Like I said, I’ve been busy.
Leon, this is what you said:
The climate sceptics party has always recognised the various warming and cooling periods in the earths history. We don`t deny climate changes. We are not sceptical of the climate. We called ourselves climate sceptics as the media had branded those against the Al Gore / alarmist view as climate sceptics , so we went with it. Climate realists might be a better term.
As to what causes any particular warming and how much – there is a range of evidence for various causes. Do we adhere to one particular view – Yes – The Science is never settled. New evidence can change our perspective. could we ever say CO2 causes all the Global warming – No
Could we say it causes some – Yes if there is good evidence.
Is there evidence of substantial warming (5 degrees C by 2100) from CO2 – Not at this point .
Do we back any narrow view of the data – No we are prepared to be sceptical of any one bit of research, but if there is a weight of evidence, we then become stronger in our position.In our view there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures over centuries. There is no correlation across centuries between CO2 and ice cover, sea levels, numbers of cyclones, floods, or anything else.
Sorry to change the subject, but that is what we are happy to chat about
Cheers
Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics
Watching the Deniers 
If climate realists concour that change is taking place, then, is your view one of: 1) we can’t do anything about it, or 2) we do not accept any CC definitions of the possible impact on life?
Would a climate realist consider the possibility that human efforts could positively impact, not only manmade, but some of natures’ negative creation as well.
I think we deniers think we can’t do anything about it. And we do accept that CC impacts life.
I think climate deniers consider the possiblilty that human efforts positvely and negatively impact nature. To say that it is impossible is not realistic. Remember, even a butterfly impacts climate in some minor way, negatively and possitively depending on the view.
on the climate sceptics blog there is the claim that Miskolczi has never been refuted by peer review , the paper has been discredited by peer review and also by observations, if leon is forthright will he then have this bogus claim removed from th TCS blog?
Leon’s Declaration Of Ignorance should be seen as widely as possible.
He agrees that there is ‘good evidence’ that CO2 causes ‘some’ of the warming.
He then says there is no evidence that CO2 and global temperatures show any correlation over centuries.
These are two mutually contradictory statements. If CO2 is causing some warming,how can this be divined if the record shows no correlative signal whatsoever? Does CO2 cause undetectable warming that we have ‘good evidence’ for??
This absurdity is further underlined by frequent claims elsewhere by ‘climate skeptics’ that CO2 rise lags temperature rise in the ice-core record. If this is not evidence for a correlative relationship,what is? When is a lagged relationship not understandable as a correlative one? Do these people not understand what the word and concept of correlation can mean and allow? Under the view that elevated biotic and environmental response to a warming atmosphere is to deposit more CO2 into global sinks,of which the atmosphere is one, how can a claim of zero correlative between CO2 and temperature be argued? It has to cut both ways. If there is no correlation, then CO2’s movement in the ice core records just happens by complete coincidence to shadow the temperature trace,and any conclusions ‘skeptics’ wish to draw from their pet ‘lag’ claim are untenable..
Then Leon claims that CO2 is the cause of some warming as well. Oh dear.
“In our view there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures over centuries.”
You are correct Nick, he makes that statement and his statement is contradictory. This is not the opinion of most climate skeptics I am aware of. The skeptics or realists I am aware of are fully aware of the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the centuries, there is a clear correlation; Co2 follows temperature changes by around 800 years, so there is no way that CO2 is a cause of climate changes, something else is the driver. Changes in CO2 concentrations are an effect of changing climate, not a cause. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers.
Klem, do you have an understanding of why in the past CO2 has lagged Temperature and why that is a proof of the theory rather than a contradiction ?
“Changes in CO2 concentration are an effect of changing climate…” yes,in cases as a feedback to the work of a persistent forcing,such as a shift in solar output,or significant change in continent/land surface distribution,or orbital changes.
Klem,this time is different. We have desequestered in two hundred years what took millions of years to lock away: the bodies of plants and animals. In combusting these remains ,we have put a large spike of CO2 into the system. Changing climate did not cause this..human activity did.
So,changes in CO2 concentration are also the effect of an industrious organism with the physical means to release CO2 in quantities greater than routine natural processes can re-sequester in a fashion timely enough to maintain a reasonably steady atmospheric concentration.
Now we have 40% more of a radiatively active gas in the atmosphere than 150 years ago-not arriving there as a feedback, but as a forcing,because the rapid delivery of the gas is being maintained and even increased.
Surely you can understand this?
good take down Nick i will keep that on file, Logic and coherence.
“The climate has always changed. Therefore the climate is not changing”.
One cannot help be struck by the apparent contradiction of that position.
I got me own tag at the TCS blog, a proud moment for me ,
you don’t count Sou, no one knows who you are
Lol – fancy that now. Clicking on the John Byatt and Sou tags only leads to one post. I don’t think there’ll be any more posts on that blog tagged with Sou 🙂
Thumb up Nick.
I gotta pal over at SkepticForum who has the same mantra – no proof CO2 causes warming:
“AGW theory is over 150 years old, what is the most convincing experimental test that reveals even the smallest climate change? We’ve seen atmospheric tests on man aerosol particulates, but not greenhouse gas, why is that?”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Present every argument and link you can and the reply comes back: there’s no proof.
Looking for good short replies to that jazz. 😉
If people accept that H2O can warm and cool atmosphere and surface,then the same evidence [a century and more of lab work,knowledge of atmospheric gas distributions and quantities,the understanding of the vibrational modes of the molecules,spectral measurements,etc.] must support such a role for CO2.They cannot have it both ways. The non-condensing nature of CO2 provides the ‘stable temperature floor’ ,as Lacis et al 2010 puts it,that keeps the atmospheric water levels at current volumes. It doesn’t do this by magically losing its radiative properties whenever mining companies want to remind us of coal’s indispensibility.
From SS
short enough
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
Speaking of CO2, you folks familiar with the Deutsche Bank Carbon Counter?
It’s spooky amazing looking at the numbers rack up, like a thousand metric tons per second.
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/
“Greenhouse gas concentrations are frequently expressed as an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This CO2-equivalent concentration in parts per million (ppm) can then be expressed in terms of metric ton of CO2, a standard of measurement, which as a stock of gases in the atmosphere is readily understood.
According to the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005. The estimate of total CO2-eq concentration in 2005 for all long-lived GHGs is about 455ppm (see Carbon through History).
On June 18th as the counter started, long-lived GHGs in the atmosphere were estimated to be 3.64 trillion metric tons, growing at 2 billion metric tons per month, or 467 ppm, of which CO2 was 385 ppm. “
amazing how that was achieved with no increase in Optical thickness , Miskolczi’s paper must be wrong or Dreck as Gavin Schmidt calls it
Has anyone checked the bloglist on the TCS blog? Heck, it’s no wonder Leon Ashby is so uninformed if he relies on disinformers like Bolt, crazy Jo Nova, and Maharosy (who some have suspected is a long term POE). Where are the links to climate science? Answer: nowhere on the TCS blog!
(I don’t really believe Ashby is uninformed. So the only conclusion is that he’s part of the disinformation machine but not doing a very good job.)
C’mon Geoff.
Come back old fella!
“Do we back any narrow view of the data – No we are prepared to be sceptical of any one bit of research, but if there is a weight of evidence, we then become stronger in our position.”
Nathan gave me a list of scientists with which their conclusion is drawn. Unfortunately I deleted it (I’m starting to see good reason why I should hold onto these emails), but I remember Lindzen and McIntyre making the list. I don’t think they’re as sceptical of all research as they could be.
But yeah, it’s about the only meme that seems to remain – climate always changes. There’s always water from my tap therefore the the water restrictions were meaningless.
Cognitive dissonance
apathy versus denial
It ain’t their fault?
http://www.psandman.com/col/climate.htm
What to do?
For example, parents who warn their young kids too emphatically that crossing the street is dangerous, that a truck may come along and squish them, may find that their children now cross the street with their eyes closed – thus avoiding having to see that terrifying truck. (Note that fear appeals are often very useful. They backfire when they’re unbearable.)
From my experience the fear the parents past down is the same fear parents themselves grew up with. The blind leading the blind.
Hence my terror of lightening , mum would put us under an upturned lounge-chair,
my own children have no fear whatsoever , but i still carry that
when lightening is around and not having anyone to pray to i tend to be very careful.
.
Moth and John might appreciate this bit of offbeat and OT humour 🙂
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2011/02/scariest-story.html
lol Sou 🙂
The whole thing is full of contradictory statements:
Do we adhere to one particular view – Yes – The Science is never settled.
could we ever say CO2 causes all the Global warming – No
Mungo at unleashed ABC
”
Ah yes, the sceptics, Given the state of the science, it is about time we stopped dignifying them with that name, which suggests some sort of commitment to rationality. Even the alternative – deniers – implies they have given the question some serious thought. Let us call them what they are: mendacious, stupid or at best delusional.
Some may sincerely believe the science is still not settled, or that it is all a vast conspiracy; many others are feeding the doubters out of sheer self-interest in search of commercial or political advantage. But their opinions are important only to each other. Their views should no longer be part of any rational discussion and they must not be considered at all by Gillard and her fellow decision makers.
The misguided will, of course, be among those compensated; it is to be hoped that they spend at least some of the windfall on catching up with the science or, if that is too much effort, securing long-term accommodation in homes for the terminally bewildered along with their fellow flat earthers. Clowns are all very well in their place, but in the words of the immortal Stan Cross cartoon, it’s time to stop laughing – this is serious.”
,
john byatt (03:06:52) :”Ah yes, the sceptics, Given the state of the science, it is about time we stopped dignifying them with that name, which suggests some sort of commitment to rationality.”
~ ~ ~
Then again. . .
Of late I’ve been bandying around the old Greek definition of a sceptic: “philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere. ”
And these folks to seem to fit that bill.
😉
Proposal
“THE CLIMATE KLEPTICS”
Stealing the future .
.
LOL!