Imagine There’s No Medicine

Imagine there’s no Medicine; no doctors, nurses, hospitals, surgeons, ward administrators, paramedics on bicycles in bright yellow and green jackets, ambulances, medical technology or pharmaceuticals. It’s not easy, even if you try. What would your life be like ? Pretty painful and quite possibly nastily shortened, I’d hazard.

There are people in the world who still do not have access to medical care (let’s think…all those Americans without basic health care insurance), so they know the grim realities of it all – but the reason I’m considering this is there could have been a point in human history where the development of Medicine was thwarted by sceptics and people with ulterior motives.

“You’re sick because you’ve sinned”, a portion of humanity used to believe; the wealthy throughout history have sometimes been keen for disease to wipe out the scum of the poor. Appeals to Nature and to God to explain sickness and accidental damage could have been followed by a refusal to care for or treat people – as it was not what the Laws of the Universe dictated.

There are still some people who believe that congenital deformity, blindness, deafness or brain damage are signs of evil and wrongdoing. There are still some people who refuse Allopathic intervention – Jehovah’s Witnesses famously refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds – but most of humanity connects the very concept of humanity with medical treatment for the sick, ill, malformed, disabled, broken and dying.

Reading and listening to the Climate Change “sceptics” continue with their denial of Global Warming, their refusal to accept the data on what is causing Climate Change, is like listening to apoplectic medieval priests refusing to accept that the Earth is round, and that it moves around the Sun.

Do they want their children and grandchildren to suffer worsening living conditions and terrible pandemics ? Of course not – so they should pay attention to the Global Warming Science. Do they want people in the developing countries to be reduced to perpetual starvation ? They claim they want the best for everyone, so they had better start reading the Science on what is happening to fresh water supplies around the world.

Skilled Climate Change “sceptic” argumentators, like Marc Morano, use all the psychological tricks in the book for manoeuvring his audience, but he is at root anti-Science and should be challenged :-

http://thebenshi.com/2010/03/08/19-analysis-why-marc-morano-is-such-a-good-communicator/

It may not be possible to challenge Morano in open debate, since he is so adept at twisting the spin to craft his case. But he does need to be challenged, as he is taking part in a well-organised, wide-ranging anti-Science drive :-

http://thebenshi.com/2010/02/18/14-mike-mann-part-ii-interview-who-will-provide-communication-expertise-and-leadership-for-the-science-community/

“In this interview I speak with Mike [Michael Mann]…, the media in general, and a number of other topics. My feeling is that the takeaway message of what he has to say is that: 1) there is now a war being waged against climate scientists, 2) the scientists are receiving very little, if any, professional media assistance (and I mean from professionals who are used to dealing with combative media, not just university outreach types), and 3) there are no new actions being taken yet to deal with what is obviously a very aggressive attack on climate science.”

If we’re not careful, it will be like the whole Age of Reason passed us entirely by.

We are instructed to be tolerant in modern society, there are rights issues, political correctness, positive discrimination, freedom of worship, freedom of enquiry and association, even freedom of speech.

As long as they are not hurting anyone, people are allowed to construct whatever fantasy world or faith community they wish and live within it. These little niches, these lived-out paradigms of human thought are everywhere : from Trekkie clubs to the Jedi religion, from astrology to homeopathy; from Intelligent Design to Revolutionary Marxism; from Neoliberal Economics to Freemasonry.

The Climate Change “sceptics” are living in their own little universe, too, with its own set of invented truths and contested facts, its own interpretation of governance, policy and economy. Because most of the Media people seem to believe in relativism (not Relativity), they feel that the Climate Change “sceptic” universe has an equal voice to the voice of Climate Change Science.

This is a completely invalid perception. For example, I doubt if Marc Morano has ever compiled a temperature record for his own back yard, let alone for his Nation. Without the data, he has nothing to stand on. Let’s be clear here : he is not a scientist, he is a social activist. He takes this stance because of his political allegiance, not because of any knowledge of the facts – in fact, I don’t know if he has any acquaintance with Climate Change Science at all.

What the World needs now is more evidence and less conjecture.

52 thoughts on “Imagine There’s No Medicine”

  1. Just what do you consider “evidence” and how is it vetted?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM :-

    THE BEST PLACE TO START FOR EVIDENCE ON GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, PUBLISHED IN 2007. FOR EASE OF ACCESS, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO READ THE SYNTHESIS REPORT :-

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

    IN PARTICULAR, THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS IS A GOOD CONDENSING OF THE SALIENT POINTS :-

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

    THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, AS ITS NAME IMPLIES, WAS AN ASSESSMENT OF ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE GOING ON OUT THERE, AND YOU WOULD NEED TO LOOK THROUGH THE REFERENCES IN EACH CHAPTER IN EACH WORKING GROUP TO FIND ALL THE SOURCES OF ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT.

    IN ADDITION TO THIS GLOBAL REVIEW OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE, THERE ARE CONTINUALLY UPDATED PUBLIC SOURCES OF DATA AVAILABLE, TO SHOW TEMPERATURES AND OTHER THINGS SUCH AS ICE COVER, FOR EXAMPLE :-

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/

    OF NOTE ARE THE SATELLITE RECORDS, WHICH ARE SHOWING A VERY STRONG WARMING IN 2010 SO FAR :-

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    AS FOR HOW THIS INFORMATION IS ALL VETTED, I TRUST THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS IN THEIR ARRANGEMENTS TO “PEER REVIEW” EACH OTHERS’ RESEARCH TO MAKE SURE IT’S VALID, AND TO KEEP ACCURATE DATA RECORDS. ]

  2. Do you still stand by the Hockey Stick?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM :-

    OF COURSE I STAND BY THE “HOCKEY STICK” ! I’M GLAD YOU ASKED, BUT ALSO A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU THOUGHT I MIGHT HAVE DISMISSED IT AS AN INVALID PIECE OF RESEARCH.

    THANKFULLY, THE “HOCKEY STICK” HAS BEEN VALIDATED BY EVERYBODY WHO HAS REVIEWED THE UNDERLYING RESEARCH, AND HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY OTHER LINES OF RESEARCH ENQUIRY :-

    http://www.joabbess.com/2009/11/29/mini-hockey-sticks/

    http://www.joabbess.com/2009/12/09/mini-hockey-sticks-2/

    http://www.joabbess.com/2009/12/26/mini-hockey-sticks-3/

    DO I STILL KEEP YOUR TRUST ? I HAVEN’T DESERTED THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. I’M STILL WITH AL GORE ON CLIMATE CHANGE. ]

  3. More of the same AGW lies. When is enough is enough? I am to puke on this article just about now. How long you are going to mislead people on the AGW scam? People are revolting against AGW and here you are pushing your believe system down people’s throat. We the people don’t want your religion.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I’M SO GLAD YOU GOT IN CONTACT, BUT I’M SORRY TO HEAR YOU ARE FEELING UNWELL. I DO HOPE YOU GET BETTER SOON AND THAT YOUR HEAD STOPS SPINNING FROM ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICISM YOU MUST HAVE INGESTED. DO TAKE SOME TIME TO READ THE LATEST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE NEWS. IT REALLY IS ILLUMINATING. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAITH (RELIGION) AND EVIDENCE (DATA). IF WE DIDN’T DO CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE WORLD IS WARMING UP. ]

  4. [ UPDATE FROM JOABBESS.COM :-

    SUZANNE, YOU SAY “I have read the AR4, at least the areas I have training and/or have read much of the literature from multiple sides of the debate”.

    I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE. IF YOU HAD READ THE SCIENCE YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A DEBATE ABOUT THE FACT OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND THAT 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”.

    YOU WRITE, “what Mark Morano says about the IPCC doesn’t begin to cover the cherry picking, circular thinking, deletion of any papers that give a different picture from the one the IPCC wants to project.”

    YOU ARE PROJECTING ON TO THE IPCC AN INTENTION THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE. THE IPCC IS NOT WORKING TO MASSAGE THE INFORMATION TO BACK UP A PRE-CONCEIVED IDEA OF WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS. THE IPCC IS COMPOSED OF AN EXTENDED NETWORK OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO READ THE WORK OF ALL THE SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD, INCLUDING THOSE WHOSE WORK IS FOUND TO BE FAULTY, AND COME UP WITH A BROAD ASSESSMENT OF WHERE THE SCIENCE FINDS ITSELF. THE IPCC REPORTS ARE NOT FALSE, AND THEY ARE NOT FALSIFIED. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINOR ERRORS, OF TRANSCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTION, BUT THESE HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.

    CHERRY PICKING THE DATA ? THAT’S WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND OBSTRUCTERS DO. IT’S NOT WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS DO.

    CIRCULAR THINKING ? I’M SORRY TO REPORT THAT YOU’RE WRONG THERE, TOO.

    DELETING PAPERS ? NO. YOU CAN STILL READ ALL THE RESEARCH PAPERS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE IPCC PROCESS, AND YOU CAN READ WHY SOME RESEARCH WAS NOT CONSIDERED VALID. THIS IS THE NORMAL PROCESS OF SCIENCE. THE PONDWEED IS REMOVED BEFORE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE CAN BE CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED. YOU KNOW, SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT. THANKFULLY, WE HAVE REJECTED THAT IDEA AS FALSE.

    YOU CANNOT VALIDATE YOUR POSITION BY MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS. TAKE THEM BACK.

    AS FOR TRUSTING THE UAH SATELLITE RECORDS – WELL, HAVE YOU CHECKED THE DATA FOR THIS YEAR ? YUP – THE EARTH IS WARMING. ]

    Jo, I have read the AR4, at least the areas I have training and/or have read much of the literature from multiple sides of the debate and I can say that what Mark Morano says about the IPCC doesn’t begin to cover the cherry picking, circular thinking, deletion of any papers that give a different picture from the one the IPCC wants to project. You say you trust the scientists of the IPCC. Boy are you wearing blinders. Why don’t you trust the father of modern climatology, the first teacher of Al Gore, the scientists who developed the satellite weather service and the UAH system, our Association of State Climatologists or the thousands of highly qualified scientists who do not believe the Play Station world of the climate modelers. AGW is still only an unproven theory based on assumptions now found to be false. Mark Morano is formidable because he has truly read the science.

  5. This is same data deficient, emotionally charged, hubris laden drivel we have been exposed to for decades. Stop pouting and produce a coherent arguement. You may detest Murano’s “spin” but at least he backs it up with data.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : MARC MORANO DOES NOT BACK UP HIS POSITION WITH DATA. HE CONSTRUCTS AN ARGUMENT OUT OF FALSEHOODS, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND HIS APPROACH. IT’S A CLEVER APPROACH, BUT IT’S NOT ACCURATE. ]

  6. Maybe you should ask Phil Jones of CRU why he has admitted that there has been no, that’s NO, significant warming over the last 15 years. Or is he an AGW denier too?

    [ UPDATE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE MISQUOTING. THE NEWSPAPERS MISREPORTED WHAT PHIL JONES ACTUALLY SAID IN A BBC INTERVIEW. GO READ THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT AND COME BACK AND ADMIT YOU GOT IT WRONG. ]

    As far as the IPCC report is concerned, maybe you should open a newspaper more oftener. Or better still dip into Watts Up With That once in a while.

    [ UPDATE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I DO OCCASIONALLY READ ANTHONY WATTS AND STEVE MCINTYRE, FIRSTLY FOR AMUSEMENT AND SECONDLY TO SEE WHAT THE LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER ARGUMENT IS. ]

    Even the Guardian’s George Monbiot is in revolt over aspects of the AGW scam as it’s layers are peeled back to reveal the lies and deceptions. Or is he a stupid denier too?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I THINK YOU’LL FIND THAT GEORGE MONBIOT DOES NOT THINK THAT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS A “SCAM”, AS YOU PUT IT. ]

  7. Aah, here’s Jo again of “BBC’s Roger Harrabin’s e-mail exchange” fame!
    Yes, still believes in the hockey stick, I guess Jo also believes in Santa and the Tooth Fairy; the scientific evidence of these two to exist is about the same as the hockey stick science of MBH98
    Keep dreaming! Just repeat lies often enough and they start to sound believable.
    Thank God for Marc Morano, he’d have you for lunch!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM :

    I STOPPED BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUS SOME TIME AGO, AND I NEVER REALLY GOT THE HANG OF THE TOOTH FAIRY MYTH. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR ME ?

    I DO, HOWEVER, BELIEVE IN GOD, TELLING THE TRUTH AS FAR AS I KNOW IT AND THE QUALITY OF MY HOME COOKING.

    PLUS, I ACCEPT THE REALITY OF GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE GREAT SCIENCE OF THE IPCC.

    PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF REPEATING LIES. IF YOU THINK I’M LYING, YOU WILL NEED TO PROVE IT, BECAUSE I THINK I’M TELLING THE TRUTH.

    AS FOR BECOMING LUNCHEON MEAT FOR MARC MORANO, I WOULD NOT AGREE TO A DEBATE WITH MARC MORANO BECAUSE I MIGHT SAY SOMETHING I REGRETTED AFTERWARDS. ]

  8. [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THERE ARE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO ARE TOO POOR TO GET THE KIND OF MEDICAL HELP THAT THEY NEED AND DESERVE. THAT’S BECAUSE THE AMERICANS HAVE PRIVATISED HEALTHCARE. WHY SHOULD MEDICINE ONLY BE ALLOWED FOR THOSE WHO CAN EARN MONEY ? WHAT ABOUT THE SICK THAT CAN’T WORK AND SO CAN’T AFFORD HEALTH CARE ? ]

    How can we tell that you don’t know what you’re talking about? When you say things like this:

    “There are people in the world who still do not have access to medical care (let’s think…all those Americans without basic health care insurance)”

    Have you heard of the health department? How about the emergency room?

    And then there’s this class envy gem:

    “the wealthy throughout history have sometimes been keen for disease to wipe out the scum of the poor”

    Why didn’t you include “evil” in front of wealthy? And scum of the poor? Wow. You jump between envying the rich and hating the poor.

    How about this strawman:

    “There are still some people who believe that congenital deformity, blindness, deafness or brain damage are signs of evil and wrongdoing.”

    Are you referring to Hitler? Or those same evil rich people?

    Your first four paragraphs are filled with scare tactics, class envy, lies, and misinformation about medicine and health care.

    How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you carry on with your continued scare tactics about global warming? (Hint: that’s a rhetorical question so answering it is unnecessary)

  9. Dr. Phil Jones Responds…

    Question:
    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Response:
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    The response seems pretty clear to me. Did the climate models predict the same warming trend?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

    IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO GO AND READ ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF THE DISCIPLINE OF STATISTICS.

    THE CONCEPT OF “STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE” IS USED BY PHIL JONES TO INDICATE THAT THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT DATA IN THE SAMPLE TO BE ABLE TO DETECT A TREND MATHEMATICALLY, STATISTICALLY.

    HE IS BEING CAUTIOUS IN HIS RESPONSES, AND HE IS TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ACCURATELY, MATHEMATICALLY.

    HE IS DEFINITELY NOT DENYING THAT THE GLOBE IS WARMING UP.

    WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH YEARS TO BE SURE OF THE TREND, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION.

    THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING, AND SO ARE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURES.

    YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LARGE ENOUGH VIEW OF THE DATA TO BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT IS NATURAL VARIABILITY AND WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING TREND.

    IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE TREND, YOU ARE ADVISED TO VIEW THIS CHART, WHICH IS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND :-

    THE EARTH IS CLEARLY HEATING UP, AT LEAST AT THE SURFACE LEVEL. ]

  10. “IF YOU HAD READ THE SCIENCE YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A DEBATE ABOUT THE FACT OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A DEBATE ABOUT THE MAJORITY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.”

    Another Gorebot spewing the “debate is over” nonsense.

    The problem with the AGW scam is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest CO2 is the driver of climate change (it can’t and it won’t).

    SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! I call on all people to revolt against this global warming scam now. Majority of us don’t buy into and we must band together and take down this obvious scam.

    As long as there is a prophet for profit, there are always fools following them to the end of the world. No more Jonestown, please. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

  11. It’s called “Projection”…that is taking the very tactics used by the AGW’ers and project them onto the skeptics, thereby distracting. BTW, Jones also admitted there were periods that have been warmer than the present. The Scam is dying it’s last breath as noted by the desperation of the rhetoric.

    ALL Americans have access to health care whether you can pay for it or not. I had back surgery a few yrs back and it didn’t cost me a cent because such hospitals exist purely for that purpose. Americans have the world’s best health care if Obama doesn’t destroy it and the country.

  12. Hi, Jo.

    Whenever I read of someone trying to defend AGW theory it nearly always involves an instruction to read something else, or there’s some vague references to simple core physics.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM :

    THE REASON WHY IT IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO ASK PEOPLE TO GO AWAY AND READ SOMETHING IS BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE UNAWARE OF THE SCIENCE, OR ARE MISTAKEN ABOUT THE SCIENCE, AND SO IT WOULD BE POINTLESS TRYING TO CONDUCT A CONVERSATION, AS THERE WOULD BE NO COMMON GROUND FROM WHICH TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE, THE DATA AND THE DEVELOPING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE.

    AS FOR THE “vague references to simple core physics”, MY VIEW IS THAT THE BASIC PHYSICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, WHICH LEADS TO GLOBAL WARMING, IS VERY SIMPLE INDEED; APART FROM THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF VARIOUS ATMOSPHERIC GASES AND THE CHANGING BLACKBODY SPECTRUM OF THE EARTH (PHYSICS WHICH EVOLVED FROM UNDERSTANDING THE ULTRAVIOLET CATASTROPHE).

    THE MAIN POINT IS THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION, WHICH LEADS TO A RADIATION BUDGET FOR THE EARTH, AND YOU NEED TO APPRECIATE AT LEAST ONE MODEL FOR THE ATMOSPHERE, SUCH AS THE “LAYER” MODEL.

    STOP ME IF I’VE CEASED TO MAKE SENSE ALREADY. STILL WITH ME ? GOOD.

    AFTER THAT DOSE OF PHYSICS, IT’S ALL PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD – HEAT ACCUMULATES IN THE NEAR-SURFACE AREAS OF THE EARTH AND IN THE OCEANS. CARBON DIOXIDE ACCUMULATES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DUE TO THE ACCELERATING USE OF FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY, ACCENTUATING THE HEATING PROBLEM. THE HEATING BIOSPHERE IS SHOWN TO REACT WITH CHANGES THAT COULD BE DRIVING THE HEATING STILL FURTHER.

    THE MAIN POINT OF DEBATE IS EXACTLY HOW SENSITIVE THE BIOSPHERE IS TO THIS EXTRA HEATING – DICTATING WHAT THE “CLIMATE SENSTIVITY” WILL BE.

    ALL THESE THINGS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO EVERYONE, SO THAT WHEN A CONVERSATION ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING COMES UP, EVERYBODY AT LEAST UNDERSTANDS THE BASICS. ]

    And you know, no matter how good your argument might be, if you can’t voice it, you’re going to lose your audience. Like him or not, Marc Morano can argue his points without telling you to go somewhere else for answers. Lord Monckton is even better at it. He has the facts and figures at his fingertips and most of the time he’s using climate science’s own facts against them.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : MARC MORANO MAY BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE A CONVERSATION TOWARDS HIS DESIRED MESSAGES, WHICH IS HIGH SKILL, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHAT HE IS SAYING IS ACCURATE. CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON USES A COLLECTION OF ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED. WHEN TIM LAMBERT OF DELTOID CAME UP AGAINST MONCKTON, HE HAD PREPARED. BEING ABLE TO SLAM SOMEONE DOWN IN A “DEBATE” DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE RIGHT :-

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/monckton_lambert_debate_blog_r.php ]

    Much of the IPPC report is not proof of AGW.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE. THERE IS NO ULTIMATE “PROOF” FOR THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, ALTHOUGH MOST PEOPLE NOW ACCEPT THAT IT IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENTIAL DATA. THERE IS NO CLEAR “PROOF” OF THE PROJECTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, BECAUSE THEY RELY ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUEL WE WILL BURN IN THE FUTURE. ]

    The Summary for Policymakers is even worse, it is just a well referenced work of fiction.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE MAKING AN UNFOUNDED, INCORRECT ACCUSATION. PLEASE RETRACT THIS. ]

    Any references to glaciers, thermometers or polar bears do not indicate anything useful. Any speculations about what might happen if temperatures rise are not useful. Any plans about what you would do if it warms are not relevant. The only the proof that is important is that which ties temperature rises firmly to CO2.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE FACTS ARE THESE : THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS RISING AND THE SURFACE TEMPERATURES ON THE EARTH ARE GOING UP. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT A POTENTIAL CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP ? OTHER PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANOTHER FACTOR THAT COULD CAUSE THE WARMING OF THIS SIZE, APART FROM PUTTING IT DOWN TO CARBON DIOXIDE INCREASES. ]

    Now I know at least one of those core facts of AGW – doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels of 288ppm gives rise to 1.2ºC yada, yada, yada. That is not considered to be dangerous.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : ACTUALLY, THE WARMING WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SO FAR (BETWEEN 0.7 AND 0.8 DEGREES CELSIUS) HAS ALREADY DAMAGED THE BIOSPHERE IN QUANTIFIABLE AND OBSERVABLE AND DOCUMENTED WAYS. WHO SAYS A FURTHER WARMING OF HALF A DEGREE WOULD BE “SAFE” ? ]

    I also know that most sceptics who know about climate change, don’t argue with that fact. It’s the rest of the warming that has us distrusting your community. The positive feedback issue. It’s that bit that gets very waffly.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OF COURSE THE POSITIVE FEEDBACK THING LOOKS WAFFLY. WE STILL DO NOT KNOW ALL THE BIOPHYSICAL PROCESSES THAT COULD BE INVOLVED AND HOW STRONG THEY ARE. WE ONLY JUST ABOUT HAVE A HANDLE ON THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE “RADIATIVE FORCING” THAT THEY PRODUCE. IT SEEMS FROM OBSERVATIONS THAT THE POSITIVE FEEDBACKS ARE ALREADY OCCURING, AND ARE MORE INTENSE THAN THE AVERAGE OF THE RANGE OF PROJECTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, MELTDOWN IN THE ARCTIC. ]

    The best answer I seem to get is ‘we’ve eliminated everything but CO2, what else could it be?’ And the only way they seem to have arrived at that reply is through computer programs. Computer programs are not proof of anything but the programming that goes into them.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : DO YOU HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT ? HOW IS YOUR MONEY STORED ? HOW DO YOU ACCESS IT ? BY USING COMPUTERS ! DO YOU TRUST COMPUTERS AND THEIR SOFTWARE OR DON’T YOU ? MAKE UP YOUR MIND, PLEASE.

    BESIDES WHICH, IT’S NOT JUST COMPUTER MODELS THAT EVIDENCE GLOBAL WARMING. THE DATA ITSELF SPEAKS, OVER SEVERAL DECADES, THE CASE FOR CARBON DIOXIDE BEING THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF ADDITIONAL GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN GETTING STRONGER, ON THE BASIS OF THE DATA, NOT COMPUTER MODELLING OF THE FUTURE. ]

    A week does not seem to go by without some scientists announcing a new facet about how the climate is acting or has acted. Arguments about CO2 residence time, MWP temperatures, ENSO, AO, cosmic rays, TSI, hot spot, etc. Countless disputed variables and those are only the ones we know about. How can the modellers model the climate if we’ve barely scratched the surface of how the climate works?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : SOME DRIVERS OF CLIMATE ARE STRONGER THAN OTHERS. SOME OF THE LARGEST FACTORS IN THE CLIMATE MODELS HAVE REMAINED THE SAME, EVEN AS THE MODELS HAVE BECOME MORE ADVANCED, INCLUDING INCREASING NUMBERS OF FACTORS.

    THE WAY THAT SCIENCE WORKS IS THAT WHEN A NEW POSSIBLE VARIABLE IS PROPOSED, TEAMS OF PEOPLE WORK ON INTEGRATING THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS INTO THE PROJECTIONS. THEN THE RESULTS ARE COMPARED WITH REALITY. IF THE FACTOR LOOKS SIGNIFICANT AND REAL, CORRELATING WITH THE LIVE DATA, THEN IT GETS ADOPTED.

    THERE ARE ONGOING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS NORMAL SCIENCE. IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS, YOU NEED TO KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH PAPERS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SCIENCE QUESTION THAT SPANS SO MANY DISCIPLINES THERE ARE MANY, MANY LINES OF INQUIRY.

    THE MAIN POINT IS THAT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTORS IN CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. WE CAN REST ON THAT SCIENCE AND MOVE ON TO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT PROCESSES.

    THE TRENDS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE CLEAR : UPWARDS. THE NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE EARTH’S WEATHER AND CLIMATE ARE BEGINNING TO BE UNDERSTOOD, THE “OSCILLATIONS”. REMOVE THE VARIABILITY FROM THE DATA AND THE TREND OF GLOBAL WARMING BECOMES SHARPER : CONSISTENTLY UPWARDS. ]

    Climate science is the most unregulated, life changing issue on the planet.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : TO CLAIM THAT “Climate science is the most unregulated” IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED. ]

    There are no inspectors, no industry standards, no regulation, no penalties for failure, deception or bias.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THAT IS A BASELESS CLAIM. ]

    The work is shrouded in secrecy.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THAT STATEMENT IS BLATANTLY INACCURATE. ]

    It doesn’t even live up to peer review standards.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THAT STATEMENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO FABRICATION. ]

    How can I trust the word that the proof exists?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU CAN’T “PROVE” GLOBAL WARMING LIKE A PIECE OF MATHEMATICS. NOBODY CAN “PROVE” EXACTLY WHICH OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECTIONS IS MOST ACCURATE, EXCEPT BY WAITING AND SEEING AS THE PROJECTIONS COME TO PASS. THAT’S THE NATURE OF THE FUTURE. IT’S CURRENTLY UNKNOWN. HOWEVER, WE HAVE A RELATIVELY GOOD GRASP OF WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, GIVEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE LIKELIHOOD OF EXTREME DISTURBANCE, BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS FROM CURRENT ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE, SHOULD MAKE EVERYBODY PAY CLOSE ATTENTION. ]

    But maybe I’ve not been paying attention? Can you summarise the proof that CO2 will lead to a rise of between 1.4 and 6.4 ºC?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : AS I SAID, THERE IS NO “PROOF”, BUT IT HAS BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THAT INCREASED CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE LEADS DIRECTLY TO INCREASED WARMING AT THE EARTH’S SURFACE AND IN THE OCEANS. ANALYSIS OF PALEOCLIMATE (THE CLIMATES OF ANCIENT HISTORY) DEMONSTRATE THAT NASTY THINGS COULD HAPPEN TO HABITATS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF HUNDRED YEARS WITH THE RATES OF WARMING PROJECTED. THE POSITIVE FEEDBACKS (WITH NEGATIVE EFFECTS) COULD LEAD TO SOMETHING LIKE A 4 DEGREE CELSIUS RISE IN AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES BY THE 2060’S OR 2070’S. NOW YOU NEED TO GO AWAY AND READ SOMETHING : WHERE I GOT THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION FROM :-

    http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php

    ]

  13. To quote Abraham Lincoln: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    It’s time we put an end to the global warming scam. 75% of world population aren’t buying the AGW scam and aren’t joining the AGW cult.

    Take a stand against the ClimateGate pretending-to-be-scientists and their cult members and let them know that we as a people aren’t buying their “voodoo science” anymore.

  14. First, I think you should appologize to Tweedle. He quoted Dr Jones corectly. You should take your own advice and ‘admit that your wrong’.

    I also would like to point out that I work at a statistical agency. So I don’t feel a need to ‘READ ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF THE DISCIPLINE OF STATISTICS.’ as you so kindly suggested.

    There are some serious concerns out there, as there very well should be. We are all trying to find an acceptable balance of cost and benefit.

    Be moer reasonable

    By the way, insulting people with a different opinion that you will not help sway their opinion.

  15. “I TRUST THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS IN THEIR ARRANGEMENTS TO “PEER REVIEW” EACH OTHERS’ RESEARCH.” — Jamie

    So you agree, then, that the 450+ peer-reviewed publications by researchers showing that AGW theory is flawed are valid. I’m glad you cleared that up for us. Now we can get back to working on REAL problems.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THEORY HAS BEEN BACKED UP BY THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH STUDIES, OCEANS OF DATA AND IS ABOUT THE MOST VALID SCIENCE YOU WILL EVER EXPERIENCE. I SUGGEST YOU GO AND READ IT TO FIND OUT. ]

  16. LOL. All the “warmers” have to do is put some damn facts (peer-reviewed or other) on the table–rather than stupid rants about how anyone that disagrees with them are “denialists,” “flat-earthers,” “big-oil-boys,” ad nauseum. Just show us dumb “skeptics” hat how it can be demonstrated that any warming is not natural. That has not been done by IPCC or anyone else, explaining why the whole house of cards is imploding!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE FACTS ARE ON THE TABLE. THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GO AND READ THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT TO GET A WIDE OVERVIEW OF ALL THE SCIENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING, AND WHODUNNIT. AND NO, IT’S NOT NATURAL. ]

  17. You’re needle is stuck in the groove.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I WILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE UNTIL EVERYBODY WHO HAS AN OPINION THAT COUNTS UNDERSTANDS AND ACCEPTS THE RISKS POSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE AND ACCEPTS THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO PREVENT FURTHER GLOBAL WARMING. ]

    Maybe it’s time to upgrade your equipment? Next you’ll be telling us all that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is a sound scientific paragon.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : AL GORE IS A GOOD COMMUNICATOR. I WAS SURPRISED HOW GOOD HE WAS. I DIDN’T KNOW UNTIL I WATCHED AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. ]
    Oh wait, don’t bother to answer that. You stand by the thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph don’t you. So, who’s the denier now?

  18. Boy, that Joabbess.com is a real looney.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : NO NEED TO BE SO RUDE ! TAKE THAT ACCUSATION RIGHT BACK, WILL YOU ! ]

    Such drivel

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I FIND YOU AS CHARMING AS YOU FIND MY WRITING. ]

    we have not even had from the original gang of so-called warming alarmists, er, scientists.
    They must all be running – scared of losing their ‘research’ rants.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHEN YOU SAID “rants” I THINK YOU MEANT “grants”, BUT I THINK IT’S FUNNY THAT YOU SAID “rants”, BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING ! ]

    If you read both sides of the argument its not hard to see that AGW is a scam dreamed up by people with bad computer programs

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : NOT, IT’S NOT A SCAM. IF YOU HAD A DECENT ARGUMENT AGAINST ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING YOU WOULDN’T NEED TO BE SO PARANOID. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY, APART FROM THE CARBON DIOXIDE MOLECULES TRAPPING ALL THAT HEATING RADIATION FROM LEAVING THE EARTH ! ]

    – the rule still is “Garbage In = Garbage Out” and no amount of arguing after the fact can change that.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE COMPUTER MODELS DO A FINE JOB OF PREDICTING THE FUTURE AND HINDCASTING THE PAST. IT’S FINE WORK IN AND FINE RESULTS OUT, I’M PLEASED TO SAY. ]

  19. [ NOTE OF THANKS FROM JOABBESS.COM : THANKS FOR ALL THE COMMENTS, GUYS. IT HAS BEEN INVALUABLE DATA. IT CONFIRMS MY INITIAL THEORY THAT ANTI-SCIENCE COMMENTATORS, ON THE WHOLE, KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE (AND THAT A GOOD PROPORTION OF THEM CANNOT EVEN SPELL PROPERLY). EVEN WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE FACTS, CLIMATE CHANGE NAYSAYERS CONTINUE TO RUN WITH THEIR OWN INTERNAL VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE, EFFECTIVELY TAKING ON THE BEHAVIOURS AND ATTRIBUTES OF PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENICS – SINCE TO DENY THE TRUTH THEY MUST INVENT A GIANT CONSPIRACY THEORY OR “HOAX” OR “SCAM” – TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY CANNOT BELIEVE THE DATA. DELVING INTO THE MIND OF A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER OR CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE OBSTRUCTER, I THINK WOULD MAKE A GREAT SOCIAL SCIENCE PROJECT. IF I COULD GET THE FUNDING FOR IT, I MIGHT EVEN TAKE IT ON MYSELF. ]

  20. This site is an embarrassment to all warmists everywhere

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : HOW PETTY AND HOW UNFAIR AN ACCUSATION ! TAKE IT BACK ! ]

    — so anti-science —

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : NOT SO. HAVE YOU READ THE SCIENTIFIC PIECES ON THIS WEB LOG ? IF YOU HAVE NOT, GO AWAY AND READ THEM NOW AND COME BACK WITH YOUR CHALLENGES IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW. ]

    a practitioner of “voodoo science”.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : NOT TRUE. ]

    A 7 yrs. old writes better science than the science found on this site because we know the 7 yrs. old will not write lies, will not manipulate data to fit his agenda. And when his hypothesis is proven wrong, the 7 yrs. old is going to want to know the truth by constantly asking why his hypothesis is wrong.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND OR ACCEPT WHAT I WRITE ON THIS WEB LOG DOES NOT MEAN IT’S BAD WRITING OR BAD SCIENCE. I KNOW SEVERAL SEVEN YEAR OLDS WHO LIE QUITE WELL, SO YOUR CLAIM IS FALSE. ]

    If one asks the 7 yrs. old why the earth is warming up? His reply would be: it’s the sun, stupid.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OF COURSE THE SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMTH ! NOBODY IS DENYING THAT ! THE SOURCE OF PRACTICALLY ALL ENERGY ON THE EARTH’S SURFACE IS SUNLIGHT, OR THE MOTION OF THE MOON IN ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH. IF WE HAD NO GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE THE EARTH WOULD BE ROUGHLY THIRTY DEGREES CELSIUS COLDER THAN IT IS NOW. TROUBLE IS, WE ARE ADDING TO THE STOCK OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE BY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS AND CUTTING DOWN TREES. THIS IS ADDING EXTRA WARMTH TO THE EARTH, AND THIS COULD MAKE CONDITIONS FOR LIFE ON EARTH VERY DIFFICULT. ]

  21. Morano “is not a scientist, he is a social activist.”

    >

    So what are you and what is this blog?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM A SCIENTIST. NOT A VERY GREAT ONE AND NOT A VERY PUBLISHED ONE. BUT I AM A PERSON WHO COLLECTS DATA TO AFFIRM OR REJECT HYPOTHESES, AND I READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANT LITERATURE FOR MY AREA OF EXPERTISE, SO THAT MAKES ME A SCIENTIST. I AM ALSO A SOCIAL COMMENTATOR, AND SOMETIMES A SOCIAL ACTIVIST. I AM BOTH. WHEREAS MARC MORANO IS APPARENTLY ONLY A SOCIAL ACTIVIST. HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE, AND I AM NOT AWARE OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE. YOU COULD PERHAPS ILLUMINATE MY MIND WITH ACCOUNTS OF HIS RICH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH ?

    I am a scientist – PhD theoretical physics plus the odd Physical Review (single author)

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I DON’T BELIEVE YOU. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR FULL RESUME CURRICULUM VITAE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM UP. ]

    – and climate science is so much cr@p.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : NOT SO. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS WELL-ATTESTED BY THE DATA, AND THE DATA’S GOOD TOO. ]

    If my students turned in work half as bad as Jones, Mann et al, I’d tell tem to consider a different line of work.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I THINK THAT THE WORK OF JONES AND MANN ARE ACTUALLY VERY WELL WRITTEN AND HELPFUL IN FURTHERING THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURAL WORLD. IF YOU INSIST THEY ARE BAD, PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES. ]

  22. I am truly sorry that you feel this way about people that don’t think like you.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IF YOU LIVED IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE DENIED THAT SMOKING CAUSES DISEASE; OR DENIED THAT HIV IS TRANSMITTED SEXUALLY AND DENIED THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS; OR DENIED THAT HITTING CHILDREN FOR NO GOOD REASON IS WRONG; WOULD YOU NOT FEEL SAD, UPSET EVEN ? I AM GRIEVED THAT MANY PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT MANY PEOPLE DO NOT ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF DECADES OF PATIENT, CAREFUL SCIENCE. THIS IS NOT A BATTLE OF IDEOLOGIES OR POLITICAL PATHWAYS. IT’S A STRUGGLE TO SAVE THE HUMAN RACE FROM DENIAL OF THE FACTS. ]

    You do have quite a bit of good info, but your people skills are somewhat lacking, and thus your efforts to educate becomes lost.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO BE FREE TO LIVE A LIFE OF CAREFREE ABANDON, BUT THE TRUTH CALLS ME TO AT LEAST TRY TO COMMUNICATE ISSUES OF GREAT SERIOUSNESS. I DIDN’T CHOOSE TO BE A PROPHET OF CHAOS, BUT THAT IS WHAT I HAVE TO DO. IT MAY SEEM TO YOU THAT I LACK SOME SOCIAL SKILLS, BUT THAT PERCEPTION MAY BE FOUNDED ON AN INADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE. I’M QUITE FRIENDLY IN FACT, BUT I DON’T LIKE LIES, SPIN, FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PHIL JONES, PEOPLE RUNNING DOWN THE IPCC LIKE JAMES DELINGPOLE DOES. I DON’T LIKE THE MISTREATMENT OF SCIENCE BY THE MSM MAINSTREAM MEDIA. I DON’T LIKE THE VIOLENT THREATS AND SLURS AND SMEARS FROM THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS. PHIL JONES SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE STATUS OF HERO. HOW DARE PEOPLE ATTEMPT TO RUIN THE CAREER AND REPUTATION OF ONE OF THE MOST COMMITTED SCIENTISTS OF HIS GENERATION ! ]

  23. I love the argument that “sceptics” are anti science. They aren’t the ones who twisted science,lost data, and physically threatened people with differing points of view.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : ACTUALLY, THE IPCC SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN TRUE TO SCIENCE, STORED MUCH DATA, AND BEEN MOST TOLERANT OF PEOPLE WITH DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW. YOU SHOULD TAKE BACK YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS, I WOULD SAY. ]

    Al Gore refuses to debate because “the science is settled”!!! It seems that AGW is anything but settled! Is science ever settled?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE REASON GLOBAL WARMING ACTIVISTS AND SCIENTISTS AVOID CONFRONTATION IN “DEBATE” IS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A FRUITLESS PUBLIC ARGUMENT. IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE YOU NEED TO DO THAT IN THE NORMAL WAY THAT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE CHALLENGED – DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND PUBLISH IT FOR CONSIDERATION BY OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. THE WAY THAT SCIENCE EVOLVES IS THAT OVER TIME, THE DATA AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME THINGS BECOMES ESTABLISHED AND THE AREA OF DEBATE MOVES ON TO OTHER PARTS OF THE ISSUE. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING UP, AND THAT MANKIND’S EMISSIONS ARE THE MAJORITY CAUSE OF THAT. NOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS EXACTLY HOW BAD IT WILL GET. ]

    Your fear tactic scaring us with a regression back to a less tolerable world would seem to be a certaintyif we are forced 19th century lifestyle!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM NOT USING A TACTIC TO SCARE YOU, I AM MERELY RELATING TO YOU THE RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. IF YOU FEEL ANY FEAR IT IS BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS BUT DO NOT SEE A WAY OUT OF THE PROBLEMS. I SEE A WAY OUT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT DO NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO LIVE A LIFE OF AUSTERITY. ]

    I believe that you would be better served in your arguments not having aeronauts Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio,Harrison “cheeseburger” Ford, and Richard Branson lecture us on lifestyle from their private jets!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WITH THAT FINAL POINT, I FULLY AGREE. PEOPLE WHO SPEAK IN PUBLIC NEED TO BE SEEN TO BE WALKING THE WALK AS WELL AS TALKING THE TALK. ]

  24. Jo, From the content of the comments, it looks like you have put your foot in deep doo-doo.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I BREATH THE PURE AIR OF TRUTHFULNESS, SO I DO NOT DETECT ANY FAECAL DEPOSITS. IF THERE ARE ANY, THEY ARE NOT OF MY MAKING, THAT’S FOR SURE. ]

    Scientists know that that the science is never settled and that a theory can be completely unraveled by a robust new finding. An example from medicine is the discovery of a bacteria that caused stomach ulcers.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT IS A COMMON MISPERCEPTION THAT SCIENCE EVOLVED BY RADICAL, EXTRAORDINARY DISCOVERIES. SCIENCE EVOLVED GRADUALLY, BY OBSERVATION, ANALYSIS AND REASONED DEBATE. ]

    Only a committed activist or religious zealot would defend the IPCC and hockeystick with your ferocity.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM A RELIGIOUS PERSON, BUT I’M NOT A ZEALOT. I DON’T THINK I’M BEING FIERCE AND FEROCIOUS, YOU KNOW. THAT IS JUST A PROJECTION, AND ACCUSATION. I’M QUITE CALM AND ZEN-LIKE AND HAPPY, ACTUALLY. ]

    I know exactly what scientific findings about climate would change me back into a believer in AGW.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WOULD THAT READ SOMETHING LIKE THIS ? : http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/ ]

    If there is nothing that would shake your faith in the IPCC than it it clear that you are expressing a religious faith, not an objective understanding of the science.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE INCORRECT IN YOUR ANALYSIS. THE IPCC IS A HUMAN ORGANISATION, COMPOSED OF HUMANS, AND OCCASIONALLY HUMANS MAKE ERRORS. THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW MINOR CRITICISM OF THE INFORMATION IN THE IPCC’S FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, NOTHING MAJOR, BUT IT’S BEEN BLOWN OUT OF ALL PROPORTION. THERE REALLY IS ONLY A TINY LITTLE MOLEHILL OF A PROBLEM, NOT AN EVEREST. I BELIEVE THAT THE SCIENTISTS WORKING ON THE IPCC REPORTS HAVE INTEGRITY. THAT’S NOT A SPIRITUAL BELIEF, IT’S A DECLARATION OF TRUST. THE IPCC PROCESS HAS PROVED IT IS WORTHY OF TRUST, AND SO I TRUST IT. THAT’S ACCORDING TO REASON AND SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING, NOT IRRATIONAL SUPERSTITION. ]

  25. Has anyone ever thought about how much concrete and other hard surfaces (such as asphalt) that are laid every day? The Urban Heat Island effect. When thinking about surface temperatures, I always keep in mind where some of these monitoring stations might be located. If they are in cities, that will definately skew the data towards a warming trend. Jo, I’d like to get your view on this and also on the role of water vapor as a driver of climate.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT IN THE ATTRIBUTION OF GLOBAL WARMING DATA. GO AND READ THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT TO CHECK IT OUT ! AS FOR WATER VAPOUR, WELL…WATER VAPOUR IS A STRONG GREENHOUSE GAS, BUT IT IS NOT A PRIMARY, ORIGINATING CAUSE GREENHOUSE GAS. INCREASED WATER VAPOUR IN PARTS OF THE ATMOSPHERE IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING AND THEN PROCEEDS, WE BELIEVE, TO CAUSE FURTHER GLOBAL WARMING IN A POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP (WITH NEGATIVE EFFECTS). IT’S A COMMON MISPERCEPTION – OR MISCONCEPTION – IT’S A LITTLE LIKE CLAIMING THAT BABIES CAUSE SEX. ]

  26. Here’s a key statement of what the science shows:

    Dr. John R. Christy, a lead author on the IPCC, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama–Huntsville: “Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that. This is an extremely complex system, and thinking we can control it is hubris.”

  27. Lord Stsnsted
    March 11th, 2010 at 12:24

    Morano “is not a scientist, he is a social activist.”

    YES, he is an activist, not a scientist…just like most of the global warming alarmists!

    But he’s one heck of a reporter, unlike the head-in-the-sands MSM.

  28. Jo, my training is in geology, climatology and remote sensing.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU TYPE IT. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR RESUME CURRICULUM VITAE AND LINKS TO SOME OF YOUR PUBLISHED RESEARCH. ]

    You could not be more wrong.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE RIGHT. ]

    Please show your proof of man made global warming, proof, not allegations.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : AS YOU WELL KNOW, IF YOU ARE TRULY A SCIENTIST, MOST OF SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE PROOF, RATHER A CURRENCY OF ESTABLISHED FACTS, SOME REAL KNOWLEDGE AND MODELS OF THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS, THAT ARE CONSTANTLY OPEN TO REVISION. THE PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING IS IN THE UNFOLDING OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS ALL. ]

    If one studies the Earth’s climatological history, AGW does not pass the smell test.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOUR ARGUMENT STINKS, TO BE HONEST. ]

    As you stated, early ignorant man blamed unwanted outcomes on sins. Once we blamed bad weather on man’s iniquities. Now storms and drought have been replaced by climate changes as proof of our evil ways, amongst the unlearned.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IN HIS CHALLENGE TO THE HEBREW PEOPLE TO “CHOOSE LIFE”, MOSES OFFERED THE PROSPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND ECOLOGICAL DOOM FOR THOSE THAT ABANDONED THE FAITH OF YAHWEH, THE ONE TRUE LIVING GOD. CHECK OUT DEUTERONOMY 28. I DIDN’T MAKE IT UP. THERE REALLY IS A PRICE TO PAY FOR ECOLOGICAL MISMANAGEMENT. ]

    Join the rest of us in the 21st century and shed your ignorance.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : SHED YOUR DENIAL AND COME TO THE FOUNTAIN OF ALL TRUTH IN THE HALLS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE. ]

    I am anxiously awaiting your proof of AGW!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WELL, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO REMAIN FRUSTRATED. I CANNOT PROVE TO YOU THAT THE SUN WILL RISE TOMORROW, BUT IT HAS EVERY OTHER DAY OF MY LIFE, SO I GUESS IT WILL. ]

  29. AGW science should surely hold up against layman critics.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHY SHOULD ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS BE FORCED TO WASTE THEIR TIME ANSWERING CHALLENGES FROM PEOPLE WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT ? IT’S NOT LIKE THE CLIMATE CHANGE “SCEPTICS” WILL SUDDENLY CHANGE THEIR MINDS. THEY’VE BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH FOR DECADES AND THEY STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR ACCEPT THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TRUTH OF THE FACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING. I CALL THAT A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE. LET’S SEE : SHOULD A TOP LAWYER LISTEN TO YOUR CRITICISM OF HIS HANDLING OF A CASE IN COURT ? WOULD YOU PRESUME, WOULD YOU DARE TO KNOW THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN HE DOES ? OF COURSE NOT ! SO WHY DO GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS THINK THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE DATA ? ]

    Why is it failing?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE IS NOT FAILING. IN FACT, IT IS SUCCEEDING. THE SIGNAL HAS EMERGED FROM THE NOISE AND WE CAN NOW SAY WITH HIGH CONFIDENCE THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING AND THAT IT IS DUE TO THE WARMING EFFECTS OF ACCUMULATING MANKIND-SOURCED GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE. WHY DON’T YOU ADMIT THAT ? ]

    Weak data andmodels, a clearly self-serving agenda among the political class and clear evidence that a large group around the IPCC share a leftwing outlook on most eco-extreme topics.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS AND THE IPCC ARE LEFT WING ? WHAT IS SO SOCIALIST ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE EXACTLY ? WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ARE POLITICAL, AND THAT THEY ARE LIBERAL/LEFT WING ? IS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GOING TO DRIVE US TO COMMUNIST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH TO THE POOREST ? (AND ACTUALLY, WHAT WOULD BE SO BAD ABOUT THE RICH GIVING AWAY SOME OF THEIR WEALTH TO THE POOR ? IT’S WHAT JESUS RECOMMENDED.) ]

    If you polled the NY Times they would tell you they are “objective” but millions of others who see the bias the statement is clearly false.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I PREFER IT WHEN THE MEDIA SHOW A CLEAR SLANT TOWARDS JUSTICE AND TRUTH, MYSELF. ]

    The same goes with the IPCC supporters.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I SUPPORT THE IPCC BECAUSE THEY’VE DONE A GOOD JOB. YES, I’M BIASED. BIASED TOWARDS THE TRUTH. ]

    It isn’t about science from the beginning, it’s about finding excuses to establish a more mediated political authority.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THAT’S NOT TRUE. YOU DON’T NEED TO INVENT SOME GIANT GLOBAL POLITICAL CONSPIRACY IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN WHY ALL THE REAL SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING UP. IT’S NOT ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE, IT’S ABOUT CONTROLLING CARBON EMISSIONS. NOT THE SAME THING. ]

    Climategate helped expose the fraud

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE IS NOT A FRAUD, AND CLIMATEGATE HAS EXPOSED NOTHING BUT RIDICULOUS AND UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS. ]

    but the numbers have been moving back to moderate positions as American’s in particular can see what a socialist state is beginning to look like.

    [ QUESTION FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOCIALISM ? “FROM EACH ACCORDING TO ABILITY; TO EACH ACCORDING TO NEED.” THAT’S A FINE AMBITION ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD ALL CARE FOR EACH OTHER AND PROVIDE FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES. I’M SURE MOST CONSERVATIVES WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AFTER THE POOR, THE SICK, THE OLD, OUR MOTHERS, OUR CHILDREN. ]

  30. Is Michael Mann now a skeptic?

    Excerpt: Despite the mistakes, Mann says the core argument — that the Earth is warming, humans are at least partly responsible, and disaster may await unless action is taken — remains intact.

    http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2010-03-11-1Awarming11_CV_U.htm?csp=34

    “…humans are at least partly responsible…” — an expert’s opinion and that is all the IPCC has in its report but there’s no empirical evidence stating man-induced CO2 is the driver of climate change, none, can’t find and won’t find it anywhere, there’s no fingerprint, there’s no HotSpot.

    AGW is a scam — whoever promote AGW after knowing all the facts is a scammer!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHEN MICHAEL MANN SAYS “Nothing has fundamentally changed”, AS REPORTED IN THAT NEWS ITEM, HE MEANS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS STILL HAPPENING AND THAT THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING STILL STANDS. PLEASE, IN FUTURE, CONVEY THE CORRECT MEANING OF WHAT MICHAEL MANN IS SAYING. HE IS NOT SCAMMING AND THE SCIENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A SCAM. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. ]

  31. Well I am a geologist

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : NOPE, I DON’T BELIEVE YOU. PLEASE PROVIDE A RESUME CURRICULUM VITAE. ]

    and I have no doubt that AGW is p*ppyc**k

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : REALLY ? AND WHAT’S YOUR PROOF ? (BY THE WAY, I’VE LEARNED TO ASK THAT QUESTION “WHERE’S YOUR PROOF” FROM COMMENTATORS HERE ON THIS WEB LOG) ]

    so does that make me anti science?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : PLEASE PROVIDE SOME FORM OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU ARE PRO SCIENCE. ]

    Answer these questions please and please do so without referring me to some other dubious internet source.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THESE DAYS, SCIENCE IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE WEB-BASED, AND SO ALL THE RESEARCH PAPERS, A LOT OF THE RAW DATA AND MOST OF THE EXPERT OPINION IS TO BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET. TELL ME WHY YOU THINK THE SOURCES I PROVIDE ARE DODGY. WHAT MAKES YOUR POINT OF VIEW ACCURATE ? ]

    The facts that I will relate are irrefutable and will be verified by any geologist in the world without reservation. Climate Change is an entirely natural and long duration process.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : INDEED, CLIMATE CHANGES AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING. IT’S RECORDED IN THE OLDEST HUMAN DOCUMENTS AS HISTORICAL FACT. READ THE BIBLE. THERE ARE MANY MENTIONS OF DROUGHT AND FLOODS AND FAMINES THEREIN. HOWEVER, THE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING IN THE LAST FEW DECADES IS (I’M GOING TO USE THAT SACRED, MUCH-MALIGNED, MUCH-SCORNED WORD THAT ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS HATE) UNPRECEDENTED, AND COULD LEAD TO RAPID AND IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE BIOSPHERE UNLESS CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS (IN PARTICULAR) ARE CONTROLLED. ]

    The evidence for this is in the history of glaciation that is all around us. There have been three major periods of glaciation (Tahoe, Tenaya, and Tioga) over the last 200,000 years. The last ended approximately 10,000 years ago and we are now in what is called an interglacial warming trend.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YES, WE ARE IN AN INTER-GLACIAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, FROM THE TIME OF THE “HOLOCENE OPTIMUM” UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY IN THE MID 1800’S, THE TEMPERATURES ON EARTH WERE STEADILY FALLING, AS DEPICTED IN THIS FAMOUS AND ACCURATELY PORTRAYED DIAGRAM :-

    SINCE THE MID 1800’S, THE TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN RISING SHARPLY. ]

    So please educate me a poor science “denier” who happens to be a scientist.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : SARCASM ! HOW FUNNY ! ]

    How and why did these periods of glaciation begin and end?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OF COURSE, BEING A SCIENTIST, YOU MUST KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, AND I DON’T NEED TO ANSWER YOU. ]

    Did man somehow transport himself and his machines back in time so he could pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to cause this terrible state of affairs?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : DON’T BE SILLY ! TIME ON FLOWS IN REVERSE IN THE VERY MICRO-WORLD OF SUB-ATOMIC SPACES. ]

    Or maybe, just maybe it really is a natural state of affairs that man has no effect on.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : UNTIL ABOUT 150 YEAR AGO, YES, CLIMATE CHANGE WAS AN ENTIRELY NATURAL EVENT. SINCE THEN WE HAVE BEEN DIGGING CARBON OUT OF THE GROUND AND BURNING IT INTO THE SKY. THIS HAS CAUSED ROUGHLY 0.7 TO 0.8 DEGREES CELSIUS OF GLOBAL WARMING. ]

    We all know that man has a terrible effect on local environments. He destroys rainforests, he pollutes waterways, he does all manner of horrible things that now will continue because Al Gore and his cronies are stealing the money that could otherwise be used to prevent these environmental outrages.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU DO REALISE THAT IF WE STOP BURNING COAL TO MAKE ELECTRICITY THAT WE WILL SOLVE BOTH THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND THE GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM ? AND THAT IF THE OIL AND GAS COMPANIES GO OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THE WORLD COMMITS TO TOTAL ENERGY REVIVAL BASED ON RENEWABLE ENERGY THAT WE WILL STOP ALL THE POISONOUS OIL SPILLS AND TOXIC AIR AND ASTHMA AND OH SO MANY NASTY PETROCHEMICAL-CAUSED DISEASES ? SOLVING THE CARBON PROBLEM WILL SOLVE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS AS WELL. I THINK AL GORE SHOULD BE PRAISED FOR HIS REVOLUTIONARY VISIONARY THINKING ! AND I THINK YOU SHOULD PRAISE HIM TOO ! ]

    One other hole in your theory is the simple fact that nowhere in any of the legislation that is pending is the elimination of pollution a requirement. No, instead it is merely requiring the wealthy nations to pay more for the priviledge of polluting.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I BELIEVE THAT A GLOBAL AND ABSOLUTE CAP ON CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS IS THE WAY FORWARD. I DO NOT THINK THAT A MARKET IN CARBON WILL ACHIEVE ANYTHING. YOU ARE WRONG IN ASSUMING THAT I SUPPORT CAP-AND-TRADE WHICH I THINK WOULD BE AT THE VERY BEST MILDLY UNHELPFUL. ]

    Your intellectual dishonesty

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : TAKE THAT UNFAIR AND UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION BACK RIGHT THIS MINUTE AND GO WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP ! ]

    is exposed for the world to see based on your shrill attacks against those who are “deniers” (trying to equate us with holocaust deniers no doubt) and the complete refusal to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there is a real problem brewing.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THERE ARE TWO MAIN REAL PROBLEMS : ONE IS THE INABILITY OF SCIENTISTS TO COMMUNICATE THE SCIENCE SIMPLY AND CLEARLY. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT THE MEDIA ARE INCAPABLE OF COMMUNICATING THE SCIENCE CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY. ]

    I suggest that you get out of this science “blogging” as you are clearly not capable of carrying on a legitimate conversation;

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THAT’S A BIT RICH COMING FROM SOMEBODY WHOSE METHOD OF “CONVERSATION” IS TO BE RUDE. TAKE THAT ACCUSATION BACK ! ]

    and I predict that when Gore and all of the IPCC people are indicted on fraud charges and sued through Civil Rico lawsuits you will still be championing their cause.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE MEEK AND RIGHTEOUS WILL INHERIT THE EARTH. OF COURSE AL GORE WON’T BE GOING TO COURT ON FRAUD CHARGES, BECAUSE HE’S NOT DEFRAUDING ANYONE ! WHAT A RIDICULOUS SUGGESTION ! ]

    Good luck, you are going to need it!

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : DO I NEED TO THANK YOU FOR THAT ? ]

  32. Hapless and helpless, our heroine (Jo) rides off (belching CO2) into the sunset. But not before offering a last shot of hubris to those who refuse to genuflect to AGW’s high priest (Big Al), the Holy Writ (IPCC AR4), and its Holy of Holies (The Univ. of East Anglia).

    Where did it all go so wrong, she thought? I have the Holy Hockey Stick and the consensus of the preisthood. These people should have listened to me.

    Alas, our heroine has had her head stuck so far up her GSM, she has not seen that the scientific method (the bane of all who seek the Holy Grail of Cap-and-Trade) has actually laid low the flawed and secretive datasets. The masses, now educated with how science is SUPPOSED to work, has pulled back the veil and seen that AGW is little more than a secular form of televangelism.

    Undaunted, she shakes the dust from her shoes and departs in search of more ignorant environs where the natives can be duped into a medieval lifestyle with stories of pestilence, drought, rising seas, and deadly storms brought on by CO2, the evil life-giving pollutant.

    Despite the sometimes disparaging exchanges, we wave goodbye and wish her well as we know she will need it. She is not a bad girl, just naive. When the mote is finally removed from her eye and she returns to us enlightened from her sojourn, there will be much rejoicing.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

    EXCUSE ME ? A “SOJOURN” ? ARE YOU ISSUING ME WITH A COVERT THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT ? DEARIE, DEARIE ME. HOW NAUGHTY YOU ARE ! WE HAVE LAWS ABOUT HATE CRIME, YOU KNOW. IT ISN’T NICE AND YOU SHOULDN’T BE DOING IT.

    I DETECT A NOTE OF DISMISSIVENESS IN YOUR WORDS TOWARDS THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF THE TRUTH. LET’S HEAR A LITTLE RESPECT FOR ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS AND THEIR INVALUABLE WORK, CAN WE !

    THEY’VE SLAVED AND SWEATED LONG AND HARD OVER THE ANALYSIS OF THE RAW DATA, STRIVING TO PRESENT THE BARE FACTS IN A WAY WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLE.

    AND WHAT ARE THOSE FACTS ?

    THE EARTH IS WARMING UP. NOT ONLY THE LAND AND SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES. THE OCEANS ARE ALSO WARMING UP.

    GLOBAL WARMING – IT’S ALL TRUE !

    BY THE WAY, PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME I AM A FAN OF CAP-AND-TRADE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MARKET IN CARBON CAN BE EFFECTIVE.

    I DECIDED SOME TIME AGO THAT PRICING CARBON IS AN INEPT, INCOMPLETE, INFLATIONARY AND INEFFECTIVE STRATEGY.

    THE ONLY ROUTE TO SUCCESS IS TO BAN EXCESSIVE CARBON EMISSIONS OUTRIGHT.

    THAT’S CALLED CAP-AND-ENFORCE.

    THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE IS OUR ONLY SOLUTION.

    YOU JUST MARK MY WORDS – IN A FEW YEARS TIME YOU WILL BE HEARING ABOUT STRICT CARBON RATIONING AND A TIMETABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT.

    SELL YOUR HUMMER NOW ! REPLACE YOUR SUV WITH A MINI ELECTRIC CAR ! SELL YOUR SHARES IN OIL AND GAS AND COAL. CHANGE IS A-COMING, COMING RIGHT UP THE STREET IN A HORSE AND CART !

    REMEMBER, IT WAS I WHO TOLD YOU FIRST.

    HERE ENDETH THE SERMON/HOMILY/LESSON. ]

  33. Well, it looks you have stepped back a bit and done quite a nice turnaround. Your comments are much more civil. Thanks.

    Now I am no scientist, but I do make observations that may be of interest. One factor that I have seen that seperates the skeptics from the alarmists and that is thier profession (except the climate scientists for some reason :-p)

    People from a geographic background seem to be more skeptical. They see things from their own perspective and it seems to make them distrust the basics of Climate Science. I suspect it is their wide view. They see things not in years, decades or even centuries. They see them in millions of years. They see the world as a vast place, where people represent a small and mostly insignificant player in the natural geologic world. So, when they see people basing the core of their science on changing the level of C0.2 from 280ppm to 400ppm and wanting to change fundametally the way we live they disagree.

    This is very much the basis of my view. I have a fundamentally difficult time believing that the world is on such a fine line between life and disaster by simply adding 200ppm of C0.2 to the atmosphere. We know that historically it has been much higher than 400ppm, so we have a hard time seeing such a insignificant change can bring drastic change.

    It is not an anti science view, it is simply one that shakes our fundamental perceptions, and thus it is harder to sway.

    The fact that the environmentalists have taken this and run with it has really hurt the message. Brow beating, exagerating, twisting and lying have done more damage to Climate Science than the skeptics. Why? Because they p!55ed them off of course. It is now that we are seeing a lashback.

    I honestly think that this was way overdue. It is time to get back to the basics of the science and get rid of the screaching banshee envirometalists.

  34. Jo,
    your patience and commitment are truly astounding. I just wanted to reassure you that there are people out there who get it.

    I was extremely impressed by the ipcc report, I know how hard it would be to get so many people from my field organised to do something like that.

    Not sure the people who have commented here will ever be convinced. Their levels of scientific understanding are similar to creationists and aids denialists. I think the scientific community will just have to forget about these people, they only become more and more entrenched.

  35. (NOTE FROM MIKEJ):

    DOO DOO LALLY, DOO DOO LALLY DOOLALLY DOOLALLY DOO DOO LALLY! DOO DOO LALLY DOO DOO LALLY DOO DOO LALLY DOOLALLY DOOLALLY DOO DOO LALLY!
    I could go on – but you get the point.
    NO SERMON TODAY FOLKS AS MISS ABCESS HAS RUN OUT OF ANYTHING INTELLIGIBLE TO SAY!!

  36. Mann created the “hockey stick” using non-centered Principal Component Analysis. McIntyre and McKittrick, and later Wegman, stated
    that Mann’s use of non-centered Principal component Analysis was flawed, and that the algorithm in effect was “searching for hockey sticks”.

    Mann et al at “realclimate”, on January 6, 2005, stated that McIntyre and McKittrick were mistaken, and cited “Jolliffe” as an authority on PCA, stating that
    non-centered PCA was a valid procedure.
    And finally we get a reply from Jolliffe himself:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/open-thread-5-2/#comment-21873

    “Ian Jolliffe // September 8, 2008 at 9:36 am

    Apologies if this is not the correct place to make these comments. I am a complete newcomer to this largely anonymous mode of communication. I’d be grateful if my comments could be displayed wherever it is appropriate for them to appear.

    It has recently come to my notice that on the following website, related to this one, my views have been misrepresented, and I would therefore like to correct any wrong impression that has been given.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/

    An apology from the person who wrote the page would be nice.

    In reacting to Wegman’s criticism of ‘decentred’ PCA, the author says that Wegman is ‘just plain wrong’ and goes on to say ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you *should* take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA, author of a seminal book on the subject. He takes an interesting look at the centering issue in this presentation.’ It is flattering to be recognised as a world expert, and I’d like to think that the final sentence is true, though only ‘toy’ examples were given. However there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’.

    The link to the presentation fails, as I changed my affiliation 18 months ago, and the website where the talk lived was closed down. The talk, although no longer very recent – it was given at 9IMSC in 2004 – is still accessible as talk 6 at http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/itj201/RecentTalks.html
    It certainly does not endorse decentred PCA. Indeed I had not understood what MBH had done until a few months ago. Furthermore, the talk is distinctly cool about anything other than the usual column-centred version of PCA. It gives situations where uncentred or doubly-centred versions might conceivably be of use, but especially for uncentred analyses, these are fairly restricted special cases. It is said that for all these different centrings ‘it’s less clear what we are optimising and how to interpret the results’.
    I can’t claim to have read more than a tiny fraction of the vast amount written on the controversy surrounding decentred PCA (life is too short), but from what I’ve seen, this quote is entirely appropriate for that technique. There are an awful lot of red herrings, and a fair amount of bluster, out there in the discussion I’ve seen, but my main concern is that I don’t know how to interpret the results when such a strange centring is used? Does anyone? What are you optimising? A peculiar mixture of means and variances? An argument I’ve seen is that the standard PCA and decentred PCA are simply different ways of describing/decomposing the data, so decentring is OK. But equally, if both are OK, why be perverse and choose the technique whose results are hard to interpret? Of course, given that the data appear to be non-stationary, it’s arguable whether you should be using any type of PCA.
    I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally. It is possible that there are good reasons for decentred PCA to be the technique of choice for some types of analyses and that it has some virtues that I have so far failed to grasp, but I remain sceptical. ”

    Ian Jolliffe

    So there you have it from the horee’s mouth, the top authority on PCA cited by Mann himself, that PCA is cr@p-

  37. [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHEN MICHAEL MANN SAYS “Nothing has fundamentally changed”, AS REPORTED IN THAT NEWS ITEM, HE MEANS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS STILL HAPPENING AND THAT THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING STILL STANDS. PLEASE, IN FUTURE, CONVEY THE CORRECT MEANING OF WHAT MICHAEL MANN IS SAYING. HE IS NOT SCAMMING AND THE SCIENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A SCAM. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. ]

    It’s an absolute scam. We know and you know that there’s no empirical evidence showing CO2 is the driver of climate change. As Mann said and we agreed that humans play a tiny part in global warming (if detectable). Is Michael Mann now changes his opposition to that of Dr. Richard Lindzen’s? Is Mann now realizing Dr. Richard Lindzen is right all along? Is Michael Mann throwing in the white towel? We know Dr. Phil Jones had done just that through his testimony. Are they now realizing that eventually the truth behind AGW scam is catching up to them?

    All you scammers will have to live the rest of your life knowing your attempt to scam the world failed miserably. The truth about AGW scam is just around the corner and it bites and has been biting like Cujo that Dr. Phil Jones and Michael Mann is running scared, whining in newspapers.

    The truth of the matter is people are now waking up to the truth and AGW extremists are now desperate spouting more outlandish claims.

    We The People still hold the power — that’s one thing you extremists can’t ever take from the American people. You extremists can try and try to tax us to death based on an unproven theory so that Al Gore and his scammers can become “green billionaires” but We The People will resist to bitter end? If you still don’t see the obvious scam behind AGW, please take your head out of the sand and get real and enjoy the sunlight.

  38. OK,

    In a nutshell go read any three Historical Geology textbooks for my proof that AGW is p*ppyco**. Additionally read any three Physical Geology textbooks for a more in depth review of how the world functions.

    Do you even know how CO2 is used in the worlds engine? Briefly, CO2 is exhaled by every living thing on the planet. It enters the atmosphere and is grabbed by plants to use for photosynthesis. They then in turn emit O2 as a byproduct. The more CO2 the more and more healthy plants you have. Occasionally there is more CO2 then the plants can handle and when that occurs the CO2 goes into solution in the worlds seas and is deposited as limestone. The last time that happened was around 5 million years ago when Dolomite (a form of limestone) was deposited in shallow seas around the world.

    Just for your edification a single large volcanic eruption injects more pollutants into the atmosphere then all of the pollution man has introduced for all of mans history.
    Kilauea has been belching out 1000 metric tons of H2S per day fro 26 or 27 years now. H2S is on the order of 20-25 times more efficient a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. The only problem is you can’t regulate that.

    Furthermore if the “science” of AGW was so darned proven why is it that you can’t accurately predict anything? In 20+ years of trying empirical data has never correlated with predicted outcomes. Never! Even after the GISS and Mann and Jones and company doctored the results and dropped inconvenient weather monitering stations it still doesn’t correlate. Those fraudsters have done everything they possibly could to obfuscate the real science to support their preconcieved results. All to no avail. Mother Nature keeps biting them in the butt!

    I also notice how AGW proponents never mention the work of Henrik Svensmark and his Dutch group who did what AGW proponents never could. Actually correlate actual real data with a possible source for the temperature variations…namely the sun. They were able to correlate 1500 years of sun data and temperature data here on Earth. And more importantly…they didn’t have to lie to do it!

    So I wonder how much do you get paid to do this? Pechauri, Gore, Jones, Mann & Co. have made tens of millions off of theis scam, their companies and universities have made hundreds of millions off of it. What’s in it for you?

  39. One further thing here you said

    NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : INDEED, CLIMATE CHANGES AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING. IT’S RECORDED IN THE OLDEST HUMAN DOCUMENTS AS HISTORICAL FACT. READ THE BIBLE. THERE ARE MANY MENTIONS OF DROUGHT AND FLOODS AND FAMINES THEREIN. HOWEVER, THE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING IN THE LAST FEW DECADES IS (I’M GOING TO USE THAT SACRED, MUCH-MALIGNED, MUCH-SCORNED WORD THAT ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS HATE) UNPRECEDENTED, AND COULD LEAD TO RAPID AND IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE BIOSPHERE UNLESS CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS (IN

    In fact this is not the case. It is only the case if you believe the fraudulent data that the CRU and Mann and Co. have been foisting off on the media. In fact when you look at the real hard data (which is extremely difficult since Jones and Co. “lost” or destroyed it) you see that there has been no significant long term climate change for the last 75 years. There are normal periods of increased temperature followed by periods of decreased temperature none of which last for more than 20-25 years. This is a normal cycle that is well recognised as far back as the 1600’s. So looking back there actually has been NO significant increase or decrease in the global temperature over the last 75 years. Some say it is more likely the last 150 years. A twenty year period is meaningless in the scheme of the world.

    I do agree with you on one thing though. The sooner we can change over to geothermal or fusion for our power supplys the better. The problem is currently the carbon based systems are by far the most efficient systems for generating power. Until the other systems come on line we must rely on what we have. Clean it up for certain as the US based coal industry is doing with their special scrubbers which trap most of the pollutants they would otherwise emit. But to try and tax them out of existence harms everyone, especially the poor. But in the minds of the elitist rich the poor don’t really matter. In fact they are a hindrance and only cause trouble.

  40. “EXCUSE ME ? A “SOJOURN”? ARE YOU ISSUING ME WITH A COVERT THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT?”

    sojourn – noun – A temporary stay. Paranoid response. You gotta work on that.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : ME ? PARANOID ? I WAS JUST TRYING TO ASCERTAIN IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE INCREASING NUMBER OF SCEPTICS URGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ANYBODY PERFORMING OR PROMOTING SCIENCE. ]

    “I DETECT A NOTE OF DISMISSIVENESS IN YOUR WORDS TOWARDS THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF THE TRUTH. LET’S HEAR A LITTLE RESPECT FOR ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS AND THEIR INVALUABLE WORK, CAN WE ! THEY’VE SLAVED AND SWEATED LONG AND HARD OVER THE ANALYSIS OF THE RAW DATA, STRIVING TO PRESENT THE BARE FACTS IN A WAY WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLE.”

    Dismissive is the word rightly applied to the way alarmists have treated skeptical researchers who have slaved no less hard for much less money (sometimes none) and whose only goal is NOT to disprove man’s role in global warming (which ALL climate scientists believe to be true) but to quantify it.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR HERE ABOUT WHO IS A GENUINE SCEPTICAL RESEARCHER AND WHO IS JUST A “SCANDAL-MONGERING LIAR” TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE PROGRESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE. OOPS. I’VE BEEN UNKIND. BUT I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE ACCURATE WHEN DESCRIBING THE ACTIVITIES AND ATTITUDES OF SOME OF THE SELF-STYLED “SCEPTICS”. IF THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ACTUAL RESEARCH, IF THEY ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS TAKING THE SCIENCE FURTHER, THEN I CANNOT CALL THEM “SCEPTICS”, JUST “OBSTRUCTERS”. HOWEVER, SOME GENUINE SCEPTICS ALSO DISPLAY SIGNS OF OBSTRUCTIONISM. I THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION WITH PATRICK MICHAELS FOR EXAMPLE, BUT ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO EXCHANGE WITH STEVE MCINTYRE, WHO I MIGHT START CALLING AN “ARCHBLOCKER”. ]

    In providing data, analyses, and alternate theories showing man’s role to be minimal, these researchers have been disparaged, ridiculed, and marginalized.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : LOOK, IF YOUR RESEARCH IS SHOWN TO BE UN-REPRODUCIBLE, OR UN-VERIFIABLE, OR HAS CLEAR ERRORS IN IT, THEN YOUR WORK SHOULD BE DISMISSED. AS A RACE WE HAVE DISMISSED THEORIES AND EVEN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTED THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE LESS INTELLIGENT THAN WHITE PEOPLE; THAT WOMEN CANNOT PERFORM MENTAL ABSTRACTION; THAT THE CONTINENTS ARE IMMOVABLE AND THAT THE EARTH IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD. ALL THAT RESEARCH SHOULD STAY LAYING ON THE LIBRARY SHELF GATHERING DUST. ]

    For someone seeking the truth, as you say you are, this should have been your first indication that the scientific method was not operating properly.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT IS NORMAL FOR SOME THEORIES TO BE ABANDONED TO THE GREAT CIRCULAR FILING CABINET OF HISTORY, TO BE SHREDDED AND MADE INTO COMPOST. DEAD-END THEORIES AND UNSOUND RESEARCH EVENTUALLY STOPS BEING REFERENCED AS THE SCIENCE EVOLVES. WE HAVE SHOWN THAT WE CAN RELIABLY CLAIM THAT THE EARTH IS HEATING UP AND THAT MANKIND’S EMISSIONS ARE THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN THIS. WE MUST LEAVE OTHER THEORIES ASIDE AS THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE INVALID. ]

    That you joined the witch hunt shows that you are just another biased partisan.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AM NOT TAKING PART IN A WITCH HUNT. I AM NOT PARTISAN, IN POINT OF FACT. I DO NOT BELONG TO A POLITICAL PARTY AND I DO NOT REGULARLY VOTE FOR ONE PARTY. I VOTE ON THE BASIS OF COMPETENCY AND HOW I JUDGE THE CANDIDATES TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE ELECTED TO SERVE AND REPRESENT. CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, IF ANYTHING. CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY MAY WELL BE DERIVED FROM PARTICULAR IDEOLOGIES, SUCH AS NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS. I DO NOT ACCEPT A CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY UNLESS I CONSIDER IT HAS MERITS. ]

    “THE EARTH IS WARMING UP. NOT ONLY THE LAND AND SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES. THE OCEANS ARE ALSO WARMING UP.”

    For the last 200 or so years, agreed. However, there is no empirical data proving that burning fossil fuel has been the MAJOR source of that increase.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WHILE IT IS NOT REALLY PRACTICAL TO DEMAND EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM, EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTS CAN BE PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY TO SHOW, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, THAT THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ABSORPTION SPECTRUM FOR CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES. A RANGE OF BASIC EXPERIMENTS SHOWS US WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM INCREASING CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. EVIDENTIAL DATA SHOWS US THAT THESE EXPECTATIONS ARE VALID. WE CAN KNOW FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARBON ISOTOPES IN THE LAND SEDIMENTS, FOSSIL FUELS, LIVING THINGS, AIR AND OCEAN THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF FOSSIL FUEL BURNING. WE ARE CONFIDENT FROM HINDCASTING TECHNIQUES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS THAT RECENT GLOBAL WARMING IS THE RESULT OF MANKIND’S NET EMISSIONS TO AIR. ]

    Indeed, in his recent interview with the BBC, Phil Jones FINALLY acknowledged that our recent warming was not statistically different from the warming of 1910 – 1940. If there is no statistical difference between warming with static CO2 and warming with dynamic CO2, there is no way to discern a human contribution from a natural one.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE CONFUSED IN YOUR THINKING, I BELIEVE. THE PERIODS OF WARMING CONSIDERED BY PHIL JONES DID SHOW SIMILAR RATES OF WARMING, BUT THE REASONS FOR THE WARMING WERE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT PERIODS. THE RATE OF WARMING OF THE PERIODS CONSIDERED COULD BE SAID TO BE THE “CLIMATE RESPONSE RATE” THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED FOR ANY SIMILAR RADIATIVE FORCINGS. HOWEVER, WE COULD NOW BE IN NEW TERRITORY, AND FUTURE WARMING MAY NOT BE AS LEISURELY AS PREVIOUSLY. ALREADY THE IPCC ARE CALCULATING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS SPEEDING UP. THE OVERALL WARMING TREND WILL REMAIN UPWARDS UNLESS CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ARE CONSTRAINED AND REDUCED :-

    WIDTH=”450″ />

    ]

    “BY THE WAY, PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME I AM A FAN OF CAP-AND-TRADE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MARKET IN CARBON CAN BE EFFECTIVE.”

    Agreed.

    “YOU JUST MARK MY WORDS – IN A FEW YEARS TIME YOU WILL BE HEARING ABOUT STRICT CARBON RATIONING AND A TIMETABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT.”

    Quite possible. And a triumph of politics over science (which history shows is common).

  41. So why hasn’t the top 1000m of the oceans warmed since 2003 despite increasing CO2, the only time we’ve really had a widely dispersed observing network with properly calibrated sensors(ARGO)?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

    YOU ARE REPEATING WELL-WORN-OUT DISCREDITED SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTS, SUMMARISED BY DAVID EVANS IN THIS DOCUMENT HERE :-

    http://sciencespeak.com/NoOceanWarming.pdf

    IN FACT, THE OCEANS ARE WARMING, AND THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY GOING INTO THE OCEANS IS INCREDIBLE :-

    ]

    As for H20 vapour not being a primary infra red absorbing gas, you must be kidding. Are you seriously claiming that if there was no CO2 there would be no water vapour in the atmosphere?

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

    NO, I’M NOT. WATER VAPOUR IS A USUAL, NORMAL, EXPECTED, REGULAR COMPONENT FRACTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

    WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT AS THE WORLD WARMS UP, MORE WATER VAPOUR CAN RESIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, WHERE IT CAUSES FURTHER WARMING OF THE LAND AND OCEANS AS IT ADDS EXTRA GREENHOUSE EFFECT, BECAUSE IT IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.

    ]

    If not the water vapour that does happen will rapidly ensure there is near saturation with water vapour near the surface which is not a bad approximation of a certain blue planet third from its sun that I know of. The tropical oceans are a large part of this planet and the near saturation bit is true there.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

    I’D BE RATHER CAREFUL IN CLAIMING “SATURATION” OF ANY KIND.

    IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND PLANET FROM THE SUN, VENUS, YOU CAN SEE AN ALARMING LEVEL OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE, INCLUDING WATER VAPOUR AND CARBON DIOXIDE, AND THE SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE REALLY HIGH :-

    http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Express/SEMFPY808BE_0.html

    ALSO AS REGARDS THE OTHER KIND OF “SATURATION”, OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM ABSORPTION, MORE GREENHOUSE GAS IN THE ATMOSPHERE MEANS MORE GLOBAL WARMING :-

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141

    “The CO2 model, “recommended to us by the brilliant advocacy and high authority of Prof. T.C. Chamberlin,” briefly became a popular theory to explain the very slow climate changes of the past. Within a few years, however, scientists dismissed the theory for what seemed insuperable problems. It appeared that there was already enough CO2 in the air so that its effect on infrared radiation was “saturated” — meaning that all the radiation that the gas could block was already being absorbed, so that adding more gas could make little difference. Moreover, water vapor also absorbed heat rays, and water was enormously more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in parts of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention the CO2 itself) already entirely blocked? These studies with the crude techniques of the early 20th century were inaccurate. Modern data show that even in the parts of the infrared spectrum where water vapor and CO2 are effective, only a fraction of the heat radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth is blocked before it escapes into space. And that is beside the point anyway. The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth’s surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.”

    ]

  42. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT AS THE WORLD WARMS UP, MORE WATER VAPOUR CAN RESIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, WHERE IT CAUSES FURTHER WARMING OF THE LAND AND OCEANS AS IT ADDS EXTRA GREENHOUSE EFFECT, BECAUSE IT IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.

    You do realise that the vast majority (95%) of the greenhouse gas IS water vapor? CO2 makes up a very small portion of the total greenhouse gas total. And mankind only adds about .35% of the total CO2 amount.

    And yes as the world warms up the atmosphere can hold more water. Interesting then how the AGW proponents then try to equate the recent snowfalls with global warming. Especially in light of the hysterical prognostications of “our children won’t know what snow is” or “the few breeding pairs of humans will be living in the antarctic”

    And all the while they ignore the fact that to get snow it has to be COLD!!!! Please show me the perpetual motion machine that can generate cold from heat without the use of a refrigerator!

  43. God save us from the certainty of the likes of poor dear Jo.

    We had a fridge magnet that summed up the juvenile certainty that Jo portrays – it said

    “Teenagers please leave home now – whilst you still know everything”

    Jo – you have more twists and slippery turns than a well sucked liquorice twist.

    You really should sit back and whatch the show as the AGW bandwagon implodes. The only comments you get are those that beg to differ with your religious zeal.

    Imploring and pleading with people to read the flawed science and then also post saying that the science is not important but influencing the media is, is doing more harm to the AGW bandwagon than you could ever imagine!

    You are infamous for bullying a BBC reporter into changing the facts to suit the AGW agenda and even in the face of the reality of the collapse of the house of cards you put so much true “faith” into, you still repeat the same tired old diatribe like a cracked record.

  44. [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM

    IN ORDER TO FALSIFY THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING YOU WOULD NEED TO FIND ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FALSE :-

    1. THE EARTH IS WARMING UP.

    2. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS SHOW THAT CARBON DIOXIDE ABSORBS ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION IN THE INFRARED, AND THEREFORE IS CLEARLY PART OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

    3. THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS GOING UP (AND WITH IT, THE ACIDITY OF THE OCEANS, AS THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS EXCHANGED AT THE AIR/SEA BOUNDARY).

    4. ANALYSIS OF THE ISOTOPES OF CARBON SHOW THAT CARBON DIOXIDE ORIGINATING FROM FOSSIL FUELS IS INCREASING IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

    5. OF ALL THE FACTORS THAT CAN BE THEORISED TO AFFECT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, RISING CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IN RECENT DECADES.

    6. CARBON DIOXIDE IS SHOWN TO AFFECT PLANETARY-SCALE TEMPERATURE IN PLANETS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF LIFE.

    7. PROJECTING BACK INTO RECENT EARTH HISTORY WITH CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS SHOWS AN EXCELLENT FIT FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURES (REPLICATING VARIATIONS AND TRENDS).

    SINCE NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED, WE NEED TO ACCEPT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

    PARTS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM ARE EXPECTED AND OBSERVED TO CHANGE WITH INCREASED GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

    IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THESE PARTS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM WILL CHANGE, BUT NOT OFTEN POSSIBLE TO SAY BY HOW MUCH.

    SINCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ISOLATE ANY OF THESE PARTS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM, WE CANNOT PERFORM EMPIRICAL TESTS AND OBSERVATIONS.

    THE EARTH IS NOT A LABORATORY TEST. HOWEVER, WE HAVE CONDUCTED A MASSIVE EXPERIMENT ON THE EARTH IN THE LAST FEW DECADES WHICH EFFECTIVELY VALIDATE THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

    EVEN PATRICK MICHAELS ACCEPTS THAT THE EARTH IS WARMING UP, AND HE’S AN ARCH-SCEPTIC AND ONE OF THE FELLOWS BEHIND THE “URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT THEORY”.

    I’M SURE THAT JOHN CHRISTY AT UAH WILL EVENTUALLY CHANGE HIS TUNE, TURNING THE DIAL FROM SCEPTICISM TO ACCEPTANCE. HAVE YOU SEEN THE UAH SATELLITE RECORDS FOR 2010 ?

    ]

    Jo, I had written responses to other comments but found there was no need. The following tells everyone everything they need to know about your position on AGW. In the space of 4 paragraphs, you state:

    “WE HAVE SHOWN THAT WE CAN RELIABLY CLAIM THAT THE EARTH IS HEATING UP AND THAT MANKIND’S EMISSIONS ARE THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN THIS.”

    and

    “WHILE IT IS NOT REALLY PRACTICAL TO DEMAND EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM … ”

    In the top, you are making a statement of fact about the Earth as a whole. In the bottom, you are acknowledging that there is no way (yet) to validate that claim on the Earth as a whole.

    The bottom is a clear statement of truth based on our present lack of understanding of how the biosphere operates. Stating a belief in something you acknowledge you cannot prove is, by definition, faith. And, in your case, it is very parochial.

    So, please, stop lecturing skeptics as your message of faith far exceeds your pseudo-scientific argument.

  45. Jo, it’s time for you to go dormant,

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WRONG. IT’S TIME FOR ME TO TALK LOUDER AND TO A WIDER AUDIENCE. ]

    as Al Gore the big fat rat, has.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : PERSONAL ATTACKS CARRY SO MUCH WEIGHT (TONGUE IN CHEEK). I SO BELIEVE YOU (NOT). ]

    There is nothing you can say that can salvage the sinking AGW ship. And it deserves to sink.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE ARGMENTS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER-SCEPTICS HAVE NEVER REALLY FLOATED. SCIENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS BUOYANT, AND WILL RISE ABOVE THE WAVES TO WRITE THE MESSAGE IN THE SKIES. ]

    The rats will scream and flail in the water, but my recommendation to you is to not offer them any planks, lest they somehow get to shore and try to start another plague. Luckily, the most recent plague they tried to start was circumvented by the facts.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I DON’T SMELL A RAT, BUT I SCENT A POOR ARGUMENT. ]

    Note these rats, or prior generations of them, have tried to cause this same plague, twice with “global warming” crazes, and twice with “global cooling” crazes.

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I THINK YOU MIGHT BE DISTORTING THE FACTS SOMEWHAT. THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF OPINION IS THAT, GLOBALLY, TEMPERATURES WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. SOME SCIENTISTS OPEN UP THE DOOR TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD COULD BE COLDER THAN THEY ARE NOW DUE TO DISRUPTIONS OF THE OCEAN HEAT TRANSPORT CURRENT LOOPS. ]

    I guess there will always be rats….

    [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THERE WILL ALWAYS BE FOSSIL FUEL LOBBYISTS PAYING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL… ]

  46. Hi Jo,

    Just a few comments that you might want to consider….

    IMO, claiming that climate science is not political is a naieve statement. It is very much political. It is a very well funded topic that is driving major policy considerations. It is ‘very well funded’ because of politics.

    I want to study the growth of fungus X gets no funding. I want to study fungus X and see if it may be linked to climate change… Bingo! Funding! This is politics, and the way science and politics are linked. It has always been like this, and always will be.

    Honestly, I think you shold try to be more open minded about opposition to AGW. Us sceptics don’t want to destroy the world, we are just very hesitant to give all we have away for something that we are not sure is true.

    Is there a lot of alarmism? Yes
    Have there been some serious, and illegal activity (FOI) by Climate Scientists? Yes
    Is this a politically charged topic? Yes
    Is the base data questionable? Yes
    Will this require major sacrafices? Yes
    Will the outcome of desired changes gurantee a good outcome? No
    Have big issues come up under limited scrutiny? Yes. (Himilayas)

    Given these basic questions and response, all of which I feel warrant examination, why would I not be sceptical? I see big cost, low benefit, you see low cost big benefit.

    Please try to keep an open mind. (I have doubts about my position, but I do have basic unanswered questions that I have never seen addressed anywhere)

  47. @ Jo March 14 18:29

    Nice try at attempting to escape through the back door. Everyone noticed that you were caught making a statement you acknowledged you couldn’t prove, had no answer for, and, in true alarmist response, chose to change the subject. And to what:

    “IN ORDER TO FALSIFY THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING YOU WOULD NEED TO FIND ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FALSE:

    1. THE EARTH IS WARMING UP.

    SINCE NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED, WE NEED TO ACCEPT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.”

    No, all we need to do is find a event in Earth’s paleo record where CO2 went up (or down) and temperature did not track. After all, according to AGW theory, CO2 is THE main driver of temperature.

    I could choose any number of these events but, since you are so fixated on recent history, I’ll settle on roughly 1940 to 1970. Given the logarithmic nature of CO2, temperature should show a higher sensitivity to increases of CO2 from lower levels of CO2. Since, as alarmists note, CO2 began its significant anthropogenic increase around 1940 but global temperature fell FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS. Since there is no correlation and correlation is a prerequisite for causation, TA DA! Done. AGW falsified.

    The best example is when CO2 was much higher than today and the Earth was a complete iceball. I didn’t use it, though, because it occurred before 1900 and, as we all know, alarmists refuse to acknowledge anything that happened before 1900.

    C’mon, Jo, you choose the hard path of attempting to prove that CO2 is a boogeyman when it is so easy to show it is not. You gotta let go of your anger and come back from the dark side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.