The Messiah : With Us

“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. ]

2 religions!

CAGW and christianity.

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

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. ]

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

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

“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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Pete Ridley

REPLACE WITH TEXT

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

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.

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.

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.