"Early in the segment the PM had this to say about the IPCC: "There's a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - 4000 of them. Guys in white coats who run around and don't have a sense of humour. They just measure things."

The PM really has no idea!"

His response is far more rational than your's, Jennifer. He is prepared to defer to the experts when he does not understand the science. You, on the other hand ......

Jennifer, I am curious: on what basis do you conclude that climate skepticism is now mainstream?

"The PM really has no idea!"

Why stop there?
The IPCC is clueless - floundering around with models that they openly admit don't work.
The Great Guano is clueless - mindlessly regurgitating the 'work' of the Stern Report and the IPCC.
The CSIRO and BoM are both clueless - blindly following the blind and defending this nonsense in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary (case in point: SJT and his "deferring to experts" comment. Completely delusional.)
Penny Wrong and Peter Garrett (supposedly the responsible ministers) are also clueless.

He was right about not having a sense of humour, though.

I'm sure Tara Brown would have felt more comfortable correcting the Prime Minister if it had been John Howard!

Climate denialists have a bit of an uphill battle when they have to explain why the major climate organizations (NASA, Hadley, Potsdam) including Australia (CSIRO, BOM) and University scientists are in essential agreement regarding the reality of global warming. This is, unless they invoke "ad-hominem" and conspiracy theory-based arguments.

In a circulated paper titled “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” leading US climate scientists (J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D. Royer, J. Zachos) state: “Today’s CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted.”, suggesting “initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm”, “This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades”.

A rise of atmospheric CO2 to levels above 450 ppm inexorably involves carbon cycle feedbacks, leading the world to ice-free conditions, such as existed before 34 million years ago, raising temperatures on land to levels at which large mammals can hardly survive.

According to the paper “it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.” However “Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.” …

A related statement on the 23 June, 08, to the US Congress Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming is of particular relevance to Australia: “the often-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius is a recipe for global disaster … Arid sub-tropical climate zones are expanding pole-ward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.”

NASA’s Chief points a finger at special interests, stating “Special interests blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of Moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link” and “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual."

The solution? The authors call for emergency carbon drawdown, stating: ”There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, but with strong research and development support and industrial-scale pilot projects sustained over decades it may be possible to achieve costs ~$200 per ton carbon, or perhaps less. At $100 per ton carbon the cost of removing 50 ppm of CO2 is ~$10 trillion.”

$10 trillion is equivalent to the world’s military spending since the end of the 20th century.

Dr Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate research
Australian National University

19-8-08

SJT,

So, what are they "expert" in, exactly? Programming computers to predict the future, perhaps?

"Climate denialists have a bit of an uphill battle when they have to explain why the major climate organizations..."
Simple. It's the prisoners' dilemma. They either hang together or hang separately. No mystery here - follow the money trail.

"NASA’s Chief points a finger at special interests, stating “Special interests blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of Moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link” and “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual."

I see. When 'sceptics' make these sort of statements, you dismiss them as 'conspiracy theories'. When Alarmists trot them out - what are they? Public education programs?

Ivan - NLAMN
19-8-08

No no no, Jennifer. Climate Skepticism is now Socratically Ironic...

I'm surprised that anyone would consider "60 Minutes" to be authoritative on this, or any other, topic.

As to the so-called mediaeval warm period, it's my understanding that that was largely restriced to northern Europe, as was the little ice age just afterwards.

"“Special interests blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of Moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link” and “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual."
"

Exxon's already replied to those accusations:

"David McKnight, of the University of NSW, alleges that ExxonMobil has funded "junk science" with the intent to "deny" climate change ("The climate change smokescreen", August 2).

ExxonMobil agrees climate change is a serious issue and is taking action to address it. We are an active player in the debate on Australia's climate policy. We are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at our operations and have invested in energy-efficient cogeneration technology that has saved more than 10 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

The work of ExxonMobil scientists has produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and numerous related scientific bodies. We have supported major climate research projects at some of the finest academic and governmental organisations in the world, representing a range of positions on the science of climate change.

McKnight has ignored the fundamental point that ExxonMobil does not try to control the views and messages of those whom we support. A case in point: one of the institutions we have funded for many years is McKnight's employer.

Trisha Perkins Public affairs manager, ExxonMobil, Australia"

It appears the prime minister has jumped the great white coated shark along with those mythical 4000 blemishless IPCC white coats. Bravo, PM! Bravo!

Dr Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate research
Australian National University

perhaps you should read this blog - you and your kind are mentioned specifically.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-hockey-stick-debate-as-a-matter-of-science-policy-4511

You are really sad. Stop lying... oh and you are stupid as well, you certainly don't understand physics

Lord Monckton Thrashes DeSmog Blog Editor in High-Profile Global Warming Debate

DeSmog Blog editor Richard Littlemore concedes defeat
Written By: transcription and analysis by James M. Taylor
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: August 18, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23673

"DeSmog Blog editor Richard Littlemore concedes defeat"

Not quite. If you want to know what Mr. Littlemore says, you can read it for yourself at:

http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-vs-littlemore-to-think-i-could-have-been-doing-something-useful

"DeSmog Blog editor Richard Littlemore concedes defeat
Written By: transcription and analysis by James M. Taylor
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: August 18, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute"

What a lie.

Dr Andrew Glikson,
When you trot out the personal insults such as climate change denier, then be prepared to deal with the cost. You did see the evidence, didn't you Dr Glikson? Did you do too many drugs in college, there mr stoned out of his mind climate denier? You deny the evidence of climate change, that climate is changing in the direction opposite that you once claimed. There is no GHG fingerprint, Mr Denier Glikson. There has been no warming in any of the temperature datasets, Mr denier Glikson. Most datasets show cooling, all ocean datasets show cooling, mr Denier Glikson. Admit it Glickson, you never got over that paint you were sniffing. Or was it LSD? You and your paranoid save the planet buds are through. No more free government grant rides for you. Get some training in the hospitality industry, because the day of the climate scientist is soon coming to an end, mr Denier Glikson

"When you trot out the personal insults such as climate change denier," A denier is someone who will believe anything that is anti-AGW, no matter how loopy it is. You see plenty of that here. A sceptic is someone who questions something based on sound evidence. Actual evidence based scepticism is something that is lacking.

"A sceptic is someone who questions something based on sound evidence. Actual evidence based scepticism is something that is lacking."

Sophistry and incorrect.

Every scientist should be skeptical. Those who purport that their proposition is correct (eg. AGW'ers in this case) and, most especially, those who claim the "consensus" need to defend their positions. Skeptics don't need "evidence" - they merely need to show at least one, crucial error or whole in the evidence put forth by the hypothesizer. It is the AGW'ers who need the evidence, not the skeptics.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question - why are AGW computer models in that unique category of systems created by humans, which are able to predict the future? I would think that this claim alone (especially when accompanied by the "debate is over") requires substantive evidence.

Jen, a serious question. If scepticism is in the mainstream why don't any of your regular Australian contributors - Bill, Bob, David, John et al. publish in the peer reviewed science literature? Surely their "valuable" insights belong in the mainstream science literature where it can be shared with all humanity.

Please point me to the body of work they have accumulated over the last decade on climate science? I'm guessing they out-number climate scientists about 10 to 1 in newspaper column space, but where is there published science?

It seems the cart is well ahead of your horse.

BTW northern sea ice is starting to look really sick, and July's global temperatures came in nice and hot. Seems the La Nina cold spell is over. Since January the globe has warmed nearly 0.5C - that 100C/century! (insert wink).

"Every scientist should be skeptical. Those who purport that their proposition is correct (eg. AGW'ers in this case) and, most especially, those who claim the "consensus" need to defend their positions. Skeptics don't need "evidence" - they merely need to show at least one, crucial error or whole in the evidence put forth by the hypothesizer. It is the AGW'ers who need the evidence, not the skeptics."

They are sceptical, someone has already said how there is always competition among scientists to be the one who gets it right when others get it wrong. The problem is, how are they to defend themselves against the blogosphere, in which they aren't even told if there is a serious question based on sound, accepted science being presented to them, or a Socratic Ignoramous?

A sceptic is also someone who questions an argument which is demonstrably NOT based on sound evidence.

If only we had the luxutry of debating 'sound' evidence. Problem is - you have no evidence, sound or otherwise. A model is not evidence.

Extraordinary claims, SJT.

And, the suggestion that one can predict the future ranks among the most extraordinary ever made. To my knowledge, all previous pretenders to that throne have been found to be charlatans or deluded. Which will climate modellers turn out to be, I wonder?

Dr Glikson-

Assuming you do believe that there is an URGENT need to reduce global CO2 emissions and that Australia's miniscule contribution to such emissions must likewise be URGENTLY reduced;
will you join me in promoting an URGENT Nuclear Power programme?
If not why not?

Has Today Tonight or A Current Affair covered climate skepticism yet?

I think Anna Coren interviewing Bob Carter would be compelling TV.

I guess what has changed is that economists and others are now putting an estimate on the costs of averting/minimising climate change. So people can now say WOW! halting or minimizing climate change will bite into my wallet. It's not like going to the movies and watching "An Inconvenient Truth" and proclaiming "right on Al".
So the AGW scientists are refining their models and the sceptics are asking more probing questions. We are in a new stage now.
There are massive costs involved in not doing anything, if the AGW supporters are right, and equally massive costs if the AGW supporters are wrong and governments start doing something that is unnecessary.
The ball is really at the feet of the AGW scientists. Speak a language that Joe Blow can understand (For Pete's sake our Prime Minister couldn't convey the message) and answer in simple terms the concerns of the sceptics.

Perhaps the Prime Minister and his Minister for Climate change sat through the Presentation of the WG I Report at the GMEF and UNEP GC-24 Nairobi, 6 February 2007, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/presentations.htm

It’s slide 7 has a graph showing mean annual tempretures from 1850 and the coment the “Warmest 12 years: 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, 1990, 2000” The sequence appears to be hottest to coldest.

The green paper states” The 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years”

The IPCC presentation slide 38 Projection in Future climate change has “Best estimate for low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and for high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).

The green paper states “IPCC scenarios project temperature rises between 1 and 6.4 degrees over the next century relative to 1980–99.”

"It’s slide 7 has a graph showing mean annual tempretures from 1850 and the coment the “Warmest 12 years: 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, 1990, 2000” The sequence appears to be hottest to coldest."

Yeah..yeah. Problem is, it's all bullshit.
The hottest year was 1934:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/15/science/sci-temp15

Since this false assertion about the warmest 12 years is the basis of both Rudderless and Wrong's case, does that mean they will now retract?

Your article is about US temperatures Ivan, not global temperatures.

I think Ivan was being Socratically Ironic... Right Ivan? :)
I mean it would be hard to confuse the US and the World.
You can also add 2007 to that list as well. It can go between 1998 and 2005.

It should probably be the hottest 12 years in recorded history. There was definitely hotter times in the Earth's past.

SJT,

I would say that observations about the cooling oceans and globe qualify for a healthy reason to be skeptical. Not to mention the GHG fingerprint that is missing from the observations that were noted by David Evans.

"Dr Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate research
Australian National University"

Wow! An actual Doctor talking to us. Things must be really dire for the warmers if the academics are coming out of their ivory towers and mixing it with the footsloggers in the trenches. Like the company clark and the CO's batman picking up Lee-Enfields as the Dervishes swarm over the ramparts.

Try not to shoot yourself in the foot with that thing, doc. Whoops, too late!

Still, to a warmer, "denialist" probably doesn't count as an ad hom, and

"NASA’s Chief points a finger at special interests, stating “Special interests blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of Moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link” and “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual."

doesn't really count as a conspiracy theory.

Mike you may want to check that the 'fingerprint' indicated by David Evans is actually part of AGW theory... My impression is it's just something he made up.

I don't think the oceans are cooling either - do youhave a reference for that?

David,

Your plea for the sceptics to come forth and publish in the so called peer reviewed journals is laudable. However some questions if I may:

1.Isnt this the same route that failed to detect the Hockey stick, and other deficiencies.?

2. Who decides what is to published, other than the Journals owners/share holders.?

3. Is peer review an open and transparent process like it is with medical publications.

4. If the CSIRO and BOM are to be sole source of scientific advice to the Govt, what is the publishing record of those providing this advice--if any.

5. Why does criticising the blindingly obvious require to be published in peer review anyway,or to put it another way, given the way the system works (and is funded by our tax payers), it wouldnt get a hearing anyway.

6. I will speak to my colleague the Minister for Climate Change and see if we can get any funds to do as you ask--but then that would be shooting out selves in the foot, would it not.?

BTw the answers to the questions above are:

1. Yes
2. Ultimately the shareholders.
3. Demonstrably not
4. Poor
5. It doesnt
6. Of course it would

Mike: "No more free government grant rides for you. Get some training in the hospitality industry, because the day of the climate scientist is soon coming to an end, mr Denier Glikson"

Sorry Mike, he's probably got tenure so you'll be paying for him spouting nonsense for the rest of your life! Some things really suck don't they?

"I think Ivan was being Socratically Ironic... Right Ivan? :)"

Not necessarily.
Part of the figures that went into compiling this IPCC list of hottest years (a large part, I suspect) no doubt came from the NASA figures.
The NASA figures have since been 'recalibrated' with the result that 1934 is now acknowledged as the hottest year (in the US), with four of the 10 warmest years (in the US) occurring during the 1930s.

The point being - has anyone since gone back and recalibrated the IPCC "hottest years" chart based on this revised NASA data - or isn't that important?

"I don't think the oceans are cooling either - do youhave a reference for that?"

Yeah -- the WMO.

Wow! An actual Doctor talking to us....

Anyone here recall Shorty?

"I would say that observations about the cooling oceans and globe qualify for a healthy reason to be skeptical. Not to mention the GHG fingerprint that is missing from the observations that were noted by David Evans."

The oceans aren't cooling. That was a calibration error. The paper that the 'cooling' claim was based on has been updated. For some reason, the update never made it to the denialosphere.

NT: "It should probably be the hottest 12 years in recorded history."

Then recorded history began in 1850? (as per Cinders)

Yep you AGW whacko-liars are so full of it!

Paul, "mixing it with the footsloggers in the trenches."

What trenches? Your entire post is based on name calling...
OHHHH You're being Socratically Ironic... Of course.

"The oceans aren't cooling. That was a calibration error."

Oh God! Not another "calibration error"..

Check out:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html
"Sea surface temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific were about 1.5 degrees Celsius colder than normal over the period October 2007 to March 2008."
"Between February and April 2008, a gradual weakening of the La Niña event occurred, and surface water more than 1 degree Celsius colder than normal.."

Climate myths: The oceans are cooling
17:00 16 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Le Page
PrintSendFeedsAdvertisement
See all climate myths in our special feature.

One study in 2006 suggested that the upper layers of the ocean had cooled between 2003 and 2005. The apparent cooling was very slight – just 0.02°C – but needless to say, this should not be happening if the planet is getting warmer (see Cooling oceans buck global trend).

The study was based on measurements taken by a worldwide array of floats (the Argo Network) that monitor the upper 2 kilometres of the ocean. The finding was surprising because other studies have concluded that the oceans are warming very much as predicted.

Now the authors of the 2006 study have submitted a correction (pdf format). It turns out that a fault in the software on some of the floats led to some temperature measurements being associated with the wrong depth.

Meanwhile, work by other teams suggests that the past warmth of the oceans has been overestimated. The problem was due to expendable sensors that are thrown overboard and take measurements as they sink. Some did not sink as fast as expected.

While there is still some doubt about precisely how much the oceans have warmed, they are warming. In particular, there is a strong warming trend from the 1990s onwards – just as the models predict.

If you would like to comment on this article, visit our blog.

Link to Myth : " Oceans are cooling".

From the New Scientist:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11664

"Climate myths: The oceans are cooling"

So what's the scoop here?
The WMO (the parent body of the IPCC) is deliberately lying to us about ocean cooling? They are the ones who are spreading the myths?

"The WMO (the parent body of the IPCC) is deliberately lying to us about ocean cooling? They are the ones who are spreading the myths?"

No, ignorance and the blogosphere don't necessarily mix. With some people, it's like giving razor blades to babies to play with. You are just incapable of understanding science.

"You are just incapable of understanding science."

So - let's ignore the facts that the oceans are cooling, let's just insult people for pointing it out.

Calibration errors fit into Irving Langmuire's criteria for pathological science - if a minor calibration can cause an about turn of some significant metric, then someone hasn't done a sensitivity analysis.

But the shrilling here for AGW indicates there's trouble at AGW Castle, then.

"So - let's ignore the facts that the oceans are cooling, let's just insult people for pointing it out."

A cycle of cooling and warming such as El Nino and La Nina doesn't mean the oceans are cooling, any more than nightime arriving means the climate is cooling.

There was a calibration error. It was a new technology, and some errors were to be expected. Just like the satellites, which for some reason are referred to as an impeccable temperature source, have had errors. Christy and Spencer admit it themselves.

Big trouble.
Judging by Chris Craw-fraud's dissembling comments, they have finally woken up to the fact that they have no case.

"A cycle of cooling and warming such as El Nino and La Nina doesn't mean the oceans are cooling, "

Sounds like denialist talk to me. I think I can see how a 1.5 deg SST drop over 6-8 months could be considered a mere flesh wound. I guess sudden 1.5 deg drops are an everyday occurence in this business?

Glikson did a similar thing in the GSA Journal about 12 months or so ago - put in a polemic and then just ran away. Ho hum ...

We sceptics do not deny climate change (especially we geologist sceptics), we simply ask for hard evidential proof of the anthropogenic contribution as against natural variation, preferably with testable predictions.

In this entire thread, and in a number of the previous threads, the question:

"Why have temperatures plateaued over the last decade when CO2 levels are still rising ?" has simply not been acknowledged, let alone answered.

Rudderless ducked it (not a surprise), but so have all the shrill AGW zealots here.

New Scientist (the Daily Telegraph of science publications) did give an answer: "This fact does not invalidate the GCM's or AGW predictions". Now this reads as denial.

What if (an expression favoured by the IPCC) temperatures stay levelled for another 10 or 20 years ? Theory is always modified eventually by testable fact, we can only hope this occurs sooner rather than later.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html
was published in June 2008. At the very best, it suggests (NOTE: does not predict) that ocean temperatures are down a little, possibly due to La Nina (a natural climatic forcing episode) and may eventually rise a little. No more, no less.

www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html needs to be read in conjunction with
www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/info_notes/info_44_en.html - which was issued in April.

Info Note 44 was a scurrilous piece of work - a blatant party political broadcast on behalf of the IPCC. They made all their 'predictions' in Info Note 44. They also said that "WMO is to release its next El Niño/La Niña Update in early May".

They held out as long as they could (24 June) and since they had no good news (i.e. none of their 'predictions' had paid off) I guess they felt it was best to refrain from making any more silly 'predictions'.

They did, however, admit that their models are all bullshit - so that is progress. Once they move out of denial, they can proceed on the path to recovery.

"Glikson did a similar thing in the GSA Journal about 12 months or so ago - put in a polemic and then just ran away."

Must have to justify his salary increase every 12 months. Then set the alarm and it's off back to la-la land for another year.

ex Minister for Tides I'm guessing you haven't read much of the literature. Yet another self appointed non-published non-climate expert. Peer review is a two step process - get it published - then see if it survives the post publication scrutiny.

Anyway, enough of the distractions and the bait and switch tactics. My question is a serious one.

Where is the peer reviewed published science from all these local experts? I for one would love to read it.

The Little Ice Age in Australia:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002166.html

The UN IPCC 2500 Scientists Hoax:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003213.html

The Story of the Caspar Amman Affair and the IPCC AR4 Paleoclimate Chapter:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003324.html

Ianl writes "In this entire thread, and in a number of the previous threads, the question: "Why have temperatures plateaued over the last decade when CO2 levels are still rising ?" has simply not been acknowledged, let alone answered."

I don't recall it being asked. Here is the answer:

La Niña.

That didn't hurt a bit, did it?

For more detail, start with wiki:

Recent occurrences
There was a strong La Niña episode during 1988-1989. La Niña also formed in 1995, and in 1999-2000. The last La Niña was a minor one, and occurred 2000-2001. Currently, there is a moderate La Niña, which began developing in mid-2007. NOAA confirmed that a moderate La Niña developed in their November El Niño/Southern Oscillation Diagnostic Discussion, and that it will likely continue into 2008. According to NOAA, "Expected La Niña impacts during November – January include a continuation of above-average precipitation over Indonesia and below-average precipitation over the central equatorial Pacific. For the contiguous United States, potential impacts include above average precipitation in the Northern Rockies, Northern California, and in southern and eastern regions of the Pacific Northwest. Below-average precipitation is expected across the southern tier, particularly in the southwestern and southeastern states."[10] In March 2008, La Niña caused a drop in sea surface temperatures over Southeast Asia by an amount of 2°C. It also caused heavy rains over Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.[11]

We know La Nina cools and El Nino warms. We know the world has generally warmed since the Little Ice Age. We know the the modern warm period is not unusual for the Holocene. What does CO2 do?

"Jennifer, I am curious: on what basis do you conclude that climate skepticism is now mainstream?"

I think that was more Socratic Irony. Certainly this: "what exactly is the IPCC position on the medieval warm period?"

has lashings of Socratic Irony, given that you can work the answer out just by reading the latest report.

Glikson has had a field day, hysterically recycling Hansen both above and at the Barry Brook blog. Hansen: “Today’s CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted.”, suggesting an “initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm ...This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades”.
What evidence is there that the climate this year is already beyond what we are all adapted to? Our Olympians seem to have done quite well even in that hellhole of real (not CO2) pollution.

"A rise of atmospheric CO2 to levels above 450 ppm inexorably involves carbon cycle feedbacks, leading the world to ice-free conditions, such as existed before 34 million years ago, raising temperatures on land to levels at which large mammals can hardly survive". We have not got there yet, and at the current rate probably won't
before 2050, while the feedbacks have yet to demonstrated by IPCC, Hansen, or Glikson, to be invariably net positive.

According to the paper “it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.” However “Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.” So by 2018 we will incur catastrophe, as there is no chance of a Kyoto II signing up China and India by then. I am open to wagers, $10,000 on Escrow deposit up front now by Glikson payable to me absent demonstrable catastrophe by 2018. I will do the same, what odds are on offer?

Hansen goes on: “the often-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius is a recipe for global disaster … Arid sub-tropical climate zones are expanding pole-ward. Already (sic) an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the ... Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.” Glikson owes it to us to give the exact coordinates of the 250 miles "expansion" of the Australian sub-tropics that has "already occurred". I assume this does not mean Adelaide has shifted down towards Anarctica, so let's have the actual coordinates, plus an explanation of "expansion". Actually it is the tropics that have been expanding southwards, so our sub-tropics have actually shrunk.

Then we come to Hansen's related statement on the 23 June, 08, to the US Congress Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming (repeated in July at the National Press Club in Washington) NASA’s Chief that “Special interests blocked transition to our renewable energy future...CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual." Well well, I see from the Oz (16 Aug) that the AFP is already being urged to arrest the CEOs of Woodside etc if they fail to meet Wong's targets (or worse if they secure exemptions?).

Seems it was just yesterday our pm Ridiculous said "that in this business there is one thing we cannot do and that is make it rain." However by spraying this diabolical guano fertilizer over everyone, our pm Ridiculous is saying he make climate. Cripes, this is a full blown sickness where hallelujah, only by the grace of Algorean science and with 300,000 immigrants per year, will we be saved. lol

Ah, more bait and switch tactics.

Paul, perhaps you might help Jen out with the list of references of peer reviewed climate science papers published by the various Australian sceptics who contribute to this site in the last decade. Lets really test this mainstream stuff.

PS as for the little ice age, please remember climate can change for more than one reason - you'll see this discussed in the IPCC reports really really early on if you care to look at them. Why pretend otherwise?

"His response is far more rational than your's, Jennifer."

This is why I abuse you people. And in the end who can say that I'm wrong to do so?

"PS as for the little ice age, please remember climate can change for more than one reason -"

No no you are an idiot David. Climate change on the decadal level happens for one reason and one reason only and this is just that the solar ouput changes.

The little ice age came about because of a preponderance of weak solar cycles. Thats just the fact of it and its easily traced.

You won't necessarily find one weak solar cycle having much of an effect. But if you see two weak solar cycles in a row you will see an effect every time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I want all of you alarmists to divide up into groups to see what the cause of you quoting the IPCC is?

1. Is it a catholic/lapsed catholic thing? Where you are brought up to go with the Pope and the church? And you got lost and substituted the UN instead?

2. Is it a commie, democratic-socialism thing? Where you are picking up your orders from the UN like your forefathers picked up the final say from Moscow?

3. Or are you merely stupid?

"One study in 2006 suggested that the upper layers of the ocean had cooled between 2003 and 2005. The apparent cooling was very slight – just 0.02°C – but needless to say, this should not be happening if the planet is getting warmer (see Cooling oceans buck global trend)."

Alright you jerk BUSTED.

This news is old hat. The record was subjected to two corrections.

Now we know that indeed there has been a slight cooling. So you went back in time to when we had the first or second correction rather than the final product.

BREAK DOWN.

SHAKE DOWN.

YOU'RE BUSTED.

David - why do you pretend the LIA and WMP weren't global in their influence? Indeed climate does continue to change, as it always has, for more than one reason.

As for the IPCC:

The Story of the Caspar Amman Affair and the IPCC AR4 Paleoclimate Chapter:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003324.html

Jen's post is about climate skepticism becoming a mainstream view, not a literature review, and shows that Rudd doesn't know what he is talking about. There isn't any literature that proves or disproves the CO2 hypothesis.

Yes David, and my cynical comments also had a serious intent.

1. If the CSIRO/BOM are the arbiters of what is good science which should go forward to the Australian Govt as representing the only advice --then what are the credentials of these people, apart from being IPCC juncket jockies.

Do they stack up to the same standards.?No they dont

2. If what constitutes good science was so clear and absolute, why are there so many who do publish such demonstrable shonks.

Hansen and Mann et al are the darlings of the scientific fraternity, but they couldnt lie straight in bed.

3. If you went looking for the science that underscores the incredibly high level of uncertainty, it is everywhere,including in the IPCC documents.

4. For eg, whilst the CSIRO was influencing State Labor govts as to the alarmist nature of AGW, (knowing full well they would turn it into a political carrot), the CSIRO was sitting on the TAR Executive Summary-WG1 that made it quite clear that a lot more work was required before anyone could draw any inferences whatsoever.

Conveniently that wasnt elaborated upon and they let various Premiers and State Environment Ministers peddle a complete alarmist con on the public, because their opposites where in the Federal govt

So spare me your pretentious calls for published science whether or not it that conforms to your world view. It is already too late even if it was available --the damage has been done.

No doubt the CSIRO/BOM budget will be suitably increased by Ruddites,as a payoff.

....and they talk about vested interests

Wasn't Glikson the weirdo academic ranting from the audience on Q&A on ABC TV a few weeks ago?
He was spouting bullshit then and appears to be doing so here. Academia needs a good cull.

NT:Mike you may want to check that the 'fingerprint' indicated by David Evans is actually part of AGW theory... My impression is it's just something he made up.

Nope it's from the IPCC, I think.

When "Doctor david" can produce a 3-monthly BoM rainfall outlook so that it is half-useful to any agricultural or industrial body in the country, then we should maybe listen to his "serious question."

ok, just some quick fixes to this socratic irony:

1. Climate Skepticism is NOT Mainstream

2. politicians listening to experts is a GOOD thing.

3. the 12 of 13 years claim is CORRECT (obviously talking about modern measured temperature)

4. GLOBAL temperature was NOT 3°C warmer during middle ages, than during the last decade. there simply is NO serious source that would make such a claim.

5 the person around here, that has been shown of having NO IDEA a lot recently, are you, Jennifer.

and talking about comments:

6 DeSmog Blog editor Richard Littlemore did NOT concede defeat. instead he spoke some success of a CONFUSION tactic.

7. as long as denialists like Ivan keep confusing GLABAL and US temperature, you are NOT mainstream.

8. the changes to the US temperature basically had ZERO influence on global temperature. the 12 of 13 hottest years claim did NOT change at all by this.

9. that temperature might PLATEU or even DROP during a ceratin timespan while CO2 is rising is to be expected. there is some RANDOM NOISE in climate. (perhaps you should go outside more often..)

10. the claim that the oceans are cooling is a MISREPRESENTATION, based on a few, MISUNDERSTOOD datapoints.

You see you are lying sod. Our side has more scientists than you. Many thousands signed the Oregon petition. The only scientist on your side is Lovelock

So its mainstream about 32000-to-1.

That mantra about the consensus is indeed just one more lie and Dr Marohasy has it right whereas you are wrong.

She's right.

You are wrong.

This is a scientific fact.

Paul how can climate scepticism be mainstream without a scientific basis? My request is simple, among all those Australian "sceptics" who blog or get quoted on this site where is their peer reviewed climate science papers? Surely you can put forward even a couple of papers from the past decade? Are you suggesting that you are above the scientific process?

Lets not bait and switch - lets really have a hard look at all the published scientific papers.

Now you are just being an idiot mate.

So you must be the lone science-fraud with the evidence than david.

WELL LETS HAVE YOUR EVIDENCE NOW YOU LYING FILTH!!!!!

Peer review and especially peer review PRE-PUBLICATION.... in the literal sense is a good thing. Because we puny humans can get too close to our own ideas and we need our buds, our smart friends to tell us what we aren't taking into account.

But Peer review in the sense that David means it has no part in epistemology. And is a leftist fraud. Since it can have no part in epistemology it can have no part in science.

This cult of peer review is the most anti-science threat thats hit the planet since stolen-money financing. Its such a disgrace.

I would be happy to get time, energy and the help of others to flesh out my ideas in a lot of areas. Obviously other people checking your work out, telling you when you are going wrong, telling you who you should be contacting and so forth...

Well this is all good stuff.

But where did you David get this idea of the cult of peer review?

Can you not think for yourself you dumb bastard?

The world is not influenced by your petty Gramscian peer review schemes. Your idea of peer review is just the communist parties "democratic socialism" concept, stolen and used to undermine science.

Peer review is just an incantation when it comes to the science fraud side of this argument. Science was NEVER about peer review. Nor could it have been. There would have been no science whatsoever with this notion of peer review on the fly.

David - I've responded to points made in some posts - not 'bait and switch.'

I post papers/studies on the blog that don't support climate alarmism - the blog is very searchable - go look - put in a key word, such as arctic, antarctic, etc. or look in climate part 2 or part 3.

Most of the high profile people expressing views, alarmist or realist, aren't climate scientists - where's Al Gore's or Tim Flannery's or Penny Wong's published climate peer reviewed papers? They use 'official science' from politicised official government bodies, including the 'Inter -governmental' panel which has demonstrably failed to provide an objective review of the published literature by a relatively small number of 'lead authors.'

The cult of peer review is a direct and mortal attack on science itself. Since no-one can any longer bridge all the specialties... since all are specialists.... the cult of peer review sets up unnecessary Chinese walls between all specialisations making everyone the laity.

Hence it atomises and destroys science. Or makes science ready for socialist coup activity.

The only cure therefore is LAITY REVIEW. Since this breaks down the barriers between the areas of specialization. Laity review thereby makes science whole again.

From a BOM (Australia) brochure http://www.bom.gov.au/info/leaflets/nino-nina.pdf:
Recent La Niña years include 1973–74 (Brisbane’s worst flooding of the 20th century), 1988–89 (vast areas of inland Australia had record rainfall in March 1989) and 1998–2000. Which is slightly different from the Wiki reference provided by James Haughton.
This means a La Nina event occured in the same year as the IPCC graphed globe's highest ever calculated mean annual temprature in 1998.
Based on rainfall pattern, 1910, 1916, 1917, 1938, 1950, 1955, 1956, 1971, 1973, 1975, were also La Niña years. Assumably these have been occuring before 1910.

Australia takes it skeptic orders from the USA.
The IP number for the "AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION" sits in Arizona. It is the same number as the IP number for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Further the Arizona host also hosts the International Climate Science Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Climate_Science_Coalition) which has strong links to the Heartland Institute and which has been spinning the Manhattan Declaration. See for yourself with IPNetInfo freeware.
Everything is preordained and coordinated by the US skeptic movement. Think for yourself Australians.

In what way don't we think for ourselves Hillary?

Actually cinders, it is the _breakdown_ of an El Nino when the heat release from oceans to atmosphere is at its greatest. The 1997/98 El Nino event, the "El Nino of the century" which swung into La Nina, released its heat in 1998 and, added to the long term warming trend, made it one of the warmest years on record, arguably indistinguishable from 2005.

The year 2005 is more scarey though, as it was so incredibly warm and yet not a year of significant equatorial Pacific heat release.

BTW: is it just me, or is Graeme's use of the terms "idiot", "dumb bastard" and "lying filth" for David, inappropriate?

"The only cure therefore is LAITY REVIEW. Since this breaks down the barriers between the areas of specialization. Laity review thereby makes science whole again."

I find it hard enough to understand what the papers are even about most of the time, let alone understand them in depth. Curiously enough, a denier piece of rubbish always stands out as such.

here's the people behind the International Climate Science Coalition - they are "international" as the title suggests, note the aussies ;)

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28

BTW - a host is a computer somewhere.

Andrew Glikson

The Chinese and the Indians say they will address GHG when their per capita footprint is the same as the those of us in the developed countries. Till then they have license to increase rapidly. The Russians and many other countries have important influential scientists who are very skeptical. KYOTO is trivial when you look at the enormity of the problem you describe but even that is unlikely to be achieved. If as you say we have 10 years isn't the logical conclusion that we are stuffed!

sod,

SJT refuses to tell me why he believes he can predict the future. Maybe you have a good rationale?

Tim Curtin,

Sent that letter to Nature yet ?

According to the AMSU satellites, a fairly steady planetary cooling is apparent.

Arctic Ice is present in much larger quantities than last year. Ditto Antarctic Ice - bearing in mind that ice extent last year was a record since measurements began.

The sun is dangerously quiet. The PDO has just turned to its "COLD" phase.

AGW theory may prove to represent the largest scientific stuff up of all time.

'BTW: is it just me, or is Graeme's use of the terms "idiot", "dumb bastard" and "lying filth" for David, inappropriate?'

Yes it is. And Marohasy's continued unmoderated hosting of this piece of unhinged, crackpot, internet vermin undermines her own credibility.

Or it would if she actually had any left after this week's debacles.

I think we can safely say this blog has now officially left Earth to the tender mercies of actual science, and is residing somewhere in the vicinity of Ming The Merciless on the Planet Mongo.

"http://climatesci.org/2008/07/15/recent-ignored-scientific-findings-an-illustration-of-a-broken-scientific-method/"

What about this lot then ---

Hillary

As it only requires one fact to falsify an hypothesis, of which you have stated in your post here, I, as a well known climate sceptic, refute your hypothesis emphatically.

'BTW: is it just me, or is Graeme's use of the terms "idiot", "dumb bastard" and "lying filth" for David, inappropriate?'

Seems pretty reasonable to me -- which of them do you object to?

Thanks for that Malcolm.

As that bloke can barely string two coherent sentences together I feel quite comfortable in rejecting any invitation to waste more than 10 seconds of my life at that site:

"The following are the comments I sent in concerning the recent CCSP draft report."

Right Perfesser.

Chris W - will do after I have seen your own published contributions to enlightenment. Play the comments I made, not me.

"As that bloke can barely string two coherent sentences together.."

He seems to do a bit better than the following illiterate example from sod, above, who can't string a single coherent sentence together:

"5 the person around here, that has been shown of having NO IDEA a lot recently, are you, Jennifer."

Interesting - usually a sinking ship has its quota of deserting rats and lo, behold, they have arrived here as abominating posters hiding behind, usually, nondescript pseudonyms.

The resident mice, Ender, Luke, and part time rat or mouse, depending on whatever, SJW, seem to be in awe of the rat swarm.

Father rat, AKA Gavin, pontificates from his customary ratheap.

In the meantime the Russians, playing a subtle game in Georgia, have the West by their 'energy' bolls, (to paraphrase a Steven Seagal movie), and all because of the western belief in fossil fuel versus the Russian in abiotic oil.

We live in interesting times.

"According to the AMSU satellites, a fairly steady planetary cooling is apparent.

Arctic Ice is present in much larger quantities than last year. Ditto Antarctic Ice - bearing in mind that ice extent last year was a record since measurements began.

The sun is dangerously quiet. The PDO has just turned to its "COLD" phase.

AGW theory may prove to represent the largest scientific stuff up of all time."

So, let me get this clear, you and many other denialists are predicting an ice age?

"Chris W - will do after I have seen your own published contributions to enlightenment. Play the comments I made, not me."

Illogical, superstitious, peer review idiot-goon. The cult of peer review has NOTHING to do with science you idiot. Its a disgusting, Leninist anti-science notion. Its part of the current science fraud.

"Yes it is. And Marohasy's continued unmoderated hosting of this piece of unhinged, crackpot, internet vermin undermines her own credibility."

Step outside you jerk.

Always remember. You have been taken in by totally blatant science fraud. You sir are an idiot.

"Interesting - usually a sinking ship has its quota of deserting rats.."

Louis,
Interesting observation - although in this case, I think it is actually the sinking ship that is deserting the rats. Me and a few colleagues were discussing this today. We reckon there is a big business opportunity for Kevin Rudd's wife to set up an outplacement agency to find employment opportunities for all the gubmint science goofballs that are going to be thrown out on their ears when this whole piece of AGW shit implodes.

The problem is - apart from taxi driving - what other industry actually looks for people who snarl abuse at the punters who put money in their pockets?

"e seems to do a bit better than the following illiterate example from sod, above, who can't string a single coherent sentence together:"

--------------------

i am really sorry for my poor english.

but as you didn t try to contradict what i said about Jennifer, i guess you agree with me?

Glikson's comment is a farrago; the 5th paragraph mirrors the language of the recent CSIRO report, "Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report"; this report was subject to a detailed analysis by David Stockwell which found it to be hyperbolic and inconsistent with actual climate history and trends; this should not come as a surprise; Warwick Hughes has for some time been exposing the dismal record of both CSIRO and BOM in respect of not only forecasting and hindcasting; some time ago, on this site I examined dozens of BoM climate data sites and found no evidence of the dire predictions that enthrall the AGW disciples and informs the AGW brand-name; needless to say McIntrye's and Watts's exposes of the obfuscations and manipulations at NASAGISS compound this justified perception of misrepresentation and, in the case of Mann, Ammann and Wahl, outright fraud; as a result the claims of temperature increase throughout the 20th century are problematic, as are the claims that the hottest periods in recent history have occurred recently; noone has satisfactorily addressed the issue of base-period taint.

All this goes hand in hand with a censorious, morally outraged condemnation of opposition to the orthodoxy; we saw a prime example of this with Hamilton's indignant exit from Online Opinion after John McLean had his piece published about the dearth of 'scientists' actually responsible for the IPCC reports. In fact the whole Oreskes consensus nonsense will not die; as if scienctific validity was by popularity; the other side of the coin to this is the reprehensible ad hom attacks on decent scientists who disagree; from Peiser, Monckton, Spencer, Parkes, Carter, Evans, Lindzner, Christy, Michaels, Douglass, Loehe; all this at a time when Hansen is hysterical about the end of the world, and Australia's own oracle of the apocalypse, Falannery can advocate this;

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html

And Glikson, no doubt an advocate of the Pascal's Wager rubbish, can blithely gibber about $10 trillion; the man should have copies of Lomborg's books, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It" stapled to this forehead; it's times like this that I can inderstand Graeme's anger.

A point to finish; SJT, as usual, is spreading disinformation, a Takfir like tactic approved by AGW zealots, about the oceans; that's an interesting one; here's Johnson's 2006 paper;

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027033.shtml

And here is the latter corrected one;

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_bias_itech_v3.pdf

How can anyone believe such revision where prior cooling is now "no significant warming or cooling"?

There are plenty of deserving candidates for indictment in this affair; the zealots and the spivs can be understood, and issues of sanity apply to some so-called scientists, but in respect of many of the pro-AGW scientists the issue is one of integrity not only about the research but the transparency of the debate.

So have you got that evidence SOD you science-fraud imbecile?

"but as you didn t try to contradict what i said about Jennifer, i guess you agree with me?"

I will need to get my 5-year-old to explain what it is you are trying to say before I pass comment on that one. Hang on.

Anyway where's Cohenite? A pretty interesting round the traps on things decadal in latest New Scientist. Detecting your AGW amongst this might be fun.

says ....

"What's more, there is growing evidence linking the AMO to climatic trends on land, even in areas far from the Atlantic. Decades-long fluctuations in the intensity of the Indian monsoon rains, droughts in the region of west Africa called the Sahel and even the numbers of Atlantic hurricanes all seem to depend on the AMO. Droughts in the western US, including the 1930s Dust Bowl and low river levels in the 1990s, all happened during its positive phase.

So what does the future hold? If the AMO stays positive in the coming decade, it will increase summer rainfall over India and the Sahel - and increase Atlantic hurricane activity. However, the AMO may be poised to turn negative, says Rowan Sutton of the Walker Institute at Reading University, UK, who has studied the phenomenon in detail.

The thermohaline circulation is driven by the sinking of cold, salty water near the Arctic. Its strength, and thus the phase of the AMO, seems to depend on what happens in the waters between Greenland and Scandinavia. "There is evidence that we can sometimes predict the changes up to 10 years ahead," Sutton says.

Meanwhile, the PDO has already been negative for the past couple of years. If both ocean fluctuations were to be in a negative phase over the next few years, things will be very different.

For starters, there will be a slowdown in the rapid warming seen around the Arctic and North Atlantic in recent years. The rapid fall in the extent of sea ice in summer - which has been happening much faster than predicted - could slow and perhaps even reverse.

A temporary respite
Droughts could return to India and the Sahel, but for the parched American west there could be a desperately needed respite. On current trends, the great reservoirs on the Colorado river that sustain western cities like San Diego and Phoenix could be dry within a decade. "We are stunned at the magnitude of the problem, and how fast it is coming at us," says Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. If the AMO enters a negative phase, then the river may live on.

Some also predict a decline in hurricane activity in the Atlantic. But Michael Mann of Penn State University says some things attributed to the AMO are more likely a result of global warming. He thinks the AMO has little influence on tropical sea temperatures, so he predicts that Atlantic hurricanes will intensify even if the AMO is negative. We will have to wait and see.

AND JAW DROP FOR PDO-o-philes

Even if the various "model initialisation" problems can be solved, is it really possible to predict how the oceans will behave so far in advance? According to David Battisti at the University of Washington in Seattle, who specialises in studying natural variability, there's a growing consensus that the PDO is just the mid-latitude "debris" left by the past two or three El Niños or La Niñas. If this is right, it means the PDO cannot be predicted long in advance.

"There is no predictability in the Pacific," he says. "If there's any hope for predicting natural variability, it's in the Atlantic." Even there, Battisti thinks it will only be possible to make accurate decadal forecasts for tropical regions where there is far less variability from year to year than in higher latitudes.

Left over debris eh?

oh yea and locally ....

The long-standing droughts in Australia could be due to persistently low sea surface temperatures to the north of country, relative to warmer water in the Indian Ocean, say Wenju Cai and Tim Cowan of the CSIRO marine and atmospheric research centre in Aspendale, Victoria.

Heaps more in the actual article. But got me thinking more on AGW x decadal interactions.

Cohenite - if you're supporting Bird you deserve to have your bum kicked from Newcastle to Maitland. Have you lost it man. Now get out of the cesspit and back onto the science where you belong.

Evidence Luke. Don't get distracted.

That little chit chat you are talking about is just the normal phase-changes in the weather system. And has nothing to do with CO2.

These phases will change. Since they always do. What was your point you moron Luke?

They don't have any evidence.
Chris Craw-fraud admitted this over on the "Arctic Sea Ice" thread - as follows:

Chris Craw-fraud made the claim that:
"We don't know whether the climate in North American will be 10 degrees hotter or 8 degrees hotter, but we can be pretty sure that it will more than 3 degrees hotter and less than 15 degrees hotter",

I asked him to submit his evidence to support this claim, and he came back with:
"Ivan would like me to present source information on my assertion that it is likely that temperatures in North America will be warmer by between 3º and 15º. I cite IPCC AR4, Chapter 10, page 749 as well as Figure 10.8."

I then pointed out that:
If you read page 749, it says -- quite clearly -- at the top of the page: "The future climate change results assessed in this chapter are based on a hierarchy of models.." and I also pointed out that a model is not conclusive evidence.

I further pointed out that the WMO acknowledged that their models were unreliable:
"While some modest return of cooling is possible over the next few weeks, the main message from prediction models and expert interpretation is that near-neutral conditions should be considered the most likely outcome for mid-year or shortly thereafter." [All the while remembering that this is not what was predicted in AR4].
..and asked him what impact this latest data would have on Figure 10.8, on which he places so much credence.

Chris Craw-fraud answered none of these questions, and instead went into Olympic Gold Medal dissembling mode:
"Then you object that I relied upon models for that evidence -- you want actual data. The problem is, I don't have a time machine that allows me to travel into the future to collect the data you demand. If we want to predict the future, we have to plug data from the past into a model to predict the future." [All the while remembering the word 'unequivocal'].

So there you have it - the whole AGW case in a nutshell:
- "how dare you ask for actual data",
- "we don't have actual data, we have a model",
- "we don't have a time machine, ergo we have to rely on a model"
- a model which the WMO acknowledges is unreliable and faulty.

And based on all this, some other drooling fool bumbles in and wants to piss another $10 trillion dollars down the drain chasing this rainbow.

Really the problem is with conservative types or skeptics failing to call this a science fraud. Pretending that this is some sort of honest disagreement. If we all just acknowledged this as science fraud every time we spoke about it than the whole racket would collapse pretty quickly.

This fraud cannot really survive without all these erroneous concessions that a lot of weak-minded yet sober-minded people make. Even people like Lomborg fall over themselves to make one concession or another.

The AGW hoax is just a marketing ploy by the nuclear industry...

it could be gaining traction;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2340638.htm

luke; going to bed; Bob Tisdale did a very interesting post about the PDO being an ENSO residual, but he's found about a dozen more large climatic patterns; please avoid quoting Mann, and don't forget the sun is now officially a dud.

Just a note for bystanders: because of his ungentlemanly behavior, I have decided not to respond to anything that Ivan writes. If anybody else (well, other than Graeme) would like to discuss any of these issues, I'd be happy to engage them in a detailed discussion.

Jennifer,

All you can offer is 60 minutes! That is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The International Geological Congress in Oslo recently:

August 19, 2008 -- A major international scientific conference prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. The International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14. [The conference was criticized by the activists at RealClimate.org (who apparently are threatened by any challenges to their version of ‘consensus’ on global warming science) for being too balanced and allowing skeptical scientists to have a forum. RealClimate’s Rasmus E. Benestad lamented on August 19 that the actual scientific debate during the conference “seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/ ]
During the Geologic conference, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology at Punjab University and a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of Cincinnati, openly ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore and the UN IPCC’s coveted Nobel Peace Prize. [An online video of an August 8, 2008, conference climate change panel has been posted and is a must-see video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See: http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&PageID=5100&ContainerID=11823&ObjectID=12520 ]

“I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” Ahluwalia, a fellow of the Geological Society of India, said during a question and answer panel discussion. [Ahluwalia’s remarks can be viewed beginning at 22:14 of the online video] - [ Ahluwalia’s full bio here: http://arundeep.ahluwalia.googlepages.com/cvarunahluwalia,professorofgeology ]

A Canadian paleoclimatolgist/sedimentary geologist openly dissented from UN IPCC views during the panel’s Q & A session. “I think the scientific community is putting way too much faith on these models, especially given the fact that they have not been able to predict 5-day weather forecasts yet and weather systems are simpler than the climate, and every 5 days they have a chance to test the model and improve it,” the Canadian scientist said. [ At 43:30 and 44:35 of online video]
“A lot of the predictions made by modelers and models do not match very well to the longer term geologic record and even more scary, most atmospheric scientists are not aware of that,” he explained.
‘For how many years must cooling go on?’
Another scientist stood up to a key question about the recent global cooling trend.
“We know temperature goes up and down, we know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand -- we politicians and scientists-- that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” the scientist asked to applause from the audience.

Chris Crawford:
I don't think you are worth getting in to a detailed discussion with. This may really belong on the Kininmonth thread but sticking to the point seems rare here, so here goes:

On the last Kininmonth thread you made the following statements:

Marco, Mr. Kininmonth has gotten the sums mixed up. The earth's surface does not retain 66 Wm**-2 -- if it did, it would heat up very rapidly. Place your face next to a 100W light bulb and your face will be absorbing maybe 20 watts -- see how quickly your skin burns!

To understand the diagram, just go through it step by step, tracing the power flow. It all adds up if you keep the parts straight. Mr. Kininmonth has gotten them mixed up.

Posted by: Chris Crawford at August 19, 2008 03:30 AM

Yes, his 66 watts comes out of nowhere. I'm sure that, if we dig around, adding and subtracting pairs of numbers selected from the entire set of numbers on the graph, we'll eventually find a combination that yields 66. But the logic behind that combination is unlikely to make sense. But perhaps we should give Mr. Hininmonth the opportunity to himself explain where the 66 came from.
--------------------
You are obviously incapable of simple reading comprehension or couldn't be bothered actually reading what he said. Bill Kininmonth actually explains that if you read what he says.
He says that there is a *radiative* imbalance at the surface. Evapotranspiration and convection balance this.

It is interesting that he draws so much derision from you as the diagram he uses from Kiehl and Trenberth has been used by the IPCC I'm sure and he actually doesn't deny the existence of greenhouse gases or the warming effect of increases thereof, just the magnitude of the effect.
In his previous thread he explains his rough "back of the envelope" calculation as to why he thinks the magnitude is much less, even including feedbacks, than the IPCC accepts from the GCM outputs. He even identifies the factor he thinks they got wrong (and presents references based in physics for this) and I've not seen anyone here present evidence that he is wrong in this. That is what should have been discussed.
All he got instead was abuse from the likes of SJT and yourself.

Sure his calculation was a first cut but that's what you do for any problem. If your more detailed analysis (GCMs) turns up a result that is vastly different from this(and in the warming estimates we're talking about an order of magnitude) then you would want to find out why and where this occurs.

Are you the computer games designer Chris Crawford?

Eyrie: "Are you the computer games designer Chris Crawford?"

Why does it matter?

Well Eyrie - instead of shadow boxing he should get published ASAP. As has been said, the great dearth of any serious sceptical publications is problematic for sceptics.

"Just a note for bystanders: because of his ungentlemanly behavior, I have decided not to respond to anything that Ivan writes. If anybody else (well, other than Graeme) would like to discuss any of these issues, I'd be happy to engage them in a detailed discussion."

Unfortunately, the list of deniers worth talking to here gets shorter and shorter the longer you are here. They don't like being told they are wrong, and react accordingly.

Luke,

We are not concerned with the great dearth of sceptical publications on AGW - it isn't science to start with, hence the lack of proper scientific papers.

Louis Hissink presents the following quote from a Canadian Canadian paleoclimatolgist/sedimentary geologist:

“I think the scientific community is putting way too much faith on these models, especially given the fact that they have not been able to predict 5-day weather forecasts yet and weather systems are simpler than the climate... "

This provides a good example of why I have written so many times that you should not trust any individual scientist. Here we have a geologist criticizing climatological models. Does he have any expertise in climate modeling? No, they don't use that kind of modeling in his field. So he has no special expertise in this problem. If we had an entire geological society making a statement to that effect, it might be something to take seriously. But you should never place your trust in any single scientist, pro or con.

The Canadian scientist went on to say:
"A lot of the predictions made by modelers and models do not match very well to the longer term geologic record and even more scary, most atmospheric scientists are not aware of that,” he explained. "

Once again, we see that this geologist does not understand the problem. A climate model for evaluating the possible risks of climate change in the next 100 years should NOT take into account the vastly different conditions that were in place through much of geological history. It should NOT take into account ice ages because we are not contemplating an ice age in the next 100 years. One of the most important rules in good simulation is to narrow the problem as much as possible to address only what you're trying to figure out. Throwing in a bunch of irrelevant variables only confuses things. And this geologist doesn't seem to understand that simple rule.

Eyrie, you assert that the 66 watts is accounted for by evapotranspiration and convection. If you examine those parts of the diagram, you will see that convection ("thermals") accounts for 24 Wm**-2 and evapotranspiration accounts for 78 Wm**-2. Those add up to 102 Wm**-2 -- NOT 66 Wm**-2. If you can figure out where the 66 comes from, I'd love to hear the explanation. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but it's not obvious.

You take me to task for not consulting some previous thread where he cited other factors. I was not part of that discussion and, if there are some relevant factors, perhaps you or he should present them. Bouncing around between threads makes things really confusing.

Birdie
"The problem was due to expendable sensors that are thrown overboard and take measurements as they sink. Some did not sink as fast as expected."

If they relied on the rate of sink as a measure of depth, then I doubt they even knew which ocean the sensors were dropped in!

There are perfectly good, cheap pressure sensing devices available. (not that cost would have mattered, I don't think)

I think you Birdie, or someone else made this ridiculous claim up.

SJT 10.33

I am not predicting an ice age ... yet.

In the last million years, interglacials have never lasted more than about 10,500 years; guess how long this interglacial has lasted.

However, I think a reasonably good case can be made to expect significant cooling to continue over at least the next decade. How deep and long will, I suspect, depend on how quiet the sun becomes or remains.

At least one physicist, whose model has been working much better than most, expects a fall of 1.5 degrees C. This is enough to seriously curtail Northern hemisphere food output.

Have another read Crawford. Nowhere does Bill say the total *radiative* imbalance at the surface is 66 units and neither did I. You did because you didn't read it properly or failed to comprehend. He does say the net longwave imbalance is 66 units in the outgoing direction. He didn't actually say directly what the net incoming radiative imbalance at the surface is but it is balanced by the outgoing from the surface of evapotranspiration and convection of 102 units.

You owe Bill an apology and ought to pull your head in, mate.

If you can get something as simple as this wrong I doubt you'll get anything else right.

You also seem to have a strident and touchingly simplistic faith in computer models:
"One of the most important rules in good simulation is to narrow the problem as much as possible to address only what you're trying to figure out. Throwing in a bunch of irrelevant variables only confuses things."

There of course is the problem. Which variables are irrelevant? The outcome of your method will show exactly what you want it to which proves exactly nothing.

You are a little more polite and eloquent than the average AGW troll here but that's not saying much.

OK, Eyrie, are you saying that you can't figure out what the 66 means? That, after all, was my point: that there's a number in here that apparently makes no sense. If you can explain it, please do.

"There of course is the problem. Which variables are irrelevant? The outcome of your method will show exactly what you want it to which proves exactly nothing."

In the first place, nothing in science is ever proven; proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one.

By separating irrelevant variables from relevant ones, we increase the reliability of our simulation. Do you include irrelevant variables in your simulations?

Chris Crawford,

It's difficult to see what's wrong with Louis Hissink's geologist quote. Looks pretty accurate to me.

What is a computerized climate model, if not a simplistic effort to simulate the future of a complex chaotic system, starting from a point of imperfect understanding of the total number of variables involved, let alone our primitive understanding of the effect of the variables we actually know about?

No-one can predict the future, but to suggest you can predict the future using a computer model which suffers such woeful deficiencies, is laughable.

That people would seriously support and defend such a proposition is jaw-dropping.

Glikson:
"Climate denialists have a bit of an uphill battle when they have to explain why the major climate organizations (NASA, Hadley, Potsdam) including Australia (CSIRO, BOM) and University scientists are in essential agreement regarding the reality of global warming."

Fortunately science isn't decided by organizations looking for larger budgets or by political hacks like Hansen talking about 25 meters of sea level rise and death trains.

"This is, unless they invoke "ad-hominem" and conspiracy theory-based arguments."

The ad-hominem and conspiracty theory based arguments are all with the alarmists when they claim that everyone who opposes their opinion is in the pay of the oil companies.

"In a circulated paper titled “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” leading US climate scientists (J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D. Royer, J. Zachos) state: “Today’s CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted.”, "

Any hack can make a claim. These people back them up with nothing.

"A rise of atmospheric CO2 to levels above 450 ppm inexorably involves carbon cycle feedbacks,"

Carbon cycle feedbacks are present at every level, not just above 450 ppm. And the answer is - so what.

"leading the world to ice-free conditions,"

Pure speculation. There is no evidence that we will have ice conditions that are any different from what we had during the MWP or during an even warmer period, the Holocene Optimum.

"such as existed before 34 million years ago, raising temperatures on land to levels at which large mammals can hardly survive."

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. What crap.

"According to the paper"

The paper is worthless. It is unable to support any of it's predictions. Even Hansen's model is way off on it's predictions after only a short interval.

"NASA’s Chief points a finger at special interests, stating “Special interests blocked transition to our renewable energy future."

There's the warmers conspiracy theories again.

So, Glikson, what do you think about the tree ring evidence that was collected by Linah Ababneh and how it reflects on the work of the Hockey Team.

Chris:
"Does he have any expertise in climate modeling?"

No, and given the results of the climate modelers, neither do they.

Interesting article:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Please note the lead authors:

"Convening Lead Author: Tom M. L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
Lead Authors: V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; J.R. Christy, Univ. of AL
in Huntsville; J.R. Lanzante, NOAA; C.A. Mears, Remote Sensing
Systems; B.D. Santer, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland, U.K. Met Office
Abstract
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

This Synthesis and Assessment Product is an important revision to the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved. Nevertheless, the most recent observational and model evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes."

I particularly like the qualifications of the MSU data:

"Satellite data have been collected for the upper
air since 1979 with almost complete global coverage. The most important satellite records
come from Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on polar orbiting satellites. The microwave data from MSU instruments require calculations and adjustments in order to be interpreted as temperatures.
Furthermore, these satellite data do not represent the temperature at a particular level, but, rather, the average temperature over thick atmospheric layers (see Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2). As such, they cannot reveal the detailed vertical structure of temperature changes, nor do they completely isolate the troposphere from the stratosphere. Channel 2 data (mid troposphere to lower stratosphere, T2) have a latitudinally dependent contribution from the stratosphere, while Channel 4 data (lower stratosphere, T4) have a latitudinally dependent contribution from the troposphere, factors that complicate their interpretation. However, retrieval techniques can be used both to approximately isolate specific layers and to check for vertical consistency of trend patterns.

All measurement systems have inherent uncertainties associated with: the instruments
employed; changes in instrumentation; and the way local measurements are combined to produce area averages. All data sets require careful examination for instrument biases and reliability, and adjustments are made to remove
changes that might have arisen for non-climatic
reasons. We refer to these as “adjusted” data sets. The term “homogenization” is also used
to describe this adjustment procedure."

"My request is simple, among all those Australian "sceptics" who blog or get quoted on this site where is their peer reviewed climate science papers?"

Your error is to assume that being peer reviewed and published proves something. The history of the hockey teams publications proves just the opposite. It is full of cronyism, publishers with a foregone conclusion, evidence hiding, ignoring and avoidance of evidence, refusal to provide evidence, hiding of data that goes against the forgone conclusions, etc. Go read about it on Climate Audit.

"For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming."

There's a load of crap for you. The satellites and HadCru3 show no warming for the past 11 years. Mad Hansen's GISS data has diverged at a rate of .13C per decade from the others.

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

Ender:

I love this piece from your paper.

"Comparison of observed and model-simulated global-average temperature trends (left-hand panels) and trend
differences (right-hand panels) over January 1979 through December 1999,"

These morons are using a cherry picked 20 year interval to try to prove their models correct. But even after the cherry pick, they have to claim that direct measurements of the troposphere by radiosonds and the satellites are wrong in order to claim that their models are correct.

I just have to laugh at the kind of garbage that you find impressive Ender.

Ender is a socialist bigot, Tilo. He ascribes to the " values" of the unhappiness industry characterized by people like Hives Hamilton and the Australia Institute.

He's also very scared.

Chris Crawford

Richard Lindzen says the estimates in terms of the relationship between co2 and heat are about a third of what the IPCC modeling estimates suggests.

See here:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mXGB8XomyO0J:cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/Lindzen07-EnE-warm-lindz07.pdf+TAKING+GREENHOUSE+WARMING+SERIOUSLY&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&client=firefox-a
Is he also wrong.

If he is please specify where he is wrong and where. Attacking him because you don't like his beard is not going to cut it. Neither is the consensus thing. use of of those arguments and you lose.

TheWord dismisses climate models as intrinsically flawed. Can you specify which portions of the climate models you find flawed? Are you familiar with these models? If not, are you basing your conclusion on the belief that all models are always necessarily wrong? If so, why do you believe that computer models must always fail?

Tilo Weber expresses similar disdain for models: "No, and given the results of the climate modelers, neither do they."

Please state your criticisms of these models.

You later dismiss the peer reviewed literature as part of a conspiracy: "It is full of cronyism, publishers with a foregone conclusion, evidence hiding, ignoring and avoidance of evidence, refusal to provide evidence, hiding of data that goes against the forgone conclusions, etc."

I'll ask you directly: do you believe that there is a conspiracy on the part of scientists to advance the AGW hypothesis dishonestly?

Chris, the problem with the models is they are only capable of utilising what we understand. There is much we do not ...is there not? Even the IPCC admits to gaps in its knowledge when it comes to very significant factors like water vapour. There are just too many variables in something as complex as climate to be able to place much faith in models.
The evidence gathered in labs as to how the real world operates also has to be treated with sceptism because the real world is unlikely to act/ react in the same way as a "test" environment with clearly defined fixed and variable factors. So many of the inputs to our models are likely to be flawed as well as many being left out because as yet they are unknowns. The use of "fudge" numbers is freely acknowledged by modelers to allow them to match with past events....so honestly how can we place faith in their predictive capacity for the future?

Given the lack of recent warming ( on most data sets), how long do we need to see temperatures steady or decline, before co2 enhanced warming is considered a myth?

Toby writes, "There are just too many variables in something as complex as climate to be able to place much faith in models. "

OK, so which variables are being left out?

"What is a computerized climate model, if not a simplistic effort to simulate the future of a complex chaotic system, starting from a point of imperfect understanding of the total number of variables involved, let alone our primitive understanding of the effect of the variables we actually know about?"

Nothing simple about them. They aren't trying to model the weather, but the climate. That is, if I have all these inputs, what's the output going to be like in terms of temperature, etc. They won't be pretending to recreate the weather for any day, it can't be done. They can say if there is this much CO2, this much sun, this amount of particles, this many volcanoes, this much methane, etc, then there is roughly this temperature.

"Attacking him because you don't like his beard is not going to cut it. Neither is the consensus thing. use of of those arguments and you lose."

For gods sake.

"I'll ask you directly: do you believe that there is a conspiracy on the part of scientists to advance the AGW hypothesis dishonestly?"

There's no simple answer to this, as AGW is a frolic that happens at several levels. People like yourself who are prepared to lie, and dissemble and avoid the questions -- while they may not be part of any grand conspiracy as such, are clearly pushing a false proposition for their own craven purposes. I believe they would like to think that they move and shake at a level that is part of a conspiracy.

There's an old saying that you should "never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by incompetence", and I think a lot of so-called 'climate scientists' fall into this bucket - i.e. they are just too stupid or gullible to be part of a conspiracy.

I think a lot of them are second-rate scientists from second-rate institutions doing second-rate jobs who have suddenly been tapped on the shoulder and thrust into the limelight and are revelling in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. In spite of what Luke says, most of them would kill for the opportunity to visit Addis Abbaba or other out of the way places like that. They WANT to believe this AGW shit - it gives their worthless lives some meaning. When it is all over, they will return to this worthless existence, but in the meantime it will have been a fun ride. But stupidity does not constitute conspiracy.

People like Hansen, Mann, and the rest of the manipulators of the 'data' (i.e. the real criminals) are in a class of their own, though. They are definitely part of a conspiracy. If you read the story of how they set up the 1988 appearance before Congress, you can actually see the beginnings of the conspiracy. Documented fact.

The variables that we do not know about!....you don t believe we truly understand everything that drives our climate do you??
Plus of course the variables we do know about but do not really understand....like water vapour!!

Yes we are understanding more and more....but as I tell my students, the more you know...the more you know you don t know. Deferring to more knowledgeable people ( as you suggest we do)does not make them right in a choatic system.
You may not believe in the "butterfly effect", but surely you would agree there is still much to be learnt about our planet.

SJT says "if I have all these inputs, what's the output going to be like in terms of temperature", implying we have knowledge of all the inputs!.....we don t do we?

SJT

Climate is weather over a 30 year period - if you can't model weather accurately, then you certainly cannot model climate.

However using your logical, climate is not weather.

AGW is a model driven concept; its bread and butter is prediction; look at Hansen's seminal speech;

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

All doom and gloom predictions; the modelling has been doing it since 1990; look what Koutsoyiannis did to them. The crown jewel of the AGW prognostic caper is the tropospheric hot spot; an absolutely essential element of the myth; look what Monckton did to it, and this paper;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6

Look what Stockwell did with CSIRO;

http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf

Look what Vincent Gray has to say about the discontinuity of the models, and therefore AGW, and reality;

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003165

Look at Warwick Hughes' damning indictment of IPCC modelling and their predictions;

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

And still that reprehensible fool, Flannery continues to make his irresponsible predictions;

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/flannery_tries_again/

And still we get these disingenuous and dishonest defences of the models; and the dishonest attempts to validate them through manipulation of historical temperature records, Sea temperatures and the complete folly of the papers like Sherwood and Allens and Ammann and Wahl's.

I used to think that at least some scientific insights and developements would come out of this amphigory, but I fear the reputation of science will take a long time to recover.

That Vincent Gray link is here;

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003165.html

Well worth the reread.

Pretty damning to the models I'd say Cohenite!
Like you I suspect that faith in science will be severely tested, and that is not a positive outcome!

"Like you I suspect that faith in science will be severely tested.."

Nah - because it's not real science. People will forget pretty quickly. Science is something that is beyond the grasp of most people in the street. Any number of opinion surveys confirm this -- I think a recent one showed that only 7% of people professed to understand how an ETS would work, and that's the end-product of the 'science'.

Real scientists doing real research in private industry understand that this AGW 'science' is horse$hit, but they are smart enough to keep their heads down and not participate in all this hysteria. They know that at the end of the day, the man in the street is more interested in the commercial products that come out of their research than they are in anything that AGW will ever produce (which will be a big fat zero).

AGW 'science' is wholly and solely the product of gubmint science. At the end of the day, they will all close ranks - there will be a few sacrificial offerings - and it will all be swept under the carpet and forgotten. Gubmint boys are good at this sort of thing.

Nah - because it's not real science..

Remember one key point: the only (and I do mean ONLY) content that AGW has is a computer model - and a pretty faulty one at that.

Models are nothing more than computer programs. Once all this is over, Hansen's shit will be picked up and licenced by Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. The royalties will go towards buying out all the CO2 emission licences.

The games companies will then invest more money in the software, correct all the numerous bugs and many faulty logic sequences and turn it into "AGW - The Game". It's a natural - it has everything: catastrophic outcomes, intrigue, nutty scientists, evil skeptics, bent politicians, and so on. It will be so big, they will bring Harrison Ford out of retirement to make "Indiana Jones and the Melting Icecaps".

It will be the ultimate distraction to take peoples minds of the failure of science. Bread and circuses for all!

Chris Crawford said:-
"TheWord dismisses climate models as intrinsically flawed. Can you specify which portions of the climate models you find flawed? Are you familiar with these models? If not, are you basing your conclusion on the belief that all models are always necessarily wrong? If so, why do you believe that computer models must always fail?"

Chris, the flaws are many and many of them, the posters above have addressed. However, there is one, fundamental flaw (the real "Emperor Has No Clothes" flaw), which frustrates me no end and which should be blindingly apparent: they attempt to predict the future.

You can't do that! Not unless you have a closed system where you understand (and possibly can direct) every single variable involved and can guarantee that no exogenous event will come along to disturb it.

Climate is far, far removed from such a system and well and truly in the realm of predicting the future of a vastly complex and little-understood system. Worst of all, the claim is that it is somehow an advantage of the models that they don't/can't predict what will happen in the next week/month, because that somehow makes them more accurate on a decadal/centennial level! Hello!! Has anybody studied logic in the past twenty years?

[BTW, if someone came to me with a climate model which said temperatures would decline for the next 100 years, into a new ice age, I'd greet them with exactly the same response: "Rubbish! Tell me why you think you can predict the future?]

I can't believe the puerile utter bullshit written by Ivan (10987654321 and my brain imploded) and Cohenite in recent threads. What a bunch of fuckleberries. No wonder there are earthquakes guys - get enough wankers on the planet in sync and you'll set up an harmonic wave.

Jeez Tim,

You're certainly living up to my low expectations of denialist follow through.

You were blowing pretty hard the other day on BraveNewClimate ... what happened to the guy who had the wood on Domingues?

The mere thought of publishing your stunning rebuttal in a authoritative journal seems to have left you spent.

luke; what are you trying to say? The signal is very weak like the anthropogenic signal in the climate patterns; oops, no, no signal, just rude noise.