The REAL global warming

[maiden22]

More misinformation:





1. THE DATA IS NOT LOST. Where did you think CRU got all the station data from in the first place? It came from the National Meteorological Services from over 150 countries. Who else have been accumulating station temperature data for the last 150 years? Do you think after giving a copy of the data to CRU they then burned their own records? They are ultimately the curators of the data. Why this is so difficult to understand is utterly beyond my comprehension.

95% of the data is available through the Global Historical Climatology Network and has been long before the current nonsense.

The remaining data is subject to non-disclosure agreements with NMS's and will be made available when these IPR issues are resolved.

If anybody want to claim that these centralized repositories are cooked, they are absolutely free to go and ask the NMS's individually. But that would mean real work. Slander and innuendo is much easier.

I have pointed all this out before on this thread.



Now that is just nonsense. You don't need that at all. If you want to show they are wrong proceed from the raw data and show it by your own research. Demonstrate that your methodology is correct and get it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Confirmation or lack of it through independent research is one of the foundations of science.

Trial by comments in code (that may not be in current use or even has ever been used) or private emails is not the way science is done.

You would like science to become a slanging match on internet blogs, because confusion is so easily generated.

The point is that we don't know what data they have used - and they fight tooth and nail to keep it a secret. They take data, add bits, leave bits out, massage it up and down, splice different records together - and then expect others to unravel it.

By the way, what are you doing up? Isn't it the middle of the night down there?

 

[dcraig1]

Re: Mayon

The allegations are actually very serious and cast doubt on the the probity of those compiling the record, and upon their outputs. They include:

1. That 75% of the temperature data was ignored.
2. That stations that showed warming were cherry-picked - no wonder (if your assertion is true) that different compilers dropped the same stations. The zealots chose their data carefully to match their theories.
3. Stations with incomplete records were favoured over those with complete records, allowing missing data to be filled in - or, to put it another way, made up.
4. Stations affected by urban heat island effect were disproportionately represented, while rural stations were disproportionately under-represented.

Russian data represents temperature data for around one eighth of the world's landmass. This is very serious indeed - your lofty dismissal is ridiculous.

And we don't have to show deliberate skewing - just that the record is woefully unreliable. This may be hard for you to understand, but accuracy is not determined by intent.

That aside, this does not amount to normal selection and adjustment - this is fraud.

Has any of this been peer reviewed? Well? Were the authors scientists? Who published it?
Are the "facts" you quoted even true. And who the hell is the Institute of Economic Research or whatever they call themselves?

Are the accusations against CRU only, or NASA GISS and NOAA as well?

How do you know it is fraud? Constant accusation without substance will eventually lead to libel suits. Can't come soon.

As I said above, innuendo and slander are cheap and easy. Doing the real work, getting it published requires real effort.

 

[maiden22]

Re: Mayon

Has any of this been peer reviewed? Well? Were the authors scientists? Who published it?
Are the "facts" you quoted even true. And who the hell is the Institute of Economic Research or whatever they call themselves?

Are the accusations against CRU only, or NASA GISS and NOAA as well?

How do you know it is fraud? Constant accusation without substance will eventually lead to libel suits. Can't come soon.

As I said above, innuendo and slander are cheap and easy. Doing the real work, getting it published requires real effort.

That's the point - we don't know what raw data they used. The Russians seem to be suggesting that they have cherry picked certain stations, but we don't know which ones as they won't tell anybody.

 

[Ingot54]

This episode demonstrates another hole in your argument. You clain that the destruction of data by CRU does not matter, as it is all out there anyway. This is wrong, but passing on, we need to know what their calculations are based on if we are to be able to assess their results - in other words we need to know exactly which sets of data they used. It is no use at all presenting the finished article and nothing else.

Maiden22 - save your breath mate - this guy is a true convert alright!

You don't need facts ... just blind faith!

"The scientists said ... yada yada" or "You're a denialist if you can't see ... balh blah"

This fellow Aussie unfortunately has been well-and-truly bitten by the CC bug.

It will never matter to her if you DO bring proof of anomalies - DCraig will have an answer for those too. You can sense when you're banging away at a brick wall - the same echo keeps coming back.

"O fall down and worship at the feet of the CC god."

If there HAD been a threat to civilisation, don't you think the rest of the world could have formed an agreement to limit their own CO2 emissions, and perhaps bring China - the main dissenter at Copenhagen - into the fold later on?

If there REALLY is a threat, then the true believer nations would have VOLUNTARILY cut back on their emissions - agreement with others or not.

That really is too simple for DCraig - there will be some obscure reason why we can't cut emissions regardless of what others are doing.

The truth is that GW and CC are a scam to seize the threads of political control of the globe, and initiate an irreversible world government in a binding and enforceable way.

If you think that is a conspiracy (more name calling) then go back to the origins of the EEC in 1952, when a group of 6 coal and steel merchant countries banded together to market these commodities in an orderly fashion.

Quite benign? Yes, but from those humble, and ultimately binding origins, the European Economic Community grew, and what do we have today? A European political force, which wants to steam-roll the world into a politically binding agreement on the environment.

Once this is set in concrete (and it ultimately will be, despite our opposition) the pressure will move away from Climate Change, onto other "global issues." We will have the world government, whether we want one or not.

What better base to control any dissenters?

"In the interests of the world ... we order you to ... blah blah ... (insert your own statement)"

If this is not so, then please enlighten us, DCraig.
What is your agenda?
Why are you so hell-bent on having deaf ears to all counter argument, and still failing to answer reasonable questions put to you.

That's why I ignore your rantings - from the fringe!

Why are countries so anxious to get this up?

Consider this:

Almost EVERY country is IN DEBT.

TO WHOM?

Who is this fabulously wealthy body which is loaning all this money/credit to countries.
WHO is it that all the nations of the world owe this money to?

Japan is the most indebted nation in the world - in the trillions of $USD.

The USA is second-most in debt.

There is then a huge procession of indebted countries ... few are in credit.

Why?
To whom is this debt owed?

One would think that world-wide credit/debt would be a zero-sum game, but no, it certainly is not.

 

[dcraig1]

Re: Mayon

That's the point - we don't know what raw data they used. The Russians seem to be suggesting that they have cherry picked certain stations, but we don't know which ones as they won't tell anybody.

If they won't tell anybody, then where did the figures in this Russian stuff come from? How do they know what stations were dropped from the record etc?

As I said above, the raw data is almost all available. If deniers want to seriously challenge the temperature records produced by CRU, NASA and NOAA, then DO THE RESEARCH. Produce a temperature record and show that it differs from the accepted records.

This is how science works not by disputing every damned data point, or even a lot of data points. Produce new research and show that the previous findings (which are almost universally accepted in the scientific community) are wrong or inadequate. No deniers have done this. Their game is sniping from the sidelines with a large portion of slander. It is contemptible.

Several studies are out that show no significant statistical bias in the CRU temperature record.

Here are a couple:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

These are not hard to understand. There is no rocket science involved. Indeed you can replicate them yourself on a PC with Excel. One of the blog posts provides source code in the "R" language to do so. "R" is free and open source, so no cost involved.

Please explain what is wrong with these studies.

You want to show falsification of the data - then demonstrate in a logically, scientifically and mathematically sound fashion. You and all the deniers on the planet cannot.

 

[dcraig1]

Maiden22 - save your breath mate - this guy is a true convert alright!

You don't need facts ... just blind faith!

"The scientists said ... yada yada" or "You're a denialist if you can't see ... balh blah"

This fellow Aussie unfortunately has been well-and-truly bitten by the CC bug.

It will never matter to her if you DO bring proof of anomalies - DCraig will have an answer for those too. You can sense when you're banging away at a brick wall - the same echo keeps coming back.

"O fall down and worship at the feet of the CC god."

If there HAD been a threat to civilisation, don't you think the rest of the world could have formed an agreement to limit their own CO2 emissions, and perhaps bring China - the main dissenter at Copenhagen - into the fold later on?

If there REALLY is a threat, then the true believer nations would have VOLUNTARILY cut back on their emissions - agreement with others or not.

That really is too simple for DCraig - there will be some obscure reason why we can't cut emissions regardless of what others are doing.

The truth is that GW and CC are a scam to seize the threads of political control of the globe, and initiate an irreversible world government in a binding and enforceable way.

If you think that is a conspiracy (more name calling) then go back to the origins of the EEC in 1952, when a group of 6 coal and steel merchant countries banded together to market these commodities in an orderly fashion.

Quite benign? Yes, but from those humble, and ultimately binding origins, the European Economic Community grew, and what do we have today? A European political force, which wants to steam-roll the world into a politically binding agreement on the environment.

Once this is set in concrete (and it ultimately will be, despite our opposition) the pressure will move away from Climate Change, onto other "global issues." We will have the world government, whether we want one or not.

What better base to control any dissenters?

"In the interests of the world ... we order you to ... blah blah ... (insert your own statement)"

If this is not so, then please enlighten us, DCraig.
What is your agenda?
Why are you so hell-bent on having deaf ears to all counter argument, and still failing to answer reasonable questions put to you.

That's why I ignore your rantings - from the fringe!

Why are countries so anxious to get this up?

Consider this:

Almost EVERY country is IN DEBT.

TO WHOM?

Who is this fabulously wealthy body which is loaning all this money/credit to countries.
WHO is it that all the nations of the world owe this money to?

Japan is the most indebted nation in the world - in the trillions of $USD.

The USA is second-most in debt.

There is then a huge procession of indebted countries ... few are in credit.

Why?
To whom is this debt owed?

One would think that world-wide credit/debt would be a zero-sum game, but no, it certainly is not.

Thank you so much for your less than illuminating rant on geo-politics.

When it comes to the issue of climate change what should the average person put more weight on - right wing or so called "libertarian" political rants or the work of thousands of scientists world wide that form the basis for the majority (a big majority!) held scientific view that climate is warming, the consequences are highly likely to be very serious, and human activity is by far the most important cause of that warming?

Gee, that's a really tough question. For my part, I guess I'm just going to be "closed minded" and go with the science. A choice that has served humanity rather well over the years.

I am reminded of a quote from Richard Dawkins:

"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."

 

[JahDave]

My opinion is that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. Are humans contributing to the current warming cycle? I think we are a small amount, but not very much. There are very many mainstream scientists that think humans are not contributing much.......

 

[dcraig1]

My opinion is that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. Are humans contributing to the current warming cycle? I think we are a small amount, but not very much. There are very many mainstream scientists that think humans are not contributing much.......

Then I recommend you go here and follow what is being said:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[dcraig1]

It now seems that CRU has been a little wrong with the temperature record. New independent research suggests the HadCRUT data set somewhat underestimates the warming trend. And 1988 is NOT the hottest year on record. If they're faking it, they are making a right dog's breakfast of it.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

[maiden22]

It now seems that CRU has been a little wrong with the temperature record. New independent research suggests the HadCRUT data set somewhat underestimates the warming trend. And 1988 is NOT the hottest year on record. If they're faking it, they are making a right dog's breakfast of it.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

More "estimates" cobbled together God knows how by a seriously compromised body in a damage-limitation exercise. Read the whole thing, not just the headline - full of equivocation. Not exactly the conviction needed to return mankind to the Dark Ages. This is not "proof" of anything.

This by the way is the body that can send coal and oil prices soaring just by uttering the words "barbecue summer" . The UK Met Office is like virtually everything else connected to the state in this country - third rate, morally, intellectually and financially bankrupt.

The wheels are coming off very quickly and there are a lot of people who are worried about looking dishonest or foolish.

These are the people who have been swooning over the emperor's new duds.

 

[Ingot54]

When it comes to the issue of climate change what should the average person put more weight on - right wing or so called "libertarian" political rants or the work of thousands of scientists world wide that form the basis for the majority (a big majority!) held scientific view that climate is warming, the consequences are highly likely to be very serious, and human activity is by far the most important cause of that warming?

More labelling DCraig? I don't care if it is 10,000 "scientists" if they are forming a hypothesis, and curve-fitting the data. The number of true believers has nothing to do with the truth.

Gee, that's a really tough question. For my part, I guess I'm just going to be "closed minded" and go with the science. A choice that has served humanity rather well over the years.

More sarcasm DCraig? No - what you are doing is blindly following what you are told to believe by web pages, activists, special-interest groups, and the nouveau-sage left. Unless you have proof for yourself, other than that told to you by the "scientists" then you are no more and no less a sheep than anyone else.

So you are no more open-minded about this that anyone else - you just say you are. In reality, you are just a follower of the alarmist chant.

I am reminded of a quote from Richard Dawkins:

"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."

More sarcasm DCraig? You are so obsessed by your own belief in this hypothesis that you can not be convinced otherwise. Idée fixe! At least your detractors ARE thinking for themselves, and what they seem to be finding here is a rather large rat! Attacking people for their "brains" or lack of them, must make you feel mighty superior DCraig. But fortunately "brains" and the "truth" are NOT co-dependent. Quite the opposite. Truth will often make those who think themselves wise, appear foolish. I find your condescending attitude difficult to handle.

How do you account for the growing dissent world-wide now? The questions people ... REAL people ... are beginning to ask? Where would we be now if we didn't have people on the other side of this steamroller, asking the difficult questions and putting up with ridicule for doing so?

What about the growing list of scientists who are beginning to stand up and be counted, at the risk of losing their funding and their positions in research establishments?

If you work for the CSIRO you must first get approval for any scientific paper you want gazetted for peer review. Recently a scientist had a paper approved by CSIRO, then that approval was hastily revoked, when it appeared it went against the Rudd government's official CC position. At the heart of it was continuing government funding for CSIRO.

Where's the science in that? Where is the openness (brains intact) in that? Where is the honesty and clarity and accountability in science, when one dissenting scientist is gagged?

You are unable to argue on a mature and rational level - choosing instead to ridicule and throw in red-herrings whenever counter-argument gets close to home.

I am surprised you are still maintaining your stance.

The point about a global government based on the need for climate management, is totally lost on you.

You really do need to address the issue from an independent position, if you want credibility. You totally ignored what should be a valid point: "Why don't concerned countries introduce VOLUNTARY emission targets, if they are so concerned? Why trade away the sovereignty of nations to form an unnecessary political alliance, that will continue to erode the self-determination of every nation on the planet?"

Manhattan Island was bought by the Dutch from the Indians, for 20 bucks worth of beads.

Today we are being asked to trade away our sovereignty for much less - for a mere idea. An idea that doesn't even have paper value.

What I fight is not the issue of restricting emissions.

I am fighting what I see as the beginning of control over the entire human race - a grave possibility. Those who would blindly hand over our sovereignty to some foreign political group, regardless of the reasons, will have my full resistance.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Well we can always depend on the BBC to help clarify matters:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...ndepedent-lab-results-to-prove-it/#more-14456

 

[SAINT]

"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
President George HW Bush, 1991

Better study up on the vision of the UN founders then. A quote that I can't find again was from the UN that said no nation will ever rise up again to be an industrialised power like the US did (sorry India/China). The climate change scam, where developed nations sacrifice productivity and gdp to assist developing nations is the type of socialist project that will ensure this.

The problem is that money diverted to developing nations will only fall into the hands of fat cats and tyrants as a lot of the bailout cash likely did. The gap between rich and poor is widening and the middle class is being eroded, which will become more evident over the next couple years when the deluded realise that recovery is a myth and the ponzi economy implodes.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller

 

[dcraig1]

More "estimates" cobbled together God knows how by a seriously compromised body in a damage-limitation exercise. Read the whole thing, not just the headline - full of equivocation.

Appears that your God is seriously misinformed. The study was prepared by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts which is independent of CRU and the Met. It is supported by :

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom .

Not much equivocation in the statement:

"We therefore infer with high confidence that the HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming".

The thing that is most compromised is your ability to get your facts straight.

 

[dcraig1]

More labelling DCraig? I don't care if it is 10,000 "scientists" if they are forming a hypothesis, and curve-fitting the data. The number of true believers has nothing to do with the truth.

More sarcasm DCraig? No - what you are doing is blindly following what you are told to believe by web pages, activists, special-interest groups, and the nouveau-sage left. Unless you have proof for yourself, other than that told to you by the "scientists" then you are no more and no less a sheep than anyone else.

So you are no more open-minded about this that anyone else - you just say you are. In reality, you are just a follower of the alarmist chant.


More sarcasm DCraig? You are so obsessed by your own belief in this hypothesis that you can not be convinced otherwise. Idée fixe! At least your detractors ARE thinking for themselves, and what they seem to be finding here is a rather large rat! Attacking people for their "brains" or lack of them, must make you feel mighty superior DCraig. But fortunately "brains" and the "truth" are NOT co-dependent. Quite the opposite. Truth will often make those who think themselves wise, appear foolish. I find your condescending attitude difficult to handle.

How do you account for the growing dissent world-wide now? The questions people ... REAL people ... are beginning to ask? Where would we be now if we didn't have people on the other side of this steamroller, asking the difficult questions and putting up with ridicule for doing so?

What about the growing list of scientists who are beginning to stand up and be counted, at the risk of losing their funding and their positions in research establishments?

If you work for the CSIRO you must first get approval for any scientific paper you want gazetted for peer review. Recently a scientist had a paper approved by CSIRO, then that approval was hastily revoked, when it appeared it went against the Rudd government's official CC position. At the heart of it was continuing government funding for CSIRO.

Where's the science in that? Where is the openness (brains intact) in that? Where is the honesty and clarity and accountability in science, when one dissenting scientist is gagged?

You are unable to argue on a mature and rational level - choosing instead to ridicule and throw in red-herrings whenever counter-argument gets close to home.

I am surprised you are still maintaining your stance.

The point about a global government based on the need for climate management, is totally lost on you.

You really do need to address the issue from an independent position, if you want credibility. You totally ignored what should be a valid point: "Why don't concerned countries introduce VOLUNTARY emission targets, if they are so concerned? Why trade away the sovereignty of nations to form an unnecessary political alliance, that will continue to erode the self-determination of every nation on the planet?"

Manhattan Island was bought by the Dutch from the Indians, for 20 bucks worth of beads.

Today we are being asked to trade away our sovereignty for much less - for a mere idea. An idea that doesn't even have paper value.

What I fight is not the issue of restricting emissions.

I am fighting what I see as the beginning of control over the entire human race - a grave possibility. Those who would blindly hand over our sovereignty to some foreign political group, regardless of the reasons, will have my full resistance.

If you think that SHOUTING IN RED lends any weight to your argument, then you are badly mistaken.

You constantly hurl accusations of being "closed minded" for accepting the validity of the main stream science, which is summarized in the IPCC reports and overwhelmingly backed by climatologists. Unless you have very good reasons to reject that science, which incidentally, you will not or cannot articulate, it is you who is closed minded. Skepticism is an essential part of science but ignorance wrapped as skepticism is just ignorance.

So lets just cut the heroics about saving the human race from some dark political force, and get to the point. Please rebut three widely accepted tenets about climate change:

1. The world is warming at the rate of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade. (No crap about CRU emails please, there are multiple temperature records from multiple independent research groups and they all find that the world is warming at about the same rate).

2. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing due to human activities.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is one of the major factors forcing global heating.

All these propositions are widely accepted by climatologists. Please explain how any or all are wrong and you are right. I am waiting to see the colour of your money.

A personal note. When I first started taking taking global warming seriously, I was far more skeptical than I am now. I even found some of the skeptics to be superficially reasonable. What convinced me, on further examination, more than anything was the extraordinary lack of rigor, in many cases bordering on the downright dishonest nature of nearly all of the stuff. I actually set out to find the flaws in the mainstream science or at the very least compelling arguments against. What I found was jokers like Monckton and Plimer who repeatedly spread untruths and utterly lack integrity. I will not deny that there a (very) few skeptics who do have integrity such as Lindzen of MIT whose scientific work (if not politics) is serious. But most of the arguments peddled by deniers at best rest on research papers long discredited, and more frequently cherry picking of data and in some cases downright lies. Most if it is a complete disgrace.

Anybody with a open mind should go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ which attempts to rebut all the denialist stuff point by point. Not only that, it provides a catalogue of links to all the denialist arguments. You can't get fairer than that.

 

[dcraig1]

"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
President George HW Bush, 1991

Better study up on the vision of the UN founders then. A quote that I can't find again was from the UN that said no nation will ever rise up again to be an industrialised power like the US did (sorry India/China). The climate change scam, where developed nations sacrifice productivity and gdp to assist developing nations is the type of socialist project that will ensure this.

The problem is that money diverted to developing nations will only fall into the hands of fat cats and tyrants as a lot of the bailout cash likely did. The gap between rich and poor is widening and the middle class is being eroded, which will become more evident over the next couple years when the deluded realise that recovery is a myth and the ponzi economy implodes.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller

Yes, very interesting, but what do David Rockefeller's opinions have to do with whether the world is warming or not and whether human activities are the cause of such warming?

 

[SAINT]

Yes, very interesting, but what do David Rockefeller's opinions have to do with whether the world is warming or not and whether human activities are the cause of such warming?

Well, I don't think you actually read it. His opinions have a lot to do with the thread, which was about corporate and political hijacking of the climate issue to satisfy private interests. World leaders are very open about global government and an end to individual sovereignty, so it's important to watch how this proceeds.

The other issue of the thread was that whether or not the planet is warming, a climate exchange gamed by the big banks isn't really addressing matters for the good of mankind.

You just hijacked the thread with your googled climate figures as your ego runs rampant pretending you're some sort of scientist. It's ridiculous.

 

[dcraig1]

Well, I don't think you actually read it. His opinions have a lot to do with the thread, which was about corporate and political hijacking of the climate issue to satisfy private interests. World leaders are very open about global government and an end to individual sovereignty, so it's important to watch how this proceeds.

The other issue of the thread was that whether or not the planet is warming, a climate exchange gamed by the big banks isn't really addressing matters for the good of mankind.

You just hijacked the thread with your googled climate figures as your ego runs rampant pretending you're some sort of scientist. It's ridiculous.

You are evading the issue. You claim climate change is a hoax, despite vast scientific evidence to the contrary. Your sole evidence for a hoax is some imagined conspiracy.

You then turn around and say supposing it is warming, carbon trading is not the best solution. For my part, I am not impressed by carbon trading as a solution. There are better ways of addressing the problem. I would go further and say that it my view, it is highly unlikely to solve the problem.

I fail to see how you can form any opinion of carbon trading whatsoever, as you can't acknowledge the problem that it is claimed to solve.

I didn't day I was a practicing scientist, though I do have a BSc in physics. But I can spot crap when I see it. And personal attacks such as your post just tell me that you fear actually looking at the science objectively.

PS If you don't like it, go and complain to moderators.

 

[Ingot54]

If you think that SHOUTING IN RED lends any weight to your argument, then you are badly mistaken.

Hey digger ... red was for contrast ... SHOUTING is in caps. Get it right.

So lets just cut the heroics about saving the human race from some dark political force ...

You really do need your mother, don't you. So naive, innocent, gullible. And they all lived happily ever after. It may come as a shock to you, DCraig, but there IS actually evil in the world. There ARE actually groups that would love to control world affairs.

Do you think the Club of Copelesshagen was a meeting for the Sunday School picnic planning committee?

Wake up to yourself, DCraig, these people are NOT there to save the world, but to control the world. If this were not so, there would be little need for Copenhagen at all. The real purpose was to give the Political Alliance some credibility, united under a common cause ... to "Save the Planet."

There is absolutely NOTHING to stop the countries who are so pi$$ed off with China and India, from going ahead and simply cutting their own emissions. But that would not be POLITICALLY BINDING globally. The constituents of the pro-AGW camp would never swallow a deal that didn't include what they see as the greater potential CO2 emitters of the future - the emerging Industrial economies of China and India.

And that is what these people pushing the CC alarm button really want ... C-O-N-T-R-O-L.

India and China are too smart to cede control of their sovereignty. They are not easy to scare, so watch this space ... surprise surprise, we will soon see China and India announcing their own measures to cut emissions, just to show how GREEN they really are. They will do this to prevent pressure and public opinion from coming against them over this issue, and put more distance between themselves and their counterparts of Copenhagen.

I am so pleased - joyed actually - to know that these two heavily populated countries are willing to hold on to their sovereignty, in the face of the great steamroller of Global Political Will.

Kevin Rudd wants to get Australia onto the Security Council of the UN, and wants to be Australia's first delegate to that body (when he's finished stuffing Australia with his big spending, directionless ideas of course). He is and always was a career diplomat - never done an honest day's work. I have met piano players with harder hands.

Please rebut three widely accepted tenets about climate change:

1. The world is warming at the rate of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade. (No crap about CRU emails please, there are multiple temperature records from multiple independent research groups and they all find that the world is warming at about the same rate).

Those figures are far from settled, and every day more and more information comes to hand about HOW those measurements were obtained, and FROM WHERE.
I could trot out just as many Google references as you could, and the result ... ?

Try Googling Leonard Weinstein, ScD who is no fool. But don't bother - I could put up a list and it would only prove that there are a great many respected researchers and PhD's taking an opposite slant on AGW.

DISPUTED

2. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing due to human activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man.

Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight.

And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

BUSTED!

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is one of the major factors forcing global heating.

Funny that - I thought CO2 was one of the MINOR GG's. Methane is more potent, I was told, but you don't have the means to tax a fart, do you? At least not in the way CO2 can be measured and taxed ... how convenient!

My references also tell me that simple old H2O is the biggest GG or them all, but hell, how can they tax water? The bloomin' stuff just falls from the sky for free!

BUSTED!

All these propositions are widely accepted by climatologists. Please explain how any or all are wrong and you are right. I am waiting to see the colour of your money.

... and I am waiting (patiently) for you to respond to other questions put to you in earlier posts.

You say "widely accepted by climatologists" but you pooh pooh any climatologist - even well-respected ones - who are not alarmists.

Why is that?
Why are you persistently denying the opinions of respected scientists who just happen to disagree with your fav position. For every climatologist you quote, I can quote one who has an alternate view.

This is the problem with your approach, DCraig. You steadfastly refuse to admit that there are alternative viewpoints which are equally as valid, as far as the "science" goes.

People like myself have simply NOT been convinced of the urgency of the action the alarmists would herd us all into. Kevin Rudd here in Australia was threatening all hell if he didn't get his beloved CC legislation passed by the Senate here, for him to tuck under his arm and march vainly into the great hall of Copenhagen.

And you have been unable to convince me either - your petulant shenanigans, name-calling, avoidance of legitimate questions, failure to show proof other than to quote broad and general opinion, under the guise of "science" and "climatologists" as if these people were part of the 12 Apostles.

I am NOT impressed by sweeping generalisations, or quotes from the University of Google. What I would like you to do, is show me that I am wrong - not quote chapter and verse from someone else's bible. Convince me. Stop assuming that you are right and everyone else is wrong, but build fact-on-fact until you do have a genuine case in favour of CC.

Can you explain why there is a groundswell of scientists now standing aside from the original concept of AGW, GG's and CC?

A personal note. When I first started taking taking global warming seriously, I was far more skeptical than I am now. I even found some of the skeptics to be superficially reasonable. What convinced me, on further examination, more than anything was the extraordinary lack of rigor, in many cases bordering on the downright dishonest nature of nearly all of the stuff.

Funny - that is exactly, to the letter, how I see the CC argument - try the antics of UEA/CRU for starters in the honesty stakes:"the extraordinary lack of rigor, in many cases bordering on the downright dishonest nature of nearly all of the stuff."

I will not deny that there a (very) few skeptics who do have integrity such as Lindzen of MIT whose scientific work (if not politics) is serious.

Now you are getting serious about a true discussion ...

But most of the arguments peddled by deniers at best rest on research papers long discredited, and more frequently cherry picking of data and in some cases downright lies. Most if it is a complete disgrace.

Sorry - you're losing me again ... all these people can not be liars, discredited and cherry pickers. You see, it is generalisations like this that put people far off-side in this discussion.

Anybody with a open mind should go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ which attempts to rebut all the denialist stuff point by point. Not only that, it provides a catalogue of links to all the denialist arguments. You can't get fairer than that.

and I could take you to sites which take apart the alarmist and Stable Climate Deniers arguments, which attempt to rebut all the alarmist stuff point by point. Not only that, I could provide a catalogue of links to all the alarmist arguments. You can't get fairer than that.

Do you see the point, DCraig?

The Internet can provide fodder for almost ANY argument any of us choose to put up.

I could take you to sites and other Internet Forums, where someone by the same name as you, is spreading this same hogwash ... you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

You can't hide from Google. You really need to calm down.

EDIT: Google: Scientists against AGW ... and try to understand that they are not idiots, deniers, or whatever, but REAL scientists, researchers and thinking people.

I really do question the word: Consensus, when clearly there is none.

 

[dcraig1]

Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008.
And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

So you agree that CO2 is increasing - good.

The point is the the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, not just whether human emitted CO2 is x% of the atmosphere currently. Were today's atmospheric concentration of CO2 to remain what it is, it may not be the best of all possible worlds but it would be a good result. But it isn't:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif

If ever there was a trend "going parabolic" (in trader's lingo), this is it.

Furthermore and even more alarming is that CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere - decades, centuries and equilibrium is not re-established possibly for millenia even if you turn off the tap. Other human emitted pollutants are scrubbed far more quickly. The damage from CO2 is not reversible over reasonable time frames:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

Yes, it is another one of those horrible hypertext links that you find so abhorrent. This time to the highly respected journal Nature.

Funny that - I thought CO2 was one of the MINOR GG's. Methane is more potent, I was told, but you don't have the means to tax a fart, do you? At least not in the way CO2 can be measured and taxed ... how convenient!

My references also tell me that simple old H2O is the biggest GG or them all, but hell, how can they tax water? The bloomin' stuff just falls from the sky for free!

Yes, well spotted. HO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. Just as well it is too, otherwise we'd all be frozen solid every night. Nobody disputes this. You are doing well up to this point, but unfortunately subsequently lose all rationality.

Human activity doesn't directly significantly affect the amount of water in the atmosphere. Relative humidity is more or less constant. If temperature goes up, then water in the atmosphere go up - broadly speaking.

On the other hand, the concentration of greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity. Indeed CH4 is a substantially more potent GHG than CO2. If you did not have such a cavalier disregard for the numbers you could easily find out that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane. When that is taken into account, the greenhouse effect from CO2 is roughly three times that of methane. And importantly the half life of methane in the atmosphere is seven years - far far less than that of CO2.

You say "widely accepted by climatologists" but you pooh pooh any climatologist - even well-respected ones - who are not alarmists.

Err ...... no I don't. I specifically said that Lindzen is to be taken seriously. Doesn't mean he right though. Clowns like Plimer and Monckton repeatedly spread untruths, have had their errors of fact repeatedly pointed out to them, and refuse to correct what they have said.

Can you explain why there is a groundswell of scientists now standing aside from the original concept of AGW, GG's and CC?

The groundswell is purely in your head. No national science academy disputes AGW. All surveys of scientific opinion show a large majority agree with the AGW proposition and the support for AGW amongst climatologists is higher still than in science generally. There are differences of opinion about the rate and magnitude of climate change, but IPCC reports are representative.

If the "groundswell" was real, you could point to a national or professional scientific body of international standing that disputes AGW. You cannot. The only "groundswell" is an ocean of disinformation in the blogosphere.

Post "climategate" the situation is still the same. There is far too much evidence compiled completely independently of work done at CRU. You could disregard the HadCRUT temperature record completely - it doesn't make any difference.

Sorry - you're losing me again ... all these people can not be liars, discredited and cherry pickers.

Well spotted.

The Internet can provide fodder for almost ANY argument any of us choose to put up.

Which only reinforces the importance of at the very least credible and preferably authoritative sources. I would be happy to provide you with some.

You did not answer the question about whether increased concentrations of CO2 cause increase of temperature, so I will explain it to you in terms of some simple physics. Keywords: absorption spectrum of CO2, black body radiation.

The earth has an energy budget.

Nearly all energy in the surface of the earth (land, atmosphere and the oceans) comes from the sun. A relatively tiny amount comes from geological sources and an even more tiny amount from human activity.

For a stable climate to exist a balanced energy budget must also exist. While the earth's energy increases due to radiative energy from the sun, this is balanced by energy radiated off into space at longer wavelengths by the earth - think infra red and longer wavelengths.

Were it not for GHGs (principally H20), our temperatures at night would be far far colder as the heated surface of earth sheds heat by radiation back into space.

Now here is the kicker. As bodies are heated they emit black body radiation. The spectrum of that radiation depends on the temperature. At low temperatures relatively more energy is emitted at longer wavelengths than at short. At high temperatures there is more energy at shorter wavelengths. You can easily see this by heating up a piece of iron. Initially it emits no visible light, then becoming dull red, bright red, orange, yellow, white etc, as the temperature is increased.

The surface temperature of the sun is about 6K C and and surface temperature of the earth is on average something like 14C.

To balance the energy budget, the earth sheds energy at much lower wavelengths than the energy received from the sun.

It happens that the absorption spectra of GHGs have very strong absorption bands in the region where the earth sheds energy by radiating it skywards. On the other hand the GHGs are fairly transparent to much of the incoming energy received from the sun allowing it through to heat the surface. Thus there is an energy imbalance causing the atmosphere to be substantially warmer than it would otherwise on average be.

Increase the amount of GHGs and you change the Earth's energy budget.

All this is hardly new - the theory has been known for well in excess of a century. It is confirmed by laboratory experiment. And importantly directly observed by satellite measurement of the long wave absorption lines and ground measurement. It is also confirmed by satellite observation of cooling of the upper layers of the atmosphere as GHGs in the lower layers block the transmission of long wave radiation. The greenhouse effect is very real, predicted by theory, confirmed in the laboratory and demonstrated by observation of the planet.

Of course this is not end of the story, there are various feedbacks both positive and negative that strongly affect the degree of warming. But the net effect is strongly positive.

So, Ingot, there you go - greenhouse warming - and not a hypertext link in sight. Go right ahead and dispute the physics.