Energy Change for Climate Control
RSS icon Home icon
  • The Messiah : With Us

    Posted on October 13th, 2010 Jo 42 comments

    The Messiah, the Mashiach, the Maitreya, the Mahdi, the returning Krishna or Christ, whatever you call him, a lot of people are waiting for The One, who will lead us out of darkness and trouble, and rule and guide.

    Some mock this as hope deferred, or a narrative that laments how bad our times are, and how things could be better, if only God or his Prophet would intervene. Can we rescue the situation without divine intervention ?

    Will the Blessed, Anointed One (re)appear on television ? The Revelation of St John (1:7) says, “Look ! He comes with the clouds of heaven. And everyone will see him – even those who pierced him. And all the nations of the world will mourn for him. Yes ! Amen !”

    But what if the Messiah is already with us – somehow present but hidden from normal sight, yet there in everything that we experience ? Does he have a spiritual corporeality ? Is he guiding us in how we think, what we say, write, pray for, work for ?

    Many philosophers and religious people are turning their thoughts to issues of Climate Change, in a movement of great unity, despite their spiritual differences, political and ideological differences, and a wide range of views on how best to resist the evils of the world.

    If the latest recording purporting to be from Osama bin Laden is genuine, it is clear his concern is turning towards Climate Change, asking the global Muslim community to save the people of Pakistan from the dreadful catastrophe of inundation aggravated by Global Warming trends.

    Osama bin Laden is not a saint, but his heart is turned towards the suffering of others, so he too has been touched by the spiritual Messiah, the ever-present Holy One of God.

    How to do the work of the Lord, who has power in gentleness and patience, and who is mighty, yet only touches the Earth with warming sunlight ? How to be the eyes, hands and feet of the Spirit of Life ?

    The more people desire to do the will of God (or the Demands of Ethics) the more chasms we can bridge between our faiths and our economic beliefs and our technology choices.

    Climate Change is an amazing opportunity to rise above the chaos and conflict of centuries and work together for the common good.

    We don’t need to see the Messiah to know he is with us.

     

    42 responses to “The Messiah : With Us”

    1. Jo, may I make a suggestion. Take a little time to reflect upon your position regarding religion and climate change. They appear to me to be identical – “I believe what I choose to believe, regardless of any evidence because I only need my faith”.

      I came to this conclusion after reading your nonsense in this article and googling for your religious views. In th eprocess I cam across this statement of yours in response to a comment from Suzanne on March 10th, 2010 at 19:09 (see http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/10/imagine-theres-no-medicine/)

      QUOTE:

      THERE IS NO LONGER A DEBATE ABOUT THE MAJORITY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. THE SCIENCE HAS MOVED ON FROM DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOBE IS WARMING.
      THE SCIENCE HAS ALSO SECURELY ESTABLISHED THAT MANKIND’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. THE DEBATES IN SCIENCE NOW CENTRE AROUND EXACTLY HOW BAD IT’S GOING TO GET, WHICH COULD BE “LOTS”.

      UNQUOTE.

      Suzanne’s “Boy are you wearing blinders” took the words out of my mouth.

      I eventually came across your involvement with Christian Ecology Link and your 25th October 2005 presentation at Ealing Abbey. You said then “Over the last few years I have been busy reading and reporting on Energy Trends, Climate Change and Resource Depletion; and as a direct result I am morphing into an environmental campaigner. Along the way, I became a member of Christian Ecology Link, gratefully recognising there are others of faith who are on a similar journey”.

      You also said that you had a desire “ .. to start Climate Justice proceedings in an international court .. ”. Did you achieve anything with that? You’re probably in cahoots with Polly Higgins and her “Trees Have Rights Too” and a campaigne to get the UN to approve a “Crime Against Ecology”. I suppose that you support her “The 6 rights proposed for hard law implementation are : the Right to Diversity, the Right to Ecological Integrity, the Freedom of the Natural Cycles of Life, the Right to Not Be Polluted, the Right to Restorative Justice, the Freedom of a Healthy Environment. See The Planetary Rights for more detail” (http://www.treeshaverightstoo.com/a-call-to-the-un)?

      I think that PaulD summed you up beatifully in 2008 on Borris Johnson’s blog (http://www.boris-johnson.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=39&page=16) QUOTE:

      A warming activist pestered BBC environmental reporter Roger Harrabin to change a website article which mentioned that some scientists believe global warming may have stopped. At first he held out but, after a further volley of emails, he changed the headline and copy. The activist’s methods were slightly menacing and included a threat to expose him on the internet… “You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics”.
      The leaked emails are here. Interestingly that isn’t the end of the story. After sending his revised copy to Ms Abbess for her approval, the piece as it appears on the website today has been changed more radically. The third paragraph, which originally mentioned the sceptical scientists, has been turned around 180 degrees: “But this year’s temperatures would still be way above the average – and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.”
      So who was this influential caller? An eminent climatologist? Someone from Al Gore’s office? No, it was one Jo Abbess. I don’t suppose there are many Jo Abbesses on a climate crusade, so we can assume it is the one Google turns up – Jo Abbess of the Christian Ecology Link. Here she is spouting at the Ealing One World Week. But her world is bigger than Ealing. Jo gets involved in some really wacky events, like protest marches for the Global Climate Campaign. This is a rum looking outfit with a splendid caucus of beardo’s and wierdo’s, one faction being the curiously-named “Whales Against Emissions”.
      .
      And here’s how they bring it all together: Planning for a climate change march. It reminded me for a moment of a Secret Seven outing. The only thing missing was Scamper the dog (maybe he was there too).

      UNQUOTE.

      Jo, you are fooling only a very small part of the population with your religious dogma. In a couple of decades supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis will be recognised as complete nutters.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    2. “Osama bin Laden is not a saint, but his heart is turned towards the suffering of others…”

      MMMMmmmmmmmmkay….
      I was on the lookout for a moral relativist, and it looks like i found me a perfect specimen.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I'M NOT A RELATIVIST AT ALL IN THE FIELD OF ETHICS, ALTHOUGH I DO ACCEPT THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IN PHYSICS. FOR ME, WHEN IT COMES TO ASSIGNING RIGHT AND WRONG, THERE ARE DEFINITELY REDS, GREENS AND BLUES AND NOT MERELY SHADES OF BROWN. YET NASTY PEOPLE CAN BECOME NICE PEOPLE. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT A DEMON OR EVIL DJIN. HE'S SAID TO HAVE DONE AND INSPIRED EVIL THINGS, BUT MAYBE HE REGRETS THEM, I DON'T KNOW. THIS RECENT VIDEO, IF IT'S FOR REAL, SHOWS HE CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN FACING THE PROBLEMS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SURELY THAT MEANS HE HAS SOME GOOD INTENTIONS ? ]

      And BTW, since your AGW is naught but a religion for the new age, it goes well with the other mumbojumbo that you wrote above.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS BASED ON RESEARCH IN PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, GEOLOGY, CLIMATOLOGY, PALEOCLIMATOLOGY AND A NUMBER OF OTHER DISCIPLINES. IT'S NOT RELIGION, IT'S EMPIRICAL SCIENCE, WITH MODELS OF THE FUTURE BASED ON OBSERVATIONAL DATA FROM THE PAST. ]

    3. Jo,
      I admire people of conviction even in the circumstances where I don’t agree with them. I respect your pro CAGW views as sincerely held although i do fervently believe you are wrong.

      However I draw the line at comparing /paralleling/ associating the Messiah figure held in many of todays monotheistic religions with a mass murderer.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IF YOU READ MY WORDS CAREFULLY, YOU WILL NOTE THAT I EXPLAIN THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN IS "NOT A SAINT" - IMPLYING THAT BIN LADEN IS NOT THE MESSIAH. APPARENTLY BIN LADEN THINKS HE IS THE MAHDI/MEHDI, AN IDEA I WOULD ATTRIBUTE TO A BIPOLAR DISORDER. I ALSO WRITE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT SEEMS, IF THE RECENT VIDEO COMMUNICATION IS NOT A FAKE, THAT THE SPIRITUAL MESSIAH HAS LAID ON BIN LADEN'S HEART THE PLIGHT OF PAKISTAN. ]

      Bin laden is, we believe responsible for the deaths indirectly or directly of many innocents. Unlike Mr Blair and Mr Bush who may have also caused the deaths of many innocents Bin Laden actively directly and deliberately sought to cause the deaths of innocents. Only in the sick mind of a misguided zealot could that mans name be linked with the chosen one of God.

      You may believe fully in your CAGW religion but aligning Bin Laden as your messiah only shows what a corrupt baseless and godless entity your secular religion is.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I AM ALSO A SCIENTIST. MY RELIGION IS THEREFORE NOT SECULAR. AND MY SCIENCE IS THEREFORE NOT GODLESS. FOR ME THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN FAITH AND SCIENCE. IF YOU LIKE, I CAN EXPLAIN IT ALL AT GREAT LENGTH, STARTING WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH MORALITY AND FREE WILL, WORKING UP TO RECOUNTING ALL THE DESCRIPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE BIBLE, MANY OF WHICH ARE WRITTEN TO CONNECT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION WITH SPIRITUAL DISOBEDIENCE. ]

      You have a perfect right to express your views and to believe in what you wish but including this man in your article about the wonder and beauty of the world defiles your ideals and desecrates your higher purpose.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE IN IT. SEE 2 PETER 3:8-9 : http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8-9&version=NIV ]

      I hope this hasn’t come across as ranty as that was not my intention. I hope whatever your passion is that true good does come out of it even if it is not from a direction you intended. I believe that some scientists have the theory wrong and that any warming of the world at this moment can be put down to naturally occurring phenomena.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I BELIEVE THAT MEDICINE AND THE NATURAL SCIENCES ARE PART OF GOD'S PLAN FOR THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANKIND. WE ARE LEARNING THAT THE NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESSES IN THE EARTH SYSTEM ARE LIKELY TO TIP OVER INTO DANGEROUS HEATING, IF WE DON'T CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOUR AND LOWER NET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TO AIR : http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044377.shtml ]

      If your thought provoking piece causes someone to search and find the real truth whether it is yours or mine then your piece is not all bad but the linking of a genocidal fanatic to a peaceful cause does not directly help you and only reduces your credibility.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHAT WILL THE REIGN OF CHRIST BE LIKE ? AUTHORITARIAN OR GENTLE PERSUASION ? A WAR ZONE OR PEACEFUL RECONCILIATION ? DOMINANCE OR COOPERATION ? HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN IT HAS STARTED ? WHAT AND WHO WILL BE TRANSFORMED ? CAN ALL BE REDEEMED/SAVED/CHANGED, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PAST LIVES ? WILL THE CHRIST APPEAR PHYSICALLY AT THE START OF HIS REIGN ? SINCE HE IS STILL ACTIVELY WORKING ON OUR BEHALF, HE'S NEVER LEFT US : http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207:23-25&version=NIV . FORMER ENEMIES CAN BECOME FRIENDLIES. THE LION WILL MELT HIS KALASHNIKOV INTO A WIND TURBINE, CANCEL HIS SUBSCRIPTION TO THE NRA AND JANE'S WEEKLY, AND LIE DOWN ALONGSIDE THE LAMB. ]

    4. 2 religions!

      CAGW and christianity.

      I do wish JO peace of mind, that is a lot to cope with.

    5. Jo,

      Can I have a direct answer to a direct question? Which of these do you think there is more empirical evidence to support – Jesus being the son of God or climate change?

    6. @BruceRobbins

      The Climate is Changing, and the evidence is all about you. The temperature records show a persistent warming trend. The hydrological cycle is documented as being perturbed. Crops have failed. Water sources have evaporated.

      The key question is – do you connect this evidence with the scientific projections of the consequences of rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations ?

      The evidence backs the theory, so unless you have a better explanation, may I suggest you go with what the academic consensus offers.

      As for the question about whether there is empirical evidence to support Jesus being the Son of God – well, that all depends on what kind of evidence you would accept, since there is an element of faith in the question that most people accept is not susceptible to experimentation. There is good historical evidence that Jesus was a real man that lived and died. As to whether he was/is the Son of God, and offers a direct connection between Heaven and Earth, the Bridge (Gate) that all people can approach God upon (through) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:7-11&version=NIV), the Tree (Vine) that grafts mankind into the Godhead (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2015&version=NIV), the Ship (Hiding Place) that rescues (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+32&version=NIV), that can only be experienced, not proven. People pray and things happen, but it might not be as a result of the prayer, and it might not be as a result of God’s intervention. God seems to have a light touch in most cases – he does not normally break the Laws of Physics (which he set in place) in my experience, although he seems to have an special talent in speeding up the processes of healing, and starting recoveries in the first place. Since he created Life (as I understand to be the case), that’s to be expected. What is shown scientifically is that a positive attitude helps to promote healing, and people that pray and trust God for healing have some benefit from that attitude of gratitude. People who attend church also seem to be happier on the whole. The exercise of faith is good for us. I believe that I am part of a spiritual community with God and my fellow human beings, and that Jesus is the facilitator of that family relationship. His mission is to free us from slavery to wrongdoing, wrongthinking, waste, spoiling, disease and destruction, and his Spirit guides us to enlightenment and active fellowship with God himself, who teaches us (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2036:25-31&version=NIV). But these are matters of faith, not empirical data gathering in experimentation, although you could listen to the narratives of millions, even billions of people on Earth who claim to have been touched by the love of God and to have had their lives rescued, and that could be considered evidence, since it is fairly considerable. The number of people who claim experience of Jesus directly, in one form or another, is also very large. In my view, Jesus acts on behalf of everyone, not just people that know him, know about him or acknowledge him. He is everyone’s channel to the heart of God, I believe.

    7. From my reading of your response, you seem to be saying that there’s more hard evidence for climate change?

    8. @BruceRobbins

      Would you say that you can prove, scientifically, empirically, that your friend loves you ?

      I believe I have a living, personal experience of a living, personal God – but you would have to trust me to accept that claim. Trust is not the basis of empirical science, therefore my experience of my faith is proof for me alone.

      From my point of view there is “hard” evidence of a soft, loving Creator of the Universe, but that’s not something that can be tabulated in quite the same open-access way to everyone as Climate Change can be. For a start, you would need to know the meanings of every word of my “faith language”, and what I regard as evidence of those terms.

      Temperature means the same thing to everyone. You can plot temperatures on a piece of paper or a digital image, and that can mean something to everyone. Rainfall and river flow measurements can also be documented in a way that can become common knowledge.

      I cannot use my personal faith evidence to overlap the faith evidence of a devout Shi’ite Muslim and expect them to take it as proof of anything I say – it just wouldn’t compute.

      However, I can discuss rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere with everyone, and we can more or less agree on what the data is and what it means, with only minimal theoretical understanding.

      There is evidence for faith and for Climate Change – it’s just that Climate Change evidence is more easily shared.

    9. Hi Jo, after reading more of your articles I had decided to comment about your convictions regarding two of the hypotheses which seem to be driving you at the moment. The Human-made Global Climate Change Hypothesis and The Benevolent Super Power Hypothesis.

      The second of these has been the subject of debate for centuries and promises to be so for many more. It is pure faith with no science to back up any of the different versions.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : FAITH IS ESTABLISHED ON THE BASIS OF TRUST. TRUST HAS TO BE "EARNED". ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH IN GOD BUT HAS NOT TESTED THAT FAITH BY ACTIVE TRUST, AND PROVEN THAT TRUST BY ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD ONLY HAS NAIVE WISHES. FAITH IS SOMETHING MUCH STRONGER. ]

      I have had numerous discussions with others, particularly Jehova’s Witnesses, who refuse to even consider the possibility that they are misled and I anticipate that I have no greater success with you.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I ALSO HAVE INTENSE DISCUSSIONS WITH JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WHO I REGARD AS BEING OVERLY ISOLATIONIST AND CONTROLLING OF THEIR MEMBERS IN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR RELIGION. ]

      In any case, being agnostic about the benevolent (and vindictive according to JWs that I talk with) superpower, I don’t get excited about the subject. It is the second which is of far more interest to me, so I’ll stick with that.

      I would like to say that I’m impressed that you chose to allow my comments to stand even though they are anything but complementary and I have no doubt about your sincerity, even though in my opinion you are misguided.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : "IMPRESSED" AND THEN "MISGUIDED" ? THANKS, BUT I DON'T NEED EITHER OF YOUR OPINIONS. ]

      I fully support what Paddy Cronin said in his comment of October 13th at 19:56. Your responses to his comment come across as nothing more than the rantings of a religious zealot.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : BETTER TO BE HOT OR COLD THAN TEPID. THERE'S A BIBLE VERSE ABOUT THAT. IN REVELATIONS. ]

      You claim to be a “Physics graduate with early career in Microelectronics; currently Information Technology consultant, postgraduate student and web logger, writing articles and opinion pieces on Energy policy, the international negotiations, science communications and technological responses to Climate Change” but I can find nothing to suggest that you have worthwhile expertise in any of those areas.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : AGAIN, I DON'T NEED OR RELY ON YOUR GOOD OPINION. ]

      I can find no peer-reviewed papers, patents or anything like that, only trivial articles that appear to merely parrot what others have said in support of The Hypothesis.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF STUDY, SO YES, I AM STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF RESEARCH GIANTS. I PUBLISH ALMOST EVERYTHING I WRITE ON THE SUBJECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE RIGHT HERE, FROM THE MORE ACADEMIC STUFF TO THE LIGHT BANTER STUFF. ]

      Are you able to demonstrate your pedigree with worthwhile evidence (and I don’t mean by simply referring me to your “articles and opinion pieces”.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IF I AM "PARROTING" THOSE WHO ARE THE ARCHITECTS OF "THE HYPOTHESIS", THEN THAT IS THE PEDIGREE, ALTHOUGH IT ISN'T MINE. SOME OF MY ORIGINAL WRITING, THE MORE ACADEMIC PIECES THAT ARE HERE ON THIS WEB LOG, COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT I KNOW SOMETHING OF WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. THE EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, THE DATA, IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. IN TERMS OF LITERATURE, BUT ALSO, RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR FRONT DOOR. ]

      By choice you ignore all of the numerous scientific uncertainties that surround the issue, turning Nelson’s eye on the arguments of sceptical scientists.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I ACCEPT THE UNCERTAINTIES IN CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE, AND I ACCEPT THOSE THINGS THAT ARE RELIABLY SETTLED, TOO. ALL SCIENTISTS ARE SCEPTICAL. DATA COULD COME FROM ALMOST ANYWHERE TO INVALIDATE A HYPOTHESIS, BUT SOME THINGS BECOME ESTABLISHED AND ARE NOT SHAKEN. ]

      Please remove your blinkers and avoid environmentalist dogma.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THERE IS NO DOGMA IN STATING (A) THE EARTH IS WARMING UP (B) HUMANKIND'S ACTIVITIES ARE THE MAJORITY CAUSE AND (C) THERE ARE ALREADY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND (D) THERE ARE VERY LIKELY TO BE WORSE IMPACTS IN FUTURE. ]

      There is no sound evidence that our use of fossil fuels (which will continue for many decades yet) is leading to catastrophic changes to those different global climates.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OH YES THERE IS ! ]

      Maybe you are too trusting of others so please, stop accepting what others tell you and do your own research so that you can have an informed opinion.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I HAVE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH, AND I CONTINUE TO DO IT. THERE IS NO RESTING PLACE WITH SCIENCE. THE PICTURE IS CONTINUALLY UNFOLDING WITH NEW VISTAS THAT NEED EXPLORATION. HOWEVER, SOME TERRITORY BECOMES WELL-DEFINED AND KNOWN AND MANAGED, AS TIME GOES BY. YOU SAY, "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION". I DO HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION, THANK YOU, AND I DON'T NEED YOUR VALIDATION. ]

      I don’t think that many sceptics would disagree with you that there is evidence of climate change. The area of disagreement is the causes of any such change.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, VERY FEW DISAGREE AS TO THE MAINSTREAM CONSENSUS THAT (A) IT'S HAPPENING AND (B) WE'RE DOING (MOST OF) IT. ]

      As I have pointed out on numerous blogs, when talking about what some glibly refer to as “climate science” I’m referring to the numerous scientific disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of those horrendously complicated processes and driver of global climates.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : ISN'T IT AMAZING THAT WE KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT HOW THE CLIMATE WORKS, CONSIDERING ITS COMPLEXITY ? THE FACT THAT WE KNOW SO MUCH, AND CAN BE SO CONFIDENT IN OUR PROJECTIONS SHOULD BE CAUSE FOR PRIDE. ]

      You may not be aware of Professor Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at Adelaide University and chief scientific advisor to the last Australian government.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I DON'T KNOW HIM PERSONALLY, NO. ]

      Professor Brook has demonstrated his competence as a biologist and is recognised as having done significant research into species extinction but biology is only one of those numerous disciplines. Knowledge of species extinction may well have a contribution to make with regards to the impacts of climate change but, despite a lot of effort, I can find no evidence of him doing any significant research into what causes global climates to change (as they have done for billions of years).

      Last April Professor Brook acknowledged (see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ ) that “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. .. ” (Note 1). I tried to pursue with him on his blog this matter of uncertainty about those processes and drivers but he declined to engage in the debate, simply cpmplaining about me quoting him out of context, after which I was banned from his blog.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : BE CAREFUL NOT TO WASTE SOMEBODY'S TIME... ]

      Professor Brook emphasised that he had gone on to say “But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem”. This appears to me to be implying that we are uncertain of only 5% of what needs to be known, but he provides no evidence to support such a figure. This is similar to what the IPCC did in AR4, using “expert opinion” in order to give the impression of a degree of certainty which could not be arrived at scientifically.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU APPEAR NOT TO HAVE READ THE SECTION ON ROBUST FINDINGS AND OUTSTANDING UNCERTAINTIES IN THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT. IF YOU DID SO, YOUR MIND WOULD BE ILLUMINED, I TROW. ]

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    10. I see what you’re saying and I think I’ve probably asked the wrong question. Do you think there is more hard evidence for the existence of Jesus than for AGW?

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS IS MOSTLY MY OWN PRIVATE FAITH. WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS WRITTEN IN THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE, A PUBLIC FRAMEWORK OF UNDERSTANDING. SO, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THERE IS "HARD EVIDENCE" FOR BOTH, BUT FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY "HARD EVIDENCE" FOR BOTH. IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE "HARD EVIDENCE" FOR ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING. HOWEVER, EVEN IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF FAITH YOU MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT FAITH LANGUAGE TO MINE, SO MY EVIDENCE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY VALIDITY IN YOUR FRAME OF INTERPRETATION. IT'S PRETTY HARD TO MISINTERPRET TEMPERATURE, HOWEVER. ]

    11. I was intrigued by what you said earlier when you claimed there was “good historical evidence” for the existence of Jesus as a living man. Can you cite the source for that statement. As far as I’m aware there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels. Not one contemporary account.

      [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OH YES THERE IS. JUST GO OGLE IT. ADVICE : TRY THE SEARCH TERM "historical evidence for jesus" ]

    12. Hi Jo, thanks for responding. I’d like to follow up on a few of your points.

      1) “BETTER TO BE HOT OR COLD THAN TEPID. THERE’S A BIBLE VERSE ABOUT THAT. IN REVELATIONS.”
      Does this mean that you support extremists, such as Christian v Muslim versions. I think that the vast majority of the population prefer moderates, regardless of what religious books like the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc. Better be open-minded and rational than blinkered and dogmatic.

      2) “I AM ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF STUDY”.
      What does a ************ ************ ***************** ******* *********** ********** *************** teach about the processes and drivers of global climates? Well, ************* says (Note 1) about the ************ **************** module that the Learning objectives include:
      *** ******** ********** ************
      ********* ************ ************
      ***** ******* * * ******** ***************
      *********** ************ ******* * ***** **
      It is noticeable that no mention is made of evidence against human-induced climate change.

      A look at the pedigree of the Module convenor *** ****** ******** **************** (Note 2) should give some indication of the course direction. ** ******** ******* studied ****** ******** *********** * *********** ************ ******* *** *** *** ** ****** ********** ***************** *********** ********** *********** ******** ***** * * **** ********* * ******** ***** ***** * *********** ***** ****** * *******. Research into ******* ****** ********** is hardly the kind of background that leads to an understanding of the complexities of global climate processes and drivers. It’s as ludicrous as considering someone who studied biology and focussed on specie extinction (like Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University) to be an expert in those processes and drivers and I remind you of what he said about them. “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. .. ” (see my comment of October 14th at 17:39).

      It is also noticeable that ****** ********* ***** was prepared to sign the Met Office’s “Statement from the UK science community “ (Note 3) that “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities”, a topic that would seem to be well beyond ******* **** area of expertise.

      *** ************ ********* claims that “******* ******** ******* ***** critically evaluate ** **** *****” so if you persevere you may be able, despite the apparent bias in favour of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, to open your presently closed mind to the arguments of those many scientists who reject The Hypothesis.

      3) “THE EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, THE DATA, IS .. RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR FRONT DOOR”.
      You have been around for what – 40 years? You may be aware of weather conditions going back 30 years. I’ve been around for 73 and recall conditions over 63.

      I doubt very much if you remember the UK drought of 76, with the associated very long hot summer and mild winter, followed by similar in 77 and a bitter winter in 78/9. You weren’t around for that very hot summer in 64 and 48 or the bitter winters in 61 and 48 (I may have those dates out by a year or so). You should remember the bitter winter of 81/2, the mid-80s. The picture seen over the decades from “my front door” shows that weather events happen in an apparently cyclic manner with little difference in the overall picture over that 63-year period. I still see the same weather events during the same seasons, with the same flora and fauna that I used to see as a child. I make one correction to that. As a child living in a small market town in a mainly agricultural environment I don’t recall ever seeing a fox. Now, living just outside the M25 I see them frequently, literally outside my frint door.

      It could be argued that my memory is failing me so let’s see if that might be the case. No better place to look than at the picture presented by the “longest instrumental record of temperature in the world” from our own Met Office’s Hadley Centre (Note 4). No, my recollections seems to fit their picture OK (see the blue lines). Do you notice the cyclical trend line (red)? There are approximately 22 cycles of hot and cold in 220 years, i.e. a 10-year cycle. Over the 240 years of measuring temperature there appears to have been no more than 0.6C increase in mean temperature. Hardly something to call a catastrophe.

      Also, notice what is happening to the red line now that the influence of the 98 El Nino is being removed from their chosen statistical manipulation of the data. As we head into the next cold period we’ll see that line falling deeper and deeper – let’s hope it doesn’t keep falling for too long or we’ll be back into another little ice age (or worse). Perhaps a prayer is needed at this stage..

      BTW, do you mind not shouting when responding. It is a little off-putting and suggest the lack of a sound argument. It’s a tactic used by bullies when trying to get their own way.

      NOTES:
      NB: I’ve removed http://www. from Notes 1), 2) and 3) and http:// from 4).

      1) see **********************************************
      2) see **********************************************
      3) see metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html
      4) see hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    13. I took your advice and the first two hits gave me:

      “There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus—no writings or artifacts of his, no accounts of him written in his lifetime – and critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus)

      and

      “No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.” (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)

      That surely can’t be what you hoped I would find, Jo. Why not humour me and tell me the historical evidence you know of that supports the existence of Jesus the man.

    14. @BruceRobbins

      Cherry-picking again, Bruce ?

      Why not read the whole of the Wikipedia entry to get the fuller flavour (if you have the energy).

      The full evidence for the historical Jesus includes the unbroken line of Apostolic education, the spiritual experience of Jesus that many witness to, the impact that the documents that do exist have on people who read them without prior knowledge of the material (their narrative authenticity points to real people interacting with a real human Jesus).

      Christian scholars are perhaps the most skilled researchers in the world, and there would be little that anyone could do to shake the collective Church’s trust in the existence, character and acts of Jesus, and the details of his life.

      Jesus is not a theory, and not a falsifiable hypothesis.

      The worldwide church is still growing, in all its different forms and shapes, which attests to the truth contained in the teachings and promises of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels.

      But I’m not writing a web log in order to preach about varieties of religious experience.

      This web log is about Climate Change, the most pressing problem that humankind faces.

      I think that the faith communities can offer a unique community-based social network for learning about Climate Change, seeking to make changes to prevent Climate Change getting any worse (mitigation) and working together to adapt to the changes that Climate Change is already bringing.

      There are a considerable number of people in faith communities who support one or more of the disaster, aid and development agencies. These organisations, which include Christian Aid, Tearfund, Oxfam, CAFOD and the World Development Movement are all working on Climate Change, which is already stretching budgets and creating long-lasting problems in developing countries.

      And it’s coming here, too. Just because we live in an industrialised, developed country doesn’t mean we are free from the risks of devastating Climate Change.

      The faith communities are already central in the work to resolve Climate Change, and will become key in the social movements on Climate Change in future.

    15. @PeteRidley

      I’m afraid I’ve had to edit your comment as it would not be appropriate to discuss details of my course of study on this web log. I am not at liberty to confirm or deny if you have correctly identified the educational establishment I am currently enrolled with.

      If you would like to get in touch with the educational establishment you mention, to discuss your concerns about the expertise of the course convenor or teaching staff, and the educational approach of the teaching, I’m sure that you can find a way.

      1. I do not support extremists. I am not an extremist myself, either. I want to see an end to violent conflict, military invasions and aerial weapons attacks. I think that bombing from aeroplanes should be declared illegal. I think we should work towards unarmed defence. This kind of peacekeeping takes a lot of hard work. I reject all interpretations of the religious scriptures where the implication is that violence is acceptable.

      2. As far as I know there is no scientific evidence of any weight that disproves Climate Change. My mind is not closed. I have read a number of things by dissenters, sceptics and deniers and I have applied critical thinking and found their work to be inaccurate, piecemeal or poorly referenced.

      3. Despite the fact that your memory appears to be pretty phenomenal for someone roughly the same age as my father, it is well documented that memories of overall climatic conditions can be poor. You appear to be recollecting weather rather than climate. The climate has not yet changed very much for much of the United Kingdom, but there are some things that have been very noticeable – for example the frequency of drought conditions in South East England, and increased rainfall over large areas of Scotland :-

      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ukrainfall/

      Consider the two tree species elm and horse chestnut – trees that were very successful in the M25 area for centuries and have both succumbed to imported diseases in the last few decades. There are a number of plant and animal diseases that have migrated – and it is thought that the changing climate is a major contributor in enabling disease vectors.

      The ability of some plants and animals, notably birds, to survive appears to have been eroded significantly over the last two decades. Most of this can be put down to industrial agriculture, but it is also due to increasing and anomalous UK temperatures and climate. By anomalous, I mean seasons that are not predominantly hot or cold, wet or dry; warmer nights than previously experienced relative to daytime temperatures; warmer winters quite regularly; overall higher temperatures. This is confusing the plants and insects and having a knock-on effect on the birds.

      I do indeed recall the blistering Summer of 1976 in South East England, and a number of other weather extremes – made all the more likely to recur owing to the changing temperatures, trending upwards :-

      The global temperature rise of 0.6 degrees Celsius so far is a huge amount of extra heat accumulated.

      By the way, when I use capitalised words inline in a comment it is to make sure that my comments are clearly distinct from the other person’s. I’m not shouting, just typing in uppercase. No loudness intended.

    16. Hi Jo, just a quick note before I go out with my wife and grandchildren for the morning. I am surprised that you felt obliged to remove my comments about your course since that information is readily available on the Internet. As you advised another contributor here, all that you have to do is “Go Ogle”.

      Must dash, boss is calling. Speak later.

      Best reghards, Pete Ridley

    17. Well I’m off to order my children sledges..

      No more snow, kids won’t see it in England.. said CRU 10 years ago.

      three years running my children have complained…
      More and more snow in the south east….

    18. “The full evidence for the historical Jesus includes the unbroken line of Apostolic education, the spiritual experience of Jesus that many witness to, the impact that the documents that do exist have on people who read them without prior knowledge of the material (their narrative authenticity points to real people interacting with a real human Jesus).”

      Is that really it? Is that the “good historical evidence”? There’s probably more evidence for AGW! ;-)

      Can I ask two more questions? Is it possible to be a “climate denier” and still be a good person? Finally, imagine for a moment if you could snap your fingers and instantly restore equilibrium to global temperatures, ending any warming. Would you do it?

    19. @PeteRidley

      “…that information is readily available on the Internet…”

      As people say, you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

      Particularly if it’s written about Climate Change by people who have no grounding in Climate Change Science.

      Cheap shot, I know…but it is meant to amuse.

      By now everybody accepts that Climate Change sceptics are intelligent people, totally on the pulse of the issue.

      Trouble is, Climate Change sceptics appear to live in a parallel universe where scientists don’t have integrity, and that’s a shame, because that closes the door to productive dialogue.

      Think of all the useful things that Climate Change sceptics could be doing, with all their accumulated brain power, energy and dedication to further the course of the science, if only they stopped imagining a politically-motivated global conspiracy !

    20. @BruceRobbins

      I used the word “includes”. That means I didn’t list everything.

      1. “Is it possible to be a “climate denier” and still be a good person ?”

      Of course.

      2. “…if you could snap your fingers and instantly restore equilibrium to global temperatures, ending any warming. Would you do it ?”

      Of course. But I’m not God. He watches over us in the world he gave us, where our actions have predictable and quantifiable consequences. This is where moral life comes in – we are responsible for our actions. At the sub-micro level, the Laws of Physics, time can flow backwards and there’s quantum entanglement and dissolving and reforming particles and anti-particles and wave functions that resolve in different places for no reason. But God’s clever. At the macro world-scale level, time only runs in one direction, and matter is located – the probability of location is very high for a collection of molecular wave packets, and clustering of matter is part of the design of the macro Laws of Physics, because of the basic forces. That means that if I were to push you, you would move, predictably, reliably. That makes me responsible for your safety. This is ethics – and you don’t need to believe in God to accept ethics. Each human is a valuable human, and human life is special. Most people accept that caring for other humans is an important positive value. It has been reliably demonstrated that humankind is causing Global Warming by adding Greenhouse Gases to the air at increasing rates, that have overshot the capacity of the ocean, plants, soils and so on to absorb it again in the short-term. It has also been reliably evidenced that the ecosystems are reacting, and that the climate is changing. We are responsible for our actions, so we need to pay attention, and change our ways, or we risk extinction of the beautiful living skin on planet Earth that God has created/designed. There are already clear signs of massive upheaval in the range and extent of weather systems, rainfall and extreme events. Freshwater resources are stressed. Food production is stressed. At root, it’s very simple. The sources of energy we have relied on for the 20th Century industrialisation must be substituted. Do it for the safety of other humans, even if you don’t do it out of respect for God’s creation.

    21. Pete Ridley goes Googling and says —
      “I came to this conclusion after reading your nonsense in this article and googling for your religious views [...] Jo, you are fooling only a very small part of the population with your religious dogma. In a couple of decades supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis will be recognised as complete nutters. [...] Your responses to his comment come across as nothing more than the rantings of a religious zealot. [...] Does this mean that you support extremists, such as Christian v Muslim versions.

      So, I went Googling and found this at Greenfyre:
      http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/a-glorious-defeat/#comment-8314
      “Pete Ridley June 7, 2010 at 4:58 pm
      Mike, [1] you certainly seem to have it in for one of my heroes, Christopher Monckton, Lord Monckton of Blenchley, don’t you.”

      Now it’s interesting that Pete Ridley should hold Christopher Monckton as one of his heroes, yet be (and others) scathing of Jo’s views even when Jo makes it clear that it is the scientific evidence of global warming, evidence based, that convinces her of the need to mitigate and curb CO2 emissions.

      So, perhaps Mr Ridley would care to comment on this quotation from a piece written by Monckton and published by SPPI entitled ‘What is science without religion?’, which reads…

      “…From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley [...] Accordingly, science can never prove wrong the proposition that it was Almighty God who, directly or indirectly, caused the Big Bang to occur and thus brought our universe into existence. [...] Can science function without religion? Science would like to think so. And yet … and yet.
      [...]
      Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing…”
      http://sppiblog.org/news/what-is-science-without-religion

      Pete Ridley, is Monckton wrong to suggest that science be overseen in a manner not unlike how it was in the days of Galileo?

      By the way, I’d also be interested in Pete Ridley’s opinion of Roy Spencer, Ross McKitrick and Tim Ball. I have a good one from them, too.

    22. Hi Jo, thanks again for responding to my comment and also for the sensible response to things that you are not happy to post. Many blogs simply delete the entire comment whereas you had the decency to only remove parts that you didn’t feel comfortable with and explained why. May I just spend a short time commenting on some of those deletions.

      1) You say” I am not at liberty to confirm or deny if you have correctly identified the educational establishment I am currently enrolled with” but it is in the public domain that you are studying where I said you are. Why the secrecy? You quite correct about me finding a way to get in touch with the institution and making the points to them that I did in my comment here. What is your problem with me questioning the competence of an educator? Shouldn’t we all be doing this in the interests of ensuring that students are not misled?. As for evidence disproving climate change, I don’t recall anyone here suggesting that climate change doesn’t happen. I don’t know any sceptics who claim such a thing. What we argue is that there is no convincing evidence that humans are responsible for any significamnt change through using fossil fuels.

      2) As for me “recollecting weather rather than climate”, did I say I was recalling anything other than weather events? In that particular part of my comment I mentioned weather three times and climate not once. If that is representative of how you interpret scientific evidence then no wonder you have faith in the “consensus + expert opinion” version of science offered by the UN’s IPCC.

      3) You say “there are some things that have been very noticeable – for example the frequency of drought conditions in South East England, and increased rainfall over large areas of Scotland” – but where are the statistics to support that claim? Perhaps you’d be kind enough to provide a link to the records showing how the frequency of droughts and rainfall levels have changed over the past few hundred years. I contend that these are always changing, in both directions. Let’s look at some relevant facts for those droughts.
      3a) droughts in SE England (Note 1):
      1602 Drought in autumn & winter (London/South),
      1612 Drought from January to May (London/South),
      1616 Hot summer with drought (London/South),
      1636 Extended dry / drought period began 1st March, by September, serious drought effects. Noted as completely rain-less in ‘London Weather’ from March to August.
      1665/1666 Every month from November 1665 to September 1666 was dry. By August, 1666, the River Thames at Oxford was reduced to a ‘trickle’. This drought was a large contributory factor in the ‘Great Fire of London’,
      1676 .. With a CET value of 16.8degC, this was one of the 20 or so warmest summers across England & Wales in that series (began 1659). In particular, June 1676, with a value of 18.0degC was the second warmest such-named month in that series (as at 2005). .. There was ‘exceptional’ heat 19th June to 1st July 1676,
      1684 Drought: dry & hot spring & summer (London/South),
      1685 Drought: no rain for many months before June (London/South),
      1714 Outstandingly dry: the annual rainfall at Upminster (Essex) was .. about half of the average during the first half of the 20th century. (These low values were not beaten until 1921 q.v.).
      1716 A dry year – with a dry summer: the Thames so low by September that people walked under the arches of London Bridge,
      1741 Prolonged heat/drought set in around 12th June and lasted until 2nd September,
      1784 Notably dry during this period. Less than 50% of the average rainfall over these 7 months, and includes the exceptionally dry months of March 1785 .. and April 1785 .. Great distress to Agriculture by the spring / early summer 1785, with spring-sowing failing due to lack of moisture & cattle having to be either killed or fed on sub-standard supplies.
      1893 (Note 2) Great drought 4th March to 23rd June A notably DRY season over England and Wales. (see also 1990).

      You say “The global temperature rise of 0.6 degrees Celsius so far is a huge amount of extra heat accumulated” but is it huge in relation to the energy accumulated globally. Can you provide some figures? For example how does it compare with the energy transported within the oceans, where we are talking petawatts? What do you mean by “huge” and where is it accumulated? Most importantly, what does that have to do with claiming that our continued use of fossil fuels is going to cause catastrophic changes to the global climates?

      BTW, in an earlier response you said “I DON’T NEED EITHER OF YOUR OPINIONS”. Maybe that is one of your problems – that you are not prepared to give due consideration to opinions that contradict your own. I don’t expect anyone to rely upon my opinion or anyone else’s, just hope that fair consideration is given. An assumption is simply an opinion by another name. I am not aware of any facts that depend upon assumptions being made but perhaps you do. The conclusions made in the IPCC’s AR4 that humans are mainly responsible for most of any global warming that might have occurred during the past 150 years

      You also said “ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH IN GOD BUT HAS NOT TESTED THAT FAITH BY ACTIVE TRUST, AND PROVEN THAT TRUST BY ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD ONLY HAS NAIVE WISHES”. Being agnostic I find it incomprehensible how anyone can have an active relationship with something that doesn’t exist. In order to even conceive of such a relationship one surely has to make the unsubstantiated assumption that it does exist. You are apparently happy to make this assumption and use it as the basis for your conviction about your chosen religion. As I see it, if you can do it for a religious hypothesis then you can also do it for anything, including The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. I don’t believe that faith has any part to play in science.

      You also responded about those enormous uncertainties about the processes and drivers of global climates. You said “YOU APPEAR NOT TO HAVE READ THE SECTION ON ROBUST FINDINGS AND OUTSTANDING UNCERTAINTIES IN THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT”. I have read much of what is said about uncertainty in AR4 WG1 but recognise the fundamental bias in what the politically motivated IPCC was established to do – review the science about human causes of climate change. As was pointed out in 2004 (Note 3) in “IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options: Cognitive biases such as anchoring, where judgment is overly influenced by a starting point, and a tendency for over-confidence among expert groups are well established but their effect can be reduced through careful design of expert elicitation techniques”.
      The revelations of Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates show clearly that there was no attempt for AR4 to undertake “careful design of expert elicitation techniques”.

      In your response to Bruce’s comment on October 14th at 20:51 you said “IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE “HARD EVIDENCE” FOR ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING”. The IPCC’s version of the language of science is a corruption of the real thing. Honesty and impartiality are fundamental words in the language of true science. The UN has corrupted it. As Harold Lewis (Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California) said on 6th October in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society (Note 4) “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it”.

      In your comment of October 16th at 00:02 you made a reference to “@BruceRobbins” but I don’t see any comments from a Bruce Robbins, only someone using the name Bruce. To whom are you directing your comment? (Bruce, if you are indeed Bruce Collins are you the same who interviewed Andrew Montford in The Courier? If so what a coincidence that Montford is mentioned by Lewis above. Certainly Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is an excellent exposé of the “Hockey Team” shenanigans.)

      NOTES:
      NB: http://www. removed from Notes 2 & 3 and http:// from 1) & 4).

      1) see islesproject.com/2007/11/26/1600ce-1849-weather-history-more-uk-than-ireland/
      2) see tonbridge-weather.org.uk/wx-notes.htm
      3) see ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/supportingmaterial/ipcc-workshop-2004-may.pdf
      4) see thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    23. Jo,

      Sincere thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. We seem to disagree on some of the key issues in life but sometimes, when people ask the same questions, they reach different conclusions. I’ve got great respect, as have other people who read your blog, for the way you’re prepared to publish critical comments. You’re an excellent writer as well.

      Cheers,
      Bruce

    24. Hi Jo, I haven’t time at the moment to respond to you and J Bowers as I’m looking after the grandchildren but may I just say that I fully agree with Bruce’s comment on October 17th at 00:15.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    25. Pete Ridley’s drought years:
      1602, 1612, 1616, 1636, 1665/1666, 1676 , 1676, 1684, 1685, 1714, 1716, 1741, 1784, 1893

      14 recorded years with drought over a period of 291 years. Meanwhile…

      http://www.groundwateruk.org/Groundwater-drought-in-the-UK.aspx
      “1976… The drought achieved an extreme expression in parts of eastern and southern England. In the River Thames, the combined effect of drought conditions and continuing abstractions to meet London’s water needs, resulted in a cessation of flow at Teddington Weir (the tidal limit) during the late summer; thought to be the first time this had occurred in recorded history.”

      1975, 1976, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2004, 2005, 2006.

      Hmm.

    26. Hi Jo, since you claim to understand the science perhaps you’d like to show the errors in the work of Dr Klaus Kaiser. He rejects the claim of our Royal Society that ““Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations” “ and says (Note 1) that such a claim “cannot be true”. While you are at it you might like to respond to Professor Claes Johnson who said “The revised statement by the Royal Society Climate Change Summary of Science is full of scientific misconceptions as noted in the earlier post Royal Society in Free Fall”.

      J Bowers, ref. your comment on October 16th at 22:06, so Lord Monckton has posed the question “Can science function without religion? Science would like to think so. And yet … and yet” etc. etc. etc. He posed other questions in that QUOTE: 3070 word essay he’d written a while back: “What is Science Without Religion?”. UNQUOTE (Note 2).

      You ask “is Monckton wrong to suggest that science be overseen in a manner not unlike how it was in the days of Galileo?”. Of course he is not wrong. He is at liberty to suggest whatever he chooses to suggest, but there is no obligation on anyone to accept his opinion (or anyone else’s for that matter) as valid. I would argue that the only obligation is for us to accept facts. Without reading the full essay I can only form an (incomplete) impression of what Lord Monckton was trying to get across, that many scientists involved in the climate change debate have failed to maintain the objectivity and honesty required in science.

      We had Professor Stephen Schneider (highly respected by staunch supporters of The Hypothesis) saying (Note 3) “ .. a scientist says “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”, indicating that in his opinion scientists were not obliged to tell the truth but that he only hoped that they would. Then in 2009 we had the revelations of Climategate (Note 4) indicating that some significant scientists closely connected with the UN’s IPCC had chosen for 19 years to be what they considered to be effective rather than truthful”. Is there any wonder that Lord Monckton is looking around for some way of restoring our trust in scientists.

      You may be interested in reading the article “Stephen Schneider Greenhouse Superstar” by highly respected sceptic John Daly (Note 5).

      As for Dr. Spencer, Professor Tim Ball and Dr. Ross McKitrick, I am impressed by the honest manner in which they present their arguments when debating The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. I was aware of Dr, Spencer ahead of the other two and made reference to him in my 2007 article “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” (Note 6). Dr. McKitrick’s efforts with Steve McIntyre to expose the flaws in the statistical manipulations used Dr. Michael Mann in order to produce his desired “Hockey Stick” were laudable, as confirmed by the US enquiry chaired by expert statistician George Mason University’s Professor Edward Wegman (Note 7).

      Now let’s have your “good one from them”.

      NOTES:
      NB: http://www. removed from Note 2, 4 & 5 and http:// from 1), 3), 6) & 7.

      1) see climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6467
      2) see centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/8448/
      3) see wikepedia.org/wiki/stephen_schneider
      4) see climate-gate.com
      5) see john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
      6) see nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
      7) see wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated-mcintyre-gets-props/

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    27. IMPORTANT WARNING REGARDING PETE RIDLEY

      Mr Ridley willingly admitted (http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/) that he spent four hours on the net hunting down my last name along with the names of my wife and children, photos of them and their activities, He also made it clear that he had contacts close to where I live. All of this was presented in a friendly “be more careful” kind of tone and was about as comforting as finding that someone had broken into your house and left a note in your child’s bedroom saying “you should check the kids more often”.

      People will find photos of your kids if there are any out there in newspapers, on Facebook etc. But when someone deliberately searches for them because they are angry and use it to win an argument, that person is demonstrating sociopathic behaviour. I encourage you to report immediately to the administrator if Pete Ridley starts pushing you for more information about yourself or using this to argue with. Don’t fall for the con “I want to understand you to debate you”.

    28. Hi Jo, you said with reference to your ********************* *************** studies “you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the Internet”, but as Goebbels said, “keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. also says on the ***** ********* *********** ***** (Note 1) “******** ************ *******************”.
      Of course it’s the ** ************** ************ ********** ones (Note 2) that provide the most reliable information, such as “*************** ****************** ********************* ******************* ******************** ********* ***********”.

      I’m still very puzzled as to why you are pretending to be so coy about it on this thread but are happy to broadcast it elsewhere.

      As for your “Particularly if it’s written about Climate Change by people who have no grounding in Climate Change Science. Cheap shot, I know…but it is meant to amuse”, would you like to explain in more detail this “Climate Change Science” thingy. I was under the impression that there is no such thing but that numerous scientific disciplines have a contribution to make in improving out poor understanding of the process and drivers of the different global climates.

      I have just been looking at your involvement with ***** ********* ********** *****************. Looks very interesting. Although I reject opinions about a benevolent superpower and about our use of fossil fuels causing significant global climate change I do agree with much of what that organisation is trying to do, as I believe most other human-made global climate change sceptics do. How about you Barry – are you in agreement that we need to reduce our damaging impact upon the environment and stop wasting resources? Of course, in the process we must not overlook the enormous improvements to the environment that we humans have made over the thousands of years that we’ve been around.

      That reminds me of the story abouit the old gardener and the vicar.
      Vicar: “You and God have made a wonderful job of that garden”
      Gardener “ Well, you should have seen the mess it was in before I took over.

      The world is now a far nicer place for humans to live in than it was before we cut down those dense forests, introduced agriculture, roads, wonderful means of transport, hospitals, schools, etc. etc. etc. (and even those lovely ************ ******* and the ***** *********** ******* that Jo *********** ******* ********* ************ ****** to ***** at ******* ****** ****). OK, we’ve done some damage on the way but we learn from our mistakes and put things right. What we must strive to do is help underdeveloped economies to achieve the same comfortable environments and lifestyles that we take for granted but they can only aspire to and they should be able to learn from our mistakes.

      I see that you have an article on dear Wikipedia climate change manipulator William Connolley. I’ll put something together for that thread when time permits. As you said Jo, don’t believe everything that you read on the Internet, especially if it has been doctored by William.

      J. Bowers, thanks for the link to that excellent article “Groundwater drought in the UK” (Note 3). It and the other threads on that blog not only gives further substance to my point about droughts and floods being nothing new but also point to reasons for water shortages being more noticeable now than decades and centuries ago – increased water extraction through economic and social development and population growth (along with increased waste).

      I like the article’s opening statement “Droughts are naturally occurring features of the UK climate and are multifaceted both in their characteristics and range of impacts. Consequently, indexing drought severity is complex”.

      The article provides a link to “How will climate change affect our groundwater resources?” (Note 4). That article provides a picture of the ““River Ver upstream of St Albans dried up in 1991”, one of those years in your list – damned climate change caused buy us humans using fossil fuels!. Oh, I’ve just noticed the rest of that caption “as a result of heavy groundwater abstraction”. What a relief, it’s not our use of fossil fuels after all.

      It is noticeable that the articles on that blog all make the assumption that warming of the globe is going to continue because of our use of fossil fuels. This is surprising, considering that a period of cooling appears to have started about a decade ago. As Barry Woods implied, it’s time to get the sledges ready for another cold and snowy winter ahead.

      NOTES:
      NB: http://www. removed from Notes 3) & 4) and www. from 1) & 2)

      1) see ***********************************
      2) see ******************************************
      3) see groundwateruk.org/Groundwater-drought-in-the-UK.aspx
      4) see groundwateruk.org/Groundwater-Climate-Change.aspx

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    29. Pete Ridley — “This is surprising, considering that a period of cooling appears to have started about a decade ago. ”

      No it didn’t. That’s a typical denialist falsehood.

    30. J. Bowers, Yes it did . We could go on all year like this. You seem not to have bothered looking at the Hadley graph that I linked to in my comment on October 15th at 18:46.

      I repeat “Also, notice what is happening to the red line now that the influence of the 98 El Nino is being removed from their chosen statistical manipulation of the data. As we head into the next cold period we’ll see that line falling deeper and deeper – let’s hope it doesn’t keep falling for too long or we’ll be back into another little ice age (or worse). Perhaps a prayer is needed at this stage..”.

      You can use statistical manipulations to draw almost whatever picture you wish for, as Michael Mann did with his “Hockey Stick”. What was it that the great man said “There’s lies, damned lies and statistics”. It certainly pays to look for the manipulations of raw data relating to global climate change.

      NOTES:
      NB: I have removed http://www. from 1) & http:// from 2)
      1) see globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
      2) see hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    31. J. Bowers, I did try to embed the links in “Yes it did” and “Hadley graph” but it didn’t work out (it was OK in Word). Perhaps you can help me out with that – you obviously can’t about climate change. (I wanted to insert a smiley here but can’t see how to do it on this blog).

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    32. J. Bowers, if you haven’t made the time to give fair consideration to Professor Easterbrook’s 2008 paper on global cooling you may like to have a read of this summary of a similar presentation that he made more recently. Professor Easterbrook presented a paper at The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in May and here are some key exerts QUOTE:
      That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern because:
      1. A recent study showed that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.
      2. Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons. This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.
      3. Increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.
      4. Decrease in the ability to cope with problems related to the population explosion. World population is projected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050, an increase of 50%. This means a substantial increase in demand for food and energy at a time when both are decreasing because of the cooling climate.
      UNQUOTE.

      You can read a short summary of Professor Easterbrook’s paper at the Second Opinions blog (Note 1) of Dr. Barry Groves and at Marc Morano’s excellent blog Climate Depot (Note 2).
      You may also find time to look at some of the interesting articles on the Disinformation blog (Note 3), one of which is about another (but much older) religious fairy-story about global catastrophe (Note 4).

      I see that one of Jo’s favourite journalists James Delingpole (another is Christopher Booker, both of whom write for her favourite newspaper The Telegraph) also had a few words to say at the conference.

      I recall that another of Jo’s favourites, William Connolley, rejects the fact that we are enjoying a cooling trend. In one of my comments on his “Engineering the Software for Understanding Climate Change” thread (Note 5) I pointed him towards the August paper “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” (Note 6) by those highly respected statisticians Steve McIntyre & Ross McKitrick (who demolished Michael Mann’s statistical manipulations that produced the “Hockey Stick”). William responsed with said “To be fair, you ought to give me time to read it first. But I doubt it is of much interest. Attacking the temperature record is dull, since the (positive) trends are well known and the fit to the models also –W”.

      My comments questioned the validity of those “crystal ball” computer models and he simply refused to post two of them. Jo has a new thread asking people to show their support for William Connolley after he had his Wikipedia Climate Change editing privileges curtailed. This surprises me since she has shown herself to be prepared to allow open debate about the issue whereas William simply cuts from submissions that he doesn’t agree with or adjusts them to fit his own opinions. I’ll submit those comments rejected by William and see what Jo does to them.

      NOTES:
      NB: I have removed http://www. from 1), 2), 3) & 4) and http:// from 5) & 6).

      1) see second-opinions.co.uk/looming-threat-of-global-cooling.html
      2) see climatedepot.com/a/6574/search.asp?cx=partner-pub-2896112664106093%3Am5ewh74pu5c&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=global+cooling
      3) see disinfo.com/about/
      4) see 2012sos.net/
      5) see scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/engineering_the_software_for_u.php
      6) see rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    33. Pete Ridley, Easterbrook hid the incline.

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/whose-lie-is-it-anyway-easterbrook-caught-red-handed/

      I suggest you find others to support your ideology.

    34. @ Pete Ridley

      REPLACE WITH TEXT

    35. Sorry, that didn’t work. Try again.


      PASTE TEXT HERE

      Join it all up by getting rid of the returns.

    36. Jo, feel free to get rid of those last two posts…. and this one I guess ;)

    37. J. Bowers, let me pick up on a point on our short debate about droughts. Recall that the debate was about droughts in SE England whereas you threw in years of drought from a source covering the whole of the UK. Only for the 75/6 drought does your source mention the SE. “You can’t compare apples and pears” springs to mind.

      Your source does say “The most outstanding of these sustained droughts was the ‘Long Drought’ that lasted from 1890-1910 .. The ‘Long Drought’ has no modern parallel”. It also says “

      Your “interpretation” of the information presented, i.e. “ .. in modern times, the most extreme drought conditions were experienced in 1975/76..”, “.. two extended drought episodes, 1988-1992 and 1995-97” and “the droughts of 2003 and 2004-06” as 13 droughts in 13 years could be regartded as somewhat disingenuous – “Hmm”. It’s too easy to present a distorted picture through misrepresenting the facts.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

      PS:

      Readers may be as surprised as I was to see that a committerd Christian such as Jo Abbess claims to be has no qualms about placing information that has been sent to her as “Private and Confidential” into the public domain. Have a look at her “Pete Ridley : Three Strikes” thread where she has posted private and confidential information that I E-mailed her.

    38. J. Bowers, let me pick up on a point on our short debate about droughts. Recall that the debate was about droughts in SE England whereas you threw in years of drought from a source covering the whole of the UK. Only for the 75/6 drought does your source mention the SE. “You can’t compare apples and pears” springs to mind.

      Your source does say “The most outstanding of these sustained droughts was the ‘Long Drought’ that lasted from 1890-1910 .. The ‘Long Drought’ has no modern parallel”. It also says “

      Your “interpretation” of the information presented, i.e. “ .. in modern times, the most extreme drought conditions were experienced in 1975/76..”, “.. two extended drought episodes, 1988-1992 and 1995-97” and “the droughts of 2003 and 2004-06” as 13 droughts in 13 years could be regartded as somewhat disingenuous – “Hmm”. It’s too easy to present a distorted picture through misrepresenting the facts.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

      PS;

      Readers may be as surprised as I was to see that a committed Christian such as Jo Abbess claims to be has no qualms about placing information that has been sent to her as “Private and Confidential” into the public domain. Have a look at her “Pete Ridley : Three Strikes” thread where she has posted private and confidential information that I E-mailed her.

    39. One last try for Mr Ridley. Go to this link
      http://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_links

      The one you want to use is the second one.

      You don’t need the or for a blog comment.

      Replace http://www.google.com/ with another URL, and the word Google, to see how it works.

    40. J Bowers, thanks very much for the help on the html. I’ll have ago with the tutorial and see how quickly it brings back those distant memories.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley.

    41. Pete Ridley, why would Jo Abbess placing such a thing on her blog be an un-Christian act? Did she break a promise not to? No. Did she make it up? No.

      Do tell if you believe that private email correspondence should always be respected as confidential, and most certainly should not be posted on the internet for all to see.

      Oh, I see you already made your views on that clear by drawing on stolen emails to make straw men with, and to repeat oft debunked lies and distortions.

      “The revelations of Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates show clearly that there was no attempt for AR4 to undertake “careful design of expert elicitation techniques”.”

      “Then in 2009 we had the revelations of Climategate (Note 4) indicating that some significant scientists closely connected with the UN’s IPCC had chosen for 19 years to be what they considered to be effective rather than truthful”. Is there any wonder that Lord Monckton is looking around for some way of restoring our trust in scientists.”

      Oh well. Live by the sword…

      Otherwise it would be sheer hypocrisy, wouldn’t it?

    42. J Bowers, so you see no difference between a communication between two private individuals in a private capacity where the communication is headed “Private & Confidential” and E-mails sent by an employee using facilities provided by an employer to fellow workers in the same field as you are employed to work in. Not only that but also that the topic covered in the communication is the very one which you are paid by your employer to work on and payment for that employment is made by the people to whom the content of the communications is disclosed.

      I am surprised.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley.

    Leave a reply