Follow the money: Heartland Institute funding the anti-Carbon Tax campaign

Via the Canberra Times, further evidence of Heartland’s nefarious influence on Australian politics:

Documents from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show that a group funded by the Heartland Institute, via a thicket of other foundations and think tanks, provided the vast majority of the cash for an anti-carbon price lobby group in Australia in 2009 and 2010.

The Australian Climate Science Coalition, an offshoot of a conservative lobby group called the Australian Environment Foundation, received virtually all its funding from the International Climate Science Coalition, which has been financially supported by Heartland.

In 2010, the Australian group had an income of $50,920, and $46,343 of that came from the American Climate Science Coalition, an offshoot of the International Climate Science Coalition, the ASIC documents show. The amount of public donations received was nil.

And of course, our friend Bob Carter is involved;

The chief science adviser to the International Climate Science Coalition is Bob Carter, an adjunct professor at Queensland’s James Cook University.

When the Herald asked Professor Carter if people should be concerned about his impartiality given that he is on the Heartland Institute’s payroll, he said: ”No more so than you should be concerned that a CSIRO employee is paid by the government.”

Professor Carter would not discuss the details of the ”monthly payment” of $US1667 ($1547) to him in the Heartland Institute’s budget

One has to question the role of right-wing American think tank have in trying to shape the Australian political debate.

About these ads

172 thoughts on “Follow the money: Heartland Institute funding the anti-Carbon Tax campaign

  1. john byatt says:

    Moths blog

    See, this is exactly why I’ve given up the stupid merry-go-round with you – neither of us get anything but a little older.
    1. I corrected this; grow up! I explained that you suddenly appeared after I first mentioned you for the first time. As Adam’s a fan of yours, I naturally suspected him to have recruited you. You said he didn’t, so I left is an open suggestion for your sudden appearance..
    2. “You lied that I considered a social science paper the same as a natural science paper” – man you have problems! I didn’t, you did yourself >>>> YOUR TITLE = “850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm” which includes “Free speech about climate change (Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May 2007)- Christopher Monckton” Either YOU “considered a social science paper the same as a natural science paper” or you admit not all your papers are relevant scientific literature!!!!
    3. NO! You warp scientific understanding… haven’t I made that clear on the list post?!?!?!?
    4. NO – you told me that those scientist that criticise this AGW “scepticism” and effectively those most common in scientific communication on AGW represent such a group.
    5. NO! I said that you expect me to learn something from grey literature that I’m missing from the scientific process – YOU’RE the one mixing things up and warping what others are saying.
    etc = BS
    I corrected 1, as it was a presumption that I didn’t make clear, otherwise you’ve warped my words for the rest and yet again, wasted my time….

    POSTED BY MOTHINCARNATE | 26/02/2011, 4:17 PM

    I have come across this Adam calling on Andrew to appear at a site,

    Adam Rich, bus driver and young earth creationist , has a twitter, funny as *uck

    • john byatt says:

      Here is the PT and Adam link,, Pete ridely a well known mate of PT and

      Adam

      http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com.au/

    • Poptech says:

      Are you some computer illiterate who just discovered Google? This is going to be a long, long, long time if you are going to dig up every refuted bullshit statement by some idiot online. My rebuttal follows the idiot,

      1. No you have not corrected this, it still explicitly says, “When I pointed out as much and the pointlessness of Poptech’s list, he seemed to have recruited Poptech’s own Andrew for support“. I’ve already explained to you multiple times that I was never recruited. If someone asks me to comment on something I will admit they did. I am the last person that cares if someone asks me to come comment on something or if anyone knows about it. It is not an open suggestion, it is a false claim. The irrefutable fact is he never did and you have not corrected this.

      2. The title is …”AGW Alarm” defined on the list as, “relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” That paper appears in the socio-economic section. I have never made a claim anywhere that the list only includes natural science papers rather that they are all peer-reviewed. What is considered “relevant” is subjective. Socio-economic papers are an important part of the debate otherwise there would not be a WGII and WGIII section of the IPCC report. Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report “relevant scientific literature”?

      3. I am well aware of many of your papers on your list. The only thing you have made clear is your intent to misrepresent my position by lying about it. As I stated before I do not consider the scientific evidence you have presented as convincing to support AGW Alarm. That is not ignoring it, that is finding it not convincing. Now you are accusing me of a new lie, that I “warp scientific understanding”.

      4. Quote me because I stated no such thing. Are you even capable of following conversations you have on your own blog? You stated, “Apparently (as Poptech/Andrew informed me) it does and the scientists who express confidence in the AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.” Your statement clearly implies that I believe any scientist who believes AGW theory represent a small group of sheltered alarmists. I never stated anything like this at all, my comments were in direct response to your use of websites like RealClimate.org and the late Dr. Schneider’s personal website.

      5. I made no claim that any book was equivalent to any scientific process. I suggested you read two books which BTW reference the scientific literature because they present some of the skeptic’s arguments in a very readable narrative.

      I haven’t warped anything, I’ve quoted you EXACTLY, you have failed to quote me in context for any of your lies. Keep it up as I will keep a record of your dishonesty and show it everytime your site is brought up in reference to mine.

      Posted by Poptech | 26/02/2011, 5:04 pm

      http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3990

  2. john byatt says:

    Some Moron has been all over the blogs in recent days defending heartland.

    Wonder what the connection is?

  3. john byatt says:

    It is due to the ME Me Me delusion that he has that he forgets what site he is on, who he is talking to and who is talking to him,

    Agree, ignore is the way to treat the dullard

    • Poptech says:

      WTF are you talking about? I have not forgotten anything. Is this the type of lies you have to resort to because of your limited mental capabilities?

  4. Mike says:

    Blair,

    Here is an interesting link. The most interesting parts are the links to the papers that deal with unstable high self esteem. It reminds me of someone we both know and love.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x/full

  5. john byatt says:

    i see that Brown has been here putting up a list of carter’s comments, letters to Editor, opinion pieces and his debunked science junk.

    had a look at Brown’s blog

    has a graph with a line drawn from the top of 1998 to the bottom of 2011 then presents that as evidence that the world is headed into an ice age.

    Brown lists himself as working in the science industry, God help us, well you actually i am an atheist

    • “Working in the science industry”?

      What an unusual way to describe himself. I think our Mr Brown most likely only encounters science when he swallows his medication.

    • john byatt says:

      Last year on the site I posted this, man of many talents it seems

      The bloke that runs TCS Geoff {above} has “science industry” down on his profile,

      running for the senate he had bean counter ,taxi driver and dog breeder

      2012
      He seems to have removed science industry so we will never know his involvement apart from the medication

  6. john byatt says:

    RC 2009

    yggdrasil says:
    15 Dec 2009 at 12:04 PM
    Gavin, you should really pay attention to Popular Mechanics. They have just published a list of 500 peer reviewed articles that dispute the main arguments of anthropogenic global warming:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    DO you think you could provide a similar list for your side? With both of these lists it would be really easy to immediately see where the real controversies in science are. Let the debate begin!

    [Response: Ummm.. since I’m an advisor to Popular Mechanics, I think they’d have told me. You might want to look into it a little more…. – gavin]

  7. john byatt says:

    You are right about the references, this is typical

    900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Skeptical of AGW Alarm – Topix
    http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global…/T0PIMNGR53TFMJ6E1
    20 posts – 1 author – 14 Apr 2011
    “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings … list is that it contains papers that are complete stinking crap.

    not even the sceptics use them unless they want to get thrashed

    • Poptech says:

      It is typical people state bullshit and you post broken links, this is true.

      It is correct that I do not have to agree with every paper on the list because it is a resource not my personal theory. This strawman argument has been refuted ad nauseam.

      The belief that certain papers are “crap” is the response received from emotional non-scientific minds.

      Different Skeptics have used every paper on the list.

  8. john byatt says:

    I have news for you, no one cares about your list ,

    Try to stay coherent

    “when he cannot debate the facts states chooses”

    • Poptech says:

      Only in your delusional mind do the hundreds of thousands of hits the list receives do not exist and the server logs are lying.

      Typos happen all the time on garbage WordPress since it does not have a comment preview feature that competitors like Blogger does and forum software has had for over 20 years.

  9. Poptech says:

    John Bryatt, is a little child who when he cannot debate the facts states chooses to make libelous lies about others.

    There is nothing he can do about the list, it has been referenced hundreds of thousands of times and will continue to be.

  10. john byatt says:

    Poptech (06:42:01) :
    The authors defended their own paper not I. I simply stated that the rebuttal to the criticism was included on the list. The linked rebuttal includes the authors’ response beyond simply a discussion of censorship.

    What is delusional is to use strawman arguments about claims I did not make.

    So was the rebuttal peer reviewed and published ?

    That is all I ask, how hard is that ?

    • john byatt says:

      No according to your link they were complaining that they were not allowed right of reply,

      they were, their paper failed peer review,

      you are a fraud Andrew, claiming rebuttal from a nonsense non peer reviewed link

      If those are the type of standards that you have then the actual peer reviewed papers you list are not worth a pinch of Sh*t if you simply claim they are relevant still after being rebutted by peer review.

      Deluded, fraud, careless and a victim complex would describe you perfectly

      • Poptech says:

        I never claimed the rebuttal was published in the AGU journal, I claimed it existed.

        The rebuttal exists despite your denial or it.

        My standards are explicitly stated:

        Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

        This has nothing to do with supporting documents that are not counted.

        Idiot, emotional and pathetic would describe you perfectly.

        Just remember there is nothing you can do about my list.

      • Poptech says:

        I am sorry to come here and correct all your bullshit and embarrass you but that is what I do, you will have to live with it and cry yourself to sleep.

      • john byatt says:

        Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)

        That is it is it? dunce

      • Poptech says:

        You learned how to read? Wonders never cease.

  11. Poptech says:

    This is corrected above.

  12. john byatt says:

    you are having a bit of a problem working out where you are

    Poptech (05:41:14) :
    In reference to john byatt (07:07:40)

    mine rebuttal was submitted at 02/25/2012 and says

    “Poptech (01:16:27) : Your comment is awaiting moderation“

    26
    02
    2012
    john byatt (06:38:08) :
    you have a reply there

    26
    02
    2012
    Poptech (06:43:44) :
    Yes I have some of my replies there, others were censored (deleted) and the comments were closed before I could reply to the latest nonsensical comments.

  13. john byatt says:

    Implies? rubbish I stated that you were delusional,

    • Poptech says:

      You are incapable of determining if someone is delusional because you are incapable of fact checking and carelessly make incorrect comments.

  14. john byatt says:

    “Two of my comments continue to be held up here, do you think I am lying? Really? Are you that desperate?”

    Am i that desperate to think that you are lying ?

    I believe that you may mean ” Do you think that I am that desperate that I am lying

    comments with more than one link are held up for mod, you seem to have some sort of complex and deluded to boot

    • Poptech says:

      Do you have amnesia?

      “…always my comments were deleted, held up or some other such deluded offering”

      Your comment implies I am “delusional” for making factual claims.

    • Poptech says:

      Various comments of mine were deleted refuting various comments and the comments were closed before I could respond to the last nonsense.

      • john byatt says:

        HAHA love it, always my comments were deleted, held up or some other such deluded offering ,

        you are good fun Andrew i will give you that

      • Poptech says:

        Yes some of my comments were deleted at the Guardian. Did you not read the link you posted,

        “Poptech
        27 June 2010 11:37PM
        This comment was removed by a moderator…”

        Look at the bottom of the Guardian link, “Comments on this page are now closed.”

        Two of my comments continue to be held up here, do you think I am lying? Really? Are you that desperate?

      • Poptech says:

        In reference to john byatt (07:07:40)

        mine rebuttal was submitted at 02/25/2012 and says

        “Poptech (01:16:27) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

      • john byatt says:

        you have a reply there

      • Poptech says:

        Yes I have some of my replies there, others were censored (deleted) and the comments were closed before I could reply to the latest nonsensical comments.

      • Poptech says:

        No, I have a reply to Geoff Brown (23:15:53).

      • john byatt says:

        I am not geoff brown, now you do not know what site you are on or who you are answering,

        try to get it together Andrew

      • Poptech says:

        You just stated I have a reply “there” in response to john byatt (07:07:40). My reply to john byatt (07:07:40) is still in moderation. I have a comment following john byatt (07:07:40) but not published (yet) in response to john byatt (07:07:40).

        Idiot, do you see the comment – Geoff Brown (23:15:53) that is what Poptech (00:04:06) is replying to.

  15. Mike says:

    “Mike are you computer illiterate and forgot to put your search phrase in quotes and make sure they are cumulative by using a boolean operator? Otherwise you include results that have ANY of those words in them. I did an advanced boolean search of ScienceDirect using the phrases “anthropogenic global warming” and “range extensions” and got exactly 2 results.”

    “Many of the papers have already been discussed online. Discussing them with someone who does not even know how to search ScienceDirect properly is a waste of time.”

    That’s twice you’ve referred to searching Sciencedirect. What are you talking about?

    • Poptech says:

      Do you have amnesia?

      mike (22:48:39) :

      “Oh and I just did a search on Sciencedirect for papers that link human induced climate change to range extensions in various species. I’ll see your dodgy 900 and raise you 40903. That is 40993 peer reviewed papers dealing with only one very specific aspect of climate change.”

      Mike are you computer illiterate and forgot to put your search phrase in quotes and make sure they are cumulative by using a boolean operator? Otherwise you include results that have ANY of those words in them. I did an advanced boolean search of ScienceDirect using the phrases “anthropogenic global warming” and “range extensions” and got exactly 2 results.

      • Mike says:

        I was thinking that about the only journal missing in your list of journals mostly unrelated to climate science is the Yemeni Journal of Sexual Equality. Maybe when you update the list….

      • Poptech says:

        I understand your embarrassment after receiving an education on how to properly search ScienceDirect but there is no need to further demonstrate your ignorance on these issues.

        No such journal exists.

        • Mike says:

          No shit sherlock. My point is that if such a ridiculously unclimatic journal did exist it would likely turn up in your list. There are journals and then there are journals. Then there is peer review and there is peer review. Maybe you should include this one…

          Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings

          It is peer reviewed and is known for publishing, “peer reviewed” papers refuting evolution. There’s bound to be a paper or two in there “disproving” AGW and citing that other peer reviewed work…The Bible.

      • Poptech says:

        Ah yes Mike, your hyperventilating obsession with religious issues such as creationism is amusing but getting old. I have already stated I am agnostic.

        I could find no such papers in that journal.

        All the journals on the list are peer-reviewed.

        • Mike says:

          What makes you think it’s about you? NPD? I am merely pointing out that stating ad nauseum that the papers on your list are peer-reviewed is meaningless if they come from crappy journals and I am using the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings as an example that is analagous (get a dictionary if you need to) to many of the journals on your list. The Bible and other religious texts are also peer reviewed and we all know how accurate they are. In case you were wondering, that reference to the bible was an example and has nothing to do whatsoever with your religious bent or otherwise is. It is very sad that I have to explain this to you. I feel like I’m talking to a child.

          As for your statement that your list has been cited “hundreds of thousands of times”, well, the bible, that other fictional work, has been cited millions of times. Once again I shall explain that what I am saying here, because it seems to be lost on you, is that quantity is never a substitute for quality.

          Finally, this is my last post in this topic because it has gotten way off topic and you are sounding like a whiny child.

          My comments…. my posts….my list…..me me me

          There is only one thing to do to an attention seeker and that is to ignore them which is what I will be doing now and I urge my fellow realists to do the same.

      • Poptech says:

        What is meaningless is your delusional belief that you can claim a certain peer-reviewed scholarly journal is “crappy” or not. You hold no such power.

        The Bible and other religious texts were not scholarly peer-reviewed as academic papers are before being accepted for publication. Atheist’s and others like yourself who inject creationism into their discussions do so because of their anti-religious obsession. Interesting that you never include delusional religious beliefs like Buddhism and Islam in your rants.

        Your denial of the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments is noted.

    • john byatt says:

      It seems that the only comment that Andrew has put up on real climate is possibly the anonymous claim that the list was at popular mechanics, i was there when it came up,

      Gavin’s reply was pure gold ,

      So what say you Andrew, go to real climate if you can hack the pace,

      lets guess his reply, shall we

      • Poptech says:

        What are you talking about? RealClimate censored all of my comments and they never appeared. I never made any comment there about “Popular Mechanics”. Do you even know how to fact check anything?

      • john byatt says:

        Life is tough for you andrew, what with everyone thinking that you are deluded and all,

        No RC would love to put your comments up, where they belong in the bore hole

      • Poptech says:

        Only the delusional “think” I am delusional such as yourself.

        The irrefutable fact remains RC has censored (deleted) my comments there.

      • john byatt says:

        “Only the deluded think that i am deluded”

        gee you have some real classy comebacks, I am getting bored with you.

        Oh by the way , you are deluded

      • Poptech says:

        What am I deluded about?

  16. john byatt says:

    “And then many of us have run into the ever ravenous PopTech (Andrew) …. 2009, L&C09 etc etc….he can also remove papers which contradict each other. …. And are you going to remove refuted papers such as McLean et al.”? SKS

    of course he won’t as he is a deluded ninny that is unable to even sort pepper from flyshit

    • Poptech says:

      No peer-reviewed paper will be removed from the list, let alone because some unqualified commentator at the cartoonist’s website (skeptical science) makes a comment to do so.

      John, all of your nonsense about the list has been refuted in detail here.

      • john byatt says:

        So no paper will be removed even when it is rebutted,

        which means that your list could not be relied upon , as you acknowledge

      • Poptech says:

        The existence of a comment on a paper does not mean it is refutted. The authors have rebutted those criticisms.

        http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/agu_censorship.pdf

        Papers will only be removed if they have been shown to not have been peer-reviewed (added in error) or have been retracted by the journal.

        I have never acknowledged that my list could not be relied on, that is a lie.

      • john byatt says:

        claiming Agu censorship is your rebuttal ?

        you are deluded

      • Poptech says:

        The authors defended their own paper not I. I simply stated that the rebuttal to the criticism was included on the list. The linked rebuttal includes the authors’ response beyond simply a discussion of censorship.

        What is delusional is to use strawman arguments about claims I did not make.

  17. john byatt says:

    Do you list this paper Andrew?, McLean,
    if so you are a disinformer

    Is ENSO “responsible for recent global warming?” No. | Deep Climate
    deepclimate.org/…/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no…30 Jul 2009 – Authors John McLean, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter all have a long history of links to climate disinformation groups and associated PR …

    • Poptech says:

      All peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments are included on the list. Including the peer-reviewed paper by McLean et al., the published correction and two rebuttals.

      I do not get my climate change information from websites run by musicians,

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/who-is-deep-climate.html

      • john byatt says:

        Then your list is nonsense if you maintain such papers,

      • Poptech says:

        McLean et al. 2009 is a very real, very peer-reviewed paper. The criticisms of which has been rebutted by the authors.

      • john byatt says:

        you link does not supply the published correction nor the two rebuttals,

      • Poptech says:

        They appear following the original paper,

        – Correction to “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”
        (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)
        – John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

        – Response to “Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'” by Foster et al. (PDF)
        (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)
        – John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

        – Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
        (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
        – David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

  18. john byatt says:

    Andrew believes that he is a scholar, not so everyone else

    Climate Change Deniers are “Not Even Wrong” « Greenfyre’s
    greenfyre.wordpress.com/…/climate-change-deniers-are-not-even-wr…19 Dec 2010 – For a specific “typical” example I will use PopTech’s (aka PopTart) 1000 ….. comments will be moved to the Dunce’s Corner where they belong.

  19. john byatt says:

    Mike 11:55:43

    just asks brown to put up one of your claimed 900 sceptic papers to discuss,

    of course he won’t because the list is nonsense as has been shown on just about every blog that discusses them.

    “we got 900 papers”

    “put one up”

    “we got 900 papers”

    that seems to be about the extent of it

    • Poptech says:

      Many of the papers have already been discussed online. Discussing them with someone who does not even know how to search ScienceDirect properly is a waste of time.

      The list is very real and all criticisms of it have been refuted.

      • john byatt says:

        More ducking and weaving to avoid Mike’s request.

        the list is real but the claims made about it are your own delusions

      • john byatt says:

        Well andrew is a legend in his own lunchtime

        (Poptech – “You seem confused in that you believe you or anyone else here has any remote ability to teach me anything…”

        This is, perhaps, the saddest statement I have ever read on this website.)

        at SKS

      • Poptech says:

        I have supported ever claim I have made and refuted every criticism that has been made in relation to the list.

        It is correct that there is no one at the Skeptical Science website that can teach me anything. They are incapable of even debating me which is why they censored (deleted) everyone of my hundreds of comments there.

      • john byatt says:

        you are deluded

      • Poptech says:

        Are you denying my hundreds of comments were deleted from Skeptical Science?

  20. Poptech says:

    Multiple comments of mine have still not shown up in response to multiple incorrect statements by john byatt (07:07:40) and Mike (11:55:43).

    … for instance it was Dr. Chou not Dr. Choi and Dr. Carter published an erratum to address his misquote ect…

    • john byatt says:

      You are correct there, mistake in name but PNAS rejected Chou as he was a co Author with Lindzen on papers,

      lindzen replied twice that Chou had not co-authored with him for five or seven years depending on what letter you read
      still rejected by PNAS

      • Poptech says:

        I suspect the reason my responses are held up is due to the number of links in those replies which is causing them to be flagged. Until then,

        john byatt (07:07:40)

        It is standard PNAS policy for an author to submitted their choice of 5 reviewers,

        PNAS Submission Guidelines:

        “Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper’s scientific area, and five qualified reviewers.”

        The Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 1976-7633). Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences as a peer-reviewed science journal.

      • john byatt says:

        PNAS rejected lindzen choices for their reasons given

        get used to it,

      • john byatt says:

        get over it and yourself

        The Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (APJAS) is an international journal of the Korean Meteorological Society (

      • Poptech says:

        Is the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences cited by the Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index as a peer-reviewed science journal?

  21. john byatt says:

    Wow andrew is good at cut and paste, regarding Dr Michaels claim regarding IPCC models. RC have a new post on the WSJ distortions.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/comment-page-1/#comment-228806

    ,

    • Poptech says:

      I am very good at refuting repetitive nonsense, which is why I have the material readily available.

      Note: Some of my replies here are still held up in the moderating que.

  22. john byatt says:

    Brown “GCM’s do not produce real life data”,,

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

    looking at 1998 and 2008 it appears to me that climate sensitivity is underestimated,

    I would not have thought that 1998 would have almost been beyond the 95% confidence level

    I would have thought that 2008 would have been much nearer the bottom end of the 95% confidence level considering La nina and TSI,

    I made my thoughts on this known at Real climate,

    why not post your thoughts at real climate brown?

    because you are a coward that is why

  23. john byatt says:

    The strategic document that heartland claim is fake

    Heartland are claiming that it is fake

    because

    1 it is a fake

    or

    2 it would be in violation of heartland’s tax benefit status

    So whether fake or not Heartland had to claim that it was

    Hence the Forbes article “It would be moronic to pursue charges against peter”

    Do not think that peter realised what he had

  24. Geoff Brown says:

    Mike says: “but I was just wondering if thats the same Bob Carter who is on the payroll of the Exxon funded Heartland Institute? ”

    Exxon funded? WtF?

    Did you see the false leaked Heartland documents, Mike?

    DO you support James E Hansen?

    It seems esteemed NASA astronomer turned climatologist turned paid activist Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not been reporting some income that he is required by law to do. How long will NASA continue to look the other way?

    Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

    Oh, I know what you will say. You don’t agree with Anthony Watts. Mike, you don’t agree with anybody who is anti the AGW hoax.

    Why not have a look at the evidence.

    Why not see that there is no correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the rise in global temperatures.

    Why not consider the GCMs do not produce real life data.

    Why not admit that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified.

    Why not look at the major recorders of “global temperature” and see that they all show that there has been no rise in this century.

    • Mike says:

      Mate, I caught you out before and you are too spineless to admit it. You are embarrassing yourself. if you don’t even realise that then you are even less intelligent than I already suspect you are. Come back and debate me when your IQ gets to at least 3 figures. Somewhere in the 130’s would be better but then there wouldn’t be a need to debate.

      My offer is still out there though. Bring forth your best paper out of the 900 and allow me to quiz you on some aspects of it so you can prove to me that you are at least somewhere close to being at a level of intelligence that you will understand some of the very basic parts of climate science because at the moment that is highly doubtful. Remember, you raised the spectre of the 900 in the first place. If you keep dodging, I and anyone reading these comments will recognise you for the wifully ignorant blowhard I know you are.

      Anthony Watts ppfffttttt too funny.

  25. Geoff Brown says:

    Incidentally, WtF deniers, you should reign in the over-the-top allegations of the out-of control batty Byatt.

    Just a subtle hint.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Calling me “WtF” isn’t gonna help your suggestion.

      I have a fairly open and liberal comments policy – deliberately so – that supports what is sometimes a robust debate.

      But, I would remind all posters (sceptic, warmist, luke-warmist alike ) to remain within the realms of civility. I’m watching all comments carefully.

    • john byatt says:

      Why do you do it to yourself brown
      Heartland
      Nonprofit status
      The Institute is a 501(c)(3), EIN #363309812, ruling date 12/1984.[5]
      A public charity, *barely*
      Heartland barely misses being classed more restrictively as a private foundation – according to its 2009 Form 990, “public support” made up just 33% of contributions for 2009 and 36% for 2008. (The bulk of support would have come from large donors.) (If public support falls below 33 1/3% for 2 years, it becomes a private foundation.)
      A no-show in Illinois nonprofits database
      The Institute did not appear in a mid-2011 search of the Illinois Attorney General’s Charitable Database, for as yet unknown reasons.

      the tax man will be forced to look at Heartland after this brilliant expose from peter,

  26. Geoff Brown says:

    WtF deniers says “our friend Bob Carter is involved…”

    Isn’t it great that we have a friend like Professor Bob Carter, who has falsified the AGW hypothesis working for the truth.

    • Mike says:

      I wan’t going to reply to you because you’ve shown yourself to substanceless but I was just wondering if thats the same Bob Carter who is on the payroll of the Exxon funded Heartland Institute? The same Bob Carter who’s climate credentials are so spectacular he can only get an essay published in the non peer-reviewed Economic Analysis and Policy in which he dreadfully misquoted Dr Houghton, and when given the opportunity to use a multitude of models, the majority of which show warming, cherrypicked the only one that suited his argument and misrepresented it as well? Is he your champion? Really? What I find really amazing and it is becoming more evident by the post is that you are actually too intellectually bereft to know what you don’t know. Initially I was frustrated by your wilful ignorance but now I just feel sorry for you. Often people with NCP are quite intelligent but you…welll that just makes it sad. You have no chance of falsifying my hypothesis.

      • Poptech says:

        I have replied twice to this comment and neither shows up even as being held in moderation.

      • Geoff Brown says:

        Non “Peer reviewed” publications that published papers by Bob Carter?

        BRIGGS, W.M., SOON, W., LEGATES, D. & CARTER, R.M. 2011. A vaccine against arrogance. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, pp. 2205-2206.

        LAND, M, WUST, R.A.J. & CARTER, R.M. 2010. Plio-Pleistocene paleoclimate in the Southwest Pacific as reflected in clay mineralogy and particle size at ODP Site 1119, SE New Zealand. Marine Geology 274(1-4), 165-176.

        CARTER, R.M., LARCOMBE, P., DYE, J.E., GAGAN, M.K. & JOHNSON, D.P. 2009 Long-shelf sediment transport and storm-bed formation by Cyclone Winifred, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Geology, doi:10:1016/jmargeo.2009.08.009.

        McLEAN, J., DE FREITAS, C. & CARTER, R.M. 2009 Influence of Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

        CARTER, R.M. 2008 Knock, knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming? Economic Analysis & Policy (Journal of the Economic Society of Australia – Queensland), 32(2), 107-202.

        CARTER, R.M. 2007 Stratigraphy into the 21st Century. Stratigraphy 4, 187-193.

        CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Climate science and the Stern Review. World Economics 8, 161-182.

        HOLLAND, D., CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Response to Simmonds and Steffen. World Economics 8, 143-151.

        CARTER, R.M. 2007 The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings p. 61-74.

        CARTER, R.M. 2007 The role of intermediate-depth currents in continental shelf-slope accretion: Canterbury Drifts, Southwest Pacific Ocean. In: VIANA, A. R. & REBESCO, M. (eds) Economic and Palaeoceanographic Significance of Contourite Deposits. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 276, 129–154.

        CARTER, R.M., de FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2006 The Stern Review: A Dual Critique. Part I: The Science. World Economics 7, 165-198.

        CARTER, R.M. 2006 Great news for the Great Barrier Reef: Tully River water quality. Energy & Environment 17(4), 527-548.

        JAMES, N.P., BONE, Y., CARTER, R.M. & MURRAY-WALLACE, C.V. 2006 Origin of the Late Neogene Roe Plains and their calcarenite veneer: implications for sedimentology & tectonics in the Great Australian Bight. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 53, 407-419.

        HOLLAND, M.E., SCHULTHEISS, P.J., CARTER, R.M., ROBERTS, J.A. & FRANCIS, T.J.G. 2005 IODP’s untapped wealth:multi-parameter logging of legacy core. Scientific Drilling 1, 50-51.

        CARTER, R.M. 2005 The status of local “stages” in the New Zealand Plio-Pleistocene. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 48, 623-639.

        CARTER, R.M. 2005 A New Zealand climatic template back to c. 3.9 Ma: ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, south-west Pacific Ocean, and its relationship to onland successions. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35: 9-42.

        ABBOTT, S.T., NAISH, T.R., CARTER, R.M. & PILLANS, B.J. 2005 Sequence Stratigraphy of the Nukumaruan stratotype (Pliocene-Pleistocene, c. 2.08-1.63 Ma), Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35, 123-150.

        NAISH, T.R., FIELD, B.D., ZHU, H., MELHUISH, A., CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T., EDWARDS, S., ALLOWAY, B.V., WILSON, G.S., NIESSEN, F., BARKER, A., BROWNE, G.H. & MASLEN, G. 2005 Integrated outcrop, drill core, borehole and seismic stratigraphic architecture of a cyclothemic, shallow-marine depositional system, Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35, 91-122.

        CARTER, R.M. & NORRIS, R.J. 2005 The Geology of the Blackmount district, Te Anau & Waiau Basins, western Southland. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Science Report 2004/23, 97 pp., Figs. 1-156, 1:50 000 map, CD-ROM.

        Carter, R.M., Fulthorpe, C.S.; Lu, H. 2004 Canterbury Drifts at Ocean Drilling Program Site 1119, New Zealand: climatic modulation of southwest Pacific intermediate water flows since 3.9 Ma. Geology 32, 1005-1008.

        CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662 (supporting online material).

        CARTER, R.M., GAMMON, P.R.; MILLWOOD, L. 2004 Glacial-interglacial (MIS 1-10) migrations of the Subtropical Front (STC) across ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, Southwest Pacific Ocean. Marine Geology 205, 29-58.

        CARTER, L., CARTER, R.M.; McCAVE, I. 2004 Evolution of the sedimentary system beneath the deep Pacific inflow off eastern New Zealand. Marine Geology 205, 9-27.

        GRAHAM, I.J.; CARTER, R.M.; DITCHBURN, R.G.; ZONDERVAN, A. 2004 Chronostratigraphy of ODP 181, Site 1121 (foot of Campbell Plateau, Southwest Pacific Ocean) using 10Be/9Be dating of sediment and entrapped ferromanganese nodules. Marine Geology 205, 227-247.

        Richter, C.; McCave, I.N.; Carter, R.M.; Carter L.; et al. 2004 Southwest Pacific Gateways, Sites 1119-1125. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Reports 181 plus CD-ROM.

        CARTER, R.M., McCAVE, I.N.; CARTER, L. 2004 Fronts, flows, drifts, volcanoes, and the evolution of the southwestern gateway to the Pacific Ocean. In: Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Reports In: Richter, C., Carter, R.M., McCave, I.N., Carter, L. et al. 2004 Southwest Pacific Gateways, Sites 1119-1125. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Reports 181.

        LARCOMBE, P.; CARTER, R.M. 2004 Cyclone pumping, sediment partitioning and the development of the Great Barrier Reef shelf system: a review. Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 107-135.

        CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T., GRAHAM, I.J.; NAISH, T.R. 2002 The middle Pleistocene Merced-2 and -3 Sequences from Ocean Beach, San Francisco. Sedimentary Geology 153, 23-51.

        DUNBAR, G.B., DICKENS, G.R.; CARTER, R.M. 2000 Sediment flux across the Great Barrier Reef shelf to the Queensland Trough over the last 300 ky. Sedimentary Geology 133, 49-92.

        WARD, I.A.K., LARCOMBE, P., BRINKMAN, R.; CARTER, R.M. 1999 Sedimentary processes and the Pandora wreck, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Field Archaeology 26, 41-53.

        CARTER, R.M., McCAVE, I.N., RICHTER, C., CARTER, L. et al. 1999 Southwest Pacific Gateways, Sites 1119-1125. Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports 181, pp.1-112 + CD-ROM.

        SAUL, G., NAISH, T.R., ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1999 Sedimentary Cyclicity in the marine Plio-Pleistocene of Wanganui Basin (N.Z.): sequence stratigraphic motifs characteristic of the last 2.5 Ma. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 111, 524-537.

        CARTER, R.M.; NAISH, T.R. (eds.) 1999 The high-resolution chronostratigraphic and sequence stratigraphic record of the Plio-Pleistocene Wanganui Basin. New Zealand Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Folio 2.

        ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1999 Stratigraphy of the Castlecliffian type section: ten mid-Pleistocene sequences from the Wanganui coast, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 42, 91-111.

        CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T.; NAISH, T.R. 1999 Plio-Pleistocene cyclothems from Wanganui Basin, New Zealand: type locality for an astrochronologic time-scale, or template for recognizing ancient glacio-eustasy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A357, 1861-1872.

        CARTER, R.M. 1998 Two models: global sea-level change and sequence stratigraphic architecture. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.) 1998 Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 23-36.

        CARTER, R.M., FULTHORPE, C.S.; NAISH, T.R. 1998 Sequence concepts at seismic and outcrop scale: the distinction between physical and conceptual stratigaphic surfaces. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 165-179.

        CARTER, R.M.; NAISH, T.R. 1998 A review of Wanganui Basin, New Zealand: global reference section for shallow marine, Plio-Pleistocene (2.5-0 Ma) cyclostratigraphy. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.) 1998 Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 37-52.

        ORPIN, A.R., GAMMON, P.R., NAISH, T.R.; CARTER, R.M. 1998 Modern and ancient Zygochlamys delicatula shellbeds in New Zealand, and their sequence stratigraphic implications. In: Carter, R.M., Naish, T.R., Ito, M. & Pillans, B.J. (eds.), Sequence Stratigraphy in the Plio-Pleistocene: an Evaluation. Sedimentary Geology (Special Issue) 122, 267-284.

        CARTER, R.M.; NAISH, T.R. 1998 Have local Ages/Stages outlived their usefulness for the New Zealand Plio-Pleistocene? New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 41, 271-279.

        LARCOMBE, P.; CARTER, R.M. 1998 Sequence architecture during the Holocene transgression: an example from the Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia. Sedimentary Geology 117, 97-121.

        NAISH, T., ABBOTT, S.T., ALLOWAY, B.V., BEU, A.G., CARTER, R.M., EDWARDS, A.R., JOURNEAUX, T.J. KAMP, P.J.J., PILLANS, B. J., SAUL, G.S.; WOOLFE, K.J. 1998 Astronomical calibration of a southern hemisphere Plio-Pleistocene reference section, Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Quaternary Science Reviews 17, 695-710.

        ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1997 Macrofossil associations from mid-Pleistocene cyclothems, Castlecliff section, New Zealand: implications for sequence stratigraphy. Palaios 12, 182-210.

        CARTER, L., CARTER, R.M., McCAVE, I.N.; GAMBLE, J. 1996 Regional sediment recycling in the abyssal Southwest Pacific Ocean. Geology 24, 735-738.

        CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1996 The abyssal Bounty Fan and lower Bounty Channel: evolution of a rifted-margin sedimentary system. Marine Geology 130, 182-202.

        CARTER, R.M., CARTER, L.; McCAVE I.N. 1996 Current controlled sediment deposition from the shelf to the deep ocean: the Cenozoic evolution of circulation through the SW Pacific gateway. Geologisches Rundschau 85, 438-451.

        FULTHORPE, C.S.; CARTER, R.M.; MILLER, K.G.; WILSON, J. 1996 Marshall Paraconformity: a mid-Oligocene record of inception of the Antarctic circumpolar current and coeval glacio-eustatic lowstand. Marine & Petroleum Geology 13, 61-77.

        LARCOMBE, P., CARTER, R.M., DYE, J., GAGAN, M.K.; JOHNSON, D.P. 1995 The nature of the post-glacial sea-level rise, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia: new evidence for episodic rise. Marine Geology 127, 1-44.

        ABBOTT, S.T.; CARTER, R.M. 1994 The sequence architecture of mid-Pleistocene (0.35-0.95 Ma) cyclothems from New Zealand: facies development during a period of known orbital control on sea-level cyclicity. In: de Boer, P.L. & Smith, D.G. (eds.), “Orbital Forcing and Cyclic Sequences”. International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 19, 367-394.

        BEAMAN, R., LARCOMBE, P.; CARTER, R.M. 1994 New evidence for the Holocene sea-level high from the inner shelf, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research A64, 881-885.

        CARTER, R.M., CARTER, L.; DAVY, B. 1994 Geologic and stratigraphic history of the Bounty Trough, southwestern Pacific Ocean. Marine & Petroleum Geology 11, 79-93.

        HAYWICK, D.W., HENDERSON, R.A.; CARTER, R.M. 1992 Sedimentology of 40 000 year Milankovitch-controlled cyclothems from central Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Sedimentology 39, 675-696.

        CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M. 1993 Sedimentary evolution of the Bounty Trough: a Cretaceous rift basin, southwestern Pacific Ocean. In: Ballance, P.F. (ed), South Pacific Sedimentary Basins. Sedimentary Basins of the World, 2 (Series Editor, K.J. Hsu), Elsevier, 51-67.

        CARTER, R.M., JOHNSON, D.P.; HOOPER, K. 1993 Episodic post-glacial sea-level rise and the sedimentary evolution of a tropical continental embayment (Cleveland Bay, Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia). Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 40, 229-255.

        CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1992 Seismic imaging of Pleistocene deep-sea cyclothems: implications for sequence stratigraphy. Terra Nova 4, 682-692.

        CARTER, R.M., ABBOTT, S.T., FULTHORPE, C.S., HAYWICK, D.J.; HENDERSON, R.A. 1991 Application of global sea-level and sequence stratigraphic models in southern hemisphere Neogene strata from New Zealand. In: MacDonald, D.I.M. (ed.), “Sedimentation, Tectonics and Eustasy”, International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication #12, 41-65.

        FULTHORPE, C.S.; CARTER, R.M. 1991 Continental shelf Progradation by sediment drift accretion. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 103, 300-309.

        HAYWICK, D.W., LOWE, D.A., BEU, A.G., HENDERSON, R.A.; CARTER, R.M. 1991 Plio-Pleistocene (Nukumaruan) lithostratigraphy of The Tangoio block, and origin of sedimentary cyclicity, central Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics 34, 213-225

        CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M. 1990 Lacustrine sediment traps and their effect on continental shelf sedimentation – South Island, New Zealand. GeoMarine Letters 10: 93-100.

        CARTER, L., CARTER, R.M., NELSON, C.S., FULTHORPE, C.S.; NEIL, H.L. 1990 Evolution of Pliocene to Recent abyssal sediment waves on Bounty Channel levees, New Zealand. Marine Geology 95:97-109.

        FULTHORPE, C.S.; CARTER, R.M. 1989 Test of seismic sequence methodology on a southern hemisphere passive margin: the Canterbury Basin, New Zealand. Marine & Petroleum Geology 6:348-359.

        ABBOTT, S.T., HAYWICK, D.W., CARTER, R.M.; HENDERSON, R.A. 1989 Facies signature of late Neogene eustatic sea-level fluctuations exemplified in Plio-Pleistocene cyclothems, North Island, New Zealand. 28th International Geological Congress, Washington (D.C.), Abstracts, pp.1-2.

        GAGAN, M., JOHNSON, D.P.; CARTER, R.M. 1988 The Cyclone Winifred storm bed, central Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 58:845-856.

        CARTER, R.M. 1988 The nature and evolution of deep-sea channels. Basin Research, v.1:41-54.

        CARTER, R.M. 1988 Plate boundary tectonics, global sea-level changes and the development of the eastern South Island continental margin, New Zealand, southwest Pacific. Marine and Petroleum Geology, v.5:90-107.

        CARTER, R.M. 1988 Post-breakup stratigraphy (Cretaceous-Cainozoic Kaikoura Synthem) of the east Otago continental shelf and slope, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v.31(4), 405-429.

        CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M. 1988 Late Quaternary development of left-bank-dominant levees in the Bounty Trough, New Zealand. Marine Geology, v.78:185-197.

        CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1987 The Bounty Channel System: a 55-million-year-old sediment conduit to the deep sea, southwest Pacific. Geo-Marine Letters, v.7:183-190.

        JOHNSON, D.P.; CARTER, R.M. 1987 Sedimentary framework of mainland fringing reef development, Cape Tribulation area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Technical Memorandum, TM-14, p.37.

        CARTER, R.M.; JOHNSON, D.P. 1986 Sea-level controls on the post-glacial development of the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland. Marine Geology, v.71:137-164.

        CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L.; JOHNSON, D.P. 1986 Submergent shorelines in the SW Pacific: evidence for an episodic post-glacial transgression. Sedimentology, v.33:629-649.

        CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L. 1986 Holocene evolution of the nearshore sand wedge, south Otago continental shelf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v.29:413-424.

        CARTER, R.M. 1985 The mid-Oligocene Marshall Paraconformity, New Zealand: coincidence with global eustatic sea-level fall or rise? Journal of Geology, v.93:359-371.

        CARTER, R.M.; CARTER, L.; WILLIAMS, J.J.; LANDIS, C.A. 1985 Modern and relict sedimentation on the south Otago continental shelf, New Zealand. New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, v.93:43 pp.

        GRIGGS, G.B.; CARTER, L.; KENNETT, J.P.; CARTER, R.M. 1983 Late Quaternary marine stratigraphy southeast of New Zealand. Geological Society of America, Bulletin 94:791-797.

        NORRIS, R.J.; CARTER, R.M. 1982 Fault-bounded blocks and their role in localising sedimentation and deformation adjacent to the Alpine Fault, southern New Zealand. Tectonophysics, v.87:11-23.

        CARTER, R.M., CARTER, L. 1982 The Motunau Fault and other structures at the southern edge of the Australian-Pacific plate boundary, offshore Marlborough. Tectonophysics, v.88:133-159.

        CARTER, L.; CARTER, R.M.; GRIGGS, G.B. 1982 Sedimentation in the Conway Trough, a deep near-shore basin at the junction of the Alpine transform and Hikurangi subduction plate boundary, New Zealand. Sedimentology, v.29:475-497.

        CARTER, R.M.; LINDQVIST, J.K.; NORRIS, R.J. 1982 Oligocene unconformities and nodular phosphate-hardground horizons in western Southland and northern West Coast. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.12:11-46.

        NORRIS, R.J.; CARTER, R.M. 1980 Offshore sedimentary basins at the southern end of the Alpine Fault, New Zealand. International Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication, v.4:237-265.

        CARTER, R.M. 1979 Trench-slope channels from the New Zealand Jurassic: the Otekura Formation, Sandy Bay, south Otago. Sedimentology, v.26:475-496.

        NORRIS, R.J.; CARTER, R.M.; TURNBULL, I.M. 1978 Cainozoic sedimentation in basins adjacent to a major continental transform boundary in southern New Zealand. Journal of the Geological Society of London, v.135:191-205.

        CARTER, R.M.; HICKS, M.D.; NORRIS, R.J.; TURNBULL, I.M. 1978 Sedimentation patterns in an ancient arc-trench-ocean basin complex: Carboniferous to Jurassic Rangitata Orogen, New Zealand. In: Stanley, D.J.; Kelling, G. (eds.), Sedimentation in Submarine Canyons, Fans and Trenches, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, chapter 23:340-361.

        CARTER, R.M.; NORRIS, R.J. 1977 Redeposited conglomerates in a Miocene flysch sequence at Blackmount, western Southland, New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology, v.18:289-319.

        CARTER, R.M.; LINDQVIST, J.K. 1977 Balleny Group, Chalky Island, southern New Zealand: an inferred Oligocene submarine canyon and fan complex. Pacific Geology, v.12:1-46.

        CROOKS, I.; CARTER, R.M. 1976 Stratigraphy of Maruia and Matiri Formations in their type section (Trent Stream, Matiri River, Murchison). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.6:459-487.

        CARTER, R.M.; NORRIS, R.J. 1976 Cainozoic history of southern New Zealand: an accord between geological observations and plate tectonic predictions. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.31:85-94.

        CARTER, R.M. 1975 Mass-emplaced sand-fingers at Mararoa construction site, southern New Zealand. Sedimentology, v.22:275-288.

        CARTER, R.M.; LINDQVIST, J.K. 1975 Sealers Bay submarine fan complex, Oligocene, southern New Zealand. Sedimentology, v.22:465-483.

        CARTER, R.M. 1975 A discussion and classification of subaqueous mass-transport with particular application to grain-flow, slurry-flow and fluxoturbidites. Earth Science Reviews, v.11:145-177.

        TURNBULL, I.M.; BARRY, J.M.; CARTER, R.M.; NORRIS, R.J. 1975 The Bobs Cove Beds and their relationship to the Moonlight Fault Zone. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.5:355-394.

        CARTER, R.M.; LANDIS, C.A.; NORRIS, R.J.; BISHOP, D.G. 1974 Suggestions towards a high-level nomenclature for New Zealand rocks. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.4:5-18.

        CARTER, R.M. 1974 Geographies of the past. New Zealand’s Nature Heritage, v.1:102-107, 129-135.

        CARTER, R.M. 1974 The moulding of the landscape. New Zealand’s Nature Heritage, v.1:191-200, 211-217.

        CARTER, R.M. 1974 A New Zealand case-study of the need for local time-scales. Letheia, v.7:181-202.

        DUNCAN, R.A.; MCDOUGALL, I.; CARTER, R.M.; COOMBS, D.S. 1974 Pitcairn Island – another Pacific hot spot? Nature, v.251:679-682.

        CARTER, R.M. 1972 Wanganui strata of Komako District, Pohangina Valley, Ruahine Range, Manawatu. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, v.2:293-324.

        CARTER, R.M. 1972 Adaptations of British Chalk Bivalvia. Journal of Paleontology, v.46:325-340.

        CARTER, R.M.; LANDIS, C.A. 1972 Correlative Oligocene unconformities in southern Australasia. Nature (Physical Science), v.237:12-13.

        CARTER, R.M. 1970 A proposal for the subdivision of Tertiary time in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v.13:350-363.

        CARTER, R.M. 1968 On the biology and palaeontology of some predators of bivalved mollusca. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology, v.4:29-65.

        CARTER, R.M. 1968 Functional studies on the Cretaceous oyster Arctostrea. Palaeontology, v.11:458-485.

        CARTER, R.M. 1967 On Lison’s model of bivalve shell form, and its biological interpretation. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, v.37:265-278.

        CARTER, R.M. 1967 The geology of Pitcairn Island, south Pacific Ocean. Bernice P.Bishop Museum, Bulletin, v.231:38 pp.

        • Mike says:

          Wow Geoff I’m actually impressed. Did you compile that list all by yourself? Kudos to you for that. Now, given that you seem to have soooo much spare time on your hands as evidenced by your list, perhaps you can do me a favour? You see, I’ve got this thing about quality over quantity and also relevance so how about, since the subject is climate change and my comment was about him publishing on that subject, how about you filter out of your list, all the papers about geology and keep only the papers about climate change. Next, filter out all the papers that appear in the list of 900 because I can’t trust that they are actually reputable. Next, filter out any papers where he has coauthored with charlatons attached to the Heartland Institute. We can’t have any suspicions about undeclared vested interests. Next, filter out any where he isn’t lead author because quite frankly it isn’t difficult to get yourself listed as an author. One only needs to write a few lines. Then, when you’ve done all that, filter out anything published in journals completely unrelated to climate science and I will be more than happy to discuss with you whatever is left over. Me, I’m off to bed. I have a big day tomorrow. Goodnight you busy beaver.

      • Poptech says:

        Mike. you are in denial. The papers on the 900 list are all peer-reviewed. So why would he want to remove peer-reviewed papers?

        Your emotional instability and mental delusions are not “filters”.

        • Mike says:

          I don’t believe I was addressing you. Your constant need to be the centre of attention is facinating though.

      • Poptech says:

        You cannot address any of my facts which is why you dodge, change direction and reply to someone else with debunked talking points.

        I am here to educate you Mike and from the looks of it you need quite a bit.

        • Mike says:

          You’re here to educate me? Mate, you really need help. Your narcissism is off the chart. You do realise that it stems from a fragile high self esteem more than likely because you were rejected by one of your parents, probably your father, and you are now seeking approval but masking it with extreme arrogance, but thats ok. According to Freud, at some point you’ll do the world a favour and drive into a tree.

          Now, no doubt you will will feed your narcissism by getting the last word in with some supremely arrogant comment. You’ll either belittle me in some way or speak incredibly highly of yourself or both. The alternative is you demonstrate that you are able to control yourself but this is of course the least likely scenario as it will require more will than you possess.

          I know longer wish to feed your mental disorder so will not be replying to any of your comments in the future. Unlike you, I don’t gain any satisfaction from it. have a good life. Seek help.

      • Poptech says:

        I have already educated you on how to properly search ScienceDirect among many other things that can be read in my rebuttals to your nonsense here.

        Sorry to disappoint but I have no self esteem problems whatsoever and both of my parents were very caring and supporting throughout my life. I have also never been involved in an accident as I am a highly skilled driver.

        What I do have is an extreme confidence in destroying uneducated, computer illiterate alarmists like yourself in debates. I rather enjoy it.

        Your pathetic attempt to manipulate or restrict my response failed as I am having too much fun humiliating you.

        Do not fret for whenever you need a proper education I will be there to provide it.

  27. john byatt says:

    threatening letter sent to Heartland, uses their own words

    http://www.peer.org/docs/doc/2_21_12_Heartland_Institute_turnabout_ltr.pdf

    .

  28. john byatt says:

    heartland threatened with lawsuit,

    The taxman cometh

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

  29. john byatt says:

    what hypothesis geoff, you do even know the name of it

    it is called the

    The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htmThe assistant (“Herr J. Koch,” otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of …

    Human influence is part of the evidence for the current enhancement

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Actually, The hypothesis is that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. – known as man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW.)

      and it has been falsified many times, a few of which are recorded here –

      http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/agw-falsified-hypothesis.html

      Human Influence is part of the current hoax.

      • Mike says:

        No. The hypothesis is that CO2 works as a forcing agent. If you have actually read anything not found in a blog you would know that.

      • Geoff Brown says:

        So this is a blog, isn’t it, Mike?

        Disregard anything here?

      • Geoff Brown says:

        Perhaps we should look at sunspot activity as reproted by NASA:

        http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

        • mike says:

          Please stop…you’re embarrassing yourself. Rather than just throw around one-liners like “checkout sunspots”, how about you demonstrate your own understanding by explaining to us all the relevance of the solar cycle in terms of the current warming, for example how does solar output over the past 100 years correlate with the observed temperature increase? I expect to see lots of technical terms like……..this is where you might need your dictionary…. regression curves, probability, R-value, w/m^2, anomoly……you know, all that sciency stuff you are trying to convince people you know about. I’m also still waiting for the reference to your best of the 900 “peer reviewed papers” so you can further demonstrate your scientific prowess because surely you don’t want us all to consider you a blowhard do you?

          As you can see I’ve decided to re-engage you because you will make excellent fodder for one of my future video projects. However, thats it for me for today. I actually have work to do (I’m a scientist…sssshh don’t tell anyone)

      • john byatt says:

        At Brown’s blog

        “The important point that you have to accept with the above reports is the falsified hypothesis that CO2 causes runaway global warming. As this blog has persistently pointed out, warming comes first and then the rise in CO2 follows, with a lag of ~800 years (see eg here and here) At the moment we are around 800 years from the end of the medieval warm period (MWP)”

        How dumb is this Brown?

        .

  30. john byatt says:

    Geoff, michaeling, your just grounds, galileo and TCS mate is as mad as a cut snake,

    http://spiritualnetworks.com/blog/74215/antichrist-coming-world-recession-learn-the-truth-now/

    typical of the Climate sceptics though

    .

  31. john byatt says:

    Hey geoff , michaeling clayton, the guy that you agree is a religious nutter is also one of your climate sceptic group buddies

    http://justgroundsonline.com/group/no-carbon-tax-climate-sceptics-nctcs/user/list

    ,

  32. john byatt says:

    Want to hope that your nutcase mate does not see your comment here geoff nor all the other nutters there

    here he is geoff on your discussion forum .

    Michaelng Clayton replied to Geoff Brown’s discussion ‘The Galileo Movement’
    Hello All I an following here and also promoting The Galileo Movement See My latest effort here Australia Could Be A Paradise .
    and another galileo movement goon of course

  33. john byatt says:

    More nonsense on geoffs blog citing Zhang et al but actually referring to Ge et al

    parroting the nonsense on Idso’s blog

    Abstract Ge et al , compare to geoff’s post

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041281.shtml

    abstract

    Twenty-three published proxy temperature series over China spanning the last 2000 years were selected for an uncertainty analysis in five climate regions. Results indicated that, although large uncertainties are found for the period prior to the 16th century, high level of consistency were identified in all regions during the recent 500-years, highlighted by the two cold periods 1620s–1710s and 1800s–1860s, and the warming during the 20th century. The latter started in Tibet, Northwest and Northeast, and migrated to Central East and Southeast. The analysis also indicates that the warming during the 10–14th centuries in some regions might be comparable in magnitude to the warming of the last few decades of the 20th century which was unprecedented within the past 500 years.

    Received 25 November 2009; accepted 12 January 2

  34. john byatt says:

    Galileo movement has doctored the redneck rant and attributed it to bob katter, Geoff brown’s cowards caught out

    Bob Katter and the ‘Labor Party’s Worst Nightmare’ Polemic
    http://www.hoax-slayer.com/bob-katter-labor-party-worst-nightmare.shtml
    Block all http://www.hoax-slayer.com results
    15 Sep 2011 – Various US versions have circulated since at least 2000 and have been … I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, God fearing Australian.

  35. Mike says:

    Geoff said “Sorry Mike, tell me which link that I provided that you could not open.”

    Don’t play games Geoff. You provided the 900. I randomly chose one and pulled it to pieces and askedforyour feedback. You ignored it. I then suggested you pick out any oneof the 900 and allow mw to pullit apart as well. You ignored me again. I am no longer responding to you until you pull your head out of your cowardly arse and man up.

  36. john byatt says:

    Geoff’s Galileo movement

    Take a US redneck rant and put it into the mouth of bob Katter,

    Credibility zero geoff

    http://galileomovement.com.au/latest_news.php

  37. john byatt says:

    One of Geoff brown’s religious nutcase mates at just grounds

    http://justgroundsonline.com/profiles/blogs/leave-climate-change-issues-to

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Well done, John. You have aligned me with a religious nutcase because we both post on just grounds.

      That makes YOU one of my irreligious nutcase mates on WtF Deniers.

      Great bit of logic.

      • john byatt says:

        Michaelng Clayton’s Comments – Just Grounds Community
        justgroundsonline.com/xn/detail/3535428:Comment:275962?xg…28 Aug 2011 – … Clayton’s Comments. ← Back to Michaelng Clayton’s Page … At 6:57pm on September 8, 2010, Geoff Brown said… G’day Michaelng, …

        “you have aligned me with a religious nutcase”

        classic

  38. Geoff Brown says:

    jb says:

    “Would not be surprised if geoff has a santorum post there at the “the coward sceptics ” blog . ‘ will have a look”

    Coward scpetics blog, John? Not nice, jb!

    Mike, I am sure you said that we all should be polite. Does that not apply to Mr Byatty?

  39. Geoff Brown says:

    jb – the continuous denier – “My description of you would be a climate coward,”

    John, why do you run and hide after I shoot your weird comments down in flames?

    WtfDeniers: “the links between that mob and climate change deniers is strong.”

    Easy to say, Mike. Where is your proof?

    Sorry. The hypothesis has been falsified. All that is happening now are death throes from the bolted on deniers of the science.

    • Mike says:

      Christianity, Environmentalism, and the Theoretical Problem of Fundamentalism
      Douglas Lee Eckberg and T. Jean Blocker
      Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
      Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1996), pp. 343-355

      DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00811.x

      There’s a couple for you to start with, not that you will bother reading them.

      I’m not going to bother with your assertion that “The hypothesis has been falsified” until you can provide me with actual peer reviewed literature that demonstrates that, and you can demonstrate to me that you actually know anything of which you are talking about because to date I have given you multiple opportunities to do so, but in a typically wilfully ignorant and beligerant manner you choose to ignore the opportunities.

      As such, I hypothesise that Geoff Brown is wilfully ignorant in the most juvenile way, has very little understanding of scientific conventions or methods, doesn’t actually understand anything about the science behind global warming and human induced climate change and is generally a blowhard. Falsify that hypothesis.

  40. john byatt says:

    at desdemona

    Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.

    “We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.

  41. john byatt says:

    Geoff

    Geoff Brown (01:40:25) :
    jb says: “wont put up any comment that he cannot answer..”

    continuing the alarmists line of lies.

    Admit that you are not telling the truth, jb. If I went through all the comments on http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/ , I think I would find that you have commented (either as jb or as the Cooloolafool or anonymously) more than any other.

    Your point is noted but destroyed.

    One that stands out was an arctic nonsense post from you, caught out you just refused to put up my comments .

    where are the cooloola comments there geoff.

    You lack the guts to allow open debate on your nonsense blog geoff,

    I did not say that one cannot comment there geoff i stated that you pull the plug on comments as soon as you are caught out

    My description of you would be a climate coward,

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Destroyed, jb. You say: you just refused to put up my (ie your) comments – jb – there are no comments from you awaiting approval and, if you have used your own name, or indeed a recognisable pseudonym (eg Coolalfool) I have posted them.

      I really don’t like the lies that come from the alarmist side of the Agw debate and I do not expect that you will push lies.

      Go ahead and comment but don’t disappear after your comments are shot down in flames. Come back with realistic replies.

      That is where your comments died.

  42. Geoff Brown says:

    What is the point in answering such a biased comment. You say “. I am going to randomly pick one of those papers and ask you a couple of questions about 1. the authors…” and then you eliminate experts “Michaels Lindzen and Singer” with the tag “noted non cimate scientists…”

    The very warmist inclined Wikipedia gives:

    Patrick J. (“Pat”) Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior research fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University, and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.

    Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books

    Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

    Non Climate Scientists?

    • mike says:

      Oh we can get into Michaels and his oil-funded Cato institute, Lindzen who, by the way, now acknowledges AGW but until recently also received oil-funded institute money and Singer who when receiving money from big tobacco started debunking the smoking/cancer links..later.

      Please don’t go cherrypicking like the rest of the deniers. You put forward that list of 900 “peer reviewed papers” I literally closed my eyes, scrolled down and opened my eyes on that paper. Maybe I got lucky so how about you answer my questions and then if you like, you pick one of the 900 that is actually from a non-industry and peer reviewed journal and I’ll happily break it apart for you. Be aware, if you have read as many of those papers as I once did a few years ago, you will realise that a number of them were picked solely because the title appeared to throw doubt on the subject but when you actually read the things, as I have, you find that is not the case, so go ahead knock yourself out….but please I would really appreciate your answers to my questions or better yet, why don’t you just tell me if you still stand by that Kauffman essay? Thats a simple yes or no.

      • Poptech says:

        Dr. Michaels position on climate change has never changed due to a monetary donation and any funding he received from energy companies was because of the position he already held not the other way around.

        Dr. Lindzen has always acknowledged that man can have an influence on the climate (in some form) but he does not support alarmist positions or the need to take government action. Saying he “acknowledges” AGW is misleading as claiming man can have a 0.1% or a 99.9% influence would both be “supporting AGW” yet the former would be a skeptic the latter an alarmist. AGW is not a black or white issue.

        Dr. Lindzen’s “funding” involved $10,000 in traveling expenses over many years back in the 90s and had nothing to do with his research funding which comes from government funding agencies: NSF, NASA, and DOE. The Boston Globe did a write up on this myth,

        http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

        Dr. Singer has never done anything in relation to debunking that smoking cause cancer. He has instead spend time debunking exaggerated claims made by anti-smoking groups in relation to second-hand smoke.

        Mike, it is an absolute lie that you “closed you eyes” to cherry pick the most controversial journal off the list. That was intentional as only two papers on the list are from the JSE while there are over 900 papers from 256 other journals on the list,

        Journal Citation List:

        AAPG Bulletin
        Academic Questions
        Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
        Advances in Geosciences
        Advances in Global Change Research
        Advances in Space Research
        Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
        Agricultural Meteorology
        Agricultural Water Management
        Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
        Ambio
        American Journal of Botany
        Annales Geophysicae
        Annals of Applied Statistics
        Annals of Glaciology
        Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
        Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
        Antiquity
        Applied Energy
        Aquatic Botany
        Arabian Journal of Geosciences
        Arctic and Alpine Research
        Area
        Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
        Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
        Astronautics and Aeronautics
        Astronomical Notes
        Astronomy & Geophysics
        Astrophysics and Space Science
        Astrophysics and Space Science Library
        Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
        Atmospheric Environment
        Australian Journal of Emergency Management
        Bioscience
        Boreas
        British Medical Journal (BMJ)
        Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
        Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
        Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
        Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
        Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
        Canadian Journal of Forest Research
        Central European Journal of Physics
        Chemical Engineering Progress
        Chemical Innovation
        Chinese Science Bulletin
        Climate Dynamics
        Climate of the Past
        Climate Research
        Climatic Change
        Cold Regions Science and Technology
        Comptes Rendus Geosciences
        Contemporary South Asia
        Coral Reefs
        Current Opinion in Biotechnology
        Doklady Earth Sciences
        Earth and Planetary Science Letters
        Ecological Complexity
        Ecological Economics
        Ecological Modelling
        Ecological Monographs
        Ecology
        Economic Affairs
        Economic Analysis and Policy
        Economics Bulletin
        Emerging Infectious Diseases
        Energy
        Energy & Environment
        Energy & Fuels
        Energy Policy
        Energy Sources
        Environment International
        Environmental and Experimental Botany
        Environmental Conservation
        Environmental Geology
        Environmental Geosciences
        Environmental Health Perspectives
        Environmental Law and Management
        Environmental Politics
        Environmental Research
        Environmental Research Letters
        Environmental Science & Policy
        Environmental Science and Pollution Research
        Environmental Software
        Environmetrics
        Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
        Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
        Fresenius’ Journal of Analytical Chemistry
        Future Virology
        Futures
        Geoforum
        Geografiska Annaler
        Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
        GeoJournal
        Geology
        Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
        Geophysical Research Letters
        Geoscience Canada
        Global and Planetary Change
        Global Biogeochemical Cycles
        Global Change Biology
        Global Environmental Change
        GSA Today
        Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
        Hydrological Sciences Journal
        Il Nuovo Cimento C
        Interfaces
        International Journal of Biometeorology
        International Journal of Climatology
        International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
        International Journal of Environmental Studies
        International Journal of Forecasting
        International Journal of Geosciences
        International Journal of Global Energy Issues
        International Journal of Global Warming
        International Journal of Medical Microbiology Supplements
        International Journal of Modern Physics B
        International Journal of Remote Sensing
        International Social Science Journal
        Internationales Asienforum
        Irish Astronomical Journal
        Irrigation and Drainage
        Iron & Steel Technology
        Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
        Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
        Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
        Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
        Journal of Biogeography
        Journal of Business Ethics
        Journal of Chemical Education
        Journal of Climate
        Journal of Coastal Research
        Journal of Cosmology
        Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications
        Journal of Environmental Sciences
        Journal of Environmental Quality
        Journal of Experimental Botany
        Journal of Forestry
        Journal of Geographic Information System
        Journal of Geophysical Research
        Journal of Hydrology
        Journal of Information Ethics
        Journal of Integrative Plant Biology
        Journal of International Studies
        Journal of Lake Sciences
        Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
        Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
        Journal of Paleolimnology
        Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics
        Journal of Physics Malaysia
        Journal of Plant Physiology
        Journal of Scientific Exploration
        Journal of the American Water Resources Association
        Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
        Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
        Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
        Journal of Vegetation Science
        La Chimica e l’Industria
        Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
        Leadership and Management in Engineering
        Malaria Journal
        Marine Environmental Research
        Marine Geology
        Marine Pollution Bulletin
        Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
        Meteorologische Zeitschrift
        Missouri Medicine
        Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
        Monthly Weather Review
        Moscow University Physics Bulletin
        Natural Hazards
        Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
        Natural Hazards Review
        Natural Science
        Nature
        Nature Biotechnology
        Nature Geoscience
        Netherlands Journal of Geosciences
        New Astronomy
        New Concepts In Global Tectonics
        New Literary History
        New Phytologist
        New Zealand Geographer
        New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
        Nordic Hydrology
        Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
        Oceanologica Acta
        Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
        Paleoceanography
        Paleontological Journal
        Physical Geography
        Physical Review E
        Physical Review Letters
        Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
        Physics Letters A
        Physics Reports
        Physics Today
        Planetary and Space Science
        Plant and Soil
        Plant, Cell & Environment
        Plant Ecology
        Plant Physiology
        PLoS Biology
        Population and Development Review
        Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
        Proceedings of the ICE – Civil Engineering
        Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
        Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
        Proceedings of the Royal Society A
        Progress in Oceanography
        Progress in Physical Geography
        Public Administration Review
        Pure and Applied Geophysics
        Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
        Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
        Quaternary International
        Quaternary Research
        Quaternary Science Reviews
        Regulation
        Risk Analysis
        Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
        Science
        Science of the Total Environment
        Science, Technology & Human Values
        Scientia Horticulturae
        Sedimentary Geology
        Social Studies of Science
        Society
        Soil Science
        Solar Physics
        South African Journal of Science
        Space Science Reviews
        Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
        Statistics, Politics, and Policy
        Surveys in Geophysics
        Technology
        Tellus A
        The Astrophysical Journal
        The Cato Journal
        The Electricity Journal
        The Holocene
        The Independent Review
        The Lancet
        The Lancet Infectious Diseases
        The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
        The Quarterly Review of Biology
        The Review of Economics and Statistics
        Theoretical and Applied Climatology
        Topics in Catalysis
        Trends in Parasitology
        Waste Management
        Water, Air, & Soil Pollution
        Water Resources Research
        Weather
        Weather and Forecasting
        World Economics

        Journal Count: 257

        Dr. Kauffman stands by his paper and there has not been a published rebuttal.

    • mike says:

      Oh, and I never use Wikipedia for anything. It isn’t peer reviewed.

    • Geoff, it’s good form to admit you were wrong when you are found to be out of your depth and/or misinformed – or deliberately cherry picking.

      You can keep denying facts but eventually you’ll be mugged by reality.

      • john byatt says:

        Geoff not only runs his climate sceptics blog but is also the chief troll there as well, waste of time debating him there as he wont put up any comment that he cannot answer, thus only ever a few comments throughout the blog, geoff claims that no one will debate him, yer right geoff, your fantasy is evident for many of us,

        Re climategate, most Australians have never heard about it and do not have a clue what it was all about.

        Climate Sceptics … what does that mean, are they sceptical that climate exists.

        while they are always insisting that climate always changes the general population believe that they simply reject all science about Climate change. a PR disaster of their own making

        a rename “Climate science sceptics” would be apt

        • Mike says:

          That might explain why Geoff hasn’t responded to my technical questions in here. I am currently making a YouTube video about a loony religious troll who preaches at everyone and anyone in Youtube and has the audacity to say in the blurb beneath his videos that his channel is the “fortress of free speech where anyone can make comments on any of my videos.” Half of his 202 rambling nonsensensical videos have comments disabled and he screens comments for his others. He has also disabled comments on his channel page as well and has blocked me outright. I get the sense that AGW deniers like Geoff and loony rightwing religious nuts have a lot in common.

      • john byatt says:

        will you call him Klem?

      • Geoff Brown says:

        jb says: “wont put up any comment that he cannot answer..”

        continuing the alarmists line of lies.

        Admit that you are not telling the truth, jb. If I went through all the comments on http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/ , I think I would find that you have commented (either as jb or as the Cooloolafool or anonymously) more than any other.

        Your point is noted but destroyed.

      • Geoff Brown says:

        Mike (WtF Deniers) says:

        I get the sense that AGW deniers like Geoff and loony rightwing religious nuts have a lot in common.

        Wrong, Mike. If you are intimating that I am

        a) Loony – Wrong
        b) Right wing – Wrong
        c) Religious – wromg.

        Doesn’t leave much, does it, WtF?

        • Mike says:

          No, all that leaves is wilful ignorance and gross overestimation of your own abilities. Rather than ignore or deflect the questions I have raised in response to references YOU provided, how about showing some integrity and backing up what you say. If you can’t, man up and admit that you can’t. That way you might earn a bit more respect and less derision.

      • Geoff Brown says:

        Mike says: “Rather than ignore or deflect the questions I have raised in response to references YOU provided…”

        Sorry Mike, tell me which link that I provided that you could not open.

      • Poptech says:

        I get the sense that AGW deniers like Geoff and loony rightwing religious nuts have a lot in common.

        This is incorrect as I am religiously agnostic and a libertarian.

    • john byatt says:

      Got lindzen good in the local paper geoff

      Lindzen and Choi (2011) is a poor attempt by Lindzen to address the many mistakes in his 2009 paper. Originally it was submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research but rejected, failing peer review, Lindzen then submitted the paper to The National Academy of Science (PNAS) and asked for his own reviewers, the entirely unqualified William Happer, a specialist in optics, and his own co-author Choi. PNAS rightly rejected his request along with the paper, again failing peer review. It ended up in a Korean Meteorological Society Journal. So a paper that failed two attempts at publication in the credible journals is hailed by sceptics as casting doubt on the current best projections of climate sensitivity and global warming?. Lindzen of course claims a conspiracy rather than admit that this is just a lousy paper

      • Poptech says:

        It is standard PNAS policy for the author to submit 5 reviewers,

        http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml#submission

        “Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper’s scientific area, and five qualified reviewers.

        This paper’s PNAS review saga is detailed here,

        http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/when-top-scientists-take-2-years-to-publish-its-time-to-give-up-on-old-peer-review/

        http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/

        “Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence.”

        Dr. Happer is more than qualified,

        William Happer, B.S. Physics, University of North Carolina (1960); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1964); Research Professor, Department of Physics, Columbia University (1964-1980); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1966); Co-Director, Columbia Radiation Laboratory, Department of Physics, Columbia University (1971-1976); Director, Columbia Radiation Laboratory, Department of Physics, Columbia University (1976-1979); Member, JASON Advisory Group (1976-Present); Alexander von Humboldt Award (1976); Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1980-1993); Board Member, MITRE Corporation (1987-Present); Chairman, Steering Committee, JASON Advisory Group (1987-1990); Class of 1909 Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1988); Director of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy (1991-1993); Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1993-2003); Co-Founder, Magnetic Imaging Technologies Incorporated (1994); Chairman, University Research Board, Princeton University (1995); Herbert P. Broida Prize, American Physical Society (1997); Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, American Physical Society (1999); Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award, Research & Development Council of New Jersey (2000); Member, Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2002-2005); Fellow, American Physical Society; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Member, American Philosophical Society; Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University (2003-Present)

        Lindzen did not submit his own co-author Dr. Choi as a reviewer but a Dr Chou.

        The Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a credible peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 1976-7633)

        http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1976-7633

    • Poptech says:

      Geoff, all are highly credentialed Climate Scientists,

      Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971), S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975), Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979), Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979), Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986), Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987), Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999), Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present), Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present), Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Member, Association of American Geographers, Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

      Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

      S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)

      Note: there is no objective criteria for determining who is a “climate scientist” as the field covers scientists with varied credentials that are not explicitly defined as “climatology”.

  43. Geoff Brown says:

    H – above link – “Heartland Institute’s activities is smearing and vilifying honest scientists who are engaged in climate research. ”

    Actually the honest scientist who write the NIPCC report for Heartland are smeared and vilified by DeSmearBlog and others like puckerclust. Each year Heartland holds a conference and invites some of the cheating Climategate CRU. None asre willing to have their theories tested.

    The AGW hypothesis has been falsified. Game set and match!

    • mike says:

      The AGW hypothesis has been falsified? I must have missed those papers. I noticed also you have declined or at least failed to respond to my offer of providing hundreds of peer reviewed papers that demonstrate unequivocably that AGW and human induced climate change are in fact very real. My offer also is very real. All you have to do is say the word and I will start sending them to you. The other option for you of course is to just say that peer review is corrupt and there is a giant conspiracy amongst scientists all over the world to introduce an Al Gore carbon tax. Of course, that would mean the single paper that you hold up as a legitimate peer reviewed piece in support of your position is also a product of a corrupt system. So Geoff Brown, how about it? Wanna play or do you just want to bury your head a little deeper in the sand? I’m offering you the opportunity to man up and read your way out of your untenable position, admit that you were wrong, earn some respect and move forward. How about it?

        • mike says:

          I am so glad Geoff that you opted to do the infamous 900. I’ll tell you what i am going to do if you are up for it. I am going to randomly pick one of those papers and ask you a couple of questions about 1. the authors, 2. the usual subject matter of the “journal” 3. A technical question or two. I get the sense that unlike you, I actually read scientific papers all the time. After all, I am a scientist whereas you, cut and paste and link to blogs without ever really reading anything or not fully understanding what you have read. There is nothing worse than posturing from a position of ignorance. So geoff, do you want to play?

          Oh and I just did a search on Sciencedirect for papers that link human induced climate change to range extensions in various species. I’ll see your dodgy 900 and raise you 40903. That is 40993 peer reviewed papers dealing with only one very specific aspect of climate change. I digress.

          Your first paper is Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007 Climate Change Reexamined by Kauffman.

          q1. Kauffman. Do you think a biochemist who publishes regularly in pharmaceutical journals is qualified to discuss indepth on the issue of atmospheric science? If so, why do you think the only article (essay) he has published on the subject has been published in the J of SE? Which brings me onto my next question.

          q2. Are you aware that the J of SE regulalry publishes articles on astrology, psychic phenomena and UFO’s?

          q3. In his graph in Figure 1 what is your opinion of selection of data from the period 1940-1970 for his essay that was written in 2007 when he had access to data right up to 2006? That is 36 years of the most recent data that he could have used. Go to Figure 4 and you will see why. The period from 1940 to 1970 was relatively stable in terms of temperature but after that it continues to rise and actually tracks well with CO2. I was actually surprised he included this graph because it actually debunks his own argument. Despite the fact most of what he has written is garbage backed up with sources such as the noted non cimate scientists Michaels Lindzen and Singer, what do you think about him cherrypicking the period 1998 to 2007 for comment in the Figure 4 which runs from 1880 to 2007? Surely the overall trend is much more important?

          Anyway, there’s a start for you. See how you go. If you are going to put forward crap like this you need to back it up.

      • Poptech says:

        Mike are you computer illiterate and forgot to put your search phrase in quotes and make sure they are cumulative by using a boolean operator? Otherwise you include results that have ANY of those words in them. I did an advanced boolean search of ScienceDirect using the phrases “anthropogenic global warming” and “range extensions” and got exactly 2 results.

        Joel M. Kauffman, B.S. Chemistry, Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science (1958); Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT (1963); Faculty, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (1979-1990); Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (1990-2002); Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (2002-Present)

        Having a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from MIT and teaching Chemistry for over 20 years more than makes him qualified to discuss the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

        The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal,

        EBSCO lists the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

        http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/a9h-journals.pdf

        “Manuscripts will be sent to two or more referees”

        http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_for_authors.pdf

        The JSE can be considered a journal that has published papers on X-Files like subjects. Both papers on the list from the JSE deal exclusively with the climate debate.

        There are no published rebuttals to Dr. Kauffman’s paper.

        You posting BS that I can irrefutably backup removes your credibility.

  44. $225 mil for Exxon is petty cash. If they were serious, they’d be spending billions annually on renewables and oil replacements generally.

  45. Tom Harris says:

    Mike asserts “$225M is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they have poured into the Heartland Institute, the George C Marshall Institute and the dozens of other loony rightwing think tanks, not to mention the army of paid bloggers.”

    I don’t believe that is even remotely true – could you provide some evidence, please?

  46. Mike says:

    Geoff

    The people who run Exxon and all the other big polluters in the world know full well that the very industries they run are damaging the environment and contributing to AGW. They are also shrewd business people and at the mercy of their shareholders. Of course they are going to invest money into research because they also know full well that they have pretty much passed peak oil. Its a delicate situation for them. They have to keep their cushy well paid positions by pushing their anti AGW propaganda while they still have oil to sell but they must also plan for the future as well as improve their PR image as that article also clearly points out. Plus, $225M is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they have pouredinto the Heartland Institute, the George C Marshall Institute and the dozens of other loony rightwing thinktanks, not to mention the army of paid bloggers.

  47. Geoff Brown says:

    Re following the money, I suppose we should be worried when Big Oil via Exxon, as revealed by Andrew Revkin, gave “$225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.”

    Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm Nasty big oil!

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: