Despite J P’s CV the above post reads like a typical letter to the editor after some daily news article.

So what? Why doesn't someone attempt to answer his concerns? What crisis? Will someone please tell the emperor?

JP,

I can't help you either.

However, noting your technical background and those of others I've spoken with or read comments of, I would theorize that it is folks who have technical backgrounds that are the most likely to be searching in vain.

I also wonder, if advocates who have technical expertise in one or more of the various disciplines needed to understand this complex topic are manifesting their humanness by falling in love with a theory that they have invested much time in.

Others may have lost objectivity due to anger that others would question their theory.

I hate to think that some may have lost objectivity (or aren't even trying to practice it), because of the funding stream that keeps them fully employed and or other financial gains they envision.

Note: I am speculating here. This is blog theory, not scientific paper theory, where the onus would be on me. If you think I'm full of it, please try to explain a bit-thanks)

We have to get used to the fact that this is science fraud. And we ought to act accordingly. If we cannot prosecute we can at least get a lot of people fired. It does no good to be in perpetual bewilderment at the apparent stupidity of these guys. We ought to get over that and just accept that people like gavin, Luke and others are willing hoaxers and liars. Same goes of course for the Goddard institute the IPCC and those within the CSIRO who are going along with this racket.

"I tend to think it is the alarmist scientists that are really in denial?"

It's not so much a state of denial - more a protection racket. When you actually look under the bonnet of the IPCC, it is organised a lot like the mafia.

Firstly, everyone is connected to everyone else. In researching the "scientists" whose names appear on the front of the AR4 Synthesis Report, what I was stunned to find is that (so far) most of these people knew or worked with each other in previous careers.

So - it's not a case of "the best and brightest" - it's simply the tried and trusted old-boys' network. They all know each other, they all worked with each other, they all review each others' work, and they apparently have all worked to get each other 'inside the tent'. Hardly surprising then that they arrive at 'consensus' with this much underlying corruption. It's the world's biggest documented game of "pass the parcel".

Secondly, a number of them aren't even scientists - i.e. don't even have a degree. One is a Project Manager, one is a Political Adviser to Greenpeace. What sort of peer review could these people provide, I wonder.

Thirdly, they are not averse to brining family members in on this little caper - in one case, a son of one of the scientists is also part of the circus.

Lastly, it works just like a protection racket in that anyone with a dissenting voice must be silenced. The crooks have decided that the closed shop is the most effective way to prosecute this fraud. It's all a bit like watching "The Sopranos".

With so many people involved in such a huge fraud, is it any wonder that they get hysterical and try to shout down any dissenting viewpoint?

Ocean acidification gets very, very little attention here, except in the semi-conspiratorial sense that it is suggested that it must be what the "alarmists" will use now that warming is not so clear. In fact, regardless of climate, ocean acidification is a compelling reason to take CO2 reduction seriously.

Readers are invited to read the Discover article published on line last week which discusses it in detail: http://tinyurl.com/5rtpmu

(I believe there is a typographic error of some significance in one figure, but it doesn't alter the basic point.) Forgive the self promotion, but the article makes many of the same points I did in what I wrote for Online Opinion, which was published just before the Discover article: http://tinyurl.com/5nslzb

I have yet to see any detailed skeptical response anywhere (from an academic with relevant qualifications) to the warnings of the scientists concerned about acidification. The negative responses at Online Opinion (by and large) didn't do more than claim conspiracy again. And, by the way, I have read the SeaFriends website, and am unconvinced that Dr F's arguments would hold water when examined by an expert in the field.

So I wait for compelling reason why we shouldn't believe that CO2 alone (with or without global warming) will not be making major changes to ocean ecology in the lifetime of my children and grandchildren. Go read the articles if you want the detail of what it could mean.

"So - it's not a case of "the best and brightest" - it's simply the tried and trusted old-boys' network"

We’re not impressed by the best and brightest “followers” either.

I remember back in the early 90s reading the center section of a wall chart. The wall chart was one that was typically found in new age homes and was, and still is, called The Moon Planting Guide.

The author would fill the center of the chart with his astrology ramblings for the coming year. For that particular year his theme was "The Emperor Has No Clothes" where he proceeded to explain how the various institutions were losing their status, Bank managers went from pillars of society to people who were ripping you off, dentists with mercury fillings, doctors with too many chemical drugs, lawyers with one scam after another. One by one the "professions" were losing their credibility.

The latest, and probably the last IMO, is scientists and we are seeing them fight back as their reputations sink down amongst the the lawyers, the bank managers (remember that TV ad where there was a bank manager at a barbecue) real estate salesmen and musicians.

The scientific evidence shows we may have had a little global warming in the recent past, but there is nothing objective to show that it is causing any climate change. It is an interesting little hypothesis that has been blown out of all proportion by vested interests.

Fact is you (and Ender etc) are definitely way, way behind the eight ball when you assert that CO2 doesn't lag behind the Terminations of the Pleistocene Interglacials. All the body of evidence does show clearly that the lags were about 800±200 years, consistently from cycle to cycle ever since the transition from the earlier 41 ka cycles of the Late Pliocene to Pleistocene to the 100 ka cycles of the Late Pleistocene.

High CO2 is NOT a necessary pre-requisite for warmth even within 10 ky of Terminations Some years ago, while at ANSTO, I measured numerous U-Th dates for corals all along the eastern seaboard of Australia to clearly show the 6 ky period 2 - 8 ky ago was pretty damn warm - right down to the NSW Far South Coast.

I simply suggest you guys research the voluminous literature on the Terminations issue thoroughly - and I mean very thoroughly - right back to the Pliocene. It's a 'fertile field' you obviously haven't plowed yet.

To 'cut to the chase', everyone here (on both sides) who has a mature interest in these (critical) issues should go away and read, Gerald's Marsh's (much, much smarter) paper in APS because there is hidden gold in it if you are patient and cluey enough to get into it:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200804/marsh.cfm

Longer, better version at:

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/ClimateStabilityPolicy2.pdf

Bottom line is ALL climate models give broad probability distributions in temperature for CO2 doubling, with small but finite probabilities of large increases.

Roe and Baker (read them too) have shown the breadth of these distributions is due to the NATURE of the climate system. The probability distributions associated with such projections are relatively insensitive to decreases in the uncertainties associated with the underlying climate processes. This is why the David Stockwell's of this world can have their cake and eat it too.

IMHO, it doesn't really matter all that much to argue endlessly about positive and negative feedbacks, other than for the very immediate future.

The key points are that:

(1) we are now a good 10,000 years into the current interglacial; and

(2) the history of the whole system over the last 2.5 My shows it is a lot more sensitive to EXTERNAL forcings rather than internal ones (like CO2).

Marsh says, keep in mind that the difference between the LIA and current global temperatures is only about 1.1 C. Solar Cycle 25, predicted by NASA to be comparable to the Dalton Minimum, could just as easily be the trigger for a new Ice Age.

I would add a big, big rider to this as follows:

Given that we are now getting VERY CLOSE indeed to the CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED maximum time span of durations of the penultimate and previous Late Pleistocene interglacial peaks e.g.

http://www.maureenraymo.com/2007_Kawamuraetal.pdf

in truth, it is more likely mankind actually needs a period of another 2 - 300 years of artificially elevated atmospheric CO2 levels to get itself in a position to cope, en masse, as a civilization, with highly probable steadily decreasing temperatures over the next 500 or so years.

Now, go away, read the literature, think about it, and tell me, fair and square, why I'm wrong.

Apologies for the cross post - I was having a hell of a time with all my posts getting blocked after late afternoon yesterday and Jennifer then back-posted just the main one this morning where of course it reverted to it's original post time. Something a wee bit flaky with this blog.

MAGE; actually, there is absolutely nothing unusual happening with the weather at all; this is a text-book case of chicken-little based hysteria; having said that of course, I don't for a minute believe those poll results of 70% supporting global warming; the polls are presented by the same msm who are supporting AGW.

Tipping points Jim! TIPPING POINTS!!! Ahhhhhh!

Steve; stick with it mate; I value your posts; and I think the site benefits from them; at the risk of suggesting you slum, why don't you put the odd technical post at A Bolt's; you have the knack of presenting simplified explanations of complex issues; there are a few trolls at Bolt's who try to browbeat, and I run out of time sometimes. This is an issue which has its frontline in the msm, and right now Bolt is one of the few entry points into the msm from a sceptic's viewpoint. Just a thought.

The really sad fact is that the site calling itself "Real Climate" suppresses simple observations of what our actual real climate is really doing at the present time. It is run by a NASA employee whose own CV suggests he is partially responsible for creating the climate models which have thus far failed miserably to predict anything accurately. Only in America can we work and pay our taxes so they can be spent supporting our own government employees who in turn churn out false predictions of future planetary meltdown and frighten us all into rushing into massive Carbon Taxes which will in reality not affect the future climate one whit but which might lead to an economic meltdown of our economy.

NASA isn't the only recipient of our tax dollars hard at work promoting the hoax. Yesterday I received an email from a teacher in Oregon who said,

"The section of your piece referring to today's teachers really hit home. I work part-time in a local elementary school library and one of the fifth-grade teachers does indeed have her students create posters about how global warming is adversely affecting world environments and what we humans can do to make things better. I made the mistake of confessing to her that I'm firmly in the anti-hoax camp (I didn't put it like that, of course) and she looked at me as if I were crazy. There were further complications, but the end result was that I was told by the principal that it would be best (read: "Do you want to keep your job?") if I kept my opinion to myself (the teacher had referred to it as my "bias"). And yet I had to continue helping her students get online to find articles that "proved" polar bears were endangered or coral reefs were dying from over-heated ocean water or....well, you get the point. Needless to say, I found the whole incident extremely distressing. I'm planning on having a bumper sticker made that reads "Stop Global Warming! Turn off the Sun!!", but since I'm currently trying to get a permanent teaching position in this school district, I'll have to wait. Thanks for being a voice for sanity."

The teacher had earlier stated in her email,

"I've "known" global warming was not anthropogenic since taking college meteorology and climatology courses in 1988: my instructor explained to us how water vapor played too big a part in mitigating extreme temperature changes for puny humans to have a significant impact on climate. She made sense and I'm still grateful she got to me before Al Gore and his cronies did."

I notice that Marsh's submission to the FPS newsletter didn't include any red disclaimer from Council of the APS.

Why is that do you think?

"Only in America can we work and pay our taxes so they can be spent supporting our own government employees who in turn churn out false predictions of future planetary meltdown and frighten us all into rushing into massive Carbon Taxes which will in reality not affect the future climate one whit but which might lead to an economic meltdown of our economy."

No Jim. We have that same luxury in Australia.
Here it is called the CSIRO/Ministry of Truth.
Our education system is similarly corrupted as well.

Jim Peden's above reference to the teacher being threatened with losing his job, is nothing new.
And one of the reasons that school children and other young, are such easy prey to AGW propaganda, is that there is very little 'hard' history and geography taught in our schools these days. Probably deliberatly.

Jim; your site reads like the initial John Daly campaign with no attempt to account for all the fossil fuels we convert into CO2. You could say most people don’t have a problem with producing extra CO2 because we don’t see, smell or taste it i.e. a complete lack of sensitivity one way or another but that’s naive when considering the greater environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Uses

Sure; it used to be easy to forget about effluent dumped into streams or seas and say we have effectively disposed of our waste but it’s only when we monitor at the source of the problem any immediate solution is likely to be evident. CO2 like wastewater is still seen as another modern society throwaway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

Changing our thoughts back to the point of entry “Everyone is yelling about fixing the "climate crisis", but I still can't find it”

Jim; we need a better sniffer.

Steve Short - "Fact is you (and Ender etc) are definitely way, way behind the eight ball when you assert that CO2 doesn't lag behind the Terminations of the Pleistocene Interglacials."

But I did not say this. What I did say that the dating method are too imprecise to definately say this. Also if it does lag then this is one of the positive feedback that kick in.

"the history of the whole system over the last 2.5 My shows it is a lot more sensitive to EXTERNAL forcings rather than internal ones (like CO2)."

No really? How does that change that this time we are doing it?

"Now, go away, read the literature, think about it, and tell me, fair and square, why I'm wrong."

No-one says you are wrong. You could well turn out to be 100% right however at the moment all the evidence from the past points to a very different interpretation of the data. You simply see that data and come to a different conclusion - a geologist's one.

You really do seem to be a geologist and not concerned with the effects of these changes. Lets say that we are at the end of the interglacial and in 300 years we start to cool again. To you, used to dealing with geological time periods, this is an eyeblink and not worth considering.

However in human terms this is a very long time. 300 years ago Australian was inhabited only by Aboriginals. In 300 years there is the potential for a hell of a lot of human suffering if we push the world temperature higher and melt sufficient land ice to raise sea levels even 2 meters. A couple of billion people live and work and feed from land 2 meters above sea level.

Finally if you really believe what you are saying then imagine the people 300 years in the future. They are going to cursing us for being so inanely stupid as to burn all the fossil fuel when the temperature was still going up instead of saving it for later to burn when the temperatures were plummeting. They will have to resort to the far far more dangerous method of releasing a methane burp and risking another Permian extinction.

So even if you believe what you are writing it still makes sense to conserve the fossil fuels for later, especially the brown coal, to release CO2 safely when the next glacial kicks in. This way us misguided AGW fools can have their low carbon economy and you people can be the heroes of the future that conserved sufficient fossil fuels to stave off a glacial period.

We also have the potential, because we are pumping the climate at precisely the wrong time, to make the next transition faster and more violent putting more species, including our own, at risk.

Finally what you are writing is totally at odds with your homeostasis model you were pedalling previously and seem to have forgotten about. Obviously as external forces can change the climate , the negative feedbacks are not strong enough to prevent the climate from warming and cooling. They are strong enough to damp them, however not prevent them. Therefore the same climate changing mechanism of enhanced greenhouse gases are perfectly capable of changing the climate despite the negative feedbacks that are present. To say differently would be totally opposite to what you said in this posting.

Forgive my automatic suspicions whenever I see a Wikipedia quote presented as somehow "authoritative".

Sure enough, at the onset the author of this comprehensive analysis states,

"It is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 387 ppm by volume in the Earth's atmosphere, although this is increasing due to human activity."

In reality, 97% of the "increase" has been natural, with only 3% attributable to anthropogenic sources, but it's fashionable to blame any and all CO2 increase, regardless of actual origin, on industrialization.

For those willing to wade through the actual atomic absorption physics controlling the whole affair, it can be noted that a doubling of the current CO2 levels could only lead to perhaps one more degree of "warming" ( the warming effect is non-linear with respect to increasing CO2 levels).

For my money, I'd gladly take the extra degree of heating in return for an atmosphere much richer in CO2, which would give agricultural production an enormous boost sorely needed in the face of steadily increasing global human populations.

"In 300 years there is the potential for a hell of a lot of human suffering if we push the world temperature higher and melt sufficient land ice to raise sea levels even 2 meters. A couple of billion people live and work and feed from land 2 meters above sea level."

In marketing terms, this is what is referred to as FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt). It is generally the last refuge of the unprincipled scounderel and is used when the seller is bereft of ideas or trying to sell a pup - or both. It is of course unimpeachable in its simplicity and appeals to the weak minded. If you believe this to be the case, then present some facts to substantiate it. BTW - even the WMO says that it's not getting any warmer:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html

"This way us misguided AGW fools can have their low carbon economy.."
Yes, you misguided fools can have your low carbon economy - just don't include the rest of us in it. If you want to pay additional taxes, live in third world conditions, wear sack cloth and ashes - then please be my guest. Zimbabwe would probably be an excellent choice to pursue this lifestyle choice.

I sign-in this AM to find ZERO, NADA, NOPE responses to JP's question. Where's the crisis? What is the crisis? When is the crisis?

Al Gore says we have ten years of less. For what? The cooling to be self evident?

Sheesh! Answer the question. If you can. It is important!

CoRev editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

I should have said the anti AGW argument must start with accounting for all those black holes in the ground. Then perhaps we can see what’s going on up in the atmosphere.

“97% of the "increase" has been natural” doesn’t stack up given our recent industrial activity. More cows than cars?

Next

G’day CoRev: Did you know a poll here reckons two thirds of the population supports the new government’s ideas for carbon reduction despite their ignorance of the proposed mechanism under a carbon trading scheme?

"A couple of billion people live and work and feed from land 2 meters above sea level."

As you would of course expect from the misguided AGW fools - a complete fabrication (making $hit up yet again).

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9162438

According to this study, approx. 634 million people live less than 30 feet (9 metres) above sea level.

But then I guess if you are going to engage in FUD marketing, go for the figure that has a bigger emotional impact.

Peden's post and the subsequent denialist frothing is just par for the sceptic course. Ho hum ...

(1) I accept the most of the recent glacial terminations were not started by CO2 - why would they? But the PETM exists as a good example of what CO2 can do in other circumstances. - IMO.

(2) Emmanuel's work showed a somewhat convincing link between hurricanes and PDI. Why somewhat - as the record hasn't got the necessary data we need to be definitive. AGW theory and the even the latest CSIRO modelling does NOT (that's NOT - like NOT) imply an increase in numbers of storms. Moreover a trend to faster longer lived systems. And every year has its own peculiarities with wind shear, dust, steering systems etc - so nobody said there would be a linear increase year after year. And decadal variability confounds the issue.

(3) The solar story is far from convincing - sunspot lovers are about as good as cycle worshippers. The literature is not in your favour for a full explanation. Ask Lief !

(4) Sea levels are going up as expected and well confirmed by satellite altimeters. The IPCC AR4 report is the considered opinion on sea level rise ~ 0.5 metres - not 20 metres.

(5) ENSO and Walker circulationa are showing some definite trends. And if you want to add up changes in the Indian Ocean and Antarctic circulation things are quite interesting. Especially in Australia. Be interesting to see if global drought frequency has increased - challenge?

(6) What global cooling - Holy wishful thinking Batman. You have statis at best and sceptics have no good idea either as to why.

(7) Polar bears are a diversionary ruse compared to the major biological effects in numerous ecosystems noticed in 100s of global studies - see the recent Nature paper.

(8) As usual the policy response is bundled in with the science for harsh judgement. Not liking the mitigation options does not imply the science is wrong. Who doesn't like a V8 but it's your heart not your head.

(9) Implying that anyone supporting AGW wants to destroy western civilisation or condemn millions in the 3rd world to perpetual poverty is such utter bullshit. Why would you want to do that?

(10) Seems that Arctic ice levels are still well below average and Antarctic levels are near average. As if any specific year really matters that much.

So I pity Jim Peden's charges - he has unique opportunity to give them a balanced view and get them to think for themselves about an important issue. But alas Jimbo is just spinning it like everyone else.

One day we might see a balanced view of for and against but not here eh?

Rant on dudes - commence frothing....

"Did you know a poll here reckons two thirds of the population supports the new government’s ideas for carbon reduction despite their ignorance of the proposed mechanism under a carbon trading scheme?"

And that doesn't concern you -- that AGW & the ETS is being carried on the back of ignorance? It must be great living in a fool's paradise.

Did they detail the question that was asked in the survey? Like, f'rinstance:
"On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest, how concerned are you that man-made CO2 is causing dangerous warming of the planet, rising sea levels, extinction of most species, and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu?"

Don't worry - once the ignorance begins to lift and people see the real costs involved, that 70% figure will drop down to single digit figures.

A lot like it did in the Lord Mayor's election in London and subsequent UK by-elections.

Oh yea - current climate crisis - well there isn't one.

Just significant ongoing climate variability issues tending to worsen in the centennial afternoon with a tendency to later developing extremes in the probability distribution in the future.

Well Ivan - get the AEF to run a "no climate tax party" for the Senate ! Do it man - stop whining.

Ivan writes:-
>Paul - I don't know. I just quoted from the article. However, I assume that since everything else out of the AGW camp is bull$hit, this must be too.
>As you would of course expect from the misguided AGW fools - a complete fabrication (making $hit up yet again).

Er, yeah...we believe you Ivan....

Don't worry about (7) Luke, PBs et al survived in the past and will do so in the future. The experts here have told us so. Besides, extinction is the circle of life. Let's see Pixar make a kiddie's flick out of that.

"Well Ivan - get the AEF to run a "no climate tax party" for the Senate ! Do it man - stop whining."

There is no need for me to go to all that effort. Rudderless & Wrong are doing the denialists' work for us. All we have to do is keep the loonies ranting.

Once the price tag of all this nonsense becomes more obvious, the warm inner glow of 'saving the planet' will evaporate in a nanosecond.

Picture a scenario in 856 days time where people are queued up in the cold outside a polling booth clutching a How-to-Vote card saying "Vote Rudderless for a Colder & Poorer Future".

So - I don't have to do a damn thing, other than sit back and wait for these clueless idiots to self-destruct. When they go, all the oxygen thieves go with them. Yee-haw!

Ivan; Yuor last post was baby talk. That poll could be seen as just about trust. I trust fellow man in general do you?

HA..HA...HA...HA...HA....
What -- trust us to make you colder and poorer?? From the 70% who admitted they were clueless and ignorant as well??

Wow - what are you smoking?

Sorry -- got to go - I'm laughing so hard I can't find the correct keys. I'll just roll around on the floor for a bit until the convulsions subside. I haven't laughed this much since I was a kid...

HAR..HAR...HAR...HAR...HAR....
You idiot!

Poor old Ivan - if Labor is re-elected you'll have to migrate mate. Now off you go for a sook.

Gavin, Europe is perhaps a barometer of what is in our political futures, some sense of proportion.

Tax us more, pleeaassee! Not gonna happen.

Luke, so you have said maybe to crisis? Some droughts? Some warmer temperatures? Some minor CONTINUED sea rise. Next IPCC report will lower estimate by ~1/3, IMO.

Statis? Is that all? For how long? 10? 20? 30? longer? or fewer years? Recent lit. says in the 20-30 year range.

Open debate squashed? Why? soundness of the AGW science or fear that it's weaknesses will be uncovered?

Quit calling for a political counter movement. It's about the science first. I don't know why it became about politics first. Let the science work it's magic, it can even with the many times to one funding for the warming side. And, that seems to be what is happening. Emotional investment in the warming theory is going further onto thinning ice.

So, I don't know if anyone remembers, but way back in elementary school most of us learned about dinosaurs and ice ages and mammoths and all that wonderful stuff. Did we forget what we learned about the planet heating and cooling without our "help?" Why does no one seem to site these sources? As a teacher myself, I would implore other teachers (regardless of political agendas) to teach the students how to think and research things for themselves, learn how to distinguish spurious sources from valid ones and see into the motives of the sources of your information. I fear we have a coming generation that watch too much TV and listen too much (this sounds like an oxymoron) to their teachers who tell them what to think rather than how to think.

On most of the websites and blogs that carry comments from AGW believers why is it that the moment their belief system is questioned they don't defend their beliefs with science but with personal attacks and illogical, unproven statements. It reminds me of religious believers - they have faith in something they cannot prove - that's fine when they keep it to themselves but is disasterous for the rest of us, as history and current events have shown, when they 'force' their unproven beliefs on the masses.
Let scientific research, funded without bias find the truth (not fit the desired result such as happened with WMD).
Anyone remember the other mass panics started by the media and vested interest: Sars, bird flu, Y2K, AIDS - all these were guaranteed 'disasters' - where are they now?
What's clear with MMGW claims is that a lot of people's jobs (especially journalists) are predicated on perpetuating an impending climate disaster - without it the Emperors New Clothes come into play.
BTW: did the clever computer models predict (i) the biofuels fiasco, (ii) the lack of global warming in the last 10 years & (iii) the likley onset of cooling? Thought not, so why believe anything they predict 20,30,50 years out?

Well, it's lat in the day and still no definition of a crisis. Luke tried to regale us with a list of maybe weather possibilities, but no crisis is defined.

C'mon now folks. This was an easy one! Or was it?

Because if it was difficult that means all your other spouting off, piffle, blather, etc. was BS.

Bickers

Quite right - notice that the two camps on this issue are closely aligned to political leaning - strongly suggesting that yet again the Whigs and their successors have hijacked science for political purposes.

I've often said that we are headed for another dark age - but I have not imagined I would be witnessing its start.

Minister Wong still considers it to be a acientific consensus so it's certainly not science that is being debated by technically sophisticated belief.

We live in interesting times but at least we can sell coal to Dubai which is just announced the contruction of 4 coal fired power plants.

Ivan - "In marketing terms, this is what is referred to as FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt)."

And that would be different from the FUD you people are peddling that "we will all be rooned" or "go back to grass huts" if we have to live in a low carbon economy.

I accept your correction on the number of people at risk at this stage as it doe not take into account the secondary effect of the 600 million or so moving to where it is dry and they can grwo crops. Also it does not take into account the farmland that will be flooded and lost.

Jim, much like yourself, I've just seen this Al-AGW* always presents as a politico/religious belief which is behavioural . I've mentioned my efforts to post on the UNreal climate site, but in Australia i have ventured, dare i say into these deltoid and JQuiggin blogs and found this closed, frozen-in-place mindset. What one sees here is a dim captive lot of rote learners in wrong order.

Quiggin for example develops what he calls his ‘litterbug’ argument using the per capita CO2 emissions method to promote the idea that Australians are practically the worst in the world. What i simply tried to say (that met with his complete censoring) was that to use the per capita CO2 method removes the geographic reality. i.e. It sees people removed not just from their biology but from their environment. I view this disconnect as a very serious issue because for starters Australia with its extensive land and ocean environment would have higher energy needs but our emissions would essentially be neutral too.

A natural consequence of this disconnect is seen with our prime minister who from all reports is looking at 300,000 immigrants per year. This may lower per capita emissions but have diabolical effects on the environment. e.g. There is the increased demand for finite water resources in the Murray/Darling basin plus increased demand for food, infrastructure and energy.

If we are concerned about purposeful behaviour then we need to understand that all living organisms do not “respond to stimuli” but rather control input variables. It is not the stimulus-response model nor the cognitive science model because behaviour is the individual CONTROL of perceptions.

AL-AGW* like all mind viruses, has a disorder of perception, preferring rote learning in wrong order and simply is belief in belief for its own sake where it becomes congratulations you lazy minded mug because you have lost control of your perceptions. We should now stop being so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious, blinded worship mindset because we get no answers from this weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery.

* AL-AGW = alarmist AGW which is based on Algorian science.

Ender - "And that would be different from the FUD you people are peddling that "we will all be rooned" or "go back to grass huts" if we have to live in a low carbon economy."

This is an easy one. The markets and the economy are fickle creatures and prone to be quite unstable from major restructuring. The climate on the other hand has proven to be quite stable (still predicting a tipping point in 2010?).

The ability of a cap & trade scheme that adds 1% to inflation to cause economic hardship is a rock solid certainty. The scheme having any effect on the climate is not.

Still silence on Jim Peden's challenge. I have to admit I'm shocked. SHOCKED I say!

Please, define at least one crisis!

Bickers - "On most of the websites and blogs that carry comments from AGW believers why is it that the moment their belief system is questioned they don't defend their beliefs with science but with personal attacks and illogical, unproven statements."

Really - you must be visting the wrong sites then. People who read the science and decide that AGW is a problem will point you to the science resources that underpins AGW. It is not a belief system at all. The science says what the science says - it is as simple as that.

However if you are pointed to the science and then return with the recycled denier cherry picking science and sling off at people then you will cop an earful.

I guess it depends on how you approach it. I now just quote the Coby numbers as they take in all the denier arguments - it saves a lot of time.

Bickers - "On most of the websites and blogs that carry comments from AGW believers why is it that the moment their belief system is questioned they don't defend their beliefs with science but with personal attacks and illogical, unproven statements."

Agreed. Happens all the time on RealClimate. If its the only site you read then you think the attacks are justified. But there have been so many errors posted on RC over the past year (dissected by our good friend Motl) that its just becoming a waste of time.

Charming people these alarmist AGW designers with their proselytizing schemes in the media, in science, in schools, in blogs, etc One would need to be so naive or totally blind not to see these climate designers all twisted up in mind control techniques seeking the most appropriate and effective means to bake a person's brain within their alarmist AGW incubator. They certainly have all bases covered and I simply find this arrogance profoundly disquieting.

Just see how these designers operate by designing consensus models for science turning it into theology. What next? Design how you should think? Design people's behaviour? Design madness in the world? Design the universe perhaps? For the climate designer it has never been how best to present the truth to the public but instead it is spin and how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving this group more money or more power.

This then is the fictional view of life which of necessity implies fictional people. It in effect blindly says .... why do people need the real world when you can have an inexorable and schemingly designed fake one with its designer as a perpetual broadcaster?

ender; I must say I find your logic esoteric to say the least; there is no doubt that CO2 follows temp increase; the AGW crowd are saying that natural effect is being compromised this time because of the anthropogenic contamination of the process, but a very interesting discussion on CO2 source makes that problematic;

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

I'll be the first to admit that isotopic ratio discussions give me a pain, but it does look that isolation of an anthropogenic source for CO2 is problematic; this combined with the good correlation between solar and temp and CO2 buildup provides a convincing counter-argument to the CO2 AGW concept; especially with this 'new' paper on CO2 cooling properties;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727

Joel - "This is an easy one. The markets and the economy are fickle creatures and prone to be quite unstable from major restructuring. The climate on the other hand has proven to be quite stable (still predicting a tipping point in 2010?)."

Really Joel - have you looked at the ice core records? We have had a period of stablity in this interglacial however right at the end (possibly) we are recreating the condition with our CO2 emissions that existed at the start of the glacial to interglacial.

The stone age grass hut FUD campaign is wearing a bit thin as there are multitudes of ways to preserve a technological society without emitting heaps of CO2. We just have to be a bit smarter about it instead of burning the furniture. Also one of the spin off advantages is that small scale renewables are ideal for the places we have previously ignored in the Third World where small things like solar powered lights can make a massive difference to the lives of people.

Daryl - "Did we forget what we learned about the planet heating and cooling without our "help?""

No we didn't. It is exactly this record that tells us that the climate can change and often quite dramatically. The fact that these changes were natural does not mean that this one we are experiencing now is not natural as they are independent.

As a teacher you should be pointing your students to research sites like Real Climate and Spencer's history site that present the science and they can decide for themselves.

Climate crises are ongoing - Katrina, Australian drought, Nargis, European heatwaves etc etc - doesn't stop.

Luke, you've proposed weather events, again! Climate? If your examples are climate then we have gone full circle to the controlling weather issue. Remember it? If any and everything can be claimed then we are in a world of ... well you know.

Still waiting for that "CLIMATE" crisis.

Changed rainfall climate - Australian drought

It is apparent that Luke,Ender and other AGW believers.Fail to answer James Peden's closing sentence:

"As I said at the beginning: I'm having trouble locating the crisis, so I'm hoping some of the many experts here on this forum can give me a little guidance."

So far zippo!

No multi-year trends over decades aren't weather. Stop playing word games Corev. Climate is a longer term average of weather events or a trend in weather.

Humanity has ongoing run-ins with weather and therefore in the longer time sense climate ongoing. Recent US floods show us a first world country washed away. Forests burn in fire weather. Hurricanes/typhoons/tropical cyclones smash into coastal communities ongoing. Heatwaves and cold snaps occur ongoing. Episodic droughts reappear.

And we don't cope that well in the main. Loss of life, property damage, economic havoc.

It's mythical if you think our current climate is benign. We already have enough problems.

Now when we get to 9 billion humans it will be most interesting.

And the planet owes us no favours - in fact we're lucky to be here at all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html African droughts may have gotten us earlier

But anyway - let's try a global change in the Palmer drought index. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai_pdsi_paper.pdf

Maybe we're headed back to those wonderful MWP Maya busting mega-droughts? But could that be like sceptics speculating on sunspots and ice ages?

"This comment posted by Jim Peden in this thread at popular blog realclimate.org was disallowed."

Well, with all of the filthy languange and personal attacks who can blame them?

But seriously, anyone who expects Gavin Schmidt to post a substantial objection to the orthodoxy is living in dream land. If Gavin is going to post something contrary to AGW he will only do it if he thinks that he or one of his henchmen can successful contradict it.

I though it was hilarious when Lucia challenged one of Gavin's articles on her own blog, Gavin came and complained to her on her blog for not going to his blog to voice her objections. But if you do go to his blog to voice your objections, he will throw out whatever he likes. The man is a hypocrite and a control freak. Guess he is taking lessons from James (Captain Ahab) Hansen.

"It's mythical if you think our current climate is benign. "

It's mythical if you think that climate was ever benign, Gomer.

"Changed rainfall climate - Australian drought"

Looks like Austrailian drought is Luke's last stand, since every other indicator is going against him. How many times has he brought it up now? Must be hundreds.

Tilo a good case example is a good case example. And we're not on some redneck Nevaadah blog are we? This is Aussie mate. Anyway - read my global link above.

As for you hassles on RC - well boo hoo. Get over it. I'm banned on Warwick Hughes for daring to debate with even mild vigour. And Deltoid (so maligned here) gave you your own personal thread - the Tilo Reber memorial thread - so WTF eh? Pielke turns comments off - how crap is that?

It's not like you don't have an outlet - Macca's science blog of the year surely is an outlet. And even Macca won't tolerate as much ball and racket abuse as here.

Yes RC should let it hand a bit looser but you're up them for the rent - so what do you expect - they're only human and are going to get narky with you.

Anyway salutations, best wishes and up yours doofus. Start debating with facts or rack orf.

Ender - "Really Joel - have you looked at the ice core records? We have had a period of stablity in this interglacial however right at the end (possibly) we are recreating the condition with our CO2 emissions that existed at the start of the glacial to interglacial."

Oh come on. Even Hansen doesn't think we're heading for another ice age. Hansen says "another ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct."

Are you arguing for a collapse of the thermohaline circulation or rapid deglaciation of both polar ice sheets within the next 100 years? I would call those climate crises but they're just not happening.

Luke, to define weather events as climate crises they must be a UNIQUE SERIES of events. Otherwise single events are just new records. Using historical records of 150+/- years is ludicrous as climate comparisons for said events. Such a short period used as a historical limit is a sure sign of arrogance or just plain ignorance.

Which leads us to the questions, how many, how often and how severe have Australian droughts been in the past, a past far in excess of 150 years. If they have not previoulsy occurred, then we have a new weather record. If there have been others then we have cyclical weather, which might be defined as climate. There are a whole universe of questions that could be asked to nuance the level/amount of change of these events, but would they define a crisis?

So where's the crisis?

Climate crisis is a term unique to the AGW group. As often as it is used/thrown about it should be easy to define.

Luke - "Changed rainfall climate - Australian drought"

Aren't we back to weather now? Australian rainfall was dandy up to 2000. 8 years isn't enough data to make any conclusions, right?

"The stone age grass hut FUD campaign is wearing a bit thin as there are multitudes of ways to preserve a technological society without emitting heaps of CO2"

A bit thin, eh? As usual - this comment completely misses the main point. Firstly, professional jobs are disappearing from Australia on a daily basis. Financial and IT jobs get "outsourced" almost daily. If you want proof of that, read Tuesday's IT section of any major newspapers.

Secondly, blue collar jobs are disappearing on a daily basis. Look at Mitsubishi, Ford, GM and a long list. They are all moving manufacturing jobs to countries where labour costs and government costs are cheaper.

Now add into the mix the cost of "feel-good" environmental costs. The ETS will lock in a 1% cost to inflation -- day 1. Business has signalled loud and clear that they will pass on every cent of the ETS. And that's before they start doing anything that will actually produce a noticable result (like taxing petrol, or closing down the coal mines and coal-fired power stations for starters).

Woodside has already indicated that they will re-evaluate a $60B LNG project. Aluminium smelting will definitely become an iffy proposition once electricity costs start to go up. And so on it will go, as the cost of Rudderless' lunacy begins to bite.

For every cancelled project, or every closed manufacturing facility, there is a flow-on effect to almost every other area of the economy. Blue collar jobs disappear, then white collar and professional jobs disappear. And these won't be cyclical changes - waiting for the economy pick back up. These will be permanent.

If we're going to be serious about ETS, then airfares need to have the carbon cost built into them as well. Australia is the most remote tourist destination in the world. Guess what - it just became the most uncompetitive. And where has all the job growth been in the last 20 years? In the services industry, predominantly catering to tourism - one of our biggest export earners. Kiss these jobs goodbye as well.

And don't for one minute believe Bob Brown's horse$hit about blue-collar jobs becoming green jobs. How many tour guides can we possibly use to show tourists (if there are any) around closed down factories, power stations, etc.

I've lost count - how many unemployed were we up to so far? How many do you think we'll need to get to before the country is reduced to third-world standards, I wonder?

With the erosion of the tax base, where will the money come from to develop all your imaginary or emerging technology? You don't have to live in a grass hut to have third-world standards.

A dandy up to 2000. ROTFL. And try about 20-30 years Joel ! And look internationally too.

Why must they be a unique series of events CoRev? That's just discounting of contemporary impacts and your cognitive dissonance preference.

We've been through the Aussie drought thing ad nauseum on many threads and don't want to repeat - but Murray Darling and SE Qld flows have been lowest on record. MDB drought has been brewing since 1998 really. SW WA has major long term rainfall decline. And there is some good deductive climate science homework as to why. You know what I'm going to say so why repeat it.

So the globe has ongoing crises with climate. Otherwise why is there emergency relief - the Burmese would simply say - oh yes - we swept the driveway and the power was back on in a few hours. Same in New Orleans. Same in US floods. Those Californian fires would have been out before you knew it. No problemo.

Australia would not be spending zillions in drought relief ongoing. Producers would not have had 300 years worth of support in 10-20 years.

We'd be singing as we walked. Taking it all in our stride.

So existing climate variability gives us heaps of grief as a species. Would be a piece of piss mate (as we convicts say).

Our local experience is that AGW shifts that existing climate variability with its episodic ongoing crises up a notch. Gives you more tail on the probability distribution.

I am utterly stunned that you guys are trying to portray a nice benign friendly current global climate is the norm.

"Looks like Austrailian drought is Luke's last stand, since every other indicator is going against him. How many times has he brought it up now? Must be hundreds."

It's not the 'last stand', it's, to date, the most significant impact. And the impact has been huge, and this is very early on.

Ivan - "A bit thin, eh? As usual - this comment completely misses the main point. Firstly, professional jobs are disappearing from Australia on a daily basis. Financial and IT jobs get "outsourced" almost daily. If you want proof of that, read Tuesday's IT section of any major newspapers."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change or policies relating to climate change. This is all the free market globalisation that you people worship. Can't even think why you said this in this context.

If anything renewables can bring work back to Australia. With some more investment the solar tubes that are made in China from Sydney Uni research could be made here. The Flow Batteries, developed at the Uni of NSW could also be sold amd made here if someone had financed them. Instead we provide jobs for Canadians. What about the solar technology of David Mills?

"I am utterly stunned that you guys are trying to portray a nice benign friendly current global climate is the norm."

I am equally stunned by anyone thinking that imposing an ETS tax is going to make the drought go away.

Do you need a new bone to put in your nose, or will the current one do for a while?

"Well, it's lat in the day and still no definition of a crisis. Luke tried to regale us with a list of maybe weather possibilities, but no crisis is defined.

C'mon now folks. This was an easy one! Or was it?"

This is only the start, theres over a century of changes to come. That we have had such severe drought this early on is not good for Australia, which is already mostly desert.

"Al Gore says we have ten years of less. For what? The cooling to be self evident?"

To stop what is going to come over the next century or so.

"If we're going to be serious about ETS, then airfares need to have the carbon cost built into them as well. Australia is the most remote tourist destination in the world. Guess what - it just became the most uncompetitive. And where has all the job growth been in the last 20 years? In the services industry, predominantly catering to tourism - one of our biggest export earners. Kiss these jobs goodbye as well."

Your statement is not logcally valid. Whether or not people can afford to come to Australia has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real. If it's real, it's real, no matter what airfares cost.

"Which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change or policies relating to climate change. This is all the free market globalisation that you people worship. Can't even think why you said this in this context."

I can see why you and Luke hit it off so well. He is completely clueless when it comes to the political process and how complex problems get solved in the real world - and you're completely clueless when it comes to economics in the real world. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

"If anything renewables can bring work back to Australia."
Dream on. When has this ever happened in the entire history of Australia? Technology goes the other way, Ender, largely because there's no business culture of risk-taking in Australia. Also, it's just too damn difficult to get through all the red tape here.

"could also be sold amd made here if someone had financed them"
That was my point, egghead. Where is the finance going to come from in a depressed (and shrinking) economy?? I seem to have woken up this morning in 1973 and Gough Whitlam is running things - and we'll just print more money.

It's becoming clearer by the day why you 2 are such believers in this AGW nonsense.

"Your statement is not logcally valid. Whether or not people can afford to come to Australia has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real. If it's real, it's real, no matter what airfares cost."

This was an economic statement, not a religious one. See if you can follow this short logic chain:

- ETS = tax (i.e. charge added to cost of goods and services).
- Airplanes use fossil fuel and produce CO2
- Therefore, air fares will need to rise to cover the increased cost mandated by ETS
- Air fare increases will (or should) be proportional to distance
- Therefore, Australia will be proportionally more expensive than destinations which are closer to our main source of tourists.
- Therefore, we lose.

This has nothing to do with with whether AGW is real or not, or whether the tooth fairy is real or not. It has to do with the economic response to the implementation of illogical and damaging policy.

But apparently AGW zealots are so consumed by their religious beliefs, that they can't comprehend fundamental economic principles.

ender, you have no legitimacy without thorium.

luke; that link of yours to the Dai, Trenberth and Qian paper on the PDSI says this;

"An empirical orthoganal function (EOF) analysis of the PDSI reveals a fairly linear trend resulting from trends in precipitation and surface temperature and an El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-induced mode of mostly interannual variations as the two leading patterns. The global very dry areas, defined as PDSI<-3.0 have more than doubled since the 1970s, with a large jump in the early 1980s due to an ENSO-induced precipitation decrease"

There is no doubt that there has been climate stress over the last 30 years as a result of PDO phase shift and increasing population; agricultural practices are also to blame; Lomborg at p154-156 discusses the Falkenmark water stress criterion for the future as being a measure of land practice and population pressure not climate change.

So to our MDB and the scandalous misrepresentation by Wong in presenting the current drought in the MDB as a manifestation of AGW and not political ineptitude along with bad land practice; you have turned up your nose before about this BoM 2005 paper, but figs 4 and 4 say it all really;

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20050323-craik.shtml

"This has nothing to do with with whether AGW is real or not, or whether the tooth fairy is real or not. It has to do with the economic response to the implementation of illogical and damaging policy."

The economy depends on the environment.

"The economy depends on the environment."

I guess you win. I can't think of a suitable inane comeback to a vacuous one-liner such as this.

So now you have two killer statements to drop into conversation:
1) "It's a science."
2) "The economy depends on the environment."

I can't quite work out what your problem is.

Science is science, no matter what our values are.
No environment, no economy. I didn't know anyone could argue with that?

"No environment, no economy. I didn't know anyone could argue with that?"

If you look back over the history of civilisation, it is obvious that the story of progress goes hand in hand with the struggle to overcome the challenges presented by the environment. If the economic returns have been great enough, the technology has been developed to facilitate this - whether it is growing crops in the desert, drilling for oil in Alaska, going to the moon - whatever.

To say "no environment, no economy" is perhaps the stupidest statement to come out of this whole AGW discussion - ever. There will always be an 'environment' - it may not always be to our liking - and there will always be an 'economy', since the alternative is to lie down and die. And the ways and means will always be found to deal with whatever comes up - hot, cold or indifferent.

Jim Peden, You will find the answer to all your questions by contacting scientists Kevin Rudd, Bob Brown,Tony Blair, Barack Obama etc, and their political scientific organizations such as the Greens, Labour Australia & UK,the Democrats USA and other millenarianism agendas not withstanding Socialist Political Parties.

"No environment, no economy. I didn't know anyone could argue with that?"

Wow, now you're saying no environment. AGW will make there be no environment. Quite the statement.

Agriculture is vitally important to the economy. Although considering its 3% of GDP, I'm not sure you could argue that drought has impacted the average Australian more than petrol prices. (Luke will comment on the hidden costs of farm subsidies here).

Luke, are you saying regional climate models predicted this amount of rainfall shifting in this short a span of time? Surely you jest. Your insistence that a regional model using boundary conditions from a global model is somehow proof because it qualitatively fits the current Australian rainfall shifts is terrible. Verification (or validation or attribution) is done for the GCM's. Have the regional models been validated by accurately producing previous Australian droughts? I agree we don't need to dig up this discussion for the upteenth time. But you're the only one pushing it.

Been through it before Cohenite - there's really quite enough science to take a risk averse evaluation. Pretty well most of you position at 2:37 is utter bunk. But I don't think discussing it will help. Population shift affecting the PDSI globally etc ROTFL. Land practices - more bunk in the context of the analysis.

Joel - yes - and if you want the modelling discussion and journal paper list - well truck on over to Open Mind and read the recent drought threads.

I reckon whatever happened you guys would weasel out of it. There is no proof of changes in climate that you would accept. None. Every data set and concept would have some issue.

Ivan you numb nuts - well we can keep going and make things much worse. I think you'd like a semi-permanent ENSO situation wouldn't you. You know being such a dry bastard you'd love it.

But really who cares - if you're think you're any good form the anti-senate climate party and get going. But odds are that the sky won't fall in and you'll be stuck with Ruddster for a while longer. It will be 1,950 days and counting Ivan.

So stop whining like a little bitch and change things politically. Surely you have might and right on your side. Surely God is a sceptic? We're just wishy washy flim flams so it shouldn't take you that long. That is if you're any chop and not just full of it.

Sorry for apparent reversion - old browser.

"Wow, now you're saying no environment. AGW will make there be no environment. Quite the statement."

Good grief, I was saying if there is no environment, then there is no economy. It's a simple statement of fact.

"Sorry for apparent reversion - old browser."

Oh - so the browser made you revert to your normal gutter-sniping vitriolic self? Hmmm... how bizzare. And all this time I thought it was the red cordial.

"But odds are that the sky won't fall in and you'll be stuck with Ruddster for a while longer."
I wouldn't put much money on that one. I would put money on Rudderless being out of the PM's job before the next election, though. Once the hard-heads in the party realise the damage he is doing, the knives will be out. They won't want to take a liability like that to the next election.

"It will be 1,950 days and counting Ivan."
Look at Gippsland - a uniform swing like that, and they're gone. And if they reprise the Little Johnny Howard act and run on Trust -- well - sorry that just makes me convulse in fits of laughter.

"Surely God is a sceptic?"
You don't think She is?

Ender: I don't doubt that AGW believers have done a great deal of science funded by Government. My core point is that it's becoming increasingly clear that the science is far from settled. We're incapable of accurately predicting the weather (using some of the world's most powerful computers) a week out, so why do you think we're capable of predicting the complex climate system a 100 years out?
As I stated the computer models that are being used to justify a complete change of our lifestyles (which will impact most severely on the poorest people) failed to predict the biofuels fiasco, the Earth not warming for the last 10 years and the current cooling.
Until you use science (not propoganda) to explain how the climate works then scaremongering the masses with false science (Gore's movie) will at some point backfire. But how much damage will have been done to our economies and citizens before we find out that the amount of CO2 we generate (minute compared to nature) and CO2 itself have little or no effect on the climate. In fact we know that when CO2 levels were a lot higher than they'll be in the next few hundred years the world was covered in lush greenery - an Eden some would say. CO2 is not a toxic gas, it's essential to life on Earth and there's no, repeat no EVIDENCE that is causes warming or exacerbates it in any meaningful way

Bickers - come on this is fairy tale stuff - lush greenery - an Eden !! - well people notice 1000 ppm as uncomfortable and at 2000 ppm CO2, a majority will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. Prehistoric Earth is not like the current day ! You wouldn't enjoy it !

And here we go - current cooling ? huh ...

"complete change of lifestyles" - huh ?

Luke: do some science and medical homework please: CO2 @ 3 or 4 times the current level would have no physiological impact on humans and other life.
The comment Eden was a metaphor for explaining that we know from the historical record that a richer CO2 climate resulted in a lusher world, so some more CO2 in our current climate would (i) not cause or exerbate any given average temperature & (ii) would act as a fertiliser to plant life (we're going to need more food unless we control poulation growth)
As for cooling: go check out the satellite readings - they don't lie. Anecdotally, here in the UK we're having another very poor summer: it's quite cool (more like spring than summer) and the last heatwave we had was July 2006).
Lifestyle comment: unless you're living in a coccoon then food and fuel prices have gone through the roof. Food in particular has gone up because of the crazy notion that growing biofuels instead of food was (i) feasible: it's clearly not & (ii) carbon neutral: it's clearly not. Millions of people are now suffering (lifestyle) because of misguided, unnecessary policies that will do nothing to change the climate

CO2 don't help if she don't rain.

Check out the FACE experiments. Quoting some latest weather isn't relevant. The trend is your friend.

And yes satellite can lie - there is a darn lot in radiometric correction and bi-directional reflectance and that sort of stuff. Sensor drift. Multiple platforms over years etc etc.

A quick Google on Health - http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/CarbonDioxide.htm - check out 2000 ppm - and gee the Earth may have had 8000 ppm at one stage. (hears gasping noise and loud clunk as Bickers expires into some prehistoric herbage)

But yes if you think I'm being tedious CO2 is not a pollutant in the sense that CO is. At our current levels of exposure. As yes if it's part of organic life and beer bubbles I agree.

On biofuels - well I don't think the IPCC said destroy the 3rd world and create a food crisis by substituting food for biofuel. Blame opportunists and speculators. But now that we know biofuels create these issues I don't think the world has to keep doing the same - it's called learning !

"unless you're living in a coccoon.."

Sheltered workshop, more likely. He's researching a new book to be called "Global Warming for Dummies". Apparently he's the most qualified person in Australia, finishing a short nose in front of Tim Foolery.

"On biofuels - well I don't think the IPCC said destroy the 3rd world and create a food crisis by substituting food for biofuel."

Ahem!
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/pressrelease2007-05-04.pdf

.. and I quote:
"Environmental groups are, however, deeply concerned that the IPCC's [AR4] Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large-scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change."

When you got to the bit "well I don't think" you should have just left it there.

"- it's called learning.."

So let's see if I have this straight. When the IPCC makes ill-conceived alarmist recommendations based on flimsy data and poorly thought-out strategies that leads to catastrophic results including famine and starvation, the accepted protocol is for apologists like yourself to simply say "Oops - sorry for the complete f*ckup. We're still learning. Anyway - no harm done. They were all probably uneducated sceptics anyway."

But of course, we're still supposed to trust and believe them on the big one, right ?

"CO2 is not a toxic gas". That's right, people try to breathe in pure CO2 for the benefits it gives them all the time.

It's not an issue at all of if it is toxic or not, it's a matter of it's physical properties in the atmosphere.

Bickers - "In fact we know that when CO2 levels were a lot higher than they'll be in the next few hundred years the world was covered in lush greenery - an Eden some would say. CO2 is not a toxic gas, it's essential to life on Earth and there's no, repeat no EVIDENCE that is causes warming or exacerbates it in any meaningful way"

What was the temperature and sea level in this eden of yours?

SJT

Physical properties in the atmosphere which you actually can't measure because the gas is air - with a CHEMICAL composition of etc etc.

CO2 does not behave physically independently in air - its basic gas theory - asl Mr Walker to explain it.

Get the science right please.

Luke: I checked out your health link - interesting but highly misleading, (i) other factors are mentioned alongside CO2 levels that may be more harmful catalysts (e.g. bacteria) to the symptoms described & (ii) I'd like to see a research paper that discusses this in the context of 'open' circulating air, not a closed or restricted environment, e.g. room.
I cannot believe your comments on satellite readings: even your fellow bretheren accept they are more accurate than land based stations. They are highly unlikely to 'lie' and the AGW brigade would be all over the media if they were showing warming - they're not!
Why is a stalling in warming or a cooling phase any more different to what AGW believers have been propogating - your whole pitch is based on blaming recent 'weather' (warming) on mankind, so will you now do the same when the climate stops warming?
You still haven't answered Jim's question: where's the crisis?

Well the IPCC didn't tell your money grubbing mates to cause mass starvation at all - that's your capitalist greed gene you're confused with Mr Piggy. Oink Oink. Hey Ivan how's the new political party going - you could be in the wilderness for 5000 days and counting you know ROTFL !

"CO2 is not a toxic gas".

IT'S NOT???????????????

That can't be true. As my references, I cite the following in the Alarmist Age (amongst others):

Tracee Hutchison (April 5, 2008):
"deadly carbon dioxide"
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/04/1207249454452.html)

Ken Davidson (April 17, 2008):
"IF FORCED to choose, I would prefer to live on top of a nuclear waste dump than a carbon dioxide dump"
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/16/1208025282995.html)

These esteemed hacks for the Alarmist Age wouldn't lie to us, would they????

I'm shocked!

luke; I was going to raise some objections to your interpretation of Berner and the 'inability' of solar decline to bring on an ice-age, but then I realised it was pointless, because your good mate Tamino has proved the Dalton Minimum didn't occur, and there is no correlation between sunspot activity and temperature; now what was that expression? Oh yes, ROTFL; how crass.

"Well the IPCC didn't tell your money grubbing mates to cause mass starvation at all.."

What a piss-weak excuse for a human being! The fault here is all due to the IPCC.

"you could be in the wilderness for 5000 days and counting you know.."

You think so? I know the real world doesn't intrude into your reality very much, but consider this.

The G8 has already made noises about backing away from AGW and/or CO2 reductions (you remember the little bit about blaming the Chinese and Indians?). If McCain wins the US Election, which is better than even money, then all bets are off. The wavering that is already going on in the G8 will only increase.

Next cab off the rank is Helen ("Ms 27%) Clark in NZ in November. Gone for all money. European Parliament elections are due next June - which will give the Europeans a chance to show their solidarity. Followed soon after by elections in Germany in September. Merkel is already wavering over the damage that ETS will do to their automotive industry (vis-a-vis the French, who make smaller cars).

Gordon ("Dead Man Walking") Brown will be next - either at the same time as the European Parliament elections -or- if he thinks he's deader than dead, he'll hang out for as long as he can and hope for a miracle. Much like John Howard. The latest, however, is June 2010.

My guess is he will hold out until June 2010 and get slaughtered. His only salvation will be to jettison this AGW ETS crap. Now put yourself in Rudderless' position. Shortly after Brown gets crucified (or repents), he will have to front up and tell everyone in Australia to "stay the course" and that "the cost of doing nothing will be greater than the cost of screwing our economy" ... etc.

And you think the hard men in the ALP will just sit back and let him crash and burn against this background? Get into the real world occasionally.

Ivan - we know you like science and absolute proof. Get a CO2 cylinder. Close all the doors and windows and turn on the gas. Report back on any symptoms of toxicity.

Don't forget to ask your mommy for permission first though.

Here's what it's like living next to a CO2 dump in Cameroon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm

CO2 isn't toxic harmful really. If your CO2 dump blows you'll being laughing about it for ... well - for one or two minutes.

Luke

Got that CO2 source in the GCM computer model?

Luke: I'm sad that you've reverted to what most AGW believers do when someone threatens their belief system - you make false, vindictive accusations about their person - how dare you say:
'Well the IPCC didn't tell your money grubbing mates to cause mass starvation at all - that's your capitalist greed gene you're confused with Mr Piggy. Oink Oink'.
You don't know me or what I believe in, other than I question the so called scientific consensus behind AGW - any desktop research shows there are thousands of highly qualified scientists (many more than are claimed to support IPCC) who (i) don't buy into AGW or (ii) even it exists see it as a recipe for disaster.
Until I saw the Gore movie and started doing some research I went along with the media claims (mainly BBC) that mankind was causing unstoppable global warming. Any sober research on what drives climate change clearly shows that mankind and CO2 are not drivers of it.
I'll ask you again: can you provide any evidence of a global climate crisis caused by mankind?

Bickers I was talking to my very good friend Ivan on this 8:23 comment. My responses on crises ongoing and worsening are above in the various comments.

Bickers: "can you provide any evidence of a global climate crisis caused by mankind?"

For starters, try a google on JP's "climate crisis 2008" versus "environmental crisis 2008".

Sure we get side tracked by blogs in both downloads but the second leads us to comments on China, China, China, Darfur...etc. I reckon JP has led us up the garden path by his mere choice of key words.

CoRev may wish to check it too

Luke: Again I followed the link you provided based on the your comment: 'Here's what it's like living next to a CO2 dump in Cameroon.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm
A 'dump' tends to be something manmade - this lake is caused by natural volcanic activity - nothing to do with man!! So, your point is what?

Living next to an erupting volcano or sunbathing on a beach that's about to be hit by a tsunami is dangerous, so living next to this natural event is clearly a problem and one not manmade.

I'm sure you know that we live on a planet that can produce violent events (without any help from mankind).

If you want to engage in a rational discussion based on science then I'm happy to do so, however your personal insults about me and illogical statements (above comment and link) indicate that you have very little if no evidence to answer Jim's basic question: where is the climate crisis?

If you can rationally demonstrate there's a global climate crisis that mankind has caused then please explain in detail.

So CO2 is a pollutant? Well, so is oxygen;

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

This nonsense really has to be laid to rest.

Gavin: i read the links - couldn't find any evidence of a 'climate crisis'.
Plenty of scaremongering based on computer models and weather events, but no evidence that recent or future global climate has been changed in any noticeable way by mankind.
AGW believers need to explain why the World has stopped warming and has started to cool when their models didn't show this. Unless they can do this I'm afraid the Emperor will be manufacturing thousands of new clothes for them.

The stake in KRudds electoral heart will be the fact that he, and his entire party, have coldly calculated to junk a couple of hundred thousand otherwise viable small businesses and trash half a million otherwise good marriages, rather than meet part of their carbon reduction target with nuclear power.

With nuclear power the bar, for ordinary Australians, will not be as high as Rudd has now set it. And as the bar will be higher, the stress on businesses and the kids marriages will be higher, and the casualty rate will rise to match it. Of, course, the grandkids will pay the highest price of all.

This is going to be one hell of a hair shirt.

"So CO2 is a pollutant? Well, so is oxygen;"

So is money. There was a study back in 1977 where a couple of doctors sewed coins inside rats and they developed cancer - this was at the time when every known sugar substitute was being "proved" to cause cancer. They published a paper on their findings in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/citation/238/5/397b

It shows what happens when you let scientists go off unsupervised. (I believe these guys went on to join Hansen at NASA).

"The stake in KRudds electoral heart will be the fact that he..."

Funnily enough - I think it will be even simpler than that. I think it will be the not insignificant fact that he will have de facto defined everyone in Australia as a polluter. If you breath and exhale, then by definition you will be a polluter. People can latch on to that simple concept. And almost all of the general public instinctively resents being turned into a lawbreaker or miscreant by political fiat.

"This nonsense really has to be laid to rest."

So why start it?

Bickers - the simple point is that in large concentrations CO2 is a hazard. Leakage of CO2 sequestration deposits has been an issue for concern for sequestration storage researchers - and Lake Nyos vividly illustrates why it's something we do not want to happen. You're making the points about CO2 being harmless and Eden etc. They're incorrect. Similarly large amounts of salt are hazardous and you can easily drown is large bodies of water. Both relatively "harmless" substances to most people.

Similarly CO2 is not a magic plant fertiliser if other inputs are limiting as various FACE experiments well demonstrate.

If you'd like more rational discussion on this blog perhaps you might also remind the other anti-AGW personalities to be as kind.

I have made my points about climate crises above in the comments. I don't intend to restate them again. You can address them if you feel the need.

Thanks, Jim Peden, for another voice of sanity in wilderness. Don't mind our resident frothing trolls. They seek to end rational discourse, under the transparent pretense of advancing the inquiry.

It's amazing how a strong, clear, logical argument spreads like wild fire, while the shrill voices of magical fear have paradoxically provided evidence of the urgency of your questions.

If, after 110 comments, this is the best arguments the warministas can muster. Your point, Jim, stands true and well taken...

Thanks goes to Luke, Ender, and all the lesser AGW acolytes, for making Jim's point stunningly clear.

"I have made my points.."

You've made your points - yes - a bunch of waffle, rhetoric and hyperbole, but nothing that comes remotely close to any reasonable textbook definition of 'crisis'.

Perhaps you'd care to point out the crisis(es) for the sake of us slow learners - nothing bigger than 2-syllable words, preferably. (We can take the biofuel crisis created by the IPCC as being read for the time being.)

And then maybe SJT can come along afterwards and say "Suffer in your jocks, ya dickhead", or something insightful like that.

Nice try Luke.

"...but Murray Darling and SE Qld flows have been lowest on record. MDB drought has been brewing since 1998 really. SW WA has major long term rainfall decline. And there is some good deductive climate science homework as to why. You know what I'm going to say so why repeat it.

So the globe has ongoing crises with climate. Otherwise why is there emergency relief - the Burmese would simply say - oh yes - we swept the driveway and the power was back on in a few hours. Same in New Orleans. Same in US floods. Those Californian fires would have been out before you knew it. No problemo."

You've defined a number of disparate weather events. Are they a series? Nope! Can they be related? Nope! Are they even extreme weather events? Nope! Can a pattern with the current Australian drought(s) be discerned? Nope!

Why a series? C'mon now! How do we prove/show a trend. One point does not a trend make. And, that's all you have provided with your examples.

So, even again, where is that "CLIMATE CRISIS?"

Luke; thanks for your latest comment.

Again, you're not addressing Jim Peden's request: 'show me evidence of the climate crisis'.

Of course large natural or manmade concentrations of any gas is dangerous - obvious really!

However, we're talking about climate and AGW supporters are going to have to prove why increasing CO2 levels (minute in actual terms) have not caused additional global warming since '98 and appear to not be mitigating a recent cooling phase. That's at the core of the so called AGW 'scientific consensus' and their computer models. If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2 the whole AGW mantra is a busted flush.

In the UK the largest sugar beet processor has an adjacent plant that is the largest greenhouse growing tomatoes in the UK. CO2 is piped to the greenhouse from the sugar beet plant to enrich growth - I believe other greenhouse farmers do the same thing which goes to show they understand the benefits of CO2

Luke; thanks for your latest comment.

Again, you're not addressing Jim Peden's request: 'show me evidence of the climate crisis'.

Of course large natural or manmade concentrations of any gas is dangerous - obvious really!

However, we're talking about climate and AGW supporters are going to have to prove why increasing CO2 levels (minute in actual terms) have not caused additional global warming since '98 and appear to not be mitigating a recent cooling phase. That's at the core of the so called AGW 'scientific consensus' and their computer models. If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2 the whole AGW mantra is a busted flush.

In the UK the largest sugar beet processor has an adjacent plant that is the largest greenhouse growing tomatoes in the UK. CO2 is piped to the greenhouse from the sugar beet plant to enrich growth - I believe other greenhouse farmers do the same thing which goes to show they understand the benefits of CO2

I think this tells you why we should be sceptical of buying into the AGW and IPCC agenda - the law of unintended and thought through consequences!!

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg30

"It's not like you don't have an outlet"

I'm not talking about my lack of an outlet, I'm talking about what RC did to Jim Peden, Gomer. Try to keep your subjects straight.

"And Deltoid (so maligned here) gave you your own personal thread"

Yeap! And when I started giving Lambert data to show him that his accusations of Jennifer were wrong, he threw it in the can. By the way, he wasn't doing me any favors. I was giving him a third of his hits for a while.

SJT:
"To stop what is going to come over the next century or so."

And what if we don't do anything different for the next ten years. Then what will happen over the next century. What is this mythical tipping point that we will reach if we do exactly what we have been doing? What is your idiot friend Al Gore talking about SJT. Give me the scenarios and the numbers.

"Close all the doors and windows and turn on the gas."

You are a true idiot Luke. That's like saying that salt spoils your food. And if you want to proof it, just dump kilo of salt on your morning eggs.

Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding what drives climate should read this:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

"Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding what drives climate should read this:"

Right over Barbra Boxers head. She can only understand flooded cities and dead polar bears. Spencer does also have an explanation on his site that makes understanding his theory a little simpler.

Thanks for the link Bickers. I'm guessing that Real Climate is trying to figure out how to throw mud at it right now.

Bickers: "Anyone with a genuine interest in understanding what drives climate should read this:"

Right on Bickers! But don't expect the resident alarmists to pay heed to actual science!

""So CO2 is a pollutant? Well, so is oxygen;""

And so is bull$hit! Where's the EPA to deal with Luke, Ender, SJT and Gavin when you need them?

Bickers: Thanks for looking at "environment crisis links" via Google re man made problems however I spent considerably more time doing the same job and found heaps beyond the "usual" blogs.

CoRev: ?

CoRev - don't bother playing word games. You've been given your answer. Stop trying to be simply tedious. Or define your subject much more clearly. Actually I think you need to do a guest post here with a lot more detail.

Global drought index trend.
ENSO trend
PDI hurricanes

As for "You've defined a number of disparate weather events. Are they a series? Nope! Can they be related? Nope! Are they even extreme weather events? Nope! Can a pattern with the current Australian drought(s) be discerned? Nope!" - sorry that's not a refutation. That's just your opinion. I've given you this information over many posts. NOW I want a detailed refutation CoRev. "nope" is not a quality answer. Why do they have to be extreme? Significant damage is the issue.

Now where's your detailed critique of why I'm wrong. And give this to me in a risk management context as it's 6 going to 9 billion humans we're talking about here. Risk by definition is imperfect knowledge. I want your formal calculation of risk to rebut the IPCC's report - where is it?

Bickers - giggle - optimum conditions in a glasshouse as an example. A nice well watered C3 species. ROTFL ! Not the real outside world mate. That's called getting rid of the weather. No wonder you're confused.

Bickers where's you evidence of a "cooling phase". Table it in detail pls.

"Minute" is not a science answer either. Botulism is also minute. Try ingesting some. Silly argument. This is on par with you desire to teleport back to when CO2 was over 2000ppm. Where's your formal calculation that the calculated magnitude of the greenhouse effect is wrong? An opinion to the contrary is not an answer.

"If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2" - where's your evidence that it's not? Where's your detailed AR4 refutation?

BTW the climate doesn't have to prove anything - it doesn't care what you think.

Bickers: Spencer's little Senate presentation is a really light read on the whole subject of AGW

Just visiting. This blog is occupied by the most mind-boggling fools whose primary preoccupation is discovering who can dish the best abuse and ignore sense and honesty whilst trashing reputations and the planet. It's a sad world indeed when you discover such loonies exist. Do the rest of the word a favour and stay here in your cyber fish bowl and maybe you can devour one another and remove yourselves from the gene pool.

"If warming/cooling is increasingly shown not to be connected to CO2" - where's your evidence that it's not?
Here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2HCNlongterm.jpg
And here:
(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg)

"Bickers where's you evidence of a "cooling phase". Table it in detail pls."

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html

I haven't updated for the June data yet, but it will only tip those trends down a little more, Gomer.

Luke, nope is the only answer. Your task was to define a CLIMATE CRISIS. You have yet to point to anything other than some disparate weather events.

Don't change the subject and then attack on the new subject. It's a tiresome debating trick not worth following.

The challenge was easy, but I have yet to see a crisis defined.

Gavin, you've done the Googling, so bring them out for us to look at in awe.

Climate crisis should have been a really easy thing to define, but after a whole day we are no where closer.

Is it time to call Gore or Hansen to solve this? (That's my little joke!)

"Global drought index trend."

Where?

USA:
(http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025711.shtml)
"Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century."

Australia:
(http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/5/index.html)
Note trend line over last 100 years (upwards)

As usual - you are making $hit up.

"As usual - you are making $hit up."

You don't understand. If there is any spot in Australia that is getting drier, then Gomer has his proof that AGW is real.

Ivan, Luke is only interested in:

1) Rainfall for the past 30 years.
2) Rain that falls in the right places.
3) The bleeding edge latest statistics so I don't think 2005 will cut it.

Queue abuse.

CoRev: I won't offer you a whole load of links when you can easily do it all for yourself however some good thinking beyond "self" is well illustrated here

"The longer I am involved in environmental protection, the more I realise the importance of democracy and the legal system" - Pan Yue

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1167-Green-China-and-young-China-part-one-

Gavin, no one would argue with the environmental concerns brought up in that article. Please note that emissions were only mentioned once in the article, and the primary reason was to point out how energy inefficient Chinese industry is and how this isn't sustainable from an energy perspective.

I could point you to many instances of environmental mismangement where the intentions were good but the outcomes disastrous.

2006 was record wheat crop
we recently have been drowning in a glut of wine.
2008 was a record sorhgum crop.
Cattle numbers are at pre 2002 drought levels and feedlot numbers are at a record 1.5mil.
Barley projections are good for this season, just short of the record 2003/4 crop.
Canola is also projected to be high.

what ongoing drought?? Australian farmers have traditionally had good years and bad. It's par for the course.

"2006 was record wheat crop ..."

Yes ... yes. But these are facts.
Facts have no place in a religious argument.
Can we please get back to the emotion-charged ranting and raving.

gavin; I don't think Spencer's address is a light read; Spencer is dealing with one crucial issue; cloud-based negative feedback; he is succinct and he is sitting upon a growing mass of supporting evidence. The thing I find gratifying is that ENSO and PDO is starting to be recognised for its importance; it's a disgrace IPCC hasn't thrown its money at that research instead of CO2 which they concede is not up the job; ie AR4 FAQ 3.1; in fact IPCC has depended on +ve feedback from H2O; Spencer's light read simply and specifically pulls that carpet out from their feet as well. Anyway, noone has seen fit to make a sensible response to this paper yet;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727

"you could be in the wilderness for 5000 days and counting you know.."

So, numb-nuts, how's the 5000-day Reich looking this morning?

I see in today's papers that the good doctor has finally grown a brain and decided not to be a carbon-copy of Rudderless and Wrong.

Looks like the strategy of just sitting back and counting down the days may pay off after all.

Mind you, if I were an oxygen-thief at the CSIRO or BoM or Melbourne University I'd probably begin to worry a bit...

Since it is obvious that the very easily scared group.Fail to show a CLIMATE CRISIS.

I can rest easy that I am glad I am not easily scared..... and not easily suckered for the AGW nonsense either.

Once again James Peden comes along with commentary and you alarmists fall apart with evasive responses.

Mr. Peden along with Dr. Glassman and Viscount Monkton.Are proving to be excellent flypapers for alarmists.

I have personally engineered in a forum.Frothing replies to a Monkton paper and earlier a Glassman paper.That I started threads with.They threw everything at it except an actual counterpoint.

I see the same here with less namecalling.But gosh there are no rational answers to Pedens request.

There are no CLIMATE CRISIS.

No catastrophic warming trend is evident.
No catastrophic sea level increase is evident.

No Climate Crisis is evident.

Only easily fooled AGW believers are still looking for it.While the rest of us sane humans are watching the quiet sun.With growing concern.

How about getting off that creaky AGW bandwagon and plant your feet on solid sane ground instead?

Luke and the people at AGO are mesmerised by the computer modelling and paper published from these computer models.

However none of the computer models are a reasonable facsimile of physical reality, and the obsession with CO2 isn't from a scientific conclusion but from the initial assumption made by Arhhnius in 1906 - an assumption that has never been proved to be correct.

Climate Science has much in common with Astronomy based on a big bang hypothesis - like co2 induced global warming, this event was also not observed, hence no scientific theory could be framed for it.

Science is about explaining observations of Nature, framing hypotheses and testing them.

AGW was never observed, but was a speculat