. Still carry on I’m not going to change your mind on the subject I suppose.

I have to say I did manage a laugh at this piece.

Green jobs eh? Ha ha ha ha.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6715515.ece

Tony, your talking utter nonsense. James Hansens science emminent in he field of AGW. He is the head of GISS but you probably do not even know what it is off hand. Emmient scientific body and you have to ve incredibly good to reach the top of that body.

Its more a question of me changing yours. Only you can be wrong as the science is right.

Dear readers, this is the lead item in Australian Senator Steve Fielding which I think all of our politicians and environmentalists should see.

QUOTE: Climate change is real. Yes that’s right, contrary to the misreporting in the media, I do believe in climate change. That might come as a shock to some of those on the left side of politics, but it’s the truth. The question that concerns me, however, is what is driving it? Is it increasing levels of human made carbon dioxide emissions, variations in solar radiation or something else?

Around three months ago one of my advisors pulled me aside and asked me what I thought was driving climate change. I smiled and said automatically that it was obviously a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions. I had never really looked at the science and just assumed what was reported in the media to be true. Well wasn’t I in for an enormous shock. My advisor presented me with data and some comments from a number of scientists which suddenly had me asking many questions. This led me to do some further reading and I ultimately decided to head over to Washington on a self funded trip so I could find out more about the science behind climate change.

In the US I met with numerous scientists on both sides of the debate. Some media outlets would have you believe that I met only with climate skeptics who they accuse of being paid off by the fossil fuel industry. These claims are wholly inaccurate. Moreover, I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair hearing even if it isn’t the most popular view. I believe it’s my role as a a politician, to wade through all of the spin and come up with my own conclusions after hearing all of the facts. Some of the data led me to question whether the Rudd government had got the science right. I then took some of the information and questions I had to the White House where I met with one of President Obama’s senior climate change advisors. While these discussions were fruitful, I was left at the end with even more questions than when I had started.

In an effort to try to get to the bottom of the issue I started to talk to a number of scientists based in Australia to get a feel for what their views were on the subject. Amongst the many presentations, one item really stood out. I was presented with a graph based on data that IPCC use which showed carbon dioxide emissions sky rocketing over the last 15 years while global temperatures had remained steady. This graph left me nothing short of flabbergasted. Up until this point I had truly believed that human made carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for climate change. However, this graph basically said otherwise. I was left asking myself how I could vote for a carbon pollution reduction scheme if it appeared as though carbon dioxide emissions were not driving climate change. It is important to point out that the IPCC had predicted in their models that there would be a direct correlation between increasing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperatures. However, if you look at the graph it is obvious to everyone that this correlation simply does not exist.

Armed with this information I sat down with Minister Wong, the Chief Scientist and Professor Will Steffen of the ANU to hear their explanation. After an hour and a half I left none the wiser. I received a written response to my questions from the Minister a few days later which had me even more uncertain. According to the Minister, air temperature, a measurement relied upon by the IPCC and the Rudd Government to justify its emissions trading scheme was irrelevant. Instead, I was told that I should really be concerned with the variability in ocean temperatures. Not only did this contradict all of the information which the Minister had provided me with only a few days earlier but I was also aware of an IPCC report which stated that the measuring of ocean temperatures was not reliable.

I went back to the government with this question but was met with a wall of silence. They had clearly decided it was safer not to engage with me because I had legitimate questions which they probably were unable to answer. I was left feeling that the only responsible thing to do was to vote against this legislation. At the end of the day, it would be a betrayal of my duty to the Australian people to put at risk the national economy and many thousands of jobs on what is clearly inconclusive science.

But then enter Al Gore. Here was a man who had a lot of power and went around the world preaching about climate change. I thought he might have the answer for me, the ones I couldn’t extract from the Rudd government. I briefly met Mr Gore at a breakfast in Melbourne attended by more than a thousand people. He was aware of the important role Family First plays in the senate and was keen to catch up. After a series of phone calls I was met with a stonewall of resistance. I offered to meet Mr Gore at any place at any time but had no luck. Here we had the former Vice President of the United States, a self proclaimed climate change preacher running away from me over a few simple questions. I could hardly believe it. I would have thought if Al Gore was really committed to the cause he would want to meet with all senators who had concerns about the science if it would help ensure that the CPRS legislation would pass. Obviously I was wrong.

I have written to every senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question – what is driving climate change? If they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for a CPRS. This decision is the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines. I call on the government to answer my question with a straight answer. If they’re not prepared to do so, I’m happy to fight the lone battle in the senate until those senators who are honest with themselves break party lines. UNQUOTE Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

He sounds Australian I guess. Not able to seperate those scientists who specialise in the science of AGW and those who do not and would prefer to show him dross. No climate scientist who show anyone a graph of CO2/temperature in the past 15 years and declare the link! I mean bloody hell, come off it.

It must be easy to dupe an Aussie politician thats all it boils down to. It does not matter though the population of Australia is so small that their emissions are not up to much in the grand scheme of things. Probably no more than the UK are only a lot more per head of population, after all its a baking rock with some nice places around the edges. If you want it to be more of a baking rock then carry on.

Pete Ridley, thanks for that – what an inspiring piece.

“It does not matter though the population of Australia is so small that their emissions are not up to much in the grand scheme of things.”..................

Well Pete (Best) can you spot the irony in what you say? You tell us that their emissions are so small that they can be regarded as insignificant in the grander scheme.

So, presumably, you agree that any notion of the Australian Government passing any legislation to “combat climate change” would be pointless.

How do you square Australia’s expensive carbon legislation with the fact that it would make little difference to the climate?

I don’t expect an answer.

Australians have very high emissions per head of capita much like Canada (similar population) but their population is around 30 million so its a worthy thing to do but pales into comparison with the USA using 1/4 of the worlds energy and China catching up fast. Everyone can cut their emissions, hardly lacking sunlight are they in Austrilia. They seem more reluctant than even the USA to do it but that does not mean that they shouldn’t, but perhaps they won’t. Their legislation is very modest at best and just cheapskate at best.

Dear readers, I have often expressed my doubts about the validity of data which has been subjected to multiple statistical manipulations.

In desperation the supporters of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis keep declaring that mean annual global temperatures continue to rise because their graphs of temperature/time data which has been subjected to this kind of statistical manipulation. IF these manipulations are to be believed THEN there is a reasonable probability that there will be a global catastrophe before the end of this century.

IF they can use the same reasoning THEN New Labour supporters of Tony Blair’s 2001 hypothesis “We .. finally abolished Conservative boom and bust” (Note 1) can declare without a blush that mean annual UK investments continue to rise (Note 2).

As Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain are claimed to have said “There’s lies, damned lies and statistics”. The Climateaudit site (Note 3) does a brilliant job of presenting supporting evidence of this.

Notes: 1) see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-puts-party-on-poll-alert-with-radical-agenda-695495.html 2) see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6519 3) see http://www.climateaudit.org/

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

Dear Pete (Ridley)

I doubt that the practitioners of science have ever become desperate (the deniers are ever so) but seeing as how this battle is being fought over in the USA where the climate change bill has won its first round battle through the US system and now has to go to the senate the deniers voices are getting more shrill and through desperation promoting more nonsense of the same laughable and lamentable state as you post.

Your last post comparing climate change to something the labour party (Gordon Brown in reality) stated about eliminating boom and bust makes no sense. The idea of decadal warming of 0.2C is correct and in line with projections. The deniers ideas about the statistics of the subject matter have been dismissed and have never made it in to a reputable journal!!

Its as simple as that.

I continue to wonder my someone of your obvious overall intelligence continues to deliberately mislead this thread with long posts of irrelevant content. I am suggesting that you know the facts of AGW, know it to be true but for some reason does not politically want it to be acted upon for some selfish reasons I am supposing. Rather than continuing to attempt to spread this material you ought to relate to your true intellect and embrace the science and not the blog based nonsense of WUWT and CA.

All the best.

Dear readers, global climate change is a purely natural process that has been experienced since the world began. Although we can control our local environments to a small degree, humans never have had any control whatsoever over global climates and we won’t see any in our lifetimes, if ever. You may ask “what is causing it?” but you won’t get an honest answer from politicians because the scientists themselves are asking the same question. The reason is simple, they do not adequately understand climate processes and drivers. As far as the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis is concerned, regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or reject it, scientist are struggling to explain how nature drives global temperature and climatic conditions (witness the vast amounts of research funding still being thrown at climate science).

Eminent scientists working for the same establishments disagree to the point of insulting each other. A good example is at the Universisty of Adelaide, where Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change, is a staunch supporter of the hypothesis whereas Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, strongly rejects it (Note 8). Professor Brook says of Professor Plimer “ .. Ian’s assertions about man’s role in climate change were naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments.. ”. On the other hand, Professor Plimer says of Professor Brook “ .. Barry Brook is a biologist. .. He’s not a climate scientist, he’s done no climate science. ..” (Note 10).

As Professor Brook acknowledged (Note 8) “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. This is the fundamental reason why there is this continuing debate, with scientists on both sides being able to identify flaws in the others’ arguments. It is not because anyone is necessarily being dishonest but merely because of this lack of understanding about global climate processes and drivers. This is not a sound basis for politicians to make potentially damaging policy decisions (unless, of course, they have some other agenda).

Paleo-climatology suggests that global climates have shifted significantly and erratically on several occasions between two extreme conditions, an uncomfortably cold and pleasantly warm. Physicist Dr. Jeffrey Glassman operates a site “RocketScience” (Note 1) which explores the numerous uncertainties surrounding the climate science used by supporters of the hypothesis. On his blog “Internal Modeling Mistakes by IPCC .. ” (Note 2) Dr. Glassman develops this two-state concept. He considers the flows of energy involved during the shifts from one extreme to the other when debating the deficiencies in the climate models based upon this uncertain science. Bear in mind that these flawed climate models generate the crystal ball climate forecasts upon which the IPCC and other supporters of the hypothesis depend for their predictions of global catastrophe. On 21st June I posted a comment to that blog relating to the questions I put to the UK’s Minister for the Environment and Climate Change (Note 5) and it is interesting to compare the political response supporting the hypothesis (Note 15) with the scientific one rejecting it.

I will summarise what I understand Dr. Glassman to have said in his response to my comment, but you should read his response yourself for the precise words, since I may have misunderstood what he said. His comments are particularly relevant now that the supporters of the hypothesis are shifting their position towards emphasising the significance of the aqua-sphere rather than the atmosphere because the claimed global surface temperature trend is no longer correlating with the claimed global atmospheric concentration of CO2.

The IPCC AR4 WG1 report repeatedly refers to “thermal inertia”, using that terminology along with “heat capacity” and “thermal capacity” synonymously. This terminology can be misleading and confusing and the “thermal inertia” concept “is the core of misunderstanding and erroneous modelling by IPCC and its climatologists .. ” according to Dr. Glassman. As IPCC lead author Ramond Pierre Humburt said on the hypothesis-supporting site RealClimate (Note 6) QUOTE:You have to be careful here: though we speak of “thermal inertia,” there is no inertia in the climate system that is like the inertia of Newtonian mechanics. A system that starts cooling does not have a tendency to continue cooling. What thermal inertia does is slow the approach to equilibrium UNQUOTE.

Substances which absorb energy heat up as a consequence, the extent depending upon their heat capacity. Solar radiant energy is primarily absorbed in the oceans because of their surface area, total mass and colour. This radiant energy converts to internal energy by raising the temperature of the oceans. Subsequently this internal energy is transferred to the atmosphere and land in proportion to their relative heat capacities. The transfer mechanisms are primarily convection and conduction, with the climate system reacting in a dynamic fashion involving not only the direct forcings but including various feedback mechanisms.

The IPCC models use only radiative forcing under equilibrium conditions, when heat capacities are irrelevant. The models have no flow variables, simply computing a succession of hypothetical equilibrium points for global climates. They do not compute the flow of energy in passing from one equilibrium point to another. The models are insensitive to the various heat capacities of the separate physical elements of the global climate system. To faithfully model global climates the surface temperature should be driven to vacillate between the two major climate extremes. The paths along which these vacillations progress depends upon relative heat capacities, particularly of the oceans and atmosphere, along with the albedos of clouds and the surface, which are temperature and time-dependent. The IPCC models do not dynamically represent these climate processes and drivers or the associated feedbacks. According to Dr. Glassman, the IPCC needs to discard its radiative forcing concept and re-model around flow variables.

You may also find Dr. Glassman’s original article (Note 4) and the follow-up article “Gavin Schmidt’s Response to the Acquittal of CO2 Should Sound the DeathKnell for ASGW” (Note 3) interesting,. Dr. Glassman says “CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful”

A recent paper “Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong – Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell” (Note 7) relates to climate feedback inadequacies in the IPCC models. This is authored by Dr. Gerald Dickens, Professor of Earth Science at Rice University, Dr. Richard E. Zeebe, Associate Professor Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Dr. James Zachos, Professor of Earth and Planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz. Professor. Dickens has concluded that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). He said “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models - the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming - caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM”. This is a significant shift in opinion by co-author Zachos, who in 2005 was suggesting “A Continental Scenario for the PETM: Peat/Coal … Trigger” (Note 9) as distinct from a Methane Clathrate trigger. Now it was due to some unknown process or feedback.

Professor Dickens’s comment aligns with that of Professor Barry Brook (Note 8) about our poor understanding of climate processes and drivers.

Australian Senator Steve Fielding refer to his attempts to get Al Gore to meet and discuss the issue with him (Note 14). He was probably concerned that you would see through his propaganda and recognise his real agenda – Global Governance. Gore has previously been linked to the Global Governance movement but has now come out and acknowledged it himself. It is reported (Note 12) that on July 7, 2009 at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford (UK) Gore said “I bring you good news from the U.S. Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill .. very much a step in the right direction .. But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways .. is through global governance .. ”. Other prominent figures in the Human-made Global Climate Change debate are also pushing the Global Governance cause.

As I said in my comment of 15th July @ 08:04 PM on Senator Fielding’s blog “Assessment of Penny Wong .. ” (Note 11), Global Governance (a.k.a. Global Dominance) is a much more frightening prospect than anything the IPCC models can foretell and is much more likely. There is a big challenge looming for global societies (and for democracy) in the form of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, December 7th – 18th this year. Please, Senator Fielding, spread your opinions and common sense beyond the Australian political scene. Very few politicians have the courage to speak up, certainly here in the UK.

Anyone wishing to learn a bit about ancient climates should take a look at the links below (Note 13).

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic PS: I’ll send the “Notes” separately as I’ve tried sending the entire post in one go on several occasions and it’s failed each time.

Notes: 1) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/. 2) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html#comments/

3) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html#more/ 4) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more/ 5) see my comment of 14th July @ 12:51 on Senator Fielding’s blog (Note 11)

6) see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor// 7) see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/ru-gwo071409.php/ 8) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/. especially the lead item paragraph starting “There are a lot of uncertainties in science” and comments on 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12. (NB: I believe that this comment is highly significant and repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get Professor Brook to clarify what he was saying. The only response that I had from him was an objection to me using this quote “out of context”, so please see his blog comment of 23 June 2009 at 5.02 for the full quote). 9) see http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94450.htm.

10) see http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm. 11) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/assessment_of_penny_wongs_response_to_my_3_questions_on_climate_change/. 12) http://climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance.

13) see http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm, and http://www.scotese.com/precamb_chart.htm. 14) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/the_real_reason_ill_fight_in_the_senate_on_climate_change. 15) Defra incorrectly implies that computer models make valid forecasts of global climates, whereas in fact no models have ever been subjected to the normal independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures that are essential before bringing any major computer system into operation. No major company would consider depending for its future upon forecasts from any such un-proven system. Defra fails to mention that the only way that these models can provide results that match known climate conditions is by adjusting numerous parameters on a trial and error basis. This is not acceptable as a means of validating a computer system’s performance.

Defra also incorrectly implies that the models properly represent the effects of the aquasphere and atmosphere. The models cannot do this simply because the complex processes anmd drivers of global climates is inadequately understood (hence the continuing research being undertaken at enormous cost). The models ignore the dynamic flow of both input and fed-back energy through the components that make up the climate system and simply address radiated energy under several presumed equilibrium conditions

PHweeewe, took some doing. Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Pete Ridley, its beyond scientific doubt even if science does not know everything which you know full well is how science works. We do not understand dark matter and energy but that does not bring cosmology crashing now does it? Nor does imperfect genetic knowledge make natural seletion incorrect or wrong.

i know full well that you do not believe what you re saying, you just like fossil fuels and the standards of living it brings us all in the west.

Pete Best it is beyond scientific doubt that temperatures have decreased since 1998. Why do you keep harping on about global warming?

Tony, that is because you are misinformed. The sad old lamentable fable from the deniers is denied.

Pete (Best) not being funny but you sound like an automated message on the telephone system.

Are you seriously saying that world temperatures have risen since 1998? If so could you provide us all with the source of your proof?

There are many sources Tony but If I posted them here you would choose not to believe them. I am just giving you my position on te matter. Natural variability is significant in a 11 year time line. It takes longer for climatic trends to become noticeable.

Ah yes Pete, the warmists answer. Global warming is happening and I don’t have to prove it. Eleven years is weather and not climate. Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah.

This is a recording, a recording, a recording…........................................................................................................................

Sorry Tony but its an issue surrounding deniers. You deny to the point of there is no more point in attempting to turn you around. Its not worth it so sorry but there you are.

You have denied too much for my liking.

For readers who want to know about Sen Fielding, Tamino posted nice debunking about his “World is cooling since 1998” mantra, here : http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/

And also this extract from the comments : Nathan // June 27, 2009 at 1:01 am | Reply

Being an Australian I am embarrassed by Steve Fielding. Thankfully we will have an election late next year and he will be removed from parliament. By a series of strange events he was elected to the Senate with only 2.1% of the votes. He certainly represents very few people, mostly fundamentalist Christians. Sadly because of how the election panned out he has the balance of power in the Senate, and is doing his best to block anything the Aussie Govt does on it’s emissions trading scheme. Soon we will all be able to ignore him, just not this year.

[Response: Most nations have some politician to be embarrassed about; senator Inhofe comes to mind. In fact, until recently in the U.S. our biggest embarrassment was the president.]

Anyone still think man never went to the moon? The same people that think 9/11 was staged by the U.S. government! The same people that think advanced global warming is not happening!

And let’s not forget the fools who believe in God. Or those who believe in the wisdom of socialism. Or who believe that windfarms will solve our energy needs so that we may do away with conventional power plants.

Listen it’s human nature to want to, indeed need to believe in something. Now that most rational folk do not believe in a God and leftist politics has shown to be a strawman environmentalism neatly fills the void. Warmists need to believe that we are doomed. It keeps their mind off of reality – the more mundane things in life. The louder the shouts of fire and flood the more that armchair enviros ears prick up. It’s probably the most exiting things in their lives and makes great conversation at dinner parties or down the pub setting the world to rights over a couple of pints.

Tony, a few environmentalists will be thinking worst case scenarios (warmists if you like) but the rest of us would not. However we would be very foolish to let it get to 550 ppmv CO2and risk a global average rise of up to 6C through continued faith in fossil fuels when everyones now speaks of peak oil and gas and coal not that very far behind. Regardless of human nature these fuels will peak and become more and more uneconomical due to increased costs of extraction and energy returned on energy invested (EROI) reductions. When oil reaches $200 a barrel it severly impact our glorious materialistic system of increased progress and prosperity. Be mindful of that.

We all need to believe in something at some point and last I looked there were no laws against that. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is getting warmer generally though dont you think? Although last winter was quite cold for once!

Carl, are you having a laugh? “Warmer generally though don’t you think?”. Erm, no I don’t think. The met office earlier this year forecast a hot summer in the UK. Well so far that’s been proved completely wrong. These fools want us to believe that they can forsee the climate in the UK fifty or sixty years into the future and the morons are unable to get the weather forecast right for the next five months. Oh but hang on a minute – they are the experts and the useful fools blindly bow to their expertise. What an absolute joke!

As I said earlier, left of centre politics has been discredited in the western world, christianity has hit the buffers and the only thing left that can be considered a cause, something to fight for to make a better world is environmentalism.

Of course big business and politicians, never to stupid to pass a money making opportunity pass them by, seize the issue by the nuts and are as we speak raking in millions from naive wombats worldwide. It’s fascinating to witness how the naive and witless green proles have managed to open up unique business opportunities to “The Man” who in another decade would be considered as the evil capitalist.

Be careful what you wish for all you greenies. You may just get that wish.

Tony, stop blithering on will you abiut stuff you know nothing about. When they speak of summers they are only talking about average temperatures. Its the media that talks it up to mean something to ordinary people who seem to think that its some kind of facade or conspiracy to fool you.

I suggest all those non-global warming deniers take a look at this little film. I would be interested in your comments. Be open minded and listen to the other side and then perhaps tell us realists why the film is wrong.

http://ceiondemand.org/2009/07/17/policy-peril-the-truth-about-global-warming/

Tony, within 5 minutes of starting to watch this video it is already full of holes. No one is saying freeze fossil fuel energy but phasing it out over 40 + years is what is being asked for starting with coal which can be replaced by other energy technologies.

I will continue watching it but its already told a load of cobblers in the first 5 minutes.

Its just pure propoganda in my mind for several reasons. The story of heat waves and the USA and deaths is related to air conditioning usage. That is such a circualr argument its beyond belief that they have the audacity to state that so long as everyone is using air conditioning it does not matter that that very air conditioning is exasperating the temperature. So long as we have fossil fuels burning we can turn on our air con. LOL, thats just so lame and terrible media reporting.

You guys have some stamina! I posted here on June 29th, along the lines of, ‘supposing AGW exists as a threat, what are the realistic ways to keep the lights on?’. Pete Ridley acknowledged the post, but on a fairly swift scroll-through, I cannot find much in the way of cogent strategies to deal with the alleged problem while maintaining a realistic level of power for human use. So, I shall ask you directly, Pete Best, since you are clearly a stalwart among AGW theory supporters here, and must have considered this: What is the strategy that allows massive and rapid reduction in CO2 emissions, which will not result in greater poverty in the developed and developing countries, with (presumably) consequent increases in illiteracy, disease, malnutririon, hypothermia and so on, through a litany of afflictions which, to date, have mainly been alleviated by the application of industrial technology? Which contemporary technology should we deploy, now, today? Nuclear? We had better hurry up. They take a long time to build, and much of the existing generating capacity of the UK is coming the the end of its service life. Wind power? Tidal, wave, hydro? How would we reduce the massive methane contribution of agricultural livestock? (I’m a vegetarian, and quite calm about this). What happens to the transport sector, on which we all depend for tomorrow’s supper? Help me out here: I’m really not seeing the environmentalist’s vision of how it’s all going to work. And so on. If this has already been covered elsewhere, please point me at it.

RobinL, The solutions I am sure are available but it depends on many things. Too many maybe and that means only dealing the issue partially.

When it comes to meat eating its a tough one for vegetarians who might feel superior in some manner but as they are outnumbered bu around 10-15:1 it won’t make their future or their childrens any better. What is the solution to methane from meat? Who knows, probably none to be honest but sourcing it locally, leaving out the artificial feeds etc might help to some degree. Meat is a problem when it comes ot land use and water usage to.

As for the energy situation it all depends on your perspective. Are you prepared to fly less if at all, drive less, go to fewer exotic locations, buy less dross, update your computer and car at every opportunity to keep progress and prosperity going etc and hence expect our Government to change the energy infrastructure when we keep everything else the same ?

FredT34, I think that you will be proven wrong at the next Australian election (next year I believe). Many Australians are seeing through the political propaganda being pushed by supporters of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis, such as the IPPC and environmentalist organisations. Lots of commentators on Senator Fielding’s blog show there full support of his stance, e.g. “Keep up the good work, you are doing a great job in exposing this AGW scam for what it is, it’s a shame more politicians did not have the guts and common sense that you are showing. I hope you the public support you come election time, you have won my vote. Keep up the good fight for truth”.

Perhaps you should read Dr. Theodor Landscheidt’s paper “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?” (Note 1). I think it is worthwhile repeating a comment by (Note 1) QUOTE: The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined “best estimate projections” of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes “storylines” to speculate about warming as high as 5.8oC till 2100. The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: UNQUOTE. Of course, we non-scientists must be very wary of what we accept as gospel. His arguments might be political distortions, just like those of the UN’s IPCC (or with am name like his, a spoof).

I am surprised that anyone is prepared to rely upon anything that “Tamino posted nice debunking about”? He is someone too frightened to declare who he is or what real expertise he has in any scientific field relating to global climates. It is worth quoting from wattsupwiththat (Note 2). QUOTE: Dr. Roy W. Spencer replies to “Tamino”’s latest angry missive. As one commenter in my email list put it: It is absolutely hilarious that Tamino’s lengthy, time-consuming, chest-puffing critique can be so comprehensively dismissed in a mere two sentences. Here is what Dr. Spencer posted on his web page: October 8, 2008: A Brief Comment on “Spencer’s Folly” For anyone who has stumbled across a rather condescending critique of our latest research on feedback by someone who calls himself “Tamino”, I can only say that Tamino could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he would have noticed that all of my feedback work addresses TIME-VARYING radiative forcing (as occurs during natural climate variability), not CONSTANT radiative forcing (as is approximately the case with global warming). Tamino’s analytical solution does not exist in the time-varying case, and so his holier-than-thou critique is irrelevant to what I have presented.” UNQUOTE

Now Dr. Spencer is someone who really knows what he’s talking about, so try reading more of his arguments (Note 3). You may learn something worthwhile about the subject.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm 2) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/dr-roy-spencer-evaporates-taminos-critique/ 3) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

RobinL, welcome back. You may be interested in this comment of mine about another guy who thinks that cows, goats and sheep are a problem for global climates. QUOTE: Since Professor Brook thinks methane is so significant that it warrants running down Australia (and presumably the rest of the world’s) sheet, cattle and goat populations I’m surprised that he isn’t also recommending a global campaign to exterminate termites (Note 2). “Each termite produces, on average, about half a microgram of methane per day, a seemingly insignificant amount. However, when this is multiplied up by the world population of termites, global methane emission from this source is estimated to be about 20 million tonnes each year” (Note 2). According to Professor Brook, Australia’s livestock produces 3 million tons methane per year, so a world war to exterminate termites could be far more beneficial and far less economically damaging than a global attack on fossil fuel users.

NOTES: 2) see http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm

Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

Pete Best, thanks for the response. In reply to the points you make:

I do not share your confidence that ‘solutions..are available’. This is partly because I don’t see a generating technology capable of replacing fossil fuels on a significant global scale in the near or medium term, and partly because there is no evidence that the developing world, China and India included, are showing much enthusiasm for radically reducing their use of fossil fuels. Quite the contrary, in fact.

My point about livestock was solely about the atmospheric carbon implications: I have no problem with people eating whatever they want. I don’t eat meat because I don’t like doing so, rather from any wish to improve the future, let alone prescribe other people’s lifestyles (too much of that sort of thing already).

Energy: I drive 12 year old diesel Mazda, run a battered 1.9 Mhz Vaio I bought six years ago, rarely fly (once every few years on average), and have heat and light enough for a medium sized urban flat with two family. I certainly expect nothing from the Government: that indeed constitutes part of the problem for me, as the following shows:

A while ago I did a ‘carbon tax’ calculation: on the activities just described, I am paying a ‘carbon surcharge’, on taxed income, of about £800/year. (Shouldn’t I be getting a carbon-rebate for being vegetarian?)

£800 – to be spent on what? £100Bn-worth of landscape-wrecking, carbon intensive, redundant wind farms? The environmentalists really need to address this if they want to be taken seriously: unless a workable, affordable solution is offered, no population can tolerate being constantly bombarded with doom and gloom. They just get apocalypse-fatigue: ‘Sod it, we’re all going to die, so I might as well live for now’.

Pete Ridley: hello again. Thanks for the termites, what a threat they may turn out to be. What is the Government doing about it? I read once about the relative GW potential of methane being far greater than that of CO2, but forget the figure.. x10? Whatever… we’re all doomed…!

RobinL, you sound confused to me. Just because you are a vegetarian doesn’t mean anything now does it. Nor does your low carbon usage by driving small cars and heating a small home. Its a nice thing to be doing but it aint changing anything now is it? Thats the problem and the point I am trying to make. It requires mass change and sorry to say, wind turbines are a part of that future.

So is natural gas, and CSP. The near term future probably consists of electricity derived fron natural gas for peak load and the rest for baseload to get rid of coal. Once this infrastructure is in oil can be tackled via more electric power coming online and for declining gas usage to.

Pete Best: to simplify -

You and others seem to be insisting that the time to avert catastrophe is now.

Therefore, we (=everyone) should know what exactly you (environmentalists) think should be done, now and in the near future, in particular relation to keeping the infrastructure running.

Your own answer, specifically, to the power generation needs of the modern world, is a combination of wind-turbines, natural gas and concentrated solar power, is it?

For the U.K.? Could you confirm that please?

RobinL, I a not an ebvironmentalist, well not that I know of anyway.

Yes, it will probably be a combination of CSP, Natural Gas and Wind Turbines to provide electricity. The CSP power will probably be a EU project called Desertec. It may turn out not to be and people insist on more nuclear as well and tidal energy but one thing is probably likely and that is Europe needs to be involved at this level and not just individual countries.

If the coal can go first thats a good start and a relatively good option as technology exists to do this. When it comes to transport its a different matter. Flying requires liquid fuels and so does freight unless you take it all by train either diesel or electrified means. Cars could be electrified and probably will be.

Hmm. I don’t think I’m quite being understood. At risk of being tiresomely repetitious…

Pete Best; the practical issues for your solutions for electricity generation might include the following:

CSP (for European nations) seems to require massive co-operation from North African and Middle-Eastern states, not all of whom are necessarily well disposed towards us all of the time.

Similarly, the long term natural gas supply involves Russia. In recent years, gas supplies to the EU have been cut, tanks have been sent in to neighbouring states, and the Kremlin has made it clear that Russian gas reserves will be used to secure Russian objectives. Fair enough, but risky for the EU.

Wind-power: please show the evidence that windfarms can actually reduce carbon emissions. Point out the published carbon audits for new distribution networks, for masses of concrete, transmission losses, conventional back-up. And the actual cost per KwH to the end user, ‘green’ taxes included. Not easy to find, I’ve looked. It should be: a huge chunk of our money has been earmarked for this.

Nuclear: we need proof that there is enough uranium on the planet to provide nuclear power for more than a few decades, using contemporary technology.

This is where ‘confusion’ lies, and not just with me. You speak optimistically of schemes that may prove viable in an ideal future, but do not answer the questions, what now? And what next? And where is the vast amount of money to come from?’ Altogether too many questions to answer, but by now they should have been so thoroughly answered, researched and proven that they no longer needed asking. The ‘climate change’ issue has been discussed in public one way or another since the seventies: nearly forty years!

So, one more time, Pete Best, or anyone:

What is the ecomically, politically and technologically feasible strategy for the next 10 years that will work in the world we actually inhabit? And by ‘work’, I mean ‘reduce the alleged problem of atmospheric carbon without unacceptable cost’.

The only way that I can see to realise the gigantic engineering projects you appear to have in mind is to simply impose them, ignoring cost and the wishes of the population. I want to know how you see this being achieved ‘on the ground’.

A huge, militarily-enforced dictatorship of some kind, encompassing most of the world?

Presumably, at that point China would sign up.

RobinL, Where is the money to come from when we leave everything as it is and CO2 levels double and our world warms by 3 to 6C and possibly more?

Russia wants to sell its gas, we need to buy it as does most of Europe. What is changing there then ?

Wind Turbines rated at 2 MW (power rating) produce around 5 GWh (energy rating) per annum so for 200 of them that is 1 TWh which aint bad regsrdless of the cost and the transmissions lines. As for CSP and North Africa and the middle east then its about time we went easier on them and stopped invading countries for oil reserves and plabing our foreign policy accordingly.

A feasible strategy for 10 years is according to the UK government electricity from clean resources and that means wind., natural gas and other things but no one says it easy, after all the USA uses 10x the electricity we do and 10x the oil and probably 10x the gas. I am more worried about the USA and China. We are a nice little experiement.

Pete Best: The IPCC might take exception to your temperature prediction, I think. However:

It is impossible for things to remain as they are. Power generation in the last ninety years has developed in increased efficiency and reduced pollution beyond the most optimistic projections of 1920, why should it stop now?

Energy security (for all countries) is paramount. Nowhere do I read that wind-power can be anything more than a minor contributor: all wind-turbines have to have 60-90% of their capacity backed up by online conventional power stations: surely you know that? They are expensive window dressing, unless the problem of electricity storage can be solved.

Yes, there is a viable setup for Russian gas at the moment, but things change: what if there were a bit of a stand-off over, say, Arctic gas fields a few years down the line, when the EU is far more dependant on Russian supply?

And I agree, much foreign policy has been counter-productive, but has been caused by the same imperative: to secure the energy supply. The fact is, the relationship between the European nations and the Arab world has always been unpredictable, and it seems wise to accept that this may be the case for the medium term.

No developed or developing country’s population will tolerate their government putting them at risk of frequent power-cuts and shortages.

The UK Parliament has passed into law the Climate Change Act 2008: it binds the UK by law to reduce CO2 emissions by 26% against 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020, and all GHG emissions by 80%, to be achieved by 2050. Progress so far? Negative.

This is cloud cuckoo land, wouldn’t you agree? By setting an unattainable goal – the 2020 date – the Government has rendered the whole exercise a pointless farce. Which will waste money, carbon, and people’s effort.

A few thousand people will get rich from setup grants, tax-breaks and carbon trading. The real economy will be hit at the worst time: renewables are an extra cost, that’s it.

Meanwhile, as you say, the big boys carry on regardless. I don’t want to be part of a ‘nice little experiment’, thank you. I would prefer a moderate, significant amount of our money to be spent on research, year on year, on various promising new technologies, and on refining existing ones. More money to be made available when results justify it. With a rapid programme of power-station building, to minimise the looming shortfall on capacity. Nuclear, presumably, given the political climate. The intent would be to have a new set of technologies up and running within 40 years. I would not want any other country, or group of countries, to hold sway over our choices in this area. Left to our own devices, and co-operating freely with others, we are as capable of finding a method of generating clean, cheap energy as any.

I do not want our government to spend £100billion on wind-farms. And I do not want the EU, the UN, or any other outside agency, big or small, to dictate to us that this, or some other lunacy, is mandatory.

No, thanks.

RobinL, you talk sense from start to finish. Unfortunately We live in a world where the ecozombies hold great sway from bottom to top. Whatever the “experts” say their word will be taken as gospel no matter how extreme their pronouncements. In fact the more extreme the scenario they predict in terms of disasters to inflict themselves upon mankind the better in the minds of the ecoproles.

I strongly suspect that most warmists wait in anticipation for the next news report telling of retreating ice sheets, mass migration on an unimaginable scale, islands sinking into the sea etc. etc. Someone invented the word climate porn and this describes exactly the mindset of those like Lynas, Porritt, HRH climate change charlie, Richard Dimbleby, Harrabin the list goes on and on. These unelected buffoons who hold great sway in the minds of the public by mere virtue that they appear in the media and are in a position to hold a platform on anything they wish to speak about.

Of course they attend the same public and private functions and dinner parties (ha ha ha ha yes of course darling I know exactly what you mean, I’ve a little man who does all that) and with this group think emerges the sorry excremental garbage that somehow rises to the top.

We are screwed, pure and simple. We place our trust in these idiots and their friends and this is what we get.

In essence the same old same old class and money divide.

But what is worse is when the useful idiots, muchlike the poor agricultural worker dothing his cap to his master, help in this conspiracy by aiding and abetting his betters by believing this stuff without question and doing worse by trying to emulate his betters by his petite bourgeois attempts to do what he thinks is right.

So in effect recycling cereal boxes is a political act. A small effort to the common good. His masters will be pleased with him for doing something worthy and he feels that he can stand there next to his master on the same level.

Unfortunately for this poor, deluded soul his master laughs at his risible attempts at equal status and indeed feels nothing but contempt for this individual. Meanwhile the masters real friends are busy making lots and lots of money while the poor hapless lowly ecoworker suffers on under the delusion that they are “making a difference”.

Christ doesn’t it make you sick?

Tony, please let me know what these new clean energy technologies are as we all want to know? Its no coincidence that we are using up fossil fuels as they are the only think ever discovered that is cost effective and has enough energy density to be easily useful and comes in gas, liquid and solid form.

Personally I think that it is you who live in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to energy provision stating that we need more R&D to come up with new clean technologies. This is a pipedream, one that optimists often state thinking that it will be easy to replace fossil fuels if only we put money into it and physics will give us the answers. The reality of the world is somewhat different though and hence that is the reason why wind turbines and CSP coupled to natural gas is the best method of mititgating CO2 emissions because physics knows that anything else is too far away and does not exist.

We do anything of the following:

Geothermal (good solution for Iceland and some other places but for everyone) CSP and PV is an excellent as the earth bulges at its equator and between capricorn and cancer and hence we have a lot of land to use and space to fill and we can move the energy across continents via HVDC cables that can span thousands of miles if required. Wind: Plenty of it around to and as the worlds most advanced country is deploying planty of it people like your good self and that bloke Tony should realise that the solution is going to involve and lot of it. Nuclear: Well its a political hot potatoe but some more will be built but to be of service to humankind we need a new fuel as Uranium is limited and if we expand Nuclear too much its resource is limited to less than 100 years. Other nuclear fuels might be available (Thorium) but no reactor has ever been built. Nuclear waste also appears to be an issue. Hydro: I believe that nearly all of what can be is now hydro. Biofuels: In their present form they are useless in mitigating CO2. However future forms being researched now (Algae and cellulosic – there you are some R&D) might prove to be able to power aircraft and freight on the roads. Gas: 25% less CO2 than coal and oil and it can be transformed into a liquid and shipped around th world. The USA has plenty of it and Europe relies on Russia and Iran (2nd largest global reserves after Russia).

So when it comes to be held ransom on energy by what you would call African states etc which is a potentially dangerous and childish belief in my eyes then we should just being held ransom by the middle east and other states that like us not due to our daft foreign policy which needs to keep fossil fuels cheap and accessible. However plenty of evidence to suggest that oil is approaching its peak and will never be cheap again before 2020 and gas and coal might not be too far behind that either.

Its doubtful that gas and oil will be replaced anytime soon (2050) as it takes many decades to replace the worlds 1 billion trucks and cars but we can reduce our dependance on coal which will go someway to reducing the potential effects of CO2 emissions.

SOme of your arguments I have heard of many times, wind needing backup standby power plants but gas will be ideal rather than coal for that, that is my point. Its a difficult future and one that potentially might change its politics.

Roblin, that previous post meant to say Robin and not Tony.

Tony, you dont half talk some ill informed nonsense from my perspective and appear to know little about the subject matter at hand but are good at ranting.

Pete Best no truer word spoken. I do enjoy a good rant. I did laugh when you said that. I do tend to go off on one but that’s what it’s all about I reckon. Long may it be so. I enjoy reading all the posts on this blog. Anyway keep it up Pete and everyone else. We live in a free(ish) country at least for now. Keep it up.

Tony, if only we could see each others point of view. I am sure we can see some of it but its the fine details that keep us posting.

It’s a bit like the bottom of a disused mine-shaft down here! A few survivors, only four matches left…

Tony: Cheers, I enjoy reading your stuff. In the ‘being made sick’ stakes, the financial bailouts really do it for me, but that is too far off-topic to go into.

I take your point about the class/money divide. It was always that way: people need a bogeyman, then they need a strong leader to make it go away. An ideal job creation scheme for the educated elite, who can provide both. Pehaps the internets can help raise general background knowledge, over time? We live in hope.

The problem I have with AGW alarmism really comes down to the damage it does to real, here and now issues. As mentioned, you can only keep people in a state of anxiety for a limited period: these days, polls are showing that people are more concerned about the economic outlook than climate change. If the next ten years continue to be flat like the last ten, science itself will take the knock: the ‘cry wolf’ thing. And there’s talk of a deep solar minimum, which I can’t claim to properly understand, but it’s going on, apparently.

I should point out, I reckon AGW does exist to a degree (literally?!), but not to the extent that people should run around like headless chickens, scaring the children and chucking our money into a black hole. Many people, including our host Mr. Lynas, have hitched their wagons to the ‘alarmist’ thing: apart from anything else, it’s a good earner for some. Well, good luck. As with all opportunities, the shine is (probably) coming off this one.

Unfortunately, formerly trusted and useful organisations, like the BBC, the Met Office, the Royal Society, and many more elsewhere, are going to have their reputations severely tarnished if/when something ‘catastrophic’ doesn’t happen soon, like a total Arctic ice melt. And I really resent that they have taken this gamble, because that is what it is. We pay for them and their research, they exist to inform us, not lead us by the nose. They will regret it, but it will be our loss.

The real issues – dwindling resources, pollution, poverty, over-population – are drowned out by the climate-change argument. And, starved of money. Which is a problem for us all now, not in a hypothetically disastrous, distant future.

Pete B: you dismiss R&D in one sentence, ‘a pipedream’, then reel off a load of interesting technologies that are far from ‘off the shelf’, and evidently need a whole lot of R&D. Otherwise, as you say, where are they? You appear to have the knowledge, not me.

I like hearing your ideas, but they mostly seem to be twenty years or more away. And, much though I’d like to believe otherwise, the world is not yet ready for some of this stuff.

By the way, thanks for the ‘childish’ remark. At no point have I suggested that this or that will actually occur, but I am certainly looking at recent history. Nasser’s seizing (and closing) of the Suez Canal was a major, unforeseen problem in the fifties. As were the Arab-Israeli conflicts in the sixties, the quadrupling of the oil price in the seventies, and the Iran/Iraq war in the eighties. Without any interference from outside, the Middle East is perfectly capable of kicking off in the future: Syria, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Shi’ite/Sunni, secular/Islamic… when all else fails, there’s always the Great Satan. It’s volatile, like Europe in the 20th century. No moral point being made here, just ‘look, it catches fire from time to time’.

If there are hundreds of hectares of reflectors in the Sahara, do you honestly believe there won’t be some sort of security issue, through the next decade and more?

The Climate Change Act – do you yourself think those targets are attainable? I see no army of construction workers, no forest of tower cranes that would be needed to meet them. Opinions vary as to how many nuclear plants it will take. Twenty, thirty, perhaps more. Still, no crash programme visible. Half a dozen coal plants seem to be under way, though… Oh yes, they are ‘CCS Ready’. Sorted, then.

You don’t answer the ‘full carbon audit for UK wind-power’ issue, but since I can’t find the info, I can’t really expect you to be able to either. My thinking is that public opinion will gradually turn against wind-power as turbines proliferate in the countryside and CO2 continues it’s merry way upwards. Look at the figures for Germany.

Imagine the field day The Sun could have, on a slow news day, during a time when there have been a few power-cuts. Photoshop 500 turbines into a nice pic of Windemere, close-up of a chopped-in-half sparrowhawk, job done!

Time will tell.

Actually Mr B, I think you are closer to a realistic view of this whole thing – time-scales, etc – than you sound at first. I wish you wouldn’t make pre-emptive personal remarks, though. It puts me off. Argue the point, not the person?

Bit long-winded, this. The last two posts: almost, dare I say it, friendly..

Robin, The UK has a lot of wind and it is going to tap into it because wind turbines work and you can deploy a lot of them along a realistic time scale. A 2 MW (power rating) can generate with its 30% efficiency rating around 5 GWh (energy rating) of electricity which is quite good. However now you are going to give me the how much thang I would imagine and yes they take a while to pay for themselves as electricty is anything from 4p to 10p a KWh so thats 4p x 5 million which gives you £200,000 per annum to 10p x 5 million which is £500,000 per annum. Thats a good rate and hence wind turbines have realistic pay back periods.

Its a real technology and available now along with concentrated solar power (CSP) which can deiver today. That unfortunately is how it must be if you want to see GW tackled through the mitigation of Co2 emissions. R&D is working on many projects I am sure, ones that will improve matters no doubt in the long run but we need solutions deployed now is the scientists argument when it comes to dealing with CO2.

I cannot say anything else, emissions will continue so we must mititage them. The USA uses double what we use and often 10x more, oil usage is 20 million barrels a day (Mb/d) (amost a 1/4 of global daily usage) and ours is around 2 Mb/s,10x less.

I just want the USA to do there part and Europe to do its. We can be part of a EU supergrid, transcontinental in size where europe can tap in to lots of renewable sources even from outside of itself.

I’ve tried several times to post a comment here but it’s been repeatedly rejected. Maybe its to do with having links included.

RobinL, it’s refreshing to here some constructive comments on this blog for a change. On your earlier question about methane v carbon dioxide, Professor Brook’s interview with the media outlet of earth-loving, tree-hugging, vegetarian-sponsoring organisation Supreme Master Television says “methane packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period” (Note 1). Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

PeteB: I’ll reply in a couple of days, things to do..

We need proper data though, for windpower. Any idea where to find it? Otherwise, who can say?

(Windpower bugs me in particular because of the proposed outlay of our cash)

There’s only one person confused here, but at least he appears to be seeing things more clearly regarding our continuing dependence upon fossil fuels to power our growing economies (especially in the less developed countries). He has repeatedly argued about fossil fuels running out but at least now seems to recognise that this is not the case, especially with all of that natural gas that’s waiting to (and will be) exploited by the energy companies. I’ve said this repeatedly here and elsewhere (e.g. see my response to you on June 30th, 2009 at 07:43 PM). CSP (Note 2) and wind power are not viable economically (Note 3) due to their high capital cost. Only companies of governments who have plenty spare cash can afford the initial investment (and how many years will it be before global economies have recovered enough to support such investment?). Nuclear has similar problems but not so large.

As for coal, that will be an important source of energy for many developing countries for decades, so hopefully the developed countries will pass on the technology for cleaning up its use so that pollutants are minimised. There is no need to waste time and money removing none-polluting emissions like water vapour and carbon dioxide. These are beneficial to the environment. That’s the beauty of natural gas –it produces virtually nothing other than these when fully oxidised.

There is an interesting article on the economics of the various energy options (Note 3).

So, keep on enjoying life (without wasting resources through buying what you don’t need so that you can throw it away) and ignore the scare-mongers. Life is great for (many but not for most) of us. But the deprived in this world will catch up – very slowly unless the privileged wealthy among us stop being so selfish (yes, I’m thinking of the politicians, the bankers, the business leaders, the heads of state and their hangers-on, etc. etc. etc. and perhaps even you and me and Pete and Tony and ….).

I’ll try posting the links that I make reference to tomorrow. I’m exhausted trying today

I only referred to one fossil fuel that can be used to phase out coal. Oil will be phased out later via electrification of the grid. The world has natural gas for long enough to use it as a transition fuel to a new electrified infrastructure. Oil will be used until it is exhausted as it takes generations to change this energy infrastructure and 1 billion ICE machines will want to become 2.

All fossil fuels are finite but reserves are adequate to be used to transition to renewable electricity whilst phasing out coal first, oil and gas will probably all be used to do it and then they will be replaced. Wind is only part of the solution but its here now and is being deployed globally right now and in increasing amounts.

Your posting no help to the situation Pete Ridley because you do not believe in it in the first place and hence only have in error rhetoric to argue from.

Just a couple of things that make me doubt the entire idea of replacing oil, gas and coal with sustainable/renewable and nuclear energy sources are:

The UK consumes 2 million barrels of oil a day, each barrel contains 1700 KWh of energy so multiplying the two together gives 3.4 TWh a day of oil usage. We use 407 TWh a year in electricity usage so to demonstarte how big that 3.4 TWh is we divide 407/365 (days in the year to get) which gives us 1.1 TWh a day in electricity usage whilst we consume 3x that in oil usage.

Our current plan to alleviate electrcity usage from fossil fuels only as it is the easiest and most cost effective way ot mitigating CO2 emissions as coal emits the most per KWh and there is a solution available in the form of wind turbines. 10,000 2 MW wind turbines can produce around 52 TWh of electricity a year offsetting around 12.5%. These numbers are vast and hence we are going to need a lot of more energy sources that can reduce coal and the rest of it. We have no choice, we have to use gas alongsidw wind and solar etc. The numbers are simply huge. I have simply not even factored in all of the gas we use for heating and cooking either so the numbers are just mesmerising. The USA consumes 10x more electricity and oil then the UK does!!

Its just alarming even if global warming did not exist and only peak fossil fuels was going to be an issue. Its a collosal undertaking of orders of magnitide in severity.

I cannot understand why anyone would expect coal to be phased out soon. Its use will be cleaned up, but not curtailed soon, possible not until the new century or even beyond.

Notes for previous comments: 1) see the suprememastertv.com site feature “Professor Barry Brook on Livestock Agriculture and Climate Change

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Climate Change Agnostic

Pete (Best) peviously you have been absolutely dogmatic that the science is “in”, “stronger than ever”, ” warmist”, “more certain now than ever of it being GHGs that is causing the phenomena of AGW”. Its wonderful to hear you now acknowledging the possibility that the “human-made global climate change” hypothesis is not yet a proven fact by saying ” .. even if global warming did not exist .. ”.

Keep opening your mind. Next you might even agree that we can go on happily using coal and natural gas/methane for many, many decades without any need to worry about impacting global climates.

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

PS: have you heard that the American Physical Society is reconsidering its 2007 statement about the hypothesis as a result of many highly respected scientists submitting an alternative statement clearing CO2 of any significant impact.

Your interpretation is misleading.

Global warming does exist but even if it did not peak fossil fuels would be worry enough for the economy as people see it today.

Might spell it out for you a little more obviously.

Sorry Pete, but your post is fanciful. I am no warmist you denialist but just have good reasons to listen to science regardless of the consequences whilst you appear to listen to science when it does what you want it to for some reason. Probably demonstraiting right wing tendencies might explain a lot of it.

Pete Ridley said: I cannot understand why anyone would expect coal to be phased out soon. Its use will be cleaned up, but not curtailed soon, possible not until the new century or even beyond.

Well its obvious really. Coal is used for electricity generation and has the highest Co2 emissions so its a no brainer about replacing it first as its used primarily for base load. CSP, Natural Gas, Wind and tidal etc can all be used in an integrated fashion to replace it. Simple as except for a couple of small issues.

Its a local resource to 80 odd countries.

RE 4-6 degrees and the move to the poles… According to someone who lives up in the arctic, the soil there is very very poor, so agriculture, even in a warming climate with midnight sun, will not fair well there…..

BTW, acc to Hansen’s latest research, we could be facing runaway warming as on Venus, if we burn all fossil fuels, esp if we burn the tar sands & oil shale.

See his American Geophysical Union lecture this past December (esp. p. 24): http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

Interesting couple of posts recently, one or two points I’d like to make.

Hello, Pete Ridley, good to hear from you: I went to Supreme Master TV, was disappointed not to find Ming the Merciless in control there… although Prof. Barry Brooks, with a bit of make-up and a comedy arch-villain cape, might look the part. He doen’t seem to have clocked the termite issue though. And, he seems to be treating livestock methane like he’s just discovered ir. An odd bloke.

Pete Best: I share your view expressed on July 28th 12.08 pm: the practical difficulties of dramatically reducing our CO2 emissions even in our little corner of the world are, er, beyond computation, to be blunt. There is very little hard information in the public domain showing that (for instance) wind-power is going to do anything positive. Please indicate where the information is to be found to the contrary. Opinions differ wildly about carbon payback periods for wind: it depends where you look: six months to ten or fifteen years, for example. There is a piece written under the heading ‘Minnesotans for Sustainability’ which illustrates the problem perfectly: putting the following into a search engine works: Glenn R. Schleede* April 2003

The True Cost of Electricity from Wind Power And Windmill “Availability” Factors

Basically, we are not being given the information necessary to assess this technology, it’s probably not even been collected and analysed from all angles. However, billions upon billions are to be spent in subsidies and tax breaks. This is an increasingly common strategy in the US and the EU.

We are already massively over-borrowed, in historical terms. What if the UK has its AAA credit status downgraded, as may happen? Harder, and more expensive, to borrow money. We already pay 9% of our taxes in interest on Government borrowing, and that figure is going to rise (a lot) over the next few years. Do you think Germany, or China, will step in and bail us out? America can’t afford to, even if it wanted to. Real world! Actually out there now!

Never mind solar power from North Africa: if we have power cuts and shortages, I reckon we’ll be properly dirt-poor within a few years. Soup kitchen poor, for millions. Then what? Where will the £250billion (and the rest) for 10,00 turbines come from then? The business community? See Vestas’ UK operation. No dice.

If energy policies are not properly costed, they will fail. If a developed country allows it’s energy supply to be jeopardised, its economy will fail. Look at news-reels from the thirties: there are more of us now, and the consequences might be far more severe than even in the worst days of the Depression.

Why take the risk? Because some politicians, bureaucrats and their scientist associates say we have to, on the basis of some computer models? Are you quite certain? That the models are correct, that the offered solutions will work, and that therefore the likely impoverishing of who knows how many people – perhaps whole populations – will be worthwhile?

One other point, ‘right-wing tendencies’, what is that? Left wing good, right wing bad, end of discussion?

RobinL, In the USA (and Australia I might add) the denial comes from the political right. In the USA the right are highly organised and have powerful media coverage. Its very apparent that it is the right who have spent decades under the lobbyists of vested interests and disinformation compaigns. GOP is the problem and such media outlets as, well its obvious really and very well covered.

The Bush administration censored NASA, James Hansen and many other bodies on the subject matter and many reports were amended to tone down the message.

re: my comment above: excuse the typos at the start (‘it’, ‘doesn’t’), but mainly, the Glenn R. Schleede article, I should have linked it:

http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm

but was concerned not to have P. Ridley’s experience, as described July 28th, 1.47 pm.

Hi Pete B. Yes, of course, but they hardly have a monopoly on spin and censorship.. upcoming Iraq War inquiry, MP’s expenses… And what about the Met Office, or the BBC, in the AGW debate? Or doesn’t it count if the view supports AGW?

I am not talking about the UK but the USA. It is a well documented fact that the there where it is even more important that here to tackle climate change any action has been delayed successfully for 20 years by proxy institutes and their disinformation campaigns. Unless you have studied the subject you probably would not believe it but it all surprised me. Censoring the science, lying and as Al Frankin has said “and the lying liars who tell them”. Whoppers so unbelieveable it should not be allowed but freedom allows you to tell other people anything you like and they have the right to believe lies if they want to. Makes politics a lot easier especially when people have lots of vested interest to protect and a way of life to call upon.

AGW is not a view but science, however since when has the media understood science or how it is reported. As for the Iraq war, inquiries etc. What about it and the BBC, left wing bias ? Well more than likely because AGW has been debated to the nth degree but people do not like to hear the science of truth.

Pete Best: the Guardian. Left of centre, yes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/31/wind-farm-technology-green-environmentalists

I don’t agree with much of the article. It does serve to illustrate the point: the green movement is not unified, or working to the same goals. It doesn’t need a ‘right-wing’ bogeyman, it can (and does) provide its own opposition. As the CiF comments demonstrate.

The whole ‘special interest’ topic is another straw man: of course people will defend their interests to the last, right or wrong. It’s human nature.

Surely you can find you own examples of prominent AGW theory supporters who have bent the truth to their own agenda? (I didn’t call it a ‘view’ by the way, see above)

RobinL, I am sure that plenty of left wing political minds bend the truth but out right lying is not justified and this is most prominent from the right. If the left have been guilty of alarmism as the right call it then its not totally unjustified. After all how bad can 6C be!!??

RobinL, The solutions I am sure are available but it depends on many things. Too many maybe and that means only dealing the issue partially.

When it comes to meat eating its a tough one for vegetarians who might feel superior in some manner but as they are outnumbered bu around 10-15:1 it won’t make their future or their childrens any better. What is the solution to methane from meat? Who knows, probably none to be honest but sourcing it locally, leaving out the artificial feeds etc might help to some degree. Meat is a problem when it comes ot land use and water usage to.

As for the energy situation it all depends on your perspective. Are you prepared to fly less if at all, drive less, go to fewer exotic locations, buy less dross, update your computer and car at every opportunity to keep progress and prosperity going etc and hence expect our Government to change the energy infrastructure when we keep everything else the same ?

RobinL, Where is the money to come from when we leave everything as it is and CO2 levels double and our world warms by 3 to 6C and possibly more?

Russia wants to sell its gas, we need to buy it as does most of Europe. What is changing there then ?

Wind Turbines rated at 2 MW (power rating) produce around 5 GWh (energy rating) per annum so for 200 of them that is 1 TWh which aint bad regsrdless of the cost and the transmissions lines. As for CSP and North Africa and the middle east then its about time we went easier on them and stopped invading countries for oil reserves and plabing our foreign policy accordingly.

A feasible strategy for 10 years is according to the UK government electricity from clean resources and that means wind., natural gas and other things but no one says it easy, after all the USA uses 10x the electricity we do and 10x the oil and probably 10x the gas. I am more worried about the USA and China. We are a nice little experiement

شات

شات صوتي

شات سعودي

دردشة صوتية

شات صوتي

منتديات

<a title=”دليل دردشات”