THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max
I thought you might be interested in Dr Roy Spencers new year post on his site. You will recall I posted something remarkably similar a couple of months ago here.
The first is Roy Spencers graph of co2
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
The second is mine-both arrived at independently (although I would love to believe he copied me!!)
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/man_vs_nature.jpg
TonyB
Frank Tipler, distinguished mathematical physicist at Tulane University.
WARMING, OR HOT AIR?
Frank Tipler, the distinguished mathematical physicist at Tulane University, is an Urgent Agenda reader. We recently asked him for his view of the global-warming controversy, and he was kind enough to send us this thoughtful reply. We reprint it in full. Recommended reading:
As regards global warming, my view is essentially the same as yours: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a scam, with no basis in science.
A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:
(1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that the “the debate is over,” because this was exactly the claim originally made against the Copernican theory of the Solar System. Copernicus’ opponents said the idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by Aristrachus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100 A.D. The debate is over! Sorry, it wasn’t: the Earth IS the third planet.
(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.
(3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth’s average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were predicted before they occurred. This is good science.
(4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust “scientists” to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We’ve seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September’s temperatures for Russia rather than October’s. I’m not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.
It snowed here in New Orleans last week and it was the second heaviest snowfall I’ve seen in the 25 years I’ve lived in New Orleans. According to the local newspaper, it was the earliest snow had fallen in New Orleans since records were kept, beginning in 1850. I myself have looked at the relative predictive power of Copernicus’s theory and the then rival Ptolemaic theory. Copernicus was on the average twice as accurate, and the average person of the time could tell. Similarly, anybody today can check the number of sunspots. Or rather the lack of them. When I first starting teaching astronomy at Tulane in the early 1980’s, I would show sunspots to my students by pointing a small $25 reflecting telescope at the Sun, and focusing the Sun’s image on the wall of the classroom. Sunspots were obviously in the image on the wall. I can’t do this experiment today, because there are no sunspots.
(5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800’s that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.
(6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one’s scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the “consensus” view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired. Stillman Drake, the world’s leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book “Galileo: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called “natural philosophers”), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The “out-of-the-mainsteam” Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotlean theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do. Galileo’s fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these “scientists” tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo’s fellow “scientists” called in the Inquisition to silence him.
I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition’s case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama’s new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are “dangerous.” I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.
(7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. There is a professor at Tulane, with a Ph.D in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I am about AGW, but he’d never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.
(8) This is why I am astounded that people who should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk. Where are the Einsteins of today? They would never be able to get a university job — Einstein’s idea that time duration depended on the observer was very much opposed to the “consensus” view of the time. Einstein’s idea that light was composed of particles (now called “photons”) was also considered crazy by all physicists when he first published the idea. At least then he could publish the idea. Now a refereed journal would never even consider a paper written by a patent clerk, and all 1905 physics referees would agree that relativity and quantum mechanics were nonsense, definitely against the overwhelming consensus view. So journals would reject Einstein’s papers if he were to write them today.
Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can’t Newt Gingrich understand this? Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science.
We should add that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his famous farewell address as president – the “industrial-military complex” speech – also warned of the intersection between science and government. This is what he said:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
We thank Professor Tipler for his contribution.
Prof Frank Jennings Tipler, a top scientist.
December 22, 2008.
Hi Peter,
Back to your 3373, where you show a curve of recent sunspot numbers, which is admittedly only a partial indicator of solar activity.
But the curve does tell a story of a significant reduction of solar activity from 2000/2001 to 2008 (sunspot number declining from 120 to around 0).
This coincides with a period of global cooling as measured by all four principal records (Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH), with a significant average cooling trend of around 0.09C per decade, where both IPCC and Hadley had actually expected a warming (from AGW) of 0.2C and 0.3C per decade respectively.
The red curve shows two forecasts of sunspot number for the future. Solar scientists are not all in agreement with these NOAA Colorado forecasts; some believe that the relatively low solar activity will continue over a longer period of time.
We do not know who is right here, of course, but it is clear from the past 8 years than a significant reduction in solar activity has coincided with a period of global cooling, despite the fact that this was also a period of record high human CO2 emissions.
RealClimate may “spin” this a bit differently, but those are the facts, Peter.
You can draw whatever conclusions from them that you will but your statement “it looks very much like that the 1998 temperature record (or 2005 if you take the GISS figure) will be exceeded in the next few years” is more a statement of “faith” than one of scientific observation.
I agree with your statement “it’s better to know the full truth than live in a fool’s paradise”, but I’m wondering who the “fools” in the “fool’s paradise” really are: are these the solar scientists or the AGW believers?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I strongly recommend that you read post # 3402 from bobclive with the message from Frank Tipler. Read it closely.
Paragraphs (3) and (5) are particularly pertinent to our recent exchange on sunspot numbers and global temperature.
The graphs on sunspot number 2001 to 2008, which you posted earlier, could easily be superimposed on a graph of the global temperature according to Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH, possibly adding onto the graph the increasing rate of human CO2 emissions as well as the annual rise of atmospheric CO2 during this cooling period.
This composite graph would show a correlation between global temperature and sunspot number, but no apparent correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 (or human CO2 emissions) over this period.
The other points that Tipler makes concerning silencing of AGW opponents by the state are a bit more alarming.
I have not been one in the past to subscribe to the idea of an overt AGW “conspiracy”, but it appears that there may well be a covert collusion between politicians (who want to impose carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes), environmental activists (who want to stop or reverse industrial expansion, which they perceive as inherently “evil” and “destructive”) and climate scientists (who need the financial support of the politicians).
Rather than referring to this cycle as a “conspiracy”, I have called it “agenda driven science” (or “pseudo-science”).
What do you think, Peter?
Do you believe that there is any truth to the remarks of Tipler?
Just curious about how you perceive all this.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just to help you understand and appreciate the “other side of the story”.
These words from Roy Spencer (TonyB # 3401) underline the basic problem, which was addressed by Frank Tipler in the recent post by bobclive (#3402).
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who the world now relies upon for the ‘official’ position on climate change science, has essentially ignored the possibility that natural modes of internal climate variability — like the PDO — could cause climate change. All it takes is a small, naturally-induced change in cloudiness and, voila, you have global warming or global cooling. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars to build and launch new Earth-monitoring satellites which are giving us a wealth of new data on natural climate variability to interpret, yet I know of no research that has ever been funded to look for natural explanations for global warming.
Those few dozen bureaucrats and politically-savvy scientists in charge of the IPCC process now exert considerable influence over what kinds of climate research is funded by congress. The government funding and peer review process has been corrupted by a few outspoken scientists, bureaucrats, and politicians who now have a vested interest in the theory of ‘manmade global warming’.
In my view, this constitutes gross negligence and misuse of science to advance the political objectives of the IPCC leadership and the United Nations. That political agenda has been embraced by too many U.S. politicians who wrap themselves in the cloak of ’scientific consensus’, which has been asserted by the IPCC leadership — without any vote from the hundreds of scientists being represented.
Because of the extreme economic cost of proposed policy changes (carbon cap and trade, carbon taxes, etc.) to the economy, and especially to the poor, it is imperative that such policies be based upon good science — not propaganda. The scientific basis for the belief that mankind is now the dominant control on climate needs to be revisited. Al Gore and Barack Obama have said that there is no longer any scientific debate over the cause of climate change. I say that it is time for the debate to finally begin.”
As this site, as well as the many recent scientific articles and studies questioning the AGW position, are showing, the debate is beginning in earnest and the voices opposing the AGW mantra are getting louder and stronger.
As a rational optimist, I am convinced that truth will win out over political expediency in the end, Peter.
I also believe that this will not be good for avid AGW supporters.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob FJ,
re # 3397. Thank you , excellant.
Siemens Ultramat 3 nondispersive infrared gas analyzer [NDIR analyser].
Type 3 ?
I thought this was a new technique / instrument in 1958 (ish).
Have there been some machinery / instrument changes over the years.
Max,
On the subject of pseudoscience, Frank Jennings Tipler III, has made his own contribution in his book “The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead”. I’m not kidding, you just couldn’t make this stuff up!
Incidentally, I’ve never understood this American idea of putting of adding ‘the third’, Sr and Jr, or whatever after their names. Wouldn’t it be much less confusing, and less pretentious, for American parents to come up with a different name for their offspring?
I wouldn’t disagree with what you have written about sunspots. I’m a little surprised at you coming up with this line, as it is pretty much what I have been saying in previous posts. If you look at the temperature record since the 70’s each decade is warmer than the previous decade, but also each decade has also shown a pronounced period of cooling. The temperature hasn’t risen smoothly but in a saw tooth like fashion.
There does seem to be a periodic oscillation in the temperature record of about 10 – 12 or so years which can possibly be, at least partially, explained by the approximately 11 year solar cycle. All the time, though, CO2 is building and contributing its own steady rise to global temperatures.
So, in the next few years we are due for another temperature jump. 2011 is much more likely to be a record hot year than a record cold one. Just exactly what did you mean by 2011 being likely to be a record cold year?
Jan 01, 2009
Global Warming? New Year Ushers in New Snowfall Records
By P.J. Gladnick
As soon as your humble correspondent flipped on the TV set this New Year morning, he heard an MSNBC report about record levels of snowfall that just hit the Pacific Northwest. Checking around the web, it turns out that other parts of the country were also hit with record levels of snowfall. Here are a few of the reports starting with this one in the Green Bay Press Gazette: Green Bay ended the month with 45.8 inches of snowfall, the most of any December on record.
It buried the previous record of 36.4 inches, set in December 1887, but fell 2.6 inches short of matching the snowiest month of all time for Green Bay. That record goes to March 1888, with 48.2 inches, which helped the winter of 1887-88 become the snowiest winter in Green Bay history at 147.7 inches total.
And in the more liberal part of Wisconsin, Madison, the snowfall records are already tumbling as reported in the Wisonsin State Journal (data updated to December 31). The 44.7 inches already in November and December have virtually reached the 45 inches that normally falls in any given winter in these parts, with the brunt of winter (4 months) still to come. The record snowfall in December is now at 40.4 inches, breaking the previous December mark of 35 inches set in 2000 as well as the previous all month record mark of 37 inches that fell in February 1994.
I loved the movie Fargo and in that North Dakota city snowfall records also fell as you can see in this report: Fargo’s December snowfall total as of end of the year was 33.5 inches, which broke the previous record of 29.2 inches set in December 1927, according to the weather service. Grand Forks, ND also set a record with 30.1 inches of snowfall this December, compared to the previous record of 27.6 inches set back in 1918. Bismarck, ND, also set a snowfall record with 33.3 for the month (45.8 so far this season).
It will be interesting to see what the Global Warming Alarmists of the Boston Globe will make of this story which just appeared in their own newspaper yesterday: SPOKANE, Wash. – Spokane residents were trying to dig out yesterday after a record-breaking month of snow (an amazing 61.5 inches) collapsed roofs and clogged streets.
And how was the weather at midnight as the New Year was marked by the famous ball drop in Times Square? The New York Post describes the scene: In a fitting end to a miserable year that saw an economic meltdown, Wall Street’s collapse and massive job losses, bitter cold descended on New York to usher out 2008. Hundreds of thousands of bundled-up celebrants descended on the Crossroads of the World – huddled in blankets and shielded under umbrellas. Driving snow pounded many of the early-bird revelers throughout yesterday, and by midnight, the mercury had plummeted to 18 degrees. Howling wind gusts of up to 40 mph made it feel below zero at times.
So the New Year has been heralded in by record snowfall and bitterly cold temperatures but will the Global Warming Alarmists in the media notice? And will some enterprising reporter out there ask Al Gore how he can reconcile his Global Warming predictions with the incredibly cold weather we’ve been having recently including snowstorms in Las Vegas and snowfall in New Orleans?
An Eye Test For Global Warming Alarmists
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/
Brute #3409
Pay attention at the back there Brute. I posted this on my #3401 and remarked I had also posted my own graph showing the same thing a few months ago in this very blog. I must admit Roy Spencer did it in a much more amusing way though!!
The main problem though is that it will have little credibility because it was posted by Roy Spencer who some seem to think is a lightweight. I’m not a lightweight of course though-not after all the food I ate at Christmas!
TonyB
Brute
I’ve been thinking about Spencers graph again which sums up our problem in putting over our case. The warnmists have an iconic Hockey stick whilst we have a line that can hardly be seen!!
Perhps our mission in 2009 is to come up with an icon. Any suggestions?
TonyB
Hi Peter,
In an apparent attempt to discredit Frank Tipler’s remarks on AGW, you wrote, “On the subject of pseudoscience, Frank Jennings Tipler III, has made his own contribution in his book “The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead”. I’m not kidding, you just couldn’t make this stuff up!”
Sounds almost as screwy as James E. Hansen’s predictions of irreversible “tipping points” resulting when atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 450 ppmv. I certainly “couldn’t make this stuff up”, either.
The pertinent difference here, Peter, which I’m sure you’ll be able to grasp if you strain your brain a bit, is that Tiplers’s “pseudoscience”, which you cited, does not relate in any way to the current scientific debate surrounding AGW, whereas Hansen’s “pseudoscience” does so directly.
Did you get the difference?
Just think about it a bit, Peter, and it will be obvious.
I’ll repeat the essential difference, so you can understand more easily.
Tipler has “strange” beliefs concerning “God and the Resurrection of the Dead” (much the same as IPCC chairman, Dr. Pachauri, a Hindu, has “strange” beliefs concerning “rebirth” after death).
I do not find that either of these “strange” beliefs, per se, disqualify Tipler or Pachauri to have valid opinions on AGW. Do you? (If so, why?)
Hansen has “strange” beliefs concerning irreversible “tipping points” to occur when our planet reaches atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 450 ppmv (a level conveniently picked to coincide with Hansen’s 95th birthday, so no one will be able to “call” him on his “strange” prediction).
These “strange” beliefs relate directly to AGW and, therefore, raise direct doubts regarding the credibility of Hansen’s copinions on AGW.
Got it?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You opined (3407), “So, in the next few years we are due for another temperature jump. 2011 is much more likely to be a record hot year than a record cold one.”
Then you asked, “Just exactly what did you mean by 2011 being likely to be a record cold year?”
I do not really believe that 2011 will likely be a “record cold year”, but I did refer to the latest NOAA Colorado predictions of sunspot number peaking around 2012/2013 (at somewhere around 80, as opposed to 120 in the late 20th century), “Solar scientists are not all in agreement with these NOAA Colorado forecasts; some believe that the relatively low solar activity [close to 0 sunspot number as at present] will continue over a longer period of time”.
It may well turn out that the period 1970-2000 was the period during which a combination of high solar activity, frequent strong El Nino occurrences and high AGW combined to cause above normal warming.
By the same token, the period 2001-2030 may well continue its 2001-2008 trend and turn out to be the period where low solar activity, a reversal to more La Nina occurrences cause a reversal in the warming trend despite record human CO2 emissions and growing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Your “guess” of a “record hot year” 2011 is a matter of faith in the resurrection of the currently dormant AGW warming with strong “positive feedbacks”, Peter, rather than on any specific scientific forecast (other than those of IPCC), as far as I can see.
My “guess” that we may be in a continuing longer-term cooling trend is a matter of listening to what many solar scientists are projecting and discarding the concept of assumed “positive feedbacks” as an illusion.
We’ll see in three years whose “guess” turned out to be more correct.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “All the time, though, CO2 is building and contributing its own steady rise to global temperatures.”
As can be seen clearly from the graph below:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/3159818670_3398f32ff7_b.jpg
(see the two heavy black lines, solid and dashed)
The average 21st century temperature anomaly went down (i.e. cooled) by 19% while the average atmospheric CO2 content increased by 4%.
If we compare the` “anthropogenic CO2” only (everything above 280 ppmv, according to IPCC), we have an increase from:
370 – 280 = 90 ppmv
to:
385 – 280 = 105 ppmv
or an increase of 17%.
Would you say that this correlation is “irrevocable”?
Regards,
Max
Tony B,
As Robin wrote several comments back, I think the most effective way to combat this is by spreading the word through contact with friends and associates. I’m not certain that writing your Congressman (Member of Parliament) will have much effect as politicians view this “situation” as a perfect opportunity to increase their control of government over business and private citizens through regulation and taxation.
Max coined the phrase “agenda driven science” which is the most appropriate terminology I’ve seen. Manipulating data and force feeding it to the public through a politically/ideologically sympathetic media is their Modus operandi and is difficult to overcome; however, in the end, the truth will eventually become dominant which will expose the global warming fraud for what it truly is……a scheme perpetuated by politicians and corrupt scientific institutions to gather funding through nefarious means.
Everyone
This was on wuwt. I suggested it must be a spoof but am assured otherwise and this really is on Hansens web site. Have a read.
“Here’s letters from J Hansen to the Obama’s. He put them on his web site Dec 31. Talks about the goal… redistribution of wealth.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf and http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
Ends
Now if its true it tells us a lot about the politics behind all this stuff, but I would like someone sane from this site to reassure me that it is a serious document and not a spoof.
TonyB
brute #3415
Nice post, I agree with everything you say except I am not so sure the world will wake up to this nonsense before we have lots of restrictions and taxes imoposed on us. See my post above re Hansen. He has the ear of the most powerful man in the world -we don’t.
TonyB
Hello TonyB and everyone, just thought I would butt in with an idea for a symbol. As a rival for the infamous hockey stick, how about a horizontal wavy line, or maybe several wavy lines, one above the other? It struck me earlier, when reading about the adjustments to past data at NASA GISS that whereas the adjusted data tend to produce a sort of ascending staircase of temperatures (ending, as we all know, in future doom and catastrophe) the unadjusted data seem like a series of humps running more or less horizontally (to my unscientific eye, anyway.) Horizontal wavy lines would incorporate the idea of temperatures rising and falling in response to cycles (sunspot, seasonal, oceanic, etc.) This seems a bit New Agey, but it would also resemble the zodiac symbol for Aquarius, and thus refer to the important role of water vapour and the oceans (technically, Aquarius is an air sign, so it would also refer to the atmosphere.)
Hi Alex
I like it-my charts of CET (before they are adjusted, smoothed, averaged or sent through inventively named filters) looks exactly like a series of humps going back into infinity-sometimes humpier than at other times! However bearing in mind we need to get it in front of decision makers might it be too subtle for them? We’d need to incorprate something that would make it obvious-any ideas?
I’ve come up with a cartoon (which is a different thing to an icon of course)
Two men -very warmly wrapped up- are standing on a small hill, obviously in the arctic. They are looking towards a great crowd of polar bears stretching as far as the eye can see, all standing upright close to each other- as in a very crowded train. The bears are themselves very warmly dressed complete with hats and gloves.
One man is turned to the other-it is none other than the president elect-and says
“Well Mr Hansen, don’t you think you might be exaggerating this global warming and endangered polar bears scare just a little?”
tonyB
Brute: can this report be true? It seems that in California
Is your country getting madder than mine? Not quite perhaps – see this.
Note to TonyB and Alex Cull
As Peter has told us repeatedly, “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
This maxim is well known to the 2,500 climate scientists that are diligently researching the human impact on our planet’s climate and are eager to convey their startling results to the “policymakers” of our world.
In fact, these scientists have become so skilled at making impressive pictures that they won the international first prize in creative chartmanship with this beaut.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/3160512665_88a88cae09_b.jpg
Could this be enhanced to become our logo?
Max
A few suggestions for icons or symbolic pictures if you can stretch the definition a little.
You guys seem happy to allow the earth’s climate to warm to similar levels as were common in the Jurassic period so maybe a friendly little dinosaur might be an appropriate icon:
Sometimes I think you guys just aren’t prepared to face up to the reality of the situation so you could have:
or
The last suggestion should be captioned:
“Talk to the Hand”
One more suggestion:
You could improve on this if you could show Sarah Palin in the driving seat, toting a high powered rifle and with a dead moose tied to the roof rack.
Hi Alex,
I like the wavey line “symbol” it fits so many things.
Such as, PDOs, sunspots, ozone hole size seasonal and annual, CET, NASA and GISS temperatures. – That is just for starters.
Even politicians would “see” that.
Most of my conversations with people seem to “hit the spot” when comparing the “natural wiggliness” to the artificial representations of the “straight line” AGW hypothesises.
(ie Lamb compared to Mann)
I would think the wavey line symbol is the way to go though,
I was born early / mid one February.
Derek.
One more suggestion. It doesn’t seem fair that the Left should have it all their own way with pictures of Che emblazoned on the tee shirts of the nation’s youth. You should have your own iconic figure too. How about something like?