So we have reached the point where debate on public policy is based on "my scientist is better than your scientist!".

Is this argument different from the schoolyard taunt "My dad is bigger than your dad"?

Oh come now -- I'm sure these are the LEADING anthropologists on climatology!

Ellie, don't you mean "leading web designers and administrative assistants on climatology?"

The point John, is that we who question the assertions of the proponents of global warming simply want some honesty when it comes to who is qualified to speak on the subject and who is not. When they trot out 50 people and assert that they are "qualified" to speak on the subject but upon closer scrutiny only 20 (and maybe only 10) actually appear to have some qualification then you'll have to forgive us naysayers for our skepticism. We just want to hold the other side to the same standard that they hold us to.

Its the old saying, isn't it - If you can't dazzle them with brilliance you can always baffle them with bullshit.

So, the leftards want us to radically change our way of life, based on the words of people who are not qualified to read the weather on the nightly news(and I would include the moronic fruit fly guy in that group), let alone predict the weather for the next 100 years.

Give me a break, u leftard idiots, and get the f@#$ out of my wallet.

BTW....happy new year to all of my mouth breathing, knuckle dragging friends here at SDA.

Trolls, leftards, moonbats and libranos. Go f@#$ yourselves silly.....idiots!

john - it isn't debate on public policy, but debate on the validity of the evidence on which to base public policy.

If the evidence for 'human-caused global warming' is unreliable and even fallacious, then, public policy based on such, is harmful.

When you read that the so-called experts promoting this AGW have no expertise in the field, you must be cautious. And sceptical. When you read the work of experts in the field who dispute the so-called 'consensus' and also, are aware of how the IPCC is attempting to reject public awareness of their concerns - public policy must be cautious.

What we are finding out now, is that the AGW is actually not about climate change but is a money scheme. Normal UN behaviour - it's all about getting money from the G8 West to the G77, who make up most of the member 'states' of the UN, and who, in large part, are despotic underdeveloped states with autocratic leaders focused on gaining personal wealth rather than actually developing their nations.

Not only is it about money transference, it's about money transference without responsibility. The so-called 'developing nations' have stated, publicly, that they have no intention of abiding by emission or pollution constraints. They want the money to industrialize in the cheapest and most polluting manner they can.

The UN-IPCC has zilch to do with the climate. It's a deeply corrupt money scheme.

...and some people wonder why I am contemptuous of the whole process. Too many intellectually deficient people have too much time on their hands, and instead of doing something sensible in their own fields, decide to play in areas beyond their competency.

Most working scientists and engineers in their early to mid-careers do not have the time to get involved. Research is all-consuming, and it is difficult enough to make time for long-suffering friends and family.

I’d rant on the proper focus, but I’m busy (exams - ugh). Suffice it to say, one needs to consider the whole power lifecycle, not just one component, and include social and geopolitical factors.

Its nice to see Canada's biggest buffoon BigCityLib chiming in in the comments at the link.

Hilarious.

Glad you posted this one Kate.

The "2500 scientists are right and you are not an expert" attack is always the last resort of a believer when one has demolished and ridiculed their beliefs. This article provides a defence against this attack; it should be printed out and carried in one's pocket.

The other defense is the "Klaus defence". Czeck president Klaus says he doesn't need to be an "expert"; it is enough to be able to read and digest evidence and employ logic. This one is always a little harder to make after a few beers.

John @9.22 AM:

"So we have reached the point where debate on public policy is based on "my scientist is better than your scientist!".

Yes it is a juvenile argument, employed by the warmerenizers when the argument gets too hot for them. See my post above.

John doesn't care. He's of the distinctly liberal type that even if Barney Rubble, Donald Duck and Wily E. Coyote wrote the report he'd believe it.

kingstonlad said it best.

It's a great idea to get the credentials of the IPCC "scientists" out in the open before we waste a lot of money on a problem that may not exist. Maybe our PM was right all along about it being a "socialist money-sucking scheme". Wouldn't surprise me at all.

A year or so +, you had a link to a fella who looked at he famous list of the IPCC's 2500 scientists and found there were 2500 names but only about 700 unique people.

Can't recall when it was . . .

Well,I'm not a 'climate scientist' either....my degree is in Poli Sci...but as the only person ever kicked out of the Mensa Society(please forgive my towering immodesty),I'm at least as intellectually qualified to render an informed opinion about so called 'global warming' as anAL GOREtentive is...I've studied the Milankovich variations and the most recent hard data concerning atmospheric temparatures (no measurable increase on average in nearly 10 years)and I continue to give the horse laugh to any of the AGW proponents who insist on engaging in ad hominen attacks on skeptics like myself rather than trying to refute the arguments we put forth....that alone should tell most people what a scam anAL GOREtentive and his acolytes are perpetrating....the goal of which is apparently a triumphant return to the 18th century...at least in technological and economic terms....why anyone would accept at face value the intellectual panty wetting of a fat,greedy clown who isn't man enough to apologize to the American people for trying to steal the 2000 Presidential election is a mystery to me....especially since he would rather peddle indulgences in the form of 'carbon credits' instead of dialing back his own energy consumption ....anAL GOREtentive and the rest of the 'true believers' need to set an example for the rest of us by doing what is right and intellectually honest...they should sell their cars and jets and kill themselves.

"Remember." We'd better, because it's only a matter of time before something else is pulled. (Mr. Spock isn't likely to pull us out of the next one.)

It's interesting in the US section that only 17 of 70 contributors were actual earth/atmosphere scientists. It seems the bulk of the IPCC's work is focused on pushing the ramifications of runaway anthropogenic warming rather than providing the empirical evidence that it's actually occurring.

The planet's surface hasn't warmed for almost seven years now, and the troposphere -- where the CO2 theory calls for the most warming -- hasn't warmed at all. I wonder how long the computer modelers will be able to hold out against this lack of empirical data?

Here's why their credentials (or lack thereof) are highly relevent in this case:

They're saying "trust us, we're the true 'experts' in this feild, we've reached a 'consensus' and we're to be believed unquestioningly".

What they're NOT saying is "see these studies, come and verify them for yourselves, use the scientific method to attempt to disprove and disseminate according to your own scientific judgement as to its merit".

To question who these self described "experts" actually are, is not only a proper method of scrutiny in the circumstances, its the only method.

Or, to put it more bluntly, they asked for it.

The AGW/IPCC pushers aren't going to debate the issue, it is framed the way they want right now. Kyoto is where Marxism meets Ecohysteria, which meets anti-modernity, which meets anti-humanity.

They have what they want all packaged up neatly. They get their world govenance (and money, lots of it); they get their environment as number one issue; they get to put down the West; and, they get lots of clients in return for their hysteria.

The truly silly part is their knee-jerk insistence on the infallibility of AGW theory. If the refocussed their efforts on actual pollution, a hugely weak part of their argument would disappear. While it is quite debatabe, IMO, that humans are warming the planet, it is obvious that we are polluting the planet.

A proper international initiative to find an alternative fuel source to oil and its derivatives, would do way more good that Kyoto (hint: it would actually help the environment, rather than help destroy it). Using funds to reduce suffering in the G77 would do way more than Kyoto.

But, no the ecomarxists object, there are two problems with this common sense approach. No screwing the West ("they started it, they started it"), in fact they would be integral partners in this effort. Second, their dream of an omnipotent world government would disappear. So, no deal - and that is why many AGW proponents (yes, many of whom are trying to do the righ thing) stubbornly stick with this theory, despite almost daily revelations of its deep flaws.

It's not a conspiracy in the classical sense of the term - it's a mindset, a way of thinking. Consider the hysteria around Y2K, and you get an idea of my argument. It has become rigid and intolerant.

This argument has two fatal flaws. First, the doctrinaire ecomarxist is emotionally prevented from ever considering nuclear power as a infrastructure power alternative, despite its safe use in Europe for decades. Second, when the public debate inevitably turns to actual pollution, the Kyoto crowd (Mo Strong, Al Gore, Stephane Dion, David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver, James Hansen and many others) will be caught like a deer in the headlights, unable to alter their doctrine because that would mean agreeing and working with those they find objectionable (Western way of life in general, the "easy money," enterepreneurs and so on).

That is why Patrick Moore broke with Greenpeace. That is why we have moved from the seminar room to "settled science." That is why Dion and others have yet to offer a plan for Canada to comply with Kyoto. They're trying to smoke this one by us, without truly realizing the vast majority of people are concrned about G77 pollution, particularly China.

The voter will never go for this because Harper and the blogosphere won't allow the self appointed triad-elite (MSM, academics and bureaucrats who owe their careers to the statist LPC cause) to bully them on this one. Just try to make them take shorter showers. Dion cannot resonate on this issue, the best he can do is scare the s**t of of city dwellers to prevent Tory majority.

I know this sounds cynical, but we might as well set the parameters of discusion (on the front porch, not the evening news) right now, for the likely spring 08 election.

Happy New Year everyone and don't worry - the Kyotoites won't prevail, but at the same time we won't throw out the baby with the bath water - you will see actionable environmental policies, not endless discussions while Chinese emissions growth outpaces several industrialized countries'.

The eco-marxists do want world government, but not an 18th century age of reason. Rather, somewhere between Kim's Korea and Pol Pot's Year Zero.

"So we have reached the point where debate on public policy is based on "my scientist is better than your scientist!".

You seem to be missing the point entirely....

What debate?

Which is why my instincts have told me right FROM THE START that MMGW is BULLSHIT and completely unproven.

People who truly possess accurate and irrefutable evidence of something actually welcome opposing opinion as it gives them the opportunity to repeatedly demonstrate their evidence as strong and correct.

Those who hide from debate,declare a topic closed,then attack the integrity of anyone with an opposing viewpoint have CLEARLY SOMETHING TO HIDE.

You don't have to be a phsycology major to understand that simple fact of human nature.

Wake the f**k up because the wheels WILL eventually come off the MMGW wagon.
I know this because it's the only thing the actions of MMGW supporters have actually proven
to me.

How much are WE paying the fruit fly doc to do his shtick on OUR National Network?

I do not wish to pay another penny to employ any charlatans to expound on Global Warming, the great hoax of the century, whipped up to a frenzy up by the Leftist/Socialist hoards.

Liz J. - Fruity has a job running his own "charity", paid for by suckers who tax deduct their charitable donations, in effect making you pay for their gulibility. The tax burden is spread around. Dr Fruitfly then breaks the law, almost but just not quite enough to lose his charitable status, by preaching a one-sided, "political" message on AGW and Big Bad Oil. Very slick!

With a possible election in a few months, and Lizzy May and Dion thinking Kyoto is going to make canadians vote against PMSH, we should all get the names of these so called experts to the War Room, and ask specific questions to Dion and May about these people. Drop names and see if they even know who they are.
And when did Gore become a scientist. Just wait for him to be declared a cult leader.

Mary, Gore is no where near a scientist. He refuses to appear anywhere he might be asked any questions because he has no answers. He's been pushing what's been scripted for him to sermonize and that's all.

And in the meantime..a Norweigan cruise ship hits one of those 'disappearing' ice-bergs in Antarctica (from Nat.Newswatch).See,if that GW sped up,this wouldn't be happening.

I've always said that a bit of AGW would be good for Canada, think of all that newly climatically favorable territory to plant food crops to feed the world. Oh, I forgot, the plan is to kill us all off and leave the planet for the politically correct elites.

The science is specious and in deep controversy, the politics are rash and hysterical.

The whole AGW ardument at a partisan level amounts to nothing more than 2 groups of technocrats arguing over who will fleece the middle class wealth engine and by how much...To the benefit of our global comeptition/enemies (Dipper), until the productivity gap between Alberta and Quebec has been nullified (Librano)

The fact the CPC is even offering any credence to AGW or GW doomsday hysteria tells me someone in the party is pimping it out to the envio-fear profiteers in the CFR and the Trilaterals.

Frankly until there is absolute concrete fact that we must make ANY change at all which will have the least bit of impact on a natural climate cycle, I refuse to render ANY tax or effort what so ever to AGW fanaticism.

There is no consensus, but

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

all agree on anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

Raphael, of course they do. They depend on the public fear to demand funding for more studies.

"all agree on anthropogenic climate change."

NO THEY DON'T...CHECK AGAIN.

The largest factor in a democratic nation is that I don't buy it and neither do a lot of other people and anyone who wants to radically endanger my economic and democratic security on such a flimsy theory better be ready for more trouble than they ever envisioned.

Can you save Al Gore?

Prize money now $150 K.

Raphael

Did you notice before you posted that your list is comprised of 'societies' and not actual scientists? Societies are comprised of individuals some of whom are experts in the field most are not expert in the field. So rather than doing actual experiments and comparing actual untainted data we are going to have a vote on whether the theory has merit or not.

I'm impressed. NOT

Raphael @4.14PM,

So government sponsored institutions have decided what the facts are. Well, aren't these bodies political bodies, answering to their political pay masters.

Do they not have a vested interest in lying - at least until the political environment changes.

Remember Lysenkoism? Or the Nazi Government's ignorance of "Jewish" atomic science.

These organisations, and their employees, are in the pay of Big Government...and I bet you implicitly accuse me of being in the pay of Big oil of being in the pay of Big Oil. Huh!

Did you notice before you posted that your list is comprised of 'societies' and not actual scientists?

Bingo! It's like that phrase "society thinks", or to be more current, "society feels".

Quoth the IPCC: "HEY! Morons! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Watch closely as I pull another pretty pink rabbit out of my hat."

Thus it seems only fair I give the IPCC all the attention and respect they deserve. I fart in their general direction.

Quick Dr. Suzuki, get the capture jar!

Dr. Suzuki made his mark in Children’s Science Programming. I guess that would make Dr. Howdy Dowdy head of science at Texas A&M , was that not the research Lab that faked Cold Fusion to keep their funding.

Science is a Process! "A Process!” Not a knee jerk opinion, or a group of drunks forming a consensus so they can order another round of drinks.

Climate Change is not FIT for scientific argument; the process is flawed. I actually don’t think anyone knows the package; it was done in the same way secret military projects are cut up into little puzzles

I never understood why CBC has so many PhD’s, pissing all over the OPEN mind process, to provide an unscientific opinion. Do PLL really think that science is dictated from above by those that are “all wise”, and every theory is fact.

BTW Suzuki land: How or why can Canadians drive their Cars in the USA without emissions Testing? (Canadian cars have never been tested!) The AZ valley is full of these Snow Birds.

Raphael:

I bet almost all of those on that list think GWB is an idiot and that Iraq is unwinnable too. AGW is just as politcal.

There's not a doubt about it, we have to stop having children and put an end to all technology and shut down industries. Let everything cool off and phase down to save the planet.
Lets just go into basic survival mode, revert to pre-industrial mode and live in third world conditions. How else can we meet the targets set by the zealots?

Looking at this article there are a number of points that should be made. First, even if Dr. Dessler doesn’t look at qualifications, there are others out there who are. For example Eli has a number of posts of which this is the most recent.

However, I am not a fan of saying that this credential is better than that one. Instead, I say, lets look at the science they present, and in this case there is little produced by the group of 400 to judge.

Moving on to the claim that a large fraction of the scientists are sociologists or economists, I would consider the title of the report Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. This section is dealing with the sociological aspects of climate change so I don’t see anything wrong with the numbers. I wonder why they didn’t look at the WG I report – The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change.

So, all in all, I agree with Kate, this is another one to bookmark!

However since this article mentioned Dr. Dessler, I will note that Dr. Dessler has been looking for a “skeptic” to debate with about climate change. The funny thing is that no one has taken him up on the challenge. He finally got a debate scheduled with no other than our own Canadian, Dr. Tim Ball. The problem is that after agreeing to debate, Dr. Ball never showed up. The details are here.

John

Wimpy Canadian: You said Yes it is a juvenile argument, employed by the warmerenizers when the argument gets too hot for them. See my post above.. That sounds almost like a challenge. I assure you that I won’t use that argument when it gets too hot for me – so let me ask you, do you think that adding CO2 will cause the temperature to rise and if not, why not?

Robbins Mitchell: I have never engaged in ad hominen arguments, do by all means, please present your arguments. Perhaps you could start with whether the current rise in CO2 is anthropogenic or not?

Shamrock: The AGW/IPCC pushers aren't going to debate the issue As you know I am always willing, but if not, then I also wish you a happy New Year's.

Regards,
John

John Cross:

If the current rise in CO2 was all anthropogenic then why did the rate of anthropogenic emissions decelerate through the 80s and 90s while the rate of atmospheric CO2 change accelerated? Assuming sinks and other sources are static, then shouldn't they be in sync?

I hope you're not going to bring up that moronic bank account argument again. I dread trying to to explain the sinks/sources disconnect logic yet another time.

And does where the CO2 came from matter in any case? Recent peer reviewed research is challenging the leverage CO2 has on climate according to the "consensus".

Regards, BRK

@John Cross:

Why doesn't Dr. Dressler contact Lord Monckton? The latter has had an open challege to debate Al Gore that Al has never taken up. Sounds to me like an interesting pairing.

Brian: You answer your own question .... Assuming sinks and other sources are static.

In regards to my bank argument. Yup, I will bring it up again when appropriate and I note that your source and sink argument did nothing against it. But I am happy to go through it again.

Daniel: Good question, although I will note that I believe that Dr. Ball also has a standing offer to debate Mr. Gore.

Regards,
John

Working Group II looked at the social and economic consequences of climate change and the costs and benefits of adaptation, Working Group III looked at what the costs and benefits of mitigation would be. Amusingly you are surprised that those groups would have social scientists and economists on them (a fair number of biologists also).

Why don't you run the same exercise for Working Group I which looked at the physical sciences aspect of climate change? We can start

ALEXANDER, Lisa
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, Met Office

ALLAN, Richard
Environmental Systems Science
Centre, University of Reading

ALLEN, Myles
Climate Dynamics Group, Atmospheric,
Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Department
of Physics, University of Oxford

BETTS, Richard A.
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, Met Office

BOUCHER, Olivier
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, Met Office

BRIFFA, Keith R.
Climatic Research Unit, School
of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia

You are making a very weak argument.

John Cross:

You're avoiding the argument. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions were increasing at a DECREASING rate, put forward a realistic hypothesis why the atmospheric CO2 would be increasing at an increasing rate over the same period (although recently that isn't true anymore, I'm talking about the 80s and 90s).

As for the bank account example, I'll give one last try at explaining why it is a simpleton's refuge. Say you have a strong source and sink in close proximity. But the atmospheric sensors for monitoring are far away from both. Say also that the sink is so strong it soaks up all of the source. So no emissions from the source are actually reporting to the sensor. However, back in government, the bureaucrats are tallying up the numbers from the source and the numbers at the sensor.

They note that increasing emissions are not matched by the sensors, but since the sensors are increasing, albeit not at the same rate, they conclude in true simpletons fashion that the increase at the sensors must be a result of the increase at the source. In this case they are wrong. Why? Because they don't really understand the temporal and spatial relationships between sources and sinks, nor do they understand the capacity of the sinks.

Think about it John. The last sentence applies to you (and the rest of us).

Regards, BRK

Dr. Rabett: Welcome to the Great White North, thanks for you very considered input. I especially admire your courage for posting on a site called Small Dead Animals ;-) !

Best,
John

Brian: In regards to a "realistic hypothesis", I would say that ocean uptake would be a good one. The oceans are large enough to cause such a magnitude of change and as the atmospheric CO2 increases and drives more CO2 into the ocean, saturation effects will come into play (especially with a rise in ocean temperature).

Now, let me ask you the same question. You make the hypothesis that "that the sink is so strong it soaks up all of the source". Keeping in minds the large amounts of CO2 that we must be dealing with and the time frames involved, can you propose a "realistic hypothesis"?

Regards,
John

"Eli Rabett, a pseudonymous professor and blogger, fresh from simply inventing tittle-tattle about me (his fabricated story that my downloading of GISS data had “resulted in denial of service to everyone else”), has continued his descent with a bait-and-switch illustration of the supposed “Boulder station” in an effort to discredit the collection of microsite data by Anthony Watts and others. Rabett shows a picture of a site that seemingly meets all sensible standards of what a site should be. The trouble is that this site is neither the USHCN Boulder site, nor does it belong to the USHCN system. Indeed, it’s only been in operation since 2003."

- Climate Audit

These guys don't even have a closet. They let it all hang out and still point fingers.

"I especially admire your courage for posting on a site called Small Dead Animals ;-) !"

Hell, I've seen more credible professors, more importantly, scientists, post here than Eli. And John, whatever decency you displayed in past posts, the accrued goodwill has just been erased.

Interesting. john cross at least aknowledges that a number of Major personages are willing to debate the issue- but he fails to note that algore, et al, can't seem to be bothered to take up those challenges.

What are algore, et al, afraid of, jc? if the 'science is settled,' then do they not have a 100% chance of winning the debate?

The proponents of GOBAL WARMING are trying to silence all those skeptics i mean JAMES HANSEN from NASA has been trying to silence oppnents and the sinister AL GORE is becoming plain unreasonible

"Working Group II looked at the social and economic consequences of climate change and the costs and benefits of adaptation, Working Group III looked at what the costs and benefits of mitigation would be. Amusingly you are surprised that those groups would have social scientists and economists on them (a fair number of biologists also)."

Rather, "amusingly" your group of climate change gangsters have moved on to a second and third stage, without proving the first.

Irwin Daisy gets it. The physical science has not been proved and it's not "denialist" to say so.

Surface temperatures are no longer rising, troposphere temperatures never rose, so-called record Arctic ice melts only go back to the introduction of satellite data in the 70s, storm activity never materialized, the Southern ice pack is expanding.

The IPCC would do everyone a favour if they kept their army of social scientists and activists in check until the physical scientists figure out why their theory can't address the above points.

My understanding of the increased levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is that it has led to an increase of up to 20% in the yields of our crops around the world.Without that increase would not a lot more people be going hungry or perhaps even starving? I say we continue to allow the increases in co2 till at least 2050 when it is estimated that the worlds population will level of.

John Cross:

The example I gave was not meant to be realistic, only possible. Think about massive Siberian forests around a distant Siberian refinery. They may in fact soak up all the emissions from that refinery before they can be counted by any atmospheric CO2 monitoring. Seasonally at least that particular source may be balanced completely out by nearby sinks. And if that scenario is in fact is possible, then your simplistic bank account example is wrong, because it assumes the account balance (CO2 sensor) varies directly as a result of deposits (sources) and withdrawals (sinks) which you are tracking. My in my case the sensor is not effected by changes (at least in summer) of the emissions source.

As for your ocean example, you forgot one thing: recently the rate (percentage wise) of atmospheric CO2 increase has leveled off, maybe even decreased . How does your hypothesis deal with this, particularly in light of the recent increasing rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Regards, BRK

[quote]Keeping in minds the large amounts of CO2 that we must be dealing with and the time frames involved.[/quote]

John West
Surely you jest! "Must be dealing with" is a hypothetical.

Science "must" be independently verifiable and you "must" have actual numbers.

A scientific consensus does not include the opinion of every primate (monkey). Childish opinion is just Childish opinion

Please publish the Co2 data of the Climate Change Cycles over the 5 (five)"known" ice ages

[quote]Keeping in minds the large amounts of CO2 that we must be dealing with and the time frames involved.[/quote]

John "CROSS"
Surely you jest! "Must be dealing with" is a hypothetical.

Science "must" be independently verifiable and you "must" have actual numbers.

A scientific consensus does not include the opinion of every primate (monkey). Childish opinion is just Childish opinion

Please publish the Co2 data of the Climate Change Cycles over the 5 (five)"known" ice ages

Posted by: Phillip G.Shaw at December 30, 2007 12:55 PM

What about POLLUTION. For God's sakes, problems with AGW theory that some have cannot be used as cover to do nothing about exponential increases in uses of carbon fuels. If we're going to show leadership as an energy producing nation, then we must refocus our efforts on POLLUTION and finding alternative fuel source, likely with nuclear (we have the best reactors in the world right here in Canada) as the bridge technology. Just because we don't know what that new fuel will be now is no excuse for inaction. With that approach, many great discoveries and advances would never have happened; Kennedy told NASA and US that man would be on moon by 1970. When he said that in 1962 I think, NASA told him they had no idea how to do it, yet they did with less computing power on board than we have in a scientific calculator today.

Even if the diagnosis is not quite correct (ie - even if CO2 not problem, CO, radon, lead, mercury, sulphur et al is) then the prescription offered - Kyoto - will either make the patient sicker or simply be discarded.

Canada showing leadership by shutting down significant parts of their power generation and exports (taxing them has similar effects), and/or sending money to China and Russia is a fool's errand. A month of so GROWTH of China's emissions equal our ENTIRE OUTPUT.

We have to show leadership by resisting technocrats who frankly have other motives than the environment, by leading the way to a new fuel source, to replace the lost economic output of oil.

Look at it this way, we can be approximately right (AGW, pollution, new fuel technology) or be precisely wrong (Kyoto providing funds to nations that are not subject to any oversight, who are increasing pollution at shocking rate).

Let the Kyoto crowd put all their eggs in one basket; let's not hand them a victory by engaging on their terms (AGW validity), only to be labelled deniers and climate criminals. DEAL WITH POLLUTION, THE REAL STUFF).

Well, that's enough cliches for 2007. Happy New Year everyone.

The Al Gores. David Suzukis and many more of the worlds more notable Climate Change fear- mongers, have declared that it is time ‘to move’ on with the issue; that a huge majority of the worlds scientists believe that the planet is warming because of anthropogenic global warming (APG); and that because there is such a strong consensus of the ‘climate’ scientists believing this, that we should be taking action as we now have a world climate crisis to deal with.

Let’s take a closer look at these comments:

• Neither Mr. Gore nor Mr. Suzuki are climate scientists. Gore of course is a politician, while David Suzuki’s work has been principally in genetics, they have not had any formal studies in climate science per se. These ‘cheer leaders’ are in reality fear mongers.
• The temperature data used by the IPCC in their modeling of temperature change for the future has been found by leading researchers to be seriously flawed by some scientists (McIttrick et al)who were formerly reviewers of the IPCC temperature data used in the temperature modeling. “Garbage in- garbage out”. The IPCC as a result did make some adjustment to the data, but not all of them as to do so would destroy their temperature model and the basis for the Kyoto accord altogether.
• As to this so called ‘crisis’ that wee are currently in, it now seems that for some very 'inexplicable reason', we in the northern hemisphere are now in the midst of a below normal, cold winter. I should think that the crisis is being put on hold or postponed for the time being- but there has been no such report to this effect. I am waiting for the global warmingists to declare that this global cooling is being caused by global warming. Nothing like having it both ways. Too funny!
• As to the rational that ‘global warming” must be man made because there is such a huge consensus within the scientific community concluding this, it must be true, really! I don’t think so.

Here is one for those same scientists to think about how consensus didn’t make it right when it actually was wrong.
An analogous story of “the consensus of scientists":

Briefly it is a story of two young Australian medical researchers, one of which who started researching the subject in 1979, and in 1982 discovered that bacteria in the lining of the stomach was the cause of stomach ulcers and not the long held belief of virtually 100 percent of the world medical community, that they were caused by stomach acid and human stress. This young doctor even infected himself with those Helicobacter pylori to help prove his findings.
For many years these young scientists were pilloried and scorned by the medical community, similar to today’s scientists who seriously question the global warming theories. Well the doubters of the Australian researcher’s findings were 100 percent wrong. It took many years before they were recognized for having found a cure for those same ulcers, that at one time had infected as many as a 25 million Americans. Ulcer sufferers no longer have to suffer, however the medical community were unfortunately slow in recognizing these Doctors huge contribution to medical science. Finally in 2005 they were honored with being the recipt of a Nobel Prize in Medicine, It is most unfortunate that Al Gore also received one for having discovered nothing, accept how to successfully alarm the world to a hypothetical danger that just might also be wrong.
Hopefully the 'global warmingists' won't be as blind, to the new and irrefutable findings that cast serious doubts on their unproven and wildly exaggeraated claims.

erwin

@erwin:

Scientists are people too, and are subject to mob movements just as any other group of people are. We've recently gotten a refresher course on this old truth.

(They're certainly subject to flinging around ad hominems, including the old standard argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. We've seen that too, and unsurprisingly so: hard-working people in difficult fields are quite prone to that kind of fallacy because they're hard-working.)

[quote]"Working Group II looked at the social and economic consequences of climate change and the costs and benefits of adaptation, Working Group III looked at what the costs and benefits of mitigation would be. Amusingly you are surprised that those groups would have social scientists and economists on them (a fair number of biologists also)."

Rather, "amusingly" your group of climate change gangsters have moved on to a second and third stage, without proving the first.[/quote]

I agree Irvin Daisy!

Brilliant! We now need the UN to define the NEW theory of evolution, so we can adapt to Climate Change.

If we reverse GW we will get rid of these Ugly thumbs! Absolutely Brilliant!

Al Gore also got an Emmy (National Academy of Arts & Science) and that make my two worthless. The "BOYS" can make an offer that the academy can't refuse.

Crack Addict Generation = Shriveled Meat Balls & Fruit Loops.

No surprise that the group of charlatans and liars ALL benefit from public funding and stand to benefit greatly from public policy that would follow their lead.
Is Suzuki still on the CBC payroll?

Irwin Daisy: You said ”And John, whatever decency you displayed in past posts, the accrued goodwill has just been erased. I have no idea what I said that you found so offensive. On Eil’s site there are numerous jokes and puns about rabbits ranging from Bunny Labs to Wascally Wabbits. I was making a joke since some people might consider a rabbit to be a small animal and thus my comment about taking courage to post on a site called small dead animals.

I have no idea what was so malicious about the joke but if it has offended you so much that there is no good will left, I am disappointed. I have enjoyed our conversations. However since I honestly do not know what the offense was I can not apologize.

Regards,
John

Otter: I do not pretend to read minds so I can only go on the evidence. If Mr Gore does not take up an offer to debate there could be several reasons and we can only speculate on them. However in this case Dr. Ball said that he would debate but then seemed to offer up a number of excuses.

On the other hand, I am more than willing to debate you on the topic.

Regards,
John

Brian: In regards to my example, I didn’t forget something - you moved the goal posts since you started by excluding certain periods. Your initial request was for me to put forward a realistic hypothesis why the atmospheric CO2 would be increasing at an increasing rate over the same period (although recently that isn't true anymore, I'm talking about the 80s and 90s).

I did so, and now you want to throw in another criteria? If we can agree that my example does satisfy your initial criteria, then we can move on to look at others.

In regards to your Siberian factory example, you have thrown in the word seasonally. While that may be true, it is of course irrelevant. Forests do not sequester large amounts of CO2 over the year. While a forest may use CO2 during its growing season, it becomes a net produce of CO2 when the leaves fall and begin to decay.

In addition, it would not explain how such a large amount of CO2 could be removed. Keep in mind we are not looking at a case where anthropogenic production is exceeding atmospheric increases by a few % but by nearly 40%!

And of course there are the details such as why would the CO2 produced stay neat the ground instead of rising as you would expect from diffusion if there was such a large concentration.

Regards,
John

Phillip G.Shaw: my comment about the large amounts of CO2 was in the context of an answer to Brian. I am not sure what your problem with it is in that regards.

Regards,
John

Notice how john cross speaks as though he is NEVER wrong- when the rapidly increasing flood of real data is proving him and his wrong, right and left.

Is it any wonder people take offense at his off-hand condescension?

btw it was supposed to be a DRY winter in Ontario, due to agw. Ain't happening.

The fact is that the IPCC and BILL CLINTON and AL GORE have diliberatly ignored the medeval warm period which is very unscruploius and quite underhanded when it come to the unscruploius politicians

John Cross,

It might've helped had you included the reference to ensure that your post wouldn't be taken as derogatory. A reader has no way of knowing about Professor Eli's proclivity for "wascally wabbits". Let alone knowing who he is in the first place.

The whole thing sounds unbalanced in the first place. "Wascally wabbits?"

It will be very intersting, when, if, down the road, we commenters have a get together somewhere ---- over a beer. A 'face to face', 'so that is you', 'track record', 'where I'm coming from' kinda thing.

Will be most interesting to hear why the 'no shows' did not make it. Some may very well have a ligidiment fear of employer or colleague reprimand.

The flakes ? Flush em' out in the opened.

How about Bali ? They will be looking for business soon.

Otter: I have noticed that you tend to avoid the science but tend towards the insults. As I have said to you before, this is not all that impressive an argument. If you like to discuss the science I am all ears.

Irwin: I find Eli to be a very good writer who combines top notch scientific analysis with an interesting prose style. Some might call it unbalanced, but then I am sure some would call me unbalanced.

Ron: If I am within driving distance then I will be there. I think it would be very interesting to put faces to the names.

And on that I am out of here until next year. Have a good New Years eve. I will check this thread when I get back (on Wednesday) to see if anyone has interesting comments (e.g. Brian) or more insults (e.g. otter).

Regards,
John

Definition of driving distance ? 5 kilometers ?

John Cross:

Seasonally is not irrelevant at all John. In my example it would mean approximately 50% of the emissions from the plant would never report to the sensor. That simple scenario is enough to invalidate your simpleton's logic. As for whether the forest can actually do that (which you assume they cannot), I say you are flat wrong. Look at the annual cycle in atmospheric CO2. The annual CO2 cycle amplitude is 4 times the average ppm annual increase. Clearly the northern forests are breathing in CO2 at a significant rate. In other words my theory is possible.

As for your oceans comment, it is plausible. So now explain why the reverse of the 80s and 90s atmospheric/anthropogenic growth rates is taking place.

Regards, BRK

The only insults here, jc, are the ones you make to our intelligence. Come the end of Next year, when even more has happened to prove your gods Wrong, I have no doubts you will still be on the nearly sunk IPCC ship, frantically bailing with the 'Everyone's Wrong but Us' bucket.

And to the rest of you, Happy New Year!

John Cross:

I have the inkling my explanation on the invalidity of the bank account example is lacking a key word in the explanation. That word is "independent". The important thing about the example of the Siberian plant is that in summer the readings of the sensor away from the plant are INDEPENDENT of emissions from the plant. It doesn't matter whether the plant is running fast or slow, there is too much sink capacity nearby to allow any of these emissions to show up. It's this independence between source and sensor that foul up your logic John.

Regards, BRK

Brian: I don’t agree with your comment “atmospheric CO2 increase has leveled off, maybe even decreased. As
Tamino shows here, it appears to be increasing as strongly as ever.

In regards to your example of the Russian factory, there are a number of problems with it, any one of which would render it invalid for your intentions. I have numbered them for easy reference.

1) Forests are not particularly good at sequestering CO2 to begin with. So your estimation of how quickly they would absorb the carbon is not accurate (i.e. winds will take the CO2 out of range in a matter of days or weeks.

2) Most of what is taken in annually is released as the vegetation decays in the fall and over the next year. This is seen in the annual cycle.

3) Your idea would require that the CO2 would stay in a layer close to the ground (where it could be absorbed by trees). This is not the way industrial emissions work unless you have a very low stack height and a long-term low altitude temperature inversion (check out plumb dispersions models).

4) The magnitude of the factory emissions that would be necessary to make a difference do not match what we are observing, especially with the recent downturn in the Russian economy.

5) There is no evidence for long term large forest growth which would be the result of this.

I can provide links for most of the above (with the exception of #4, but I could probably come up with something for that as well).

Regards,
John

John:

Taminos own month over -12 month/anthropogenic emissions graph shows what I mean on declining annual CO2 growth in the atmostphere. Unfortunately it ends in 2005. Month over -12 month increases run over 2.0 ppmv/year in the period mid 2002 to early 2004. However since then, as in the last year the average month over -12 month growth is probably about 1.8 or so. So for some reason CO2 growth is slowing.

Your point 2 is just nonsense. CO2 month over previous month growth is highest in the period November to April. The northern boreal forests are frozen in that period. So how much decay can be going on?

As for point 3, I don't buy into that either. CO2 is heavy. From space heating and transportation it starts out close to the ground in any case. Who says my hypothetical Siberian source has to have high stacks John?

As for point 1 John, what would happen to CO2 growth if summer in the northern hemisphere never ended? Or to be a little more subtle, since CO2 growth is negative during summer in the northern hemisphere, what is the implication of an extended summer? If forests are such poor sequesters of CO2 how is it that there is such a large difference in CO2 growth between the sleeping and awake boreal forest? Can you see where I'm coming from here John? The difference between the sleeping and awake boreal forest is 4 times the average annual increase in CO2 so if these forests decided to stay awake longer, this would have a significant impact on CO2 growth, would it not?

Never mind. In your plodding sequential concrete thinking pattern you can't seem to grasp that there are serious flaws in your bank account logic.

Let's just move on and talk about why CO2 rates of increase seem be falling over the last 5 years or so. I mean since forests are not significant sinks according to you, and the ocean is warming and hence becoming a poorer sink according to you, and on top of all that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are rapidly increasing, how is it that month over -12 month CO2 growth in the last years is maybe 15 to 20% lower than it was 5 years ago?

Regards, BRK