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.
Hi Robin,
Your comment 1870 about overriding national interests (among EU members) is interesting. But your earlier comment on China, India and Brazil is even more pertinent.
If the EU members can’t even agree on AGW “mitigation” measures, how do they expect more important entities like China, India, Brazil, the USA and Russia to “jump on board”?
I agree with you that this is extremely unlikely to ever happen and that the whole “post Kyoto mitigation” plan is doomed to failure.
Regards,
Max
Max/Robin,
Very good…… both links.
For the record, Republicans in Congress attempted to pass legislation in 2005 and 2006 to place more stringent accounting rules on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were outvoted on both measures by Congressional Democrats. The first bill didn’t even get out of committee. John McCain co-sponsored legislation to rein in these two quasi-government institutions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Democrat created/managed institutions and while it all sounded good, (providing loans for the underprivileged), it simply got out of control as Democrat Congressmen exploited the process. These two entities became so powerful and so influential that many Congressmen were afraid of a backlash if they took them on. The Bush administration even warned repeatedly that these two giants were on their way to being, (or already were) insolvent but were labeled as “racist” and uncaring of the poor when they did so. They didn’t press the issue very hard.
There is plenty of blame to go around and it doesn’t do a whole lot of good to claim “I told you so” now but I think the record is quite clear.
Tony,
I’m not going to discuss this further.
Robin #1862
I have only just joined this forum so please forgive me for not trawling back through all the numerous emails up until now. Consequently please view this post as a summary of what might have gone before and do not think I am teaching my grandmothers to suck eggs by presenting the following comments.
The temperature records that Robin highlights illustrate a number of things;
Firstly, old temp records such as these- and as referenced in my post 1868- are very well known to the climate scientific community but tend to be ignored as ‘inconvenient’ (just as DR Mann ignored history when producing his hockey stick). I think that climate scientists are on the whole more interested in meteorology, maths, and modelling future effects than displaying an interest in history (which might have prevented DR Mann’s mistakes.)
Secondly, the Hadley CET figures going back to 1659 plus their Dutch and French equivalents (started a few years later) demonstrate wildly fluctuating temperatures that can rise and fall rapidly. The mean around the 1730s was very similar to today. Many record warm temperatures from the period prior to 1850-from when ‘modern’ records tend to be referenced- still stand today
Thirdly, modern temp records are skewed to urban stations and do not fully take into account the UHI affect. Those conversant with British TV forecasts will be aware of how often the presenter will say ‘it will be 2 or 3 degrees centigrade warmer in the cities.’ The scientific community however translate the UHI effect into fractions of one degree rather than the reality.
Fourthly, the temperature statistics were grossly skewed when very many rural stations (e.g. Siberia) were removed following the cold war, when finances prevented their upkeep. This had a tendency to urbanise figures and removed many in naturally cold areas, so consequently the increase in overall temperatures dating from that time are measurable
Overall, this brought the worldwide numbers of authenticated stations down from some 1600 to around 800 today As no doubt has also been commented on many times here, the quality of weather station data is highly variable and has been reported on many times in ‘watts up’
Whilst British stations do tend to be pretty good, even they exaggerate the average temperatures because of the UHI effect –the national record set a few years ago were recorded at Gravesend and Heathrow (the latter at the end of the runway)
I posted a graph #1876 illustrating a reasonable stab at reconstructing past temperatures by Carter, of whom some in this forum seem to have doubts. His CV is very impressive and is at least the equal of many of those contributing to the IPCC report. This graph- which my own research corroborates- (my post #1868) would seem to endorse the overall rise and fall of temperatures many times in mans past, which illustrates this current warm episode is nothing at all out of the ordinary in a historic context.
There has undoubtedly been a warming of around 0.6c since the end of the LIA (generally reckoned to be 1850)-this bounce is perfectly normal and in any other age would have gone un-remarked.
The IPCC themselves admit there are huge flaws in modelling ( I have quotes if anyone is interested) but still scientists insist on presenting them as entirely factual and they are peer reviewed as such; they’re not, they’re an educated guess, where only a single parameter needs to be wrong to render the whole thing worthless.
Scientists are back-pedalling on temp and sea level rises as referenced in my link to the Exeter climate conference #1798 and abstracts #1843 also admitting to a huge number of ‘uncertainties’. I understand these talks will be available as pod casts at the end of the month so the abstracts will be fleshed out, demonstrating this is not a ‘settled science.’
The co2 hypothesis remains no more than that, and others are still trying to obtain the whole A to Z linking all the formula and theories together, that proves that in the real world doubling co2 levels will increase temp by 3 to 4 degrees C. Calculations by others, which merely attempt to conform to current laws of thermodynamics-rather than new and as yet unpublished ones- show an expected rise by doubling of closer to 0.6 degrees C. Most of this has already occurred due to the log -rather than linear- effect of co2 on temp.
At least as convincing and well reasoned a theory implicates water vapour-a far more common greenhouse gas- that I linked to in #1798
I hope this is a useful summary of the information that has no doubt been presented over the many months this thread has been operating. I think the only debate is that as we have been this way before without man made co2 raising temperatures, why is it different this time round?
Tony Brown
Tony Brown,
Because scientists are behaving as politicians and politicians are masquerading as scientists? My gut reaction is that there is now a political agenda involved…..using hysteria and misinformation to forward a political ideology.
Brute and Peter,
Your exchange about the F-35-Sukhoi “battle” got me thinking that this is an interesting parallel to the AGW debate: Like the AGW proponent’s view, the F-35 vs Sukhoi “battle” was a computer model, a simulation based on input parameters developed and programmed by humans.
Let’s see if the results can be duplicated with in real air-to-air combat using real pilots.
Hi TonyB,
Although PeterM may have difficulty agreeing, I believe that you have presented a very succinct yet complete summary of the current status of the ongoing scientific debate on AGW. Thanks for your summary.
While your other points have been well documented, I was not aware that pre-1850 historical temperature records exist (later than medieval times), which show warm periods equivalent to those experienced in the late 20th century.
I have seen studies on Swiss glaciers, which show that these reached a 10,000 year maximum around 1850, but were smaller in medieval times as well as in the period called the Roman Optimum (when Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants), but I was unaware of actual temperature records of later warm periods.
Robin Guenier has pointed this out for more recent warm periods (late 19th century, early 20th century), but your point is that we have seen warming trends even earlier without any man-made CO2, so why should we assume that the warming this time is due to AGW?
It is a very difficult argument for AGW supporters to counter.
As a result, I seriously doubt that Peter will try to take on this argument.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Your post on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reminded me of this recently published statistic on lobbying funds by these two institutions to U.S. politicians.
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
1. Dodd, Christopher (S) D-CT $165,400
2. Obama, Barack (S) D-IL $126,349
3. Kerry, John (S) D-MA $111,000
4. Bennet, Robert F. (S) R-UT $107.999
5. Bachus, Spencer (H) R-AL $103,300
Sure, the older party hack, Dodd, did a bit better (over a longer period of time), but for a short-time junior Senator, it looks like Barack Obama did pretty well.
Follow the money trail.
Regards,
Max
My post #1878
For the sake of completeness I have located the comments re modelling I referred to in my post.
The IPCC themselves recognise the substantial limitations of modeling by admitting in their 2001 report;
“In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
If that is not explicit enough, in 2007 they said;
“At each step (of the CO2 calculations) uncertainty in the time signals of climate change is introduced by errors in the representation of earth’s system processes in modelling.”
Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report wrote,
“…the startling climate state in several models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.”
Even the most political of documents, the latest 2007 SPM, continues to state
“…cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty…”
Modelling climate without taking clouds into account is a little like modelling tide height estimates without calculating the gravitational attraction of the moon, it renders the study rather flawed.The analogy can be taken further in as much the effects of tide on the height of the sea become apparent over hours and days, whilst that of climate trends operates in decades and centuries.
Tony Brown
Brute,
Yes of course the any bailing out should only be of individual bankers who might be awaiting trial for fraud or other illegal activities. But the banks do need to be replaced, rather than just leaving a big hole in the financial sector when they fail.
I don’t believe that the banks have been forced to act the way they have recently , anymore than the Enron were forced to act in the way they did. Its all been part of the worldwide fashion for deregulation and to increase profits at any cost. Australia may be part of the American Empire but I can’t blame either the US Democrats or the Republicans for the behaviour of Australian Banks. At their worst a few years ago, they were seemed to be staffed by ex-used car salesmen, but instead of cars it was loans. The days when you had to provide a sensible case for borrowing money were long gone, but it looks like they will return, if they haven’t already.
TonyB,
Yes of course water vapour is the most important GHG. However, unlike CO2 it doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere. There is a natural cycle of precipitation and evaporation which keeps the level pretty much constant.
However, if the earth warms up slightly for any reason, the level of H20 will rise giving a positve feedback or amplification efect.
You seem to be at variance with accepted science on many climatic issues. Why don’t you concentrate on getting your ideas across in real scientific papers rather than wasting your time in contrarian websites? You may feel that everyone is against you, but science isn’t static. Ideas are constantly revised. If are confident you are right, you, and others of like mind, have to get fully involved in the scientific process, difficult as it might be, rather than just talking among yourseves.
JZ Smith,
I don’t know about you, but I’m not volunteering to go up in any aeroplane and be shot at! I’d suggest that computer simulations should certainly replace the ‘real thing’ as far as air combat is concerned. Much safer. Much cheaper.
Brute,
Yes you do have a point about the influence of big business on both of the main US political parties. What you do about it is your concern of course, but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that the Democrats are both controlled by the Left and the financial sector of big business too.
Peter, I don’t know about the RAAF, but in the States our military drills all the time with “enemy” planes… live action, actual planes flying, but no live munitions. THAT is the kind of (mostly) non-simulated ‘combat’ I’m thinking of.
This one has some weight…..check this out for some light reading before bedtime.
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Brute,
What is the “Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity”. There seems to be two branches . One in Germany. One in Canada. But it only ever had only one member of staff: Dr Theodor Landscheidt who is now unfortunately no longer with us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt
So it looks like the Institute departed with him?
Maybe you could found the “Brute Institute for Research into Climate Variability” and appoint yourself director. To avoid a similar fate for your Institute, in the event of your premature demise, you could appoint Max as your deputy and chief climatologist. Perhaps you can find a researcher’s role for the Tony Brown and some of the others too.
Max,
I should have addressed my point on the funding of the US Democrats to you. Even though I know you’ll be saying that you are Swiss and don’t have vote and we should all leave it to Brute and JZ etc etc; I would point out that you have recently pointed a finger. I’d be interested to read Brute’s take on the matter too. Is it that they are too left wing or too much in the pay of big business?
Or both? If so, that seems a very odd thing to be saying. If they are like the Australian Labor Party, they’d almost certainly be too much in the pay of big business.
TonyN,
Any reply to my comment that you are only able to pursue you action against the BBC because they are a publically owned organisation, and this itself is a good argument for why public ownership is not such a bad thing?
TonyN,
Would you mind rescuing my recent spammed post? I forgot to disguise a Wiki link and…..
TonyN: Done
Re: 1889, Peter
That appears to be another question, not an answer to the question that I asked here.
Do you think that the BBC should make the information that I asked for availlable, or are they justified in trying to keep the names of the ‘best scinetific experts’ who they relied on to form their ‘impartial’ policy on climate change secret?
TonyN,
I have already answered your question post 65 of the relevant thread with a ‘No’
But you presumably think it should be ‘yes’. If they were privately owned would that still be the case?
Hi Peter,
Re your #1888 to Brute, where you belittled the “Schroeter Institute”.
The late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt spent a good part of his career studying solar cycles and their influence on Earth’s climate. Based on several peer-reviewed publications it is apparent that he had considerable expertise in this field.
He predicted in 1989 that there would be a reduction of solar activity late in the 20th century, accompanied by a cooling of the planet, with a stronger minima and more intense cold which should peak in 2030. The past decade’s plateau in global warming and the extremely inactive solar cycle 24 seem to be confirming his prediction, although we will have to wait to see whether or not a significant long-term trend of solar inactivity and resulting cooling will ensue.
Landscheidt was skeptical of the theory of AGW as the predominant driver of Earth’s climate. He criticized the IPCC report (TAR) as being too simplistic and grossly underestimating the impact of solar activity on global climate. (Note: The subsequent IPCC AR4 report, which was published after his death, reduced the estimated solar radiative forcing factor to 0.12 W/m^2, less than half of the estimate given in the TAR.)
Elected member of the American Geophysical Union, the New York Academy of Sciences, the European Science and Environment Forum, the European Academy of Environmental Affairs, and the Wittheit zu Bremen. Director of the International Committee for Research in Environmental Factors of Brussels University. In 1992 recipient of the Award of the Edward R. Dewey Institute of Cycle Research, California, in recognition of “outstanding accomplishments in the field of Solar Cycle Research”, and for “many contributions to the study of solar-terrestrial cycles.” According to an offer of the group of geophysicists-climatologists from different countries the period of minimum of solar activity forecasted by Dr. Landscheidt around 2030 will be identified as “Landscheidt Minimum” (if it really occurs).
So, Peter, this guy is no lightweight when it comes to understanding the impact of solar activity on Earth’s climate, despite any demeaning “ad-hom attacks” there may be out there by those who oppose his scientific opinions on the relative importance of the sun versus AGW on global climate.
Regards,
Max
This is an interesting comment on the phenomenon I referred to at #1870 (the parallel between European leaders’ inability to coordinate their response to the banking crisis and their inability to agree about CO2 mitigation). And, yes Max, I wholly agree with your comment (#1876) about how this reduces yet further the prospect of China, India, Brazil etc. taking any meaningful action. (Peter must be thinking, I suppose, that we’re all doomed – or perhaps he believes that someone (Obama?) will waive a magic wand and make it alright.)
Re: 1891, Peter
Nope! Your ‘answer’ at comment 65 was to a question that I hadn’t asked.
They are not privately owned, so that question is irrelevant.
Tony N,
Just to clarify. You asked ” Do you think that the BBC should make the information that I asked for available, or are they justified in trying to keep the names of the ‘best scientific experts’ who they relied on to form their ‘impartial’ policy on climate change secret?”
And I answered ” If you want a yes or no answer, how about NO? In that ‘no’, the BBC need not publish the minutes of each and every meeting they hold and that would include the attendance list of each and every meeting they hold.
What they do need to is present scientific issues correctly and in a way that informs, educates, and entertains, as Lord Reith would have said. The opinions of the scientific community need to be correctly represented.”
Can you clarify what you are saying “nope” to?
Can you also clarify if the ownership of the BBC should affect my, or your answer, to your original question?
Peter Martin post 1885
Firstly thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response.
A lot of smoke and mirrors are being used to support the co2 theory. I suggest we really need to look at the broader historic context rather than relying on records which sometimes date back only to the first satellites in 1979.
1) Firstly, rising temperatures should mean rising sea temperatures, they don’t, except in the arctic. As this govt study illustrates 6 out of 7 European ocean temp are falling.
http://www.sesame-ip.eu/doc/MB_Climate_Change_VLIZ_05031.pdf
(Look at the first graphs immediately after ‘executive summary’)
2) Sea level rises are being hugely exaggerated. In many places they are actually falling as per Newlyn http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
Others are rising modestly.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation-the Dutch certainly know a thing or two about the subject and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’
This overwhelming evidence of static sea levels is no doubt one of the reasons why scientists are now back-pedalling, as per the link I gave you to the recent climate Conference at Exeter.
I believe the world historic temperature profile for the past 5000 years closely follows the graph Bob Carter produced that I previously linked to. This is backed up by numerous weather records dating back to the Byzantine Empire that I also linked to previously.
An analysis of the 30 year trends using CET temperature records back to 1650 demonstrate the period round 1730 remarkably similar to today and also various other periods since are very close http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png (the 30 year trend continues down wards from 1998) These temperature spikes occurred, remarkably, during the LIA!
The effects of water vapour-as an important greenhouse gas is a more widely accepted theory than you seem to believe. The first link leads to the foremost proponent of this theory, and the second a review of it. Please note that you may be asked for a password but pressing ok will get you in.
http://landshape.org/stats/the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/
the-new-greenhouse-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi-24-06
All the above uses real world measurements rather than unproven theories and modelling- which the IPCC themselves admit are seriously flawed
Turning now to the role of Co2. It obviously wasn’t to blame in those historic warmer temperature episodes so it is difficult to see why it should be the culprit now. The best co2 explanation I have seen blames humans for the majority of co2 increases since the industrial age (probably true) but is unable to link co2 to temperature increase. This author, and miskolczi referenced above calculates 0.50C as the sum total due to doubling of co2- not the 3 to 5 degrees C calculated by the IPCC. This is so close to my previous calculation of 0.60 I am happy to accept this as probably factual. However the log co2 effect confirms this small rise is about as much we will get, no matter what we now do with co2 emissions. This rise seems trivial and well within natural variability and ‘noise.’
That temperatures have gently risen since the end of the little ice age (conveniently said to be 1880 as this exaggerates the subsequent rise) is demonstrably true. That co2 is the trigger for all this is an unproven hypothesis. The clarity of the science behind it can be likened to someone travelling from A toZ using various transport methods and numerous routes. When others check and say that the route is impossible so show us the itinerary, the traveller refuses to divulge it. I invite you to show me a clear A to Z itinerary.
So in summary;
a) Temperatures have demonstrably been warmer than the present
b) Models are unreliable according to the IPCC
c) There is a skew to urban stations and many cold climate ones were removed during the cold war according to the Met office, John Daley, Wattsup
d) Sea levels are not rising dramatically
e) Sea temperatures are not rising dramatically
f) Scientists are back pedalling on their forecasts (Exeter climate conference)
There are therefore three possible debating points;
1) Despite all the evidence to the contrary, warmists still choose to ignore past episodes of natural warming and propose a new unsupported theory ‘that doubling Co2 increases temperature by 3 to 4C.’
2) That warming is entirely natural and man made co2 has no effect at all
3) That warming is mostly natural with some small residual temperature rises caused by increased co2 that lies within natural variability. Due to log co2 it will not increase temperatures further and therefore reducing current co2 emissions will have no practical effect whatsoever
The IPCC position based on the unsupported hypothesis in 1) will require huge lifestyle changes, personal restrictions and will deliver negligible reductions in many years time. Option 1 requires trillions of dollars expenditure for an unknown result when money is surely better directed to problems we know we already have and that are solvable.
If you believe Options 2 or 3 it gives us leeway to use fossil fuel as an interim measure whilst other options are sought. In addition it allows our true problem-overpopulation- to be addressed as it allows third world industrialisation to continue. Industrialised societies tend to have much smaller families than poor rural ones but they need to go down the carbon route first.
None of these three options prevents us taking steps to increase natural energy generation, whilst reducing profligacy and pollution and other undesirable aspects of modern life
I personally believe in debating point 3)
Tony Brown
Hi Robin,
To your #1893, German TV just showed a resolute group of European finance ministers insisting on a “unified” approach to the banking crisis (as iterated by the spokeswoman from France), while all are, in fact, going their separate ways.
The French have a good expression for this “unified” approach: “sauve qui peut” (Larousse translates this as “run for your life” or “every man for himself”).
Looks like the approach to CO2 emission targets is pretty much the same.
The banking crisis looks like it may last for a while (and “sauve qui peut” will continue to be the world’s strategy to finding a solution.
Fortunately the “global warming crisis” has disappeared all by itself, despite ever-increasing CO2 emissions from the EU as well as China, India, Brazil and Russia, with some help from the USA, who have actually had the smallest increase in emissions over the past 10 years.
Maybe IPCC can declare the Bali Conference a success, since it appears that global cooling started in earnest just about the same time as the conference took place.
Regards
Max
Peter Martin post 1885
Firstly thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response.
A lot of smoke and mirrors are being used to support the co2 theory. I suggest we really need to look at the broader historic context rather than relying on records which sometimes date back only to the first satellites in 1979.
1) Firstly rising temperatures should mean rising sea temperatures, they don’t, except in the arctic. As this govt study illustrates 6 out of 7 European ocean temp are falling.
http://www.sesame-ip.eu/doc/MB_Climate_Change_VLIZ_05031.pdf
(Look at the first graphs immediately after ‘executive summary’)
2) Sea level rises are being hugely exaggerated. In many places they are actually falling as per Newlyn http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
Others are rising modestly.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation-the Dutch certainly know a thing or two about the subject and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’
This overwhelming evidence of static sea levels is no doubt is one of the reasons why scientists are now back-pedalling, as per the link I gave you to the recent climate Conference at Exeter.
I believe the world historic temperature profile for the past 5000 years closely follows the graph Bob Carter produced that I previously linked to. This is backed up by numerous weather records dating back to the Byzantine Empire that I also linked to previously.
An analysis of the 30 year trends using CET temperature records back to 1650 demonstrate the period round 1730 remarkably similar to today and also various other periods since are very close http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png (the 30 year trend continues down wards from 1998) These temperature spikes occurred, remarkably, during the LIA!
The effects of water vapour-as an important greenhouse gas is a more widely accepted theory than you seem to believe. The first link leads to the foremost proponent of this theory, and the second a review of it. Please note that you may be asked for a password but pressing ok will get you in.
http://landshape.org/stats/the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/
the-new-greenhouse-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi-24-06
All the above uses real world measurements rather than unproven theories and modelling- which the IPCC themselves admit are seriously flawed
Turning now to the role of Co2. It obviously wasn’t to blame in those historic warmer temperature episodes so it is difficult to see why it should be the culprit now. The best co2 explanation I have seen blames humans for the majority of co2 increases since the industrial age (probably true) but is unable to link co2 to temperature increase. This author, and miskolczi referenced above calculates 0.50C as the sum total due to doubling of co2- not the 3 to 5 degrees C calculated by the IPCC. This is so close to my previous calculation of 0.60 I am happy to accept this as probably factual. However the log co2 effect confirms this small rise is about as much we will get, no matter what we now do with co2 emissions. This rise seems trivial and well within natural variability and ‘noise.’
That temperatures have gently risen since the end of the little ice age (conveniently said to be 1880 as this exaggerates the subsequent rise) is demonstrably true. That co2 is the trigger for all this is an unproven hypothesis. The clarity of the science behind it can be likened to someone travelling from A to Z using various transport methods and numerous routes. When others check and say that the route is impossible so show us the itinerary, the traveller refuses to divulge it. I invite you to show me a clear A to Z itinerary of the Co2 hypotheses.
So in summary;
a) Temperatures have demonstrably been warmer than the present
b) Models are unreliable according to the IPCC
c) There is a skew to urban stations and many cold climate ones were removed during the cold war according to the Met office, John Daley, Wattsup
d) Sea levels are not rising dramatically
e) Sea temperatures are not rising dramatically
f) Scientists are back pedalling on their forecasts (Exeter climate conference)
There are therefore three possible debating points;
1) Despite all the evidence to the contrary, warmists can choose to ignore past episodes of natural warming and propose a new unsupported theory ‘that doubling Co2 increases temperature by 3 to 4C.’
2) That warming is entirely natural and man made co2 has no effect at all
3) That warming is mostly natural with some small residual temperature rises caused by increased man made co2 but that lies within natural variability. Due to log co2 it will not increase temperatures further and therefore reducing current co2 emissions will have no practical effect whatsoever
The IPCC position based on the unsupported hypothesis in 1) will require huge lifestyle changes, personal restrictions and will deliver negligible reductions in many years time. Option 1 requires trillions of dollars expenditure for an unknown result when money is surely better directed to problems we know we already have and that are solvable
If you believe Options 2 or 3 it gives us leeway to use fossil fuel as an interim measure whilst other options are sought. In addition it allows our true problem-overpopulation- to be addressed as it allows third world industrialisation to continue. Industrialised societies tend to have much smaller families than poor rural ones but they need to go down the carbon route first.
None of these three options prevents us taking steps to increase natural energy generation, whilst reducing profligacy and pollution and other undesirable aspects of modern life
I personally believe in debating point 3)
Tony Brown
Hi Peter,
If you really want to know how the US sub-prime mortage crisis is linked to the “Acorn” organization (a group dedicated to pressuring financial institutions to ensure home mortgages for marginal, low-income borrowers) and the since discredited Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac organizations (major political contributors to Senators Dodd and Obama), check with Brute or JZSmith.
I’m sure both can give you the juicy details of this link.
Could Obama be part of the solution or is he part of the problem?
US voters will have to decide for themseves in a few weeks.
Regards,
Max
TonyB – re your #1878. You say that John L Daly’s global temperature records and similar “are very well known to the climate scientific community”. If so, why do those climate scientists who are sceptical about the dangerous AGW hypothesis (Lindzen, Carter etc.) ignore them? So far as I can see, they all accept that the world has warmed by around 0.7 deg C over the past 150 years – their questions being about the extent of AGW contribution, the danger, if any, to mankind etc. Yet, as Max noted at #1863, these data appear to show “that there has been no real warming across our globe in the past decades, from Siberia to Antarctica, based on the actually observed record from the land stations”. Although I get increasingly sceptical about dangerous AGW, I have always taken the 0.7 deg C (or thereabouts) increase as given. If there was little or no warming, all the learned stuff about cyclical oceanic effects, solar influence etc. are redundant. Indeed the whole “global warming” debate is unnecessary. I’m puzzled – and (frankly) amazed. What’s the explanation?