War on the IPCC: on that leaked IPCC draft document

I’m not going to claim any prescience but some time ago I suggested the denial machine would begin its war on the credibility of the IPCC and its fifth assessment report due to be released in 2013.

In the past few days we’ve just witnessed the opening salvo in the denial machines attempt to undermine public confidence in the IPCC.

For those not up to speed, this is what transpired:

  • late last week climate sceptic blogger Alec Rawls got hold of draft versions of the IPCCs upcoming fifth report
  • Rawls breathlessly announced to the world that that IPCC admitted that “enhanced solar forcing” was the cause of recent warming.

In other words, Rawls claims the IPCC is admitting it’s the sun and not human activities – none of which is true. Journalist and blogger Graham Readfearn provides a good summary of what happened:

  • Rawls registered himself as a reviewer via online form – something any member of the public can do – obtained copies of the draft documents and leaked them to the internet
  • Rawls has misread, misinterpreted and cherry-picked the draft report.

There is an irony in this, as the actual conclusions of the draft report confirm that human influence on the climate is undeniable and is deeply concerning (for further commentary I’d also suggest the following article on The Conversation).

Of course all the usual suspects amongst the denial movement are salivating over the leaked documents. Sceptic blogger Anthony Watts is calls it “game changing” while Daily Telegraph blogger James Delingpole claims the IPCC has just admitted the “jigs up”.

None of which is true of course – they’ve merely cherry picked a single paragraph from the leaked document in order to mislead the public.

While it is impossible to know what motivated Rawls to sign up as a reviewer of the latest IPCC report, I’m going to make the assumption he did so with less than honourable intentions.

Weather he acted alone or in concert makes little difference – Rawls abused the process and undermined the IPCCs attempts to make itself more transparent.

All I can say is expect much more of these kind of tactics over the coming months.

About these ads
Tagged , , , ,

755 thoughts on “War on the IPCC: on that leaked IPCC draft document

  1. Richard Ryan says:

    Enjoy your group [CUT] … you’re just too funny for me but you seem to amuse each other (a little too much but thats between yourselves).

    • john byatt says:

      As Mike @ uknowispeaksense has previously stated ” how do you counter this type of stupidity?

  2. john byatt says:

    Richard, watch the screen door here on your way out it might hit you on the arse

  3. john byatt says:

    Mental illness assistance 131145

    there I can only try to help him

    • zoot says:

      Waste of effort I’m afraid. He knows he’s ok and we’re a bunch of loons.
      In my past life I met way too many of these people. They crash the party looking for a fight, grope the host’s wife, throw up on the carpet and then get offended when you chuck them out.
      Richard (if that is in fact his name) will wear any banning from here as “being silenced”.
      I detest the smell of burning martyr in the morning.

  4. Richard Ryan says:

    well, I can only make a judgement on wit (5/10 so far) and intelligence (true believer in AGW is a definite fail) and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for charm (its a stretch) so you’re 1.5 out of 4 at best. You know what, I’ll add a half for not being a religiously obsessed “kill the deniers” nutbag like johnny byatt and you’re on the cusp. Don;t let me down from here on in though ;)

    • Still miles ahead of your nonsensical non-science zero. You’ve been pwned.

      • john byatt says:

        richard hates gays, tick
        believes that AGW is religion, tick
        believes that it is all about OWG, tick

        100% in line with creationist nonsense,

        they just cannot help themselves

      • Richard Ryan says:

        no .. when people refuse to answer anything there is no debate, just admittance that they are wrong and hypocrites. Off you go now … you’re not going to have much luck recruiting anyone with these attitudes

        • So pwned you’ve developed Tourettes. :-) And pwned again.

          There is no debate on the science.

          Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a hypothesis. It is a robust theory, referred to as “settled fact” by scientists.

          Per the National Academies of Science, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (pp 44-45):
          “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

          Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

          This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
          http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

          And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      • Richard Ryan says:

        hee haw

  5. Richard Ryan says:

    Looks like another rule is in force here:
    Personal attacks are not allowed unless they are a believer attacking a denier LOL.
    Facts are not allowed when they do not agree with our AGW religion.
    What a bunch of hypocritical tools.

    • You seem to be getting away with personal attacks on other threads. And you do so even in the post you complain in. You seem to have no problem believing two or more impossible things before breakfast.

      • Richard Ryan says:

        You are dealing well with being a fatalist desiring armageddon so I guess everything is possible … although it must be said that most of you doomsday deadheads just love the personal attack on us deniers … YOU included. so zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. BTW, if you havent stolen that photo, let me just add one personal attack – you are a very ugly fellow (no doubt beautiful to johnny baptist byatt but fairly repulsive to the rest of the human (denier) race

      • john byatt says:

        Mrs reckons your a bit of alright John, likes the beard,but what would she know after 50 years with me

    • Dick, head over to one of the denial echo chambers if you still have nothing of substance to add. We are all waiting for you to post one of these “facts” you claim is being disallowed. What are you afraid of? One of your “facts” will be shown for what it actually is?

      ________________________________

  6. Richard Ryan says:

    LOL .. you’ve all just comprehensively proved that you just grab some bullshit and then accept it as fact. I don’t know who the “Richard Ryan” is that you got that silly quote from but typically, you sheep accept that its me. However. I’m bored with you now … I’m going off again to enjoy the positives of life and mother nature. Apparently, I don’t have much time … keep the faith, you silly bunch of B-Grade Nostradames (can you plural that?)

    • and you have again demonstrated yet again that you have nothing of value to add. Coming here, you have the perfect opportunity to put forward your argument yet you waste the opportunity with childish quips, but then we did establish your maturity fairly quickly. Come back when you trust your argument enough and have the courage to put it forward with some conviction.

    • john byatt says:

      Funny, that was identical to a reply i recived from a creationist in the local paper, however she was going off to enjoy brown rice as well.

      possibly all richard ryans are stupid eh?

    • Maybe I had him all wrong. He has just the one conspiracy theory. That’s still 100% nutter rather than 200% – or more.

      But, looking at his comment, naah, I don’t think I had him wrong…

  7. john byatt says:

    Richard seems to be a full time troll, hates everyone, but hates bolt so that is a plus
    whats with the shalom sign off on every comment at one site ?

    Richard Ryan
    SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 AT 6:05 AM
    GD! The demolition of the twin towers was an “inside job”——-carried out by people living in the USA, less then 3000 lost their lives, over 100,000 innocent people lost their lives in Iraq, over 4,000 USA servicemen lost their lives in Iraq. America’s greatness was built on slavery and ” arms deals”———America is making capital on it’s September 11 drama even now, with it’s selling of T-SHIRTS, and other ghoulish souvenirs——the principle of the dollar governs all in America. While 25 million Americans depend on food stamps, thanks to the “Economic Terrorists” ( Wall Street Criminals)—-lets not get carried away with all things American. My American idol, Al Capone said, “war is a racket”—how true. While Saddam was at war with Iran, America was supplying to the Iraqi Regime, America supported Pol Pot, America supported that Libya leader, America supported Marcos—America supported the Shah of Iran–etc. etc. etc. Terrorists were given flying lessons, terrorists were allowed on those planes—–who ever planned those demolitions of those symbols of capitalism the twin towers—–they had a PhD in destruction. Years of planning went into this “demolition job” and they say it cost only 500.000 dollars, as they say: Terrorism: the poor mans War, War the rich mans Terrorism. Shalom.

    inside job eh?

    • john byatt says:

      If it is the same richard he loves Willard the dullard ,
      richard and eric will get along just fine

    • Richard Ryan says:

      should i just make up some bullshit and sign off John Byatt? you guys are so obsessed with your religious fervour, it knows no bounds.

      • john byatt says:

        I think that everything you say is made up bullshit richard but was impressed by some of your comments, many i agree with
        Given that Shalom is a rather weird sign off for an athiest it is not I who seems to be obsessed does it ?

      • It never ceases to amaze me when deniers like yourself accuse those of us who accept the overwhelming evidence for climate change of being religious. The irony is that in order for you, Dick, to continually spruik your position, you must maintain a level of wilful ignorance on a par with young Earth creationists and other loony fundamentalists. We are also all still waiting for to produce something of susbstance.

        • Mr Ryan objects to being pwned comprehensively. So, sir, 911 was an inside job and global warming is a gravy train. Before you are sentenced as an incorrigible conspiracy theorist (not a compliment, by the say), have you any other inanities you want taken into account? Chemtrails? One World Government? Shape shifting lizards? Area 51? UFOs? Intelligent Design? Two is more than enough to deny you any credibility, but more is always interesting.

        • I thought the shapeshifters and the reptilians were two different alien species? Maybe Dick can set me straight on that one. There are also a few keywords missing from that list..Moon landing hoax, Illuminati and HAARP. Might as well go the whole hog. :)

  8. Richard Ryan says:

    You’re stretching it when you mention “credibility” and “IPCC” in the same sentence, surely … meanwhile, back in reality, none of the dire predictions seem to work out according to the computer, various politicians, journalists and mammologists. Maybe the computer needs a name. What about WOE2100 (for Wipe Out Earth) … better than HAL. Must patent this before Al and Manny get hold of it.

  9. […] is an awesome line. I am reminded of one particular denier over at Watching the Deniers who in the comments section of just one post repeated more than twenty times, this […]

  10. john byatt says:

    Shepard nov 2012

    We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Hansen is cooking up hobgoblins again.

      Hansen’s paper is based on gravitometric measurements of ice loss which JPL themselves admitted were too unreliable to use.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/

      And his suggestion there has never been a climate shift of the same rapidity as the current shift is complete nonsense – especially considering the climate stopped warming in 1997 (unless you use Hansen’s jigged high alarmism figures, which pretty nearly always contrive to show more warming than anyone else).

      Still I guess he’s got to do something in between being arrested.

      • Watts gets it upside down and backwards again? Phew – close his door, there’s daft coming from it.

      • Dr No says:

        Give up Eric. The evidence is pouring in and 1997 will soon be surpassed.
        Roll on global warming!
        Roll on more research funding!
        Roll on world government!

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Actually you’re losing, and badly. For example, long do you think the weakened form of Kyoto, with ever more countries dropping away, will last? Sooner or later economic pressure from countries which have repudiated Kyoto will push this stupid agreement into the dustbin of history.

        • The deniers have enjoyed a brief Pyrrhic victory. The extreme weather with climate loading the dice, has seen to that. The polls say the deniers are in freefall.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its a blip, like Katrina – a bad storm happened so all the doomsayers with their sandwich boards are getting a bit of airtime. Frankly I think you guys generated less interest than the nonsense about the Mayan apocalypse.

        • What time is your Ice Age due?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Sometime in the next few thousand years. Going by previous interglacials, we should be approaching the end of this one.

        • Based on what model, again? I notice your waffling a bit on the time period. A date and time please, preferably in UTC. Oh, and show your working out.

        • Dr No, you have uttered the magic phrase “World Government”. I have been trained by the Illuminati to respond to that. What would you like next, Master? I have set the Global Warming Conspiracy alight. The UN is in on it, of course. The world’s governments are in too, ‘natch. The bankers are on-board – and the lawyers will simply follow them. The military and the insurers are with us. Heck, I even got the facts to join us.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You guys certainly spend a lot of time fantasising about paranoid delusions.

        • …says the man who compares his opponents to eugenicists.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          They too believed in the predictive power of junk science mathematical models.

        • You certainly spend a lot of time fantasising about paranoid delusions, in your own words. Just a silly denier with no power of scepticism. Sigh. This is becoming boring, Eric, you’re not even good at this. Can we get a better class of denier on this board?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You don’t like the Eugenics comparison because its too close to home – they too tried to convince the world to act on the basis of mathematical models predicting disasters which hadn’t happened yet, they too enjoyed widespread political and scientific support for a time.

          I can only hope you guys are derailed from your bandwagon before you find someone who will create the nightmare fulfilment of your fantasies.

        • You must be an IT guy. You’ve gone all recursive. You’ve accused others of being paranoid and then bring up eugenics again. It’s called projection and you’re full of it, amongst other things.

          New denier needed please. This one has been worn out by the facts.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Eugenics is an uncomfortable historical lesson of what can happen to people who listen to academics whose models which predict disaster. Lest we forget.

        • Neville, have you got any Nazi memoribilia up on eBay?

        • Much like the closet homosexual whose homophobic rants are neverending, the closet nazi rants about eugenics.

          ________________________________

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its not my fault if you guys are pushing for the implementation of harmful policies on the basis of pseudoscientific predictions of imminent catastrophe – just like the NAZIs did.

      • Yawn. Eugenics. What about all the counter-examples? You’ll ignore them too, I know.

        You guys think you’re Galileos but you’re just Lysenkos.

      • I have solved Eric’s eugenics issue. Never vote a right wing party into power. They abuse the science. Lest we forget, as Eric would say.

    • Dr No says:

      JHS asks:
      “What would you like next, Master? I have set the Global Warming Conspiracy alight. The UN is in on it, of course. The world’s governments are in too, ‘natch. The bankers are on-board – and the lawyers will simply follow them. The military and the insurers are with us. Heck, I even got the facts to join us.”

      My apologies for mentioning world government. That was meant to be a secret.
      However, I am considering whom to appoint as ministers. I am thinking: Al Gore for PM, Tim Flannery as deputy, Margaret Thatcher (Research), Bob Brown (trees and furry animals), Michael Mann (corrections minister), Tony Abbott (“climate change is crap” can be responsible for sewerage)….any other suggestions?

    • Dr NO says:

      I had “Lord” Monckton in mind for court jester.

  11. No, I’m saying that you guys are incompetent for confusing a kid’s science-fair project with a genuine temperature reconstruction from tree-ring data. Anyone who reads that email carefully should be able to figure out for him/herself that nobody was attempting to reconstruct a temperature history from that low-elevation tree-ring data.

    If you can’t read for comprehension a short email message about some kid’s science-fair project, then there’s certainly no reason to accept anything else from you at face value…

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Tom Wigley was citing his son’s high school project as evidence that tree growth is an unreliable proxy for temperature. So either Tom Wigley had a point, or he was being incompetent by even mentioning his son’s project in that context, if it was so obviously not relevant to the subject at hand. Which one is it?

      • Dr No says:

        What a pathetic debating point.
        Reeks of desperation to find something to argue about.

      • zoot says:

        Tom Wigley was not citing his son’s high school project as evidence that tree growth is an unreliable proxy for temperature.

        Fixed it for you Eric.

        Note for lurkers: follow the link, read the email and see how Eric has read into it material that is just not there.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’ve already pointed out they were very much mates rallying around a mate in distress, advising Mann how to game the scientific process to avoid embarrassment. Tom was simply pointing out the science issue, but he was very much on board for helping Mann avoid legitimate criticism.

          As Briffa said (in the same email):-

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0682.txt

          Mike
          there is often no benefit in bandying fine points of emphasis and implication- Hence , I think that what you have already drafted is fine. Do not start to dilute or confuse the issue with too much additional detail. The job , as you state , is to place on record the statement of disagreement with the “science(!)” and spin. To this end , it may also be worth stating in less couched terms that merely eyeballing the relative magnitudes of recent versus prior period(s) of large scale warmth, is in itself very limited as a basis for claiming the reality OR OTHERWISE of anthropogenic forcing of the recent warming , if this is done without reference to the uncertainty and causes of these differences. The points you make to Tom are of course very valid , but do not be tempted to guild the lily too much here – stick with your current content Keith

        • Quote mining is amusing.

          January 2012
          Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy
          Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight to
          prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global
          warming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012. This document offers such a set of
          priorities. I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of
          Institute Board and senior staff. More details can be found in our 2012 Proposed Budget
          document and 2012 Fundraising Strategy memo. In 2012 our efforts will focus in the following
          areas:
          Increased climate project fundraising
          Our climate work is attractive to flinders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose
          contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 – about 20% of our total
          2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012 – see the 2011 Fourth Quarter Financial
          Report. We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They
          returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up
          their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus
          continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work,
          especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.
          Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project.
          Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are
          considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are
          pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12
          schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the
          U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will
          focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and
          uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We
          tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by
          the Anonymous Donor.
          Funding for parallel organizations.
          Heartland is part of a growing network of groups working the climate issues, some of which we
          support financially. We will seek additional partnerships in 2012. At present we sponsor the
          NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports and paid a team of writers
          $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered. Expenses will
          be about the same in 2012. NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations,
          both of them requesting anonymity. Another $88,000 is earmarked this year for Heartland staff,
          incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and

        • Eric Worrall says:

          That was the document Gleick fabricated, when he didn’t find anything nasty in the files he stole.

        • You’ve given me the Mandy Rice-Davies response “you would say that, wouldn’t you?” It’s bang on the money, down to names and amounts.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its a nonsense which reads like something written by a Batman villain – a clumsy fabrication. And it gets several key facts wrong – but sloppy work is what you would expect of an alarmist.

          Here is a list of all the “problems” with the document, if you are interested.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-concludes-peter-gleick-is-the-likely-forger/

        • Watts, funded by Hearland, puts Heartland in the clear. How very skeptical of you. A less biased source concluded otherwise, http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/23/is-the-heartland-strategy-memo/.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The memo is a joke, a clumsy forgery. It even contains Gleick’s punctuation errors.

        • I think the key part in that memo is this….

          “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

          Yes we can’t be teaching science. That might lead to critical thinking.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

          Thats actually one of the key indicators the document is a fake. That is what you think of us, not what we think of ourselves. We think alarmists are abusing the scientific process, and that we are on the side of legitimate science – so a “denier” would never have written that statement.

        • The document is real. That’s why the sponsors fled Heartland. You are allergic to facts.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The document is a joke – an incompetent attempt to stir up trouble. And last I heard, Heartland finances were doing fine – unless you have other information?

        • Excuse me Bozo. I was addressing someone else. When I want to talk to a moron, I’ll seek you out.

      • Did you miss Pfizer and GM leaving them? And the others? Didn’t Watts post on it?

      • Eric is right. There is a climate conspiracy. It came to me this morning.

        Stephan Lewandowsky’s thesis is that climate so-called sceptics have Libertarian and conspiracy theorist tendencies. Needless to say, he’s been attacked for formulating such an unobvious thesis. So, to demonstrate his point, he has created a being in that image. He needed someone who could not only post up is down inanities, and not just defend them – but repeat them in the face of any counter-evidence without so much as blinking an eye. He has deployed his Frankendenier on WtD.

        That’s right, Eric Worrall is really a nom-de-guerre for Stephan Lewandowsky.
        Have you ever seen them together? The jig’s up all you warmists. You’ll stop at nothing. The conspiracy is proven. Come out Lewandowsky.

      • Gosh, Hearltand lost 57% of its revenue. 57%. LOST. Real transparency is indeed a wondrous thing. I’m looking forward to GWPF announcing its funding too. Mind you, I could well turn Papa Smurf blue before our worst Chancellor ever’s organisation divulges that.

    • http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/denier-comment-of-the-day-november-15-2012/

      He doesn’t read anything for himself. If Watts, McIntyre or Nova say it, that’s all needs.

  12. Following up — here’s a link to a Google Map of NCAR and the surrounding region: http://goo.gl/maps/ySnFf

    Anyone who can’t figure out right off the bat why trees growing there aren’t used as temperature proxies needs to go back for another helping of high-school science.


  13. Here’s a beautiful example of this from Climategate – Tom Wigley explains to Mike Mann that his son Eirik’s high school experiment demonstrates that trees are poor proxies for temperature.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0682.txt

    A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation.

    This is a spectacular example of denier incompetence — the trees located near NCAR are ponderosa pines growing near their *lower* elevation limits — go any lower in elevation and you are in brush/grassland. Temperature is not the limiting factor for tree-growth there; moisture is.

    No competent scientist would try to use *low elevation ponderosa pines* as temperature proxies.

    Tree-ring data used as temperature proxies always comes from *temperature limited* trees (i.e. trees growing at *upper* timberlines, either in altitude or latitude). At very high elevations/latitudes, tree growth is limited more by temperature than by moisture availability (i.e. at high elevations, snowpack persists well into summer, providing plenty of moisture should the temperatures be high enough for the trees to use it).

    But at lower elevations (i.e. at the forest/scrub-grassland interface where NCAR is located), the opposite tends to be true — trees there will not be good temperature proxies, for reasons that should be obvious to college freshmen.

    This should give folks another clue as to why Anthony Watts failed to graduate from college.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Such regions are known as “polar deserts”, for good reason – rainfall in the high arctic is often very low. How do you know that precipitation is not a major factor in tree growth?

      And its not Watts trying to tell Mann he’s wrong in the email, its one of his friends, Tom Wigley. Note the advice at the top of the email to Mann to use spin to win the case – their first concern is to get Mann out of trouble, not the maintenance of scientific integrity.

      In any case, this is not the first time someone tried to tell Mann he was wrong about trees. It turns out there is another measure of tree growth which is a more reliable indicator of temperature than growth – as one of the Russian scientists Mann employed to gather samples tried to explain:-

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0907975032.txt

      Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the
      same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably. During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during
      1410-1250 BC and 500-350 BC. Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD. There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during
      last century.

      But why would a great physicist like Michael Mann need to listen to a mere biologist?

  14. john byatt says:

    Watts seems to be claiming an implausible level of confidence

    • Did you like the swimming pool reference? Reminds me of an esky and some cling wrap.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Yes, shows how incompetent alarmist scientists are when their science can be falsified by a high school level experiment.

        Here’s a beautiful example of this from Climategate – Tom Wigley explains to Mike Mann that his son Eirik’s high school experiment demonstrates that trees are poor proxies for temperature.

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0682.txt

        A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage nonstationary. I have not seen any papers in the literature demonstrating this — but, as you point out Mike, it is a crucial issue.

      • john byatt says:

        you just read it and shake your head, lights are on but no one home

      • john byatt says:

        we went swimming yesterday, Mullens creek in the Great Sandy straits, it was late in the afternoon and the water was like a hot bath, therefore the oceans are much warmer than thermometers are showing and get hotter as the sun goes down

        • A few days ago I was swmiiming in the local river. When I got out, a cool breeze made me feel cold. Obviously the weather bureau’s thermometers have a warm bias because it didn’t feel like it was 24 degrees. It must be that data manipulating they do.

      • Dr No says:

        Christmas eve was much cooler this year compared to last year. In fact it was (statistically) significantly cooler. That surely disproves global warming.

  15. john byatt says:

    The Royal society rewrite brought their state of the science into line with IPCC AR4 and watts calls it toning down?

    bet that not one of the deniers has even read it

    • Eric Worrall says:

      A shame AR4 is not in agreement with global temperatures.

        • “here’s a good one” ?? really? Bozo you wouldn’t know good science if you tripped over it.

          When you start using “papers” that appear over at poptech’s site with his “1100+ peer-reviewed papers” then you really are scraping the bottom of the barrell. What you have here are some authors writing about a field that is outside of their expertise, publishing in an obscure unrelated journal with a very poor impact factor of 1.54, that allows excessive self-citation and referencing of blogs. These authors have been heavily criticised by actual experts for extremely sloppy and inappropriate methodology. i think this statement from your “good one” sums up the attitude of these non-experts.

          “We wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers, whose both strongly positive and strongly negative comments were important to us: the former for encouraging us and the latter for making us more confident that we did not err, as well as for forcing us to improve the presentation significantly. ”

          So, when receiving negative reviewer feedback, they were more certain that their dodgy methods were correct. That is an astounding admission to make.  But here is my question to you Bozo, do you think it is legitimate to use a deterministc hydrological model to model climate? If so, how would you account for the lack of internal variability inputs in the hydrological model? Of course the point of my asking you these questions is to determing if you actually understand why you think that paper is a “good one”. i think you think it is a good one because you found it at a denier den and so faithfully accept the words of your equally stupid heroes. 

          ________________________________

        • Huzzah. You did find a paper! Well done. Which denier site did you harvest. It’s a shame there are a number of better papers out there that don’t agree. But, hey, that’s what a consensus is.

          Utter nonsense, “you can’t model this”. Non-linear chaotic systems are modelled every day. Take the three body problem based upon Newtonian gravity. It is both non-linear and chaotic. Yet, daringly, satellites are launched.

          Good try. It was a vast improvement on no citation, agreed. It’s just not a very good one.

        •  I’m still waiting for Bozo to explain why he thinks its ok to use a hydrological model to model climate when it doesn’t account for internal variability? Yes yes I know I’m giving him too much credit but its always fun to see him bluster away with an attack to hide his ignorance.

          ________________________________

      • zoot says:

        I’m still waiting for Bozo to grasp the concept “global”. According to him global warming only encompasses temperature rises measured on land.

  16. john byatt says:

    So some of the missing heat is found in the deep ocean and watts thinks that ARGO references to cooling of the upper ocean rebuts that?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144941.htm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      They’re claiming implausible levels of confidence in highly uncertain measurements.

      You can’t even measure the heat content of a swimming pool without at least 3 or 4 thermometers.

      • There must be a prize in denier heaven for so completely missing the point.

        I’ll be a whole Delingpole watermelon that had they shown a temperature decrease the link would have splatted across the denial echo-chamber in under two hours.

  17. […] 2012/12/17: WtD: War on the IPCC: on that leaked IPCC draft document […]

  18. Thanks guys. I’ve almost got enough now.

  19. john byatt says:

    santa is coming, go to bed

  20. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    December 24, 2012 at 9:30 am
    John did –

    Worrall gives the game away. He’s an embittered member of the innumerate right wing, the same lot that said Romney would win by a landslide.

    I just demonstrated I did *not* say that.

    Its rather sad when you’re so immersed in lies, you even lie to yourselves.

    ????????????????????????????

    comprehension problem, i do not talk politics

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I did not predict a Romney victory, I expressed a hope he would win – so how does that make me part of “the same lot that said Romney would win by a landslide”?

      • Your grasp of science and numeracy is shared by the American Republican party. You’re the one that posts anti-Obama videos. You’re the one with policy based science.

      • zoot says:

        1. The references didn’t back your statement.
        2. The MET office “admitted” nothing of the kind.
        3. No “excuses” were offered for anything.
        What is your first language? You obviously have no clues when it comes to English. What language should we translate our comments into so you will comprehend them?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes they did:-

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

          See? No warming between 1997 and now.

          They go on to claim that this is misleading, but the implication of this claim is that the flatline is a temporary artefact. It will be interesting to see how long this temporary artefact lasts.

        • Selective quoting is the deniar downfall. A half-truth is a whole lie.

          “As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

          Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.”

        • Eric Worrall says:

          That statement is a little disingenuous of the MET office, given that 1/3 of all human CO2 emissions have occurred since 1997, with bugger all shift in temperature to show for it.

          Of course, if the MET office had the balls to put forward a prediction like “we expect temperatures to return to trend by 2020″, then it would be different – but alarmists don’t do falsifiability these days.

        • You’ve not read the Met’s blog then? Ah, no surprise. As for Watts, he predicts and gets it wrong. Why do you still cite him?

      • zoot says:

        You need a remedial reading course.

      • zoot says:

        Eric, who do you think you’re fooling?
        Very few people are as innumerate, scientifically illiterate and just plain gormless as you.
        And none of them visit this site.

      • zoot says:

        According to the guys who measure the temperature (not that corrupt crew at CRU that you don’t trust because they manipulate the data to show false warming but it’s ok to use the same data to produce your magic flatline), 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 have all been hotter than 1997.

      • zoot says:

        Eric, when you’re in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging.

  21. zoot says:

    The world has warmed since 1997, the evidence is overwhelming.

  22. john byatt says:

    Worse than we thought, will need to adjust temps up again,

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121223152408.htm

    post at real climate , changes will be significant

    • Eric Worrall says:

      From your link:-

      Bromwich and two of his graduate students, along with colleagues from NCAR and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, corrected the past Byrd temperature measurements and used corrected data from a computer atmospheric model and a numerical analysis method to fill in the missing observations.

      Not real science then – just more software model fantasies…

      • Dr No says:

        The Black Knight or a frog sitting in a beaker of water that is slowly heating.
        Both images come to mind.

      • zoot says:

        Not real science then. Just cherry picking to the max.

      • zoot says:

        Yawn. Let me know when you’ve got some evidence that the world stopped warming in 1997.

      • zoot says:

        I asked a simple question – when will this alleged ocean heating cause the land thermometers to start moving again?

        So it’s only global warming if the land thermometers have an increasing trend? Anything else, like the cryosphere for instance, doesn’t count.
        A village near Southampton must be mourning the loss of their idiot.

      • When you’ve digested the effects of El Nino and La Nina come back to this thread.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Don’t be such a coward – you put a number on it, if you can find an alarmist authority which is prepared to put their reputation on the line.

        • I shall not cast my pearls before an uneducated swine. Do some swotting up. You obviously don’t know the distinction – and you’ll need to know to rise above your ignorist position.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Coward. What you’re trying to say is you won’t commit yourself to a position which can be falsified.

          I say the flatline will continue for the next decade.

        • You can conintue call up down for the next decade and no-one will care. But you need to understand El Nino and La Nina if you want to understand. I’ll give you a hint. Which one was 1997? You are too cowardly to educate yourself. And a conspiracy theorist. And you accuse your opponents of being Nazis. And you selectively quote. Those are all cowardly traits, aren’t they? If you don’t want to understand, don’t study. I don’t believe you do want to understand. So, so far, you’re performing as I’d expected. Just a garden variety conspiracy theorist.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You can’t do it, can you? Because you don’t dare jeopardise your faith with the risk of falsification.

          If you know so much about ENSO, tell me when your climate heroes predict when strong atmospheric warming will resume.

        • Not up for self-study? Not surprised. But at least you now accept the increased heat is in the ocean – so the globe really is warming. So you’re smarter today than you were yesterday – and isn’t that a good way to finish a day?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          There has been no significant ocean heating – your heroes are clutching at straws.

        • That’s not what the thermometers in the ocean say. You’re in deep denial. They’re warming and absorbing more carbon. But you don’t mind experimenting with it, do you?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/has-trenberths-missing-heat-been-found-southern-oceans-are-losing-heat/

          … They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm−2 in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2, with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm−2 in January and −79 Wm−2 in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets. …

          Like I said, your climate heroes are clutching at straws. Next they’ll be blaming Chinese particulates, or the ozone hole…

        • Watts is not science. He’s been demonstated wrong so often I’m shocked you continue to cite him. This is science. See http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html. So is this, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml. And the scientific agreement is in agreement.

          It’s really simple. More energy is entering the atmosphere than is leaving. The result is heat.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Not so – the surface temperature thermometers haven’t moved for 15 years.

          If you think heat is building up in the ocean, then tell me when it will make the surface thermometers move – because I think your heat buildup is a crock.

        • You’ve been proven not even wrong about most everything you’ve posted here. Here’s something to get your teeth into on Solar Cycles. http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Your paper focusses on TSI. But go on believing – and let me know when you are prepared to risk your faith based belief with a falsifiable prediction.

        • I keep giving you data and you keep denying it. Climategate – I give you you lost nine times – and you complain they’re all whitewashes. Heartland – I give you revenue down 57% – you claim that’s not correct though you provide nothing better. Predictions – I give you the Met Office and you sniff saying not good enough. You’ve been shown wrong at every turn. You ask for falsifiable data, you get it and you say it’s not good enough.

          Yet Watts, at just about every turn, proven wrong and yet you cite him. Arctic ice, BEST and all the other wattssillierthanthis and yet you quote him. Wonderful. You are a caricature of of a garden variety denier.

          The world is warming. CO2 is the cause. The models work.

          Please post something comparing me to a Nazi so that your day can be made complete.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes, but when will this warming actually happen?

          Your climate heroes and their models can’t help you answer that question, can they?

        • Here’s more predictabilty for you to ignore, http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html.

          Your climate zeroes have been proven wrong at every turn, is that why they’ve stopped making predictions? Wattswrongwiththem?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          They can retrofit the climate model predictions, but they’re not very good at actually predicting things in advance.

        • The predictions were in the papers and the results demonstrate that. The models contine to work. The best bit is that it irks the deniers that they do.

        • How is Bozo meant to maintain his wilful ignorance if you keep giving him stuff to read? Isn’t that right Bozo?

          ________________________________

        • I do apologise for giving you scientific source material. I should have known better. I’ll leave you to your bonkers blogs.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Have we figured out what your students have to do to get a straight answer out of you Uki?

        • Where are the deniers predictions? All gone quiet as they’ve all been proven wrong…

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Actually Svensmark was the only scientist I know of who predicted the current flatline, without retrofitting models after the fact.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

        • Truly bonkers and well debunked. There’s more energy entering the atmosphere than leaving. The result is warmth. It’s in the graphs you cherry pick to hide the incline.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I notice you’re still not providing any firm prediction of when this temporary imaginary flatline in global temperatures will end.

        • When I spoonfeed you the science you just deny it. You’re hiding the multi-decadal incline. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I should hardly be expected to accept research results from someone who has such strong feelings he has been arrested at least twice at climate rallies.

          It would be like accepting pro-smoking research from the tobacco lobby.

        • That’s an intriguing equivalence. Equating publicly putting one’s body on the line with secretly accepting funding. Fascinating. You prove Lewdanowsky correct with most every post. Intriguing.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Someone who gets himself arrested a couple of times because of his zealotry cannot also be considered an impartial source of information.

        • Isn’t it good that scientists take action? I think so. Einstein did.

          You’re a hoot. You don’t mind accusing them of conspiracy but when they come out with what they know you don’t like that either.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Perhaps, but it does rather open the question of whether they are scientists first, or activists first. A scientist who gets himself arrested at protests is a zealot, not a disinterested observer.

        • That’s a fair question. He’s proven himself a brilliant scientist first, and humanitarian second. That’s not a bad legacy.

          Now, turn your super-sceptic powers onto your own team. Any brilliant scientists? Not really, a very few second-raters. Any humanitarians, anyone putting themselves in harm’s way? Not to my knowledge…

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Hansen is a nutcase – he thinks the oceans will boil if we don’t close a few factories.

        • Fact free slander. Well done. Mind you he has a better CV and more papers than any of the deniers. I understand their envy.

          Nine times, eh? It must be hard to lose so often. And NiWA. And Virginia. You clutch onto that PCC adjudication. Hold it tight. It’s all you have.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Except the one which got away – the only “inquiry” held with anything like judicial rigour, which found Delingpole had the right to continue describing climategate scientists as unreliable and unscientific, because he provided evidence to back his claims.

        • Spoken like a true denier! Well done, Eric. One ruling from the most inept regulating body in the country that grudgingly gives Delingpole a pass as he wasn’t doing real journalism at the time – set that one ruling against a dozen the other way by reputable bodies and real life courts – and you take the sliver of denier hope from the avalanche of denier failure. Watts would be proud.

          Now, just in case you’re waiting. I’m a bit of a sceptic you see. I rather like my source documents. You may have noticed that I tend to pass along raw science and data. You may not have noticed, but I’m waiting on you to produce the link to the raw PCC judgement on Delingpole. His crowing is good for his fanbois. The actual link to the adjucication please. There’s a good man.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Why? Do you think Delingpole has provided fabricated quotes?

        • No source material then? Delingpole is merely an “interpreter of other peoples’ interpretations” by his own admission (or did you also ignore the video of that vicious Sir Paul letting loose on your poor James – it was a bloodbath). That’s why is science is so poor.

          Original source material, please. Or you’ve lost this one too I’m afraid. Such a shame – and you were so convinced you had a winner. I’m sure you’ll come up with something.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I can’t locate the document on the PCC site. But there is a reference to the ruling in the Levenson inquiry case material, and the disappointed response by the CRU to the ruling.

          http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Joint-submission-from-Bishop-Hill-and-Harmless-Sky.pdf

          So you can’t deny the ruling exists.

        • Your backing documentation is from two of the most stupid deniers on the planet. I don’t doubt James was found not guilty – on the grounds that a blog isn’t journalism and you are free to be wrong and stupid.

          Once again you have failed. Your quote mining has brought you up sharply.

          Nine times you lost, eh?

        • reference please?

          ________________________________

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I just provided it?

        • and i watched it. Oh….you were paraphrasing? Interesting technique. Usually when paraphrasing it pays to be accurate. Now be a good boy and go watch it again and listen very very carefully to what he says and then be honest in how you represent his words.

        • Another challenge for Eric to ignore? He’s not doing well, here, is he? He clutches onto his not even wrong assertion of flatlining because it’s really all he has.

        • he is the gift that keeps on giving

          ________________________________

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Your ongoing denial of the flatline is rather pathetic. And I notice you still haven’t produce a prediction of when temperatures will rise significantly above 1997 levels.

        • You’ve learnt your name. Well done. There’s hope for you yet. I teach at university level. My students know better than to come and ask me for the answers. That’s what children and less intelligent people do. Instead, to foster critical thinking skills, I direct them to sources where they will be able to develop those skills and discern the answers for themselves, as I did for you. However, rather than take that bit of advice, you decided that you knew better and chose to ignore it, so it’s your loss. Feel free to scroll back through and find the path to your enlightenment Bozo. If however you lack the skills or intellect to practice some critical thinking, then perhaps a remedial class would suit you better.

          As for your original comment about “having to get their tits out” to get an answer, well, that says an aweful lot about you, not me. Now, if you don’t mind, I need to go and talk to grown ups so goodbye.

          ________________________________

        • eworrall1 says:

          So you don’t do a answers to questions, just bluster to cover your ignorance.

        • Oh Bozo, who do you think marks their work? 

          If anyone blusters to cover their ignorance (and fails miserably) it is you. Your wilful ignorance is on display everytime you comment in here. We can now also add to your ignorance list, how university teaching works…surprise surprise surprise. A reflection perhaps of your education level that you don’t know? 

          You are an intellectual lightweight Bozo, and you are too arrogant and stupid to realise it. You mistakingly believe you’re winning these “arguments” and guiding any lurkers to “the truth” when in fact, they are more than likely reading your ridiculous comments and the derision you attract from everybody and deciding that if you’re the calibre of person on the denial side then there is no way that side can be correct. You’re a fool and a clown and doing the world a massive favour, ironically. At first I thought perhaps you were a genius Poe, but even the best of them can’t maintain the illusion of stupidity in such a sustained manner as you. No, you are the real deal Bozo. A bonafide posterchild for idiocy and denial and completely beyond help. For that I must thank you. I have started rewriting my lesson plans for next year and you will make an excellent case study. You will be helping me churn out hundreds of students able to instantly recognise the idiocy of denial. Well done.          

          ________________________________

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Happy to help Uki – let me know if you have any questions, I’ll try to answer them clearly and honestly.

      • Ah, two links means the reply is moderated. Got it.

        Watts is not science. He’s been demonstated wrong so often I’m shocked you continue to cite him. This is science. See http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html.And the scientific agreement is in agreement.

        It’s really simple. More energy is entering the atmosphere than is leaving. The result is heat.

      • So is this, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml.

        As for software models being fantasies – you don’t happen to fly by any chance do you? Or cross bridges? Amongst the most Luddite of the denier arguments is “it’s just models”. So is F=ma.

        • E=mc^2. Damn those models!

        • Eric Worrall says:

          E=MC^2 came from measurements of incredible precision – precise measurements of the speed of light, which determined it was always the same, regardless of the direction of measurement, and precise measurements of the orbit of Mercury, which determined it wasn’t behaving as Newton said it should (but was only out by a tiny amount).

          Even then Relativity had a rival theory, which wasn’t falsified until measurements were taken of the gravitational lensing of starlight during a solar eclipse.

          To put such science in the same category as the vague BS predictions of climate science is an insult to your profession.

        • Michelson-Morley’s original experiment was far more dicey than you might think.Do read up on it. And lots of people denied relativity was true for quite some time. Heck, even Einstein denied quantum mechanics with “God does not play dice with the universe”. So you’re in good company, Eric. There’s little shame in being wrong.

        • Bozo, clearly there is something mentally wrong with you. I told you that if I want to talk to a moron I’ll seek you out.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its a blog Uki. The other voices are in your head.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The heat content studies are full of uncertainty. You can’t accurately measure the heat content of a swimming pool without several thermometers, so suggesting you can accurately measure the heat content of the ocean with a few thousand measurements is a nonsense.

        • What utter tosh. Refresh your cut’n’paste denier board. Of course you can sample the ocean.

        • Accurately enough for useful science.

          This is beginning to sound like the nonsense Watts tried to stir up with Urban Heat Islands. That was embarassing for him, wasn’t it?

  23. Hi Eric,

    You didn’t do the task did you.
    The trend line continues to rise and and most of the monthly temperature record stays above the trend and all of the yearly averages stay above the trend. The temperatures have stayed above the RISING trend line for 15 years.

    Glad you mentioned climate sensitivity. It is somewhere between 2 degrees and 4 degrees for a doubling of CO2 – probably about 3 degrees. This is when the climate system comes into equilibrium. What is really interesting is the long period of time that this value has been accepted. Arrhenius in 1996 calculated it to be 4 degrees which is probably a bit high. Charney in 1979 calculated it to be 3 degrees, and this value has stood all tests since then.

    That our climate is quite sensitive to changes in CO2 is one of the major reasons for concern about our current course.

    In the end Eric, many people on this blog have shown your claims to be wrong.

    Sadly what you are doing is making a bet that virtually all of our science organisations, the vast majority of relevant experts, major financial institutions like PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Munich RE and the World Bank are all wrong. Bets need currency to support them, and yours is the quality of life of our descendents. That is not a bet that I am willing to take.

    • zoot says:

      Stephen, it’s a waste of energy and time trying to nudge Eric into the real world.
      He much prefers his delusional faith based coccoon, which he knows is right (he don’t need no stinkin’ proof!).

      • Zoot, you are right, of course. There are times when I have been irritated by the way Eric and people like him derail otherwise sensible discussions.

        I expect there are two reasons for engaging with Eric
        1. it is fun seeing the ways he tries to justify the unjustifiable
        2. I was a lurker on this site until recently. I expect that there are other lurkers out there and we don’t want to give them the impression that Eric’s arguments are factual or make any sense.

        • eworrall1 says:

          When will temperatures start to rise again?

          There is already a “CO2 debt” of 0.3c, accumulated since 1997, if the IPCC carbon sensitivity 3c per doubling is correct.

          Of course you can’t actually tell me the answer – after all the billions spent on developing climate models, you guys are still reading tea leaves when it comes to predicting climate change.

          I look forward to next year’s excuses.

    • eworrall1 says:

      Similar things were said in support of action to avert the Eugenics crisis – better to act, to be on the safe side.

      It’s a variation of the old religion argument. 100s of millions of people, many of them scientists, believe in God.

      If you don’t believe, you got to hell after you die.

      So it is safer to set aside your doubts, and go to church, to avert the risk of eternal damnation.

      Of course, it’s a logical nonsense – you can advance similar arguments in favour of building giant lasers to deflect incoming asteroids, or any other pseudoscientific doomsday fantasy.

      • zoot says:

        Of course Eric. Now put down the crack pipe, nice and gently, and back away slowly, keep your hands where I can see them. The nice man here is going to look after you; no need to be afraid, it’s all going to be all right.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Confident words for someone on the losing side of the debate, zoot.

          No global climate agreement. No global warming. You guys really are a dwindling minority.

      • Dr No says:

        Remember the Monty Python Black Knight sketch:
        King Arthur .. “rides” away,..leaving the Black Knight’s limbless torso screaming threats at him (“Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to ya! I’ll bite your legs off!”).

        Why does Eric remind me of that?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given that the highlight of the Rio climate conference was the President of Iran’s speech on the imminent demise of secularism, and the highlight of Qatar was Monckton crashing the conference, I think its pretty clear to any normal person who most resembles the “limbless knight” of the Python sketch.

          Copenhagen was the high point of your faith – the last conference attended by anyone important. Its all downhill from there.

      • zoot says:

        I think its pretty clear to any normal person who most resembles the “limbless knight” of the Python sketch.

        You’ll have to give us some idea of what you think a normal person is first

  24. Here is a task for you:
    1. plot the temperature record 1980 to 2012
    2. draw in the trend till 1997
    3. extend that line to the current period of time
    4. note that most of the temperature data is ABOVE the trend line
    5. if you use yearly averages ALL of the temperatures are above the 1980 to 1997 trend line (as extended to the current time)
    If as you claim, temperatures stopped rising in 1997 then you would expect that most of the temperatures would be below the 1980 to 1997 trend line, and in fact that they would be increasingly below that rising trend line. This is clearly not the case.

    With regard to your oft repeated claim that temperatures are not keeping up with CO2 rise – no one expects that to be the case for the following reasons:
    1. the relationship is logarithmic
    2. a great deal of the heating goes into other processes including:
    a. warming the oceans, and,
    b. melting ice
    both of which are powering the increase in sea level rise

  25. Oh dear Eric,

    The TSI has been flat since 1950. In fact it has probably declined in the last 25 years.

    Here is a long article based on peer reviewed science on the topic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

    The solar hypothesis is “a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

    You haven’t responded to my demonstration that the warming did not stop in 1997, instead you changed the subject to the “its the sun” nonsense.

  26. Eric Worrall says:

    Global warming could turn the Earth into a gigantic atomic bomb (h/t WUWT).

    http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

    Takes stupid to previously unimagined heights.

  27. This comment seemed to get stuck in moderation.

    Eric,

    Not surprisingly you did not respond to the point that I made, instead you continued to regurgitate the same discredited line.

    Here is your wood for trees graph with one addition – the trend from 1980 to 1997.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1997/trend

    You will note that BOTH short term trends (the 1980 to 1997 trend and the 1997 to 2012 trend) are lower than the 32 year one. This shows the danger of wielding short term trends to make an “argument”. It is somewhat reminiscent of Skeptical Science’s Escalator – http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    If, as you claim, warming stopped in 1997 then the temperatures after 1997 would be below the 1980 to 1997 trend ( as you extend it to the current time ). Tamino demonstrated that all yearly average temperatures from 1998 to 2011 are above the 1980 to 1997 trend line. The graph that I modified from yours shows that most monthly temperatures have been above that trend.

    You are making a statistical argument that breaks basic rules of statistics. If you go to Tamino’s site you will learn a great deal about statistics from an expert.

  28. The claim that surface warming stopped in 1997, would seem to imply that temperatures were warming between 1980 and 1996.

    If the trend line between 1980 and 1996 is extended to the current period, all of the yearly average temperatures are above that line. If warming had “flatlined” in 1997 then you would expect that most of the measured temperatures would fall below the extended (and rising) trend line.

    Tamino provides the evidence half way though the following post:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/#more-6082

  29. Moth says:

    I don’t think it’s of any concern. I wrote about it here:

    http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/good-news-from-the-leaked-fifth-ipcc-report/

    In essence, the deniers gave it their own peer review and all that good was one paragraph, taken out of context. That’s good news. There’s no “Whatever-Gates,” no typos, no poor references, nothing – just a desperate attempt to continue to validate a stupid idea that is contrary to more than a century and a half of investigation.

    Few people doubt the reality of water as a greenhouse gas as it’s of no concern to human activity, so I like to show them this great graph from Li-Cor, who make Infra-red Gas Analysers. It shows the absorption wavelengths of both water and CO2 and the regions that their devices monitor for reading:

    Note that the region is infra-red, otherwise known as heat… We know with high precision the greenhouse properties of CO2. It’s amazing what some people are willing to overlook to hold onto a desired fantasy!

    • Moth says:

      The image didn’t embed…

      • john byatt says:

        yes we must keep up the pretense so no one finds out how heat seeking missiles really work

        the world is ours

      • Moth says:

        Yes Eric, we’re going to be saved from an amplified greenhouse effect due to additional gigatonnes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by clouds…

        I suppose you get around riding on a nimbus cloud yourself?

        Give me a link to a quality scientific paper that hasn’t yet been thoroughly discredited that states how wonderfully safe we are because our friendly clouds will save the day rather than a link to your favoured site of misinformation.

        Incidentally, I’m not sure if you’ve spent too much time in the tropics, but I have (far north Queensland) and I assure you, it gets damn cloudy there and the clouds don’t simply cool it down, but trap a lot of heat, making it very muggy.

      • john byatt says:

        There is good comment about erics nonsense currently at realclimate
        Climate sensitivity part 2.

      • Moth says:

        Ultimately John, Eric is displaying a classic case of cognitive dissonance. The science simply doesn’t back up his feverish devotion to the counter argument. He cannot therefore reason that his argument is sound and theoretically most plausible, BUT only that he wants to it be so (expressed by his venomous, circular nonsense all over WtD) and he basis the foundation of this on the fact that many others also share his hope (dare I say faith) which he demonstrates through his various links to places like WUWT.

        He likens us to devotees, but who here really holds the faith argument? The best trained minds on the subject for more than a century have continued to return the answer to a doubling of CO2 with a 2-5°C of warming…

        As our methods have improved, this reply have become more certain and more refined. Knutti and Hegerl (2008) summarise this wonderfully.

        As Tim Minchin puts it;

        “Science adjust it’s views based on what’s observed.
        Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.”

        If the science suddenly changed, well I would adjust my views accordingly. The vast majority of the science literature not only support the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but persistently the same ball park figures.

        Eric, on the other hand, rejects these observations and turns instead to non-science literature, second hand representations of the literature (often misunderstood or cherry picked) and wishful thinking; ie. the helpful nimbus cloud.

        We’ve long known that such people are the true devotees to a faith position which simply cannot adjust itself to contradictory reality. This and many of WtD comment threads demonstrate that we’re feeding the fire. We give his pathetic stance credibility because we take it seriously.

        Eric isn’t worth acknowledgement.

    • john byatt says:

      There were a few things in the report htat appeared a bit old but that was acknowledged and this is the very reason for the review, to get the latest in science into the report

  30. john byatt says:

    Extreme events, impacts of climate change

    • Dr No says:

      John,
      somebody here (we all know who) posed the following:
      “Answer my question – how can you reliably determine whether a group of researchers who claim to be scientific are actually practicing pseudoscience?”

      A more pointed question might be:
      “How do you detect b.s.?”
      which, if anybody is interested, is very simple.

      Take your everday denialist, and ask them if they disagree with anything posted in the name of denialsm – including all the crackpot science and comments from nutters who infest the blogosphere. The response will be deafening. That is a sure sign that something is amiss .

      Take your average scientist, and ask them the equivalent question and you will uncover a range of opinions, and disagreements, each well reasoned and each worthy of discussion. That is a sure sign of an open-minded truly scientific approach to the problem.

      Another simple b.s. test is ask for “flat-liners” to quantify the probability that a new record global warm temperature will occur within the next 3 years. Just watch them squirm, obfuscate and run ! You also see some of them them shamelessly preparing for this event by shifting their arguments from “NO warming” to arguing that “THE warming” has nothing to do with enhanced greenhouse gases. Just sit back and watch them retreat and re-group.

      B.s (and pseudoscience) is relatively easy to detect.
      Is it curable? – definitely not.
      Is it harmful? Probably not much at this stage of the game.
      Is it irritating? Depends on your outlook. I often find it hilarious. After all, where would we be without Lord Monckton!

  31. john byatt says:

    And so it continues

    Following Monday’s highest tides ever recorded in Seattle, which sent waves spilling onto 100 properties in West Seattle, city climate-change watchers say the area could be in for more of the same — or worse — in years to come.

    “Yesterday’s tide would be an everyday tide by midcentury,” James Rufo-Hill, a Seattle Public Utilities meteorologist studying the potential effects of climate change, said Tuesday.

    That’s a scary thought for West Seattle resident Robert Porter, who said his property on Beach Drive Southwest was inundated with more waves Monday than when the so-called Hanukkah Eve storm hit in 2006. After pumping 3 feet of water off his yard with a 10-horsepower pump, he, his wife and two adult sons spent the day helping neighbors, some of whom saw their entire downstairs drenched in saltwater.

    “Everybody’s drying out now and trying to figure out what to do next,” Porter said Tuesday night.

    It wasn’t Seattle alone that experienced the wintertime “king tide,” pushed by strong winds Monday morning. In various areas around Puget Sound, waves bashed docks, sea walls and structures.

    Storm damage led Des Moines to close down Redondo Boardwalk until further notice. The tides and winds ripped wiring and some siding from Highline Community College’s aquarium of more than 100 species on the boardwalk, according to its executive director, Kaddee Lawrence.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Nice piece of fantasy – a slight flooding, such as used to happen sometimes when I lived by the river, coupled with ridiculous, overblown stories of the the coming apocalypse.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      This is quite cute – an animated graphic of IPCC failures, and evidence that they are consistently alarmist. A good reason not to worry about overblown predictions of SLR.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          From your link:-

          Although all three trend lines slope upward, their slopes aren’t statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they’re not upward. It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens — always — when the time span is short.

          That is simply not true. If you took 1980 – 1995, you would see a substantial warming. The issue with the 16 year flatline is that in this period:-

          1. 1/3 of all human emitted CO2 was emitted after 1997
          2. Global temperatures have barely budged.
          3. The solar theory does a much better job of explaining why than any CO2 based theory.

          I’m going to enjoy watching Tamino and your other climate heroes trying to explain year after year of flatlining temperatures.

          They’ve bought themselves some time with some waffle about ENSO. We’ll see what they have to say in a few years.

        • There are prior linear trends, Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, Apr ’77 – Nov ’85, Jan ’86 – Sep ’94, Jun ’94 – Aug ’97, Aug ’97 – Nov ’02, Nov ’02 – Oct ’12 But the upward trend is undeniable, unless you’re a conspiracy theorist zealot, http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

        • Eric Worrall says:

          So when will it no longer be possible to draw a flatline starting from 1997?

      • zoot says:

        It will always be possible to draw a flatline starting from 1997. You just have to choose your endpoint very carefully.

  32. john byatt says:

    WATTS 2011 they are not including natural variations, that is fraud

    WATTS 20112 They are including natural variations, that is fraud

  33. john byatt says:

    Just reading the comments, I think that I you want to convince the fence sitters, the best thing to do would not to make yourself appear to be a moron,

    might work for some?

  34. Cugel says:

    The practice of rolling out people with distinguished careers behind them, who should be in comfortable and private retirement in the care of their friends and loved-ones, to be exposed as figures of fun is a common denialist pracice. I find it despicable, but par for their course.

    Denial is over. Demographics alone will see to that, let alone the damn’ weather. This assault on the totemic IPCC is a huge matter for them, but a meaningless skirmish with hold-outs in the real world. The real players are distancing themselves from denial because it has become quite literally ridiculous.

  35. Eric Worrall says:

    Why we know the IPCC is pulling confidence estimates out of their @rse.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-ar5-graph-shows-ipcc-analysis-methodology-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/

    The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row. But they did! Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.

    In AR5 it looks like they’re upping the ante to 99% confidence, which will make their failure even more embarrassing.

  36. Nick says:

    What sacrifices are you making,again? Certainly not your time here: I don’t think you could be doing anything more useful,it’s beyond you!

  37. Richard Ryan says:

    Breaking News … the Evil Deniers are (again) irritatingly uncovering our scams, cherry-picked “evidence”, cover ups and other assorted nonsense. This has the potential to slow the Gravy Train. We MUST now act and release a new report with more dramatic scares e.g. sea levels will engulf all coastal cities by next Tuesday …
    Women and children first

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Stop it, or you won’t get your cheque from Exxon! :-)

      • Eric, without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

      • So, your response to “without using a conspiracy theory” is to use a conspiracy theory? “Those scientists are all in it for the money” tosspottery.

        Churchill also supported eugenics. Will you petition to strip his knighthood? No? Then stop using a silly meme, you just look daft deploying all four legs are cows arguments.

        As the Royal Society’s words are now Watts approved, will you be altering your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The Royal Society position is in violation of their old motto – nullus in verba (take the word of noone). So I’m not impressed at the toned down version of their advice to take their word for it, they shouldn’t be in the business of giving advice to anyone.

          And you will note that on several occasions I have suggested there is no evidence that I have seen that alarmist scientists do not believe what they preach, that they are just in it for the money – the evidence is they believe too strongly, and are prepared to fiddle the evidence to spin their case, when nature lets them down.

          Churchill did a great thing for the world when he defeated the Eugenics fascists in WW2. What is remarkable is that in the end he saw through the lies – given that pretty nearly every major scientific body in the world had expressed strong support for catastrophist Eugenics theory, and NAZI Germany was the acknowledged leader of the field, both in theory and practice.

        • The denial is deep. Churchill was a eugenicist. He recanted, as did everyone, after the Nazis. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics. Your argument is bonkers. Once some scientists were wrong therefore climate science is wrong. If so then Churchill’s knighthood should be removed. If you’re arguing all four legged animals are cows then Churchill is a Jersey. Face into it.

          Lewdanowsky absolutely has you nailed. You see conspiracies in everything. It’s amusing, but boring. Any fact plus a Worrall conspiracy theory equals any answer. The odd bit is that the only proven conspiracies on the table are from your side. Funny that.

        • John,I’m really disappointed in the Royal Society. Their motto which means “take the the word of noone” is being completely ignored! They accept the scientists’ word on evolution, gravity, HIV, the moon landing, heliocentrism. I mean, they obviously can’t be trusted.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The Royal Society was created by people who had fought for a world free of unquestionable authority. Its a shame we’ve forgotten why that is important.

        • Bozo, your name isn’t John. When I want to speak to a moron, I’ll seek you out.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          What you are having trouble accepting is the support of major scientific institutions is not proof that an alarmist scare is based on sound science, because the example of the Eugenics crisis shows that even major scientific organisations can be caught by pseudoscience. Lest we forget.

          Churchill recanted when he saw the horror which his philosophy had created. We are not quite at that point yet, noone cares enough about a few Africans starving because biofuel subsidies have pushed the price of food out of reach of the very poor.

          I’ve often wondered what the final Auschwitz moment will be for your nasty doomsday cult. My guess is it will be a Carbon Capture and Storage catastrophe. Someone, somewhere, will be crazy enough to bury a large quantity of CO2 near somewhere inhabited.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster

        • The Africans will starve due to the global warming you both refuse to acknowledge and mitigate. Food shortages are, sadly, one of the predictions of the change. You are a fatalist, in every overtone of that word.

          Your “once scientists were wrong therefore they’re wrong here” arugument is specious. However, for the sake of discussion, let me posit that it’s valid, just for the next sentence. Does that mean all deniers are wrong as their organisation defends smoking as in http://heartland.org/policy-documents/welcome-heartlands-smokers-lounge?

          Your continued Nazi analogies are intriguing. You are obsessed – possibly dangerously so.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The Africans will starve due to the global warming you both refuse to acknowledge and mitigate. Food shortages are, sadly, one of the predictions of the change. You are a fatalist, in every overtone of that word.

          Its already happening now, not because of imaginary climate change problems which might strike in the future, but because of ham fisted attempts to mitigate a problem which isn’t happening.

          http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2012/08/millions-more-will-go-hungry

          Your “once scientists were wrong therefore they’re wrong here” arugument is specious. However, for the sake of discussion, let me posit that it’s valid, just for the next sentence. Does that mean all deniers are wrong as their organisation defends smoking as in http://heartland.org/policy-documents/welcome-heartlands-smokers-lounge?

          I couldn’t care less about what Heartland thinks of smoking. As an asthmatic, I don’t like second hand smoke, and I’m not unhappy that people can’t smoke on busses and in restaurants any more. Having said that, I couldn’t care less what people do in the privacy of their own home.

          Your continued Nazi analogies are intriguing. You are obsessed – possibly dangerously so.

          A group of researchers suggest the world faces a crisis unless urgent action is taken to mitigate the growing problem.

          Am I talking about Eugenics NAZIs, or Climate Alarmists?

        • Dear Stephan – Oxfam is right. There are food shortages. Last year’s droughts exacerbated them. And last year’s droughts were contributed to by CO2 induced AGW. Here’s an Oxfam book you might find useful, http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/extreme-weather-extreme-prices-the-costs-of-feeding-a-warming-world-241131. You see Oxfam, your organisation of choice, knows that AGW is a key driver. Yes, they too are a member of your conspiracy.

          By the crazy logic of your own hand you are condemned. Heartland denies the science of tobacco and the science of climate change. They are evil. You are evil. It’s the logic you invented along the lines of scientists were wrong about eugenics then thereforce climate science is wrong now. Denier logic can prove just about anything.

          Good luck with your Nazi fixation. Do you collect memorabilia?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You are the one trying who is trying to convince the world to take harmful action based on the flawed projections of mathematical models. Just like the Eugenicists did. And biofuel subsidies is not the only policy you guys push which will kill people.

          Assuming noone builds a carbon capture and storage facility near a major city, here’s another way green policies might result in large scale deaths.

          The big problem with renewables is intermittency. One proposal, to smooth intermittent energy supplies from renewables, is the use of super capacitors to store electricity.

          So lets run some numbers.

          Assume you want to provide super capacitor storage backup for 1Gw of energy supply for one day (so the backup can provide 1Gw of electricity for one day when the wind isn’t blowing).

          Energy storage requirement:-

          1Gw x 1 day =
          10^9w x 24hours x 60 minuts x 60 seconds =
          8.64 x 10^13 joules of energy

          By an interesting coincidence, the amount of energy released by Little Boy, the nuclear bomb which destroyed Hiroshima, was 6.3 x 10^13 joules.

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

          So if your super capacitor storage facility was to suffer sudden catastrophic dielectric failure, as capacitors sometimes do, the resulting energy release would be indistinguishable from a 10 kiloton nuclear explosion.

          You guys just can’t help yourselves, can you?

        • You’re the only one who has mentioned carbon capture near a neighbouring city, not me. I don’t quite know why you choose to argue with yourself but, hey, bust a gut. One of you must be a eugenicist by your nutty logic. I’ll just watch, ok?

          I know someone else, a little more credible than your fruit and nut cake collection, who also uses atomic bomb analogies. One Mr Hansen, a Republican, is quoted as saying “…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m hoping noone ever builds a serious CCS facility – I don’t actually want people to die, unlike some greens who seem not to care very much, or who even wish death on people who disagree with them.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/23/beyond-bizarre-university-of-graz-music-professor-calls-for-skeptic-death-sentences/

        • Monstrous. Will you please also complain about Mark Marano about his public flogging of scientists? No, of course not, you’re a cherry-picking denier.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The Africans will starve due to the global warming you both refuse to acknowledge and mitigate. Food shortages are, sadly, one of the predictions of the change. You are a fatalist, in every overtone of that word.

          Its already happening now, not because of imaginary climate change problems which might strike in the future, but because of ham fisted attempts to mitigate a problem which isn’t happening.

          http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2012/08/millions-more-will-go-hungry

          Your “once scientists were wrong therefore they’re wrong here” arugument is specious. However, for the sake of discussion, let me posit that it’s valid, just for the next sentence. Does that mean all deniers are wrong as their organisation defends smoking as in …

          I couldn’t care less about what Heartland thinks of smoking. As an asthmatic, I don’t like second hand smoke, and I’m not unhappy that people can’t smoke on busses and in restaurants any more. Having said that, I couldn’t care less what people do in the privacy of their own home.

          Your continued Nazi analogies are intriguing. You are obsessed – possibly dangerously so.

          A group of researchers suggest the world faces a crisis unless urgent action is taken to mitigate the growing problem.

          Am I talking about Eugenics NAZIs, or Climate Alarmists? The similarities are disturbing.

        • By your own logic: Heartland defends the evil tobacco lobby, Heartland defends global warming deniers, therefore deniers are evil. Your attempt to bypass your own logic is noted…as a failure.

          The science is right and you are wrong.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Let me see if I’ve got this right – because I disagree with Heartland about second hand smoke, alarmist climate science is correct?

          You’re definitely the cameo comedy act of this blog…

        • Your logic is scientists and politicians some three generations ago backed a policy which lead to evil. Therefore climate science is wrong. I just took your crazy logic, applied it to a crazy institution and derived anyone who supports them must be crazy.

          Hey, it is hilarious, but it is your logic.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          My point was politicians and leading academic institutions were deluded for decades by a pseudoscientific crisis. It happened once, so it can happen again.

        • Your point is even stronger in inversion. Politicians and academics get more things right than wrong. Inaction is usually the incorrect course.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Scientific fraud is rife in many fields, and appears to be growing.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/01/tenfold-increase-science-paper-retracted-fraud

          And politicians tell lies for a living. During the parliamentary expenses scandal in the UK, more than half of the politicians were found to be dirty.

          The scientific method is was devised in attempt to create order from the chaos of human prejudice. The routine abuse of scientific method by climate alarmists itself ought to be an alarm signal that all is not well.

        • But the deniers are the dirtiest. Why would we believe you?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Why? How many declines have skeptics hidden?

        • Deniers hide behind smokescrens, hide inclines, quote mine, claim their opponents are Nazis and run all the best conspiracies.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes, and we somehow even managed to stop the thermometers from rising. Damn we’re good.

        • You mean stop as in this decade warmer than the preceding decade? As in the oceans warming? As in over 330 months in a row of warmer than average temperatures? The denier hint of the day is to turn your thermometer right way up.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yawn. Let me know when the thermometers start to rise again.

          Given that the Kyoto extension only covers 25% of CO2 emissions, it shouldn’t be long until it starts to get warmer again, right?

        • Yup, it will continue to get warmer, fanned by the flames of denial.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          When will it get warmer? Surely your settled science climate models can tell you.

        • It’s getting warmer now. You’re just afraid to peek. Go on, read some science instead of wattswrongwiththis. I dare you.

      • zoot says:

        … and I’m not unhappy that people can’t smoke on busses and in restaurants any more.

        I hear the sound of jack boots trampling on our treasured freedoms as totalitarianism spreads across the globe.

      • The Royal Society is under attack from deniers mostly because Sir Paul Nurse “intellectually raped” James Delingpole with a simple question. Ever since then James has attacked the Royal Society. It’s worth viewing the vicious Sir Paul at work. Poor Delingpole – toasted. Now the little vindictive twat is trying to get his revenge. That fits the denier agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vuQLvK6kxeU

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You’re thinking of climate alarmists, living it up sipping cocktails in expensive Tahiti hotels, funded by their over generous research grants.

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3980.txt

      looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them.

      where are you planning on staying by the way? I haven’t decided yet. The cheap options sound way to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive!

      Mike, As I’ve booked the flights on frequent flyer miles, I’m wondering if I can
      convince myself (my grant) that I can justify the hotel….

      I’ll muse on that tonight..

      Thanks for advertising the Vienna session.

      Cheers
      Phil

    • Nick says:

      The lack of a hair shirt completely damns Phil as a human being and scientist. That makes sense [sarc]. Can you get any more childish,Eric?

  38. john byatt says:

    Watchingthedeniers was cited at ABC environment debate this morning as an expose of Daved Evans.

    • Nick says:

      I don’t think the author of that post,Zeke Hausfather is very ‘surprised’ at that observation as he’s been working on the data and processes for a long time. He’s just soothing the rabid ones..,

      This will make no impression on through-and-through idiots like Steve Goddard though. How about our Eric,Watt’s houseboy?

  39. sailrick says:

    Arguing that warming stopped in 1997 or 1998 makes no sense to me.

    To draw an analogy with the stock market,

    Imagine a scenario where a bull market, is led by the 30 Dow Industrials through the early stages of the upswing. Then as the bull market develops, the majority of other 10,000 or more stocks, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq, all start setting new highs, while the Dow 30 level off a bit,- and then having someone claim that the bull market ended, because those 30 stocks leveled off.

    I base that comparison on the following

    Hottest 16 years on record in order of warmest first

    2010
    2005
    1998
    2003
    2006
    2009
    2002
    2007
    2004
    2001
    2011
    1997
    2008
    1995
    1999
    2000

    Every year starting with 2001 and through this year, so far, has been warmer than any year in the 20th century, before 1997

    The last decade was the warmest ever recorded

    There have been 333 consecutive months of global avg temperture over the 20th century mean.
    That’s 27 years of months.

    Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

    This year is shaping up as the 8th warmest on record.

    But I’m sure Eric will find a way to deny all this

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I don’t deny the last decade has been warm. But compared to what? The last 30 years temperature record? What a nonsense. The Holocene Optimum? Sea level was 2m higher in the optimum, and the world was warmer.

      Given the ongoing massive corruption of the surface temperature series, we can’t even be sure today’s temperatures are warmer than the 1930s. Below is a graph of NOAA’s temperature adjustments, from NOAA’s own website. They come up with all sorts of fine sounding excuses about why they adjust temperatures, but the magnitude of the adjustment is ridiculous – without the adjustment, temperatures today would be below the 1930s.

      And RE your bull market analogy, when stocks stop climbing and level off for a period, thats exactly when pundits start talking about a possible market crash.

      • Nick says:

        Sea level was higher in the Holocene Optimum because the cryosphere and oceans expressed their full response to forcing changes–a sustained increase in high latitude insolation– in their own time frames.

        You will see sea levels and cryosphere reach similar states in similar time frames with anthropogenic warming…which is the basic message of the IPCC that you can’t fathom.

      • zoot says:

        I don’t deny the last decade has been warm. But compared to what? The last 30 years temperature record?

        That’s evidence in the real world that warming didn’t stop in your favourite year of the 90s.
        Where’s your evidence that it did stop?

      • zoot says:

        Your imaginary flat line is falsified by the real world temperature record. Of the ten hottest years on record, 9 occurred in the decade 2001-2010. If global warming had ceased in 1997(Fact) the hottest decade on record would have been 1991-2000.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Prediction time zoot. You’re the one who claims to have access to models which can fortell the future. When will we see global temperatures significantly higher than the late 90s?

          By my calculation there is at least 0.3c of missing warming, which should have shown up in the temperature record but didn’t. When will it re-appear?

      • zoot says:

        You’re the one who claims to have access to models which can fortell the future.

        Where did I make that claim? Citation please.

      • zoot says:

        So you’re just making shit up again?
        Liar.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,just pause a moment and think about the history of the enhanced greenhouse.

        Arrhenius contended in 1896 from then knowledge of CO2’s properties and observations of FF consumption and potential consumption that global temperature would rise,,,that’s a model that FORETOLD THE FUTURE,though not very accurately He underestimated how much FF we’d get through,but he picked the sign and a ballpark figure….while those who dismissed his reasoning were proved profoundly wrong.

        And so on through to the 1960s,70s,and 80s where a number of scientists made models of increasing complexity that FORETOLD THE FUTURE with more accuracy.

        We all have “access to models which foretold the future”…you included. Why do you persist with this mind-bogglingly nonsensical construct of yours? Taking refuge in natural variation does not help,while GHG-including models have been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate.

      • Nick says:

        What’s ‘embarrassing’ about short term natural variability? It’s discussed copiously in the literature and has been for decades. The global average increase per decade has always been smaller than the variation seen from year to year. Can’t you get your head around some basics before commenting?

  40. sailrick says:

    from The Energy Collective

    Initial IPCC Predictions on Global Temperature Rise Remarkably Accurate

    “Now just past the midway point for the 1990-2030 period over which the IPCC issued its initial predictions for global temperature as part of its First Assessment Report (AR 1), two researchers decided it was an opportune time to evaluate their accuracy and performance. The results: the increase in global mean temperature predicted for the period 1990-2010 have turned out to be somewhat surprisingly and unexpectedly accurate.

    Based on their models, IPCC scientists in AR 1 came up with a predicted increase in global mean of 0.7°-1.5° C (1.26°-2.7° F) between 1990-2030, with a best estimate of an increase of 1.1° C (1.98° F). Following a linear trend, this corresponds to a best estimate of global warming of 0.55° C (0.99° F) from 1990-2010.

    Frame and Stone collected official statistical data used to calculate global mean temperature and annual changes from agencies around the world for the period 1990-2010. Adding an adjustment to account for natural climate variability that weren’t incorporated in the IPCC’s initial 1990 climate forecast they “found the results fit almost perfectly with the predictions made 22 years ago,” according to a PhysOrg report.”

    http://theenergycollective.com/globalwarmingisreal/155651/initial-ipcc-predictions-global-temperature-rise-remarkably-accurate

  41. john byatt says:

    Gavin at RC

    The fundamental point I will try and make here is that, given a noisy temperature record, many different statements can be true at the same time, but very few of them are informative about future trends. Thus vehemence of arguments about the past trends is in large part an unacknowledged proxy argument about the future.

    So here are a few things that are all equally true, conveniently plotted for your amusement:

    The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03ºC/decade (blue) (In GISTEMP it is 0.08ºC/decade, not shown)

    .
    The trend from August 1975 to July 1997 is 0.16ºC/dec (green), and the trend to August 2012 is 0.17ºC/dec (red).

    The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC,

    which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).

    The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.

    2012 ninth warmest year 1997 fourteenth warmest year

    .They will still be claiming cooling when we hit 2Degc, OH look this years temp is 0.3DegC below a decade ago, must be cooling
    wasting your time with 911 hoaxers

  42. I think Mike it is time for a reminder to commentators in here of just what they are dealing with when it comes to Bozo the clown aka Eric Worrall

    • Eric Worrall says:

      It seems a little desperate that you have to start inventing ideas you think I believe, rather than addressing the ideas I have expressed. A bit like Lewandowsky hilariously suggesting I must believe the moon landing was a hoax. All this reveals is your ignorance and prejudice.

      • Fail to recognise where you fit into that video Bozo? Pure gold. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I confess I couldn’t be stuffed watching it to the end – boring.

        • and yet you expect people to take you seriously? You’re a laughing stock over here Eric. Nobody takes you seriously yet you just keep on giving. I actually start to feel embarrassed for you since you don’t seem to have the good sense to feel embarrassed for yourself.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Are you suggesting your prejudiced PR cr@p video is actually a scientific treatise?

        • Elizabeth Taylor was married how many times? She would probably have claimed that all those men were the problem but you have to wonder if perhaps she was difficult to live with. Similarly, you claim every single piece of anything that opposes your screwy viewpoint is biased PR. Perhaps its you Bozo?

          For the record, I have read the Dunning Kruger paper as I do with all references provided in secondary sources. Do you? Oh, that’s right. You don’t. Especially when it threatens your position and you need to retreat behind wilful ignorance. From what I have seen of you, Bozo, you do suffer from the DK effect along with numerous other psychological character flaws. I think there may even be a bit of masochistic behaviour as well given your propensity to continually make a fool of yourself. Seek help.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Here is the paper prepared by the last group of academics to insist we face an imminent crisis – full of scary models and urgent calls to action.

          http://ia700402.us.archive.org/2/items/decadeofprogress00inte/decadeofprogress00inte.pdf

          People who heed the warnings and try to do something about the “crisis” consistently do more harm than if they had done nothing.

        • Your fascination with eugenics and nazis is quite disturbing Bozo. Godwin’s law rings true when you’re involved. This desire you have to live in the past is also a little sad. I’m pretty sure though Eric you were warned by Mike about comparing climate scientists to nazi’s or eugenicists.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Consider a group of academics who claim the world faces an imminent catastrophe unless drastic steps are taken.

          Am I talking about Eugenics NAZIs or Climate alarmists?

      • Eric, without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Without a conspiracy, explain why no major scientific body dissented from the 1930s Eugenics crisis consensus?

          The answer of course is that a scientific body has to represent its members – and if the members are on a good thing, all that upsetting them will do is create a wave of resignations.

          Having said that, there have been some rumblings – a rebellion by Royal Society fellows recently forced the Royal Society to tone down its unscientific rhetoric on global warming.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/

        • That’s a wonderful response, breathtakingly daft in its depth and breadth, yet concise in its inanity.

          On your basis that anyone supporting eugenics must be wrong, will you be putting forward a petition to strip Winston Churchill of his knighthood, his Nobel Prize and American citizenship?http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics. Shall we exhume him from Westminster Abbey? If you will present false equivalence arguments you must follow through or your zealotry will be questioned.

          You then go onto to state all the scientists are on a good thing. So, you don’t have an answer that does not involve a conspiracy theory. I didn’t think you had. But than you for admitting it. There’s little use arguing with a conspiracy theorist – anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy. It was an argument against legislating against tobacco too.

          Watts takes credit for the sun rising most mornings. Have a read of what the Royal Society actually said in 2010 on http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf. Read the introduction, page 1. As you are a Watts’ acolyte and believe this is an approved text I assume your views will now change to reflect this position. Or will you retreat to your selective quoting habit? I think you will

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Churchill did a great service for humanity when he saw through the lies, and declared war on the country which was at the forefront of addressing the pseudoscientific Eugenics crisis.

          I’ve often wondered what the Auschwitz moment for your nasty doomsday cult will be. Obviously starving Africans doesn’t cut it, otherwise you would have fallen when it became clear that biofuel subsidies were an unmitigated disaster causing untold misery to millions.

          My favourite theory is your end will come in the wake of a carbon capture and storage catastrophe. Someone, somewhere, will be insane enough to build a CCS facility near somewhere inhabited, and an entire city will die horribly in a single accidental release of the stored CO2.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster

        • Churchill is one of my heroes. But he did not enter into war to prevent eugenics. I’m sure some retrospective hocus-pocus logic will be tried – but that wasn’t the reason. On the rejection of eugenics he was a follower, not a leader, in that specific regard. Earlier in his career, “as a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.”

          Your fatalism is touching. But I must point out that it is risky for one as error-prone as yourself.

          And your continued obsession with trying to tar your opponents with Nazi imagery is wonderfully bonkers. Your idiocy knob is turned up to 11, do you have a 12 you can show us?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m not the one providing comedy to the world by trying to convince everyone of an imminent scientific crisis – just like the Eugenicists did.

        • Mandatory false equivalence from our resident Nazi hobbyist. Well done, big boy.

        • apparently the eugenicists were funny according to Bozo….or at least that’s how it reads. Pretty sick stuff. A closet Nazi perhaps?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Look in the mirror Uki – I’m not the one trying to convince the world to make damaging changes based on the predictions of dodgy mathematical models – which is what the Eugenicists tried to do.

          Thankfully only one country went all the way with Eugenics – and even better, it looks like no country is taking the climate catastrophists seriously.

      • Eric is more Neville Chamberlain. He’s a climate appeaser. He has in his hands a blog from Watts…

      • The Nazis abused the science. Don’t vote for the right.

    • john byatt says:

      Moon Hoaxer ” I am not some nut who believes we are talking to aliens, stop saying that about me”

      to each his own

      .

      • Eric Worrall says:

        That is a lie John. I’ve never said I think we’re talking about aliens. I know you’re struggling to find ways of addressing the points I raise, but its impolite to make stuff up.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        s/talking about aliens/talking to aliens/

      • Jon says:

        Eric,

        Why do you think a reference to “Moon Hoaxer” is specifically about you rather than about a generic believer that the moon landings were faked?

        BTW, “talking to aliens” and “talking about aliens” – not the same thing.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Lewandowsky asserted that climate denial is associated with lunatic beliefs and conspiracy fantasies, so that he could infer that climate denial was pathological.

          Frankly accusing us of being conspiracy nuts is a bit of a cheek, after all the nonsense we’ve heard over the years from Michael Mann about the “big oil funded climate change denial machine”.

      • Nick says:

        There is a “big oil funded denial machine” and it’s a matter of the public record. Why would anyone try to deny it,unless they are not aware of the facts? It’s perfectly legal to fund political campaigns against science,reality and the public interest. You’ve heard of ‘politics’?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nonsense, its a figment of Mann’s deranged imagination.

          Most oil majors are in favour of the green revolution. BP and Shell for example have invested vast sums into alternative energy projects, and setting up carbon trading divisions. Shell at least was sniffing around the CRU, trying to make deals, over a decade ago.

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0962818260.txt

          Mike Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss asap what a strategic…

          If the great climate change swindle fails, they will have lost billions.

          Even small energy companies can get into the act. Many small companies get a start by buying almost exhausted fields from majors, and trying to extract any remaining small quantities of gas or oil – quantities too small to interest the majors, but still potentially profitable.

          Carbon trading turns this on its head, but offering the opportunity to resurrect worthless depleted fields as geological carbon sequestration facilities.

      • Weasel words from Worrall. You do know Mann was just made a fellow of the AGU. That and the fact that you don’t appear to like him as raised my estimate of him.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          There are some hilarious Climategate emails which discuss favour swapping to achieve this.

          For example http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1242749575.txt

          On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year ;) I’ve looked over the current list of AGU fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren’t as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate. anyway, I don’t want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you’d be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry’s choosing ;) mike

          In any case I’m not terribly impressed at fellowship of an organisation whose former Ethics chairman while serving thought it appropriate to indulge in a little identity theft to attack a private organisation.

      • You do realise you LOST Climategate, don’t you Eric? Nine separate investigations and the science was vindicated. You keep using a discredited meme.Please put Watts on trial.

      • Do you work for the History Channel? You are Hitler obsessed.

  43. lucien locke says:

    hey Eric…..maybe you could look at the pretty picture, needs almost no intelligence ….

    All credit for this goes to Desmogblog.com and James Lawrence Powell.*….

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Their criteria for building that chart were rubbish. Most serious skeptics – Watts, McIntyre, etc. – believe CO2 has some effect, so excluding anyone who believes CO2 has an effect on climate would have caught a lot of people you normally call “deniers”.

      In any case, DeSmogBlog, by their own admission, are just PR people.

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0035.txt&search=DeSmogBlog

      I’m a DeSmogBlog writer (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.

      It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science>)

      Since DeSmogBlog are not a scientific foundation, I wonder who pays their bills? I have read articles which suggest their sugar daddy was a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. If this is true, I wonder what his interest is? Perhaps since his criminal conviction he has been overwhelmed by brother love and a desire to do good?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Their criteria for building that chart were rubbish. Most serious skeptics – Watts, McIntyre, etc. – believe CO2 has some effect, so excluding anyone who believes CO2 has an effect on climate would have caught a lot of people you normally call “deniers”.

        In any case, DeSmogBlog, by their own admission, are just PR people.

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0035.txt&search=DeSmogBlog

        I’m a DeSmogBlog writer (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.

        It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science)

        Since DeSmogBlog are not a scientific foundation, I wonder who pays their bills? I have read articles which suggest their sugar daddy was a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. If this is true, I wonder what his interest is? Perhaps since his criminal conviction he has been overwhelmed by brother love and a desire to do good?

        • Dr No says:

          Check out these denialists (courtesy of George Monbiot):
          (1) “Steve Milloy writes a weekly “Junk Science” column for Fox News, which he uses, among other topics, to pour scorn on studies documenting the medical effects of secondhand tobacco smoke and showing that climate change is taking place. Fox describes his credentials thus: “Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and manages the Free Enterprise Action Fund. He is a junk science expert, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute”.

          What it doesn’t say is that he has long acted as a paid advocate for the tobacco company Philip Morris, while the fake grassroots group he runs has also received funding from ExxonMobil.”

          (2) “Pat Michaels played a starring role in Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle and is regularly used by the US media, largely because he is one of the very few deniers who has any relevant scientific credentials.

          He maintains that: “When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.”

          Something he is less keen to reveal is that, as a leaked memo from an electricity company shows, he has recently been paid at least $100,000 by companies involved in coal-fired power production to make the public case against climate change. In 2007 Michaels withdrew as an expert witness from a court case about climate change, after it became clear that his other sources of funding could be revealed to the public.”

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Living it up on the alarmist bandwagon…

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3980.txt&search=tahiti

          looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them. where are you planning on staying by the way? I haven’t decided yet. The cheap options sound way to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive!

          Mike, As I’ve booked the flights on frequent flyer miles, I’m wondering if I can
          convince myself (my grant) that I can justify the hotel….

          If they wanted, they could telecommute. Instead, while demanding that we curtail luxuries from our lives like cheap overseas holidays for the sake of the planet, they live it up on their grant money, running up unnecessarily large expenses for hotels and who knows what else while claiming to be saving the planet.

          And I haven’t even mentioned the great climate pageants, attended by 10s of thousands at who knows what cost in frequent flier miles.

          So I’m not impressed when someone trots out a figure like “this denialist got 100K”. Mann even got a half million dollar bailout from the Obama stimulus fund – they’re absolutely wallowing in money.

        • Dr No says:

          And closer to home:
          Professor Bob Carter said:
          “Heartland is one of a number of think-tanks and institutions that I work with. Sometimes I’m paid an honorarium, sometimes expenses and sometimes I do it pro-bono.”
          Professor Carter is certainly correct here. He is indeed an advisor on a number of “think-tanks” and groups. In addition to Heartland, Professor Carter is an advisor to the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK). He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
          All of these groups promote the same contrarian views on human-caused climate change that are not backed by any national science academy of note anywhere on
          the planet. Few, if any, reveal their funders.

          http://www.readfearn.com/2012/02/bob-carter-responds-to-heartland-leak/

        • I once tried to do both a venn diagram and a simple flowchart connecting Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and a few others to all the contrarian institutions. Too many for a Venn diagram and the flowchart looked like a spiderweb made by a spider on crack. These people certainly do quite well for themselves jetting about all over the place to spout drivel.

        • Dr No says:

          Jeeves, another cocktail please.
          Here is another:

          CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

          http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/?__utma=1.1709379876.1355870065.1355870065.1355870065.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1355870065&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1355870065.1.1.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=funding%20for%20denialists&__utmv=-&__utmk=28349884

        • Nick says:

          Heartland is a ‘threat’,claims a recipient of Heartland funding. You’re comedy gold,mate!

        • Dr No says:

          Make me another cocktail Jeeves, this warm weather makes me thirsty.

        • Nick says:

          Yes,you CAN get more childish! You liked that excerpt so much you had to repeat it…oh dear. Only a creep like a Wattstard can spin this into anything of ‘value’.. that value is only redeemable at the child care centre at WUWT.

          Ya know,they already do a shitload of telecommuting. ‘Living it up on grant money’? You have no clue at all….none,boyo.

          Phil notes that the choice of accommodation has no middle ground,such an unreasonable observation [sarc]. He notes that he is using FF points–not current grant money– to cover the flight: how very cynical and decadent! [sarc]

        • Eric Worrall says:

          But think of the planet – its worth making a few more sacrifices, a few more telecommutes, to avoid all that damaging aircraft CO2. After all, we’re always being told that every bit counts. Or do different rules apply to the new planet saving climate aristocracy, vs plebs like us who have to make sacrifices?

        • Nick says:

          Again,what sacrifices are you making?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          None, now that I’ve left Europe.

          In Europe I couldn’t get a replacement patio heater, so much of the year it was bl**dy cold if I wanted to sit outside. I had to use low energy light bulbs, each of which contains toxic mercury, even if I would have preferred to use incandescents around my baby girl (children are particularly susceptible to mercury poisoning). Flights were becoming hideously expensive, due to air travel taxes, as was other transport (since cars were being priced off the road, public transport could do whatever they wanted). The economy was and still is spiralling downwards due to higher cost burdens imposed by the eco-zealots in charge of the EU.

          And the process was accelerating. The more people exploited grubby opportunities for green rent seeking at my expense, the more money and political influence they had, to make things even worse.

          Australia has only had a taste of this evil so far – hope that you don’t experience its full measure.

        • Dr No says:

          Was’nt it Margaret Thatcher who funded the Hadley Centre to do climate change research.?
          Was’nt she a disciple of the free market?
          Surely you should be complaining to her, not us.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          She allegedly changed her mind later once she realised she’d been duped.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton

        • Nick says:

          LOL Eric that article just reminds us what a fibber Monckton is in falsely elevating his role as a ‘science advisor’ to Thatcher….you can’t take a trick,can you. Just remember,honesty is the best policy.

        • Dr No says:

          Hilarious. Sounds as if Monckton is confusing the past with too many episodes of Yes Minister.
          Just as funny is the idea of a pack of gormless, nerdy, evil scientists pulling the wool over the eyes of a British Prime Minister – no less!

        • john byatt says:

          The deniers made a big deal of the claimed Thatcher turn around until her daughter revealed that she had been suffering from the early stages of dementia since 1998.

          rather calous of them to use the words of a person suffering, for their own ends.

          But I suppose that when the science and all the worlds scientific institutions are at one that we need to act what else can they do

        • john byatt says:

          Apologies it was 2000 when Thatcher showed signs of dementia

          In her new book, Carol Thatcher said she first noticed her mother’s failing memory while the pair had lunch in 2000.

          She also disclosed that she had to repeatedly break the “truly awful” news of her father Sir Denis’ death to her mother until the information sank in.

          dennis died in 2003 the year of the so called recant.

        • Nick says:

          Watts is a PR person ,too.Only he lacks the integrity to admit it,and the intelligence to realise everyone knows what he really is [apart from you,it seems]. He also lacks the intelligence to be a good PR person.

      • Watts defends Heartland defends Watts defends Heartland circle jerk. Don’t, whatever you do, don’t visualise.

      • Muller recanted when BEST proved them right and him wrong. You, on the other hand, don’t have to worry about inconvenient facts. You lost – nine times. Why isn’t Watts in jail for handling stolen goods and wasting public money?

    • john byatt says:

      denialism, a physcological test of 1000 people was done in america in 2010 it found that all denialist could not face up to the fact they would have to tell there children and friends they were wrong it was noted this was due to guilt how can you tell your kids one thing then have to tell them the truth later.At the same time they ran a i.q. test and it showed they had a lower I.Q.than the national average. So do not bother trying to convert these people just ignore them

  44. lucien locke says:

    Erroric Worrall you are a perfect example of someone without enough intelligence, little under standing of basic science, but especially physics, and unwilling to listen to reason….just that little voice in your head that says you are right. Good of you to keep your presence here…gives the rest of us a bench mark to go by.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Let me know when the world starts warming again Lucien. The MET office says the current 15 year flatline is just a series of climatic coincidences – so the world must start warming again soon, right?

      Remember, 1/3 of all human CO2 emissions occurred since 1997.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend

    • zoot says:

      The MET office says the current 15 year flatline is just a series of climatic coincidences

      No it doesn’t. It says the flatline you discern is due to cherry picking the start date.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        So are you suggesting by next year the flatline statistical artefact will no longer appear? Or do we have to wait a couple of years?

      • zoot says:

        No, I’m calling you a liar.
        It has been pointed out to you many times that you are misquoting the MET office yet you continue to misquote their position. It can’t be stupidity on your part (though FSM knows you’ve got enough) so it must be mendacity.
        Eric, you’re a liar.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I am not misrepresenting the position of the MET office.

          1. The MET office agree that temperatures now are not very different to temperatures in 1997.
          2. The MET office offered a set of excuses why this was the case, even though (they think) global warming is continuing.

          Try to separate theory from fact, just for once.

          The MET office theory is that global warming is continuing.

          The MET office fact is that, at least for now, temperatures have not changed very much since the late 90s.

          The interesting thing is, the MET office position is falsifiable. The test is time – if the current observed flatline is an anomaly caused by unusual ENSO conditions, or whatever, then it should be transient. The missing 0.3c or so of warming should reappear in the near future.

      • zoot says:

        2. The MET office offered a set of excuses why this was the case, even though (they think) global warming is continuing.

        No, they offered reasons why your interpretation has no basis in fact (otherwise known as the real world).
        Let me guess, you were away the day they did comprehension at your school.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The MET office interpretation is the one which is looking tatty – all those poor government paid alarmists, desperately hoping for some warming while spinning their excuses as to why it isn’t happening.

          Even Phil Jones caught the bug, and wished death and destruction on us all, for the sake of his ego – hoping that the world would actually warm as he predicted, to avoid the embarrassment of failure.

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1120593115.txt

          As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

      • zoot says:

        The MET office interpretation is the one which is looking tatty

        So stop trotting it out as evidence to support your ridiculous position.

      • The Met Office does -not- say Eric is a liar. It says he is a fool to take his science from the Daily Mail. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

        • eworrall1 says:

          You guys are so hung up on dodgy models you have trouble with simple statements of fact.

          The *fact*, which the MET confirms, is surface temperatures now are not much different to 1997.

          They offer a lot of theory waffle as to why global warming is continuing, despite the lack of actual warming.

      • No, they don’t say that, do they now, Eric. Read it properly. You have to accept the complete answer.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Wrong. They do admit temperature haven’t changed. I do not have to accept their theory as to why temperatures have not changed, if I disagree with it.

        • So, summing up our overnight interactions:

          – you compare your opponents to Nazis
          – you claim the AGU and all the Climategate investigations are conspiracies
          – you selectively quote

          You’re a zealot. You have faith.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I did not at any point attempt to hide the MET position – I’ve provided the link to the MET response to the statement about no global warming for 16 years, on numerous occasions on this blog.

          What I did do was disagree with the MET theory as to why temperatures have not risen for 16 years – something you guys seem to have trouble getting your heads around.

        • That’s called selective quoting. It’s your conspiracy theories that prove you’re a zealot, the selective quoting is just an aid.

      • zoot, could you email me please? uknowispeaksense@y7mail.com. I would like to invite you to take part in an exclusive study. Cheers. Mike

      • zoot says:

        I’ve emailed you Mike.
        And this is especially for Eric:

        DilbertMash

    • Waffle Worrall doesn’t understand that there’s an energy imbalance. He’s happy comparing El Nino peaks to La Nina troughs surface measurements, most unscientifically, to support his argument. A real skeptic might ask where’s the heat, from the energy imbalance if it’s not apparent at the surface. But he lives in Flatland, a small county on Denier Island.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The real dishonesty is organisations like NOAA attempting to hide the lack of warming behind a cloak of fictional ENSO conditions. Thankfully this tissue of lies will unravel fairly quickly, as climate conditions continue to refuse to respond to the “expected” warming.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/21/noaa-mixing-their-ninos/

      • If you need a conspiracy theory you have lost the argument. NOAA doesn’t lie. Watts does (see BEST as an example).

        • Eric Worrall says:

          NOAA have been surprisingly honest, that is part of the reason they are in trouble – they actually provided information about the ludicrous adjustments they perform on raw data, and embarrassingly tried to make firm predictions about climate change.

      • One post you accuse NOAA of lying. In the next you accuse them of being surprisingly honest. You are consistently inconsistent.

      • Your conspiracy theories are fascinating. I’ll wager you believe Stephan Lewandowsky is in on it too.

      • Eric, without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Without a conspiracy, explain why no major scientific body dissented from the 1930s Eugenics crisis consensus?

          The answer of course is that a scientific body has to represent its members – and if the members are on a good thing, all that upsetting them will do is create a wave of resignations.

          Having said that, there have been some rumblings – a rebellion by Royal Society fellows recently forced the Royal Society to tone down its unscientific rhetoric on global warming.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/

        • That’s a wonderful response, breathtakingly daft in its depth and breadth, yet concise in its inanity.

          On your basis that anyone supporting eugenics must be wrong, will you be putting forward a petition to strip Winston Churchill of his knighthood, his Nobel Prize and American citizenship?http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics. Shall we exhume him from Westminster Abbey? If you will present false equivalence arguments you must follow through or your zealotry will be questioned.

          You then go onto to state all the scientists are on a good thing. So, you don’t have an answer that does not involve a conspiracy theory. I didn’t think you had. But than you for admitting it. There’s little use arguing with a conspiracy theorist – anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy. It was an argument against legislating against tobacco too.

          Watts takes credit for the sun rising most mornings. Have a read of what the Royal Society actually said in 2010 on http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf. Read the introduction, page 1. As you are a Watts’ acolyte and believe this is an approved text I assume your views will now change to reflect this position. Or will you retreat to your selective quoting habit? I think you will

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Churchill did a great service for humanity when he saw through the lies, and declared war on the country which was at the forefront of addressing the pseudoscientific Eugenics crisis.

          I’ve often wondered what the Auschwitz moment for your nasty doomsday cult will be. Obviously starving Africans doesn’t cut it, otherwise you would have fallen when it became clear that biofuel subsidies were an unmitigated disaster causing untold misery to millions.

          My favourite theory is your end will come in the wake of a carbon capture and storage catastrophe. Someone, somewhere, will be insane enough to build a CCS facility near somewhere inhabited, and an entire city will die horribly in a single accidental release of the stored CO2.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster

        • Churchill is one of my heroes. But he did not enter into war to prevent eugenics. I’m sure some retrospective hocus-pocus logic will be tried – but that wasn’t the reason. On the rejection of eugenics he was a follower, not a leader, in that specific regard. Earlier in his career, “as a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.”

          Your fatalism is touching. But I must point out that it is risky for one as error-prone as yourself.

          And your continued obsession with trying to tar your opponents with Nazi imagery is wonderfully bonkers. Your idiocy knob is turned up to 11, do you have a 12 you can show us?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m not the one who is providing comedy to the world, by trying to convince everyone there is an imminent scientific crisis – just like the Eugenicists did.

        • Your comedy is historic and scientific errors in one sentence, leading you to false conclusions.

          Have I mentioned you lost Climategate lots and lots of time? Did you know Heartland funding has dropped 57%?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I hardly count the whitewashes, run by people like Lord Oxburgh with undeclared interests in green organisations.

          The closes Climategate has come to court adjudication was the press complaint against James Delingpole brought by the University of East Anglia, which upheld Delingpole’s right to call the Climategate scientists “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions” – because James was able to furnish evidence from the Climategate archive that his statements were accurate.

          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

        • James declares himself victorious. Shocked? No. Another foolish denier. Nice how you cherrypicked the smallest possible victory from his shambles. You lost nine times. Nine.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Wrong. James was victorious, the Press Complaints people found he had no case to answer – that he provided evidence to back his accusations from the Climategate archive.

        • The Press Complaints Committee? The journalists’ friend, to be replaced by Leveson, found that a journalist can lie. Gosh, that was truly history in the making.

          Lost, nine times, did you? I don’t mind if you hold onto your PCC comfort blanket.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nevertheless, Delingpole’s right to call Climategate scientists unreliable and unscientific was upheld in British law, because he provided evidence to back his claims.

        • He claimed the freedoms of being wrong and stupid. I’d uphold that judgement too.

      • You found the source document? Or do you just have James’ interpretation of other peoples’ interpretations?

  45. john byatt says:

    The loonies from Justgrounds are out in force commenting on Sarah Clarke’s climate change piece at ABC

    Vivienne:
    18 Dec 2012 9:09:05am
    Climate Change, AGW, its all rubbish. The United Nations are using this falsehood fraud for their own purposes to bring in a totalitarian state upon the whole world. Wake up, the King is Stark Naked!

    Start thinking for yourselves.

    Reply Alert moderator

    that would be Vivienne Skeen, rabid conspiracy theorist

  46. john byatt says:

    The Science is moving faster than IPCC can cope with

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044025/article

    Do we need to concentrate just on WG1 and a statement for policy makers
    with yearly updates?

    All we seem to be doing at the moment is providing a blow by blow countdown for the end of civilization.

    After reading some of the draft I can see what Trenberth was referring tio

    • eworrall1 says:

      Be nice to have some corroborating evidence, like a reversal of the long term decline in tornado activity, before we pin too much faith on computerised mathematical fantasies.

      • zoot says:

        Be nice to have some corroborating evidence that warming stopped in 2005 (Fact), or 1997 (Fact). Cherry picked stats are not evidence.

      • zoot says:

        There’s a difference between “test” and “evidence”, dumbo.
        Testing is how you work out whether to accept the evidence. Such as when the MET office tests your evidence of cherry picked stats and finds it unconvincing because other cherry picked stats tell a different story.

        Got any corroborating evidence??

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Let me know when the world starts warming again zoot. Because the world, now, is no warmer than in 1997, even though 1/3 of all human CO2 emissions have occurred since the late 90s.

          IMO the MET office position is BS. I look forward to their growing embarrassment, as the world continues to flatline.

      • zoot says:

        Which is why the last three decades have been the hottest on record, each one hotter than the previous. Which is why the Arctic summer ice extent was at its lowest in 2012. Let me know when that flatline you keep talking about kicks in.

        IMO the MET office position is BS.

        DK writ large. I’m sure the MET office lives and dies by your opinion.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The last 3 decades are well within normal climate variation. During the Holocene Optimum it was considerably warmer, with higher sea levels to match. There are periods during the last 10,000 years during which temperature has changed faster than the 20th century. The last 30 years does not contain evidence that anything unusual is happening, compared to similar periods even in the last few hundred years, let alone the last few millennia.

      • zoot says:

        It does indicate that the global temperature has not flatlined.

      • Jon says:

        “I say the flatline will continue.”

        Would you care to describe for us, precisely how much in what time frame temperatures would have to rise for you to admit you were wrong about this and that you are therefore an idiot who understands nothing about climate science? Or do you not want to make your assertion susceptible to being proved definitely wrong in the future?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Temperatures have already flatlined long enough to be a problem for alarmist climate science – 15 years (NOAA 2008 State of the Climate – despite a rather feeble attempt to suggest NOAA was talking about imaginary ENSO adjusted temperatures).

          If we go back a little further, warming for the last 17 years has been around 0.1c – despite a 10% rise in CO2. 17 years according to Ben Santer is the minimum period which can be used to identify a climate trend.

          So the onus is really on your guys to explain when temperatures will return to your imaginary trend.

      • Hiding that incline again? Tsk, tsk. A denier with no morals. Quelle surprise.

  47. john byatt says:

    Climate progress

    IPCC Draft Report: Recent Warming Is Manmade, Cloud Feedback Is Positive, Inaction Is Suicidal

  48. Rawls actually home goaled spectacularly because anyone who actually reads the paragraph correctly and in context can only come up with the exact opposite conclusion.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Sherwood is the one with egg on his face. He starts by acknowledging observational evidence for amplified solar forcing, disses GCR, then concludes that solar forcing cannot be a significant contributor to climate change.

      In the tradition of climate science, if the evidence does not fit the theory, you discard the evidence. Other examples available on request.

      • You belong in a circus Eric.

      • Dr No says:

        I see young Eric is still amusing himself by pretending to be intelligent by commenting on Professor Sherwood. What a cheek! When Eric has actually sat through a course on climate science he may be in a position to speak. Otherwise he is very much the delinquent who likes to throw stones. He knows in his heart that a new record global temperature will occur within the next 3 years (or when the next El Nino occurs) in which case his face and egg will be in total alignment.

      • john byatt says:

        With just over a week to go to Christmas Day we are being asked whether the cold weather will return to give us a white Christmas.
        Unfortunately it’s still a little too early to say exactly what the weather will bring to the UK on the big day, but it does look as though the early predictions quoted in the press ofsnow falling in many places on Christmas Day and more recent white Christmas is “a dead cert” could end up being somewhat wide of the mark.
        The current Met Office UK Outlook for Sunday 23 Dec 2012 to Tuesday 1 Jan 2013 suggests that the unsettled conditions we have at the moment are expected to continue until the New Year:
        “The rather changeable weather is likely to persist into the beginning of January with low pressure expected to be dominant near the British Isles. The north of the UK is most likely to see colder than average conditions, with relatively typical amounts of rainfall. During the same period, temperatures over the south are likely to be closer to average whilst rainfall amounts may be a little above average. Uncertainty then increases significantly into the final week of the period, with no clear weather type favoured, perhaps indicating less unsettled conditions.”
        Of course we will continue to update the forecast as Christmas approaches, with the first forecast for the day itself published on our website later this week.
        So if you are in search of a white Christmas signs are that many of us may be a little disappointed again this year

      • Nick says:

        Ah,bookies,the new climate experts…

      • zoot says:

        Now you’re lucky to get 2:1

        Ladbrokes currently offering:
        London 6/1
        Cardiff 6/1
        Birmingham 5/1
        Manchester 4/1

      • john byatt says:

        The bookies probably heard that he paid for times the price for coal

      • zoot says:

        15 years ago when I moved the UK, bookies were happy to give you odds of 10:1 or more for a white Christmas in London. Now you’re lucky to get 2:1

        Not sure what your point is with this flight of fancy.
        Putting it into simple English, you claim that 15 years ago the bookies estimated a white Christmas in London would happen roughly once every ten years, but now they judge a white Christmas in London is likely every two years.

        Is that really what you intended to say??

        FYI – the last white Christmas in London was in 1999, and by all accounts was not very impressive (just a few flakes of snow). It disappointed the bookies who had been offering odds up to 50/1 against the event. The previous white Christmas in London was in 1996, “although one has to go back as far as 1895 to find the last Christmas-card blanket of snow covering the city on Christmas morning”. (Google it)

        Eric, what planet do you live on? Which universe?

      • zoot says:

        Eric, you wrote specifically of a white christmas in London. In 2010 parts of the UK experienced a traditional white Christmas, as snow fell in Scotland and north-east England, but London was grey and gloomy, but bookmakers’ spirits were raised as the popular bet of Christmas snow in the capital failed to pay off.

      • zoot says:

        Eric, this handy reference (PDF) from one of your favourite sources, the MET office, has a handy table showing that London did not have a white christmas in 2009 either. If the bookies were offering you 2/1 you were being robbed. Are you sure it wasn’t the guy who sold you the coal?

      • zoot says:

        Ah yes, the Sun!
        Definitely the go-to people for factual accuracy. Certainly a much better source for weather statistics than the MET office.
        Pillock.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given that the MET office still absurdly believes that the world is warming dangerously, despite 15 years of no warming, I’m inclined to agree that their judgement and veracity is questionable.

      • zoot says:

        Glad to see you’ve finally given up on insisting the MET office agrees with you that there has been no warming since 1997(Fact).
        You’ve learnt something from your time here.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Temperatures now are the same as 1997 – the MET office agrees with this.

          They also insist that dangerous global warming is still occurring, but actual temperature change has been suppressed by a combination of ENSO, Chinese Particulates, the Antarctic Ozone hole, or maybe UFOs (OK, I made that one up, but its as likely as some of their other excuses).

      • zoot says:

        So Eric, on a scale of 0-10, how successful have you been in convincing people here that you have anything like a coherent, proven argument that supports your laughable position?
        Or do you not really expect to convince anyone, you just enjoy the role of denialist Don Quixote?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its difficult to say. Very little effect on the most committed believers, but I’m hoping I can reach some of the fence sitters.

          The alternative to speaking up on this site and others is to site back and let the vicious evil you unwittingly represent roll right over my little girl’s future.

      • zoot says:

        All you need is evidence.

        To a person the people here will follow the evidence (it’s what we are doing now).
        Personal attacks on climate scientists are not evidence, cherry picked stats are not evidence, lies are not evidence, your opinion (which I’m sure carries great weight somewhere) is not evidence; yet that is all you have offered us.
        As for the future awaiting your little girl, I presume you are speaking of the hell on earth that has engulfed us since the carbon price sent a wrecking ball through our economy. Hyperbole is not evidence either.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The harm done by the carbon tax has yet to fully manifest. Energy intensive industrial assets are still profitable, but they are now less profitable than equivalent facilities overseas, which are not subject to the carbon tax.

          I suspect if the carbon tax is not removed, over the next 10 – 20 years we shall see a decline in energy intensive industry in Australia, as Australian plants are slowly run into the ground, with new investment for plant upgrades etc. going to cheaper, more profitable overseas facilities located in countries like China.

          Will this matter? Perhaps not – it depends on what happens to the rest of the Australian economy. But kill enough opportunities, and place enough burdens on the productive, and you’re well on the way to a European style disaster economy.

          The following article, which was published in CityAM, a widely respected London financial paper, shows that the situation in Europe is now so bad, it has reversed migration from Europe to Africa – Europeans are now flocking to Angola and Mozambique in the hope of finding work.

          http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/allister-heath/it-s-time-supporters-the-single-currency-apologise

          That could happen here too, if we keep following the European lead on economic and environmental policies.

          Personal attacks on Climate scientists – when they show themselves to be unfit, as the CRU researchers and others have done, they deserve personal attacks, at least in a metaphorical sense.

          And the big one of course – when will the planet start to warm again? If the flatline continues, and there is every indication that it will, the divergence between model predictions and global temperature will become increasingly embarrassing. Time will tell what it takes to shake the faithful.

      • john byatt says:

        Home » Latest news
        It’s time for supporters of the single currency to apologise

        inShare
        21Email
        Tuesday 1st May 2012, 1:18am
        EDITOR’S LETTER
        ALLISTER HEATH
        SOME of the stories coming out of the Eurozone are heart-breaking. Greece’s retail sales are down 13 per cent over the past year, a tragic and all too painful collapse for millions of families. Economists sometimes compare the UK’s recession with the great depression: while technically true in various narrow, statistical ways, such a parallel is facile given how wealthy we remain overall. But it is an accurate analogy when analysing what is happening in Greece, where unemployment is now 21 per cent and where bank accounts are emptying out, as anybody with any sense moves their money out of the country or into non-financial assets.

        Spain is back in recession; 23.6 per cent of its workforce is unemployed, rising to a horrendous 50.5 per cent for young people (in Greece, it’s an equally atrocious 50.4 per cent). Spain’s GDP will shrink substantially this year and next; the recession is becoming never-ending, inevitably meaning an even larger budget deficit, despite the latest attempts at austerity. If they had any self-respect and integrity, supporters of the euro – who thought the discipline of a single currency could coexist with social-democracy and ultra-regulated labour markets – should apologise to the people whose lives they have blighted. Needless to say, the euro-elites – and the establishment economists who provided them with intellectual rationalisations for their grandiose political dreams and grubby power-grab – are blaming everybody but themselves, and are still desperately fighting to save the unsavable.

        But the story that truly captures the imagination comes courtesy of New York University’s Development Research Institute. It highlights the influx of Portuguese immigrants to Angola – an economy that has been growing by over 10 per cent a year since peace broke out in 2002 – and Mozambique, in a dramatic reversal of roles between erstwhile colony and ex-imperial power. There was a time when poor Africans flocked to southern Europe to better their lives; the opposite is now happening. Five hundred years after Vasco de Gama first landed in Mozambique, impoverished Portuguese are turning up in droves, begging for work permits. Six years ago, Angola issued 156 visas to Portuguese migrants. In the most recent year for which data is available, that number had exploded to 23,787; 100,000 Portuguese have moved to Angola, four times more than the traffic in the opposite direction. Other studies have shown a brain drain of Portuguese to Brazil and of Spanish youngsters – especially skilled graduates – to Latin America.

        Portuguese workers in Angola now send home more cash to their families than Portuguese workers based in London. For millions of young people, Europe appears in terminal decline, while parts of Africa have emerged as a new Eldorado. The Eurozealots thought the single currency would turn old Europe into a new superpower; instead, it has catastrophically impoverished tens of millions of ordinary folk. It is time for an apology.

        HOUSING WOES
        My fact of the day is the collapse in the US homeownership rate, now at a 16-year low of 65.4 per cent. It peaked at 69.4 per cent in mid-2004. Sub-prime lending was a deliberate policy dreamt up in Washington by Democrats and endorsed by Republicans. Too many people who couldn’t afford to buy were pushed into mortgages; at first, the homeownership rate shot up but now all of the gains have been reversed. A property owning democracy is great – but only if it is not artificially inflated by politician

      • zoot says:

        Time will tell what it takes to shake the faithful.

        What will it take to shake your faith? Evidence doesn’t work, largely because you don’t, or don’t want to, understand the science.
        I have given you, many times, the evidence which I accept indicates global warming is continuing. You can change my mind in an instant. All you have to do is give me evidence that 1997 is the year that warming stopped, and a mechanism that explains why it stopped in that particular year. So far you have provided nothing that even approaches evidence – a dodgy graph and some handwaving about solar cycles is less than convincing
        You are very precise, it didn’t stop in 1995, or 2005, you insist it stopped in 1997(Fact).
        Why 1997? And don’t pull out your stupid 15 year graph when you acknowledge that it’s at least two years too short to show anything like a trend.
        Crossing your fingers that the next two years will show no rise in temperature is precious little on which to risk your daughter’s well being.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Since 1997 CO2 levels have moved from 360ppm to 390ppm, but temperatures have not shifted.

          So what evidence can you provide to support the ridiculous idea that CO2 drives climate change?

      • zoot says:

        Why don’t you answer the question(s)?

      • zoot says:

        Since 1997 CO2 levels have moved from 360ppm to 390ppm, but temperatures have not shifted.

        Temperatures have shifted. Upwards. The decade 2001-2010 was hotter than the decade 1991-2000.

        So what evidence can you provide to support the ridiculous idea that CO2 drives climate change?

        Oh dear. You really have lost the plot haven’t you?

      • zoot says:

        Hey Eric. Cat got your tongue?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Here’s some pretty solid evidence that the IPCC is consistently and substantially overestimating global warming.

          Funny how the last few years, most of the bad news has been for the alarmist cause.

      • zoot says:

        Why won’t you answer my question(s)?

      • zoot says:

        It just keeps getting better.

        … when they show themselves to be unfit, as the CRU researchers and others have done, …

        These unfit CRU researchers supply the data which Eric uses to support his “No warming since 1997(Fact)” stance.

        And Eric, you still haven’t answered my question(s).

      • zoot says:

        So when will the thermometers start going up again John?

        According to the guys who measure the temperature (not that corrupt crew at CRU that you don’t trust because they manipulate the data to show false warming but it’s ok to use the same data to produce your magic flatline), 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 have all been hotter than 1997.

      • Eric, without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Without a conspiracy, explain why no major scientific body dissented from the 1930s Eugenics crisis consensus?

          The answer of course is that a scientific body has to represent its members – and if the members are on a good thing, all that upsetting them will do is create a wave of resignations.

          Having said that, there have been some rumblings – a rebellion by Royal Society fellows recently forced the Royal Society to tone down its unscientific rhetoric on global warming.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/

        • That’s a wonderful response, breathtakingly daft in its depth and breadth, yet concise in its inanity.

          On your basis that anyone supporting eugenics must be wrong, will you be putting forward a petition to strip Winston Churchill of his knighthood, his Nobel Prize and American citizenship?http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics. Shall we exhume him from Westminster Abbey? If you will present false equivalence arguments you must follow through or your zealotry will be questioned.

          You then go onto to state all the scientists are on a good thing. So, you don’t have an answer that does not involve a conspiracy theory. I didn’t think you had. But than you for admitting it. There’s little use arguing with a conspiracy theorist – anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy. It was an argument against legislating against tobacco too.

          Watts takes credit for the sun rising most mornings. Have a read of what the Royal Society actually said in 2010 on http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf. Read the introduction, page 1. As you are a Watts’ acolyte and believe this is an approved text I assume your views will now change to reflect this position. Or will you retreat to your selective quoting habit? I think you will

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Churchill did a great service for humanity when he saw through the lies, and declared war on the country which was at the forefront of addressing the pseudoscientific Eugenics crisis.

          I’ve often wondered what the Auschwitz moment for your nasty doomsday cult will be. Obviously starving Africans doesn’t cut it, otherwise you would have fallen when it became clear that biofuel subsidies were an unmitigated disaster causing untold misery to millions.

          My favourite theory is your end will come in the wake of a carbon capture and storage catastrophe. Someone, somewhere, will be insane enough to build a CCS facility near somewhere inhabited, and an entire city will die horribly in a single accidental release of the stored CO2.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster

        • Churchill is one of my heroes. But he did not enter into war to prevent eugenics. I’m sure some retrospective hocus-pocus logic will be tried – but that wasn’t the reason. On the rejection of eugenics he was a follower, not a leader, in that specific regard. Earlier in his career, “as a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.”

          Your fatalism is touching. But I must point out that it is risky for one as error-prone as yourself.

          And your continued obsession with trying to tar your opponents with Nazi imagery is wonderfully bonkers. Your idiocy knob is turned up to 11, do you have a 12 you can show us?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m not the one who is providing comedy to the world, by trying to convince everyone there is an imminent scientific crisis – just like the Eugenicists did.

      • That’s a wonderfully bonkers response. I asked you why no scientific organisation agrees with you – without using a conspiracy theory. And your answer is “it’s a conspiracy, the scientists are onto a good thing”. That’s the line the tobacco industry took against scientists – the old denier arguments are the best ones.

        As Churchill was a one time proponent of eugenics I presume you will be mounting a petition to revoke his peerage, return his Nobel and strip him of his honorary American citizenship. Hey, if a bunch of people a few generations were wrong and that, somehow, disproves current climate science, don’t stop at any half measures, go get the lot of them. In other words your false equivalance argument is rubbish.

        Watts lays claim to the sun rising. However if you now believe the Royal Society is a Watts approved organisation then I presume you accept their 2010 position of http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf. Or will you relapse in selective quoting? (Yes, that last question was rhetorical.)

      • Eric is the Neville Chamberlain of climate. He has in his hand a post from Watts blog. Huzzah! We are all immune from the laws of physics. He’s a climate change appeaser.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Noone is immune from the laws of physics – but the junk science of the climate alarmists is unravelling before our eyes as the flatline continues.

        • Persistently posting up is flat merely demonstrates your zealotry. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I should hardly be expected to accept research produce by a zealot who has such strong feelings about CO2 he has been arrested at least twice at climate rallies.

          It would be like accepting pro-smoking research from a tobacco company.

        • Yup, Hansen is the whole of NASA. Yawn.

          More data you don’t like and will ignore. Denier logic is a body of facts plus a conspiracy theory equals the outcome I first thought of.

          The proven conspiracies are in your world. I wonder if that’s why you project them on others? Is denier conspiracy logic as simple as “we do it, surely they must?”

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Hansen is head of GISS. He gets to decide what they do.

        • I’m sure he influences. He darn well should. With the science saying what it does inaction would be hard to justify. Unless, of course, one simply denies the science.

          Nine times you lost. Must be tough.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The only real inquiry between adversaries with something to lose found in favour of the skeptic – Delingpole won the right under British law to continue describing Climategate scientists as unscientific and unreliable.

        • “The Commission emphasised that the articles in question were blog posts and were clearly identifiable as such to readers generally … The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist’s own robust views of the matters in question. Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code permits the publication of such comment provided it is clearly distinguished from fact…”

          Hmm, so his victory is it’s a blog, therefore not real journalism – and he separated his fiction from facts.

          What a great victory. :-)

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Aw, you can do it Johnny – quote the bit where the commission finds Delingpole provided evidence to back his claims, such as the email Phil Jones sent asking colleagues to delete correspondence to avoid complying with a FOI request.

      • Source documents please, Mr Chamberlain.

    • Eric, were you in a coma in 2010 and 2005 – when temperatures were higher? As for predictions, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast.

  49. EoR says:

    Clutchingatstrawsgate?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You’re thinking of scientists who claim anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of global climate, despite the fact that 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted since 1997, and done diddly to global temperatures.

      • Nick says:

        You need to learn about the responses of the components of the global system,and the influences of other forcing agents,now and in the past. When you do,you’ll realise why your ‘gotcha’ is nothing of the sort,and you’ll understand why we are laughing at you.

      • Berbalang says:

        I notice that the average temperatures for the past decade are hotter than the decade before. This year is on track for being the hottest year on record. Why should everyone else have to explain your imaginary lack of warming?

      • Nick says:

        Tell us why you expect that increase in CO2 to translate into the full expression of its warming potential in a decade. You’ve been told repeatedly why it won’t: lagging responses from components of the system.

  50. john byatt says:

    Just gotta do it

    ” theoretical emergence of greater-than-human superintelligence through technological means”

    Technological supreme intellegence says……. ” stop emitting CO2″

  51. Eric Worrall says:

    This is rather different to my normal posts on climate, but it is something to think about.

    Ray Kurzweil, serial AI innovator, and contributor to the technological singularity theory, has just been appointed as chief engineer at Google Corporation.

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

    If Google take Kurzweil seriously, they also take his theories of technological singularity seriously. And the technological singularity implies that anything we do now is fixable – the scientific and engineering capacity we shall have in just 40 years is utterly inconceivable to our current minds and state of knowledge, and with a trivial expenditure of effort could correct any defect we introduce to the Earth’s climate system.

    • George Montgomery says:

      I’m sensing that this is exactly like your normal posts on climate i.e. it’s not normal.
      That’s me showing off my tremendous powers of mental telepathy.
      Just because something exists in people’s imaginations doesn’t mean that it will become a reality. I’m personally still waiting for my childhood dream of an anti-gravity belt to become a reality. And that doesn’t include the promise of a cure for cancer that I’ve been following for over 40 years now. Hell! I’m still waiting for antibiotics that’ll get rid of superbugs like pseudomonas aureus even though evolutionary biologists suggest that’s approaching the impossible.
      On aesthetics alone, the term ‘technological singularity’ just doesn’t do it for me. In an attempt to give this ‘theory’ some respectability Kurzweil uses ‘singularity’ as an appeal to the authority of astrophysics and its ‘gravitational singularity’. Now that’s a singularity!
      If Kurzweil, chief engineer of Google Corporation (an appeal to authority by you), had some knowledge of economics, he’d be aware of the Law of Diminishing Returns. And he might be able to see that there is a limiting factor to an unfettered expansion in technology.
      Economics may also suggest to Ray K. that increasing technology will lead to increasing unemployment which reduces the demand, etc. in an economy, blah, blah, blah. The end result is there will be a reduction in capital investment, including technology, and the suggested exponential growth will not occur. And that’s not even taking into account political considerations involving the increasing levels of unemployment, increasing government outlays via social welfare, and on and on and on.
      I’d believe in Tinkerbell’s ‘fairy dust’ before I’d embrace a belief in your “a trivial expenditure of effort could correct any defect we introduce to the Earth’s climate system” theory. Actually, I’d put your climate-correcting technology theory in the same category as the belief that one day the Soccer World Cup will be won by Tristan da Cunha. Of course, the odds would be slightly in favour of Tristan da Cunha although, since we’re talking zeros here, that’d be a mathematical solecism.
      In fact, your post has reminded me to ring my mate whose working in the field of what I call artificial intelligence and he calls mathematical neuroinformatics. He’ll laugh his head off.

    • Jon says:

      If you’re right and we’ll have nearly godlike powers in 40 years, surely we’ll then be able to fix any unfortunate lingering consequences of having wasted effort reducing carbon emissions between now and then.

      On the other hand, if you’re wrong, about that and climate change, doing nothing as you suggest would leave us in a very grim situation.

      I, for one, don’t care to risk the well being of humanity on your technological prognostications being infallible. Doesn’t seem a very good bet given how many things you’re demonstrably wrong about in the present, let alone the future.

      • eworrall1 says:

        We may not have a technological future if your fellow travellers successfully create their global kleptocracy. Any productive nation will be squeezed dry by useless whiners in the name of eco guilt.

      • Jon says:

        “We may not have a technological future….”

        Okay, so apparently even you don’t believe the technological singularity is sure to save us, if necessary, 40 years from now. And yet you claimed such certainty that “the scientific and engineering capacity we shall have in just 40 years is utterly inconceivable to our current minds and state of knowledge”. Colour me not surprised – your beliefs aren’t consistent with the scientific evidence, why should anyone expect them to be consistent with each other?

      • Jon says:

        Could you perhaps cite one example of a society that has destroyed itself through excessive efforts to protect the environment in support of your thesis that that’s possible.? I think you’ll find examples of societies that have destroyed themselves by assuming the environment would provide what they needed regardless of how they used and abused it easier to come up with.

        By the way, what happened to your triumphalism of a mere two days ago when you wrote “Sadly for your doomsday cult the “idiots” are winning.”? And what makes you think, given your claimed certainty that global temperatures will stay more or less the same for the forseeable future and thereby send climate change alarmism into the dustbin of history, that there’s any need to worry ‘alarmists’ will nevertheless win and succeed in creating this “global kleptocracy” that worries you so? Once again, your stated beliefs don’t seem to be consistent with each other.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The German NAZIs were greens – they killed the Jews because, according to their perverted creed, Jewish genetic stock was inferior, and they were worried that an exploding population of inferior humans would destroy the world.

          Hitler passed laws creating many national Parks. Himmler was nutty about organic food – he was worried about dangerous chemicals in food damaging the health of his SS soldiers.

          Do you know why they targeted the Jews? Eugenics theory suggested that one of the traits of inferior human bloodlines was having a lot of children. Jews tend to have a lot of children. Therefore the NAZIs believed this must group them with people of subnormal intelligence, who also (they believed) tended to have a lot of children.

          This is why nuclear science and Quantum Physics was so unpopular in Germany – modern nuclear science was based on the work of a German Jew, therefore it must be wrong, because it was an intolerable contradiction of their belief system that a Jew could create work of such importance.

          If the evidence doesn’t match the theory, deny the evidence.

          German ideas didn’t die with the defeat of Hitler – Gunther Schwab, a prominent Austrian NAZI who did a lot to promote the ideas of protection of nature in the NAZI regime, went on to found the influential environmental group World Union for Protection of Life.

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

          And you can see more than an echo of the old NAZI ideas in call for drastic curbs on global population, such as Paul Ehrlich’s call for compulsory sterilisation of poor third world people who had 3 or more children.

      • Eric’s invoked Godwin’s law. His argument has committed suicide.

      • You’re talking about the voices in your head, Eric. You’ve wilfully chosen to remain misinformed. All you have is a giant conspiracy theory. Comparing scientists to Nazis in an attempt to silence them is as sick as any Heartland denier poster. Merry Christmas. Seek help.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If you had an answer to my question you would have provided it, rather than launch an unfounded personal attack.

          There are a lot of parallels between the Eugenics “crisis” and the climate “crisis”. Both attempted to use mathematical models to predict imminent crisis, both movements receive(d) high level support from the Royal Society, and other prominent scientific institutions (one of the 3 international Eugenics Conferences was held in the buildings of the Royal Academy), and both mistreated anyone who disagreed with their theory, accusing them of denying reality, and of diverting attention from vital changes to society.

          Here’s a document prepared by the 1930s Eugenics equivalent of an IPCC conference – full of meticulous statistical models predicting imminent catastrophe, calls to action, and sincerity. Interestingly the document also explicitly identifies the German Racial Hygiene movement as a sister effort of the Eugenics movement.

          As some of the attendees were from Germany and Austria, at least some of the contributing authors to the document must have known what was happening inside NAZI Germany.

          http://ia700402.us.archive.org/2/items/decadeofprogress00inte/decadeofprogress00inte.pdf

      • I did answer your question – I basically said comparing people to Nazis is sick and that you should seek help.

        Have my question. Without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I offered historical evidence that the support of August scientific bodies does not constitute proof.

          The same bodies (those of them which were in existence at the time) supported the Eugenics “crisis” too. The support of important scientific bodies does not rule out the possibility that climate alarmism is a pseudoscientific fad, just as the Eugenics “crisis” was.

          http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

        • That’s a nutty argument. Some group somewhere else at some other time did something wrong therefore climate science is wrong. However, if you hold with that, and given so many deniers have links to tobacco causes cancer denial haven’t you just shot yourself in the foot?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          My point is that support for a position from eminent scientific organisations does not constitute proof of the validity of a scientific position, and there are numerous historical examples of when the “consensus” got it wrong, sometimes horribly wrong. So your argument from authority is refuted.

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

        • I can understand your distaste for my argument. After all I’m asserting that many climate change deniers were (and still are) tobacco induced cancer deniers. They set themselves up as authorities – and you have willfully chosen their authority over the mainstream. You’re arguing from tainted authority.

      • Eric – answer my question please, Without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Why didn’t any major scientific body dispute the position of the Eugenics alarmists?

          Scientists have got to eat, and when a lot of members are making good money out of the latest fad, the organisations have to go along with what the members want.

          Having said that, there have been some substantial rumblings – for example, the Royal Society was recently forced to revise its guidance on global warming, thanks to members objecting to their unscientific statements – so there is enough support for skeptical positions to affect at least some moderation.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/

        • Answer the question.

          Watts lays claim to many things – most of which are figments of his imagination. See http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf and page 2 “There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.”

      • Eric, without using a conspiracy theory why does no scientific body in the world support your position?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Without a conspiracy, explain why no major scientific body dissented from the 1930s Eugenics crisis consensus?

          The answer of course is that a scientific body has to represent its members – and if the members are on a good thing, all that upsetting them will do is create a wave of resignations.

          Having said that, there have been some rumblings – a rebellion by Royal Society fellows recently forced the Royal Society to tone down its unscientific rhetoric on global warming.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/

        • That’s a wonderful response, breathtakingly daft in its depth and breadth, yet concise in its inanity.

          On your basis that anyone supporting eugenics must be wrong, will you be putting forward a petition to strip Winston Churchill of his knighthood, his Nobel Prize and American citizenship?http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics. Shall we exhume him from Westminster Abbey? If you will present false equivalence arguments you must follow through or your zealotry will be questioned.

          You then go onto to state all the scientists are on a good thing. So, you don’t have an answer that does not involve a conspiracy theory. I didn’t think you had. But than you for admitting it. There’s little use arguing with a conspiracy theorist – anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy. It was an argument against legislating against tobacco too.

          Watts takes credit for the sun rising most mornings. Have a read of what the Royal Society actually said in 2010 on http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf. Read the introduction, page 1. As you are a Watts’ acolyte and believe this is an approved text I assume your views will now change to reflect this position. Or will you retreat to your selective quoting habit? I think you will

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Churchill did a great service for humanity when he saw through the lies, and declared war on the country which was at the forefront of addressing the pseudoscientific Eugenics crisis.

          I’ve often wondered what the Auschwitz moment for your nasty doomsday cult will be. Obviously starving Africans doesn’t cut it, otherwise you would have fallen when it became clear that biofuel subsidies were an unmitigated disaster causing untold misery to millions.

          My favourite theory is your end will come in the wake of a carbon capture and storage catastrophe. Someone, somewhere, will be insane enough to build a CCS facility near somewhere inhabited, and an entire city will die horribly in a single accidental release of the stored CO2.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster

        • Churchill is one of my heroes. But he did not enter into war to prevent eugenics. I’m sure some retrospective hocus-pocus logic will be tried – but that wasn’t the reason. On the rejection of eugenics he was a follower, not a leader, in that specific regard. Earlier in his career, “as a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.”

          Your fatalism is touching. But I must point out that it is risky for one as error-prone as yourself.

          And your continued obsession with trying to tar your opponents with Nazi imagery is wonderfully bonkers. Your idiocy knob is turned up to 11, do you have a 12 you can show us?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m not the one who is providing comedy to the world, by trying to convince everyone there is an imminent scientific crisis – just like the Eugenicists did.

        • Your comedy is historic and scientific errors in one sentence, leading you to false conclusions.

          Have I mentioned you lost Climategate lots and lots of time? Did you know Heartland funding has dropped 57%?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I hardly count the whitewashes, run by people like Lord Oxburgh with undeclared interests in green organisations.

          The closes Climategate has come to court adjudication was the press complaint against James Delingpole brought by the University of East Anglia, which upheld Delingpole’s right to call the Climategate scientists “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions” – because James was able to furnish evidence from the Climategate archive that his statements were accurate.

          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

        • Nine times you lost. And you quote Delingpole on Delingpole, hardly his own harshest critic now, is he?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You’ll note Delingpole also quotes the Press Complaints finding which upholds his right to call the Climategate scientists unreliable and unscientific.

        • Freedom of speech includes both the freedom to be wrong and the freedom to be stupid. James won on both counts. Agreed.

          Much as the science won on nine counts. Climategate was a denier own goal.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You forgot the part of the ruling where the Press Complaints people found that Delingpole had provided evidence to back his claims.

        • You meant to say:

          Finally, it does seem rather unwise of Delingpole to “crow” about this result. The main thrust of the PCC findings is that his writing appeared on a blog and can therefore be taken with a pinch of salt. In the interests of free speech, bloggers can present “subjective opinion” and the PCC “permits the publication of such comment provided it is clearly distinguished from fact…”

          The implication is clear: had this article appeared in the print edition of the Telegraph it would not have been given the same latitude. Readers in turn must remember that the PCC’s verdict is that Delingpole does not produce journalism. By the standards of the PCC, his personal blogs contain “subjective opinion” and “are clearly distinguished from fact”.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You still can’t bring yourself to accept that the Press Complaints people found Delingpole had provided evidence to back his claims.

      • (Hint – he’s not buried in the Abbey.)

      • Have you found the original PCC judgement for us?

  52. john byatt says:

    IPCC draft: No comment.
    Filed under: Climate Science IPCC — group @ 4 May 2006
    As everyone has now realised, the second-order draft of the new IPCC report has become very widely available and many of the contributors to this site, commenters and readers will have seen copies. Part of the strength of the IPCC process are the multiple stages of review – the report is already significantly improved (in clarity and scientific basis) from the first round of reviews, and one can anticipate further improvements from the ongoing round as well. Thus no statements from this draft report can be considered ‘official’. While most of the contents of the report will come as no surprise to frequent visitors here, we have decided that we are not going to discuss the report until it is finalised and released (sometime in February 2007). At that time, we’ll go chapter by chapter hopefully pulling out the interesting bits, but until then, we feel it’s more appropriate to respect the ‘Do not cite or quote’ injunctions that can be found on every page. We trust that our commenters will likewise respect the process. Patience, people, patience!

    NOTE THE DATE!

  53. john byatt says:

    Prof Sherwood said he had no comment on the contents of the report, which he described as “an unfinished work in progress.”

    “It has not fully incorporated feedback from the broader science community, has not been approved by the government bodies or UN, has not yet incorporated the most up-to-date work,” he said.

    “The official version will come out in September and will be a better, more accurate, more readable and more consistent reflection of the science.”

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher of climate change denial at the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia, said the premature leak of the report was “dishonourable.”

    has not yet incorporated the most up-to-date work,” he said.

    I noticed this on reading a bit but the discussion about it is irrelevant untill the aurthorised final is released

    Real Climate NO COMMENT

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yes, it would be a real shame if the organisation which ex train engineer Pachauri described as “open” and “transparent” had to prepare its reports in a transparent manner.

      • Nick says:

        The reports are prepared transparently,which gave this clown Rawls the opportunity to make a numpty of himself. LOL

      • George Montgomery says:

        You’re a funny guy. If he’s an ex-train engineer then you’re an ex-railway fettler!
        Pachauri has a joint PhD in Economics and Industrial Engineering (1974) from North Carolina University and is currently the Head of Yale Climate Institute.
        But then, you knew that, didn’t you? Just like you know that Willard Anthony Watts spent 5 years at Purdue University without gaining a degree in anything. Watts is a meteorologist? Yeah right!
        Speaking of preparing reports in a transparent manner, I’m particularly upset that the Summary of ‘Nanoscale’ Discussion and Proposed Response to ISO TC229 JWG1 by the Nano-Technology 001 Committee is not being circulated before it is presented to all the stakeholders in the international nanotechnology industries.
        No I’m not. I realise that they’re all volunteers just like the IPCC committee members. And when their report is presented, I’ll have access to all the materials on which they based their report, just like anyone who wants to critique the IPCC reports.
        But then you knew that didn’t you?
        No, not the nano stuff, the IPCC stuff.
        Maybe you didn’t know about the IPCC stuff and like me don’t care.
        No not the IPCC stuff, the nano stuff.
        I can’t wait to see the IPCC stuff so that I can see how ‘smart Alec’ Rawls misinterpreted what he read.
        It’s a bit like the Monckton vaudeville routine. You know, where he ‘quotes’ some research paper/IPCC report or ‘uses’ some diagram from a research paper/IPCC report where any similarities between the Monckton presentation and the original are entirely coincidental.
        This sort of cooligan behaviour a la Rawls is de rigeur for coldaholics.

      • Nick says:

        I’ll remind you that the drafts Rawls released are not the reports…they are drafts after all. Rawls revealed the contents of drafts. When the final drafts are signed off on by the lead authors they go through government review and working group approval for publication.That’s when you can call them ‘the reports’.

        Rawls dishonored a personal undertaking to keep the drafts confidential,an undertaking transparently asked for of all who self-nominate to help review the material. The fact that the IPCC transparently invites participation in this process is a sign of the transparency of the process. Simple,eh? This of course means they have to winnow the nutty time wasting remarks and ‘observations’ from the useful contributions,but that’s the price of transparency. They also risk bad faith operators like Rawls pulling childish stunts.

        Rawls has reneged on an undertaking in order to gain attention for himself,and to try to mislead others with a ruse so transparent and incompetent you really have to wonder whether he is quite all there.

        If you really think you can back Rawls actions you’d better actually mount an argument.

      • Nick says:

        You are determined to remain clueless and,boy,it shows!

    • Rawls is a lying tosser. The openness of the IPCC allows lying tossers to participate. Hey ho. That’s the cost of transparency.

  54. Eric Worrall says:

    It doesn’t take much solar influence to falsify alarmism – that is why alarmists persist with the ridiculous position that the only way the sun can influence global climate is via TSI, despite plentiful evidence that a) there are other possible mechanisms and b) solar influence on global climate is significantly greater than TSI can account for.

    If for example the sun contributed even half of the 20th century warming, alarmism is dead. That would bring climate sensitivity down to 1.5c / doubling or less. At this sensitivity we could burn all the fossil fuel in the world without having a major impact on global climate.

    So keep fighting your doomed rearguard action. As the global temperature flatline continues, your desperate defence of the indefensible will provide amusement for all.

    • Nick says:

      None of your assertions have any basis in science,Eric. You’ve simply taken the IPCC consensus figure for equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubling [which is the central figure of a stated range] and assumed if solar net increase over some part of the 20thC supplied half the observed warming,then ECS is half the central estimate.

      You are actually largely confusing transient climate sensitivity for equilibrium CS.

      • john byatt says:

        This went straight over Rawls and everyone else at WUWT’s head

        Dana Nuccitelli says:
        December 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm
        Just so it’s clear why you’re wrong, aside from the fact that there isn’t a 60-year lag between TSI and global temp changes, cosmic rays are directly correlated with solar activity (specifically solar magnetic field), so if solar magnetic field isn’t increasing right now, it’s not going to deflect more GCRs, which means there won’t be less cloud seeding (though there’s no concrete evidence GCRs successfully seed clouds anyway, as Zeke has noted), which means there won’t be more GCR-induced warming. Your hypothesis is wrong on every possible level.
        You’re basically arguing that fewer clouds are now being seeded because based on the reduced GCR flux from a solar irradiance increase 60+ years ago. Sorry, even if the GCR hypothesis were correct, it wouldn’t take 60+ years for a GCR to seed a cloud. That’s absurd.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I see – so CO2 can have an equilibrium latency of centuries, but GCR effects are expressed immediately, because the radiation somehow knows whether it has come directly from the sun, or was trapped by CO2.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Ah, that mysterious long equilibrium which only affects radiation trapped by GHG, not incoming radiation from the sun.

      • Nick says:

        You need to learn how the ‘greenhouse effect’ works,Eric. The GHGs are largely translucent to incoming radiation which is mainly visible,but get in the way of outgoing LW radiation. More GHGs in the way means a systemic heating as energy can only leave the planet radiatively,but the components of the system react at differing paces hence your mysterious long equilibrium.

        Given clouds are transient, GCR effects will have to express themselves immediately in order for observation to relate changes in net cloudiness to changes in net GCR flux. GCR flux is modulated by the solar cycle,and the GCRs are supposed to influence cloud nucleation to some degree –a lot if you’re nutso, barely at all if you read the experts. The variations in solar output through to TSI and its influence on W/m2 and global average temperature trend over the long term are a separate matter,and how supposed GCR induced cloudiness rubs up against long-term net TSI change is an elusive matter,especially given not all clouds are equal.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          More GHGs in the way means a systemic heating as energy can only leave the planet radiatively,but the components of the system react at differing paces hence your mysterious long equilibrium.

          The long equilibrium must apply to non transient changes in solar heating as well (whether through GCR changes or whatever), because the components of the system don’t care where the increased or reduced heat comes from.

          So the argument that changes in GH forcing have a long equilibrium, but long term changes in solar forcing must have a short equilibrium, is complete BS.

          Given that the scientists who promote this BS view must know it is BS, your next question should be “why would they promote a view they know is BS?”

      • Nick says:

        Laughing at ya mate! You’re promoting a view that you don’t know to be bullshit but actually is. Learn some friggin’ science.

      • Nick, could you email me please? uknowispeaksense@y7mail.com. I would like to invite you to take part in an exclusive study. Cheers. Mike

    • George Montgomery says:

      “but GCR effects are expressed immediately, because the radiation somehow knows whether it has come directly from the sun, or was trapped by CO2.”
      You’re a funny guy!
      GCRs come directly from the sun! Jocularity! Jocularity!
      Talking about providing amusement for all. What a juxtaposition of ideas! It’s all expressed so beautifully in just one sentence – wave-particle duality, cosmic charged-particles, ‘rays’, short wave radiation, solar radiation, long wave radiation, CO2 molecules, magnetic fields, ionosphere, etc., etc. all wrapped up into one “unified theory” with elements of and contradictions of Doug Cotton’s Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and, Planetary Surface Temperatures – A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms. The last sentence makes me breathless just reading it out aloud.
      You can’t make stuff like that up so it must be true! At least that’s the principle I use when engaged in the ‘peer-review’ of metaphysical research papers – the ontological ones not the cosmological.
      And you’ve actually used two numbers, sort of – 20th and 1.5c. Although what 1.5 cents has to do with climate sensitivity beats the heck out of me.
      Some advice though. You should have done a Monckton (the Viscount not the member of the House of Lords) and converted the “So keep fighting your doomed rearguard action” into Latin. That would have impressed the scientifically-challenged out there among the denialati and AGW-contrarian community.
      Personally, my fallback line is the opening stanza of Ovid’s Metamorphosis. Just remember, if you have to speak it, it’s in dactylic hexameter (alternation among the long and short syllable) and not iambic pentameter (stress on the long syllables only).

      • Doug Cotton says:

        George M

        If you can prove that, when a molecule moves upwards in its free path (between impacts) it can somehow retain all its kinetic energy (KE) even though gaining potential energy (PE) and if you can also produce counter experiments disproving over 800 experiments since 2002 which have confirmed the automatic formation of a thermal gradient in a gravitational field, then perhaps you can prove me wrong, though you would be implying a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See “”The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” – Oh and also explain how a mere 1W/m^2 of direct sunlight reaching the poles of Venus makes them over 720K.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: