Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Man-made climate change is a myth – and economic crash is good news, says Tory guru

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 August 2009
DAVID Cameron's latest political guru plunged the Tory leader into an embarrassing controversy yesterday after saying he did not believe in man-made climate change.
Former Wall Street trader turned author Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who penned the book The Black Swan about the perils of high-impact and unpredictable events, and politicians' failure to deal with them, shared a stage with Mr Cameron in London yesterday
.

The Tory leader even joked he was "basking in your reflected glory", such is the popularity of Mr Taleb in media circles.

Mr Cameron had said ahead of Mr Taleb's comments at the prestigious London Royal Society of Arts that: "I very much enjoyed The Black Swan and am trying to come to terms with Black Swan thinking and what it might mean for politics."

But then Mr Taleb waded into controversy by making a series of pronouncements about climate change, and that he liked market crashes.

He said: "I'm a hyper-conservative ecologically. I don't want to mess with Mother Nature. I don't believe that carbon thing is necessarily anthropogenic (derived from human activities]."

Mr Taleb, who is a professor of chance theory, also said of the economic crisis: "I like crashes. I just like the world to be robust about them."

That statement would rankle with Mr Cameron who has had to slap down shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley for suggesting the positive side of the recession would be families spending more time together.

Mr Taleb also appeared to break ranks with Mr Cameron on the government's strategy for dealing with banks, praising the state bail-outs which the Tories have questioned.

"The government taking over banks is a good thing, provided there's a plan," he said.

Mr Taleb has also been critical of US President Barack Obama's economic policies. There was, he told the audience, a real danger of "hyperinflation" in the US thanks to Mr Obama's "blunders", and whose economic forecasts he criticised as "flimsy" in a recent letter to Mr Cameron.

The contentious remarks were seized on by Mr Cameron's opponents. Liberal Democrat MP Willie Rennie said: "David Cameron can get pulled around by huskies all he wants, but by cosying up to climate change deniers, he shows his true colours."

Senior Labour MP Dr Phyllis Starkey questioned why Mr Cameron "seems increasingly keen to associate himself with people who have 'eccentric' views". She added: "First he invited (Tory MEP] Dan Hannan to give a keynote address at a party conference, now he sits on stage with his latest guru who tells us man-made climate change is a myth, and glorifies in recessions. This sort of talk will be no comfort to anyone who has lost their job thanks to the collapse of the American banks."

Sources close to the Tory leader said because Mr Cameron shared a stage with Mr Taleb did "not mean the two agree on absolutely everything".

A Tory spokeswoman said Mr Cameron accepts that "the way we are living is contributing to the extremes of weather and the climate is changing".

CV

BORN: 1960 in Lebanon, in Lebanese Greek Orthodox community.

EDUCATION: MBA from University of Pennsylvania and PhD in Management Science from University of Paris.

FINANCE CAREER: Former City trader and managing director at banks including UBS, Credit Suisse First Boston, BNP Paribas.

ACADEMIC CAREER: Became full-time scholar in 2004 but reportedly made a huge fortune during the crisis by short-selling stock. Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at Polytechnic Institute of New York University and Visiting Professor at London Business School.

LITERARY CAREER: Published Fooled by Randomness in 2001, which became a cult hit on Wall Street. Published the Black Swan in 2007 which has become a best-seller. His theory is that unpredictable but "high- impact" events are dealt with poorly partly because of a reliance on "experts".





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 August 2009 11:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Conservative Party
 
1

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 18/08/2009 22:15:52
I'm all for separating rubbish and go to local coup to dispose of items which would fit into my bin but can pollute the landfill.

But climate change is climate change. The spin doctors got that one wrong.

My one bulb living room is all the poorer for not being able to purchase a 100 watt light bulb. I have a dimmer switch so these overpriced, slow illuminating energy saving thangs don't work with it.

Only alternative is a new light fitting with 3x60 watters = 180 watts. Go figure.

And all because politicians like Cameron are lining up with "scientific evidence".

Global warming was more effevtive as a scaremongering exercise than the common sense climate change.

Oh, is the climate changing?

Ah well, better wear my whole wardrobe when I go out.


2

postalvoter,

glenrothes 19/08/2009 00:26:41
Man made climate change is a myth. We've had tropics and ice ages in Scotland before fossil fuels were burnt.
Al Gore lives in a mansion with a gas heated swimming pool, electric gates and 10 guest rooms. Even he knows it's all nonsense. But worth making some money out of.
3

One-man-bucket's older twin,

19/08/2009 00:29:20
But it's such a wonderful excuse for tax-raising and social engineering!
4

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 19/08/2009 00:43:16
"Man-made climate change is a myth – and economic crash is good news, says Tory guru"

In fact was he said was:
"I don't believe that carbon thing is necessarily anthropogenic (derived from human activities]" and "I like crashes. I just like the world to be robust about them."

This paper up to it's usual pro-Labour reporting standards.
5

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 01:08:40
1:- Spot on - they called it 'global warming' for a bit then it has got cooler again - so they re-named it 'climate change' ...

Al gore cites that CO2 has never been higher in 800,000 years .... he is right. But it was much higher in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods - so we are not in 'new' ground here at all.

CO2 only accounts for 0.033% (2007 dry air) - you do not feel any effects until 1% - so put one way we could treble CO2 atmospheric content and we are still not 1/10th of the way to feeling the most mild symptoms !

Let break the 0.033% down a little more - The Oceans are the biggest producer of CO2, followed by Permafrost, followed by Volcanoes, and in Fourth place accounting for about 9% of CO2 production on the planet are human beings and ALL of our related activities ! The EU (waste of time!) want to reduce our 'emissions' by 20% - the EU contributes to about 1/20th of the 9% - this means that the 9% will fall to 8.91 % which in turn means that 0.033% becomes well rounded to the nearest decimal place 0.033% !!!

Lets analyse 'Green House Gases' - water vapour is the No 1 Greenhouse gas catering for upto 80 % of 'green house' gases and that folks is EXCLUDING the clouds !! Ozone, Methane, CO2, nitrous oxide and of course CFC's add up to form the rest ... CO2 is again a tiny minority factor.

The best is for last folks!

Temperatures on Mars and on Venus - our two closest neighbours - have been rising at a faster rate than here on earth - pro global warming scientists reckoned they had it cracked when the spouted off some crackball theory about 'dust storms' being responsible for Mars warming ... Ok lets once again be generous and say they are right ... What about Venus. We also forgot to mention that Pluto, triton and Jupiter are also warming -- dust storms there too ??!

Now I am going to 'contradict' myself here: I do however believe that the human race is a 'polluting' force in the world and that issues like nuclear waste and toxic was
6

Voldemort,

19/08/2009 01:14:42
Con't ....

.... and toxic waste should be looked at. All I ask is that the government is honest on the subject of global warming and co2 and admits that it is essentially wrong (don't forget they were talking about an new ice age in the 70's and 80's! - the government and their 'science to order' (that is inventing science to back up your beliefs rather than the findings forming your beliefs!)) .. then why not move gradually towards reducing genuine POLLUTION .. it makes far more sense for the environment ! Not so much sense for the Ego's of alot of scientists and politicians !

The ironic things about the Eco-nazis is that they don't give a jot about the environment - they see a huge opportunity for power and control over the masses not to mention al these new taxes (!) by effectively making them their own enemy ! its rather clever but very dishonest ....
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 01:55:22

DAVID Cameron is Correct!, "climate change is a myth"!
Anyone with a modicum of Intelligence would know that our World has had many Climate Changes, since its existence, Climate Change is Nothing New!
But!, We as Humans Need to Be Scared, to Keep us under the controls of Political Correctness, just as We were fooled into thinking that the World would End in the year 2000.

8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 02:13:17

And The "Coming of the Martians", to Get-Us-All!
GOD! I am fedup waiting, they are still not here!

9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 02:26:25
Just as foolish! as "Climate Change" Scare Stories!.


An earthquake shatters Fenrir's invincible chains. The great wolf swallows the sun, and winter covers the earth for three long, cold years.

Then a mighty blast from the horn of Hemidall, guardian of the gods' home, echoes across the world. The golden c*ck atop the World Tree crows loudly in reply. These are the signs. Ragnarok, "The Twilight of the Gods," the ultimate battle, the end of the world has arrived.

When Ragnarok comes, gods and giants will clash. The world serpent will rear up, spew out poisonous fumes and cause a tidal wave. Thor, the thunder-god, the champion of the gods, will raise his mighty hammer and strike the serpent dead — but then fall dead himself from the creature's fatal venom. Odin, the god of death, the most powerful of all the gods, will mount his eight-legged steed and charge against Fenrir — but the wolf will devour him. Odin's son will tear open the jaws of the vicious wolf and shove a sword down to his very heart.

One by one the gods will fall in unspeakable battles. The world will be engulfed in cataclysmic flames. Even the stars will fall. Ragnarok: when everything will be lost in a fiery blaze.

The Vikings lived in a world that was harsh and dangerous. Their mythical world was just as threatening. Sky gods fought earth gods. Giants were always lurking. The violent end of the world was inevitable. Even Odin and Thor, the most powerful gods, were doomed to destruction at Ragnorak, the final, violent battle

10

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 02:29:20

'Aye'!, DAVID Cameron, is NO-FOOL, and will not be Fooled!

11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 02:31:58

The "Ice-Age", Just as well I had my hot-water-bottle!
:)


12

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 03:52:28
I really wish reporters would do their own research before publishing 'witch hunt' headlines. It really discredits 'the freedom of the press' because publishing the perpetuation of the false status quo should come AFTER proven scientific fact. Every argument that the eco-nazis come forward with can be easily dismissed with irrefutable evidence ie 5 &6 ... Joining a band wagon is the reason that many women were burned at the stake in years gone by simply because they were 'witches' - climate change is the new vehicle for the hysterical and the press should be able to tell the difference between a band wagon with phoney goals and the real thing.

13

blackops,

19/08/2009 04:42:32
#5+#6: Spot on. seems that you have done more research than the Scotsman can be bothered.
14

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 19/08/2009 07:02:17
David Cameron would do well to heed the advice of Mr Taleb along with most non political climatologists.
Man made global warming is a myth.
There is certainly no point in believing the met office who told us we are going to have a BBQ summer.
If they can't get this years weather right, how can they possibly tell us what will happen in 50 years
15

Ben Thehoose,

19/08/2009 07:37:40
There is no proof that human activity is NOT having an effect on the weather. The precautionary principle requires us to accept the possibility and to act accordingly (it's why we use car seat belts).

Fossil fuels are finite so there's every reason to phase them out ANYWAY.
16

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 07:51:17
Sadly it seems that the deniers will only realise they are wrong when the climate has swung completely out of control and it is too late to do anything about it...
17

Unimpressed one,

19/08/2009 08:00:50
If the conservatives stick with taking good advice and kick out Goldsmith and his cronies, they might just be re-electable next year.
18

langtonian,

uphall 19/08/2009 08:39:27
David Cameron's latest choice as the gru,the weather forecaster on the piratical ship,"Etonareus" of which DC is the current El-Capatino,does seem somewhat out of touch with the "in thing" as regards weather, in fact lets make that totaly out of touch!

The obviouse danger that if this new crew member dose not realy know his left from his right hand or his a-- from his elbow,his advice as to should the ship be steered in a N,S,E,or westerly direction it coul lead to a shipwrecked Westmister crew of Cosrvative matey's jumping ship prior to total shipwreck.

A disaster, with only a short period of time prior to oncoming engagements with the good ship Labourty.Who with a superior tactician at the Helm,is looking good for a tactical VICTORY!
19

fresian,

19/08/2009 08:44:52
Yipee, can we now assume that a Tory government will rid the country of the eco fascist cr4p we have had to endure under Labour?
20

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 08:59:39
For those interested in a mathematical treatment of the various climate forcing factors (greenhouse gases, ozone, stratospheric water, solar irradiance, land use, snow albedo, stratospheric aerosols, black carbon, reflective tropospheric aerosols and aerosol indirect effect) since 1880, I recommend the following:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/#more-1788

What it shows is that:

1. only greenhouse gases have produced a forcing greater than 1 Watt per square metre (and currently greater than 2.75 W/m^2) in that time.

2. there is no way that we can account for the changes in average global temperatures since 1880 without taking anthropogenic greenhouse gases into account in recent decades. Without the latter, global temperatures would have fallen.

Of course, if the truth hurts and you prefer the sort of repeated rebutted nonsense that evidently provides comfort to Voldemort in #5 and #6 then you probably won't even bother to look at the link above, let alone try to understand it.
21

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 19/08/2009 09:05:59
The more I hear from Cameron the less I like it. 2 MEPs decide to tell (some of) the truth about the NHS - next - maelstrom! Gordon starts twittering with Sarah and the inconvenient truths about the NHS are hurriedly swept under the carpet. Next Cameron decides to carpet both MEPs to keep it all nice and PC. Wimp.

"David Cameron can get pulled around by huskies all he wants, but by cosying up to climate change deniers, he shows his true colours" - clearly the Lib Dums have bought into AGW hook line and sinker and the key word "deniers" which the eco brownshirts love using appears.

So Mr Taleb says it's all cobblers. Well based on evidence to date there is little effort to conserve anything by Labour and plenty of propensity to slap on taxes and charges if we use energy in any form whether petrol, diesel, or heating fuels. Not to mention air travel taxes while selling as many energy assets as possible to fill the coffers so they can be emptied almost immediately on other madcap schemes so beloved of socialists everywhere.

I don't think Mr Taleb is too far wrong about O'Bampot either. He's Broon with knobs on but significantly more endearing.

We don't hear much about Cameron's plans for an EU referendum which is badly needed to rid ourselves of another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and corruption. We need someone with a cutting edge in the Conservative party, not this patty-cake approach from DC.
22

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 09:14:04
voldemort:

- I always find denialist posters who use lots of exclamation marks and capitals and refer to 'eco-nazis' very convincing.

How come the world's scientists have failed to see the flaws in their work that you so eloquently expose?

Your Nobel Prize is in the post.

Keep up the good work.
23

Upbeat,

19/08/2009 09:33:30
Those who still want to believe that climate change on the current scale is nothing new in geological time, should be asked where the equivalents to the heat generated by 250,000 aircraft were back then, where equivalents to 6 billion people heating their food and their homes were, where the heat generated by half a billion motor vehicles entered the equation, where the heat stored in huge areas of the earths surface now under tarmac and concrete was mimicked, and where a similar effect to the reduction of the worlds rain forests by 80% in 200 years, occured in geological history.

When these people come up with hard facts which can account for previous geological time alterations in climate due to the balance of heat production and vegetation removal, on an equivalent scale to that which has occured since the industrial revolution, then we will all be listening.
24

Phil C,

19/08/2009 09:34:09
#4 "This paper up to it's usual pro-Labour reporting standards."

This story is balanced by the nice report of a Labour consultant getting 30 months for raping a younger man. Of course that one is relegated to 'More News' bit on page 2!
25

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 09:38:29
"...plunged the Tory leader into an embarrassing controversy yesterday after saying he did not believe in man-made climate change."

What's embarrassing about a member of the party telling the truth?

Man made climate change does not exist.

This is typical of the climate (excuse the pun) that has been created regarding this rubbish. Anyone who dares speak out against it is automatically branded a fool.

Well, actually, it is the fools who go along with it.
26

Yeah1,

19/08/2009 09:48:11
#24

"This story is balanced by the nice report of a Labour consultant getting 30 months for raping a younger man."

It was attempted rape. There is a significant difference.
27

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 09:51:10
Fuel Head is right and the world's leading scientific academies are wrong.

Probably not.
28

Phil C,

19/08/2009 09:52:17
If everybody would take their heads out of the sand, and actually try to do something about cleaning up their own environments, the world would be a better place. Greeny issues like cutting waste and polution, and improving diet are surely common sense and worthwhile causes whatever the 'experts' say. These are easy things to do and can only be good.

Global warming or changing climate has more to do with natural causes, together with industrial and transport polution. Generating renewable energy and cutting emissions are worthwhile causes too. World governments are making the right noises about trying to improve things. Let's see what happens.

One thing's sure, judging by the often repeated comments on here. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm or appetite in Scotland to do what's right by our world.
29

Phil C,

19/08/2009 09:57:46
Yeah, so there is!
30

Yeah1,

19/08/2009 09:58:51
Climate change deniers seem to fall into two camps.

Either they flat-out refuse to believe in climate change at all despite irrefutable scientific evidence - similar to those who clung desperately to their 'flat earth' theory in the middle ages.

Or they are like the appeasers in WW2 - 'let's just stand back while the Nazis destroy Europe, I'm sure they won't invade Britain'...
31

Upbeat,

19/08/2009 10:00:32
25

Simply repeating a viewpoint so that you can "read it in the papers" does not make your contributions here any more true.

Some of the problems with your opinion are listed in post 23. But it is doubtful that you bothered to read the link posted by Slioch in #20 nor have you paused to really consider the factual challenges listed in # 23.
32

postalvoter,

glenrothes 19/08/2009 10:11:22
#23 Upbeat
"When these people come up with hard facts which can account for previous geological time alterations in climate due to the balance of heat production and vegetation removal, on an equivalent scale to that which has occured since the industrial revolution, then we will all be listening."

Mt Tambora eruption 1815 - All crops in Europe and New England destroyed. Frost and snow through June to August. Soup kitchens and mass starvation.
Mt Pinatubo/ Husdson 1991 - Largest SO2 cloud in over a 100 years. World cooled by a degree.
I can give details of the change in the landscape of Scotland from tropical to ice age before man walked here if you like ? Or of sharks teeth found 400 miles inland in Saudi Arabia where now there is only desert. Also before man walked or swam there.
33

Yeah1,

19/08/2009 10:18:07
#32

"Or of sharks teeth found 400 miles inland in Saudi Arabia where now there is only desert."

I assume you've never heard of the (now extinct) giant flying shark then?
34

postalvoter,

glenrothes 19/08/2009 10:23:21
"I assume you've never heard of the (now extinct) giant flying shark then?"
Of course I have. Didn't it hunt the oomagoolie bird in the land of the wherethehellarewe tribe ?
35

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 10:27:44
15 Ben

Since when was the onus on doubters of a shaky hypothesis to prove the hypothesis wrong?

The onus is on the promoters of the hypothesis to now test it in the real world. I am watching with interest.

The precautionary principle demands that we pay far more attention to the virtual certainty of a large asteroid hitting planet earth some time in the future. Now that really IS a threat to mankind, unlike man-made GW, which is merely a threat to our pockets.
36

Andrah,

Embrugh 19/08/2009 10:28:53
This guy's opinion only echoes comments you read widely in the threads of the "quality" papers, and increasingly hear from the thinking man/woman in the street/pub.

Unfortunately the Establishment, including "Call me Dave" has bought into this rubbish hook,line and sinker.

However the wheels on the MMGW bandwagon are slowly but surely coming off, despite huge efforts by the likes of the BBC with it's biased, one-eyed reporting. One example not reported;

"More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”
37

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 10:31:40
#28 Phil C said,

"Global warming or changing climate has more to do with natural causes, together with industrial and transport pollution."

That was the case for the warming of the early part of the twentieth century, but it is not so for the warming of recent decades. During the latter period natural causes would have produced a slight cooling. The only way that the observed rapid warming can be accounted for is by taking anthropogenic greenhouse gases into account.
38

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 10:32:47
The quote below is precisely why people say that MMGW is political. This politician is even using the term "deniers" thereby trying to equate me with deniers of the Holocaust. He is the one that needs to be slapped down.

"Liberal Democrat MP Willie Rennie said: "David Cameron can get pulled around by huskies all he wants, but by cosying up to climate change deniers, he shows his true colours."
39

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 10:40:26
#35 albahomeland

"The onus is on the promoters of the hypothesis to now test it in the real world. I am watching with interest."

Perhaps you should also watch with attention. I have already linked to a test of whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for recent warming, using real world data (see #20 above). The answer is that they are. Here is the link again: (there are many others, but this is particularly clear)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/#more-1788
40

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 10:44:34
Further to 38, I have emailed Mr Rennie to let him know that using the term "denier" is offensive. I await his reply.
41

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 10:49:24
39 No, slioch, the fatal weakness of that argument is the following:

"there is no way that we can account for the changes in average global temperatures since 1880 without taking anthropogenic greenhouse gases into account in recent decades."

Which roughly translated means:

"we can't think of anything else so let's attribute it to man-made CO2".

Sorry, but that is bad science.

Science requires some humility, so remember the following when stating hypotheses and theories with certainty (which real scientists never do incidently):

"Given our current state of ignorance, here is what we think we know"
42

Candide,

Saint Amant 19/08/2009 10:58:04
To save the world from global warming the government removed the aerosol propellant from my 6.3gr asthma rescue inhaler. The reason I need the inhaler is because I cannot draw in a breath, if I can't draw in air then I can't draw in medication either. I guess the government thinks that if all the asthma suffers in the world die then there will be less people breathing out CO2 to contribute the the green house effect.
43

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 11:03:43
#41 albahomeland

Of course, the possibility of other factors needs to be always born in mind. But it is not the case that "we can't think of anything else so let's attribute it to man-made CO2".

The study I linked to showed that no other known factor than anthropogenic greenhouse gases can account for recent warming. But it is also and separately shown, using the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, combined with knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere, that that is what we should EXPECT to see from the increase in greenhouse gases.

So for your desperate objection to have any force would also require an explanation of why anthropogenic greenhouse gases were NOT acting as they were expected to act and as copious paleoclimatic evidence shows they have acted in the past.

You seem to believe that the only evidence for AGW comes from correlation: that is simply not the case.
44

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 11:10:47
slioch, I don't understand what you mean by this:

"You seem to believe that the only evidence for AGW comes from correlation: that is simply not the case."

Please explain so I can comment. Thanks.
45

livilion,

livingston 19/08/2009 11:15:19
How terribly Victorian of us, a little bit of industrial polution never did anyone harm.
What a waste those clean water/air acts were, polution is good for you it makes us stronger.

I will be so pleased to know that when the last of the Greenland glaciers have disappeared and up there fresh meltwaters stop the Atlantic Conveyor continental heating system, putting the UK climate back on par with northern Canada, Methane clathrates(hydrates) melt and discharge their superior greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the resulting collapse of our global life support system will have been none of our fault, honest.

Like the man jumping out of an airoplane without a parachute saying: so far so good!

Btw do not be concerned for the fate of our planet, it will get along fine without us.

46

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 11:36:10
The following link to the Vostok Ice Core data blows a big hole in the whole MMGW hypothesis. As even a lay person can see, the current temperature cycle has occurred over the last half million years, every 100,000 years, like clockwork.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
47

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 11:39:37
#44 albahomeland

The Tamino link to which I referred is concerned with correlation. That is, it looks at the (real world) data from several factors (listed in #20) as well as global average temperatures, all since 1880, and applies a mathematical process called "regression" to them. It finds that the only way to get a good fit between temperature and the several factors is to include the factor "greenhouse gases". In other words, it finds there is a correlation between greenhouse gases and average global temperatures, particularly, but not only, in recent decades.

That result would be valid even if we didn't have the remotest clue how greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere.

But we do have a clue. We have had a clue for well over a century. We understand pretty well how greenhouse gases work: we know the physics.

Your objection would have some force if the ONLY evidence we had was the correlation. That force is greatly diminished by our knowledge of the physics behind greenhouse warming.

That is why I said it SEEMED as if you believed that the only evidence for AGW comes from correlation, since that is the only way your objection would have force.

Let me introduce an analogy. We believe the tides on Earth are caused by the Moon. That belief is based on a (very strong) correlation between the tides and the movements of the Moon and also the theory of gravity. Without the theory of gravity, the correlation alone would be strong but perhaps not compelling evidence. And of course, as "real scientists" we should always bear in mind that the tides might actually be caused by lunaphilic fairies pushing the water molecules in concert with their beloved Moon ... .

But the point at issue wrto AGW is that we require to make policy decisions related to it. In that context the question "are we absolutely certain about AGW" should not arise. The question should be "are we sufficiently certain", and to that question the answer is a resounding "yes".
48

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 19/08/2009 11:41:07
-- "The government taking over banks is a good thing, provided there's a plan," he said.

The proper plan is for the government to issue and regulate the nation's currency. To spend money into circulation only for essential physical infrastructure and for education - the metaphysical. Otherwise money has to be created, out of nothing, by private interests, banks, before much useful can be done. I recommend looking at the British Association for Monetary Reform for its entertaining and important historical perspective.

In the meantime setting up sound regional exchange currencies has to be a good idea whose time has come.

Good thing or not, a more serious financial crash in on the cards by the end of this year. What do we want? Food, shelter, clothing -- happiness?
49

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 11:45:47
#46 albahomeland

re Vostok. Nonsense.

You seem to imagine that we a are currently in a glacial period. We are currently in an interglacial and Vostok provides no evidence of a sudden increase in temperature during an interglacial.

What it does provide evidence for is the volatility of the Earth's climate system and how frequently in the past huge climatic convulsions have occurred that, were they to happen in the near future, would be catastrophic for human civilisation. But, again, there is no direct analogy between past and present events.
50

El Franko,

19/08/2009 12:00:55
I was not impressed by any of Taleb's recent books, but I am pleased to hear him talking sense on the climate, and, for that matter, on recessions. The title created by the sub-editor is correct, AGW belongs in the category of sprites, unicorns, and such like, plus a coating of the most intense and cynical political opportunism. And since clearly house prices and lending practices had both become absurd, and since we are told they are important for the economy, the recent collapse was a welcome correction. The downside is that the banks were 'saved', and Clinton and others of that silly ilk, have not been given their due share of the blame for forcing mortages on to people who could not afford them.
51

El Franko,

19/08/2009 12:03:40
He talked sense on Obama as well. One Big Awful Mistake, America.
52

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 19/08/2009 12:05:29
-- the tides might actually be caused by lunaphilic fairies pushing the water molecules in concert with their beloved Moon ... .

When you presume that the mysterious force of gravity is the main universal driver, you're bound to need (complicated mathematical) theories like black holes, dark matter and things like the above mentioned. Whereas the Electric Universe model developed by Birkland, Alfvén and our own Fred Hoyle continues to make successful PREDICTIONS as new astrophysical data arrives.

Climate is electrical too.
53

Jinselkirk,

19/08/2009 12:28:29
26 Yeah 1 I am reluctantly coming round to believing what others stated elsewhere, that you must indeed be a Labour Party employee/s given that you seem to be an apologist for all they are involved in directly or indirectly.
54

Unimpressed one,

19/08/2009 12:47:24
The natural climate change deniers are ranting their pi*sh as usual. How long before their world view catches up with the reality?
55

Itchy,

19/08/2009 12:54:37
#15 Prove that dragons, hobbits and orcs don't exist.
56

Itchy,

19/08/2009 12:56:43
#30 Climate change is real but it is not man-made.

It is the eco-nazis and eco-commies who are genocidal.
57

seanie,

19/08/2009 13:32:50
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.

CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.

That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.

The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.

That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it.

Because basic physics tells us it should be.
58

Upbeat,

19/08/2009 13:59:04
32.

If this was your attempt to respond to the challenge posed in #23 you obviously (and probably quite deliberately) missed the point.

No one now argues with the theory that the continents have changed, and that the earths crust consists of a number of plates which are in constant motion relative to each other. Where fish might be found today or where fossilised remains of earlier species might exist now is not relevent to the AGW discussion .

The temporary atmospheric effects of volcanic activity - however large - on the longer scale are equally irrelevant to this discussion also. These events have happend with regularity through geological time, and will continue to do so.

The AGW theory is based on identifying things which have changed in a manner that defies previous cycles of climate fluctuations.

My point in #23 was to point to human activities that have brought about considerable changes to the planet, and the way we live on it. Mankind has invented machinery and brought aboutchanges to the planet's plant cover and forestation. This has occured over a relatively short period in geological time. When climatic cycles identified from the past are delayed or set in reverse, then logic dictates that there has to be a reason. Scientists have identified mankind as the likely cause. To dispute this those who wish to challenge the theory will have to find reasons other than man's activities on this planet which can stand up to full scientific scrutiny. This has yet to happen.
59

El Franko,

19/08/2009 14:06:35
'The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).'

The slow, steady, consistent attack on the simplistic thinking of the AGW mobsters and their molls continues. See this link for the above quote, and more insights: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
60

Ewan Randall,

19/08/2009 14:09:53
Don’t those who call ‘climate change’ a myth realize that to be an impossibility, much in the same way where ever you go you take the weather with you?
61

Ewan Randall,

19/08/2009 14:20:38
(#55) – (Itchy) – Did you not know that the original dragon which is Chinese is a representation of a number of tribal symbols placed together to make the emperors’ imperial emblem?

Did you not also know that the European dragon was originally Sarmatian or Alanic and follows a path across Europe at the same time as they did?
62

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 14:36:03
47 slioch

I was impressed with the tone of your post #47 but was disappointed that you resorted to the tone used in #49.

Let me explain where I am coming from, being a scientifically trained person like yourself.

Correlation does not equal causation (as you will be aware). Vostok is a hugely important piece of scientific data. It most certainly is not "nonsense".

As someone who is trained to interpret data and graphs, the Vostok data tells me some interesting things visually:

1) There are four ice ages recorded.

2) The ice ages are regular ie every 100,000 years or so.

3) Each ice age ends abruptly (on a geological timescale).

4) Entry into each ice age is a much longer and fairly bumpy journey.

5) Temperature changes occur before CO2 changes ie CO2 appears to respond to temperature changes

6) Temperatures at the peak of each interglacial are higher than currently.
63

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 14:40:11
In Denierworld no-one worries about:

shrinking glaciers and ice-caps;

rising sea levels and temperatures;

ocean acidification;

thawing permafrost;

species migration;

species extinctions;

increasing storm and hurricane intensities;

increasing floods and droughts;

and most of these changes are happening even faster than predicted.

64

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 14:54:03
'Climate Denial Crock of the Week':

I thoroughly recommend this series of instructional videos:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crock+of+the+week&search_type=&aq=f

- they demonstrate clearly and with some humour what is wrong with the Deniers arguments.
65

El Franko,

19/08/2009 14:54:40
#63, correct. Your list consists of things which are not true, or of no particular concern.
66

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:55:25
#62 The VOSTOK ice cores support the idea that the curtrent warming trend is due to the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity.
67

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:55:35
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

"At least three careful ice core studies have shown CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no."
68

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:55:46
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

'Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming'

'The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.'
69

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:55:59
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6231

Misleading argument 3: ’rises in CO2 occur after global warming, not before’

"It is true that the fluctuations in temperatures that caused the ice ages were initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which, in turn, drove changes in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is backed up by data from ice cores which show that rises in temperature came first, and were then followed by rises in levels of carbon dioxide up to several hundred years later. The reasons for this, although not yet fully understood, are partly because the oceans emit carbon dioxide as they warm up and absorb it when they cool down and also because soil releases greenhouse gases as it warms up. These increased levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then further enhanced warming,
creating a positive feedback'.

In contrast to this natural process, we know that the recent steep increase in the level of carbon dioxide - some 30 per cent in the last 100 years - is not the result of natural factors. This is because, by chemical analysis, we can tell that the majority of this carbon dioxide has come from the burning of fossil fuels. And, as set out in 'misleading argument 1 ', carbon dioxide from human sources is almost certainly responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years. There is much evidence that backs up this explanation and none that conflicts with it.

Warming caused by greenhouse gases from human sources could lead to the release of more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by stimulating natural processes and creating a "positive feedback", as described above."
70

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:56:13
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html

"The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming."
71

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:56:23
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/1007_co2.htm

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System

"While the lag between temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the paleoclimate record is important in understanding the function of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's climate, and has helped in estimating the effects of CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing, it in no way discredits the conventional knowledge that CO2 is forcing recent changes in the Earth's climate."
72

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:56:35
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles.In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles") set the timing of ice ages. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia, altering how long snow ands sea ice lingered in the spring, which crucially affected how much sunlight the surface absorbed. The fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the orbital effect should have been no surprise, since a change in the temperature would change the gas level. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as Arctic tundra warmed up it would likewise emit CO2 and methane. The ice cores now showed, as theorists had predicted since the 19th century, that a powerful feedback cycle was amplifying the effect of the cyclical changes in sunlight. Even a small change in the gas level would bring further changes in the global heat balance, which would in turn alter the gas level, which... and so forth. This suggested how tiny shifts in the Earth’s orbit had set the timing of the enormous swings of glacial cycles.

Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop. The ancient ice ages were the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases. As the gas level rose, temperature would rise with a time lag — although only a few decades, not centuries, for the rates of change were now enormously faster than the orbital shifts that brought ice ages"
73

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:56:47
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

"The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface -
led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism...

...So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change."
74

seanie,

19/08/2009 14:59:01
The cyclical temperature pattern is triggered by small changes in orbit, which themselves have a small forcing effect. But those small effects have positive/negative feedbacks which amplify the temperature swings. One of the most significant being CO2.

The size of the change in temperatures cannot be explained by the change in forcing due to the orbital eccentricites. It's explained by the feedback of increasing or decreasing CO2.
75

Griffe,

19/08/2009 14:59:35
Does he also believe that the Earth is flat; in goblins, elves, and gnomes; that Father Christmas lives in Greenland, that Michael Jackson & Elvis Presley are alive and well? If so, he is the man the world has never missed or needed.
76

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 15:16:28
#62 albahomeland

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say in #46 - you were not very explicit.

You stated, "the current temperature cycle has occurred over the last half million years, every 100,000 years, like clockwork" which implies that you think that "the current temperature cycle" ie the present rapid warming is one of those 100,000 year warmings.

If that is what you meant to say, then, I'm sorry, but I repeat that that assertion is nonsense, that is, it makes no sense. Why? because:

firstly, such warmings occurred from a glacial to an interglacial. We are presently already in an interglacial, so the situation is not analogous.

secondly, the last such warming appeared, more or less on cue, some 12,000 years ago, so there is another 90 odd thousand years to go before the next one.

Thirdly, we are actually due a very slow decline to another glaciation (in the absence of anthropogenic effects) in 16,000-20,000 years according to some calculations,

fourthly, the rate of increase of temperature in recent decades greatly exceeds that experienced during natural glacial to interglacial transitions shown by the Vostok records.

If you didn't mean to say that, then fair enough.

Of course Vostok is a hugely important piece of scientific data. I think you know the word "nonsense" did not refer to Vostok, but to the apparent nonsensical interpretation of it.
77

Itchy,

19/08/2009 15:28:46
#63 in eco-commie world, no one worries about tyranny, slavery, war, starvation and other disasters.

The eco-commies just pretend that they do not want these things and they will not happen, if the eco-commmies get their way.
78

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 15:45:14
#63 fred

Predicted by whom?

And, by the way, species extinction is happening all the time, much of it naturally.
79

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 15:48:35
67 seanie

"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no."

It certainly suggests that CO2 is an innocent bystander.
80

Obanite,

19/08/2009 16:02:02
This is one of the few subjects I could say I was genuinely qualified to write about, having completed a D.Phil in the general subject. The broad consensus on the matter is that anthroprogenic forcing is causing climate change. There is little to no consensus on how much change man is causing, nor is there on the rate of change.

Part of the problem is that those that shout the loudest and make some of the more outrageous claims are also the best at getting headlines and grant money. So, every hurricane that comes through is somehow linked to climate change by lazy journalists (and climate scientists).

So much of the "problem" is our own dumb fault - building cities on hurricane prone coast-lines below water level, engineering rivers to exacerbate floods that go on to wreck new build developments on flood plains, and so on. Couple that to natural climate change and frankly it is anyone's game.

Every month a new climate record will be broken somewhere, for some reason, but that is a part of natural variablility...1 in 100 events happen, as do 1 in 1000...ask any book maker.
81

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 16:03:54
76 slioch

"firstly, such warmings occurred from a glacial to an interglacial. We are presently already in an interglacial, so the situation is not analogous."

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the period of temperature recovery after a glacial is not part of an inter-glacial?
82

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:11:31
#79 No.

Quite the opposite.

The ice cores confirm the major role of CO2 in determining temperature.

The cyclical temperature change is triggered by orbital shifts but those shifts are far too small to explain the scale of the temperature changes.

That's explained, in large measure, by the role of CO2 as an amplifying feedback.
83

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 16:16:29
82 seanie

CO2 changes LAG temperature changes and therefore CO2 cannot be the driver of temperature.
84

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 16:17:56
#81 albahomeland

The cut-off is somewhat arbitrary but in any event not relevant to our present situation. The Earth has been in an interglacial for some ten thousand years - just look at the Vostok curve - (extreme left hand side).
85

El Franko,

19/08/2009 16:21:06
It can't be easy to be a long-lived agitator for climate fear. Look at this site which shows the frequent reversals that a 115 year old would have enjoyed in his or her chosen neurosis over the past 100 years or so:

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/climate-change-alarmism-timelin/

So, next time one of these feeble people annoy you, be patient with them. Theirs is a sorry lot.
86

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:21:12
#83 Not at all. That CO2 lags temperature changes only means it doesn't trigger the change. It is still a major factor determining the ultimate temperature.

By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere we are increasing average temperature, just as the ice cores lead us to expect as well as basic physics.
87

Allan(handofgod137),

19/08/2009 16:26:44
Those who keep propounding the discredited thoery of man made global climate change would do well to remember that the erruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 put more "greenhouse gasses" into the air than mankind had during its entire history.
88

albahomeland,

19/08/2009 16:27:04
84 slioch

Sorry, but I miss your point.

I maintain that we are on the trend line that is effectively recovery from the last glacial and that this is seen to have happened every 100,000 years (approx) over the last 400,000 years or more. Relatively soon, geologically, temperatures will peak and we will then start the slow decline into the next glacial.
89

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:29:29
#87

Not even remotely true. Emissions from volcanoes are pretty negligble.
90

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 16:32:46
Seem like you nasty "deniers" have managed to upset seanie again - shame on you - hehe.
Great headline and good to see a politician placing his head above the parapet - enough to make me vote Tory! Where's Jenny Haworth? Is this Gerri slipping out a "deier" story in Jenny's absence!! Well done Gerri.
91

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 16:34:31
Who (apart from you Seanie) says that CO2, etc emissions from volcanoes "are pretty negligible"? In fact they are one of the highest emitters per source around!
92

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:36:02
Upset?

No.

A little saddened by the rabid, ignorant, denialist, fruitcakery?

Perhaps a touch.

93

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:37:15
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions."
94

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:37:58
That can be confirmed simply by looking at a graph of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

There have been a number of major volcanic eruptions over that period e.g. Mt St Helens, El Chichon, Mt Pinatubo. Their effects do show up in the temperature record as cooling, but their impact on CO2 levels is minimal. If it wasn't you'd be able to see them in the graph.
95

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:38:22
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230

"It has been alleged that the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to emissions from volcanoes, but these account for less than one per cent of the emissions due to human activities."
96

seanie,

19/08/2009 16:40:59
Who (apart from rabid, ignorant, denialist, fruitcakes) believes volcanoes to be one of the most important contributors to atmospheric CO2?
97

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 16:43:10
test
98

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 16:45:09
I assume that you are aware of the follwoing letter sent to the IPCC last year seanie?

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,
Switzerland

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position ˆ that man's CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change ˆ to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.

The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D'Aleo [4], and are shown below.

GRAPH SHOWING CO2 INCREA
99

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 16:47:55
CONTINUED
GRAPH SHOWING INCREASE IN CO2 BY 10PP BY VOLUME BETWEEN 2003 AND 2008 AS THE EARTH TEMPS MEASURED BY HADLEY AND MSU DECREASED BY 0.6 DEGREES
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food ˆ maize as biofuel ˆ has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder Piers Corbyn Dr Don Parkes Svend Hendriksen
Analytical Chemist UK Astrophysicist UK Prof. Em. Human Ecology Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared)
mMensa Dir. WeatherAction.com Australia
100

Obanite,

19/08/2009 16:48:15
Volcanoes do emit vast amounts of CO2, as do the dead fishies, but, man is much, much more efficient at burning our way to much greater CO2 emissions.

Generally, the particulates ejected actually have a negative direct affect on temperature, as solar insolation is reduced. This can be major - there was a well documented case of an eruption in 16th century Iceland that caused crop failures and famine across Europe.

In any case, what is more important than CO2 is understanding threasholds at which sudden climate change happens. And let's not get into Milankovich cycles!
101

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 16:51:54
#28:

"Greeny issues like cutting waste and polution, and improving diet are surely common sense and worthwhile causes whatever the 'experts' say."

I agree. However I am sick and tired of hearing that somehow by taking sensible measures, I am going to affect the weather. I am also sick and tired of hearing meaningless phrases like "carbon emissions" or "carbon footprint" bandied around.

#31:

I'n not going to bother reading anything posted by Slioch or Seeny because:-

1. I've almost certainly read it all before
2. It is mainly copy/paste (especially in Seeny's case)
3. It's just a re-wording of all the propaganda.

I find it vaguely amusing that you raise the subject of trying to drive home an argument by constant repetition. That is EXACTLY the way that the whole "global warming/climatechange/carbon emissions" rubbish is propagated.

This has all the hallmarks of a propaganda campaign---come out with a statement that could feasibly be true, back it up with "authority", repeat it over and over again using as many different media and methods as possible in a way that suggests the it is absolute, incontravertable fact, then vilify and ridicule anyone who contradicts the new "accepted wisdom".

I've seen it all before. As a smoker, I've seen it done against smoking. As someone who likes a beer or two, I've seen it being done against drink. As a motorist, I've seen it done against various aspects of driving (notably "speed kills"). None of what they say is true. Much of it is so far removed from the truth as to bear absolutely no resemblance to it.

Yet people believe it in their droves. Why? Because they are subject to attempts to make them look stupid if they do not and a psychological "comfort zone" has
been built around total and absolute belief. I wouldn't mind betting that some of the vehiment antis who post on these pages only have their beliefs because they have been subconciously brainwashed into them.

There is not a shred of hard e
102

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 16:52:24
(cont)

There is not a shred of hard evidence to suggest that man is responsible for climate change. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest otherwise. I only wish people would wake up and get off this insane bandwagon.
103

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 16:57:58
Oh dear! Now the Deniers have got their fingers in their ears and are going 'la la la la la la la....
104

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 17:02:15
From the recent Climate Congress in Copenhagen:

'Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are
changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators
are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and
economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-
level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidiication, and extreme climatic
events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.'

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/
105

postalvoter,

glenrothes 19/08/2009 17:12:32
The posters who believe that climate change is man made are obviously just talking amongst themselves as the people who matter don't believe them. China, India and the US are the biggest polluters and have comprehensively decided to ignore you. Three coal fired power stations in China ( where they have hundreds) would make up for our CO2 emissions if we switched off the UK tomorrow. So we sit in caves saying how good and green we are ? A bit like a pedestrian who walks across a level crossing on green despite seeing a car failing to stop. He'll die but he'll die legally and in the right.
So like Prince Charles, fly off to your green conferences in South America or like Al Gore live in your mansion. But please don't expect us to take you seriously or listen to you. Keep writing the technical papers but don't print them please. We'll need the trees for wood when the lights go out in the Uk due to you lot of eejits.
106

Upbeat,

19/08/2009 17:12:58
#102

"There is not a shred of hard evidence" etc . etc "

I am glad that you now admit and recognise that the climate is changing.

That you cannot understand that with the changes that have resulted from industrialisation the balance of vegetation on this planet has been changed for all time. Things are not as they once were, and there is no way that what has occured to the rain forest, the temporate regions or the highly populated areas of this planet might have occured naturally. Mankind is responsible

That you continue to believe that all the activities of mankind have had no measureable consequences, over the last two centuries, lies at the base of your misunderstanding.

Look around you, and wake up to reality. There were no cars,no aeroplanes,no powerstations or oil flarestacks two hundred years ago. No tractors or bulldozers clearing natural forests. Holes and drains were dug by hand or not at all. No canals, no redirected rivers, no massive damns, no huge irrigated agricultural zones.

Now tell us again that man's activities have had no effect on the balance of chemicals in the atmosphere...and please...don't be shy. Explain to us clearly how mankinds activities have mimicked so precisely the works of nature that the natural balance of elements and gases remains undisturbed.
107

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/08/2009 17:15:12
#88 albahomeland

"I maintain that we are on the trend line that is effectively recovery from the last glacial"

Then you don't understand what the Vostok core (or I) is saying to you. Although the scale is too small to see easily, until recently temperatures had been slowly declining since the Holocene Climatic Optimum of 4-8,000 years ago. That is not consistent with a "trend line that is effectively recovery from the last glacial", indeed it is just the opposite. The recent reversal of that slow trend (that would have taken us eventually to a new glaciation) is the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The following graph shows the temperature changes for the last 12 thousand years and makes this clearer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
108

Joe McT,

19/08/2009 17:22:26
"That you continue to believe that all the activities of mankind have had no measureable consequences, over the last two centuries, lies at the base of your misunderstanding.

Look around you, and wake up to reality. There were no cars,no aeroplanes,no powerstations or oil flarestacks two hundred years ago"

Correct.

And none of those either - and very few people to boot, ten thousand years ago when the huge Ice Sheet covering most of Britain melted.

Was that caused by Stone Age man in France rubbing two sticks together to make a fire for his barbecue?
109

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 19/08/2009 17:24:29
If you assume a clockwork solar system you can project back 100,000 years and have cyclical models. But it isn't.

Though a northern glaciation could occur very rapidly - a blast freezing effect - and global warming could trigger it.

Mankind is influencing climate on micro and macro scales. Good advice would be to promote hardy native diversity of agriculture to see us through. At least some of us.
110

Joe McT,

19/08/2009 17:34:34
Yok, even if the Climate Change point of view is correct (and that I strongly doubt), how on earth would anyone think that a Government as incompetent as the one we have possibly make any difference?
111

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 17:48:24
#104
Fred - you should remember that all those attendees at Copenhagen's livlihoods depend on AGW - so what else could they say????
112

El Franko,

19/08/2009 18:01:15
'"The human contribution is minor. The majority of CO2 in the crustal atmospheric layers comes from volcanoes, earthquakes, pulling apart of the ocean floor, metamorphism, hot flushes of the Earth, ocean degassing, plant bacteria and comets," he explained.

"Super volcanoes such as Toba, Yellowstone, and Taupo have been the worst offenders. Just one volcano alone, Milos (Greece), produces 2% of the Earth's CO2 atmospheric levels from a hot spring the size of a table", '

Prof Plimer, hammer of the hystericals.

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page43?oid=49496&sn=Detail
113

Allan(handofgod137),

19/08/2009 18:07:11
If you accept man made climate change then this puts you in the same bracket as the flat earthers and creationists.
114

seanie,

19/08/2009 18:09:00
Would that be Prof Pilmer the incompetent crank?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/
115

Joe McT,

19/08/2009 18:10:49
Thanks for that El Franko, but honestly no one need worry about Climate Change as Tony Blair promised to fix it sometime back.

That should reassure everyone!
116

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 19/08/2009 18:45:26
#114 seanie
here we go again - anyone who disagrees with you is subject to name calling - Prof Plimer is a world renowned scientist, as you well know!!
117

seanie,

19/08/2009 18:48:52
World renowned as an incompetent crank I grant you.

Seriously. He says a volcanoe the size of a table top produces the equivalent of 2% of atmospheric CO2.

That'd be about 60 Gigatonnes.

Anyone dumb enough to believe a statement like that is beyond help.

118

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 18:54:05
Geomac said:

'Fred - you should remember that all those attendees at Copenhagen's livlihoods depend on AGW - so what else could they say????'

An insult to those involved.

If scientists are looking for financial reward they can earn more by working for big oil or coal.
119

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 19:00:30
118 cont. scientists without principles that is..
120

Masterpiece,

19/08/2009 19:25:13
How are all the scientists going to get research money to keep them in jobs for the next 30 years or more if they are unable to scare you.
Whats the point in going to university to do such a degree if they cannot make a good living from the unknown.
Scare and frighten the populace and you will get all the research money you need. If its not climate change then it will be something else.
121

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 19:31:12
65: El Franko says none of the following is happening:

shrinking glaciers and ice-caps;

rising sea levels and temperatures;

ocean acidification;

thawing permafrost;

species migration;

species extinctions;

increasing storm and hurricane intensities;

increasing floods and droughts.


Ye gods that beggars belief. He needs to visit Specsavers at the earliest opportunity.
122

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/08/2009 19:36:39
El Franko thinks Plimer is an authority on climated change!

See:

'Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic'

'Ian Plimer's work of climate fiction is riddled with schoolboy errors the Spectator appears prepared to believe'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer
123

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 19/08/2009 23:22:13
Let's disagree!

"Since belief has ceased that a God broadly directs the destinies of the world and that, all the apparent twists and turns in its path notwithstanding, is leading mankind gloriously upward, man has to set himself ecumenical goals embracing the whole earth.

The former morality, namely Kant's, required the individual actions which one desired of all men: that was a very naive thing. As if everyone knew without further ado what mode of action would benefit the whole of mankind, that is, what actions at all are desirable; it is a theory like that of free trade, presupposing that universal harmony must result of itself in accordance with innate laws of progress.

Perhaps some future survey of the requirements of mankind will show that it is absolutely not desirable that all men should act in the same way, but rather that in the interest of ecumenical goals some tracts of mankind ought to have special, perhaps under certain circumstances even byordinar tasks imposed upon them.

In any event, if mankind is not to destroy itself through such conscious universal rule, it must first of all attain to a hitherto altogether unprecedented knowledge of the preconditions of culture as a scientific standard for ecumenical goals. Herein lies the tremendous task facing the great spirits of this century."
124

seanie,

20/08/2009 01:06:25
No. Let's have one simple question.

Which of you actually believe that a volcano the size of a table top produces the equivalent of 2% of atmospheric CO2; around 60 Gigatonnes?

Just how many of you are that stupid?
125

seanie,

20/08/2009 01:13:54
Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head needn't answer.

We already have that logged on our global database.
126

seanie,

20/08/2009 01:14:46
Heh, heh, heh...
127

seanie,

20/08/2009 02:14:59
Out of interest, to show just how seriously bizarre this rabid, ignorant, denialist, fruitcakery is, let's look again at a quote provided by this lunatic fringe;

"Just one volcano alone, Milos (Greece), produces 2% of the Earth's CO2 atmospheric levels from a hot spring the size of a table"

'Prof Plimer, hammer of the hystericals.'

As pointed out that's just nuts. To confirm that, let's look at another document;

http://www.jimball.com.au/Features/Cold-facts-about-Global-Warming.pdf

An article by Professor Ian Pilmer, who says;

"..one small hot spring on Milos contributes to 1% of the planet's volcanic CO2.."

So let's get this straight...2% of the earth's atmospheric CO2 levels come from this one little volcano...but...this one little volcano contributes only 1% of volcanic Co2?

That would mean that volcanic CO2 contributes 200% of atmospheric CO2.

I hadn't realised how far denialist fruitcakery had extended to disputing basic arithmetic.
128

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/08/2009 09:10:40
Apparently the premise of the above article was incorrect. Mr Taleb has the following letter published in today's Scotsman:

"Message mangled"

"In your coverage of my meeting with David Cameron (your report, 19 August) my statements on global warming were conveyed in complete reverse of their meaning and in a way that is totally incompatible with my risk-conscious Black Swan thinking.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green, not anti-Green) – and my idea is to be insulated from the expert opinions that have failed us in the past.

This is an extension of my idea that the edict: "do not disturb a complex system" needs no rationalisation, since we do not know the consequences of our actions in a system of complicated causal webs. I also said "leave the planet the way we got it", which is incompatible with the inference in your report.

Portraying an ecologist who said "I do not want to mess with Mother Nature" as a global warming denier is rather misplaced."

N N TALEB
129

El Franko,

20/08/2009 09:17:30
Quoting articles from a notorious moonbat, in the moonbat-central publication The Guardian, is scarcely convincing.

Quoting hadcrut data is similarly unconvincing, coming as it does from a nest of warmist charlatans (see, for example, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/18/kevin-libin-you-ll-just-have-to-take-our-word-on-the-global-warming-stuff.aspx).

I can see that the hystericals have just no idea of the extent to which their fragile credibility has been shattered.

The game is all but up. You will just have to find something else to get agitated about.
130

El Franko,

20/08/2009 09:37:08
I forgot to mention the liars of Greenpeace, the moonbat action force: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

'Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.'

Trashy person. Trashy organisation. Trashy ideology. Trashy science.
131

El Franko,

20/08/2009 10:09:22
This will have Albert fuming on his ginormous houseboat:

'Officers said further arrests are likely, adding that the proceeds of this alleged crime have been "used to finance lavish lifestyles and the purchase of prestige vehicles". '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/6057263/Seven-arrests-in-suspected-38m-carbon-credit-fraud.html
132

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/08/2009 12:41:40
The above article quotes Taleb:

"I'm a hyper-conservative ecologically. I don't want to mess with Mother Nature. I don't believe that carbon thing is necessarily anthropogenic.'

The second paragraph states:

'DAVID Cameron's latest political guru plunged the Tory leader into an embarrassing controversy yesterday after saying he did not believe in man-made climate change.'

The headline states:

'Man-made climate change is a myth – , says Tory guru'

One distortion leads to another and the Deniers go into a paroxysm of distortions and lies!
133

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/08/2009 14:04:10
#132 fred bloggs

Distortions and lies is all that the deniers have to offer. Take, for example, El Franko's insults about the HADCRUT data on global average temperatures in #129 above.

Early in 2008, the deniers were trumpeting the HADCRUT result for Jan 2008, which showed a dramatic fall in global temperature in just one year (from average global anomaly of 0.632C in Jan 2007 to 0.030C in Jan 2008). This was said to show that global cooling was starting (and all manner of other nonsense). No mention then of any doubt about HADCRUT - it seemed to be showing what the deniers wanted so news about a massive fall in temperatures in just one year reverberated around denialist websites.

On this site, myself and others repeatedly pointed out that short-term temperature fluctuations did not provide information about the long-term trend, and that the sudden dip was mainly caused by the then La Nina (cooling) episode in the Pacific.

Now we are in the opposite situation, with HADCRUT showing June 2009 (July figure not yet posted) to be the third warmest on record (with the other three series showing similar results), probably because of a developing El Nino (warming) episode in the Pacific. So what is the tactic now from the deniers? They try to make out that the temperature series can't be trusted.

When the temperature series show what they want the results are trumpeted, when they show what they don't want the results are dismissed.

Verily, verily, the mind of the denier is a wonder to behold.
134

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/08/2009 16:32:32
#133 Slioch

Interestingly Taleb's view chimes with 'the climate is a savage beast don't mess with it'

There is a parallel discussion going on between Monbiot and Kingsbridge over on the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change?commentpage=11
135

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/08/2009 16:35:11
Kingsnorth that should be.
136

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 20/08/2009 20:33:05
The truth deniers such as Slioch, Seanie and Fred go on about science but choose to ignore that the Hadley CRU are refusing to give out the raw data used for their global warming claims which has been requested under the freedom of information act because "they do not want their climate computer model proved wrong as they have spent £22 million on it"
Good science must be peer reviewed. The political science so loved by the truth deniers is not and therefore cannot be trusted.
137

seanie,

20/08/2009 20:51:16
Nope.

Hadley aren't releasing the raw data because the raw data isn't theirs to release.

It's provided by a variety of institutions and services around the world, some of whom have supplied it free of charge on the basis that it isn't distributed further.
138

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 21/08/2009 15:15:15
Seanie - You mean like GISS who are just as bad.
Hansen & Mann spring to mind.
You would do well to read Dr Edward Wegman etc.
139

seanie,

21/08/2009 15:42:13
Both the surface temperature records, GISS and HADCRU, correlate very well with the two satellite records. The idea that the raw data will reveal some smoking gun of a global scientific conspiracy is frankly delusional.

140

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 22/08/2009 06:57:11
Seanie - It sorted out Mann's infamous hockey stick curve.
The problem is what they do with the data.
If they had nothing to hide they would release the data.
You really need to open your eyes and you will see conspiracy throughout the political world.
141

seanie,

22/08/2009 09:27:11
If they released the raw data then some of the people who supply them with the data might stop doing so. It has commercial value and has been supplied on the basis it's not distributed further.

And Mann's hockey stick is only infamous in the minds of denialist, ignorant, fruitcakes. It was a perfectly decent scientific study, the basic conclusions of which have been replicated by numerous subsequent ones.

We now have a whole bunch of hockey sticks.
142

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 22/08/2009 17:46:58
Oh my goodness, see how Seanie struggles when faced by the truth.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He can't face the fact that Hadley, Giss,the BBC etc are politically driven and completely fails to see that science and politics make poor bedfellows.
143

seanie,

23/08/2009 01:13:37
Eh?

No amount of exclamation marks make your point any more coherent or valid.

Your hysteria over Hadley not releasing raw data, which as pointed out is not their data to release, and you hysteria over Mann's 'hockey stick', the basic conclusions of which have been strengthened by numerous subsequent studies, follows the familiar pattern of rabid, ignorant, denialist, fruitcakery so sadly prevalent within more 'reality challenged' members of our community.

144

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 24/08/2009 16:54:21
Seanie - Are you saying the Mediaeval warming never happened ?
I would also point out that the raw data in question is not exempted under the FOI act.
You really are struggling !
Would you like me to recommend some good reading to back up what I am telling you ? probably not as you have your head in the sand or up Al Gores backside.
145

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:50:12
No. But all the numerous temperature reconstructions have the medieval warming period with lower temperatures than the late 20th century. It's the rapid upswing in the instrumental record that creates the 'hockey stick'. The reconstructions differ but they're all essentially 'hockey sticks' when the instrumental record is included.

And whether the raw data is exempted is really a matter for the Inormation Commissioner to decide upon, not you. Hadley have given their reasons and thye seem fairly straightforward.
146

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:52:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm

"A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct."
147

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:52:20
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Reconstructions of the past 2000 years.
148

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:52:38
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full.pdf+html

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
149

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:52:59
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

"Much research effort over the past years has gone into reconstructing the temperature history of the last millennium and beyond. The new IPCC report compiles a dozen reconstructions for the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere (including of course the original "hockey stick" reconstruction, despite opposite claims by the Wall Street Journal). Lack of data does not permit robust reconstructions for the Southern Hemisphere. Without exception, the reconstructions show that Northern Hemisphere temperatures are now higher than at any time during the past 1,000 years (Figure 1), confirming and strengthening the conclusions drawn in the previous IPCC report of 2001."
150

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:53:14
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

"The TAR pointed to the ‘exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to the past 1,000 years’. Subsequent evidence has strengthened this conclusion. It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also likely that this 50 year period was the warmest Northern Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this warmth was more widespread than during any other 50- year period in the last 1.3 kyr."
151

seanie,

24/08/2009 21:53:33
I've already linked to the 2007 IPPC report that shows a graph of various temperature reconstructions.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

Try page 467.

What d'ya see?

Hockey sticks.

All the reconstructions agree that temperatures over the last few decades exceed any period in the last thousand years.
152

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 25/08/2009 10:16:38
Seanie : Clearly you have no idea what a hockey stick looks like. Michael Mann was fresh out of school when he produced the hockey stick and the only peer reviewing it got was by his own clique! That is not science. Mcintyre clearly showed that the model he produced would give a hockey stick no matter what gargbage was entered, after all that was what the model was designed to do.
By the way, the IPCC dumped the hockey stick from their "Summary for Policymakers" !
Tells it all really.
I would suggest you start reading up on solar activity and you will find what really drives our climate.
You will also find that we are also heading for a cooling period and no matter how much you cut and paste it is the truth.
153

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 25/08/2009 10:18:17
By the way you put far too much faith in the IPCC which is a political organisation.
154

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:35:37
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

"MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the “Hockey Stick” is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth."
155

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:36:41
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

"The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (”PCA”), are readily seen to be false..."
156

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:37:13
And..

"Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature."
157

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:37:41
And further...

"The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all. "
158

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:38:42
And here's that bunch of hockey sticks again;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
159

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:39:45
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

"9) Was MBH98 the final word on the climate of last millennium?

Not at all. There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia."
160

seanie,

25/08/2009 11:49:17
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/11/vrKfz8NjEzU

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
161

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 26/08/2009 08:22:48
Oh dear Seanie, your pasting brush must be red hot!
Now listen carefully : realclimate.org was a website set up by Mann specifically to attack McIntyre & McKitrick, he may have got away with it but enough attention was drawn that in 2006 an Energy & Commerce committee got Dr Edward Wegman to look at it and he with the aid of expert statisticians ripped it to shreds. They found that the algorithm Mann used actually looked for hockey sticks.
They also found that the only peer reviewing was by co autors in his own clique.
The end result was that the IPCC dumped it from the 2007 summary for policymakers.
Here is another snippet for you :
"We have to get rid of the Medieval warming period"
"University of Arizona professor and IPCC lead author Jonathan Overpeck in an email to a colleague he assumed was on board."
Now go take your medication as I don't want you to wear out your pasting brush and have your blood pressure going through the roof.
162

seanie,

26/08/2009 12:00:41
Mann's original studty has not 'been ripped to shreds'. That's just the fantasy of rabid, denialist fruitcakes.

McIntyre & McKitrick's criticisms were largely unfounded, and where legitimate of negligible significance. Their original analysis was flawed and their subsequent analysis made little differenc to the outcome. The National Academy of Science report, which drew on far greater expertise than Wegman's 3 man committee, made some criticism of Maqnn's methodology but supported the basic conclusion;

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence..."

There are now more than ten paleoclimate reconstructions...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

...and all show the same thing. The unprecedented recent upswing in the instrumental record producing a 'hockey stick'.

Those 'hockey stick' reconstructions can also be seen in the latest IPCC Assessment Report on page 467;

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

You'll see the original Mann study is included.


163

seanie,

26/08/2009 12:12:07
As to your snippet...any evidence that it's actually true?

As opposed to evidence of rabid, denialist, fruitcakes claiming it to be true?

Because the two don't often coincide.

164

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 28/08/2009 16:19:10
"Rabid denialist fruitcakes"
Unfortunately this is typical of warming alarmists such as yourself.
Dr Edward Wegman Ph.D, ex Office of Naval Research,repeatedly Honoured by his peers, Member of the board of The American Statistical association,past president of the International Association of Statistical Computing and past chairman of teh Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Science.
Here are a few more fruitcakes at odds with the IPCC for you to check :
Dr David Bromwich, Prof Paul Reiter, Prof Hendrik Tennekes, Dr Christopher Landsea, Dr Antonio Zichichi, Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski,and prof Freeman Dyson.
All mentioned in a book called "The Deniers"
As for the little snippet, the email was sent to Prof David Deming - I got it from a book by Horner but google it and you will get plenty info.
Here is another snippet for you Robert Napier the big boss of the CRU & met office was ex chief exec of the WWF ! Impartial or what ??
165

seanie,

29/08/2009 09:03:45
The National Academy of Science sets the gold standard in scientific review. It found the Mann study to be essentially sound.

And what you keep ignoring is the numerous subsequent studies, using a variety of methods and proxies, that all show the same thing.

That the recent warming is unprecedented.

And on a more general point, just because something gets lot's of hits in google does not make it true. For example; if you google for "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" you'll get lots of hits.

But they're just links to idiots regurgitating lies that they've gullibly swallowed.
166

eyeswider,

31/08/2009 12:47:12
"...they're just links to idiots regurgitating lies that they've gullibly swallowed."


Not like you at all then seanie. Phew.
167

seanie,

02/09/2009 09:27:36
No. Phew.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.