Obama “trust the science” while talk of an Amercian carbon tax begins: the ground is shifting

Reasons for some optimism perhaps. Firstly, Obama made climate change the centre piece of his State of the Union Address:

In a soaring inaugural speech, Obama defined the climate crisis as a moral issue for the generations. For his follow-up act, the president must persuade Americans that climate change is a clear and present threat to their daily lives and their livelihoods, requiring action now, said Paul Bledsoe, who directed the White House climate change taskforce under Bill Clinton. 

“I think he has to frame climate change as an issue here, now, and as a threat. I think he has to frame it as a domestic issue – not a global issue,” he said. “The challenge is to frame climate change as an issue with large costs that are only going to grow. That is his biggest opportunity. That is what he has to do.” 

Obama does something that many politicians have failed to do: state emphatically there is good reason to “trust the science”:

Great quote: “If congress won’t act to protect future generations, I will”

But Obama also promises to open up more oil and gas permits.

Just as interesting, but overlooked so far, are recent moves to introduce a tax on carbon in the United States. The following article in The Nation explains:

Only an hour before President Obama is expected to deliver his State of the Union address—in which he might “go big” on the issue of combating climate change—two Senators announced they will introduce comprehensive climate change legislation this week, presenting a possible vehicle in the Senate for Obama’s ambitions.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will outline the legislation on Thursday morning. Details are scant, though it’s being billed as “major” and “comprehensive” legislation, and will have a carbon tax…

As many know, the Waxman-Markey “cap-and-trade” bill introduced in 2009 but was abandoned. It was regarded as a victory for fossil fuel and polluting interests.

However, such legislation was always going to resurface – the efforts of vested interests and the denial machine are merely rearguard actions designed to delay such initiatives.

Like Big Tobacco their intent was to stall the inevitable.

Tagged , , ,

179 thoughts on “Obama “trust the science” while talk of an Amercian carbon tax begins: the ground is shifting

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    Given that exporting jobs to China is still such a hot issue in America, especially in rustbelt states (which include some Democrat states), Obama has bugger all chance of pushing the legislation through the Senate, let alone Congress.

    As WUWT put it, its more likely posturing, IMO to appease big green interests.

    Hasn’t the worldwide collapse of carbon markets taught you guys anything? The European market looks like its about to collapse, the way the Chicago Climate Exchange did.


    The reason is delightfully simple. Carbon markets are the only market in which fraud benefits all participants.

    Fraud benefits the fraudsters, by allowing them to make money for nothing, selling bogus carbon credits.

    Fraud benefits the purchasers of carbon credits, by driving prices down.

    Fraud benefits regulators, by providing them with a nice extra income.

    Still its funny to watch you guys keep trying to impose a market mechanism on an imaginary problem.

    BTW Mike there’s a typo in the title of your post.

  2. Stuart Mathieson says:

    The real war America (and the rest of us) faces is the war against polluters and wreckers of the environment. The fossil fuel industry is happy to maintain the war against terrorism, Taliban etc. it distracts public attention from environmental dangers and reinforces our commitment to fossil fuel.

  3. john byatt says:


    Dear Sir,

    I would publicly like to thank The Minister for Environment and Heritage (climate change) Andrew Powell for his personal letter. It is not my place to reveal the contents of such privacy but hope that Mr. Powell might through a press release assure all Queenslanders of his commitment to the science as he has me. Andrew’s recognition of the science and the consequences of inaction are reassuring, Andrew will obviously meet with opposition to any action within the party room. May his God guide him and give him the strength of conviction.


  4. john byatt says:

    To the extent carbon is included in a manufactured product such as plastic, but is not burned, that carbon will not be taxed. Similarly, to the extent the carbon used to produce energy is permanently sequestered rather than released into the atmosphere, that carbon will not be taxed or a tax credit will be provided.

    Then you have some industry investing in offsets,

    certainly not the perfect scheme and a long time since i have read the arguments against point of production tax , some of them make good sense,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      A carbon tax is a tax on domestic economic activity. It drives jobs overseas, because a carbon tax makes it more expensive to do things in the country which imposes it.

      A carbon tax makes it a little cheaper to ship the raw materials overseas, do any energy intensive manufacturing outside the remit of the tax, then re-import the finished goods.

      Does it cause an immediate cessation of activity? Of course not. If you’ve just built a new factory, because say you were innocent enough to listen to the election lies of a lefty politician who promised not to introduce a carbon tax, then you can’t simply walk away from your investment – you have to do what you can to recoup your money.

      But the next factory you build, or the next upgrade to your facilities, will take the carbon tax into account, both the current tax, and the risk of future increases, when you decide where you will earn the best return for your investment. The decay is gradual – but as Europe has discovered to her horror, after a while it starts to do real damage.

      America is struggling with jobs being outsourced to China. Australian politicians regularly profess the desire to shift the Australian economy to value added exports, rather than just digging stuff up and exporting it. A carbon tax undermines both goals, by making it cheaper to manufacture products or add value in other countries.

      • john byatt says:

        It raised the cpi by 0.7% get over it

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The carbon tax is either ineffective or damaging – take your pick.

        And you know as well as I do that more energy intensive industries, such as ore refineries, will be disproportionately hit by carbon taxes.

        Congratulations – you just helped add to the incentive to ship unrefined ore to China, instead of doing something to add value to it in Australia.

      • Steve says:

        Since you don’t seem greatly in favour of a carbon tax, what is your opinion about phasing out all energy subsidies?
        This had been suggested by a lot of people and organisations including the American Wind Energy Association.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I agree – no energy company should receive a penny from the government.

      • Nick says:

        Eric: “I agree no energy company should receive a cent from the government”.

        Your dopey absolutism is always present. There are no cases for subsidy incentive for energy infrastructure?

      • Eric Worrall says:


        Your dopey absolutism is always present. There are no cases for subsidy incentive for energy infrastructure?

        No. If the infrastructure makes economic sense, it will receive the investment it requires, without a direct risk of taxpayer money.

        The government is far better off defining the terms under which such investments can be made.

        A government which has a good reputation for stability and honouring its commitments has no problem attracting long term private sector investment.

    • zoot says:

      Good thing the carbon tax will be removed as soon as the emissions trading scheme comes into effect.

  5. Abbott will impose eugenics. Eric said so.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Eugenics is an terrifying example of the damage which can occur when academics are caught by a hysterical doomsday belief – it proves scientists, and scientific institutions, are just as susceptible to fits of hysterical irrationality as any other group or organisation.

      • john byatt says:

        You are the definition of irrationality

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Pretty feeble response John.

      • Eugenics is a terrifying example of what happens if you vote in right wingers. Abbott is in favour. He’ll find a few conniving scientists and PR people to pull it off.

        • Allen Eltor says:

          Eugenics was practiced by National SOCIALISTS: not by right wingers. Right wingers believe in power of the individual even to being an oil or cattle baron.

          Only left wingers believe in Eugenics. It’s what the guy who invented that goofy Green House Gas Effect, where a miles deep frigid, refrigerated gas bath is believed to “warm” the warm rock immersed in it.

          Left wingers believe you have to go for the good of the state. For the good of the Nation. Right wingers believe in “leave me alone I don’t want your national socialism.”

          No wonder you sound so confused. You don’t realize you’re a National Socialist.

      • john byatt says:

        You are the definition of feeble eric

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Eugenics is a terrifying example of what happens if you vote in right wingers.

        Eugenics had significant support across the political spectrum – it was considered a scientific issue, not a political issue. Democratic presidents such as Woodrow Wilson were also supporters of Eugenics. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/darwin/eugenics.html

        And of course, the obvious one – Hitler’s party was the National Socialist Party. His party introduced strong new laws to protect worker’s rights. He was also a green – he created many new parks and national reserves.

        So claiming Eugenics is a right wing ideology is a bit of a nonsense.

        Lets not forget, until a few years ago, climate alarmism enjoyed the same strong bipartisan support. Republicans mostly supported alarmist climate science. Maggie Thatcher practically started the whole movement, or at least gave it its chance at the big time, through her support for the Hadley Centre, and her passionate speeches in favour of curbing emissions.

        Its thanks to the efforts of Lord Monckton that the Republicans realised alarmist alarmist climate science was being exploited by the left to impose stronger government on society (more curbs on energy usage, production, etc.).

      • zoot says:

        Godwin. You just lost the argument.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        FFS we were talking *about* alarmist Eugenics 🙂

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Abbott has his flaws – as always, the next election is a choice of who is the lesser evil.

        But I’ve yet to meet an Aussie who has something nice to say about Gillard. She’s so unpopular, there’s speculation she called the election to force her party to rally behind her, and forestall yet another leadership challenge.

      • zoot says:

        … there’s speculation she called the election to force her party to rally behind her, and forestall yet another leadership challenge.

        No, she called the election because Australian electoral law says she has to call one in 2013.
        She may have given early notice of the date of the election to forestall a leadership challenge. She could just have easily done it to give Abbott enough rope to hang himself. Who cares?

  6. Obama says a lot of things. If you’re silly enough to take them seriously I have some great carbon credits to sell you.

  7. john byatt says:

    Thank goodness we remembered the emails

    Heartland Institute (@HeartlandInst) says:
    February 14, 2013 at 6:07 am
    Regarding possible civil litigation: Heartland’s lawyers warned us that if we filed a civil suit against Peter Gleick, they could not guarantee that our donors would be protected from subpoenas won by Gleick’s attorneys from a sympathetic (liberal) judge. All of the donors identified in the stolen documents could receive threatening letters from Gleick’s lawyers demanding that they surrender correspondence, emails, notes, receipts, etc. Obviously, that would be devastating to our future fundraising efforts, and a violation of our pledge of preserving the privacy of our donors. So we made the difficult choice to not pursue civil litigation.

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

    • john byatt says:

      Jim we already know your donors, peter should now sue for defamation and get the emails anyway

    • Many of us predicted Heartland couldn’t afford transparency. Openness is for others, not for denialists. See also GWPF.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Still doesn’t bother you that Gleick committed identity fraud, does it? Anything can be justified, when the future of the planet, our very survival, hangs in the balance.

      • Nope. It doesn’t bother me. At least he was open – unlike…

        It doesn’t seem to bother you that you still go on about Climategate despite having lost NINE times. And neither Delingpole nor Watts have ever admitted where the stolen emails came from.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        No Gleick wasn’t open – initially he hid behind anonymity (the outlets claimed to have received the documents from an “anonymous source”, no mention of Gleick), then he claimed to have received the documents from a Heartland “insider”, then he admitted committing identity fraud, then he finally admitted the notorious “memo” was received from a different source (we think he forged it himself).


        But interesting that you think the ends justify the means.

        We caught Gleick because the forged memo was so clumsily fabricated. It mentioned Gleick by name. The fabricated memo was stamped with the same geographical region as Gleick’s offices (Heartland is on the opposite coast). Finally, Gleick has some peculiar punctuation quirks, which the memo also contains. The blogosphere was mentioning Gleick as the likely source, because of the memo, before he admitted anything.

        The memo itself simply isn’t credible, except to a believer. As Megan McArdle of “The Atlantic” said, reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic

        Gleick still hasn’t come clean about who fabricated the memo.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Here’s an amusing writeup by Steve McIntyre on the Gleick affair.


      • john byatt says:

        eric”Gleick still hasn’t come clean about who fabricated the memo.”

        heartland should take him to court then and find out,


      • Eric Worrall says:

        Perhaps, but it might be easier waiting until America has a Republican appointed Attorney General.

        Under the Obama regime, wire fraud committed against a skeptic organisation is not a crime.

      • Turn in the CRU thieves first.

    • I like your rewriting of history – imaginative and incorporates small elements of truth. The bottom line is Gleick confessed. And no-one has confessed to Climategate. You are, once again, enjoying the moral low ground.

      You guys love going to court: NIWA, Cuccinelli – even when you lose. Face it, there are two reasons Heartland’s not going to court. The first is the one they stated, they don’t want to disclose their funding – that’s pretty ugly in its own right. The forensics point to Bast as the author. The second is they’d have to admit all the documents really were theirs after all.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Gleick confessed after he was already caught.

        There is no proof the Climategate archive was stolen. My personal theory (and it is purely speculative) is that Keith Briffa was the person who leaked the archive.

      • Nonsense. He wasn’t even close to being caught. But we’ll go around in circles.

        In the meantime, there’s no question the emails were stolen, the Norfolk police have said as much. And McIntyre’s declaration of “a miracle has happened” sounds like someone crowing over handling stolen goods. https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/obama-tust-the-science-while-talk-of-an-amercian-carbon-tax-begins-the-ground-is-shifting/#comment-28511

      • Posted the incorrect link. Try this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate.

        Just garden variety theft.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        From your link:-

        The University of East Anglia stated that the server from which the data were taken was not one that could be accessed easily, and that the data could not have been released inadvertently.

        Like I said, more likely the work of a computer literate insider. Or sheer incompetence on the part of the University administrators. As an IT expert, I’ve seen some pretty incompetently managed government computer networks – I doubt they knew who was coming or going, or had proper internal security restrictions on their own people, let alone outsiders.

        The upload to RealClimate could have been a different group.

        Until you guys can produce the perpetrator, speculation about a possible hack cannot compare to the head of the AGU scientific ethics committee impersonating a Heartland executive to steal documents, then adding his own forgery to spice up the swag. The fact Gleick the criminal is still welcome at AGU meetings, and is even invited to present, speaks volumes about the murky nature of alarmist ethics.

      • Turn in the CRU thieves. It wasn’t an inside job. Even if it was, it’s still theft – and Watts and Delingpole knowingly handled stolen goods. At the very least you could stop quoting Watts as a known thief – with a virtually 100% wrong record. You look daft every time you post a link to his craziness.

  8. Eric Worrall says:

    Guys, you’re saved. A new doomsday scenario is rising, a new bandwagon for you to board, now that global warming is about to sink beneath the waves.


    • Steve says:

      That is a very interesting story, thank you for posting the link.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Its an intriguing issue. Asteroids and comets can move very fast, and often arrive on unpredictable trajectories (especially if they are extra solar in origin).

        And there have been far larger explosions. The Siberian explosion was just one of several. The East Mediterranean Event was an asteroid which exploded with a force of 27 kilotons over the Mediteranean in 2002, thankfully no casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Mediterranean_event

        If the East Mediterannean Asteroid had arrived a few hours earlier, it would have exploded somewhere over India or Pakistan, at a time when tensions were running very high. It could have been mistaken as a nuclear first strike, with unthinkably horrific consequences.

    • Dr No says:


      Can I suggest you post such musings on another more relevant site?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Fair point – sorry for wasting your time with a real issue.

      • zoot says:

        As opposed to wasting our time with delusional issues?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re the one with the delusions zootie – you still think the world is warming dangerously, despite 16 years of flatlining temperatures (soon to be 20 years, if the MET is correct).

        Even James Lovelock has thrown in the towel over this issue, and joined the ranks of the lukewarmers – only a few holdouts like yourselves still cling to the pure faith. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

      • Nick says:

        The world is warming ‘dangerously’ for those in coming generations,but as you have trouble following the physics and science behind warming reality,it’s no surprise that you lack the imagination to see further than next month. You still have not grasped the IPCC reports,because you have not read them,preferring Watts as an interlocutor.

        No one has asserted ‘imminent thermogeddon’. But you will maintain the strawmen,because the reality is too much a challenge for you.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        No one has asserted ‘imminent thermogeddon’. But you will maintain the strawmen,because the reality is too much a challenge for you.

        So Hansen’s boiling oceans scenario does not constitute an assertion of imminent thermageddon? Or are you guys finally willing to ditch his untenable alarmist lunacy?

        James Hansen – the alarmist’s alarmist.

      • Nick says:

        In answer,Eric, to your question re Hansen’s boiling oceans: no. As ever you ignore caveats with your short attention span. You have to build up some tenacity and read things through. Hansen says quite clearly ‘over centuries’…if the ice sheets melt over a century,if methane hydrates kick in…if. Hansen’s view of a possible century-scale melting of that amount is an outlier,and I doubt he would hold that view now that another decades work on the cryosphere has been done…

        So rest assured Eric you won’t see the oceans boil away…but you are already seeing the other factor Hansen mentions: storm damage potentiation due to sea level rise.. super-storm Sandy arrived on top of 30cm of SLR over the last 100 years on the US East Coast. Open your eyes,Eric.

  9. zoot says:

    Are you arguing from authority, or are you arguing there is a consensus emerging?
    Or are you just arguing to waste our time?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      According to a climategate email I have quoted several times, the CRU were aware there was a strong consensus in the solar terrestrial physics community that the sun was mostly responsible for 20th century climate change.

      So substantial groups of scientists dispute the “consensus” that the world is warming dangerously, and have done so all along.

      In any case, its more than a little embarrassing for CO2 alarmists that since 1997, a period during which 1/3 of all CO2 ever produced by humans was dumped into the atmosphere, global temperature has not increased.

      • zoot says:

        … global temperature has not increased.

        Which is not the same as “global warming stopped in 1997”, and is not even true. Temperatures in 2005 and 2010 were higher than 1997 (and 1998, which is the real source of your cherry pick).

      • john byatt says:

        Makes you wonder what is going on in his mind, even after his nonsense is refuted he still clings to it as if it was still relevant. You would have to accept that he is either crazy or a troll who gets his kicks this way,

        still would be crazy though

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Refuted by what? A post on RealClimate? You guys do make me laugh.

        The MET office is predicting no global rise in global temperatures for at least the next 4 years, which will bring us to 20 years with no global warming.


        20 years during which more than 1/3 of all human produced CO2 will have been dumped into the atmosphere.

        Just how feeble can CO2 forcing become, yet still be considered a threat? When are you guys predicting a resurgence of warming which will vindicate your alarmist fears?

      • zoot says:

        2005 and 2010 tie as the hottest year on record.
        They are both hotter than 1997.
        since 1997, global temperature has increased (even if only for those two years).
        And, as usual you ignore all the other evidence of continued warming including, but not limited to, record low Arctic ice extent, the Greenland ice sheet melting, permafrost melting, glaciers retreating, flora and fauna habitats moving towards the poles, and the three hottest decades on record being the last three with each decade hotter than the one before.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You statement about habitats moving north is refuted by the Russian scientists Keith Briffa and Michael Mann employed to gather the Yamal samples.

        Climategate Email 0907975032.txt


        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.

        The arctic might have experienced some regional melting (like it did in the 1920s), but the Antarctic is going strong, with rising levels of sea ice and land ice. Before you mention GRACE, my advice is don’t bother – JPL have indicated GRACE was a pilot test of the proposed GRASP system, not suitable for sensitive measurements.

        And lets face it, you wouldn’t be down to reading signs and portents if the thermometers were still showing any movement.

        So my question still stands – when do you expect the thermometers to start moving again? Because as long as they stay static, we’re all laughing at you and your ridiculous assertions of imminent thermageddon.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        A US government document indicating the severity of SLR measurement errors using GRACE, due to terrestrial reference frame errors.

        Click to access bar-sever.pdf

        The justification for the proposed GRASP system is, among other things Improves the measurement of sea level change and ice/water mass changes being made by satellite altimeter and satellite gravity missions respectively.

      • Eric, I’ve been overwhelmed with contrarians who seem more interested in wasting my time than learning about GRACE. If I respond to your comments about this GRASP proposal, will you reconsider your position? Even for a little bit?

      • Nick says:

        If you are going to make reasoned claims about habitat change and tree line movement in response to climate change,you will need to cite metastudies….not snippets of email regarding one site.

        You claim about Antarctic land ice is rubbish. Implying that GRACE is vital to SLR understanding is stupid and/or dishonest. Try again Eric.

      • john byatt says:

        Nick , eric gets his rocks off this way, a troll ,


      • john byatt says:

        A few more


        Extreme climatic event drives range contraction of a habitat-forming species
        Proc R Soc B 16 January 2013: 20122829.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        How does climate change cause extinction?
        Proc R Soc B 7 January 2013: 20121890.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Equatorial decline of reef corals during the last Pleistocene interglacial
        Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 26 December 2012: 21378-21383.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Reestablishment of ion homeostasis during chill-coma recovery in the cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus
        Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 11 December 2012: 20750-20755.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Limited evolutionary rescue of locally adapted populations facing climate change
        Phil Trans R Soc B 3 December 2012: 20120083.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Evolutionary and Ecological Responses to Anthropogenic Climate Change: Update on Anthropogenic Climate Change
        Plant Physiol. 1 December 2012: 1728-1740.
        Full TextFull Text (PDF)
        With that diet, you will go far: trait-based analysis reveals a link between rapid range expansion and a nitrogen-favoured diet
        Proc R Soc B 21 November 2012: 20122305.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Climate change and elevational diversity capacity: do weedy species take up the slack?
        Biol Lett 21 November 2012: 20120806.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing lemming cycles
        Proc R Soc B 7 November 2012: 4417-4422.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Novel communities from climate change
        Phil Trans R Soc B 5 November 2012: 2913-2922.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Climate change impacts on body size and food web structure on mountain ecosystems
        Phil Trans R Soc B 5 November 2012: 3050-3057.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Environmental Proteomics of the Mussel Mytilus: Implications for Tolerance to Stress and Change in Limits of Biogeographic Ranges in Response to Climate Change
        Integr. Comp. Biol. 1 November 2012: 648-664.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Spring partitioning of Disko Bay, West Greenland, by Arctic and Subarctic baleen whales
        ICES J. Mar. Sci. 1 September 2012: 1226-1233.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions
        Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 28 August 2012: 14063-14068.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Projected poleward shift of king penguins’ (Aptenodytes patagonicus) foraging range at the Crozet Islands, southern Indian Ocean
        Proc R Soc B 7 July 2012: 2515-2523.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        The last great forest: a review of the status of invasive species in the North American boreal forest
        Forestry 3 July 2012: 329-340.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Journal of Foraminiferal Research 1 July 2012: 234-244.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Hormonally mediated maternal effects, individual strategy and global change
        Phil Trans R Soc B 19 June 2012: 1647-1664.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Temperature-Dependent Alterations in Host Use Drive Rapid Range Expansion in a Butterfly
        Science 25 May 2012: 1028-1030.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        On a collision course: competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change
        Proc R Soc B 22 May 2012: 2072-2080.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Recent Plant Diversity Changes on Europe’s Mountain Summits
        Science 20 April 2012: 353-355.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Evolution of wild cereals during 28 years of global warming in Israel
        Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 28 February 2012: 3412-3415.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        “Evolution Canyon,” a potential microscale monitor of global warming across life
        Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 21 February 2012: 2960-2965.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        Invasive Species Unchecked by Climate
        Science 3 February 2012: 537-538.
        Full TextFull Text (PDF)
        Communities Under Climate Change
        Science 25 November 2011: 1070-1071.
        AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
        The Pace of Shifting Climate in Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems
        Science 4 November 2011: 652-655.

        Eric ” no i have an old email , look at the old email, the old email counters hundreds of studies, I shall keep putting up the old email, just see if I don’t

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The GRACE document I cited shows errors measuring SLR which are as great as the SLR itself – so GRACE measurements of anything are junk, until GRASP is implemented.

        Before you diss the email, ask yourself why experts would lie to the people who were paying them. The Russian polar experts must have known the preconceived result Mann and Briffa wanted, it was pretty ballsy of them to tell their paymasters they were making – or are you suggesting Yamal climatic conditions contradicted Mann’s hockey stick?

        And I’m not impressed by a list of studies which incorporate findings from flawed previous studies.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        As Steve McIntyre demonstrated, Mann’s flawed algorithm picks a hockey stick out of random data, providing at least one of the random series is vaguely hockey stick shaped.


        The hockey stick has got to be the biggest joke in the whole debate. The sad adherence of last stand alarmists like yourself to such obviously flawed science is a source of amusement to anyone not as dedicated to the cause as yourself.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,you have been asleep at the wheel. Macintyre deliberately skewed his findings on Mann et al by showing only the most pronounced HSs he could generate in his ‘replication’. Macintyre’s paper,and its uncritical use by a disgraced statistician, is bunkum. The world has moved on [and warmed] while you have been eddying endlessly in your delusions.

      • zoot says:

        You statement about habitats moving north is refuted by the Russian scientists Keith Briffa and Michael Mann employed to gather the Yamal samples.

        No it’s not: http://extragoodshit.phlap.net/index.php/alligators-in-your-backyard/#more-207510

  10. john byatt says:

    Erics evidence that their has been no range shifts, the old email

    From: Rashit Hantemirov
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: Short report on progress in Yamal work
    Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:17:12 +050 ???
    Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov

    Dear Keith,

    I apologize for delay with reply. Below is short information about
    state of Yamal work.

    Samples from 2,172 subfossil larches (appr. 95% of all samples),
    spruces (5%) and birches (solitary finding) have been collected within
    a region centered on about 67030’N, 70000’E at the southern part of
    Yamal Peninsula. All of them have been measured.

    Success has already been achieved in developing a continuous larch
    ring-width chronology extending from the present back to 4999 BC. My
    version of chronology (individual series indexed by corridor method)
    attached (file “yamal.gnr”). I could guarantee today that last
    4600-years interval (2600 BC – 1996 AD) of chronology is reliable.
    Earlier data (5000 BC – 2600 BC) are needed to be examined more

    Using this chronology 1074 subfossil trees have been dated. Temporal
    distribution of trees is attached (file “number”). Unfortunately, I
    can’t sign with confidence the belonging to certain species (larch or
    spruce) of each tree at present.

    Ring width data of 539 dated subfossil trees and 17 living larches are
    attached (file “yamal.rwm”). Some samples measured on 2 or more radii.
    First letter means species (l- larch, p- spruce, _ – uncertain), last
    cipher – radius. These series are examined for missing rings. If you
    need all the dated individual series I can send the rest of data, but
    the others are don’t corrected as regards to missing rings.

    Residuary 1098 subfossil trees don’t dated as yet. More than 200 of
    them have less than 60 rings, dating of such samples often is not
    confident. Great part undated wood remnants most likely older than
    7000 years.

    Some results (I think, the temperature reconstruction you will done
    better than me):

    Millennium-scale changes of interannual tree growth variability have
    been discovered. There were periods of low (5000-2800 BC), middle
    (2800-1700 BC) and high interannual variability (1700 BC – to the

    Exact dating of hundreds of subfossil trees gave a chance to clear up
    the temporal distribution of trees abundance, age structure, frequency
    of trees deaths and appearances during last seven millennia.
    Assessment of polar tree line changes has been carried out by mapping
    of dated subfossil trees.

    According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth
    have been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree
    line was far northward of recent one.
    [Unfortunately, region of our research don’t include the whole area
    where trees grew during the Holocene. We can maintain that before 1700
    BC tree line was northward of our research area. We have only 3 dated
    remnants of trees from Yuribey River sampled by our colleagues (70 km
    to the north from recent polar tree line) that grew during 4200-4016
    and 3330-2986 BC.]
    This period is pointed out by low interannual variability of tree
    growth and high trees abundance discontinued, however, by several
    short (50-100 years) unfavorable periods, most significant of them
    dated about 4060-3990 BC. 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.

    Please, let me know if you need more data or detailed report.

    Best regards,
    Rashit Hantemirov

    Lab. of Dendrochronology

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I see – we should accept Mann’s interpretation of the dendrochronology, not the interpretation of the expert dendrochronologist who gathered their samples.

      Fascinating don’t you think, that the dendrochronology expert’s evaluation of the Yamal site he visited during his fieldwork indicates temperature shifts this century are not as significant as temperature shifts, up and down, over the last millennium, let alone temperatures during the Holocene Optimum.

    • Nick says:

      Eric,read the document,don’t offer your opinion of something else!

      “Tree line has been shifting [fluctuating] within 3-5km of recent one…” since 1700-1600BC,with tree ABUNDANCE varying.

      So whatever you are crapping on about millenial scale temperature variation post 1700BC being ‘significant’ relative to present is not reflected in tree line movement and is not surmisable from Hantemirov’s comments. The dendro expert has not offered the opinion you have fitted him up with! Christ,can’t you f**kin’ read,man!

      And,with your sad obsession with Mann,you have introduced another pointless imagined conflict between his view [whatever that is–not stated here!] and Hantemirov’s,somehow seen by you in this communication to K. Briffa.. Words fail you….

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Its not the quality of the science, its the weight of paper which counts…

      • Again, Eric, I’ve been overwhelmed with contrarians who seem more interested in wasting my time than learning about GRACE. If I respond to your comments about this GRASP proposal, will you reconsider your position? Even for a little bit?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’m happy to listen – I don’t guarantee I shall accept.

      • I didn’t ask you to accept, just to please consider the possibility that JPL understands GRACE and GRASP better than WUWT. Right now I’m busy finishing a paper and responding to hordes of contrarians who are clearly just trying to waste my time by regurgitating talking points and ignoring everything I say. But if you’re different- if you’ll actually listen- then I’ll try to respond to your comments within the next month. Stay tuned.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Given that JPL believe GRACE errors are significant, and manifest as unexpected accelerations in measured quantities (low frequency errors and biases, rather than high frequency), I await your refutation of the statements of the people who built GRACE with interest.

      • No, Eric. That’s not what JPL believes. You’re just regurgitating WUWT’s absurd claims and falsely attributing them to JPL scientists like me. Again, I’ll try to respond when I can find the time.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Perhaps you missed my link to a presentation on GRASP, in which they detail a total error of 0.6mm / year. This would be OK if the error was stable or predictable, and easy to calibrate away, but it isn’t – hence the stated need for the GRASP system.

        Click to access bar-sever.pdf

      • I didn’t miss your link; you already showed it to me. It just doesn’t support your claims that GRACE is junk, etc.

        Eric, please stop digging this hole. It’s not helping to convince me that you’re going to listen to a JPL scientist with an open mind. Why should I even bother trying to engage with you?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Why should I believe you are a JPL scientist? Or are you trying to hint that I shouldn’t believe documents your people create to solicit funds for your next project?

      • john byatt says:

        well did not take me long to work out that DS is genuine,
        not just this either


      • If I show that I’m a JPL scientist, will you read what I’ll write with an open mind and then please reconsider your claims that GRACE is junk, etc.?

        If not, there’d be no point in spending many hours to show that you’re repeating baseless claims from WUWT about GRACE and GRASP, then falsely attributing those claims to JPL.

      • Nick says:

        DS,Eric is not a listener,and he’s a very selective reader to boot. Ignore him!

      • This has been in a spam filter over an hour, so I removed all but one link.

        If I show that I’m a JPL scientist, will you read what I’ll write with an open mind and then please reconsider your claims that GRACE is junk, etc.?

        If not, there’d be no point in spending many hours to show that you’re repeating baseless claims from WUWT about GRACE and GRASP, then falsely attributing those claims to JPL.

      • john byatt says:

        Bryan trying to look cool not working for you stick with cute

      • Trying? Cute is a word reserved for little girls with pigtails riding tricycles.

      • john byatt says:

        cute worked for me

      • Eric Worrall says:

        DS, so far you’re all buildup and no climax.

        WTF should you care so much about whether I accept your evidence? If you present strong evidence that I have misunderstood the GRASP presentation document, in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter whether I accept your evidence.

      • Eric, I care because we met when you called GRACE a failure based on WUWT nonsense. Debunking it was anticlimactic because you just called GRACE junk based on other WUWT nonsense. Except now you’re falsely attributing this nonsense to JPL, which is worse. I worry that debunking this nonsense will simply prompt you to escalate your accusations again. That would matter, both for your own legacy and the future of our civilization.

        All very noble DS – I feel I should shed a tear at your spirit of self sacrifice.

        Instead of tears, I’d much prefer an end to these baseless accusations against scientists. Please?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The document I produced was from a government website.

        Click to access bar-sever.pdf

        The document indicates severe problems with GRACE measurements, which it uses to justify the GRASP project.

        As for accusations against scientists, if they hide declines, interfere with peer review, hide data, and try to smear opponents with name calling campaigns, I’ll call it as I see it.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric does not get it and never will,

        It is not what Watts has said, but falsely attributing it to JPL s what DS has been trying to get through your thick skull
        Watts is quite at liberty to claim what he likes but attributing that to JPL is fraudulent.

      • john byatt says:

        The only problem with the document that eric put up is that he did not read it.

        GRASP Broad Benefits
        • The spacecraft is a flying geodetic super-site:
        – Enables the realization of the TRF with 1 mm accuracy and 0.1 mm/year stability as
        specified by GGOS
        – Improves the measurement of sea level change and ice/water mass changes being
        made by satellite altimeter and satellite gravity missions respectively.
        – Essentially an orbiting “measurement lab” that combines the most important
        geodetic measurements on a single spacecraft.
        – Will complement data being collected by Jason-2/3 and GRACE Follow On.
        – Enhance the global geodetic infrastructure through improved inter-technique ties
        • Many of the benefits of GRASP can be extended retroactively to improve the entire
        ~20 year altimetric sea level record and the decade-long satellite gravity record.
        Likewise, future altimeter and gravity measurements will benefit from GRASP as well.
        • GRASP will enhance the accuracy of precision GNSS applications
        • GRASP will promote interoperability of GNSS by providing a common referenc

      • Eric Worrall says:


        It is not what Watts has said, but falsely attributing it to JPL s what DS has been trying to get through your thick skull

        From the first page of the document I provided:-

        Yoaz Bar-Sever, Willy Bertiger, Shailen Desai, Richard Gross, Bruce Haines, Sien Wu, JPL
        Steve Nerem, University of Colorado , Boulder

        Maybe you should apologise to Watts.

      • Eric, you’re still digging that hole by libeling my colleagues by name while pretending they support your WUWT claim that GRACE is junk. I’ve tossed you rope; before I pull it up I hope you tie a bowline around your waist rather than some other knot.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re all talk DS.

  11. Eric Worrall says:

    The following is an interesting article from IBD (h/t WUWT) – apparently, according to a peer reviewed paper, climate skepticism among scientists is on the rise. When filtering the survey result to geoscience and engineering, only 36% of scientists think humans are responsible for climate change.


    I haven’t had a chance to track down the original paper yet, busy day today. If one of you don’t find it, I’ll have a crack late tonight.

    • john byatt says:

      Those working in the petroleum industry more likely to be deniers

      the paper

      Click to access 1477.full.pdf

      • john byatt says:

        THE PAPER

        Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains. The proportion of papers found in the ISI
        Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from
        75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright
        disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008). This drop in endorsement

        may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic
        climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil
        fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I could counter that those working on the alarmist gravy train have a strong motive to keep the gravy flowing.

        But I wont – because the evidence I have seen in the Climategate archive is that the scientists promoting alarmism really believe. They believe so strongly that their first instinct is to discard evidence which contradicts their theory – their theory, their models, to them are more valid than real world observations.

        As renowned physicist Freeman Dyson said in an interview with NYT, “The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models,” Dyson was saying. “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.


        Its a fallacy to think that just because someone could benefit from a situation that they automatically respond in a cynical way which grants them maximum advantage – this is known as the Motivation Fallacy.

        An excellent example is A man can gain a significant advantage in a relationship if he tells his wife that he loves her. But he might actually love her.

        Its a mistake I made, until I read a significant part of the Climategate archive, and realised the Climategate scientists really believe what they are doing.

      • john byatt says:

        models underestimate SLR


        yet eric can on the strength of a newspaper article. believe the exact opposite.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Still waiting for your prediction of when global temperatures will start to rise again John.

    • zoot says:

      I haven’t had a chance to track down the original paper yet, busy day today. If one of you don’t find it, I’ll have a crack late tonight.

      So you can’t find it?

      • john byatt says:

        I put it up above zoot, re deniers work in the petroleum industry

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Quite – I had to catch a flight, so I couldn’t spare a bit of extra time hunting for it.

        Interesting that a scientist whose employer takes a few pennies from an oil company is forever after denier scum, while Al Gore who took $100 million from big oil is still a climate hero.

  12. john byatt says:


    please spread this around the blogs that you visit

    A top effort



    • Eric Worrall says:

      Thanks for clarifying why we have to get rid of the current incumbents.

    • Dr No says:

      Thanks John. Interesting reading.
      It makes you wonder why conservatives tend to ignore expert advice and have regularly done so with almost catastrophic consequences. Think of the mess the US is in….the financial crisis, the crime statistics, the level of education, the level of poverty….all a result of conservative ideologues ignoring expert advice.
      Locally, think Vietnam, weapons of mass destruction, the Franklin, grazing in national parks etc etc.

      The reasons must include (a) they believe god gives them the right (b) they believe that, because they are wealthy, they must be naturally clever (think Gina) (c) they are naturally stupid (pick your own example) (d) they did not study or failed science at school (e) they are terrified of change (f) they are terrified of Rupert (g) there is a buck to be made here somehow..etc.

      The exceptions are rare (think Malcolm Turnbull – and even he was sucked in to wasting money on a dodgy rain-making company last time round) and getting rarer. Once upon a time the liberal party aspired to being liberal. Once upon a time the republicans were middle of the road. Now we have the tea party, Cory Bernadi, Barbaby Joyce and Tony Abbot types likely to be in charge!

      • Eric Worrall says:

        This post is a terrific collection of cliches and ad homs. I feel I should print it out and frame it or something…

      • Dr No says:

        Examples abound. Just watched 4 corners tonight.
        Another example of conservatives ignoring expert advice and wasting billions (yes! billions !) of tax payers’ money on the F35 aircraft purchase.

        A corollary is that conservatives tend to be financially irresponsible. The Bush and Howard administrations were actually unnecessary spendthrifts.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Not unlike the hideous amounts of money Labour wasted building the desal plants?

        And i was working for State Bank of Victoria during the Labour / Tricontinental fiasco – the only reason the state of Victoria did not go bankrupt was PM Paul Keating bailed Victoria out to the tune of 30 billion dollars or so.

        Contrast that to the way Joe Bjelke ran Queensland, and you get the idea – when Joe was finally booted out, he left Queensland 4 billion dollars in surplus. Whatever his other faults, which were many, he didn’t wreck the state’s finances.

        Are all Conservatives fiscally prudent? Of course not – what George Bush did to America’s finances will one day be remembered as a catastrophe only equalled by Obama’s even more prolific spending.

        What I am trying to point out is your comment displays irrational prejudice rather than a reasoned evaluation of the situation.

      • Dr No says:

        The jury is still out on desal plants. They pay their way in WA, saved Brisbane during the floods, and, in Victoria’s case – may still be needed within a year or two if the current dry spell continues. Note that, despite several good years, total storages are only just over 75% full and currently falling by 0.7% per week.

        Your example of Joh just goes to show how easy it is to get a surplus if that is all you think is important. All you need to do is cut, cut, cut and not worry about the consequences. Ask yourself, if Queensland is so wealthy, why do they have a second rate health system?

        I assume that you at least agree that conservatives have no more right to claim fiscal expertise than anybody else.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I assume that you at least agree that conservatives have no more right to claim fiscal expertise than anybody else.

        Yes, I support that. In terms of fiscal prudence, Bill Clinton didn’t do a bad job – he introduced the presidential line item veto, and trimmed some fat. He also passed important welfare reforms, to limit welfare receipt to 5 years in a person’s life, and make it more difficult to choose welfare as a lifestyle.

        Its a shame Bill also sewed the seeds of the subprime disaster – a well intentioned government intervention to help poor people onto the housing ladder, which had horrible consequences for the global economy.


  13. Thanks to Dumb Scientist for joining the conversation here. I have added your blog to my bookmarks and will check it regularly. Your expert response to Eric would be interesting to the majority of commenters and lurkers here though you are wasting your time if you expect Eric to take any notice of anyone with genuine expertise.

    • Thanks Stephen. I’m swamped now but will post it here and tweet when I’m finished.

      You and Nick might be right. But I still have enough faith in humanity to hope that Eric will prove you both wrong by listening with an open-mind.

      • zoot says:

        Add me to the list thanking you for contributing here.
        Unfortunately, with Eric you are not dealing with an open mind.
        He, like all faith based zealots knows he’s right, even when the real world demonstrates he is wrong.
        Your quest is quixotic at best, and probably a waste of your energy and time. The best you can hope to do is educate any lurkers who may be deluded enough to think Eric makes any sense at all.
        But thank you for trying.

      • Thanks; you’re not the first (or even the twentieth) person to tell me I’m wasting my time talking to contrarians. Frankly, I’d rather be Don Quixote than fiddle while Rome burns. Long live humanity!

      • Eric Worrall says:

        All very noble DS – I feel I should shed a tear at your spirit of self sacrifice.

  14. Skeptikal says:

    Trust the science… But, don’t trust the scientists!

    Does anyone remember Tim Flannery saying this little gem… “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams”

    In case someone wants to accuse me of taking it out of context, here’s the interview…


    Well, it’s raining AGAIN in South East Queensland… all the dams are full and will undoubtedly be spilling again by tomorrow.

    The words spoken by idiots like this, which for some unknown reason the politicians actually listen to, are causing more economic damage than the apparent warming is causing. Thanks to the scaremongering of highly qualified idiots like Flannery, Queensland now has a world class desalination plant quietly rusting in the ocean, a state of the art toilet to tap filtration plant which for some unknown reason has to be kept operating so it is now used to supply industry with water while our dams are spilling gigalitres of water every time it rains, and a water grid which is countless miles of unused pipes connecting all our full dams to each other. Billions of dollars wasted because an idiot with a degree claiming to be an expert on climate change told us that our dams would never fill up again.

    If Obama is willing to put his trust in the likes of Flannery, then he’s a complete fool.

    • zoot says:

      Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

    • john byatt says:

      Try reading it slowly,

      PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

      the desalination plant at tugun has saved brisbane twice now during the floods when water was too polluted, It was running at 100% at those times

      the Tugan desal plant was the brainchild of the mayor of the gold coast in 2005,
      It was already on the drawing board six months before the tim flannery statement

      now who was the idiot who posted that, oh skeptical a 7 on the worrall scale,

    • john byatt says:

      “Well, it’s raining AGAIN in South East Queensland… all the dams are full and will undoubtedly be spilling again by tomorrow.”

      and let us hope that gympie is not flooded again for the fifth time in 24 months

      you did not hear about the nearly 3 billion damage bill for QLD floods this time around?
      that is now approaching 8 billion in three years

    • Nick says:

      Flannery Derangement Syndrome,as fostered by News Ltd layabouts Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, is in full cry with ‘Skeptical’,who even provides a link to the interview that proves he’s not listened to it …Pfft.

  15. john byatt says:

    Latest research out of Tasmania

    get some popcorn, grab a beer And enjoy


  16. […] 2013/02/14: WtD: Obama “trust the science” while talk of an Amercian carbon tax begins: … […]

  17. Eric Worrall says:

    Hilarious description of a recent “stop global warming” rally in hideously cold weather conditions. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/18/350-org-fudges-the-numbers-again/

    Its got to be a bit like the Gore effect (any environmental conference attended by Al Gore suffers unseasonal cold and / or snow near the time of his attendance).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: