Carbon Climate

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See

2010-01-28T08:58:00.000Z

That is not an exaggeration.

As a born mathematician (we are born, not made) the argument is so obvious I am gobsmacked that I had not seen it before. It matters not a jot if fossil fuel deposits are actually increasing. Once we find out they are not, once we realise the finite resource is really finite, we have a really, really, short time before it ends.

The argument is that say we put some bacteria in a bottle at 11:00, and it is full at 12:00, when did the bottle ’seem’ crowded? at 11:56 it was ‘almost empty’. At 11:59 it was still half empty.

The same is true of any finite resource. At 7% increase in consumption (and I think China will make that a joke), we use the same amount every decade as has EVER been used before. Once we hit 50% of all the fossil fuels, we have 10 more years and then no more at all. None. That is just at a mere 7% increase a year.

This seriously call for a really hard look at some kind of resource that is not finite. What’s that word again? Oh yes, “renewable”.

Now that is an argument I can take on board. Forget CO2!

Probably the easiest distillation of the climategate emails to date

2010-01-14T13:56:00.002Z

and entertaining to boot:

USHCN adjustments seem to show the increase is entirely made of adjustments?

2009-12-20T02:52:00.001Z

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11932
The best bit is the final graph:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
If you look at it, it looks very much like the increase in temps we have been told is going on. But it’s not. It is the changes made to the raw data sets to produce the ‘adjusted’ data sets.
Conspiracy? Where’s my working? Well, this is their graph, not an independent one! It comes from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ itself.
So this tells us, in no uncertain terms, and completely unambiguously as far as I can see, that the increase of 0.6C is entirely fabricated. True I have not searched for a justification of that fabrication – it may be valid, but it should be reported as such!

Maldives and Tuvalu are no longer in any danger of flooding

2009-12-20T01:56:00.001Z

UK Parliament memo:
FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT SEA LEVEL CHANGE MAY LOW-LYING ISLANDS AND COASTAL AREAS BE FREED FROM THE CONDEMNATION TO BECOME FLOODED IN THE NEAR-FUTURE

in reference to:

"It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3. With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997."
- House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Written Evidence (view on Google Sidewiki)

An Inconvenient Turn - Gordon Brown leads Al Gore into a closet at Copenhagem

2009-12-19T01:30:00.000Z

So Gordon Brown, with his unerring sense of direction (not) leads Al Gore astray. Makes a chane from Al leading everyone else astray, I suppose!

But what is it with the jackets? Both jackets are buttoned when the enter, and both are unbuttoned when they leave. Make you wonder, but I'm not sure about what.....

Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic During Live Interview

2009-12-18T06:33:00.001Z

AGW believers are getting violent!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-cultists-assault-global-warming-skeptic-during-live-interview.html

Meanwhile, 'security' is forcibly turning people away:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/

From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom (and it's still there!)

2009-12-15T00:14:00.000Z

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/

• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

Christopher Monckton talking to a Grreenpeace protester in Copenhagen

2009-12-15T00:08:00.000Z

This is a really good video. Monckton and the Greenpeace lady have a very reasonable discussion. Her beliefs are challenged, and Monckton urges her, as all of us, to check the facts, not listen to political organisations and media reports.

Very good advice.

Taiwan's sea levels NOT on the rise due to global warming

2009-12-14T08:03:00.001Z

GLOSS give the rise at 1mm (0.1cm) per year over the last 50 years, and nothing at all over the last 10 years:
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/610016.gif

If you look at the graph, most of that was before 1970. From the early 70's there has been no real rise overall, and it is certainly not steady in any case (like just about all sea levels around the world, in fact, if you study GLOSS data).

in reference to:

"Taiwan's sea level has risen by an average of 3 centimeters over the past 10 years, or about 0.3 cm each year, said Fan Kuang-lung, a professor in National Taiwan University's Institute of Oceanography. Fan, who led an NTU research team in studying tidal changes along the coasts of Keelung, Yilan, Taitung and Kaohsiung between 1991-2001, said global warming and human behavior, particularly on the west coast of the island, are leaving Taiwan increasingly vulnerable to climate change."
- Taiwan's sea levels on the rise due to global warming - Taiwan News Online (view on Google Sidewiki)

Armed Response to 'Climategate' question at Copenhagen

2009-12-12T01:37:00.001Z

We really must rethink the entire argument. If they want to hide the tructh this badly, the truth must be pretty damaging!

Armed Response to 'Climategate' question at Copenhagen:

How come an armchair skeptic like me can debunk this AGW theory?

2009-12-09T10:59:00.000Z

An interesting question posed by my sone this evening. How come I can, from my armchair and armed only with Excel and an Internet connection, debunk all this scaremongering. Well, I can and I strongly encourage anyone to do the same, don't rely on the media, or even the climate scientologists who seem to have a strongly blinkered or biased view of the world.

The real answer is, because anyone can, if they have the time, inclination, and a lot of patience. Steve McIntyre, for example, is a scientist, and has spent many years doing some deep investigations and finding serious problems with the data. It is quite easy to find some of the raw data, but not always easy to find the data used by the climate alarmists because they seem to not want to share in many cases.

What do we do, then. Well, a really, really good example of how the Urban Heat Island effect is skewing the available data. It's not made up, it's not any kind of debunking, it just shows that rural temperature records are not rising over 110 years whereas urban records are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI

I have discovered that GLOSS (sp?) sea level records indicate no overall trend at all at first glance. When I get the time I will write a program to import the data into a database and graph it to see if my eyeball is accurate.

Another one is the data from Australian weather stations. Darwin in particular has been shown to be flat (if not trending down) even though the 'adjusted' data shows a rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

And you can look for yourselves:

I’ve just had a quick squiz at some data from the Oz weather Station Data site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
The first few sites I chose look pretty darn flat as a trend. Could it be that it it has all been entirely made up? When I’ve looked at sea level data from GLOSS (sp?) they seem pretty up & down but averaging out to no trend. These may be ALL showing no discernible trend if not ‘adjusted’.
I will examine all I can tonight. To do it is easy:
1. download the site list, opens in Excel.
2. Go from this link entering each site in turn,
3. select from the top left of the grid to the bottom right,
4. copy, paste into notepad (to preserve tabs)
5. paste into Excel
6. highlight the annual average column and press the graph button (easier in orifice 2007).
7. observe the flat trend
8. write to your political representative of choice / media of choice.
I am only speculating on step 7, but so far that’s what I’ve been seeing. Also, If I had more time, or millions (or even billions) of $’s in research grants, I’d look at the monthly data too.

The Truth is out there....

2009-11-21T03:51:00.001Z

It's been a rough few years.

1. I used to believe in the cant. I started checking it out because a good friend did not, even though he had no data to justify it. I set about finding data to prove the AGW theory to him.

2. I found a lot of conflicting information. I looked further. I wavered. I went back. I wavered again. A month of hard digging led me to the conclusion that it was an unsubstantiated theory at best, a hoax at worst.

3. I grew more and more frustrated an the misleading and erroneous claims of what AGW had done and would do. All the 'would do' scenarios were based on 'has done'. None of the 'has done' scenarios was without fault, and many (like sea levels) seem outright fraudulent.

4. Frustration grows, and disbelief grows ever stronger. The more I think and talk about it, the more tenuous it all seems. If even half of what was claimed was true, the AGW theory had no legs, and yet the media were screaming ever more shrilly. Now government were really, really trying to take my money to .... well, I'm not quite sure to do what. 'Fix' something (as if taxing anything ever 'fixed' anything but treasury coffers). I had no choice, and the money would plainly NOT be used in any effective way.

5. Someone lets the cat out of the bag and posted a huge chunk of CRU information and emails on the web. All the prominent scientists who have been tirelessly investigating this area and finding ever increasing fault with the 'science' have been proved correct. It is true, the evidence is in. The debate is over, and the books were cooked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#comment-228950

Steve McIntyre posted this on Climate Audit

6. Hopefully Copenhagen will be a cold and desolate place in December....

Only one thing left to say:

"Game over"

What, exactly, would you accept as evidence that global warming is not occurring?

2009-10-20T05:35:00.001+01:00

A very good question, as it happens:

in reference to:

"When confronted with the FACT that ice in Antarctica, as a whole, is on the increase, global warming alarmists fall back on what seems like a counterintuitive explanation of how warmer weather, can in fact, result in more ice. You see, warmer weather means more evaporation of ocean water, which in turn means more precipitation. Precipitation, at least over Antartica, will ALWAYS be in the form of snow (unless the planet warms a hell of a lot more than even the worst alarmists predict). More snow means more ice on the continent. And so, though it seems perverse, warmer weather is perfectly consistent with more ice on Antarctica.
The problem is, if you accept this explanation (and I do), then if Antarctica were truly melting, then it can only be because the planet is getting COOLER.
You can’t have it both ways, alarmists. Either warming causes an increase in ice, or it causees a decrease. But you guys have a long history of taking whatever WEATHER happens to be occuring, anywhere on the planet, and blaming it on global warming. If temperatures increase, it’s global warming. If temperatures decrease, it’s global warming. If ice increases, it’s global warming. If ice decreases, it’s global warming. If sea levels rise, it’s global warming. Is sea levels fall, it’s global warmng. If hurricanes increase, it’s global warming. If hurricanes decrease, it’s global warming. If the upper atmosphere warms more than the surface, it’s global warming. If the surface warms more than the upper atmosphere, it’s global warming. If species die, it’s global warming. If species thrive, it’s global warming.
So I have a question for all of you alarmists out there. What, exactly, would you accept as evidence that global warming is not occurring? Is there anything at all?
Of course, many of you alarmists might ask the opposite question of us skeptics – what would WE accept as evidence that global warming IS occurring? And I will be glad to answer that question. If we had a worldwide, geographically representative, reliably monitored, scrupulously maintained, and UNBIASED temperature record of 100 years or longer, with no “adjustments” made by “scientists” who have a dog in the fight, and that record showed that the “global average temperature” had increased by more than half a degree Celcius over those 100 years, I would accept that as evidence of global warming.
It still wouldn’t prove that the temperature increase is “unusual”, or “unprecedented”, let alone that it was “anthropogenic”. But at least you would have me convinced that temperatures are rising."
- West Antarctic ice sheet may not be losing ice as fast as once thought – GRACE readings overestimated « Watts Up With That? (view on Google Sidewiki)

Could it be that Mann's Hockey Stick is upside-down?

2009-10-18T03:31:00.001+01:00

It certainly seems to be by some accounts, or at least some of the data is.

Please note:
"This isn’t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data."

Mann's response?
“Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

Comments:
Back in high school I was pretty good at coming up with excuses for undone homework, and also for incorrect answers. However I wish I had Mann’s skill. How I would have loved to see the look on my Geometry teacher’s face when he told me a graph was upside down, and I answered, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

in reference to:

"As WUWT and Climate Audit readers know, Mann made some blatantly obvious mistakes in his use of proxy data in Mann et al 2008, where he claims to be able to make a present day “hockey stick” of climate without the use of Bristlecone Pines that he used in his flawed 1998 study which produced the original Hockey Stick. Mann inverted data, upside down if you will, notably the Tiljander sediment as pointed out by Steve McIntyre.
Steve writes:
Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
This isn’t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data. Yet Mann still denies it, probably because using the data right side up doesn’t produce the desired results."
- IQ Test: Which of these is not upside down? « Watts Up With That? (view on Google Sidewiki)

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton

2009-10-16T12:58:00.001+01:00

Quote:

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once."

in reference to:

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!"
- Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton « Watts Up With That? (view on Google Sidewiki)

Al Gore gets challenged at last!

2009-10-12T08:54:00.001+01:00

He is asked if he has addressed the "9 significant errors" pointed out in his movie by a British Judge.

And does he respond well? No, not really. He looks pretty uncomfortable, and then claims that the court 'found in favour of the movie."

Did it? No. An outright lie by Al Gore.

in reference to:

"Gore’s claim that the British courts ruled in favor of his documentary isn’t exactly accurate. It was ultimately allowed to be shown, but only when accompanied with a take-home paper indicating to parents that the film is scientifically flawed and political in nature. As John Hinderaker points out at Powerline:Gore’s claim that the judge found in favor of his movie is ridiculous. The case was brought by a parent who objected to the film being shown to British schoolchildren on the ground that it is propaganda, not science. The judge found that An Inconvenient Truth “is a political film” that is riddled with scientific mistakes. He held that as such, it would be illegal for the government to require the film to be shown in schools unless it was accompanied by “guidance” pointing out that the film contains a number of scientific errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film “substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”Despite the inaccuracies in the film, and despite Gore’s refusal to face critics of the film, he continues to be heralded as some sort of a prophet. Why? Because this isn’t about truth."
- VIDEO: Al Gore Gets Question About Errors In His Global Warming Movie, Has Questioner�s Mic Cut Off | KXNet.com North Dakota News (view on Google Sidewiki)

BBC: What happened to global warming?

2009-10-10T01:22:00.001+01:00

Good question.

The Antarctic ice is growing steadily, despite what you may have heard.

The air temperature is steady, or even down, despite what you may have heard.

The seas are cooling, despite what you may have heard.

The sea levels are not rising any more (and it was a mm a year at the very most when it was - to small to really measure properly), despite what you may have heard.

The number of cyclones is down, despite what you may have heard.

The strength of storms is down, despite what you may have heard.

CO2 is rising steadily, NOT exponentially (no hockey stick), despite what you may have heard.

The Hockey Stick has been broken once again, despite what you may have heard.

Many, many fewer people are being injured or dying from extreme weather events, despite what you may have heard.

How come we don't hear these things in the media? Is it, perhaps, because their job is to seel advertising (not tell the truth), and these un-alarming stories just don't do that?

The truth will out, it will just take a decade or two.

in reference to:

"But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming."
- BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming? (view on Google Sidewiki)

WUWT opinion poll on tree derived temperature data

2009-10-04T01:19:00.001+01:00

Whilst it is certainly possible that temperature will be demonstrated in the width of tree rings (given a large enough sample), there are other very important factors that affect them.

One, mentioned often here from experience, is sunlight. So if there are fewer clouds, there may be wider rings, regardless of temperature. Having said that, clouds affect the temperature too (more than CO2), so there could be a correlation, I have no idea if high and low clouds, which apparently have different effects on temperature, would affect a tree ring, however. Do we know? I suspect not.

Water is another mentioned here by many. Given plenty of water, a tree may grow very well in a hot year, whereas another would grow poorly given too little water. I have no idea what other combinations would cause. That is a subject in itself, I guess.

Finally, we have the start of the show, CO2. Now, CO2 is literally food for plants. Whereas we get our carbon (carbohydrates and protein, aka 'food') from plant and other animals (according to taste and availability), plants get all of their carbon from the air in the form of CO2. This is, therefore, what they 'eat'. If they have an abundance of CO2, they do very well. In fact, doubling CO2 will cause an increase in growth of 40% given no other resource is lacking. If any other resource is lacking (for example in hot, arid countries), that increase could be as much as 100%. Quite a boost, you'd have to admit.

As an aside, if I wanted to ascertain that (not whether or not, mind you) CO2 levels were correlated with temperature, and I could also claim that tree ring widths were an accurate record of temperature, I'd be on to a winner. If CO2 levels are high, trees will grow more, therefore rings will be wider. So I've proved that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature! It really is CO2 causing Al Gore Warming, as long as no-one points out my circular reasoning, of course....

in reference to:

"This is for entertainment only. Given the week we’ve had, I thought it might be interesting to gauge some opinion about dendroclimatology. While we can certainly argue the merits of “who said what” etc. the question on my mind is what do people think of the technique of using tree rings for determining past climatic history?
Readers, please invite others at non skeptical blogs to participate, use the “share this” link. I’ll extend a blanket invitation to anyone to participate, no matter what your view might be.
Since this is a highly polarized issue, I’ll note that the poll code is setup (by WordPress.com) to minimize the possibility of vote stuffing and encourage one vote per person. You’ll know you’ve hit that security feature if certain messages are displayed."
- WUWT Opinion Poll – tree derived temperature data « Watts Up With That? (view on Google Sidewiki)

Denial, apathy or action? Or maybe 'sanity'?

2009-10-03T10:39:00.002+01:00

Come on - you completely ignore the potential that there is nothing to worry about. It is those who are running around yelling about doom and disaster when none is occurring that are most likely suffering from delusions, I'm afraid.

The sea levels really are not rising much, if at all, and no-one has yet been removed from any island because of sea levels, despite what we are constantly told.

Sea ice is doing fine, and growing slightly, despite what we are constantly told.

The Arctic sea ice is recovering well these last two years, despite what we are constantly told.

The temperatures are not increasing, and may even be decreasing, despite what we are constantly told.

The Hockey Stick (The AGW poster child) has been well and truly broken by Steve McIntyre, for the second and final time (it was mostly down to ONE tree, it seems!), despite what we are constantly told.

"scientists have played down the risks of global warming for fear of overloading people with information." Absolute balderdash. They ramp up the fear factor every single day - I see it on the Google News clearly repeated daily.

Just let any reasonable debate happen. There is constant denial that there should be a debate, constant denial that the science is shaky at best, and constant denial that there are errors in the measurements. Let's not begin on the denial over the failure of the peer-review system and the denial over the evident bias being shown by 'respected' scientists, shall we?

in reference to:

"Prof Hamilton said the majority of people use "maladaptive coping
strategies" such as ignoring the situation, blaming someone else or simply
having a good time.

He said people do this to cope with the anxiety.

"This means telling ourselves the scientists are probably exaggerating - if it
was that bad surely the Government would be doing something," he said. "Or
telling ourselves it is a long way off so I will worry about it then or if I
change my light bulbs it will not be my fault. It can mean blaming other
people like the Chinese for building more coal-fired power stations or
pleasure seeking by driving fast cars, eating exotic food and living the
high life."

Prof Hamilton said scientists have played down the risks of global warming for
fear of overloading people with information.

"There is a widespread belief in the scientific community that the public
cannot handle the truth and so they have been pulling their punches. Global
warming is unique amongst environmental problems - which are often
exaggerated - in that it is now clear that the scientists have been
understating the true implications.""
- Most people in denial over climate change, according to psychologists - Telegraph (view on Google Sidewiki)

more rhetoric based on no evidence

2009-09-30T15:38:00.002+01:00

no evidence at all. The sea levels have not risen to any measurable degree (max could be 10cm, but data from 100 years ago is not accurate to 0.1mm a year).

(see bog entry for hilighted 'weasel words' in this story)
in reference to:

"In the most optimistic scenario, sea levels will rise by two meters, while a five meter increase over the next 300 years is the most likely option, according to scientists gathered at a conference at Oxford University.“The crux of the sea level issue is that it starts very slowly but once it gets going it is practically unstoppable. There is no way I can see to stop this rise, even if we have gone to zero emissions,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute, Germany, tells Reuters while adding that his “best guess is a one meter rise this century, assuming three degrees warming, and up to five meters over the next 300 years.”Another participant, Pier Vellinga, of Wageningen University, says:“Once the ice is on the move, it’s like a tipping point which reinforces itself. Even if you reduce all the emissions in the world once this has started it may be unstoppable. I conclude that beyond two degrees global average temperature rise the probability of the Greenland ice sheet disintegrating is 50 percent or more. (That) will result in about seven meters sea level rise, and the time frame is about 300-1,000 years.”So far global warming is estimated to have caused sea levels to rise by about 20 centimeters. The latest official estimate, given in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is an increase of up to 60 centimeters by 2100. However, recent satellite data have caused scientists to adjust their estimates to about 1 meter by 2100."
- Rise in sea levels can't be reversed - COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Guardian really don't like any dissenting views!

2009-09-29T08:17:00.001+01:00

Every single one of my comments from yesterday were deleted. No placeholder left, even. I was deliberately polite and unconfrontational, too.

Every post replying to my posts has been deleted.

History has been rewritten!

Enjoy your one-sided argument, fellows!

in reference to: Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes | Environment | The Guardian (view on Google Sidewiki)

the IPCC reduced to cribbing graphs from Wikipaedia

2009-09-28T16:00:00.001+01:00

They can't find any of their own data? Well, since the hockey stick has been trashed not once, but twice, now, I am not surprised!

in reference to:

"What started as a brouhaha in the blogosophere has turned into a minor embarrassment for the United Nations in the climate debates. As first reported on ClimateAudit.org, the origin of a graph used in last week’s UN climate report, published to coincide with the summit in New York attended by President Obama and other world leaders, was not an august team of scientists working around the clock, but rather Wikipedia."
- More on the Hanno Wikipedia graph in the UN Climate Report « Watts Up With That? (view on Google Sidewiki)

The hockey stick is really dead this time

2009-09-28T15:57:00.001+01:00

A complete and utter destruction of the fabled Hockey Stick IMO. The argument of Al Gore Warming is in shreds.

The whole situation is a disgrace.

in reference to:

"1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=877.
2. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century. Rather than using the updated Polar Urals series, Briffa calculated a new chronology from Yamal – one which had an enormous hockey stick shape. After its publication, in virtually every study, Hockey Team members dropped Polar Urals altogether and substituted Briffa’s Yamal series in its place.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=528. PS: The exception to this pattern was Esper et al (Science) 2002, which used the combined Polar Urals data. But Esper refused to provide his data. Steve got it in 2006 after extensive quasi-litigation with Science (over 30 email requests and demands).
3. Subsequently, countless studies appeared from the Team that not only used the Yamal data in place of the Polar Urals, but where Yamal had a critical impact on the relative ranking of the 20th century versus the medieval era.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3099
4. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=542
5. Then one day Briffa et al. published a paper in 2008 using the Yamal series, again without archiving it. However they published in a Phil Tran Royal Soc journal which has strict data sharing rules. Steve got on the case. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266
6. A short time ago, with the help of the journal editors, the data was pried loose and appeared at the CRU web site. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142
7. It turns out that the late 20th century in the Yamal series has only 10 tree ring chronologies after 1990 (5 after 1995), making it too thin a sample to use (according to conventional rules). But the real problem wasn’t that there were only 5-10 late 20th century cores- there must have been a lot more. They were only using a subset of 10 cores as of 1990, but there was no reason to use a small subset. (Had these been randomly selected, this would be a thin sample, but perhaps passable. But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142
8. Faced with a sample in the Taymir chronology that likely had 3-4 times as many series as the Yamal chronology, Briffa added in data from other researchers’ samples taken at the Avam site, some 400 km away. He also used data from the Schweingruber sampling program circa 1990, also taken about 400 km from Taymir. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of pooling samples from such disparate locations, this establishes a precedent where Briffa added a Schweingruber site to provide additional samples. This, incidentally, ramped up the hockey-stickness of the (now Avam-) Taymir chronology.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7158
9. Steve thus looked for data from other samples at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size in the Briffa Yamal chronology. He quickly discovered a large set of 34 Schweingruber samples from living trees. Using these instead of the 12 trees in the Briffa (CRU) group that extend to the present yields Figure 2, showing a complete divergence in the 20th century. Thus the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series. Bear in mind the close collaboration of Schweingruber and Briffa all this time, and their habit of using one another’s data as needed.
10. Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields the green line in the 3rd figure above. While it doesn’t go down at the end, neither does it go up, and it yields a medieval era warmer than the present, on the standard interpretation. Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area."
- Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead « Watts Up With That? (view on Google Sidewiki)

A staggering admission of utter bias

2009-09-27T01:42:00.001+01:00

Is reality just a consensus? It certainly seems that 'science' has been lost to this arrogant cant.

in reference to:

"There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it's wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right."
- Hey kids, it ain't easy being green (view on Google Sidewiki)

Censorship in the AGW debate

2009-09-26T12:41:00.001+01:00

A very pertinent declaration of the problem of censorship in the AGW debate

in reference to:

"The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers,
even if you are at the top of your field. What follows is an example of a
scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a
meeting, but then-without discussing the evidence-applauds the IPCC and
recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases. What has science been
reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc
recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if
informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to
official policy?"
- Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Exile for Non-Believers (view on Google Sidewiki)