Geologist: Plimer a "cherry-picking contrarian"

No agenda?

UPDATE: View the letters in response to Sandiford’s article here (thanks to reader Bruce in the comments).

Writing in The Australian Mike Sandiford takes a pop at Ian Plimer. Just by way of background, Sandiford:

  • approvingly quotes Naomi Oreskes, whose book, Merchants of Doubt, lumps in climate sceptics with those who deny the link between smoking and cancer
  • claims last year was the hottest “on record” (don’t forget, he’s a geologist)
  • writes for “The Conversation” (link) alongside such infamous names as David Karoly, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Enting, Ross Garnaut and  Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  • is a signatory to an open letter from Australian warmists: “Climate change is real” (link)
  • writes alarmist articles for the Silly Moaning Herald (link)

so I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. Looks like Sandiford has had a problem with Ian Plimer for a while – another article in The Aus covering similar ground is here.

GINA Rinehart notoriously claims she has never met a geologist who believes “adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate”.

To listen to prominent “contrarian” geologists such as Ian Plimer, you might imagine she never could.

But, despite the bluster, our contrarian geologists are out of kilter with their own community and seem deeply confused about the way the greenhouse effect – by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example – has shaped both the past and the present.

All geology students learn of the importance of the greenhouse effect. It’s simply impossible to understand the geological record without it.

In his 2001 award-winning book A Short History of Planet Earth, Plimer has numerous references to the greenhouse effect.

He explains what all young geologists learn as the faint young sun paradox:

“The early sun had a luminosity of some 30 per cent less than now and, over time, luminosity has increased in a steady state.

“The low luminosity of the early sun was such that the Earth’s average surface temperature would have been below 0C from 4500 to 2000 million years ago. But there is evidence of running water and oceans as far back as 3800 million years ago.” The question is, what kept the early Earth from freezing over?”

Plimer goes on to explain: “This paradox is solved if the Earth had an enhanced greenhouse with an atmosphere of a lot of carbon dioxide and methane.”

Here’s another quote from Plimer, referring to a time 100 million years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the planet: “The peak of 6 per cent carbon dioxide was at the time of a protracted greenhouse and maximum sea level. At this time, mean annual surface temperatures were 10C to 15C warmer than now.”

The problem is, although his temperature estimate is about right, his CO2 estimate is about 50 times too high. CO2 levels were more like 0.12 per cent. At just three times present levels, this is a target we are on track to reach early next century.

Jump forward to 2009 and in his book Heaven and Earth Plimer seems to have quietly forgotten those geological lessons in stating: “Over geological time there is no observed relationship between global climate and atmospheric CO2.”

Exactly which Plimer are we

to believe?

Scientists are notoriously sceptical of the data collected by others. But ignoring a respected source is reprehensible. Cherry-picking only the data that fits is borderline. Deliberately misrepresenting data or making it up is just not on.

Here’s an example. In a section from his new book, How To Get Expelled from School, as reprinted in The Weekend Australian recently, Plimer claims: “Antarctic ice core (Siple) shows that there were 330 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air in 1900; Mauna Loa Hawaiian measurements in 1960 show that the air then had 260ppm carbon dioxide.”

Plimer goes on to say: “Either the ice core data is wrong, the Hawaiian carbon dioxide measurements are wrong, or the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was decreasing during a period of industrialisation.”

The implication is there must be something terribly wrong with the orthodox climate science and we are all being taken for a ride.

The problem is that the primary data sources explicitly state the Hawaiian Mauna Loa CO2 measurements for 1960 were in the range 313-320ppm, and that Siple air of age about 1900 has a CO2 content of 295ppm, with the 330ppm concentrations having an estimated air age of 1962-83, entirely in keeping with Mauna Loa.

Who has been taken for a ride?

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. Plimer has persistently claimed that volcanoes contribute much more CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere than do our own activities, blithely ignoring US Geological Survey reference data showing just the opposite – volcanoes emit CO2 at about 1 per cent of the rate of anthropogenic emissions.

Another common meme promoted by our contrarian geologists is that it is now a fact that the climate is cooling.

But may we ask by whose data is this a fact?

Certainly not NASA’s, which showed last year was the hottest on record, followed by 2005, 2007, 2009 and 1998. In fact, NASA ranks nine of the hottest 10 years ever recorded between 2001 and last year. You’d reckon NASA had learned a few lessons about being careful with data.

Variations on decadal timescales are more relevant to climate trends than annual variations. NASA shows the average temperature over the decade 2000-09 was a full 0.2C higher than in the 1990s – the biggest decadal rise in temperature ever recorded.

With an increase of more than 0.5C over the past 40 years, the decadal trend is now warming faster than ever. It beggars belief that any serious scientist could assert the climate is cooling.

Our contrarian geologists also avoid the devil in the detail. NASA’s data shows that winters are warming faster than the summers and the Arctic faster than the tropics. While the lower atmosphere is warming, the upper atmosphere is cooling.

These characteristics provide diagnostic fingerprints of the heat trapping expected for a greenhouse effect. They provide the smoking gun that points to rising greenhouse gas levels as

the cause, and rule out warming because of additional heat input from the sun.

Could that be why you won’t hear our contrarian geologists refer to such data? Could their real agenda be in manufacturing doubt rather than the search for scientific truth?

If so, it wouldn’t be a first, as Naomi Oreskes points out in her recent book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Now here’s a point for those who, like Rinehart, think all geologists toe Plimer’s contrarian line.

Oreskes is a noted geologist. Having published groundbreaking research on the origin of the giant South Australian Olympic Dam deposit, she has arguably contributed more to the understanding of Australian mineral wealth than has Plimer.

Now just imagine a meeting between Rinehart and Oreskes – that would be interesting! (source)

Comments

  1. Lew Skannen says:

    Someone needs to explain to these people what is cherry picking and what is not.
    If Mike Sandiford goes out and finds ten black cats and brings them back and says that all cats are black then that is cherry picking.
    If I go out specifically looking for a white cat that is not cherry picking. It is called a ‘counter example’ and is all that is needed to destroy his theory.
    These people do not seem to realize how science works, just politics.

    • Here is the RAW Siple data indicating 295.8 ppm in 1899; (there isn’t even a 1900 number to misrepresent).

      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013

      Here is the Mauna Loa data, whcih clearly indicates ~317ppm at 1960;
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      It does appear that Plimer has more than cherry picked – it seems more like a case of prima-facie scientific fraud.

      The lack of any basic inquiry in the article is astonishing – it goes to the effort of check the writer’s CV and some below checked his funding sources – but not one of you has though to check Plimers’ claims. Which appear to be fraudulent. It took me 45 seconds to find both pieces of data. Who is it then that is having the wool pulled over their eyes?

      On another point;

      The geologists are dead right when they say the next ice-age, in 1-5,000 years will wipe from the face of the earth any man made climate affects. Sure.

      But tell me this; what are geologists like at predicting 20-50 years ahead? Terrible. It’s a time frame they don’t even contemplate. I don’t care what happens in 1,000 years – am am interested in the next 20-50-100. So really – I don’t see why the opinion of SOME geologists is considered by to be so important.

      The most obvious pointer here is the 800,000 year ice core trends and I have not yet met a doubter that understands it. It’s not because they are stupid but because they have failed to even read even just the 2007 IPCC WG1 report. It’s not hard to understand and it’s so far been irrefutable.

      The graph
      Vostok-ice-core-petit
      The source paper
      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

      Note: the EPICA core goes back 800,000 years.

      This is what it tells us;

      The Natural cycle is;
      During the exit from a glaciation (ice age) temperatures start to rise sharply, (6-8 c) – due to sun/earth orbital changes. CO2 Starts to rise, following the temperature rise by about 800 years, as the ground thaws and the rate of decay/rotting increases.CO2 rises 30-45 ppm, (during the exit from the glaciation).This whole warming and CO2 rise cycle takes 10-15,000 years.

      The current situation;

      No 6-8c temp rise driven by a sun/earth orbital variation. No exit from a glaciation (that happened 15,000 years ago).

      CO2 has risen 75 ppm, (twice that of any natural event in the last 700,000 years). The CO2 rise has occurred in on 200 years.

      No variation like this has occurred during an interglacial period in the last 800,000 years.

      Quite clearly, what is happening now is not part of the natural cycle.

      Basic physics tells us that CO2 and H2O are the only atmospheric compounds that absorb outbound long wave radiation. So increasing their concentration will cause more heat absorption. Simple. Even Plimer accepted this when he wrote a short history of planet earth in 2001.

      Note that in the data – there is not even a blip around major volcano’s like Taupo. It’s simple way to check Plimer’s volcano argument – and it falls over in the face of the facts. Plimer by the way has not explanation for why the CO2 record does not support his hypothesis – I asked him in 2002.

      Now, please somebody tear apart my argument point by point, using references – proper ones, not unreferenced backyarder untruths and power point presentations….. if that is too hard – how can you justify your stridency in the face of the peer reviewed opinion of every single peak body on the planet, including peak bodies funded by right wing governments?

  2. Mike is the king of irony.. Most geologists don’t agree with him and he calls Plimer a contrarian?

    Perhaps he’s feeling lonely and wanted to have a rant to get some attention

    • More prima-facie misinformation.

      In July 2009 the The Geological Society of Australia (GSA)
      released this statement SUPPORTING the IPCC position. “GreenhouseGasEmissions&ClimateChange_GSAPositionStatement_July2009.pdf”

      Due to internal debate the statement has been retracted. It has not been replaced by a dissenting statement. So what this indicates is a live and strong debate within the geological community. For this to have occurred – there are clearly plenty of leading geologists that do accept the IPCC Position.

      Also, the following GEOLOGY! bodies have joined the peak body consensus on climate change;
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union
      Geological Society of America
      Geological Society of London
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

      So yes – there are plenty of geologists that accept the IPCC position. Sorry – but it’s a simple and obvious fact.

  3. Back in the olden days, I had the pleasure of having Mike Sandiford as a lecturer at uni, he was a skilled communicator, very very knowledgable, and generally, a friendly, and entertaining person, with a penchant for too much red wine and amusing anecdotes (and most likely, still is all of the above).

    I thought he would have had more sense than to get mixed up in the argument about “climate change”, obviously not…

    • Hi Nick,

      Perhaps you should send him a complimentary copy of the new book by John Gladstones……..”http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/another-skeptical-mind-revered-wine-science-expert-writes-skeptical-book-to-rave-reviews/”

      He might come to his senses after a few glasses of Hunter Valley shiraz.

  4. Louis Hissink says:

    Oooh, I could wade in here but I won’t – have to wait until August this year after I present a paper to the 34th IGC which will clarify things a little – it’s the application of plasma physics to the Earth system and if right, it is a game changer for both Plimer and his critics. Of course providing the IGC organisers don’t knobble the NCGT heretics as they have in the past.

  5. Hey Lew, you’ve got it totally backwards.

    A cherry picker is a first and foremost an habitual liar. He hates himself and has no respect for his audience. He despises his audience because for one thing he regards them as stupid for listening to him, hisself. He sets out to deceive before he even goes out on his expedition to cherry pick.

    They are every where. Flannery is one amongst billions. He’s just an idiot. He experiences no pleasure without guilt so his relationship with any other person, wife, offspring, friend is false. It is a terrible way to live.

  6. Poor old Mike Sandiford is living inside a bubble and lost in the world of academia if he thinks Australia can have 100% renewable energy by 2020, as he says here.

  7. Follow the dollar – more about Mike Sandiford.

    On the University of Melbourne’s website his grants and contracts are listed:

    http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person16035.html

    Since May 2011 he has been Chief Investigator under a Co-operation Agreement with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). And what is PIK? According to its own website “PIK scientists are actively involved in the activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Ottmar Edenhofer is one of three Co-Chairs of the IPCC Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change“, and the WGIII Technical Support Unit, coordinating and administering the Working Group’s activities, is located at PIK”.
    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/connections/ipcc

    Pity Mike Sandiford didn’t mention the PIK/IPCC connection at the end of his article.

    • The formal peak body consensus on climate change was first reached in 2004. Bush was in power in the US and Howard in Australia.

      Please, somebody, explain, how a scientific-left wing conspiracy arose under right wing governments?

      Please also note, that despite changes of governments from left to right, for example in Canada and the UK; their peak bodies position has not changed.

      This is a fundamental flaw in this argument – I have not yet had one doubter even attempt an intelligent explanation.

  8. Which trough does Mike feed from ??

  9. @Baldrick

    in that link, I read the line
    “Wind is proposed to meet 40 per cent of the total grid-connected demand”..

    roflmao

    on what planet is that going to happen !!!

  10. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Gina Rinehart got it right with her [never met a geologist who believes] “adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate” comment. But perhaps on reflection she may have chosen to qualify her comment to indicate that it applied to the successful real world geologists of her acquaintance.

    Let’s face it, I hardly think Gina would have much reason for confidence in any advice from “geologists” beholden to the voodoo science of Rajendra Pachauri’s IPCC or Joachim Schellnhuber’s PIK.

  11. I object to the use of the word science and climatology together. They are contradictory terms that is an oxymoron.

    • Oreskes says that AGW climate science is a specialty. So a physicist or a taxi driver who says that 1 + 1 = not 3 can be said to be ignorant, ill informed or a trouble maker since they are not a member of the club.

  12. WR Xavier says:

    And people wonder why everytime they mention the word “science” and “scientist” to me I burst out laughing in their face and tell them “science is dead, activisim has taken control of the religion.”

    Funny, about the only real scientists left are medical ones. Most of the doctors and the specialists I know think AGW is horse dung, when I ask then why they think that they say straight out “the science doesn’t add up and seems very corrupted.” really can’t argue with that statement can you 🙂

  13. Andre Lewis says:

    Doubtless the well-credentialed Ian Plimer can respond to the attempted hatchet job on his climate change credibility by Professor Mike Sandiford . But even we non-scientists can recognise a biased argument when we see it.

    Sandiford joins many other catastrophic climate change enthusiasts in trying to paint the sceptical argument as denying the climate is warming. The great majority of sceptics actually agree that there is a long-term global warming trend but ask the pertinent questions of where is the hard evidence that this is unprecedented and whether all or even a significant part of the rise is due to human CO2 emissions. Moreover, even though over the longer term we may experience a warming planet, Sandiford ignores solid data that the last decade has not warmed and none of the climate change computer models that the IPCC and our government put so much faith in predicted this.

    There is no such thing as ‘scientific truth’ but rather hypotheses that need to be tested by real observations with outcomes made transparent to the whole community. When faith in predictions based on unreliable climate models is used to justify far-reaching new taxes on energy that affect all of us we must demand open scientific debate not character assassination between professors.

  14. Richard Peppard says:

    Mike Sandiford, “Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth”, refers to NASA’s data 5 times. You might think that he was referring to a satellite measurement rather than picking the NASA-GISS dataset. It is evident from his year-by-year account of the hottest years on record that he is referring to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University in New York, run for many years by father of climate alarmism and arrested activist, Jim Hansen. GISS compiles and constantly revises surface station temperature records and delivers the warmest anomalies of all the centres publishing global temperatures (UAH, RSS, NCDC, HadCRUT). This cherry in particular deviates from the data from the NASA satellites monthly published by Roy Spencer and John Christy at University of Alabama Huntsville which does show a flattening of temperature rise in the lower atmosphere in the last decade. But you’d have to be a cherry-pickinig contrarian to point this out. In fact all these datasets show a reduced rate of rise in the last decade.

    During cretaceous period 100 milliion years ago, when the Earth was much warmer at the poles and a few degrees warmer at the equator, CO2 levels 4-6 times higher than pre-industrial levels for this fertile period were reported in 2001 after Plimer had written his book. Plimer’s subsequent point about the poor relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth’s temperature over geological time still stands with CO2 20 times current levels during ice ages.

    NASA’s press release on relative winter warming at the poles attributes this to heat transfer through large weather systems and recommends more study of these and their interaction with local cloud, water vapour and temperature to understand the phenomenon. It does not find a “smoking gun”. Similarly winter warming in coastal West Antarctica is far from an AGW fingerprint especially as it again may relate to warm winds from the tropics, appears through most of the 20th century, is shifting and complicated and has little effect on the Antarctic mainland. A tendency to more winter and nighttime warming is consistent with a greenhouse gas effect but not diagnostic of a wholly anthropogenic CO2 effect. On the other hand the lack of a tropical upper tropospheric warming in recent decades argues against a predominant greenhouse effect on late 20th century warming. There are a lot of cherries to be picked in this complicated orchard.

    • Hi Richard,

      Good to see some research here …..

      There is however a problem with Plimers assertion re past CO2. Looking at Heaven & earth page 242 – He shows a graph indicating past CO2 levels. He makes it seem certain that these were the past CO2 levels. However, when you use his reference and look at the original graph – you find that MANY other peer reviewed analyses indicate other wise. The problem is that beyond the ice cores past CO2 is based on proxies – and different studies on different proxies produce widely varying results. What is also dishonest is that graph on page 242 is a bit of a fabrication – ie it’s sort of loosely based on the graph on page 174 – but the graph on page 242 is actually unreferenced and does not appear to represent any particular peer reviewed study. Worse – what he does not show on page 242 is any error bars – ie known inaccuracy. If you look at the graph on page 174 – he says “CO2 has been up to 25 times higher..” .He does not say might have been – he says was. That is based on the upper edge of the Geocarb III model limit of error. Ie the truth is – CO2 may have been up to 25 times higher – although that is unlikely – geocarb III actually indicates it was more likely 10-15 times higher (ie the central line, the most probable result)- but there are other perfectly good peer reviewed assessments of other proxies that suggest that it may have never gone beyond 3-4 times current.

      So again Plimer chooses his info disingenuously.

      The truth is – much beyond the ice core data – we don’t know enough about past CO2 concentrations to draw any seriously accurate conclusions, as the proxies a) limit accuracy and b) disagree c) due the effect of a known effect of reactions continuing – proxies are know to become less accurate as time passes. (Ie proxies use the a composition of a sample to attempt to determine what the atmospheric conditions must have been to get to that composition. Also paleo CO2 data unlike ice core data is not via direct measurement it is inferred using MODELS. The accuracy is affected by time (reactions continuing, porosity of surrounding rock, temperature, underground pressure – many of which are unknown and have to be assumed). But also proxies are Modeled. We all know what skeptics think of models – so skeptics should not be using model results just because their results suit their case ….

      On Jim Hansen – have a look at Berkley Earth – they use raw unfiltered data because they too shared your concerns. Berkeley is staffed by people formerly considered skeptics. they have looked at Hansen’s data, Hadley too and in the end agree with their results. Ie they say using un-fiddled data they get the same result as NASA, NOAA, Hadley (east Anglia) ….. surprise …. surprise….

      • Just Correcting myself. The CO2 curve on page 242 is indeed unreferenced – but it appears to be GEOCARB III. So note that is does not include the error bars – they have been REMOVED – an issue that incensed the GEOCARB authors.

        However – it is the temperature curve that appears to be a complete fabrication – note that it runs flat for 100s of millions of years at a time. It is unreferenced and not peer reviewed and is based upon who knows what. It’s critical – because he misrepresents the past CO2 and then draws a flat line for temp. Which does appear to show no relationship. Except that the temperature appears to be a fabrication and the CO2 is misrepresented!!!

        If you are going to draw the key conclusion that the is no CO2/temp relationship – then you’d want to have good evidence, which clearly – is not presented on page 242.

        Unfortunately for skeptics – the only direct sample info we have – the ice core data clearly supports the link.

        Oh by the way – on page 24 – where he shows temp variation always occurring – and mentions modern warming – what he fails to mention is that modern warming is by a margin of 50% – the most significant temperature variation on that list and based on the current decadal trend – is likley to be 3-4 times more significant that any other event on that list. But he fails to point that out too.

        This is why the scientist who’s data Plimer has used are up in arms – not because he disagrees with them but because he’s dishonest and sloppy. compared with Plimers early work – for which I have much respect – this is dross and I wonder whether the poor old fellow has passed his prime. The Siple/Mauna Loa “error” suggests as much too….

  15. Richard Peppard says:

    From the Conversation ; Mike Sandiford directs the Melbourne Energy Institute – one of a set of new interdisciplinary institutes established at the University of Melbourne to address issues of global concern.” where “he oversees the University energy research portfolio, and has been responsible for developing its focus on the opportunities and challenges of integration of low emission technologies in large-scale, sustainable energy systems.”

    Naomi Oreskes has been described as the Noam Chomsky of environmentalism and her book “Merchants of Doubt” as a protracted conspiracy-theory account of the base motives of all those who dare disagree with her environmental theology. She is Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego.
    In 1975 the massive uranium, copper and other mineral wealth at Roxby Downs was discovered by Western Mining Corporation which employed the young American PhD in geology from 1990-94 to assist in the evaluation and of the Olympic Dam mine at this site and to contribute to an explanation of its geological origins.

    http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/mike-sandiford-228
    http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/index.php?page=institute-staff
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/naomi_oreskes_conspiracy_queen.html

  16. Richard Peppard says:

    Sandiford appears to be correct about Plimer’s error on CO2 from Mauan Loa and the Siple cores.

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

  17. Some interesting follow up comments on the Sandiford article in The Australian. Not everyone agrees with his assessment.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-a-slogging-match-of-claim-v-claim/story-fn558imw-1226234419567

  18. WR Xavier says:

    @ Balanced.

    Ummm, little bit confused at your request. The formal “peak” body on AGW (now called climate change because they realised AGW was Proving their religion false) was the UNIPCC and their bought out their assessment reports well before 2001.

    The first AR was released in 1990, 2nd AR was released in 1998, 3rd AR in 2001 and probably the worst before AR 4.

    I don’t think Howard or the Bush administration actually believed it that much, neither tried to bring in a carbon tax or C&T concept. Only Labor has been stupid enough to do that. That can be seen in our own country and with Obama in the USA, however in the US the people stacked the Congress with Republicans which saved them from Obamas stupidity of bringing in a nation wide C&T. He could have vetoed the bill in but knowing it would be voted down and him out woildnt be a very good political move and the USA has never signed the Kyoto protocol so why would he bother.

    As for the current Canadian government, they got into power with a major majority on the platform that they would dump any concept of a CT, or any scheme like it. They have also withdrawn from the useless Kyoto crap.

    Think that pretty much says it all. I don’t believe that the NLP in Aus really accepts AGW or that CC is man made either, but they won’t come out straight and say it until they are sure the Australian people understand and accept the fraud as well.

    • Yes you are confused Xavier – I’m not asking you to paraphrase the political situation. It’s obvious. You have not answered the question. I didn’t ask you about the Canadian government’s position on a CT – I asked you to explain why their peak bodies – have not changed their position despite a new right wing government.

      Currently, there is not a single relevant peak body on the planet that rejects climate change.

      The are a couple that are neutral – but do suggest that reducing CO2 emissions is worthy – just in case AGW is proven right.

      But have a look – there is not one peak body that rejects AGW. Not a single one.

      Most skeptics blame this on some kind of scientific bias – driven by their need to secure funding and hence they are all pro-AGW.

      I was no talking about the IPCC either. Again – you have read what you wanted to read and failed to address the question. Starting in around 2001 – peak bodies (eg NASA, CSIRO, WMO, NOAA, US Geo society, The Royal Society, AAS, USAS) all started to release formal position documents on AGW. By 2004-2005 there was not one major peak body that had not supported AGW. More groups have joined the consensus since. They ALL support AGW, regardless of their flavor of government.

      Personally – for me, if the CSIRO, NASA or the NOAA for example – released a position paper rejecting AGW – then the debate would be on – but what we have is a peak body consensus.

      The only debate is coming from people like Plimer – who has just again – been proven to be either mistaken (which is being awfully kind because it’s a pretty massive mistake and one would have to ask whether he’s suffering from dementia) on the CO2 levels at Siple and Mauna Loa – or deliberately fraudulent. Or there is Bob Carter who wrote a 20 page article – clearly ignorant of Psychometrics – basic 101 stuff for any meteorologist, climatologist or HVAC engineer – but not part of the Geology curriculum … fundamental to atmospherics tho.

      So here is the question again;

      Why is there not a single peak body on the planet that agrees with you?
      How does a left wring- green-scientific conspiracy form under right wing governments?

  19. Plimer has now written a brilliant letter in response to Sandiford’s original article. The letter lists some of the more blatant omissions from Sandiford’s article which expose the junk science of climate change.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/basic-science-is-the-answer-not-ideology/story-fn558imw-1226235960159

    This is exactly what we need. An informed debate in the main stream media to increase public awareness of the fraudulent science. 2012 is shaping up to be good year already!

  20. Classic Plimer;

    “Why didn’t he declare that there are some 1500 terrestrial volcanoes that emit small amounts of carbon dioxide, yet there are more than three million submarine volcanoes that emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide?”

    ON page 413 of Heaven and Earth Plimer makes the claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. unlike everything else on that page – this key assertion is unreferenced.

    The NOAA has released 30 peer reviewed papers showing that humans emit more than 130 times the CO2 of Volcanoes INCLUDING undersea volcanoes.

    Plimers keeps saying the NOAA have not included undersea volcanoes. To this day he has not provided any papers or evidence to support his claim that Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. So NOAA provides evidence – Plimer just says stuff – and incorrect stuff like the NOAA not including undersea volcanoes – which is clearly false.

    Note – he did not adress the error/fraud on the Mauna Loa and Siple CO2 numbers – surely a key issue….

    Plimer again;
    “Why didn’t Sandiford declare that the geological record shows no relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature?”

    This a cracker because in his 2001 book Plimer said;
    “The Sun and atmospheric carbon dioxide were certainly major factors that controlled ancient climate”

    more from 2001 …

    “The early Sun had a luminosity of some 30 per cent less than now and, over time, luminosity has increased in a steady state. The low lumunosity of the early Sun was such that the Earth’s average surface temperature would have been below 0°C from 4500 to 2000 million years ago. But, there is evidence of running water and oceans as far back as 3800 million years ago. This paradox is solved if the Earth had an enhanced greenhouse with an atmosphere of a lot of carbon dioxide and methane.”

    If it’s not clear enough for you – in 2001 Plimer agreed that the relationship between CO2 and temperature were fundamental…

    Why you guys are impressed by this man is beyond me. My only guess is that he says what you want to hear.

    • Balanced,

      Just to ensure balance, perhaps you’d also care to elaborate on the scientific integrity of Michael (hide the decline) Mann, Phil (delete all emails) Jones or Keith (one tree) Briffa.

        • Firstly – you might want to know that Jenifer Morohasy is one of the lead scientists at the Berkely Earth project – that has just confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the results produced by East Anglia!! She is also part of the team that agrees that the earth is warming despite Plimers’ musing and the Stuff about Sydney weather on this blog and all the skeptic jibber about temperatures falling, or not changing.

          On this topic – she might be right. She can publish it, it can be peer reviewed, there might be some follow-up complementary science and if it still stands up – maybe – maybe NASA or NOAA or the CSIRO might come out and reject AGW or come and and say there is enough doubt to have a rethink.

          But it may also just be one of 1,000 s of papers/ideas that will join the disproven list. Until then, it just mildly interesting.

          Still, why do you so strongly support Plimer who has clearly published dross and inaccuracies?

          Plimer is just one man – a simple flawed human just like the rest of us. So is Morohasy. This is the problem of a) Plimer not using peer review and b) the skeptic movement not having their own peak body to peer review and quality control their argument. I personally would support government funding of such a body – ie the Skeptic equivalent of the IPCC or the Academy Of Science – to ensure the quality of the skeptic argument.

        • I’ve been thinking about this non-fossil source of CO2 and there is another issue.

          As stated above – in the normal global cycle – the largest natural variation in CO2 is 30-45 ppm rise over 10-15,000 years during the exit from a glaciation. No other variation in the ice core data is as large. Interglacial variations (warm low ice periods) are in the 10-20 ppm range. What we are seeing now is 70-90 ppm over 200 years during an interglacial. This is twice as big as the biggest historical variation and it is occurring over 200 years not 15,000. The point is, whatever is going on with CO2 now, has never occurred at any point of the entire cycle over at least the last 800,000 years, it is far greater and far quicker than anything that has occurred during an interglacial.

          So – whatever the supposed non-fossil source is, if it is natural then it’s a bit freakish – because it’s never occurred naturally, during any of the last 8 odd glaciation cycles over the last 800,000 years.

          You’d have to think the for a natural process to occur, that has not occurred during any of the last 8 cycles and for it to occur in perfect syncrhronicity with industrialization and land clearing – is highly improbable.

          This once in 800,000 year event (relatively massive and rapid CO2 rise) is occurring in perfect synchronization with industrialization land clearing a one in 6 billion year event. Occam’s razor would suggest it is not some more exotic, less probable cause.

          I know what you are going to say – humans are only 2% of CO2. But if you put a hose in the local olympic swimming pool and leave it on – over weeks it will over flow the pool – even though it is much less than 2% of the cycling flow. If you put $1 in the bank at 2% interest for 50 years it will increase to $2.70 – so yes over 150 years or even just the last 60 years – that 2% can increase to a large amount …. so it’s not like it doesn’t makes sense intuitively.

          By the way – when you are cruising in a 737 at 39,000 feet – you are already above 80% of the mass of the atmosphere. The Asian smog cloud extends to that level. So also – the atmosphere isn’t as large as it seems. Just ask any Republican voting former air force jock who has spent time on the ISS about what they think we are doing to the atmosphere – they as a group are a big supporter of action to reduce CO2 and pollution. When asked what was the most sticking thing about looking at the earth from up there over periods of months – one of the words they often use is “fragile”.

      • Plimer has not submitted any of his AGW musings for peer review.

        At last count 6 reviews of the East Anglia episode found that while the behavior of some scientists had been second rate and that many quoptes were taken completely out of context – however, no significant flaw was found with the science. The Royal Society also conducted one of these reviews as I recall.

        All of the East Anglia papers are peer reviewed and published. Whereas had Plimer allowed a peer review of his books, for starters, the Siple-Mauna Loa “error” would have been detected. The graph on page 242 of H&E would have been removed or better still possibly improved with references. Possibly that would have shown all kinds of temperature variation and hence – the no link between CO2 and temperature statement would have become null and void.

        Also – again, the Berkeley Earth Project, led by skeptics who doubted the climate data collection process – found the same result as East Anglia – Hadley. So nothing doing there – despite the hype.

  21. WR Xavier says:

    @Balanced

    1. You confuse the fact that skeptics don’t deny that CO2 does cause some warming, there are several eminent climate scientists that agree with that fact and do Dino after reading both sides of the argument. Like Jo Nova I to believed in AGW, what changed my mind and made me look deeper you ask:

    It was the failed prophecies of doom.

    Books by carter, ball et al. and the worst was the latest one by Laframboise pretty much destroyed any belief in AGW and the IPCC.

    2. Of all those “peak bodies” you mentioned would you care to supply the majority of their funding suppliers? I’ll bet you 1 million dollars they all gain funding from the Governments and sure as Gillard is the worst PM this country has ever had, the Euro bodies you mentioned ate supported by the EU and it’s leftist, unelected money grabbing dictators. The other science out there is done by independent scientists at their own expense. Even NASA has been corrupted by the IPCC and it’s money grabbing lackeys, one of the IPCCs authors for AR4 I believe was a member of NASA and Mr I need more money Gore? Yes that says it all.

    3. Science isn’t based on “fact” it’s based on certain laws that have been proven time and time again where no other scientist could disprove a a theory put forward by a scientist.

    Galileo claimed the earth revolved around the sun, constant reviews by independent scientists proved that his theory was in effect correct once western society removed the authority of the church to censure anything they did. The same is happening with with the AGW fraud Balanced as more independent scientists present independent evidence to destroy the theories of AGW.

    I’ll take independent science over government and activist funded psuedo-science any day.

    Tell me, have you actually read any of the science from independent scientists?

    Carter is one of the eminent climate scientists on the planet, he states and I agree with him:

    So far, and despite the very strong public concern, science provides no unambiguous evidence that dangerous or even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring.
    Climate: the Counter Consensus
    by Professor Robert Carter
    http://t.co/n1lvFEpM

    The clique itself clung to its tenets for dear life, for it prospered from the ardent funding of their institutions, programmes, and university departments, and the fame and influence of the protagonists themselves.
    Climate: the Counter Consensus
    by Professor Robert Carter
    http://t.co/eYX3aY9J

    Chapters 7-10 contain a discussion of the powerful social and political forces that are still calling for action against global warming at a time when the globe has actually been cooling for a decade.
    Climate: the Counter Consensus
    by Professor Robert Carter
    http://t.co/krzATdVc
    (this has been prety much proven if not cooling then warming had ceased for a decade and was confirmed by the socalled eminent scientist of the IPCC in a recent article by them, they are unable to explain why the extra heating their computer models “prophecies” of further warming have failed to occur over the last decade, probably has something to do with the old adage of “shit in, shit out”.)

    IPCC and its supporting cast of influential environmental and scientific organizations (not to mention the bucket-loads of money that have been available in their support6); second, of strong media bias towards alarmist news stories in general, and global warming political correctness in particular; and, third, of a lack of legislators and senior bureaucrats possessed of a sound knowledge of even elementary science, coupled with a similar lack of science appreciation throughout the wider electorate – our societies thereby having become vulnerable to frisbee science, or spin.
    Climate: the Counter Consensus
    by Professor Robert Carter
    http://t.co/O5m9VEHO

    Just these quotes alone are enough to open ones eyes if they care to see what is in front of them.

    Add to this that carter is one of very very few Scientist that understands MORE than just one specific field involved in the climate debate.

    As I said before, the NLP in Australia very well does not accept AGW, but nobody can deny the concept of climate change, it’s happened for millions of years, so the AGW fraud has gone by the way side and now so-scientific “peak bodies” as you call them garner their comments in the term of CC, when really its still just more of the AGW wolf in sheeps clothing.

    Seriously though, it has to be asked of you! Man can not stop a cyclone, a drought, a flood, tornados, earthquakes, nature is far more powerful than we puny annoyances on a planet that Yahweh God created for mankind to live on. No, we haven’t treated it well, but do you and people like you seriously thing us puny mortal nats living on this wide world can do anything that this planet can’t fix on its own like it has since its creation?

    • Tell me, have you actually read any of the science from independent scientists?

      err – how would I be quoting multiple page numbers etc from Plimer? You see I actually read and absorbed your contributions – my mind is open, you clearly have not attempted to do so with mine. How would I know about the detail of Carters writings? The truth is I have probably read more anti-AGW writing than pro-AGW writing. I have always approached this thinking that AGW might be wrong.

      It appears you haven’t read and absorbed what I wrote above – have a look at CO2 – what is happening now has never happened in at least the 800,000 years. What is happening now is radical in terms of CO2 variation. Basic absorption physics tells us the atmosphere WILL absorb more heat – that is as certain as hot air rising. This is pretty powerful stuff for which there is no solid peer reviewed Anti-AGW counter argument. Yes we are not sure how much warming will result – but warming IS occurring and it’s happening fast – modern warming is ALREADY the most significant temperature variation since exiting the last ice age. This is why there is a peak body consensus.

      Unlike the IPCC – you seem to rule any chance of your being wrong – the IPCC openly gives themselves a 5% chance of being wrong. They are at least rational.

      On the Galileo stuff; in his time his ideas were actually heresy. It is not now. Plimer and Carter are NOT IN JAIL. This topic has been OPENLY debated solidly for now for 40 years and it was only after 35 years that the peak body consensus was arrived at. Ie they debated OPENLY it for 30 years and came down on the AGW side. No Galileo similarity here. You just don’t like the conclusion.

    • by Professor Robert Carter
      http://t.co/krzATdVc
      (this has been prety much proven if not cooling then warming had ceased for a decade and was confirmed)

      – I refer you again to the skeptic staffed Berkely Earth Project – they have now also confirmed the warming. They have confirmed that NASA, NOAA and even East Anglia are correct.

      Berkeley Earth are bona fide AGW agnostics or skeptics. Have a look a Jenifer Morohasy’s stuff. They have confirmed the warming. They have not passed any judgment on the cause or the source of the excess CO2. They are not AGW converts. But they have confirmed the warming.

      So Carter is AGAIN talking through his hat. He is bang wrong. He he ain’t so remarkable either. No single human is. But hey – don’t lets no facts get in the way.

  22. Point 2:
    The CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, USAoS were all funded by RIGHT WING goverments, when they formally joined the consensus. I fell like I’m talking to a wall here. Nothing to do with Gillard or Obama – nothing. Do the maths – I said 2004!!!!

    The Royal Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK) joined under Labor but have not changes their position under the conservatives. Same to for Canada.

    You prefer independent scientists eh? Like I said – they are just flawed humans and that is why peer review is so important. Peer review would have prevented Plimer’s Mauna Loa/Siple error/fraud as just one example of dozens of bad Plimer errors.

    Carter – yes you like him because you like what he writes. But Carter, a geologist (psychrometry is not part of their training), managed to write a 20 page article about climatologists missing water vapour. If he’d picked up a phone and called just a meteorology graduate, he would have found water vapour is a basic building block of any climate model. I have built a climate model for one of Autralia’s largest HVAC systems – water vapour was the central plank. That model was tested in operation and proven dead accurate.

    So your hero – Carter – is also massively flawed. Again, peer review would have saved him. This is why peak body opinions are so important.

    Any medical treatment you have received also passed through similar peak body review – unless you a rasta ….

    But there it is – you last statement. Based on no science at all. Do you think earth is 6,500 years old as well? If so, clearly rational thinking is not part of your make up.

  23. Balanced,

    I am amzed at ther errors and gross misinformation in your reply. Not to mention baseless smears on Carter.

    You quote the Berkely Earth project as agreeing with NASA, NOAA and East Anglia. It is common knowledge that the integrity of the Berkeley data is questionable see here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/expect-the-best-plan-for-the-worst/

    and here

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cIXKZIOh

    Please don’t continue to post crap like this.

  24. WR Xavier says:

    Balanced,

    1. No, I don’t believe that the earth is only 6,500 years old, but I do believe it was created by a being alot smarter than us, the big bang theory is still and simply that, a theory. That however is another topic for elsewhere.

    2. Your smears of Prof. Carter only prove to me you really haven’t done any independent research of your own but simply stick to the lines in the alarmist religious manual.

    Firstly, you should read about him personally, here are some of his qualifictations:

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

    Secondly, he isn’t a fly by night scientist, he has been around along time.

    Thirdly, after climategate 1 & 2 had you actually bothered to do any form or independent investigation of your own instead of quote the alarmist religious manual, you would realise that most of the organizations are associated with the IPCC in some way and that pathetic excuse of a money hole has been discredited completely and so has anybody that supports anything that comes from it.

    @ Bruce

    Nicely put.

    • The simple fact remains that East Anglia’s data matches, NASA and NOAA. The BEST data also matches East Anglia. The BEST data was put together by people who addressed the key concerns of the skeptics and unlike the others, BEST have made their data publicly available – another skeptic request.

      Yes – Muller has been a goose – the BEST project clearly does not end the debate because it did not look at the cause – just the temperature. So it was a dumb thing to say. But hey, Muller, like Plimer and Carter is just another flawed human all of whom have made errors and blunders.

      But the data set is valid. The dispute within BEST has been unsurprisingly misrepresented by that trash mag tabloid the daily mail.

      I received an email over night from Judith Curry and she also says – that the current pause in warming – which has indeed clearly occurred – is indeed not YET significant in terms of proving AGW right or wrong. This is due to the need to look ant the long term trend and that pauses have occurred in the past. Her dispute with the IPCC is that they attribute the long pause in 1940-50 to (which was followed by a massive acceleration) to aerosols – but she believes it is more just natural variation.

      So while you bang on about Climagate and criticise the reviews – the proof is in the pudding and in the end there is no independent evidence that there is anything wrong with their results.

      Plimer and Carter have never constructed their own temperature data-set. If they had – I would pay more heed to their criticisms – BECAUSE this is one area where AGW could be proven wrong and my mind is open to that. But so far BEST is he closest to a skeptic constructed data set.

      So the only datasets constructed all agree. Skeptics can throw mud at them – but until they construct their own (which what BEST was supposed to be) – they haven;t done the work. That said _ I predict again – the next skeptic data set that agrees with the others will be rejected on some fatuous basis by most flat earth skeptics.

      See below – my comments about Carter are not baseless smears. He has made some significant errors. He is not without flaw. he is human and would be served well by peer review.

      Yes he can contribute to the debate – particularly from the paleontology and oceanography perspective (I think he disagrees with the some of Plimer’s ocean floor assertions BTW) – but where he has waded into atmospheric physics he had made some pima facie blunders. So no he’s not broadly regarded as an eminent climatologist. Really I’m just suggesting that these chaps should subject themselves to peer review to lift the quality of th debate.

      So until PROVEN otherwise – the warming trend continues – modern warming is already the greatest temperature variation since exiting the last ice age and looks set to continue. Until the ice core data (there are like 30 core sites and they all agree) – what is happening with CO2 now is twice the magnitude and 50 times quicker than any thing that has occurred naturally in at least the last 800,000 years. PROVE either of these things wrong and I’ll happily capitulate. AGW being wrong would be a great outcome for all of us and I can go and buy the latest BMW M5 (rather than a Tesla Model S) without feeling guilty.

  25. Errors and misrepresentations?
    Re the Muller/Curry argument; Curry is not happy with Muller’s statements and to be honest I’m not sure how Muller drew any link with CO2 as their study was purely to check temperature and not the cause. Muller has been foolish. BUT – what stands is their result and their data. Curry has never suggested their result was wrong. Which means their unbiased approach agrees with the much maligned data from NASA, NOAA and Hadley.
    Oh and if you are going to go on about the peer review controversy – please not that you blokes specialise in absolutely never peer reviewed research by Plimer, Carter et al.
    And the warming has flattened – but it’s done that 6 times before since 1850 and accelerated again after each flattening – hence why the flattening may not YET be statistically significant. Surely this is obvious. If you said in 1860, 1890, 1910, 1950 and 1970 – of warming has stopped – you’d have been wrong. Even if it reverses now – it does not disprove AGW. It’s just inconvenient because the statistically ignorant don’t understand meaning of a LONG TERM trend.
    Berkeley Earth is funded by the Koch Foundation a long term supporter of the sceptic case.
    Judith Curry, their climatologist is a sceptic.
    http://judithcurry.com/ (sorry that was a mistake – I said Jenifer Morohasy before)
    Richard Muller was one of the original critics of Mann’s Hockey stick.

    Click to access berkeley-earth-summary-20-october-2011.pdf


    Berkley Earth has the same result as the NASA, NOAA etc. No miss-representation. Muller said it. You may not agree like Muller – but he said it. No misrepresentation.
    Baseless smear on Carter?
    OK for a start have a look at his CV – he has an illustrious career outside climatology – Robert M. “Bob” Carter is an adjunct research professor of geology specialising in palaeontology, stratigraphy, and marine geology.
    His professional history was spent outside climatology, he has not written seminal peer reviewed papers in the area, he has not done a PhD in the area, has not headed a major related institute.
    You wouldn’t call a non-lawyer a legal luminary – so why would you call a palaeontologist/marine geologist – who’s spent his career in that area “an eminent climate scientist”?
    In his book “The Counter-Consensus” Carter states that climate modellers had missed water vapour. Which had the climate modellers rolling in the isles because it demonstrated that Carter was clearly ignorant of this basic field of study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics. No eminent climate scientist would have made that mistake – heck no graduate climatologist or even meteorologist would have made that mistake.
    Also there have been legitimate other queries regarding the quality of his climate science;
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/12/spot-the-recycled-denial-v-–-prof-bob-carter/
    Carter is also on the staff of IPA – a far right propaganda outfit – so it’s hardly impartial either. (By the way – I personally think the Greens are barking mad – I’m a successful capitalist and I like burning lots of gas.)
    So no my comments regarding Carter do not constitute a “baseless smear’ – there is an evidential basis.
    That you reject the Berkeley findings is utterly predictable. As was Anthony Watts reversal of support for Berkeley – I told a mate, after Watts statements below – “nothing will change, many of these guys are flat earthers” – Watts will recant and Berkeley will be rejected on some fatuous basis – the fatuous basis being Muller’s silly conclusions allowing them to ignore the resting data.
    I can image what could demonstrate to me that AGW is wrong – I’ve not met too many hard line sceptics that GENUINELY accept there is any possibility that they are wrong. I ask them what sort of information would convince them – they can’t answer. It seems anything that supports AGW is flawed.
    So no miss-representations. No crap. Just the facts.
    For posterity here is you mate Watts, when he assumed Berkeley would reject warming because it was staffed by skeptic friendlies.
    “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU …”
    Muller’s stupid behaviour was just the excuse Watts was looking for – don’t mind that it demonstrated that there is nothing wrong with the East Anglia/CRU data.
    Based on your reaction – this is only a site for preaching to the converted and not for engaging in intelligent debate.

  26. Here is Judith Curry on her blog – which in which she says their data set was excellent. She also makes it clear that the Daily Mail misrepresenting things somewhat as well. So here you have it. The Bias free and toatlly open, BEST agrees with NASA, NOAA and even East Anglia/CRU!

    My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.

  27. More from Curry – the situation has been quite misrepresented.

    I arrived in Santa Fe yesterday. More on the Conference in a forthcoming post. Muller and Rohde will be at the conference, I will be meeting them for the first time and I will try to understand what is going on here.

    And finally, this is NOT a new scandal. An important new data set has been released. Some new papers have been posted for comments, which are not surprisingly drawing criticism and controversy. The main issue seems to be Richard Muller’s public statements. All this does not constitute a new scientific scandal in any way.

    My continued collaboration on this project will be discussed this week with Muller and Rohde. My joining this group was somewhat unusual, in that I did not know any of these people prior to being invited to join their team (although I very quickly figured out that they were highly reputable scientists). I thought the project was a great idea, and I still do, but it currently has a tarnish on it. Lets see what we can do about this.

  28. Balanced,

    Here’s what Steve McIntyre said about the Best data….“649 Berkeley stations lack information on latitude and longitude, including 145 BOGUS stations. 453 stations lack not only latitude and longitude, but even a name. Many such stations are located in the country “[Missing]“, but a large fraction are located in “United States”. Steve says: “I’m pondering how one goes about calculating spatial autocorrelation between two BOGUS stations with unknown locations.”

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/31/help-robert-rohde-locate-argentina/

    Douglas Keening criticised the statistical tecnique of smoothing used by the Best team.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/21/keenans-response-to-the-best-paper.html

    The Best data smoothed out the cooling trends of the 60′ and seventies.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/thank-god-best-project-rescues-us-from-thousands-of-lying-global-thermometers/

    The Best team has links to vested interests, as it is part of the engineering group Novim.

    I could go on……

    PS I’m pleased to see you’ve removed the sneering, condescending, argument from authority, tone in your replies 🙂

  29. Balanced,
    No matter how many points I raise showing that the BEST data is questionable, you ignore them. Perhaps the relevant term here is cognitive dissonance.
    I could provide links that show Russian scientists believe the HADCRUT temperature data base has been cherry picked to remove all the monitoring stations that show cooling, or how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition mounted a successful legal challenge forcing the NZ gov to abandon its official temp record as it was corrupt, or how even NASA admit that its temp records have been corrupted – 2 republican senators are demanding an investigation. But there doesn’t seem much point. You refuse to acknowledge any evidence that shows your pet theories are incorrect.
    I fail to see how anyone with an open, questioning mind can believe the junk science behind global warming. Nearly all aspects of the science/evidence supporting AGW are mired in lies, deceit and fraudulent manipulation of data. This includes melting polar ice caps, atmospheric CO2 measurements, polar bear populations, and melting glaciers in the Himalayas or rising sea levels to name but a few. How any rational intelligent person can continue to support this global warming crap against such overwhelming evidence is beyond me.
    The sad fact is that enormous sums of money are diverted from worthwhile causes to solve a non- existent problem. This money ends up lining the pockets of corrupt politicians, rent seeking green energy companies, or frauds like Tim Flannery and Al Gore – not to mention Goldman Sachs. And it’s people like you that propagate this evil global warming scam and allow it to happen.
    But that’s alright Balanced. Sit back in your arm chair and dream up more ways to fleece pensioners in the UK who can’t afford to heat their homes in winter, or deprive people in third world countries of cheap electricity and clean drinking water. You’re a good person right! You’re saving the planet here!
    I would hope that one day people like you are held accountable for the misery and death you have inflicted upon the world’s disadvantaged.

  30. Bruce,

    Not at all. I was just busy.

    Firstly – the Berkley situation demonstrates the problem with the lack or peer review. We use peer review within our business on models that include up to 500 Mb of data and we often find similar data holes or misunderstandings, items needing to be fixed etc. That BEST have data problems with a few hundred records out of 39,000, which is unsurprising given and a peer review would have detected that issue. This is the silliness of Muller releasing before the review.

    Your statistician is again – not a peer review panel, but a singular individual with an axe to grind.

    There have been unofficial peer reviews of H&E that found drastic flaws. But that doesn’t seems to bother you. It appears that to you – the science of anybody that queries AGW is without flaw – which does not seems rational.

    You don’t seem to be worried that Plimer has clearly either made a massive error or deliberately changed the Siple/Mauna Loa data. You don’t seem to be bothered that Plimer has not presented any evidence to prove the NOAA wrong on undersea volcanoes.

    The BEST data is not particularly dear to me – but it is part-funded by the skeptic Koch foundation and it is staffed by some bona fide skeptics. They used an approach that addressed to concerns of many critics and they provided their datasets for for all to see. BEST is not critical to me – but that NASA and NOAA used different approaches and got the same result. That that data has been peer reviewed also provides comfort.

    No one has built a temperature record that significantly disagrees with NASA, NOAA & HADCRUT. Yes singular card carrying skeptics have flung mud at it – but no skeptic group has prepared a competing and disagreeing temperature record. none.

    So no – while I’ve seen criticisms of the temp data – I’ve not seen a credible alternative temperature record. So I’ve not seen any evidence that temperatures have NOT risen.

    I’d be very interested to hear what you believe has been manipulated in the atmospheric CO2 measurements. As far as I’m aware – Plimer and Carter accept the ice core and Mauna Loa data (even if Plimer misrepresents it).

    So the evidence seems to show a CO2 spike double anything in the last 800,000 and going 50 times faster. That spike has perfectly coincided with the industrial revolution and so has the temperature rise, (according to the evidence actually presented). In addition basic physics tells us that H20 and the CO2 are the only atmospheric compounds that absorb the long wave radiation emitted by the earth. Accepting the above proposition of AGW is far from mad. This is my rationale.

    BUT, Prove that the CO2 data is wrong or the temperature records are wrong – you’ve got me. I’d be a skeptic convert.

    If there was anything significant flaw in either – it would expect at least one global peak body to publicly question AGW. If it was as obvious as you say it is, I’d be very surprised that not one single peak body has pulled their support for AGW. Have a look at the Japanese. They have a Right wing government that has been in power for 54 years – they have virtually no “Green” movement. Japan has no natural resources and has everything to loose from AGW. Yet both JAXA and their Academy Of Science support AGW. Why would they do that if the science is so obviously flawed as you say it is? Tell me convincingly – what would they do that – especially if is as blindingly obvious as you say it is, tell me how the ghouls that support the conspiracy would be motivated to do this in a country like Japan? Who is paying them millions and why would anybody do that?

    I’ve told you what would convince me that AGW is wrong. Given your last comment particularly, It seems that you believe there is absolutely no chance that you are wrong. NASA, NOAA, JAXA, Jap Academy of Science, the MET office, CSIRO etc are all spectacularly stupid, evil, corrupt and fiendishly rubbing their hands together while they plot a spectacular conspiracy theory, (for what personal gain I am unsure).

    So I do accept there is a chance AGW is wrong – I’ve just not seen any peer reviewed evidence that the key issues (CO2, temp and absorption) are wrong. I’ve seen enough prima facie evidence of significant errors Carter’s and Plimers writings – that I take no heed of a non-peer reviewed individual views.

    Do you accept there any possibility that you are wrong? If you do – actually tell me what would prove to you that AGW is correct?

    If you answer above is no – or an unconvincing yes (which would be evidenced by an inability to answer the second question) – how can you be sure that you are not going to end up like these chaps.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    It does not seem to have occurred to you – that there is a potential – that the cognitive dissonance applies to you. How can you be sure that it doesn’t?

  31. Balanced,

    Thanks for your reply.

    There a few points I will mention.

    1. Plimer is not particulary important to me. Quite possibly he has quoted erroneous data or falsehoods. However, I still believe that the bulk of his criticisms of the junk science supporting global warming are valid.

    2. Thankfully exposure of the lies, deceit and data manipulations supporting AGW is now starting to move into the mainstream…see video of a Canadian Senate committee below…

    In particular see how peer review is practised in the IPCC.

    3. You ask what would convince me that AGW was true. How about just one piece of observational evidence that show correlation between increased levels of atmos CO2 and increased global temperatures. No one has been able to find the hot spot predicted by the supposed postitive feed back CO2 allegedly causes with water vapour…this is also mentioned by Prof Ross McKitrick in his presntation to the Canadian Senate committee.

    4. I was a little suprised that you quote JAXA and Japanese scientists as supporting AGW. My interpetration of the JAXA satellite data shows that levels of CO2 are typically lower in developed countries than in air over developing countries. How can antropogenic CO2 be the cause of warming if this is the case.

    Also see a paper here by Akasofu

    Click to access two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

    4. I have quoted directly from the previous WUWT post showing the discreptancies between the global temp data…

    ” Here’s the problem. The actual land surface air temperature warming since 1900 according to the existing datasets is:

    NASA GISTEMP: 0.72°C

    NOAA NCDC: 0.86°C

    CRUTEM: 0.92°C

    So Dr. Muller, in his first and most public appearance on the subject, has made some of the more unusual claims about the existing temperature datasets I’ve heard to date.

    1. Since the largest temperature rise in the three datasets is 30% greater than the smallest rise, their work is not “excellent” in any sense of the word. Nor should the BEST team “strive to build on it.” Instead, they should strive to understand why the three vary so widely. What decisions make the difference? Which decisions make little difference?

    2. Not one of the three datasets shows a temperature rise anywhere near the 1.2°C rise Muller is claiming since 1900. The largest one shows only about 3/4 of his claimed rise.

    3. He claims a “0.2 degree uncertainty”. But the difference between the largest and smallest calculated warming from the three datasets is 0.2°C, so the uncertainty has to be a lot more than that …

    4. He says that the land warming since 1957 is 0.7°C. The records beg to differ. Here’s the land warming since 1957:

    NASA GISTEMP: 0.83°C

    NOAA NCDC: 1.10°C

    CRUTEM: 0.93°C

    Note that none of them are anywhere near 0.7°C. Note also the huge difference in the trends in these “excellent” datasets, a difference of half a degree per century.

    5. He fails to distinguish CRUTEM (the land-only temperature record produced by the Climategate folks) from HadCRU (a land-ocean record produced jointly by the Hadley folks and the Climategate folks). A minor point to be sure, but one indicating his unfamiliarity with the underlying datasets he is discussing”

    • Bruce,

      I had a Geophysicist rant to me one about water vapour after reading Carters book. I said – “do you mean that the Carter recons he’s detected that the climate modelers have all missed water vapour?” he said yes.

      I said – What is the chance, that say an engineer, could wade in to your field of Geophysics and prove you all wrong – on one of the most fundamental elements of your trade? And that that engineer could write a chapter on it and I’d have my head around it in say 30 minutes? A really obvious issue proving your whole field wrong.

      He said. “Sh*t – I didn’t fully think that on through did I. No, noone could upturn our whole field like that. No way. I suppose you’re gonna tell me Carter missed something”. I said yup. he didn’t know about this very basic issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics

      Could a hair dresser overturn your whole field of expertise Bruce?

      The same applies here. D0 you really think that the people who discovered methane hydrates on the ocean floor don’t know about these honestly very obvious problems? Seriously, the minute you start thinking about ice cores – all the issues around, pressure, solubility of CO2 in water, partial pressures, cracking etc all these come to mind and I’m not even an expert in the area.

      Here is a paper written 10 years before Jaworowski on how to deal with some of the issues.
      ftp://ftp.cricyt.edu.ar/pub/jaranibar/ice%20cores/97JC00159.pdf
      Here is knowledge of the methane hydrates and how they are ACTUALLY USED ice core calculation!!!!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
      more on how they process ice core because of the VERY OBVIOUS pressure problem.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

      Next you are probably going to feel the need to point out to the NOAA that the melting of floating sea ice does not affect water levels – as if they don’t already know such an obvious point.

      Maybe you should run cardiovascular conference and tell them that oxygen is necessary for human survival – hell maybe they are all stupid and don’t know.

      And that other paper – let’s see – no accuracy indications – wildly varying results – many off proxies – this kind of stuff is why they don’t use proxies. All this stuff is totally obvious Bruce and has been checked years ago. One the things you do when you set up a new measurement is to calibrate it against what ever is available – so they have tried, mud, bubbles in mud, air from time capsules – air from old candle bubbles, tree rings, young shallow ice – old experimental values is a chessnut …… None of this is new and I’m sorry but it’s just simple minded to think that all of this has not been looked at and analyzed before, years ago.

      Here is something non-peer to start showing you the OBVIOUS problems with that second piece of simplistic crap.
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html#Accuracy_of_historical_CO2_measurement_methods

      Bruce – please don’t post such mindless drivel.

  32. Mike Saingford being wrong; doesn’t make Plimer correct. Plimer is the one that is promoting CO2 as a GLOBAL warming gas. He is the one that collected crap references from around the world to do the Warmist’ dirty job. He is the one who brainwashed the honest people, people that supposed to stand up for the truth; instead they are: talking about sunspots affect on climate / warming = they are creating ”back-doo exit” for the Warmist; when global warming doesn’t happen – they know that can blame the sunspots. – Warmist know that sunspots is good enough bull for Plimer’s D/H to buy. Sun-flares / sunspots don’t change the temperature for one billionth of a degree. They don’t change the climate also.

    Plimer brainwashed the honest people that 5BC, 1230AD was warmer planet than now…? At that time people were scared to sail more than 50km west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet; but somehow Plimer knows what was the temperature EXACTLY at that time in Oceania, Pathagonia…? Nobody knows what temperature the planet had last year, to save his / her life. Plimer knows for distant past, to compare???!!!

    unlike on the moon, on the earth heat distribution in 3 dimensional. Unless is measured on every 10m3 in the WHOLE troposphere; for EVERY 10minutes (because the winds never stop). 2] earth is not as a human body – if under the armpit is warmer by 1C degree = the whole body is warmer by 1C. WRONG! The temperature data and those misleading temperature charts IPCC releases is exclusively for the Warmist zombies and Plimer’s D/H. Happy New Year Braves!!!

  33. Mike Saingford being wrong; doesn’t make Plimer correct. Plimer is the one that is promoting CO2 as a GLOBAL warming gas. He is the one that collected crap references from around the world to do the Warmist’ dirty job. He is the one who brainwashed the honest people, people that supposed to stand up for the truth; instead they are: talking about sunspots affect on climate / warming = they are creating ”back-doo exit” for the Warmist; when global warming doesn’t happen – they know that can blame the sunspots. – Warmist know that sunspots is good enough bull for Plimer’s D/H to buy. Sun-flares / sunspots don’t change the temperature for one billionth of a degree. They don’t change the climate also.

    Plimer brainwashed the honest people that 5BC, 1230AD was warmer planet than now…? At that time people were scared to sail more than 50km west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet; but somehow Plimer knows what was the temperature EXACTLY at that time in Oceania, Pathagonia…? Nobody knows what temperature the planet had last year, to save his / her life. Plimer knows for distant past, to compare???!!!

    unlike on the moon, on the earth heat distribution in 3 dimensional. Unless is measured on every 10m3 in the WHOLE troposphere; for EVERY 10minutes (because the winds never stop). 2] earth is not as a human body – if under the armpit is warmer by 1C degree = the whole body is warmer by 1C. WRONG! The temperature data and those misleading temperature charts IPCC releases is exclusively for the Warmist zombies and Plimer’s D/H. Happy New Year Braves !!!

  34. Reading through these comments, I can only congratulate Balanced on having the patience try to put forward a rational argument, based on peer reviewed science. It is unfortunate that most of those who deny the validity of AGW are not all interested in proper scientific standards of evidence, based on peer review. Instead they rely on a heady concoction of paranoid and cynical conspiracy theories, which in the process insults the many thousands of scientists who are working away to develop the frontiers of knowledge about climate and many other things. It is an unfortunate sign of our times that there is a prevalent cynicism about the validity of science when it comes to climate change. It is massively ironic, given that in so many other parts of our daily life (health, medicine, air travel) we are fully accepting of the validity and indeed the necessity of science and technology for our well-being. All such areas of knowledge being based squarely on the peer-review process.

    But no, when it comes to climate change, for some reason we will look to any skerrick of non-peer reviewed opinion to claim a ‘gotcha’ against the validity of climate change. Why is this so?

    I notice that in response to the numerous factual and theoretical errors which Balanced has identified in the ‘sceptics’ (aka deniers) position, there has, in the main, been a deafening silence from readers of this blog.

    Why is it that these ‘sceptics’ are so unwilling to accept the validity of the peer review process when it comes (only) to this particular field of knowledge relating to AGW? And if they are so convinced that they are right and the vast majority of scientists (in the climate change field) are wrong, why dont they simply publish some peer-reviewed rebuttals? Instead of relying on blogs and non-peer reviewed works by single scientists who are not expert in the field.

  35. Snowchi,

    I am a little non plussed by your reply.

    Like Balanced you appear to be suffering from cognitive dissonance – the ability to ignore reality if it doesn’t fit with your preconceived ideas.

    In my replies above I have posted numerous links to legitimate science, pointing out the lies, deceit and data fudging that is manifest in every aspect of climate science.

    Suggest you look at the testimony given by Professor Ross McKitrick to the Canadian senate, see link below – which I have posted previously. In particlar how peer review is practised by the IPCC.

    PS. It appears that some aspects of medical science suffer the same corruption of peer review as climate science.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

  36. Bruce,

    Been traveling again – liberating lots of CO2 which should make you happy, but also outsourcing the planting of trees to counter my emissions, which no doubt, you would find annoying.

    In your response to Snowchi – you say you have used legitimate sources. Just because you have edicted that they are legitimate does not make them legitimate. Correct me if I’m wrong – but I don’t think one single piece of the countervailing science you have presented has been peer reviewed. Not one piece. So no, by the long held standards of science, your sources are not “legitimate” – they are just the singular opinions of flawed humans who may be wrong. As Snowchi suggests -peer review is a standard that applies to everything that clearly works, from Panadol, to 747s to mobile phones. In all those industries a singular view is seen as simply “interesting” until it has been peer reviewed.

    On the IPCC; You will note – that I have not made much of the IPCC position on it’s own. You bang on about the IPCC and it’s flaws – It may or may not be flawed. But what is critical here is that every single peak body on the planet agrees. So despite NASA putting Rovers on Mars, landing probes on meteorites, operating a spaced based based telescope and heck even the multi-country ISS, (ALL using science and engineering design that has ALL relied on peer review) – so it clearly works there but it would seems that just on the topic of AGW – their peer review process is completely flawed and they are all stupid and evil. Oh but also, EVERY SINGLE OTHER other highly accomplished peak body is also stupid, flawed and evil – just on the topic of AGW – because the vast majority of what they do clearly works, (did you see the accuracy of the latest BOM cyclone modeling? bang on. – also the product of a peer review process)…….

    And yes there are examples of Peer review breaking down, so that is why the IPCC on it’s own is not so compelling. This is why it’s even more significant that despite, culture, political belief and funding source every single peak body on the planet agrees. Given long histories of very good work – the probability that peer review has broken down in ALL of them and they are all stupid and evil on AGW – is highly unlikely.

    Like I said – the skeptics need a peak body – and I’d be happy for it to be taxpayer funded.

    On Plimer and your comment ..”However, I still believe that the bulk of his criticisms of the junk science supporting global warming are valid.”

    That “you believe” is critical here – because there is not a lot of evidence to support your claim, here are few Plimer highlights;
    * Unlike the peak bodies, he has never produced ANY evidence to support his volcanic CO2 >> human CO2 claim. The available evidence says he’s wrong. (He still repeats the claim currently however).
    * His key assertion that there is no link between CO2 and temp (which disagrees with his own position in one of his earlier books) – is based on a single unreferenced chart on page 242 of H&E. As previously discussed the GEOCARB III data has the error margins removed – as are the many good quality, lower CO2 indications. His unattributed temp data is based on non-peer reviewed work by Scotese – which, is also based on proxies – has the same accuracy issues as CO2, has no stated known error margin and interpolates across scores of millions of years at a time. Put together like this and with a MASSIVE and oft repeated conclusion drawn, it is prima facie crap science by any rational measure.
    * on page 116 of H&E he supports the iron sun theory – which is madder than mad jack mc mad. Flat earth mad. that mad.
    * then there is the over looked by skeptics – massive error/fraud by Plimer in his latest book on the Siple/Mauna Loa data.

    So I don’t think there is much of a RATIONAL basis to have much faith in ANY of Plimer’s KEY assertions.
    Here is an account of potential errors in his book, (i say potential because this critique is not peer reviewed).
    http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

    Bruce – your point about JAXA is bizzare – you think they too must be flawed and evil based on Bruce’s interpretation of their atmospheric CO2 mixing data?? Awfully presumptuous of you.

    Have a look at this – shows CO2 high where you’d expect it when you’d expect it. Consistently. Complete opposite of your apparent observation.

    From that dodgy, incompetent lot at NASA – who built and launched a satellite to study CO2 – but no, Bruce, Plimer and Bob know better. NASA don’t know what they are doing.

    JAXA, no doubt are literate and also saw the same data you saw and did not change their position – so ether they are stupid and evil or possibly – you the layperson – might have possibly failed to fully comprehend. I spend a lot of time looking at very interesting new processes and 90-95% of the time that something doesn’t make sense to me is because I’ve not YET fully comprehended. The other 5-10% is where I make my money. (It’s peer reviewed of course! – reliably avoiding Plimeresque egg on face)

    I’m Not sure where your cherry picked your climate dataset results – look at
    AR4-WG1 Chap 3, Table 3.2.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html

    Yes it’s IPCC, but unlike your numbers – it actually provides are more complete picture, comparing apples with apples for starters . And yes – their error margins don’t always cross over – that’s because they are talking about the accuracy of the stations they used. Each studies uses DIFFERENT sets of stations so they WILL find different result – their accuracy only referrers to their stations and their analysis methods. All peer reviewed of course.

    Finally;
    You – “3. You ask what would convince me that AGW was true. How about just one piece of observational evidence that show correlation between increased levels of atmos CO2 and increased global temperatures.”

    a) If Plimer’s page 242 chart was redrawn with the GEOCARB III error margins, the other perfectly good but unfortunately disagreeing CO2 proxy estimates – the temperature points with the error margins and other disagreeing temperature proxies, it would be meaningless, no trend, no correlation – no conclusion could be drawn. Plimers conclusion about there being no relationship between CO2 and temp is therefore with out a rational basis.

    b) Here is the reconstructed temp (not a prediction). Note that not only is as higher or higher now than the MWP but also that it has been rising much faster than any earlier trend, to the point that it looks exponential. If you put it on a time scale of this whole interglacial – it would appear as a spike. It’s peer reviewed and even better – the multiple lines show MULTIPLE peer reviewed studies agreeing.

    Hit me with your PEER reviewed contra-indicating dataset.

    c) here is C02 – it too appears as a spike.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-3.html
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

    Hit me with your PEER reviewed contra-indicating dataset. Not some bloke’s who’s opinion you like. PEER reviewed Bruce.

    Bruce – the two spikes coincide, with CO2 leading – (not temp like the natural cycle). The probability that they are unrelated is very low. Again – and try and get your head around this – the CO2 spike has never occurred in the natural cycle of the last 800,000 years. It’s never risen this much or anywhere near this fast. (This is an obvious question that non-fossil source theory cannot answer).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    So here is your observational evidence.

    Yes – on a shorter term scale – temp slows at times – but like I’ve said before – if you said in 1910 or 1940 or 1970 – hey it’s stopped – you’d have been utterly wrong.

    But this is also all pointless because they are all lies. just like the moon landing, cancer causing cigarettes and asbestos.

  37. Balanced,

    I am surprised you keep raving about peer review, after Professor Ross McKitrick’s (ex IPCC review author) testimony to the Canadian senate, on how corrupt the peer review process was. Also I fail to see how you can say Professor Ross McKitrick is not a legitimate scientist.

    Also you seem to have misconstrued what I said about JAXA. It’s there in black and white (also green and red) in figs 2 and 3 in the link below.

    http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html

    More CO2 is emitted over undeveloped areas. Hence how can anthropogenic CO2 are causing global warming. The JAXA results are also supported by the NOAA carbon tracker which show higher carbon fluxes over undeveloped areas.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxmaps.php?region=glb&average=longterm#imagetable

    There are numerous PEER REVIEWED papers which show that the premises of AGW are incorrect. Here’s one that says the climate change models are unable to predict/explain recent observations.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385

    Finally, it would appear that you are a professional in the field of climate science or some related discipline – which makes it even more unforgivable for you to be quoting Wikipedia as a reference. What a joke. Here is just one example of the integrity of Wikipedia when it comes to climate science.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

    Also, quoting corrupt temperature data bases is not “observational evidence” of CO2 causing warming.

    I’m sorry, Balanced. AGW is an evil, corrupt scam. Thank God the wheels are finally starting to come off in a big way. Suggest you start hedging your bets.

  38. Balanced,

    Some more PEER REVIEWED papers exposing the junk science of AGW….

    http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

    In particular see here for the relationship between CO2 and temp derived from ice cores….

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract

    and here for uncertainties in surface temperature data bases….

    Click to access 20070727_04.pdf

    And here for some humour….

    Q. What does a climate scientist say in his first job, after the collapse of the global warming scam?

    A. Do you want fries with that?

    • “In particular see here for the relationship between CO2 and temp derived from ice cores….

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract

      Have you even read this? – you can’t above, but you can here for free…

      Click to access Fis1999a.pdf

      It does not doubt AGW. It talks about the complexities – which is what “improving models” is all about. Why to you think they use ~30 ice core sites – not just two. This is just evidence of the scientific process working. There is nothing theory shattering here – it’s more about how to develop models to better understand interactions and the key difficulty – which most o of YOU LOT miss – which is that what is happening now – a CO2 rise PRECEDING temp rise – is tricky because it has not occurred naturally in the past. This is the key point – PAST CO2 has risen following temp due mostly to obital and solar variation – we are trying to predict the temperature sensitivity to a leading CO2 rise because IT HASN’T occurred before. All this does is demonstrate your limited knowledge of the subject matter. This paer does not doubt AGW – it is working to improve accuracy.

      And this one; http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070731/20070727_04.pdf
      Is imply evidence of the process being used to improve land based temperature measurements. The Urban Head Island Effect has been know and studied since the early 1990s – it’s an accepted issue. The IPCC reports on it. You don’t seem to get this rational thought process Bruce – this is all part of developing the science.

      On your humor – no problem for me. I’m hedged either way. Like I said – I’d be very happy for AGW to be wrong OR for the temperature sensitivity to be tiny. It’d be great for my kids and like I said – I could buy a nice sounding v8.

      I think this discussion is not edifying for either of us – so I’ll leave you to it.

      Cheers.

  39. Bruce,

    You no listen. I said the IPCC on it’s own is not so significant. All the peak bodies Bruce. So why repeat your IPCC statement?

    Also, have you any idea what an object point of view is? look it up the definition of “objective”. Ross McKitrick has extreme political and religious beliefs. He is an ECONOMIST. I can NOT see any evidence of him being part of any any IPCC review panel. Either way – just go on ignoring my point about ALL THE PEAK bodies – who’s peer review processes clearly successfully land rockets on distant planets.

    Sorry mate – but you are out of your depth. FLUX is analogous to flow. The land/soil/atmospheric CO2 cycle is ~20 times larger than the anthropogenic carbon flow – so we EXPECT to see higher carbon fluxes in equatorial areas and other areas with limited (underdeveloped) land clearing. You have assumed that the flux result opposes AGW – it doesn’t, it’s what we expect. Look up flux.

    What about the NASA video Bruce – that shows the CO2 concentration peaking where and when we expect it to. Just ignore that bit eh…

    I love your peer reviewed article. Well done it is peer reviewed. But guess what – did you notice IT SUPPORTS AGW!! Yes it predicts lower warming – just like many other studies PUBLICLY REPORTED studies IN THE IPCC – I suppose you haven’t read the IPCC reports – this is why the use probabilities – because there are some peer reviewed studies that report less warming and other peer reviewed studies reporting more warming. Theses types of studies are precisely what is INCLUDED in the IPCC process. I’m sorry but you seem entirely ignorant of what the IPCC has done and what is included.
    See here – lower estimates – like this one – ARE included.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    On wiki – well firstly James Dillingpole – is also not an objective observer. I’ll be blunt – Yes – Wiki can be dangerous for stupid people – that is, one needs to be able to spot flawed information. That said – you will note that the all the wiki references I have used are entirely accurate – otherwise I would not have used them. Wiki is actually an excellent starting point. It gathers references that you can read. Much of what is on wiki is entirely accurate. eg Occam razor, psychometry, methane hydrates – all ACCURATE.

    OK – so the temp logs are corrupt you say – but you have no alternative temperature log – just mud flung. You have no proof, just a mindless belief. No independent peer reviewed evidence. I’m thinking you’re a faith kind of guy not an evidence kind of guy. All you have is climate gate – but the same people who launch CO2 satellites get a similar result – but you say they are stupid an evil too….. well of course you do because they don’t concur with your belief.

    The CO2 also remains bombproof – and last I checked, accepted by Carter and Plimer.

    Bruce – my original “sneering, condescending, argument from authority” approach may have been ill disciplined on my behalf – but it now seems that, while unattractive it was ultimately, entirely accurate.

  40. Balanced,

    I’m not sure if you understand the English language. Here is a quote from the abstract of my previous post. “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

    Get that CO2 …increased AFTER the warming.

    I don’t think there is any point in continuing this discussion if you can’t understand English. 

    Also see below…

    How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance

    There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:

    Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.

    Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.

    Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.

  41. Bruce,

    “Get that CO2 …increased AFTER the warming.”

    CORRECT!! In the NATURAL cycle, warming occurs FIRST, then CO2 rises due to thawing permafrost and increasing decay.

    This is a key difficulty with determining climate sensitivity to a leading CO2 rise.

    I’ve mentioned this numerous times in this thread – and here again from my last comment …

    ” – which is that what is happening now – a CO2 rise PRECEDING temp rise – is tricky because it has not occurred naturally in the past. This is the key point – ”

    Bruce preceding means before.

    This has been a key point ALL the way along. What is happening now, a very sharp CO2 rise followed by a temperature rise – is not part of the natural cycle

    This is from my VERY FIRST post;

    “The Natural cycle is;
    During the exit from a glaciation (ice age) temperatures start to rise sharply, (6-8 c) – due to sun/earth orbital changes. CO2 Starts to rise, following the temperature rise by about 800 years, as the ground thaws and the rate of decay/rotting increases.”

    OK so I had 800 CO2 rising 800 years AFTER. They say 600 +/- 400 – so my 800 was accurate.

    So yes, I do have an excellent grasp of the English language. I suspect you’re reading what you want to read.

    On the cog dissonance – I’d prefer AGW to amount to nothing.

    I would have singed off – but accusing me of being illiterate and missing something a have stated very clearly about 5 times above, was just too much to bear.

    Cheers.

    I think I’ve said this

  42. Balanced,

    There’s not really much more I would like to say at this stage, except this….

    You say you’re neutral on AGW – and perhaps that’s why you call yourself Balanced.

    But you’re not really neutral or balanced on the AGW issue at all.

    It seems anyone with opposing views to yours is one of the following…

    Has an axe to grind

    Is a right wing extremist

    Not a legitimate scientist

    A religious fanatic pursuing their own agenda

    Is not peer reviewed by the right people

    Plus you have the ability to only quote “correct” references from Wikipedia.

    And…all scientific evidence supports the theory of AGW. Though I guess you did admit that the temperature data bases may have been corrupted.

    Doesn’t sound very balanced to me.

    However, there are some facts you can’t deny 🙂

    The numbers of legitimate scientists publicly debunking the evil, bloated global warming scam is constantly increasing, and the main stream media is also taking up the issue. A far cry from the days when anyone who expressed any disagreement was ostracized and in some cases threatened with removal of their Phd.

    The public perception of climate science and the associated rent seeking, corrupt green energy industry is dropping like a whale turd.

    So like I say, perhaps you should start hedging your bets – you may not even be able to get a job in McDonalds soon. 🙂

    One last thing, in addition to cognitive dissonance you also show the symptoms of cognitive disequilibrium and adaptive preference formation – look it up in Wiki.

    All the best.

  43. In my opinion Balanced has tried to stick to the evidence, based on the best method of knowledge formation that humans have so far developed — namely peer-reviewed science. The charts that Balance referred to on Wikipedia are all based on references to peer-reviewed data sets. That is the key point. It is displayed on Wikipedia for sake of convenience and to make it accessible to a broader audience. If you want to check all the datasets, then track down the references and you will find them.

    And yes, there will ALWAYS be flaws and imperfections in data sets. The key point is the broad trend that is consistently identified across all datasets — namely human-induced warming has occurred in the past 100 years or so, due to increasing C02.

    And yes, there will ALWAYS be flaws and imperfections in the peer-review process. But so far it is the best (and really the only) way to develop knowledge about natural processes in the real world.

    We have to allow for the fact that there will ALWAYS be uncertainty. Let’s assume the probability is only 50/50, that AGW will continue and will cause major (and I mean major) disruption to human civilisation and other life on this planet. Is that a bet you are willing to take?

    What if the odds are closer to 70/30? Or 95/5, as IPCC says?

    In other words, when the stakes are high, when consequences could be catastrophic, might it be wise to choose a low probability threshhold for taking action to slow down AGW? If I am betting the planet, heck I would be ok with just a 50/50 probability. I would rather not risk the future of all our descendents, just because I cannot be absolutely 100 per cent sure that this is a problem. By the time I know 100 percent, it will be too late. Some say it already is.

    This is what I dont understand about those who are so determined to grasp at anything to ‘prove’ to themselves that this is all some self-interested conspiracy by greedy scientists. If someone told you that there was a 50/50 chance your family would be involved in a catastropic accident tomorrow, would you shrug off that warning? If you were told it was a 70/30 chance, would you shrug it off then? And if 95/5 ??

    I would be happy if we would all stop the name calling and simply agree as to what is the standard of proof: namely peer-reviewed science. And let’s also agree that this is not about getting absolute certainty; it is about identifying serious risks and agreeing about the best actions to avert them.

  44. Snowchi,

    What a load of baloney!

    Were you typing this with one hand…[the other on your Goldman Sachs prospectus ;-)]

    OK let’s talk about some serious issues…

    Poverty and famine in third world countries

    Polluted drinking water in 3rd world countries

    Finding cures for diseases like cancer

    Helping the disadvantaged and destitute in society

    Money is diverted from worthwhile causes like this to provide $90 million grants to the likes of Tim Flannery to research geothermal energy.

    Where will the $10 billion clean energy fund end up.

    Go back to your sanctimonious arm chair, drink a few more organic chardonnays and watch the latest BBC special on how climate change will affect the mating habits of the white throated tree creeper!

    [snip]

    Cheers!

  45. My apologies, the IPCC assessment is that there is a 90 per cent (not 95 per cent as I had indicated) probability that human actions are the cause of global warming.

  46. Bruce
    I have tried to put a reasoned point of view. In response I get a series of ad hominem slurs. I don’t see how that sort of response does the ‘sceptics’ cause much good.

    It seems when the going gets tough, the sceptic changes the subject — to world poverty, cures for cancer etc. Did I or Balanced ever say those are not also important issues?

    The question which is at issue is: “is anthropogenic global warming occuring, or is it not?” And for your answer, please provide peer-reviewed evidence. It is as simple as that.

  47. @snowchi

    Seriously, peer-reviewing anything these days is gone. It has no real authority in the eyes of most of use that have moved away from the lie of AGW.

    Also, I think your missing something.

    1. Skeptics do not deny that CO2 has caused some measure of increased warming, it’s the LEVEL of increased warming that we don’t accept.

    2. The independent science done by proper scientists using their own funds or minimal funds and taking the computer models the the now debunked IPCC has used to produce its scare mongering doesn’t match with observable statistics, that’s another thing most sceptics don’t accept. As with all computer models that are not checked against empirical evidence, junk in, junk out.

    3. The IPCC has lost all credibility. One of the biggest causes of this is that they are using information and socalled scientists that are in effect environmental activists and there none of them can be taken seriously with anything they may push out.

    If the IPCC is saying there is a 90/10 % chance of catastrophic issues because of AGW, the 90% is probably BS leaving the actual figure at a 10% chance.

    Yes, I’m a sceptic in fact you could say I’m I actually deny AGW now, but I was once a believer like Jo Nova. The predictions didn’t come to pass though which made me actually get off my ass and investigate both sides. When that happened I realised just how much of a huge scam this whole thing was. When I read about Agenda 21, the whole sordid little hoax took on much more of a sinister underhanded and inhuman plan.

    Maybe you should do the same, start reading information from the other side as well.

    Try the NIPCC website, nearly everything they IPCC and their little clique groups so called science has been debunked by the scientists involved in that group of scientists trying to restore real science not psuedo science.

  48. Thankyou, W R Xavier.

    Devastatingly accurate assessment and very succintly put.

    To Snowchi, I’m sorry if you took offense at my “ad hominem slurs”. They were meant to be taken tongue in cheek with a touch of humour.

    However, you must admit the precautionary principle approach justifying AGW is absolute BS.

    Also, your colleague Balanced called my posts “mindless drivel” and stated that I don’t know the meaning of the word flux. Sounds pretty much like ad hominen slurs to me.

    How about you open up your mind and spend some time reading what reputable sceptic scientists have to say.

    Also, in addition to the two undeniable facts about the AGW debate that I mentioned previously, there is one more….

    One hears of lots of warmist scientists being converted to scepticism.

    How many sceptical scientists have you heard of becoming believers?

  49. WR Xavier says:

    ” Seriously, peer-reviewing anything these days is gone. It has no real authority in the eyes of most of use that have moved away from the lie of AGW.”

    Well I guess that is where we depart company. I vote to stick with the method of knowledge testing that science has refined over the past 500 years, and which is the foundation of our science-based industrial civilisation. Incidentally, peer review is DESIGNED to consider all points of view, all possible evidence-based objections. It actually is a method of true scepticism. There is therefore no need for a separate process (parallel universe) to consider the ‘other side of the debate’.

    Systematic and disciplined peer review, combined with the appropriate measurement and analysis techniques and theory building, is the only way to develop knowledge which can get closer to the truth about the operations of the natural world.

    To reject the body of scientific knowledge about climate change because of paranoid conspiracy theories, is simply fantasy land stuff. However, I accept that that that is your position, and it is really beyond the reach of rational argument.

    For your amusement, you may enjoy this analysis of the Climate Gate ‘conspiracy’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

    Warning: the discussion in this video has a wicked sense of humour, and it may go over your head 🙂

%d bloggers like this: