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.
CORRECTION TO MY 3925:
Where I wrote about extinction of sunlight in water:
“The intensity reduces rapidly to the inverse square of depth.”
Have just realized that’s not quite right. For instance it depends in part on the Sun’s zenith, and the maths of photon path lengths and directions is far more complicated upon more of a ponder.
Please change that to:
The intensity reduces rapidly to zero with increasing depth.
I suggest that this opinion piece (go to page 6) in “Physics & Society” from the Forum of The American Physical Society (APS) is an important commentary on the AGW debate. In it, Dr Robert E Levine says that the scientific community “should be concerned about the harm that advocacy is doing to scientific integrity”. As an example, he cites the statement on climate change adopted by the APS Council on 18 November 2007. An extract from Dr Levins’s article:
That’s a strong criticism. Any comments?
An interesting paper from John Coleman detailing the history of AGW.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
to which can be added the involvement of GS Callendar and the acceptance by Keeling of unlikely co2 measurements in 1958.
I make no secret that the more I discover of the historical background behind each of the components of global warming, the more I come to realise that they have limited scientific rigour to recommend them.
I mention some of the pillars of AGW below.
* Sea levels
* Global temperatures
* Global Temperatures to 1850
* The hockey stick with all that implies in reducing the importance of warm and cool episodes.
* The belief that Arctic ice melt is unprecedented.
* The veracity of computer modelling.
* The belief that ‘we’ must be responsible as some sort of personal belief system in the green movement. This has been typified by GS Callendar, Keeling, Hansen, Mann and Gore.
*The uncertainty of ice cores which are supposed to prove that levels of co2 at 280ppm have been static for millenia despite compelling evidence to the contrary
* The science behind the notion that doubling co2 can cause up to 4.8C of warming-only possible with utterly unproven and unlikely hypotheses of all sorts of feedbacks
Consequently I was interested to read this document in a historic context.I wonder that if the IPCC had been established ten years later if they would have been quickly disbanded after their first report.
None of this gives the green light to needlessly pollute our planet or recklessly use its resources, but the time money and effort being expended could go to resolve matters that are real and urgent, not ones that have yet to be proven that they even exist.
TonyB
TonyB
Wikipedia gives an atypically neutral and seemingly unbiased summary of John Coleman’s views on global warming, referring to the more than 197 “prestigious” scientists who signed the Manhattan declaration in 2008 and pointing out that a “backlash against man-made global warming dogma has begun to surface in the lay press” (such as the Washington Post).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)
“Views on global warming
In fall of 2007 Coleman described the current concern over global warming “a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam.” His postings assessing the science behind global warming can be read at http://www.kusi.com. In 2008 he gave a speech of the same tone, before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the “global warming scam” and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam “a threat to our economy and our civilization.”
Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views.
Coleman recently published an article entitled “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam”in which he promotes his personal view that many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in what amounts to scam based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government. Coleman claims that the ‘scam’ was triggered by the claims of scientist Roger Revelle whose primary motivation was seeking increased funding for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
Coleman’s global warming views are closely aligned with those of the International Climate Science Coalition, a prestigious organization of over 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields, who in 2008 in Manhattan N.Y., issued a declaration affirming that “Global warming” is not a global crisis. Furthermore, an apparent backlash against man-made global warming dogma has begun to surface in the lay press. Reputable publications such as the Washington Post recently ridiculed none other than Nobel laureate Al Gore for his extreme predictions in regards to climate change.”
Interesting. Is this the beginning of a “sea change”?
Max
Max
Its a good paper I think and there seem to be an increasing number of them around.
A couple of months ago we were talking about the plausibilty or otherwise of Becks figures. You produced some very good calculations demonstrating the flux involved and how many gigatons could move from sink to source and vice versa for every 1degreeC change in temperature.
In effect it showed the highly variable figures Beck produced were possible
Could you lay your hands on it as I am currently putting together a piece on co2 where it will be useful.
Thanks
TonyB
TonyB
Reur 3928 You list some key pillars of the AGW “belief” and mention that they are not based on rigorous, good science. I fully agree with every word. Here are my comments added to your points:
· Sea levels – citing unreliable new satellite altimetry results, IPCC claims a late 20th century acceleration in sea level rise caused by AGW; the tide gauge record shows no such acceleration, but rather a slight deceleration in the second half of the 20th century as compared to the first half
· Global temperatures – citing the Hadley surface record of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (!)”, IPCC claims that discrepancies with the satellite record have been reconciled and that the impact of the UHI distortion on the surface record is negligible; these claims are untrue as the satellite record shows a significantly slower warming rate (contrary to what should be expected from greenhouse warming) and several studies from all over the world show that the UHI distortion is significant (accounting for as much as 50-75% of the observed 20th century warming)
· Global Temperatures to 1850 – IPCC does not discuss pre-1850 temperature estimates or periods of warming/cooling prior to 1976, concentrating almost exclusively on the 30-year period 1976-2005 to substantiate the AGW claim
· The hockey stick with all that implies in reducing the importance of warm and cool episodes – IPCC has removed the discredited Mann hockey stick from its latest AR4 report, but includes “spaghetti copy-hockey sticks” and makes the (Mann et al.) claim “the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”; several studies plus a plethora of historical and physical evidence demonstrate that there was a warmer MWP (0.5 to 1C warmer than today) and a colder LIA (1 to 1.5C colder than today)
· The belief that Arctic ice melt is unprecedented – IPCC does not mention previous Arctic melting of the early 20th century or earlier periods, stating instead that the “last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise”
· The veracity of computer modeling – IPCC is careful to label its “prophesies” for future AGW climate change as “projections”, rather than “predictions” or “forecasts”, knowing full well that the average “policymaker” (or citizen) does not understand this distinction; but IPCC stresses the veracity of computer modeling in statements such as “the understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved”, “advances in climate change modeling now enable best estimates and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected warming for different emission scenarios”, etc.
· The belief that ‘we’ must be responsible as some sort of personal belief system in the green movement. This has been typified by GS Callendar, Keeling, Hansen, Mann and Gore. This is no different from the classical “guilt and fear” motivation used by many religions, dating back to the ancient Sumerians (and later the Jews) with the “Great Flood” story: man was guilty of transgression, the “higher power” became unhappy and retribution followed quickly, destroying most of the guilty and sparing only a few righteous survivors. The story was repeated at the onset of the Little Ice Age, with many chronicles pointing out that the deadly advancing ice and snow was a direct punishment for man’s “evil ways”. Hansen, Gore and co. are the new oracles or prophets that warn us that our sins will be punished by the “higher power” (this time “Mother Nature”). It’s “déjà vu all over again”, with the religious followers (like Peter) swallowing the story hook, line and sinker…
· The uncertainty of ice cores which are supposed to prove that levels of co2 at 280ppm have been static for millenia despite compelling evidence to the contrary – this is a classical case of “denial” of inconvenient data points that are “outliers” from the theory; you have pointed out the background on “how” this occurred very succinctly; for a treatise of “why” it occurred one should read the writings` of Thomas Kuhn on “paradigms”
· The science behind the notion that doubling co2 can cause up to 4.8C of warming-only possible with utterly unproven and unlikely hypotheses of all sorts of feedbacks – this is probably the biggest boondoggle of all; a theory exists, showing that human CO2 could have caused a portion of the observed minor increase in “global temperature” since 1850, when the modern Hadley record started and the Industrial Revolution got into full swing and that this increase could theoretically add another fraction of 1C warming by 2100. But rather than sticking with the theory and the observed facts, a series of assumed “positive feedback” multipliers are plugged into the climate models, resulting in a four- to ten-fold exaggeration of the future warming: a theoretical greenhouse warming of 0.4C becomes a major catastrophe of 4.8C. This is the WEAKEST POINT in the “science” supporting the alarming AGW postulation, since actual physical observations on clouds show that the assumptions of strongly positive cloud feedback are wrong; this feedback is strongly negative in real life; instead of “adding” 1.3C to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (bringing it from 1.9C to 3.2C, as IPCC proclaims) the cloud feedback actually results in a COOLING of 1.3 to 1.5C, bringing the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity to around 0.6C. These actual physical observations refute the Hansen suggestion that “positive feedbacks predominate” and, therefore “that the Earth is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects”. We can bury Hansen’s hysteria as pseudoscientific hype, intended to alarm unsuspecting lawmakers and the U.S. public, but since proven by actual physical observations to be based on false premises.
The AGW fraud will be exposed by the cloud feedback findings of Spencer, reports by other skeptical scientists and as a more leery press begins to reverse the tide of pro-AGW “crisis” reports, but the general public will REALLY begin to doubt the whole story if it continues to cool for a few more years rather than warm as predicted by the AGW prophets.
Time is not on the side of the doomsayers.
Regards,
Max
Tony B
Reur 3930
Will see if I can dig out the stuff you requested.
Regards,
Max
Re: #3927, Robin
Not only is what Levine says extremely challenging and persuasive, but the forum in which he has been able to make his case is hardly one where you would expect such heresy to be well received, or even countenanced. So I would certainly agree that it is an important document.
That’s two high profile sceptical declarations within the last few days (Theon), and it makes me wonder how many other scientists are keeping their own council on this most dangerous of subjects. Will others now have the courage to break cover?
It’s interesting that his CV suggests that he could hold very well informed opinions about the usefulness of models as predictive tools.
Peter Martin,
Further my 3925 with the Kevin Trenberth Cartoon favoured by his IPCC captains in 2001 and 2007, upon reflection, I doubt if you could understand it. There is a little calculation required to show that according to the cartoon, evaporative cooling of the Earth’s surface is given as ~46% of the total cooling from the surface.
Here is a NASA version of the diagram which is easier for you to follow. It does NOT contain Trenberth’s/IPCC’s very naïve depiction of the greenhouse effect, but appears to be based on the same numbers as in the Trenberth cartoon.
To help you further on the NASA version; 51% of the Sun’s energy is absorbed by the surface, and 23% of that energy is lost by evapo-transpiration thus 23/51 gives ~46%
What is called ‘thermals’ by Trenberth, becomes ‘conduction and rising air’ by NASA. (~14% of total from surface).
I hope you can follow this OK
Re 3934, trying again:
If no image; click:
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
Max,
Maybe this graph will help you understand the concept that the world average temperature anomaly is heavily weighted by the ocean temperatures. Which is not surprising as the ocean covers 70% of the earth’s surface. Ocean temperatures do change more slowly than land temperatures, which is easliy undersatndable by any 5 year old child and no amount of blustering on your part is going to change that!
It suits your purposes in trying to minimise the amount of AGW, to use figures like 0.3 or 0.4 degC. Whereas if you were more interested in getting to the truth you would be looking at the land surface figures a little more. That is where most of the world’s inhabitents do live.
Bob_FJ,
I hope its warm enough for you in Melbourne at the moment. 44 degC (or 111 deg F ) are figures I heard. But you’ll be pleased to know I’m not saying its all due to AGW !
PS
I should have attributed the graph in the previous posting to NASA.
Bob_FJ,
Yes I do understand what you are saying and I don’t disagree with it either. Which gets me a bit worried! What point are you trying to make?
You’re referencing NASA too, which I would have thought was a bit of a no-no for you guys.
Unless it’s got a bit too hot for you in Melbourne and you’ve come over to our side?
Another prominent Realist speaking up
Another prominent Realist speaking up……………
Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
Even left now laughing at Global Warming
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/40464
So-called “global warming” has shrunk from problem to punch line. And now, Leftists are laughing, too. It’s hard not to chuckle at the idea of Earth boiling in a carbon cauldron when the news won’t cooperate:
— Nearly four inches of snow blanketed the United Arab Emirates’ Jebel Jais region for just the second time in recorded history on January 24. Citizens were speechless. The local dialect has no word for snowfall.
— Dutchmen on ice skates sped past windmills as canals in Holland froze in mid-January for the first time since 1997. Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop, who inhabits a renovated 17th Century windmill, stumbled on the ice and fractured his wrist.
— January saw northern Minnesota’s temperatures plunge to 38 below zero, forcing ski-resort closures. A Frazee, Minnesota dog-sled race was cancelled, due to excessive snow. Snow whitened Surf City, North Carolina’s beaches.
Days ago, ice glazed Florida’s citrus groves.
As Earth faces global cooling, both troglodyte Right-wingers and lachrymose Left-wingers find Albert Gore’s simmering-planet hypothesis increasingly hilarious:
— “In terms of (global warming’s) capacity to cause the human species harm, I don’t think it makes it into the top 10,” Dr. Robert Giegengack, former chairman of University of Pennsylvania’s Earth and Environmental Sciences Department, told the Pennsylvania Gazette. Giegengack voted for Gore in 2000, and says he likely would again.
— Commentator Harold Ambler declared January 3 on HuffingtonPost.com that he voted for Barack Obama “for a thousand times a thousand reasons.” He added that Gore “owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming.” He called Gore’s assertion that “the science is in” on this issue “the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of mankind.”
— “Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over,” retired Navy meteorologist Dr. Martin Hertzberg wrote on carbon-sense.com. The physical chemist and self-described “scientist and life-long liberal Democrat” added: “The average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere has declined over the last 10 years. From the El Nino Year of 1998 until Jan. 2007, it dropped a quarter of a degree Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit). From Jan 2007 to the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping three-quarters of a degree Celsius (1.35 degrees Fahrenheit). Those data further prove that the fear-mongering hysteria about human-caused global warming is completely unjustified and is totally counterproductive to our Nation’s essential needs and security.”
— “It is a tribute to the scientific ignorance of politicians and journalists that they keep regurgitating the nonsense about human-caused global warming,” veteran Left-wing commentator and Nation magazine columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote. “The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution — and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, and greed.”
Some Leftists believe the collective hallucination of warmism distracts from what they consider urgent progressive priorities:
— “The most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might,” University of Ottawa physics professor Dr. Denis Rancourt has written. “The global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.”
— Social historian Dr. David Noble of Canada’s York University concurs. He has lamented that warmism is “diverting attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movements.”
— Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, previously Education Minister in France’s late 1990s Socialist government, denounced the “prophets of doom of global warming.” He sounded amused in a September 2006 L’Express article. “The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people.”
“The so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is not holding up,” Senator James Inhofe (R — Oklahoma) told his colleagues January 8. “It is becoming increasingly clear that skepticism about man-made global warming fear is not a partisan left vs. right issue.”
So-called “global warming” has accomplished the impossible: It has united liberals and conservatives in laughter.
(Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Pete, Reur 3936, in part:
I can’t say I’m enjoying the third day of it, but I have my A/C on low and a circulating fan going, which is a good compromise; helping avoid potential power failures. Still, it’s not so bad as “Black Friday” January 1939 when around that time, 71 people died in Victorian bushfires, and a thousand or so homes were destroyed. At one stage in the Melbourne forecast they pointed at a big wall chart on TV, and said hey look here; (lots of strong red ), there has been nothing like this since 1908, (101 years ago). However, it is probably cooler tomorrow, (38C), so 1908 was the big hit
We had train lines buckle, traffic light failures, and chaos in transport in Melbourne, which was attributed by our great minister of AGW; Penny Wong (and others), to Climate Change, despite that it was worse 101 years ago!
Peter Martin, Reur 3937, you wrote in part:
This statement is internally contradictory. You say you understand, but clearly, you do not.
I suppose I could make a long list of YES/NO questions to you rather like Max did above, but I don’t think I can be bothered.
On the other hand, Max and me are having “discussions” with Andrew Dessler over at Gristmill, and I’ll be making a post there which embodies part of the above, which I’ll refer to you later.
I’m waiting for a response (maybe) to my comment 36 for a day or two yet.
Hi Peter,
Your latest waffle 3936 again misses the point. As we (you + I) have established, the atmosphere at the surface, i.e. the Hadley “globally and annually average land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (whew!) has increased by 0.65C from 1850 to 2008, with solar scientists telling us that around half of this (0.35C) can be attributed to increased 20th century solar activity, leaving 0.3C for AGW from increased CO2 (or any other factor, such as UHI distortion, changes in patterns of ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc.)
So if we assume that ALL of the unexplained warming came from CO2, we can calculate that this will cause another 0.4C warming by year 2100.
Please note that the both the “land” and the “sea” temperature is included in the Hadley “globally and annually average land and sea surface temperature anomaly”.
You are vacillating between “watch the change in ocean temperature” to “watch the change in land temperature”. This is silly.
While there may have been other problems with sea surface temperatures, UHI distortions occur only in the land temperature measurements. This can very easily explain the difference between the two records, as many studies show that these distortions could have caused an artifact of as much as 0.4 to 1.0C to the land record over the 20th century. This has occurred due to increased urbanization, shutting down of rural stations all over the world but very much so in rural Siberia after the collapse of the USSR, poor siting of stations (new asphalt parking lots, AC exhausts, buildings, etc. next to thermometers, etc.) Your GISS graph shows a difference of 0.6C, actually a pretty good validation of these UHI studies.
Rather than bouncing between the “land and sea” average and only the more suspect “land only” measurement, it would make sense for you to stay on topic. IPCC and other AGW proponents use the (pardon me, again) “globally and annually average land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (whew!), so let’s stick with that rather indicator than getting sidetracked (it opens up a whole new “can of worms”). OK?
Back to my 3924. Have you pondered the questions yet? Are you ready to take a stand and answer them?
Let us see what you really think and why.
Regards,
Max
Max,
“So if we assume that ALL of the unexplained warming came from CO2, we can calculate that this will cause another 0.4C warming by year 2100.”
I think the ‘we’ in your statement is Prof Lindzen and yourself. Actually Lindzen has been pushing this line of argument and has also claimed that currently the earth has already warmed by 3/4 of what we can expect by 2100, by which time CO2 levels in the atmosphere will double if emissions continue to rise as they have in recent decades.
But I think that ‘we’ (you and I) know that Lindzen has got this wrong. Instead of 3/4 of the way, he should have said more like 45% of the way.
1/.45 = 2.2
So if the ocean temperature , ( the ocean + land won’t be much different) increase since 1880 has been 0.7 degsC we can expect it to rise to 2.2 x 0.7 = 1.5 deg C over its 1880 level by the end of the century.
That will be the likely increase in the sea temperature. The temperature on land has already risen by about 1.3 degsC so we can expect that figure to rise to 2.2 x 1.3 = 2.9 deg C by the end of the century. This is very consistent with the IPCC 3 deg C estimate for 2 x CO2.
Of course it does not mean that the ocean will always be at cooler average temperature than the land. It will catch up in the years to follow.
PS Another way of looking at this is to notice that the land temperature has risen by about 0.9 deg in the last 30 years. That’s 0.3 deg C per decade or 3 degs per century.
Hi Peter,
Reur 3945.
Breaking down the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” into the “land” and “sea” portions and “cherry picking” one or the other to identify past and future warming trends does not make much sense.
Concluding “it does not mean that the ocean will always be at cooler average temperature than the land. It will catch up in the years to follow” is a statement of blind faith, totally unsubstantiated by any past observation or scientific principle, so you should drop this line of reasoning, as well.
You added: “Another way of looking at this is to notice that the land temperature has risen by about 0.9 deg in the last 30 years. That’s 0.3 deg C per decade or 3 degs per century.”
Sorry, Peter. Forget the short-term blip in the curve of “the last 30 years”, and concentrate on the longer term (as you have told me many times, when I mentioned to you the current short-term cooling blip).
Over the entire 150+ year record we see a total warming of 0.65C in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” published by Hadley (not some arbitrarily cherry-picked piece of this record).
Then you should subtract the 0.35C warming caused by the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in over 11,000 years!), as pointed out in studies by several solar scientists, remember? Don’t fall into the trap (as IPCC did, with their admitted “low level of scientific understanding” of solar impact) of ignoring the sun. This approach will get you into trouble.
Subtract this warming out from the total, and you only have 0.3C left for anthropogenic warming (CO2) over the entire long-term record since 1850 (not a short-term 30-year blip in the record).
Peter, you are falling into the same trap into which IPCC has fallen of concentrating on one short term cherry-picked piece of the record, while ignoring the rest. This is “bad science”, as I’m sure you know. Several posters here have criticized IPCC for making this error.
Now that you have established an observed anthropogenic warming of 0.3C from 1850 (CO2 = 285 ppmv, according to IPCC estimate based on ice core data) to 2008 (CO2 = 385 according to Mauna Loa average), you can quickly calculate the warming expected to year 2100 at an estimated CO2 level of 2×385 = 570 ppmv, using the logarithmic relationship between CO2 change and temperature. It is 0.4C above today’s value.
This, Peter, is the theoretical warming we can expect by year 2100 from anthropogenic forcing.
What we (you, me, IPCC, etc.) do NOT know is what will happen to our “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” due to natural forcing factors.
It appears today that solar cycle 24 has started off with a very inactive sun, possibly contributing to the colder-than-average temperature since end-2007.
It also appears (coincidence or correlation?) that frequent warming late 20th century El Nino occurrences have been replaced with cooling La Ninas, which most scientists relate to the current cooling, as well.
Will these natural forcing factors continue to drive temperatures down in the 21st century, just as they certainly helped drive them up in the late 20th century?
You cannot answer this crucial question, so you are unable to predict what the “globally and annually land and sea surface temperature anomaly” will be in year 2100.
IPCC cannot answer this question. They have even arrogantly gone so far as to totally ignore natural forcing factors in their “projections” for 2100. How absurd!
I certainly cannot answer this question, nor can anyone.
As Hamlet said to Horatio, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
The pompous IPCC promoters of the AGW hypothesis should shut down their super-computers and read more Shakespeare. Maybe you should, too.
Regards,
Max
Tony: re #3933, yes I agree – both the article and the forum hosting it appear to be significant. Maybe there are some gradual adjustments of position happening. (BTW your reference should have been to #3927, not 3917.)
Max your 3946-Shakespeare quotation
I admit I had to google to find the source of this solar related quote, but then felt it highly appropriate that it comes from an old religion, yet is very relevant to the adherents of the new green religion. It should perhaps reminds people of the overwhelming importance of the sun, and that we have been this climatic way many times before.
Ecclesiastes 1:9] What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
TonyB
Re #3933 and Robin’s #3927
Another sceptic turns up the heat on the IPCC
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
Suddenly, sceptics seem to have a new appetite for speaking out publicly; I wonder why?
Max
This might help to further inform your discussion with Peter
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/georank.html
tonyB