Travel again…(brief break to blogging)

Dear all, I have to travel for work again – this time I’m lucky enough to be visiting the US (Seattle).  I’ll put up a few links to some interesting articles I’ve been reading for your reading enjoyment prior to my departure. Approval for comments may be slower than usual.

Cheers
Mike @ WtD

 

201 thoughts on “Travel again…(brief break to blogging)

  1. uknowispeaksense says:

    Have a good trip Mike

  2. Sou says:

    Enjoy your trip.

    Some light reading – denier Don Easterbrook throws a hissy fit on WUWT with lots of shouting and waving of arms – when Cliff Mass (himself a ‘lukewarmer” I believe) points out where Don persists in being wrong.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/denier-don-is-angry.html

  3. john byatt says:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-seaicemax-2013.html

    “The Arctic region is in darkness during winter and the predominant type of radiation is long-wave or infrared, which is associated with greenhouse warming,” said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and a principal investigator of NASA’s Cryospheric Sciences Program. “A decline in the sea ice cover in winter is thus a manifestation of the effect of the increasing greenhouse gases on sea ice.”

    • Nick says:

      Yep,interesting stuff with good detail…it seems that thinner winter ice,being more susceptible to destructive spreading forces than thicker ice, is quite likely to ‘appear’ to be maintaining enough extent for superficial motivated rejectionists minds to declare that there is no or little problem….but once the sun returns,it’s off and out the door very rapidly

      But rejectionists have an ‘argument’ for every season 😉

    • Eric Worrall says:

      We’ve obtained a document via freedom of information, which indicates the MET has no idea what is driving the weather, and what impact changes in Arctic ice cover are having.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/09/foia-obtained-met-office-document-shows-them-to-be-clueless-about-what-affects-our-climate-and-in-particular-what-caused-the-unusual-weather-last-year/

      Very different views from their public statements.

      • john byatt says:

        what is it with deniers and lack of comprehension?

        Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office, said: “The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Now Potentially here in the UK.

        But if you read the document we obtained using FOI, it puts a very different spin on the weather.

        The jet stream, like our weather, is subject to natural variability – that is the random nature of our weather which means it is different from one week, month or year to the next. We expect it to move around and it has moved to the south of the UK in summertime many times before in the past. … This could be due to natural variability – a bad run of coincidence, if you will – but scientific research is ongoing research to investigate whether other factors at play.

        In other words, while Slingo is spinning BS about us seeing the effects of climate change, albeit with the odd weasel words to cover her butt, her internal advice is nooone knows what is happening, that it could all be natural variation.

        This is an excellent example of what Muller meant when he said lies and exaggerations by proponents of CAGW are bringing climate science into disrepute.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

        When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.”

        Given that the MET don’t know what is happening, they should have just said so, rather than trying to unusual weather as part of the great global warming narrative.

        We “deniers” aren’t winning the battle for hearts and minds, your side are losing it.

      • Nick says:

        Another link that demonstrates Watts et als determination to spin!

        The meaning of the word “clueless” Is clear; without a clue ,without any idea…yet what you can plainly see in the document is the discussion and outlining of many ‘clues’. Like wise ‘no idea’…hell,Eric,the paper is dripping with ideas! None of which BTW have been generated by pseudo-skeptics,who are the ones playing catch-up to sciences exploration.

        The uncertainty is over whether really clear attribution to climate change can be made given the freely acknowledged recognition of natural variation,but fundamentals are established :more atmospheric water potential, more intense rain events, blocking events, severe jet stream disruption and record Arctic ice loss under the regime of increasing GHGs. Uncertainty is not a friend in these circumstances,and precaution in FF burning is more salient than ever.

        There has been statistical work to explore the distributions,and Arctic change is firming as the player in these increasing swings.

        Probabilistic forecasting-which captures natural variability very well given its long observational base period- is showing less reliability. Which is very much in agreement with IPCC and Uk Met consensus-weather is going to get less predictable.

      • zoot says:

        We’ve obtained a document via freedom of information, …

        You obtained the document? Was your name on the FOI request?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Ever since Eric got to write some silly post at WTFIWWAW he considers himself part of the team. Kind of makes himself feel special that he belongs somewhere.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        My point was Slingo is expressing far more confidence than is supported by the science, according to the internal position paper revealed by Watts / FOI.

        As Muller said, You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.

        But keep it up guys – every time one of your activist scientists exaggerates the science, it does more damage to your cause than anything people like me could do – the short term support you gain when an important, trusted figure lies about the science is more than balanced by the long term damage they do to people’s trust in alarmist scientific predictions.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You obtained the document? Was your name on the FOI request?

        No – I meant “we” as in climate skeptics.

      • zoot says:

        Luckily nobody needs FOI to discover Rev Watts’ cluelessness. He displays it for all to see with each new sermon. And Erric laps it up, every last morsel.
        The message for today is “Don’t let your yellow highlighters dry out. They are the primary weapon in the fight for obfuscation, misinformation and the denier’s way.”

      • john byatt says:

        How to know when complete BS is coming

        eric “in other words”

        must admit though always good for a laugh

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I see – admitting in private that noone knows what is driving the weather, while stating in public we are seeing the early signs of climate change, is OK by you?

      • john byatt says:

        Had the met declared that the weather was linked to the arctic melt the deniers like watts would have been claiming that they were ahead of the science

        the WUWT met document was 2012

        here is more evidence from 2013, lots more from 2012 and back further

        http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=arctic+melting+jet+stream+NH+winter&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013

        so they do have a clue and a fairly substantial understanding
        in other words eric is only comprehending whatever Watts tells him

        except for the facts
        That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
        That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
        That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
        That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

        Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
        That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
        The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
        They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

        They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
        The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
        The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
        The expansion of the Hadley cells.

        The poleward movement of storm tracks.
        The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
        The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
        The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
        That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

        both winter and summer arctic ice is decreasing
        snow melt is earlier each year
        sea level is rising
        plants insects and animals are responding to a warmer world

        All those things happening due to a warming world

        and then

        eric ” ice age will start any day now”

        in other words all the evidence has to be denied by Watts and co

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You forgot to mention the missing tropospheric hotspot, which if you squint really hard at the data, you can sometimes glimpse, but which embarrassingly doesn’t show up in the way predicted by AR4.

        Never mind, you can always brush inconvenient facts aside by blaming the instruments.

      • john byatt says:

        In other words eric does not even know where this hot spot is supposed to be,

        how hot is it anyway eric
        where would it be
        what is the cause
        what would be the outcome if it was never found
        what would be the outcome if it actually did not exist
        why is the term hot spot unscientific

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nice avoidance John. At least you admit the equatorial tropospheric hotspot predicted by alarmist models is missing.

        The hotspot is meant to be caused by increased evaporation of seawater in the tropics creating a thicker blanket of warm, moist air, which reduces the lapse rate in the upper atmosphere, causing a significant rise in temperature in the upper troposphere in the tropics.

        The reason of course that it has never appeared, is that whenever moisture and heat builds up in the tropics, a thunderstorm punches a hole in the troposphere, and releases all the excess heat into space. You can see the effect in Queensland, in the Summer – hot, humid days usually end in a Thunderstorm, which usually causes a temperature drop.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/air-conditioning-nairobi-refrigerating-the-planet/

        But abandoning the prediction of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot is tantamount to abandoning alarmism – without the amplification from the expected hotspot, climate sensitivity drops to a thoroughly un-frightening 1c / doubling or so (or less, if cloud feedbacks are negative).

        So to preserve the theory, alarmists challenge the facts – they invent bizarre theories of instrument failure, and torture the data to find even a tiny glimpse of vindication for their theory.

      • Nick says:

        I remember a conversation with a bloke who worked with radiosondes. He said their unreliability was significant and well known by weather observers.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’ve worked with computers for over 20 years. You know what – the reliability of software models, their ability to model the real world, is crap.

      • Nick says:

        The significant point is that climate scientists know the limitations of models and technologies. Naive observers are likely to overstate their certainties for a number or reasons,the most relevant one in this context being they don’t have to work with either.

    • Watts is spam. Meanwhile the hockey stick reappears, Watts is spam. Meanwhile the hockey stick continues to be revalidated, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ngeo1787_F5.html.

  4. Nick says:

    An interview that illustrates real awareness exists within the constrained worlds of the corporates.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      What an excellent link. Makes my point about nuclear being the energy choice of the future.


      Do you think nuclear is the answer to Asia’s energy dilemma?

      If you’re serious about climate change, I think you’ve got to be serious about nuclear. The U.S. is going down an intermediate path, saying “We don’t need nuclear, we’ll just back out of coal and we’ll use natural gas.” That will defer the problem in the U.S. for a period of time. But gas is still pretty carbon intensive. Without nuclear it’s hard to see how the world will continue to meet energy demand growth without catastrophic risk to the climate. Nuclear is the only technology that exists today that can provide base-load power at a reasonable cost — if you get the program right — with zero carbon emissions.

      China has by far the most aggressive nuclear buildout underway in the world today, with 28 new plants planned or already under construction. Can we trust them to do this safely?

      They are very sensitive about the world’s perception, and they want to make sure they are getting it right. Everything we’ve seen on the ground at Daya Bay suggests it’s not just rhetoric. The safety record and the safety culture are extremely high. Did you see the headline in the South China Morning Post? Second explosion in one coal mine in four days. Twenty-nine people killed Friday and another seven people killed yesterday. How many people were directly killed by the meltdown at Fukushima? Zero. Well, the tsunami killed 30,000 people; the nuclear accident itself hasn’t killed anybody. We have choices to make. None of them are easy.

      …..

      What’s your most optimistic scenario?

      The idea that renewable energy is going to solve the world’s problems, I’m not so sure about that. There are lots of renewable resource out there — lots of wind, lots of sunlight, lots of tidal impact. But the cost of harnessing all that is very high. The hope for the world is technology, and the world’s been pretty good at developing technology.

      Couldn’t have put it better myself. Other than the obligatory genuflection to climate change, its pretty much what I’ve been saying.

    • Nick says:

      I thought you’d enjoy it Eric. Yes,it is in accord with some of your views. CLP is a provider of bulk power,and it sees the writing on the wall for FFs…but remember CLP will come into conflict with FF suppliers as it tries to increasingly exclude FFs from its raw material suite.

      It is certainly in the interest of energy supply corporates to maintain the view that grids and bulk dispatchables are paramount: that’s what their business model is
      built on. So I think his view of renewables is a little more pessimistic than it would be if he was a dispassionate analyst. His views of CC are quite realistic and he knows ‘turning around the supertanker’ of the current power consumption paradigm is going to take time and we will not avoid trouble I appreciate that frankness.

      ‘Obligatory genuflection’ it may seem to you,but you ain’t no expert on the subject.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The stone age didn’t end because people ran out of stone.

        I believe Thorium technology will make nuclear so cheap, FF will be abandoned. But we have to get there first.

        China has a major problem with pollution, even without CC BS, going nuclear was always going to be the answer for a better standard of living for their rising middle class.

        Perhaps its time to join forces – ditch the politically controversial “solutions” like RE, and try to build a future which makes us both happy.

        It might take a decade or so to overcome years of exaggerated negative messages about nuclear, particularly in places like Australia, but it could be done, if you guys unambiguously embraced it.

      • john byatt says:

        eric will now write his essay titled

        “lets abandon XL and go for nuclear”

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          His appeal to meet in the middle and agree to nuclear is a mask for his desire to shift away from the lunacy he has been peddling non-stop. A cowardly face-saving exercise I reckon.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        His appeal to meet in the middle and agree to nuclear is a mask for his desire to shift away from the lunacy he has been peddling non-stop. A cowardly face-saving exercise I reckon.

        Despite your deliberately provocative language, that is not what I’m doing. I believe alarmist science is defective, and its predictions unreliable.

        But why should this stop us from finding a way to live together?

        You want to reduce CO2 emissions. I want to keep energy costs down. Nuclear power offers comparatively cheap, zero emission energy – whats not to like?

        Is it really more important to you to win the political debate, than to find a solution which defuses the current standoff?

        Because political standoff is creating the worst of all worlds for both of us.

        Renewable power systems are being built, but current investment in renewables is being bitterly opposed by the right – investment in renewables is nowhere near levels which would be required to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.

        Nuclear power stations are being built, but hostility from green groups is impeding construction in the West.

        So our reliance on fossil fuel is not only continuing, but is growing.

        I admit I don’t care about fossil fuel nearly as much as you guys do (though I do suffer from pollution related asthma), but the inability of you guys to see beyond the current confrontation with the right is at the very least rather puzzling.

      • Nick says:

        Nuclear power is not cheap,Eric. Not at all. It is high-tech with incredible construction standards and costs. Renewables are getting cheaper,network costs are an issue with them

        ‘China has a major problem with pollution’ Understatement of the year. We all have a major problem with China’s pollution,and a lot of it is emitted on our shareholders behalf. That pollution knows no boundaries,in particular the CO2 with its global diffusion,but also SO2 and aerosols tracking over the NH.

        RE is only controversial because of shallow thinkers and campaigns by entrenched FF interests [who have also invested in it,buck each way style]

        Our reliance on fossil fuel will peak soon [which is why we idiots are digging it out as fast as poss. before the value slumps] as China Light and Powers CEO explains his company’s strategy.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nuclear power is not cheap,Eric. Not at all. It is high-tech with incredible construction standards and costs. Renewables are getting cheaper,network costs are an issue with them

        Intermittency is probably the greatest problem with renewables. Because of intermittency, the power can’t be delivered when it is required – all renewables except hydro have to be backed with FF. And the FF needs extra subsidies as well, to compensate for having to switch their plant off every time the wind blows.

        The current “cost” of nuclear is the result of a vicious snarl of red tape.

        There are newer nuclear designs which can’t melt down – for example, pebble bed reactors, in which no matter what happens, the core is safe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

        Such reactors could be built for millions rather than billions of dollars. But someone has to tell the bureaucrats to back off.

      • Nick says:

        “The power cannot be delivered when it is required” That’s a bit simplistic. It is often available just when it IS needed, Think warm to hot sunny days,think office roof space. Winter and spring south west to westerlies in southern Australia often blow for days. Just have a look at what renewables is doing ALREADY.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Sure – in the hot parts of Australia there is a case for using say a solar system to heat your swimming pool, or a solar hot water heater. But powering air conditions from solar cells? My air condition uses around 8Kw, and next door uses 2 x 8Kw units. Covering the whole roof with cells would not cover their energy requirements. And thats only normal houses – large buildings have far higher climate control energy requirements.

        In addition, its not good enough if you sometimes manage to produce energy at the right time. You have to think about what you will do if your energy is not produced at the right time.

        Some processes, such as Aluminium smelting, can’t be shut down – a power failure during a smelting run, leads to a catastrophically expensive repair job.

        Nuclear power can supply the steady power that modern civilisation requires. Until a breakthrough power storage technology is devised, renewables cannot.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          8 kW? Really? That’s a lot of power. Care to mention the brand and model of aircon you have that uses such an excessive amount of power Eric?

      • Michael says:

        “The current “cost” of nuclear is the result of a vicious snarl of red tape” – Eric

        Yeah, we really need to cut all that vicious ‘safety’ rubbish.

        First ‘red tape’ free nuclear power plant to go in Eric’s back-yard!

      • zoot says:

        That’s a lot of aircon for someone who “likes warm weather” and is contemplating moving north to warmer climes.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Reverse Cycle Air Conditioners eat a lot of power. Ours is a Panasonic, though I’m not sure if its this exact model – similar model though.

        http://www.panasonic.com.au/Products+Archive/Air+conditioners/ECONAVI+Reverse+Cycle+Inverter/CSCU-E28LKR/Overview

        Evaporative air conditioners use a lot less power, but they don’t work well in humid weather – so they’re useless in places like Brisbane, where high temperatures are usually coupled with high humidity.

        I like it hot, but my lovely lady is a Brit, so sometimes in the height of Summer, I sit outside, she sits in the living room with the Air Conditioner going full blast.

        Next door has a bigger house, they’ve got 2 air conditioners which they’ve told me about, and a backup portable.

      • Nick says:

        Air conditioning is over applied in general,often needed because building standards are crap. Air conditioning is often over specified,as you have illustrated. I live just over the border from Eric,and 40km inland. My warm month average maxs are slightly higher than Brisbane’s. I don’t have aircon,I have building design.

        There is a lot of fat that can be cut from total power consumption.

        I’m not arguing against nuclear,in fact the opposite,but I am arguing for the maximum possible realistic deployment of solar hot water and PVs. It will make a huge difference to Oz’s carbon output,and is already starting to do so.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I lived for 3 years in Innisfail and had a fully ducted air con in my 4 bedroom house. The SINGLE unit was a Daikin which had a capacity of 6kw although the actual rated input is much lower. Due to the design of my house, I used the air con only during the day for about 3 weeks leading up to the start of the wet season and that’s all. At that, I’d set it at 26 degrees which is quite comfortable. Prevailing breezes, strategically placed shade trees, an open plan and large windows did the rest.

      • zoot says:

        So your quoted 8 Kw is cooling capacity, which means your electrical consumption is somewhere between 2.2 and 4 Kw.
        According to your link, Panasonic claim great energy efficiency so it’s probably closer to the bottom of that range. You could power it from the sun without “covering the whole roof with cells”.

  5. Eric Worrall says:

    Enjoy your trip🙂. But keep an eye on the weather, and be careful. All that global warming induced cold and snow is still causing significant travel disruption, especially if you travel North.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020740806_apusspringstorm.html

  6. john byatt says:

    EXAMPLES

    Highlights of WMO state of climate report in 2012: the years 2001 …
    watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/…/highlights-of-wmo-state-of-cli…Dec 5, 2012 – Eric Worrall says: … In other words, in Hansen’s world, western democracy has failed, because it has been bought by big oil, and only …
    Tornadoes devastate Northern Victoria: hundreds homes destroyed ..

    .
    watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/…/tornadoes-devastate-northern-v…Mar 23, 2013 – In other words, Buzz thinks 20th century climate change is natural. john byatt says: March 24, 2013 at 8:38 pm. eric “Eric Worrall says: March 24 …
    Hansen resigns from NASA to pursue activism: this generations Sagan

    watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/…/hansen-resigns-from-nasa-to-p…Apr 1, 2013 – Eric Worrall says: April 1, 2013 at …. There could be another paper on this. …… In other words, renewables are NOT THE SOLUTION, nuclear is.

    In other words he ain’t got a clue

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Buzz is a skeptic.

      Hansen praised China as being the hope for the future, because Western democracies have been corrupted by big oil.

      The article, which names Hansen as someone who collaborated with the research, suggests “the researchers” believed there were significant problems with renewables.

      Which point were you challenging exactly?

  7. john byatt says:

    eric, so you do not make a complete fool of yourself again

    here is some info
    in other words try to understand, it ain’t that difficult

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The end of your link speaks for itself:-

      When people are quick to point out some alleged contradiction between climate models and a data set, they don’t realize that often as not they are pointing out a contradiction between the observations and our fundamental explanations of the climate system irrespective of the question of anthropogenic influence. And far from justifying a position of “nothing to worry about”, significant flaws in our understanding of the climate system would greatly strengthen the case for mitigation from a risk management perspective, as uncertainty and ignorance of consequences increase the relative value of insurance. But that’s a topic for a different day…

      In other words, even though we don’t have a clue what is happening, you should still be frightened.

      • Nick says:

        You’re not comprehending that paragraph,that’s for sure, if you think it means we don’t have a clue….and confuse ‘fear’ with caution. Likewise with the Met Office doc….again there are lots of clues,and fundamental meteorology underlying projections,but you think it means nothing.

        And the inconvenient fact that basic physical models have been proven right. Only you could deny it.

      • john byatt says:

        in other words you do not know the meaning of the word alleged,

      • Eric Worrall says:

        There is nothing “alleged” about the discrepancy between predictions of a tropospheric hotspot, and the lack of observational evidence.

        And yes, this does suggest a contradiction between the observations and fundamental explanations of the climate system.

        A very important contradiction.

        Because without the hotspot, there is no enhanced greenhouse effect. And without the enhanced greenhouse effect, climate sensitivity is at most the direct physical response to CO2 forcing – around 1c / doubling.

        Suggesting that this strengthens the case for mitigation is unjustified alarmism – pure and simple. Because the physical model on which the case for caution is based is not an accurate description of the climate system.

        The easiest way to make the hotspot disappear in the models is to dial down the water vapour feedback – but that wouldn’t do at all, would it?

      • john byatt says:

        that’s gota be the denier comment of the year.

        so few words, so much ignorance

      • How unsceptical of Eric, not to challenge his belief system. http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

  8. zoot says:

    Was Erric deprived of attention as a child?

  9. john byatt says:

    Less Arctic ice good , in other words “okay the arctic is stuffed but that is a good thing”

    DirkH
    25. März 2013 at 13:17 | Permalink | Reply
    Ok, that’s an argument. Still I have little problem if there’s less sea ice. It makes it so much easier for whales and seals to breath. Does nobody think of marine mammals?

    You all rootin for the vile and brutal Polar Bear?

  10. john byatt says:

    How is this for a defence?

    JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal three-judge panel has agreed to review a lower court’s ruling that a group of Mississippi coastal landowners can sue energy and chemical companies on allegations that linked greenhouse gas emissions to Hurricane Katrina.
    The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions from energy and chemical companies contributed to global warming, caused sea levels to rise and added to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina. Filed by landowners in U.S. District Court in Gulfport in September 2005, the lawsuit had been dismissed in 2007 and reinstated in 2009.
    The companies appealed the reinstatement.
    The panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on May 1 in New Orleans.
    In their petition for a review by the full 5th Circuit, the companies argued that global warming was not attributable only to them but resulted from the emissions of greenhouse gases from millions of sources dating back to the Industrial Revolution.
    The landowners alleged they had suffered an injury that could be traced back to the energy and chemical companies. The landowners had sought compensatory and punitive damages against 32 companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

  11. john byatt says:

    Dirk h is a DOCD golmine

    DirkH
    25. März 2013 at 00:10 | Permalink | Reply
    “Zero Celsius or zero Fahrenheit are no more real than some arbitrary reference point to which anomalies (deviations) refer. ”

    I beg to differ. Relativism has not yet re-educated water to melt at arbitrary reference points. You must send it to a post-normal re-education camp first.

    Neven maintained a high anomaly over Greenland has some effect on the ice. It doesn’t, to any measurable degree, as long as it stays below zero.

    • john byatt says:

      DCOD goldmine

      • john byatt says:

        DirkH
        24. März 2013 at 19:52 | Permalink | Reply
        “Anomalously warm” does NOT mean “above zero”.
        Get used to the fact that climatists have reasons to never talk about real temperatures but only about anomalies.
        It helps with cheating.

      • Nick says:

        The usual mix of arrogance, ignorance and unconscious paranoia…why don’t these people understand how this constant ‘you’re being lied to/hide the decline/won’t release the code’ projection makes them look like cranks?

        Isn’t it enough to think scientists are wrong [and attempt to explain why as scientists do] without having to ascribe to them sinister motivations like conspiring,cheating,collusion and manipulation? Apparently not.

  12. john byatt says:

    wow the smartest man on earth even follows notrickszone

    TimiBoy
    5. September 2012 at 22:12 | Permalink | Reply
    Intellect is no qualifier. I have a Degree in Business, majoring in Logistics. I have studied Military Logistics all my life. I have an IQ around the 200 mark, and experience in Manufacturing and Distribution Management at the International level. I see systems in seconds that take you years to understand, if you ever could. I also have a delicately refined and intensely accurate bullshit meter, and I am very effective at finding the cause. Not things I brag about, but I bristle at this “they are smarter than you” bullshit, because in most cases, I am smarter than them.

    Follow the money, sweetheart, and there you have your reason. Oh, not what Greenpeace tell you, but follow it FOR YOURSELF. Do YOUR OWN research. It’s easily found and understood – unless you’re not smart enough…

    • Nick says:

      A succinct summation of the blatant manipulation of the ‘Australian vision’ by vested interests,and good to read it in the local rag. The IPA is secretively funded,and protected from effective critique. It is now the ‘brain’ of the COALition,a vote for them is a vote for the IPA.

      The real function of the Murdoch press is to push the agenda of the IPA ‘family’. Low regulation,low scrutiny,low taxation and global freedom for capital. In between the advertising and the irrelevant shock/horror,his papers thunder away at setting up the narrative. The anti-CSIRO ,anti climate science,anti factual agenda is reinforced by simply dishonest reportage and unreferenced opinion as fact. This is why he has at every turn sought to remove any oversight or regulation of the media,and to shackle and delay public access to criticism of his output.

      We are being betrayed by the COALition.

      • john byatt says:

        Also it is the first opinion piece in the Daily that has not had a comments thread,

        “piss off deniers, we not interested in your crap”

  13. Sou says:

    Tony jumps to (wrong) conclusions – and should have checked the maps. Fake skeptic!
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/anthony-watts-is-extremely-hot-on-china.html

  14. john byatt says:

    why so quiet about the release of the code re climategate 3 ?

    what if

    someone cracked the code and thought ” how can i make a bucket of money from this?

    pretend to be hacker,

    send a message to all the denier sites , plead poor and ask for donations via bitcoin

    unlikely but possible

  15. john byatt says:

    Headvice advised

    Mark Hendricks @ catholic org.

    http://www.catholic.org/green/story.php?id=50484&page=2

    • Nick says:

      Erk…several lies in the first few paras…he believes there has been more ice in the Arctic Ocean over the last 3 years despite the easily accessible proof that there ain’t…..the guy’s nutso. People like that,who are utterly indifferent to getting their facts straight,have no place in public discussion.

    • Nick says:

      Hendrickx quotes the OISM,and lies that all the signatories have advanced degrees….complete joke. Amazing gall.

  16. Sou says:

    Anthony Watts has sent his dogs to attack Michael Mann so often that he can’t keep track – or is losing his memory.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/watt-bad-memory-setting-lynch-mob-loose.html

    • Nick says:

      Both. Watts is, as JHS would put it,a “busted flush”. No cards left. A tiresome first order ignoramus,with a shitty personality and a readership of equally loathsome and arrogant time wasters.

  17. Eric Worrall says:

    Hilarious – RealClimate admits the models might be wrong.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/verification-of-regional-model-trends/

    Finally, the model response to the changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other forcings may be incorrect. The trend differences in Asia and Canada are mainly in winter and could be due to problems in simulating the stable boundary layers there.

    To conclude, climate models can and have been verified against observations in a property that is most important for many users: the regional trends. This verification shows that many large-scale features of climate change are being simulated correctly, but smaller-scale observed trends are in the tails of the ensemble more often than predicted by chance fluctuations. The CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can therefore not be used as a probability forecast for future climate. We have to present the useful climate information in climate model ensembles in other ways until these problems have been resolved.

    (h/t WUWT)

    They can’t quite bring themselves to say “the sun”, but they’re obviously thinking about it.

    All that remains is their decision how to save face. I suspect they will gradually dial down CO2 forcing, and dial up other forcings, so that, when they finally arrive at a mix which does a good job of predicting climate, you’d be hard pressed to pinpoint exactly when they ditched CO2 catastrophism.

    • Nick says:

      Eric,this is no ‘admission’. Perhaps you should ‘admit’ that your knowledge of climate modelling discussion is limited. What you have done is quote a small part of a discussion as though it is meaningful without the rest. I suggest you read the whole article.

      Watts hasn’t much of a clue about the state of climate modelling,but he has an obvious viewpoint that he wants to express. He exploits scientific candour– frank and necessary discussion of the details without which science does not function– and simply seeks to assault climate scientists with it! He is not part of a discussion: he is a reflexive naysayer,as predictable as the sunrise. Is he responsible for the decontextualing here,or is it your own decision?

      I have never read anything other than frank discussion of shortcomings of models by climate scientists…after all models represent the testing of ideas in the pure and simple way.

      To conclude,climate models can and have been verified against observations in a property that is most important for many users: the regional trends.

      Did you get that? Time passing has verified regional projections.

      This verification shows that many large-scale features of climate change are being simulated correctly…

      Did you read that? Qualifying the previous sentence.

      ..but smaller scale observed trends are in the tails of the ensemble more often than predicted by chance fluctuations..

      Smaller regional changes are at the edges of the ensemble by more than just chance/more than probability.

      The CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can therefore not be used as a probability forecast for future climate.

      I have never met a climate change rejectionist who understands how seasonal probability forecasting works.

    • Nick says:

      Eric:

      They can’t quite bring themselves to say its the sun, but they are obviously thinking about it

      Really Eric that’s pretty pathetic!

      The article discusses quite a few on-earth factors–aerosols,boundary layer simulation,local manifestation of natural in system variability– that they may not be simulating well enough locally…the sun does not come into it. Perhaps you can explain how it should! Then that would demonstrate why “..they are obviously thinking about it”!

      If they were thinking about “it” they would discuss “it”, idiot.

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        The only sunshine Eric is interested in the the stuff that he thinks shines out of Watts’ arse while he’s there kissing it.

    • zoot says:

      No point in responding as if Erric had read the RealClimate article.
      He’s doing his usual copy and paste job from one of Rev Watts’ sermons. It must be very comforting to have such unquestioning faith in your guru. Pity about the planet.

    • Dr No says:

      Hilarious.
      Didnt you know that the CMIP5 model experiments include solar forcing as one of the “other forcings”.
      Talk about putting your foot in your mouth.
      A typical non-scientist, denialist contribution.
      Why do you bother?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Didnt you know that the CMIP5 model experiments include solar forcing as one of the “other forcings”.
      Talk about putting your foot in your mouth.
      A typical non-scientist, denialist contribution.
      Why do you bother?

      Yes, but as they admit in the RC post, the climate response to “other forcings” may be incorrect.

      Its a start.

      • Nick says:

        Again with the dishonesty…unless you are mistaking your own ignorance for the sum of knowledge of what scientists have said about climate models.

        You should retract the remark “It’s a start”…at sites like Real Climate the shortcomings of models are discussed in detail and have been since the inception of the blog.

      • Dr No says:

        Your problem is that you cannot have it both ways.
        If the earth is sensitive to small forcings such as solar, then it must be sensitive to co2 forcing.
        If it is not sensitive to small forcings, then its temperature should be constant.

        The numbers tell us that solar forcing is miniscule and co2 forcing is much larger. The models are not lying.

  18. john byatt says:

    all models are wrong
    we see the models which project the global temperature are doing an excellent job,
    whereas the models projecting the Arctic sea ice are doing lousy

    http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-800wi

    In other words eric cannot bring himself to saying that AGW is wiping out the Arctic much faster than projected

    the loss of the Arctic summer ice has huge implications for the NH weather, the possible outcome of heatwaves during summer followed by freezing winter temperatures is unfolding as we watch, even in winter the arctic ice is departing through Fram ..

    If arctic snowfall is replaced by rain then the death spiral of the Arctic will become a tipping point which will stun humanity in it’s scope, even eric will then accept the evidence,

  19. john byatt says:

    with the Arctic storm accounting for 4% of the Arctic summer ice loss in 2012 it was hoped that the ice would recover that extra loss during the past winter, that unfortunately was not the case with the Arctic ice volume virtually identical to the 2011 and 2012 trends

    http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017d428f0367970c-800wi

  20. john byatt says:

    What have we done to the jet stream,

    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/polar-jet-stream-appears-hugely-deformed.html

    Accelerated warming in the Arctic is decreasing the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the Northern Temperate Zone. This is causing the polar jet to slow down and become more wavy, i.e. with larger loops.

  21. zoot says:

    Don’t worry John, once we get the models 100% accurate the Arctic ice will return, the jet stream will correct itself and we’ll all live happily ever after. Just ask Erric.

    [/sarc]

    • john byatt says:

      This years projections for volume minimum, cover beyond zero, if that happens it is all going to come unraveled quite fast, It would in effect put us about 90 years ahead of AR4.and require a rewrite of 2100 temperature projections on BAU

      that is catastrophic to put it mildly and there is no way back without the insanity of geo.

    • john byatt says:

      This years projections for volume minimum, cover error bars beyond zero, if that happens it is all going to come unraveled quite fast, It would in effect put us about 90 years ahead of AR4.and require a rewrite of 2100 temperature projections on BAU

      that is catastrophic to put it mildly and there is no way back without the insanity of geo.

  22. Sou says:

    If you want to see the DK effect in action, go no further than this (based on a really silly article on WUWT about a 20 page ‘paper’)

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/denier-weirdness-galore-from-wuwt.html

    Can’t wait to see what he comes up with in Part 2.

    • john byatt says:

      Richard never disappoints

      richardscourtney says:
      April 15, 2013 at 12:30 pm
      Darko Butina:

      Thankyou.

      That is science. And it is how science should be done.

      Thankyou.

      Richard

      • Sou says:

        Thank goodness it’s not. Richard must be one of the best examples of denialism and DKE ever. And he’s never shy about proving it.

  23. john byatt says:

    What is going to happen when the Arctic hits zero?

    my guess is that blogs such as jonova watts etc will quietly disappear, their job of delay over, their credibility shot.
    every time they put up a post then you will see comments like

    “tell us about the arctic again willard”

    the only blogs left will be the creationist blogs like the dead dingo dongers no carbon tax climate sceptics party.

    they will all appear as parodies of themselves,
    maybe this recent move to the beyond absurd such as sou has posted is to see who they can count on to remain after the fallout.

    eric, richard and realycheck hanging on to their own delusions ?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Hilarious – an “end of snow” prediction.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

      Keep up the stupid predictions – we like a good laugh.

      • john byatt says:

        It is not a prediction it is already occurring

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705091624.htm

        you thick

      • john byatt says:

        You also gullible

        http://www.readfearn.com/2013/04/

        It might help you to know that the headline was not written by the reporter who interviewed Dr Viner and wrote the story, and certainly not by Dr Viner himself. In short, a third person – a sub-editor – wrote the headline.
        You don’t need a minute? Of course not: it would be unprofessional, unethical and factually wrong to pass off a sub-editor’s made-up words as Dr Viner’s.
        The Australian newspaper has just published a column from UK-based climate science mangler and anti-wind farm activist James Delingpole that tries to argue that Australia’s recent unprecedented heatwave and hottest month on record wasn’t all that hot and that global warming “alarmists” should be answering to a court with the power to issue a death sentence (no, I don’t exaggerate, but we’ll get to that at the end).
        In the story, Delingpole says that Dr Viner had “famously declared” in 2000 that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”.
        But here’s the thing. Dr Viner never did utter those words. He was indeed quoted in a story in the UK’s The Independent newspaper which carried the headline “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. But the headline was a gross over-statement: the first paragraph makes the far more modest claim that a trend to warmer winters meant that “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”.
        The reporter, Charles Onians, quoted Dr Viner as saying that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. Note the absence of quote marks on the time frame being within a few years – they were Onians’s words, just as the headline was the sub-editor’s.
        So Dr Viner’s actual prediction was that at some point in the future snow could become “a very rare and exciting event”. As well, the story paraphrases him as adding an important qualifier – that heavy snow will return occasionally and catch people unprepared. But Delingpole leaves this bit out.

        Of course no one knew at the time that the Arctic was living on borrowed time and its collapse would have profound affects on the NH winter

      • Nick says:

        That article is a stitch-up. Viner did not say “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”…that’s the title of the article,dreamed up by a sub-editor. The writer makes time frames very unclear,and only once directly quotes an interviewee on a time.

        The only remarks Viner makes in that article that are attributed to him in quote marks are:

        ..a very rare and exciting event.. ….with a time frame supplied by the journalist,not Viner.

        Children just are not going to know what snow is…again,no quote from Viner on time frame, and:

        We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in twenty years time.after being paraphrased saying snowfall will return occasionally….which kinda puts the story title into stark perspective,no? If snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,then why would Viner say that it will cause chaos in twenty years time?

        You’ve been had by another newspaper Eric. Snowfalls in London are now rare events BTW.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Snowfalls in London are now rare events BTW.

        Thats a contender for alarmist comment of the day, given the severity of the winter the NH is only now emerging from.

        Julia Slingo, head of the MET, said “We should pull together the best scientists to see how we can detect the influence of the Arctic on the jet stream, and on weather around the world.

        http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4881369/Is-the-UK-set-for-Arctic-weather.html

        Either the head of the MET is playing to the audience, or she is genuinely concerned that winters might get worse.

      • john byatt says:

        You slow fella

        http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/04/met-office-looks-into-arctic-link-to-weird-weather.htmlActually

        comment steve bloom

        listen carefully to the Julia Slingo interview Neven linked. Her stance isn’t entirely new, noting that she seems to have started working up to it a year ago (article), but the message is now much more loud and clear.

        Jim, I may be able to get a little information on the planned conference, and if so I’ll pass it on. As a general matter, though, when she says “best scientists” I expect she means the published experts on the subject (e.g. Francis and Petoukhov) and the top experts on atmospheric circulation (e.g. Trenberth). No engineers, sorry, and likely few if any sea ice experts (since the rapid decline is a given). Bear in mind the other main function of such a conference, which is coverage for the exposed collective Met Office posterior. Unlike in the U.S., the Met Office is a single prominent target. They don’t want to be on their own on this given the sort of pushback of which the British press and politicians have shown themselves to be capable.

        Thanks for the advice re the denialists. Someone once said that forewarned is four-armed, and as you can see I’ve got Neven’s back. Re piracy, come the day. Arr.

        Mdoliner 43, some single event attribution has been done recently. It takes an exceptional extreme event, though.

        Bob, IIRC it very much is a blocking event. The NIWA site should have something on it.

        Alex, Trenberth was also iffy at first. I suspect neither of them is doubtful about the observed effects, but probably think the causation is much more likely to be Arctic amplification in general rather than sea ice in particular. Given the feedback relationships involved, IMO that’s a distinction without very much meaning.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hey, blaming any change, warmer or cooler, on CO2 is nothing new.

        John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, has been trying this ridiculous each way bet for years, with his predictions of “global climate disruption”.

        The advantage of course is that any change at all vindicates your position.

        To see how silly this is, try inverting the prediction.

        If global warming produces colder winter weather and hotter Summers in Britain, would global cooling produce milder British summers and winters?

      • john byatt says:

        eric this is not science it is crap, who gives a rats, what effect will this have on the Arctic?. whenever you are cornered you resort to crap

      • London’s winter was not severe. Utter tosh. Spring arrived late – something to do with the melting arctic and blocked jet streams, say scientists. Nut case bloggers deny that.

      • Nick says:

        London averages less than 5 days of snow on the ground out of the 10-20 snow or sleet falling days according to the 1971-2000 stats.

        You are so determined to ignore the plausibility of polar vortex disruption it is making a fool of you.

  24. Sou says:

    More on the decline in NH spring and summer snow coverage here from Tamino.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/not-just-the-facts-the-wrong-conclusions-too/

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Winter NH snow cover is rising,

      http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/january-1-snow-coverage-sets-n-1/3522235

      The surface temperature isn’t rising.

      The sea surface isn’t warming.

      The deep see measurements are dubious – suggestions that the ocean depths are warming are based on the assumption that each ARGO float can measure around 100,000sq km of sea, to 0.001c accuracy – yeah right.

      The arctic is melting – but it has done so before.

      You have to look pretty hard for evidence of this continued “global warming” – soon you’ll be down to tea leaves and crystal balls.

      God of the gaps.

      • john byatt says:

        Yawn let us know when it survives all summer

      • Nick says:

        If you’d read John’s link you would have seen that NH winter snow cover’s increase is not statistically significant…and summer snow covers dramatic decrease is of further importance again because of its implications for albedo,glacial nourishment and water supply.

        Glaciers are retreating globally. Sea level is rising which would not happen if the sea did not continue to warm. Arctic sea ice volume has collapsed,summer extent also…more albedo ‘loss’.

        You are introducing some pretty damning ‘gaps’ of your own.

      • john byatt says:

        eric you ‘ice age starting next year’ cannot happen till the snow hangs around all year,
        do you understand any of this at all ?

      • zoot says:

        With Erric every day is Groundhog Day.

        You have to look pretty hard for evidence of this continued “global warming”

        No we don’t. You bring up the same trite denier talking points (nobody could mistake them for arguments) which are rebutted every time, then you wait a day or two and bring them up again.
        Why don’t you take up a real hobby, like macrame, or woodwork, or knitting? At least you’ll have something to show for your efforts.

  25. john byatt says:

    eric” The arctic is melting – but it has done so before”:.

    eric was going to accept AGW if the arctic melted out, stepping back already now that it is inevitable

    NSIDC put it at 125,000 years ago, potsdam think you have to go back 200,000 years ago

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

  26. john byatt says:

    Low ice,, , early Holocene

    ice free? possibly millions of years ago

    http://tinyurl.com/polyak

    History of Arctic sea ice

  27. Eric Worrall says:

    Climate “denial” is spreading to MSM – now Reuters is carrying news articles claiming scientists are “struggling” to explain the pause.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

    (h/t WUWT)

    Your doomsday cult is finished – in a year or two, when MSM starts laughing at you, it will all be over.

    • Nick says:

      Here, Reuters repackages half-baked scribblings from the media world of the last three or four weeks weeks to fill some column space.

      “(h/t WUWT)” says it all,really. Nothing news from a nothing site.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Reuters is not a nothing site – its one of the most trusted news sites in the world.

        You might shrug off Reuters as “half-baked scribblings”, but the reality is much of the world reprints Reuters material – so anything which Reuters posts has real reach.

        A few years ago, a post like that would have been inconceivable – especially from a reporter like Alistair Doyle, who has a strong track record of supporting the alarmist POV – if you search Reuters, you’ll see he wrote a lot of supportive articles about Doha.

        Who knows – maybe the Monckton Doha stunt prompted him to ask some questions.

        Climate skepticism is going mainstream – we “deniers” are now getting substantial positive MSM airtime.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/bizarre-reactions-to-my-pbs-interview-continue-pbs-ombudsman-to-publish-criticism-of-my-inclusion-into-pbs-newshour/

      • Nick says:

        Your bizarre attempt to rewrite reality into an heroic self-serving narrative is noted ,Err-ic. Now for some reality: If it wasn’t for the MSMs ‘controversy-sells-let’s manufacture-some’ business model over the past decades and more,you guys would have no presence at all. Because you have no science,no observations,no physics,no ability to recognise internal contradictions in your ‘arguments’, and no consistency. Your ‘case’ relies entirely on the unpopularity of reality: unpleasant news and change is resisted.

        You’ve long had your opinionated idiots embedded in the MSM ; Lawrence Solomon,Andrew Bolt, George Will,James Delingpole,Chris Booker,etc….bellicose, shameless liars to a man. Statistical incompetents. Serial distorters. Recyclers of slander. All prominently positioned in the MSM. All ahve been rebuked by Press Councils,but carry on with their laughable nonsense…because the standard of evidence for their scribblings is so low they are nearly untouchable,corrections are delayed and obfuscated. They can promote idiocy from blogs like Watts with impunity if they wish.

        Then there are the Jonathan Leakes and David Roses who actually have manufactured quotes. The scratchings [numerous outright misrepresentations of scientific papers] of News Ltd in Australia,complete with promotion of IPA ‘expert’ commentary, right in the heart of the MSM.

        You have a f#%*ing hide to suggest that you are not mainstream and imply that you are being handicapped or discriminated against in access to the public ear. Unbelievable. You do not have the scientific institutions or the observations. All you have is the MSM

        Wake up to yourself.

      • john byatt says:

        Lomborg and Tol as their experts?

        According to Tol “the impact of climate change is relatively small”.[4] He was also among the US Senate Republican Party’s “list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims”, which stated that Tol “dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming”.[5]
        Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits

      • Nick says:

        “Reuters is not a nothing site..” Read again. It is obvious that I’m saying Watts is a ‘nothing site’,and have handed on this Reuters superficiality …Darko Butina’s article anyone? Is there a better example of the nonscience that goes on there?

        Oh,and Reuters have misrepresented Richard Tol,by omitting a key qualifier. ‘Uncertainty’ over recent climate has actually made him more worried about the future,according to Media Matters….another example of the media Trojan-horsing informational abuse inside its ‘but free speech!’ bleating.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You have a f#%*ing hide to suggest that you are not mainstream and imply that you are being handicapped or discriminated against in access to the public ear. Unbelievable. You do not have the scientific institutions or the observations. All you have is the MSM

        Wake up to yourself.

        Where MSM goes, politicians will follow. Soon it won’t matter what you think – MSM is finally realising that climate alarmists are just another bunch of doomsday cranks.

        I fully expect you will keep wittering on in your echo chambers, but out in the real world, noone will care anymore.

        And when the research funding dries up, as politicians discover new fads, scientific institutions will look to new imaginary emergencies to feast upon. The “climate crisis” will simply slip from view – you will just be another tired, forgotten chapter in the history of psuedoscience.

        I do hope you guys hold on to the bitter end. I’m going to enjoy this.

      • Nick says:

        So you sanction second-rate MSM quote mining yet again do you Eric? At least you’re consistent,as you follow the same cheap silly path with your email pickings.

        Politicians will follow the MSM to a degree,given the Murdochian paradigm of gaining media monopolies for furthering his own business interests. He knows how to manipulate as his great escape in the UK shows. But leaders cannot get their science and economics from the media…sorry,it’s true. At the end of the day,pollies cannot hide from the strengths of academic knowledge. Newspaper ‘science’ is easily seen as derived and simplistic…not science at all.

        Drying up research funding will make pollution go away…you can see the bitter fruit of that in Canada now. Tar sand mining is destroying the environment,but scientists are muzzled and monitoring is compromised.

        You’re ‘going to enjoy this’..I hope so because I’d hate to see so much self-delusion for so little reward. You’re wishing yourself an anarchic world of threadbare and inconsistent regulation,nation against nation for dwindling resources, the gains of recent decades reversed so that you can worship an economic fantasy born in the distant past.

  28. Eric Worrall says:

    I wonder if Gillard still wants to hook up with the EU carbon market?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/16/thunk-thats-the-sound-of-the-eu-carbon-credit-inverse-hockey-stick-hitting-the-floor/

    Will there even be an EU carbon market after the Federal election?

    I guess when you’re so short of cash you’re down to seizing people’s bank accounts, fripperies like carbon markets get pushed down the list of priorities.

    • Nick says:

      The carbon market is weak because of a number of factors: the global economy is sluggish, there is a temporary glut of new FF feeds on the market [hence Woodside’s retreat from Broome] depressing prices, and renewables are punching holes in FF power profitability somewhat faster than anticipated.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Keep making excuses. I’m enjoying the spectacle of yet another carbon market crashing and burning.

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

      • Nick says:

        That’s not an excuse,it’s an explanation. As a technophile,you should be happy that the carbon market is at the moment sidelined at least partly by positive technical change.

        One could pull subsidies of ALL power gen modes, then tax carbon. It is a waste by-product and pollutant after all.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        ABC news discussing the problems with the European carbon market right now, and the response from the Gillard government.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        As a technophile,you should be happy that the carbon market is at the moment sidelined at least partly by positive technical change.

        At what point did I suggest I agree with your explanation?

        What has happened is far simpler.

        Industrialists have where possible escaped the carbon price, by shifting industrial investment to the far East – manufacturing in China is booming, manufacturing in regions blighted by carbon pricing is in most cases declining.

        The easiest way to make money in a nation which prices carbon is to shut the factory, sell your carbon credit allocation, and use the money to set up a new factory somewhere else.

        Until China and the far East imposes carbon pricing (ha ha ha), all carbon pricing achieves is a drop in employment and tax revenue for countries silly enough to implement it.

      • Nick says:

        If the ETS is struggling in Europe it is as much to do with poor design and management as manufacturing flight. And manufacturers moved to low-reg countries long before the carbon market was set up,as evidenced for example by an appreciation of the past four decades of Australian manufacturings narrowing base.
        China is philosophically committed to a carbon price; IOW they understand the need for realistic accounting and they know that the process has teething problems.

        If we are to have realistic environmental policies–regulation of global scale pollutants and destructive activities– then we have to pay for it. Laissez-faire is what delivered us into resource and environment problems in the first place.

        No amount of sneering short-termist triumphalising will obscure the truth: nature bats last as they say. The silliness is in thinking that avoiding action by seeking self-destructively poorly regulated sovereignties is somehow a sustainable posture.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If the ETS is struggling in Europe it is as much to do with poor design and management as manufacturing flight.

        I agree with this. As far as I can tell, each European country tried to give their own companies, companies which were local employers, an unfair advantage, by ensuring they were all allocated an inflated number of carbon permits – they helped them cheat. But since they all decided to try to be clever, at the expense of their allies, the result has been rather embarrassing.

        In prisoner’s dilemma terms, when it came to creating a carbon market, they all played the red card. Very appropriate IMO, given my opinion of the political nature of the EUSSR.

        And manufacturers moved to low-reg countries long before the carbon market was set up,as evidenced for example by an appreciation of the past four decades of Australian manufacturings narrowing base.

        Well duh – as you pile on stupid regulation and extra taxes and costs, what do you expect them to do? Stay there and take it? Put patriotism before profit? The bankruptcy courts are full of former company directors who allowed themselves to be distracted from the real purpose of their business.

        I agree that adding a carbon price is simply the latest in a long list of economic mistakes.

        China is philosophically committed to a carbon price; IOW they understand the need for realistic accounting and they know that the process has teething problems.

        They could have shown that alleged commitment by offering to join Kyoto. With their firm commitment to nuclear power, they could possibly have even afforded it. But so far they’re happy for us to continue to give them a competitive advantage, by treating them as a “developing” nation.

        If we are to have realistic environmental policies–regulation of global scale pollutants and destructive activities– then we have to pay for it. Laissez-faire is what delivered us into resource and environment problems in the first place.

        Laissez-faire is what delivered average lifespans longer than 40 years, and the convenience and comfort of the modern world. The computer I’m currently typing on was not made by a socialist company. Whatever problems it has caused, the benefits more than make up for them.

        If you want to see people living desperate depressing miserable lives, look to places which ban laissez-faire markets, like North Korea – and think about how long your comforts would last without access to the local Woolies, or JB Hi-Fi.

        No amount of sneering short-termist triumphalising will obscure the truth: nature bats last as they say. The silliness is in thinking that avoiding action by seeking self-destructively poorly regulated sovereignties is somehow a sustainable posture.

        The inherent assumption in that statement is that something bad will happen if we don’t do something to reduce CO2 emissions. Given that temperatures haven’t budged for 16 years, despite us emitting 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 ever produced over that period, I put it to you that that assumption is looking increasingly shaky.

        If you really want to do something to reduce CO2 emissions, find a solution which people like me can accept. If you fritter your energy away on demanding curbs to the free market, and lifestyle changes we find abhorrent, you’re just wasting your time.

      • Nick says:

        Where’s your history? Laissez faire did not deliver health outcomes deliberately, it worked people to death. Laissez faire was delivering respiratory illness to the masses before the socially enlightened and the technically educated called a halt. Only enlightened pushback has restrained the single-mindedness of the bandit class,and only in places. Laissez faire can motivate ‘wealth generation’ but social progress is not axiomatic even if wealth demands an educated technical class.

        Laissez faire is now delivering finer grade pollution at a global scale,and relying on government impoverishment to maintain its grip. Laissez faire is now visiting pollution on any chumps too poor to resist it. Laissez faire is always clamouring for deregulation with the argument that monetary gain is worth the risk…unfortunately we’ve already learned that is crap,but lessons tend to lose their strength and immediacy with generations passing.

        I do not have a problem with markets. I have an issue with unregulated delusional ones. They belong in the Dark Ages: the world is now too small to sweep social and environmental problems under the mat of distance,disempowerment and ignorance. We also have an duty to unborn generations that we never could contemplate centuries ago. Unless you want to argue you don’t give a stuff….

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Where’s your history? Laissez faire did not deliver health outcomes deliberately, it worked people to death. Laissez faire was delivering respiratory illness to the masses before the socially enlightened and the technically educated called a halt. Only enlightened pushback has restrained the single-mindedness of the bandit class,and only in places. Laissez faire can motivate ‘wealth generation’ but social progress is not axiomatic even if wealth demands an educated technical class.

        The industrial revolution extended lifespans, and increased wealth.

        Why? Because despite the choking filthy pollution, the hideous industrial accidents, the horrific working conditions, what it replaced was worse.

        If you want to see what came before the industrial revolution – look at the poor parts of the world – North Korea, DRC, Zimbabwe, Chad. The whole world was once like these places.

        Women especially benefited from the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolution, men’s muscle counted more than brains, patience, or dexterity. But the rise of the machine diminished the value of muscles. You know why women were employed by textile factories? Because they were better at it.

        The rise of the machine meant there was something women could do when they were short of cash other than provide an afternoon’s entertainment for some rich drunk.

        You know those poor places I mentioned? They’re the places perverts go if they want cheap sex. Because women in such places don’t have other options – there are no machines for them to excel at operating.

        Laissez faire is now delivering finer grade pollution at a global scale,and relying on government impoverishment to maintain its grip. Laissez faire is now visiting pollution on any chumps too poor to resist it. Laissez faire is always clamouring for deregulation with the argument that monetary gain is worth the risk…unfortunately we’ve already learned that is crap,but lessons tend to lose their strength and immediacy with generations passing.

        So says someone who enjoys the benefits of the Laissez Faire industrial culture. Say that again after you have lived with the locals for a year in a place like the Dominican Republic, or Haiti. Then I might have respect.

        I really despise champagne socialists. And any socialist who lives in the West is a champagne socialist, from the perspective of most of the world’s population.

        I do not have a problem with markets. I have an issue with unregulated delusional ones. They belong in the Dark Ages: the world is now too small to sweep social and environmental problems under the mat of distance,disempowerment and ignorance. We also have an duty to unborn generations that we never could contemplate centuries ago. Unless you want to argue you don’t give a stuff….

        The greatest risk to unborn generations is that someone will listen to you, and kill the fragile industrial goose which creates the wealth with makes luxuries like computers and leisure time possible.

      • john byatt says:

        18,000 children died of hunger today, that number is going to get dramatically worse under climate change,

        we live longer because we can keep people with heart disease and diabetes going long after their use by date, we are not living longer because we are healthier, we live longer despite our ill health.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hilarious – from your link:-

        The reason we are just now getting critical second looks at Reinhart and Rogoff’s findings, when the paper in question came out in 2010, is that the economists just didn’t release their data. Here’s Dean Baker complaining about that fact in 2010. As he wrote: “Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart have declined to adhere to standard ethics within the economics profession and have refused to share the data on which they base their conclusion with other researchers.”

        From the New Scientist interview with Phil Jones, director of the UK Climate Research Unit:-

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html

        Jones conceded that he did not usually publish raw data from weather stations, which was often covered by confidentiality agreements, nor the computer codes he used to analyse the data. “It hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should, but it’s not,” he said.

        As for the debate about national wealth, the global economic centre of gravity is continuing to shift to the lightly regulated, low tax far East. You can argue black is white as much as you want, but industrialists continue to vote with their feet.

        And John’s 18000 children? Compared to the grisly mortality rates of pre-industrial times, child mortality is well down. And I suggest most of those deaths occurred in places which have not been “blighted” by modern, carbon intensive industry.

      • Nick says:

        Eric you deliberately miss my point and seek to portray me as a Luddite anti-industrialist… your either/or,black and white views are telling. You need to learn the difference between ‘stupid regulation’ and necessary regulation. I suspect that you don’t know the real history of industrialism.

        But I enjoyed your imagery of “the fragile industrial goose”!

      • john byatt says:

        yes eric, like Bhopal

  29. john byatt says:

    In among the conspiracy theorists claiming hoax, a brief comment of sanity

    NHPeter wrote:
    Great reporting on this (not!). The quoted experts leading the challenge are a statistician and a professor of economics!? When you read below the fold you find the actual climate scientists are in no doubt about the warming trend caused by GHG emissions. There is no struggle to explain a short term variation in the trend because climate science is about long term trends. By the way, that is why it is called climate. How about headline like this Reuters: Climate Scientists Have No Doubt About Global Warming? Seriously, I expect better from Reuters.

    Apr 16, 2013 9:24am EDT — Report as abuse

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Climategate Email 3165.txt

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3165.txt

      Many in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
      solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
      seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
      of recent warming, however.

      As the quote above shows, there have always been significant groups of scientists who have never agreed with the “consensus”. Now that MSM is becoming more receptive to expressions of doubts about CAGW, I suspect we shall be hearing more from them.

      • Nick says:

        That was thirteen years ago. What do the ‘solar terrestrial physics’ community think now think now ? You have no idea do you?

        ‘Now the MSM is becoming more receptive,etc…’ again,your view is an easily and oft refuted fantasy. The MSM is the home of manufactured doubt. It sells.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I disagree. Until recently, you guys have had tremendous influence – for example, look at the way PBS reacted to protests over giving Anthony Watts some airtime.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/bizarre-reactions-to-my-pbs-interview-continue-pbs-ombudsman-to-publish-criticism-of-my-inclusion-into-pbs-newshour/

        Where is the protest to the Reuters article?

        You really have no idea how much ground you have lost, over a remarkably short period of time.

      • Nick says:

        I think you are doing your projecting/spinning furiously act at the moment. Watts has been struggling for a while in terms of popularity,his page visits are down…he has never had a clue about reality,and his entire schtick is to invent a parallel universe with him positioned somewhat at the centre. That starts to get a little dull and repetitive…hahahahha. Blog science has been very poor lately…hahahaha,poorer than usual! Darko Butina anyone? Don Easterbrook on repeatedly mislabelling a GISP graph,despite three years of corrections. Justthe facts just excluding all the inconvenient facts. It’s a trainwreck,but instead of shredding metal and screams all you hear is ‘We are the Champions’ sung flatly. Denial.

        Face it Eric WUWT and rejectionist blogs are only fascinating for the mismatch between their self-laudatory myth and the reality of their preposterous lack of traction. Politicians have been sitting on their hands, and getting their post-politics board seats for ever long before WUWT thought it made a difference.The really awful thing about them is their ignorance of and contempt for tested processes and their sacrificing of knowledge for the sake of ideology.

        A bit of cold weather always emboldens the ill-informed : it’s a NH-centric world. Come summer and the quiet sun will be notching more records [sarc] Come El Nino and you will find another pastime.

      • john byatt says:

        As I noted his posts are becoming more bizarre, he is trying to work out which morons will remain loyal when the arctic goes,

        denier “it is all a Hoax”

        Science ” The Arctic just melted out”

        denier ” It is a fairly elaborate hoax then”

        ..

      • john byatt says:

        While you are at it, look at the way the Australian has distorted the science over the past five years

        The Australian’s War on Science 80: The Australian says it’s OK to …
        scienceblogs.com/deltoid/…/the-australians-war-on-science-80-the-au…Dec 21, 2012 – The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its …. I have no idea, I haven’t seen such a thing and haven’t a clue on ….. You should read the whole of Deltoid’s entries on “The Australian’s War on Science”.

        last year the record loss of the Arctic volume hardly rated a mention

        a record low must then be followed in winter by record growth in extent,

        The Australian devoted their front page to this nonsense

      • Eric Worrall says:

        As I noted his posts are becoming more bizarre, he is trying to work out which morons will remain loyal when the arctic goes,

        I’m looking forward to your excuses when your 2015 prediction fails.

      • john byatt says:

        You did not reply to nick’s question, how many solar scientists now dispute that the warming is due to AGW, ask dumbscientist , he works for NASA.

        So come on do some research for once and answer nicks question,

      • john byatt says:

        Eric Worrall says:
        April 17, 2013 at 8:34 am
        As I noted his posts are becoming more bizarre, he is trying to work out which morons will remain loyal when the arctic goes,

        I’m looking forward to your excuses when your 2015 prediction fails.

        hope you like crow

      • Eric Worrall says:

        John:-

        You did not reply to nick’s question, how many solar scientists now dispute that the warming is due to AGW, ask dumbscientist , he works for NASA.

        So come on do some research for once and answer nicks question,

        The Royal Society were claiming a consensus back in 2001.
        http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/science-climate-change/

        Given that the Climategate email I cited was written in October 2000, either an awful lot of solar terrestrial physicists changed their minds very quickly, or the claim of a consensus back in 2001 was more of a political exercise than a representation of the true state of the science.

        So I don’t take any subsequent claims of consensus very seriously – given the evidence of an apparent political need to misrepresent the truth about the scientific consensus back in 2001.

        Whats going to be interesting is the next few years – as I said, MSM is becoming more sympathetic to “denier” positions. After the EU carbon market collapses, having wasted around € 300 billion in the process of collapse, the political landscape shall be very interesting indeed.

      • john byatt says:

        So basically you are not interested in knowing that solar scientists accept that the warming is due to AGW, confirming that would burst your illusion, so better off just believing that nothing has changed , that solar scientists are so dumb that they do not recognize the solar signal and temperature rise has been going in opposite directions for the past three decades.

        rather insulting attitude to those who study the variations

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Don’t you find all this political push to tell a “nice tidy story”, as Briffa put it, even a little disturbing? Have you ever wondered what effect pressure to tell a nice tidy story might have on scientific integrity?

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0938018124.txt

        I know there is pressure to present a
        >nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
        >years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
        >so simple.
        We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
        >those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
        >unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
        >not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
        > For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
        >warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
        >is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
        >was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

        Why the pressure to make scientists lie?

      • john byatt says:

        check your link, I think your app is rooted

      • Nick says:

        Science moves forward. Citing views over a decade old can miss this fact. Briffa’s views in that email are superceded by further diverse proxy work.

    • john byatt says:

      not mentioned here but something that we should take note of is that the latest papers confirm that accounting for the ocean warming in the mix now confirms that climate sensitivity best estimate of 3DegC .

      Problem ? even without looking at what effect aerosols may be having beyond our current understanding we are still consistent with that 3Degc.

      what then if we have also underestimated the current aerosol negative forcing as many thought we did

  30. Eric Worrall says:

    When historians come to analyse the demise of the climate alarmist fad, I suspect one of the defining moments of your fall will be the Monckton Doha stunt.

    Not because of what Monckton did, but because of how the Doha conference responded to his stunt.

    If you watch the following youtube, you will note something interesting – the sound has been blanked in a few places.

    When I asked Monckton in person what actually happened, he said the hall erupted – that there were screams and shouts, and lots of booing. You can actually hear the start of that happening, before one of the sound blanks.

    By releasing a clumsily edited piece of footage, instead of releasing an honest record of what happened, and by doing so in the presence of journalists who were actually, personally present at the conference, they have offended the sensibilities of journalists who still have quirky ideas about honesty and reporting the truth.

    The questions this pathetic stage management will have raised in the minds of journalists, more than anything, is I suspect a real part of the reason why MSM seems lately to be softening its stance against climate skepticism.

    • Nick says:

      He would say that, wouldn’t he? Does he know who was being booed? Do you? No.

      Leave Monckton out of it…the fool is digging a deep hole for himself in NZ,pulling his ‘shut down academic freedom in order to save it’ stunt again. Bleakly funny but tiresome.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Um, Monckton had the floor – he was the only people speaking, when the boos started.

        However, I agree we might have been better able to verify Monckton’s account, if the video released by Doha wasn’t so clumsily and obviously edited.

        That kind of nonsense might work in an oil dictatorship, but it doesn’t wash with people who expect the press to be honest.

        Why edit the video? Why not simply release it as is – if necessary with a commentary?

      • Nick says:

        I’d like the press to be honest too Eric….but we have already listed some of the bad faith actors in the media. They enable your delusions. The media feeds you nonsense as often as it tries to clarify.

        Fortunately,some of the NZ media have risen to the occasion ,over the curious case of Christopher Walter Monckton.

    • john byatt says:

      Moncktons moronic actions have more to do with trying to get media attention,On his recent Australian tour he was virtually ignored except for such gems as “Monckton crash and burn at newcastle”

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      Congrats on namedropping Monckton. Speaks volumes.

  31. john byatt says:

    How did eric take the news of moncktons launching of the rat bag creationist nutters “rise up”
    Bolt threw him under a bus

    only the crazies left to carry the banner of ” it’s not warming but if is is it is the sun and the arctic melt is an elaborate hoax to bring in a one world government”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I’ve already said I disagree with Monckton on some issues – I dont like his flirting with creationists, and his hardline right to life stance on abortion.

      But his contribution to undermining and destroying political consensus on climate change cannot be denied.

      As another carbon market crashes and burns, we should all raise a glass of fizzy, carbonated champagne to toast his effort. One day he shall be recognised as the hero he is.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/watching-the-death-of-the-eu-carbon-market/

      • john byatt says:

        No eric he has done nothing to destroy any consensus, his basic contribution is to address a few dozen retards per talk and have them write their nonsense letters to the editor using his facts,

  32. john byatt says:

    Jo Nova giving monckton a run for his money on who is the biggest village idiot of all

    head vice

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/antarctica-gaining-ice-mass-and-is-not-extraordinary-compared-to-800-years-of-data/

    • I tried to set an example, but no response yet. Nova’s mistake was subtle, but led to unphysical conclusions. It’s kind of like thinking one’s bank account balance must be increasing because income exists, while completely ignoring larger expenses.

      I replied to John Brookes, but didn’t point out that the moderator’s suggestion that he see Jaymez’s #11.2 comment was a red herring. Jaymez was manufacturing unwarranted doubt about sea ice, not the land ice which ICESat, GRACE, and the paper in question are talking about.

    • I tried to set an example (search for Dumb Scientist), but no response yet. Nova’s mistake was subtle, but led to unphysical conclusions. It’s kind of like thinking one’s bank account balance must be increasing because income exists, while completely ignoring larger expenses.

      I replied to John Brookes, but didn’t point out that the moderator’s suggestion that he see Jaymez’s #11.2 comment was a red herring. Jaymez was manufacturing unwarranted doubt about sea ice, not the land ice which ICESat, GRACE, and the paper in question are talking about.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Denying the science again John?

    • Nick says:

      Our friend Dumb Scientist has looked at this paper. The claims from Nova are based on her misunderstanding what the analysis actually measures. No surprises there! She has failed to distinguish between surface mass balance and total mass balance,as the paper does not measure the latter.

      • john byatt says:

        An over simplified analogy for eric might be

        rainfall brisbane march 200mm

        rainfall brisbane april 100mm

        nova ” brisbane is currently under 300mm of flooding

      • john byatt says:

        The post has been there for five days and no mea culpa from Nova

        which confirms that she is a determined misinformer

      • Been trying to post this for hours. Now I’m going to try removing all links, and using my old twitter account instead of the newer @DumbSci username which might not be recognized.

        I tried to set an example, but no response yet. Nova’s mistake was subtle, but led to unphysical conclusions. It’s kind of like thinking one’s bank account balance must be increasing because income exists, while completely ignoring larger expenses.

        I replied to John Brookes, but didn’t point out that the moderator’s suggestion that he see Jaymez’s #11.2 comment was a red herring. Jaymez was manufacturing unwarranted doubt about sea ice, not the land ice which ICESat, GRACE, and the paper in question are talking about.

      • john byatt says:

        Great blog DS but no follow function, I don’t do Twitter.

    • Copied from Jo Nova’s, for anyone who’s interested.

      Thank you for your thoughtful response. Exploring the frontiers of knowledge inevitably results in mistakes. I try very hard to admit my numerous mistakes, and respect those with similar integrity. I think that’s the true test of a scientist.

      My main point was about this unusual paper, it’s comprehensive, detailed and long records showing natural rises and falls in SMB that have been going on for 800 years, and also that these authors correlate that at times to solar effects. (Why is none of this mentioned in the media?) … Why is that study so meaningful it gets repeated everywhere, this one, not? As far as climate models go, I noted that this study agreed with the models. “They might be right”.

      Because it’s not controversial. Like you said, it agrees with other models. Frezzotti et al. 2013 would only be controversial if compared to the ICESat total mass balance in an article claiming that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing and gaining ice mass. Sadly, I didn’t notice Manicbeancounter’s comment until your update:

      … What this study does show is that by honestly looking at data in different ways, it is possible to reach widely different conclusions. It is only by fitting the data to predetermined conclusions (and suppressing anything outside the consensus) that consistency of results can be achieved. [Manicbeancounter]

      It’s unspeakably depressing to watch someone this clever independently go through the same reasoning process as I did (and take it further!), then join the never-ending deluge of baseless accusations that have already buried me.

      None of this supports the idea that any warming, cooling, ice loss or accumulation is man-made.

      Neither did my paper, but that’s because (like Frezzotti et al. 2013) I didn’t try to answer any of those questions. Those who have concluded that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our CO2 emissions.

      Though given the uncertainties, Antarctica is not something I would use to refute the need for a carbon market. If I used it anywhere it would be to refute the idea that our media is balanced. How many stories have said “Antarctic ice melting 10 times faster than 600 years ago?”

      Not nearly enough, but here’s another. Frezzotti et al. 2013 is the first half of the “input-output method” I mentioned earlier. Notice that the input-output method shows the most ice mass loss, more than GRACE gravimetry. Of course I’m biased (alt) in favor of the GRACE satellite observations but I have no problem with these models you’re supporting.

    • Spam filter bit again. Try this: Copied from Jo Nova’s, for anyone who’s interested.

      http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#comment-20040

  33. john byatt says:

    ning nang nong

    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/08/monckton-panned-in-kiwi-land-might-be-ready-to-hang-up-spurs/

    . Reporter Lindy Laird admitted she found it hard to take Monckton seriously:

    It’s because he reminds me of Spike Milligan. Maybe it’s the eyes, the self-deprecating Englishness, or a delivery that turns a serious subject into the bizarre. I tell myself to get serious, be professional, I’m on a job.

    This is not The Goon Show, and although the grass outside is frying in the blazing April sun and people mutter “driest in 70 years” no one looks likely to burst into ludicrous song at any moment. “Ning Nang Nong…”

    At least Monckton may be able to drown out his detractors when he comes to Wellington. He is holding his public lecture there in a Bose telephone booth.

  34. john byatt says:

    Monckton wins again

    • Nick says:

      Coal exporters are terrified of China regulating pollution and moving to cap coal imports on the way to phase down and out…hence the hysterical haste to get the stuff dug up while obfuscating the science and economics.

  35. john byatt says:

    just how dumb humans are

    “Essentially gold is a 20.4 metre by 20.4 metre by 20.4 metre cube that’s all the gold dug up ever in the world,” he explained.

    “Grows about 2 per cent per annum, there’s hardly any consumption at all, and all that happens is people dance around that cube and decide what it’s worth.”

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: