jump to navigation

Heaven and Earth – Professor Ian Plimer’s new book April 10, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Heaven and Earth

From the Australian Conservative Bookshop

Heaven and Earth
IAN PLIMER

Recommended by Václav Klaus, President of the EU, 2009.

“This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book. Ian Plimer fully exploits his unique scientific background in geology, his life-long academic experience, and his broad, truly interdisciplinary knowledge to dismantle the currently popular, politically correct but rationally untenable and indefensible position that the Earth is approaching catastrophic climate change and that we have to react – at all costs – to prevent it.

Professor Plimer argues that the undergoing climate change is not unprecedented in history and that the temperatures in the 20th Century are not outside the range of natural variability. He rejects the unscientific idea that the explanation of climate change can be reduced to one variable (CO2), the proposition that there is a strong relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions, and the almost religious belief that we will stop climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. He rightly assumes that humans will be able to adapt to any future coolings or warmings.

He also convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, UK and US politicians as well as “Hollywood show business celebrities”. He strictly distinguishes science and environmental activism, politics and opportunism. The book I wrote two years ago “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” comes to very similar conclusions but I have to say that if I’d had a chance to read Professor Plimer’s book, my book would have been better.” (Václav Klaus.)

The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy.

The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times.
The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected.

A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance.

When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change.

Don’t wait up.

Over 500 pages, over 50 diagrams

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005). He was previously Professor and Head of Geology at The University of Newcastle (1985-1991). His previous book, A Short History of Planet Earth, won the Eureka Prize.

CONNOR COURT
ISBN: ISBN 9781921421143

To order the book click here

About these ads

Comments»

1. Dr. David E. Parry - April 14, 2009

What a breath of fresh air; I can’t wait to read the book. As a soil scientist with 40 years experience of working in arid, semi-arid and wet tropical environments I’ve experienced enough of nature’s amazing power to question the mantra that man’s puny efforts can really change or even influence mildly such a gigantic chemical-physical reaction as global climate. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of cloud seeding let alone slowing or reversing the global temperature by cutting CO2 emissions – a modern-day King Canute syndrome. What fascinates me is how we reached this point where the climate catastrophists exert so much political and scientific influence. Some have suggested that with the end of the cold war and the nuclear threat a new ‘enemy’ was needed to fulfil our collective desire for doomsday scenarios, guilt and penance.

2. Beware the climate of conformity « An Honest Climate Debate - April 14, 2009

[...] For more on Professor Ian Plimer’s book click here [...]

3. Eugene McFarlane - April 17, 2009

” Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years”.
This can only make sense if we chop time into millenia. This is one of those disingenuous statements that misses the point – that atmospheric CO2 levels have rapidly increased over the last 50-100 years and are now significantly higher than they have been for 400,000 years. The rate of change – and a change explainable by combustion of fossil fuels is the issue. I don’t care if CO2 levels recover naturally in 100,000 years!
As to Dr David Parry’s comment “Some have suggested that with the end of the cold war and the nuclear threat a new ‘enemy’ was needed to fulfil our collective desire for doomsday scenarios, guilt and penance” – as soon as you say unsubstantiated (and irrelevant) things like this we all get to ignore you. Most of us are making judgements based on science and rational argument – and will ignore agendas and conspiracy theories (whether real or not).

4. Allan Heasman - April 19, 2009

Having just bought my copy and read only few pages, I am reminded of Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to a church door in 1517.
I read Tim Flannery’s book “The Weather Makers” and when the only professionally working scientist I know categorised it as “popular science” I felt maybe there could be more to all this.
Ian Plimer’s book could make him Australian of the Year.
I wish someone could just explain away oil depletion and I would be much happier for the future.

5. K.J.Dillon - April 20, 2009

“most of us are making judgements based on science and rational argument- and will ignore agendas and conspiracy theories (whether real or not) ” Eugene McFarlane

“there is a principle
which is a bar against all information
which is proof against all arguement
and which cannot fail to keep man
in everlasting ignorance
that principle is condemnation before investigation” Edmund Spencer

“the difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and arguements and a passionate unwillingness to do so” Sam Harris

” substitutes for the function of war
….poisoning of the air and of the principle sources of food and water supply is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organisations and political power.But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing , on a global scale, to offer a possible solution.”
Iron Mountain Report 1967 Pg.67

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working ….of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure- one world if you will. If that’s the charge I stand guilty and am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller ‘Memoirs’ Pg 401

” the language of the totalist environment is characterised by the thought terminating cliche’. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive sounding phrases easily memorised and easily expressed.These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis…For an individual person the effect of the language of ideological totalism can be summed up in one word: constriction.”
Robert J Lifton ‘Thought Reform and the Pyschology of Totalism”

By the way Eugene, ‘conspiracy theory’ was first coined to attack Eustice Mullins in the ’50′s when he wrote ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’ exposing the private baking cartels misdeeds. It’s of note that such a criticism never made his ground breaking expose “less true”.

Good luck with those judgements made with science and rational arguements!

6. R.Ireson - April 23, 2009

The proposition that the climate shouldn’t change is absurd, considering the amount of influencing variables involved there would be something frightfully wrong if it didn’t fluctuate and change over the long and short term. And what authority do these scientist have to arrogantly claim from their observations to know what is normal and what is not.

I haven’t read the book yet but am heartened by someone who has finally come out in public to question the hysterical crowd who squeal with moral indignation anytime someone should dare to offer an opposing view.

Only humans, overdeveloped bacteria, could have the arrogance to conclude they are of such significance that they influence nature to the extent they claim and that nature somehow needs our help to protect its self.

As an antidote to this hubris I would recommend a dose of the most recent footage from the Hubble space telescope (you can find it on YouTube for free) for those who seem convinced that the earth literally revolves around the human race. Consider the seemingly limitless scale of the universe we are less than a subatomic speck of a fleeting thought in the imagination of a vast vast eternity.

Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. If there are enough notable exceptions, then protest reaches a critical mass. We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

I appeal to scientists of a contrary view, don’t allow the government to railroad the rest of us at the behest of the perhaps well meaning but deluded.

7. gavin - April 26, 2009

About fricking time. To be honest, I was gettign so skeptical about it that I was suspicious anyone would ever let a book like this come out – lest they be persecuted liek Salman Rushdie.

Good job, Ian – I didn’t need your book to know what should be common sense –

a) Who are we to suggest that a certain _ _ (?) temperature is perfect and what is not, and?

b) Basic science suggesting the comes AFTER the warming you idiots!!!

8. gavin - April 26, 2009

Sorry – to that last message

ADD: Basic science suggest that CO2 comes AFTER the warming!!

I’ll leave ‘you idiots!’ there, it still applies.

9. Ian - April 28, 2009

Has anyone pointed out Prof Pilmer’s ties to major mining companies, and his track record of being an apologist for environmental destruction?
Why do people even consider a book “scientific” if it is not even published under peer review, but released to the public in a blatant media campaign to justify the lowering of carbon caps?
Pilmer is obviously on the payroll, and his “science” contradicts itself and does not stand up under any kind of scrutiny.

10. Allan Heasman - April 29, 2009

Ian,

The counter argument could be said about Tim Flannery’s book. Climate history has a place to be taught in our schools while long term climate change seems better placed in a casino.

The tipping point we seem to be reaching is the counter argument becoming fashionable and all the CO2 boffins are becoming the establishment fuddy duddies.

Remember financial derivatives were subject to peer review and acceptance. The layman needs explanations that can be understood. No longer will I take at face value any of those AGW arguments till they can explain the history.

11. John Ramsden - April 29, 2009

On April 9th 2009 a person called Ian scathingly puts down Professor Plimers book. This man has a brain of the typical unwashed, he cannot even get the Professors name right and hasn,t even got the guts to put his name to these utterly stupid remarks.
It is blatantly obvious that this man is Penny Wong brain washed and is willing to see thousands lose their jobs because industry has to pay extortionate amounts of money in carbon trading which is going to make no difference to global warming. I have always felt that that the planet is going through natural change and I am no academic, I have travelled around a bit and I have family dotted all over the world.
Politicians have hi jacked the argument and are trying to influence the public that carbon emissions are the cause of Global warming. Common sense must tell you that there is more to it than that. I remember in the early to mid 1950′s that London had a terrible pollution problem, sulphurous smog that killed hundreds every year. The authorities acted and the smogs disappeared, how was that done,
it was because no one overreacted and emissions were virtually cleaned. I was a speedcop in those days and saw it happen first hand. Has anyone ever asked how that was achieved?
I am a concerned citizen and will not let myself be controlled by uninformed people. Please everybody listen to common sense.

12. Burnie - May 8, 2009

I read Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun

13. Nathaniel Runnymede - July 20, 2009

John

The reasons why the smogs of 1950′s London disappeared are

1) the passage of the 1956 Clean Air Act, which forbade the burning of non-smokeless fuels in large parts of the city, and moved power stations further out of the city

2) The increased take up of gas and electricity, and the importation of cleaner coal.

In other words, precisely the mixture of legislation and behaviour change that is being considered now. The only difference being that the smog were very localised, and dispersed very quickly; so a few years solved the problem. The Co2 problem is worldwide, and the what is up there will stay there for hundreds of years, so it will take a lot longer to reverse its effects.

14. Gene - August 17, 2009

Nathan, you are buying into the CO2 as a pollutant theory… big mistake on your part! Without CO2 no life would exist on this planet. During times of increased temperatures, humans and animals have flourished (increased food supply), During the colder periods, starvation, and death.

15. THOMAS ADAMS - August 27, 2009

Greetings, It is sixty years since my school leaving.Having been educated at a Secondary Modern School, Middlesex England.My recollections after watching Professor Ian Plimers Apac lecture in Sydney concurred, confirmed and otherwise agreed with what he had to say. We must be concerned with climate change and what we can do to help those most immediately affected. The IPCCC reports are driven by someone elses agenda, namely those who would subjugate, and control wealth and populations for their own purposes; World Government and Population reduction. Professor Plimer is speaking truth to power. When meeting young people one of my first questions is to enquire into their knowledge related to the Earth’s unrelenting environmental “Dance” with the Sun. Everything Professor Plimer advocates is fundamental enviromental history for us on Earth, yet it has not been taught in our schools for a long time. If mankind accepts that we are the cause and are responsible for the ficticious claims being promulgated by the IPCCC, then mankinds power is more influential than that of the Sun. Ask yourself is that possible? Regards, Thomas W Adams.

16. Robert Kowal - August 30, 2009

As a skeptic of the global warming alarmism, my reflex is to embrace Dr’ Plimers book.
However, in the name of intellectual honesty, I cannot embrace “Heaven and Earth” until Dr’ Plimer succinctly answers George Monbiot’s questions as to the sources of his charts and findings.
As loathe as it is to side with Monbiot on this matter, his contention that the response can be short and precise is correct.
As if this posting, Dr. Plimer seems to be dodging these questions with distracting counter-questions.

To counter the eco-facism that is metastasizing from the global warming scare, those whom oppose it need to stand on as solid ground as possible.
In this case (so far) Dr. Plimer’s ground seems shaky.

This is not good for the up-hill struggle against such a behemoth political movement.

17. Denis Gillon - September 20, 2009

I view the notion that global warming is man made in the same way that Columbus would have listened to the Flat Earth Society’s argument. Will we consider human sacrifice or rain dancing to arrest climate change when the use of smaller light bulbs fails? The IPCCC is in the pre penicillin age but are determined that naivety will not spoil a good story. Clear the smog by all means but for climate change and politicions without a dubious agenda we are going to refer the matter to a higher authority.

18. John Holland - December 3, 2009

Leaving aside all the (surely deliberately) misunderstood science of climate change sceptics eg “carbon dioxide is not a pollutent”-the definition of a pollutent is any substance present in potentialy destructive quantities(spinich is a poisen if you eat enough of it)-leaving aside this drivel, what seems most disingenuous is this wierd pretend -belief that climate change theory is driven by Big Money and the skeptics are just just poor good ol’ boys a-fightin’ the system. Just for a moment,stop calling peole you disagree with “unwashed”(good argument) and think; do you really, seriously, think that those against taking action about CO2- the oil industries of the world,the overwhelming majority of big Business, OPEC,a huge range of organisations and websites funded by free-market proponents, largely American billionaires and, again, Big Bisiness-do you REALLY believe these represent a persecuted minority speaking out against the powerful? It’s a tedious pose that fools no-one except those who want to justify self-interest with the warm glow of psuedo iconoclasm and a self-deluded persecution- complex.

19. Gene - December 4, 2009

Can you all see the Anthropologic global warming pundits squirming now? Michael Mann of the “hockey stick” graph fame, Phil Jones, Director of Hadley’s CRU and others have been caught red handed hiding the real data, lying, and colluding to withhold the failed results of their warming scam. We all know the data showing that CO2 levels are at the lowest point they have been in the last 600 million years. If Co2 levels exceeded 4400 ppm during the Carboniferous period’s ice age, what kind of kool-ade does it take to claim that a CO2 level of 385 ppm is bordering on disaster?
NASA’s GIIS, HADLEY/East Anglia, U of Alabama – Huntsville, and RSS all agree…there has been a global cooling trend since 2001 and numerous climate scientists are predicting it could last for decades? How about the fact that there has only been one other time in the last 600 million years that BOTH temperatures and CO2 have been this low at the same time? Gore, Hansen (the data changer) and now basically the entire East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, have a lot of explaining to do… maybe about how much money they stand to make if the Cap and Trade joke becomes law.

20. Gene - December 4, 2009

John Hollands “argument that CO2 IS a pollutant because too much of anything becomes bad for you sounds like an academic who likes to argue simply as sport. John, we are currently living in one of two periods in the last 600 million years, in which both temp and CO2 are this low. Did the earth burn up when levels exceeded 7000 ppm?… no it did not! In fact there has been at least one ice age with CO2 levels above 4400 ppm.
take a look at the long term graph of CO2… I’d say we are probably in more danger of running out than having too much. Most of the earth’s history shows high levels of CO2 (coincides with lush plant growth… most of the time) over 7000 ppm down to todays 385 ppm. The small rise over the last 100 years has caused the earth to “green up” by about 6.17%…. not a bad thing (more food production).
As for what drives the Pro AGW crowd… why don’t you ask Gore how many billions his investments in the Cap and Trade scam will net him? How about GE’s potential profits if the Cap and Trade scam becomes law?

You have been stripped of any scientific argument, there is just too much data out there available to all of us, so you fall back to the far left ploy of pointing to big companies as being out for a buck…so what, doesn’t alter the science John… and that’s what you cannot defeat.

Gene

21. John Paul Finan - December 9, 2009

What a joke of a man!
I hold that one should not make accusations of cowardice easily. With that in mind, Ian Plimer is a genuine coward. He will not respond to any direct questions about the lies in his book, because he can’t BS answers to real scientists. He understands that he will never get any attention for any actual research he conducts because, well, he’s not very good at it. He’s never headed up any actual science, at least, none I can find with my university’s extensive databases. He has assisted in two studies. One involved the chemistry of rocks in a mountain in Australia, and the other involved a mountain a few hundred miles away. No doubt worthy topics, but Ian would never garner any attention from them. Instead, he gets his kicks from taking advantage of the non-scientific public’s trust in anyone with a PhD.
He claims the arctic ice sheet is growing. It is not. He claims that Mt. Pinutubo’s eruption released large amounts of chloroflourocarbons. It didn’t. He says volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide gas than do humans – he’s off by at least two orders of magnitude. I wonder if he knows what orders of magnitude are? If so, he might realize that the portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is about 40% anthropogenic, not 4%, as he claims. His latest waste of paper includes more than a dozen lies about the IPCC’s report (which is not a problem for his sales, since his readers haven’t read the report they criticize, nor would they understand it if they did) as well more than a dozen lies about about data he cities, more than one falsified graph, and a half dozen additional false presentations of data itself.
Here are a great series of sources, involving Ian’s personal cowardice, dishonesty, and general failings as a scientist and person. Why do I dislike this man who I have met? Because I don’t like liars who leach of the public trust. I don’t like con men, and I don’t respect little punks who can’t back up their big-boy talk. I don’t respect people who are devoting their lives to the destruction of the place where my children and grandchildren will hopefully one day live. People like Iam Plimer are the cancer cells of the human species.
I know it doesn’t really matter, because the vast majority of climate change denyers and creationists and 9/11 conspiracists aren’t in it for the truth. They simply get a kick out of being a non-conformist. However, in case anyone reading cares to examine the case, go for it!

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/14/climate-change-denial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

22. Bob McGregor - December 10, 2009

I watched the A-PAC address by Prof Plimer to the “Sydney Institute” last night. It was on Pay TV channel 648. Brilliant! At long last we have a cyclical approach to explain ‘climate change’ happening continuously to our planet – Earth.
After all, we were warned about this in the Old Testament Book “Ecclesiastes 3″ – A Time for Everything.
Quote:
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven;
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones , and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
Unquote.
Later in verse 15:
“That which is, ALREADY HAS BEEN [my emphasis]; that which is to be, ALREADY HAS BEEN:
Unquote
And finally in Chapter 1:
Verse 9:
What has been is what will be; and what has been done is what will be done; and THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN [my emphasis].
Unquote.
Clearly cycles exist here on Earth and in the Universe. And as Chapter 1; Verse 9 says ‘it’s all happened before’. What a surprise!!
Welcome to reality all you who think man is to blame for ongoing cyclical changes to the Earth.

23. AJ Mack - December 16, 2009

Who needs science when you have the Bible?

I really must dust off my copy, and read up on cellphones, the internet, nuclear weaponry, and all the other things which have cycled by before ‘under the sun’.

Given most of the posts on here, I should abbreviate that to:-
Who needs science, when you have belief?

It runs on both sides of ‘the debate’

Which begs the question, what is the actual science?
It isn’t subjective.
Somebody must be doing ‘real science’ somewhere… right?

So, given the absence of reply to George Monbiot’s request, we might assume that Plimer’s book isn’t much more than another polemic designed to appeal to one side who’ve already made up their mind.

24. Gene - December 16, 2009

AJ Mack; Actual science shows that the sun’s output varies, and the earth’s orbit is sometimes a little closer… sometimes a little further away from the sun. Both are primary causes of changes in the earth’s temperatures. It also shows that AGW cannot be the cause of climate change (it isn’t “global warming” anymore), as even during cool periods in the earths history, CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today.
The “belief” you must be referring to relates to those that bought into “An Inconvenient Truth” without bothering to listen to what that elusive “science” had to say… or is that the religion you referred to?

Gene

25. AJ Mack - December 18, 2009

Gene, the belief I am referring to is on both sides of the debate.
“An Inconvenient Truth” pissed me off when I saw it – having followed the actual science for almost twenty years – I thought it was trite and relied too heavily on emotive imagery, but then Gore (like Monckton) is merely a politician for a cause.
I feel what has been happening to be a sad indictment upon democracy and upon any hope for informed decision making.
By the way, the real science has never stated that CO2 is the ONLY thing influencing climate. Your summary is dishonestly simplistic.

26. Gene - December 18, 2009

This just gets better and better! Now the Russians have confirmed that the East Anglia University climate scientists manipulated their data to show higher temperatures than actually existed! Talk about a smoking gun…. this has thrown the Copenhagen show on the trash pile.
Imagine… scientists that take only the urban sites, influenced by the urban heat bubble… and ignoring the sites that are not compromised. Maybe they should be called “Agenda-ists!” Gore must have a huge ulcer!

27. Gene - December 18, 2009

AJ, what “actual science” have you followed for almost 20 years? The only supportive data for AGW that I’ve seen has come from the computer generated climate scenarios based on incomplete, and many times, faulty data. Weather balloon and satellite data have never supported those “what if” findings.
I haven’t followed the pros and cons of this debate as long as you have, but then, I’ve missed going down all those dead ends.
We are currently at a point where “the science” in support of AGW has been shown to be false and all the manipulations done by the agenda-ists are now becoming visible to those of us who are interested lay-persons. My summary may be simplistic AJ, but it is not boorish.

28. Gene - December 19, 2009

Maybe John Paul Finan could explain how… with mankind releasing all these millions of tons of CO2 into the air… how the current period we are living in has the lowest level of CO2 (and temperatures) in the last 600 million years? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Or how is it that the Antarctic ice is growing at a rate of 45 billion tons per year (NASA funded study 1992 – 2003). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html Or that glaciers are growing all over the world. http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Perhaps he could explain why anyone would believe the “science” of AGW any more… after “climategate” and the Russians verifying that the British scientists deliberately used false data to boost the AGW agenda!

The Arctic ice he is so upset about, melted so much in 1903-1906 (before the main thrust of the Industrial revolution) that Roald Amundsen, in a wooden sailboat with a crew of 7, was able to sail the Northwest passage. Again, in 1940 – 42, Henry Larsen made the journey… then sailed back in a much quicker 86 days.

Finan may have some legitimate issues with some of Plimer’s statements, but the scientific evidence is too strong against AGW (as are the false data and false statements by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the East Anglia climate “agenda-ists”) to believe AGW is anything but a scam!

29. AJ Mack - December 20, 2009

Gene, the first website you point to still operates under the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – although it makes it clear that the earth’s climate is a very complex phenomenon.
All these random anecdotes you provide serve little purpose scientifically unless you establish a start point.
And I don’t think the politics is the place to start.
I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what it is that you disagree with (scientifically speaking). I mean it is obvious you are politically opposed to ‘global warming alarmists’ and there may be some merit in that. But some of your quotes insinuate conclusions that are not part of a coherent opinion.
So i must ask whether you think the science in agreement on :-
1. Is the climate getting warmer?
2. Is CO2 a contributor to climate warming? (btw your first website says it is)
3.(a) Is mankind contributing to the CO2 content of the atmosphere?
(b) Is this contribution historically significant or disproportionate?
We could go on, but these are merely start points.
Your 2nd & 3rd websites quoted seem to be for the purpose of inferring that the earth isn’t warming at all. Yet this is contrary to the steadfast conclusions of many who you might class as on your side (eg The Great Global Warming Swindle – who state that it is simply the sun causing the warming; and Plimer who sees it as part of regular cycles)
This begs the question:- What is your actual opinion here?
To be ‘against the AGW scam’ just out of a knee jerk reaction shows very little respect for science as a discipline. Do you really think that scientists globally have been hijacked by a cabal of control freaks in some kind of tyrannical conspiracy? Maybe so…
But have you considered also that mankind is in fact capable of damaging his environment irreparably?
And also, that maybe the political will to intervene gets distorted?
Meanwhile, science is reaching firmer and firmer conclusions.

30. Gene - December 20, 2009

Aj, (1). No, the climate is not getting warmer. All four of the world’s major global surface temperature datasets (NASA GISS, RSS, UAH, and Hadley/University of East Anglia) now confirm that we have been in a global cooling trend since 2001 with no warming since 1998, and numerous scientists are predicting that it could last for decades. This would represent the current “consensus”.
(2). CO2 is merely one of a number of trace gases that have a very small part in maintaining the earth’s ability to retain enough heat for life to exist. (3). Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
My actual opinion AJ, is that the earth’s climate is doing exactly what it would do if there were no such thing as a “human race.” I would refer you to an article by Kirk A. Maasch, (professor at the U. of Maine, in the Department of Geological Services) called “The Big Chill.” Found at NOVA/online http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
An excerpt… ” For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago – the most recent of which continues today. During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice.
” Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the “Ice Age”, was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.”

“Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.”

I believe that scientist, like the rest of us, have beliefs that they consciously and un-consciously try to prove. It would seem this has now been unequivocally proven by Russia’s claims that the East Anglia University climate scientists used false data (readings from urban (heat bubble) sites, while excluding the rural un-tainted sites. Add the damning e-mails noting they would withhold non-complimentary data from their reports (which they did), and our own James Hansen’s altering of historical climate data, and inputting erroneous data (also from Russia) into his attempts to
“prove” AGW, and the idea of a “conspiracy” seems, unfortunately, accurate. Hence my seeming “disrespect” … not of science as a whole, but certainly I have lost all respect for these leading climate agenda-ists.

Do I feel mankind is capable of damaging the environment? Not by altering the atmosphere via CO2, I feel man’s ego is way over-inflated regarding his place in the universe. Man can hasten the natural alterations of the planet by destroying the rain forest or dropping nuclear bombs all over the planet.

Yes, science is reaching firmer conclusions, in this case, that we are merely along for the ride.

Gene

31. AJ Mack - December 21, 2009

Gene, you speak of consensus, yet your opinion seems to be at odds with the state of science globally at the present time. You do sound less hysterical now than your earlier posts, but your data still seems cherry-picked and to conclude that we are “merely along for the ride” ignores vast amounts of environmental science across the board. Surely they are not all “agenda-ists”?
By the way, ‘climate-gate’ is more a manufactured media event than a scientific one – so it doesn’t represent “leading climate agenda-ists” anymore than ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ represents your views.
But at least we have pinned down your actual beliefs now, so your credibility can be assessed by whomever on a scientific basis rather than out of a sense of a pre-conceived political agenda.

32. Ross Reid - December 21, 2009

I have not read the book, but intend to do so.

With reference to the comment that Prof. Plimer is linked to the mining industry my comment is so what. People need to be aware that Al Gore stands to make billions out of his climate change scare tactics. Also there is an Indian polotician pushing the global warming scare tactics as he stands to make multi millions out of selling carbon credits.

People need to make informed decisions by reading both sides of the arguments but this does not appear to be the case for people that are disciples of Al Gore. They believe that just because he says something that it is true. All that I can say is study both sides of the argument and then make up your mind. do not be like the little children following the Pied Piper!

33. Gene - December 21, 2009

My opinion is completely in line with the “state of science” globally AJ, in fact I base my opinion on the apparent consensus I have found over a year and a half of research (including the IPCC reports), that the probable cause of the current up and down of “global” temperatures… there is really no such thing… are the same factors that have driven all previous change, solar output, sun spots, and orbital variations of the earth (Maunder Minimum, Milankovitch cycles and David Archibald… Global warming and Sun Spots explained). sure, atmospheric gases play a part, but can you differentiate between natural and man-made sources?
I would beg to differ with you on the “Climate-gate” issue. The press actually reported this rather large negative hit on a few of the major scientific players on the AGW side… not something they have been inclined to do in the past… (by the way, there are only about 60 IPCC scientists that strongly believe in AGW out of a supposed 4900). When The Institute of Economic Analysis, a Moscow-based independent economic think tank, alleged in a paper released last Tuesday that climate change data involving Russia appears to have been tampered with, Climate-gate became a much stronger scientific “event” than it might have otherwise. As such, it does represent agenda driven falsified science.
Interesting that you would call anti AGW scientific data… “cherry-picked!”. Does this give readers a clue into your opinion?
So what are your actual beliefs AJ? Besides the “devils-advocate” position you seem to have taken?

From the Oregon Petitions 31,000 plus signatures (http://www.petitionproject.org/) to the 68% of Canadian scientists that say the debate is just starting, to the Polish Academy of Sciences report slamming the global warming scam (Washington Examiner, 4-24-09), and on and on, I believe the overwhelming scientific consensus is consistent with my opinion.

Gene

34. AJ Mack - December 22, 2009

Ross Reid, your comment is “so what” to Prof Plimer’s mining connections?
So what happened to “both sides of the arguments” when you are happy to randomly bring up the vested interests of two pro-AGW propagandists? One of whom you couldn’t be bothered to actually name.
You then warn us of “following the Pied Piper” when you are happy to rush headlong into a book whose reviews indicate a work of remarkable duplicity:-

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

35. Gene - December 23, 2009

AJ, Ross Reid’s comment on Gore and the Indian politician shows he has looked at both sides, hence the comparison. You seem bent on trying to discredit a well written book that gives easily read explanations for laypersons. You seemingly dismiss all the data contained in Plimer’s book because he doesn’t answer someone’s question? How many questions do you suppose he has been asked? I notice you didn’t answer mine, does that alter the viability of what you have written?

36. AJ Mack - January 1, 2010

ON MANUFACTROVERSY

Gene, I bore of talking to you, so I shall desist from addressing any more of your transparently flimsy statements – which breed on here like so much ideological rutting.
However much you have led yourself to believe it, “the overwhelming scientific consensus” is not consistent with your opinions.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

http:://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/

I feel now I should have known better than to comment on a backwater thread such as this, where voices howl in the wilderness, much like Plimer’s.
GOODBYE.
The floor is yours… for what it’s worth.

37. Gene - January 1, 2010

AJ, I guess boredom sets in for you at the point you can no longer defend your “know-it-all” position. I understand, and hope you will, one day, look upon the opinions of others as having some merit…. maybe after you grow up and acquire some experience in life.

Gene

38. AJ Mack - January 2, 2010

Well, Gene, that is as laughable a response as I would have expected by now.
You obviously don’t regard the opinions of the vast majority of the world’s scientists as having merit, Gene.

I tire of your straw man arguments, your assumptions as to my opinions, your granting of credence to the likes of Plimer (the real pseudo-’know it all’) but not to far more coherent sources such as realclimate.org, your generational angst (I am not inexperienced in life by the way).
I tire of playing ‘whack a mole’ with your voluminous ill-considered and unsubstantiated statements.
I tire of your attempts to place me in the ideological spectrum with questions unrelated to the issues.
If you really wish to hear some questions which are to the point, how about:-
Please name the ‘Indian politician’ as we have no idea who it is – so it is mere (sub-)rhetoric to bring it up, or to give it any credence.
How is Gore “standing to make billions” of any relevance to the conclusions of the world’s scientists?
What makes you think it even true?
At what point did you see ‘climategate’ as a real scientific event? Was it before ‘last Tuesday’s’ hot-off-the-press Russian revelations, or did they tip your ‘skeptical’ balance?
How exactly does this ‘global conspiracy’ work? Who is in control?
Is science now a redundant discipline?
Are we better to study media and how to spin any issue to fit with our prejudices?
Does your (and Plimer’s) idea of the IPCC as part of a secret plan to increase government have any evidence, or is it prejudice disguised as fact?
What does China have to gain from going along with the world scientific opinion, given that it is already a totalitarian state, and has the most to lose from a cap on trade?
Could it be that stewardship of the planet and duty to future generations is a very real motivation for some world leaders?

Mostly, I tire of your reactionary and blinkered world view which doesn’t seem to have moved on from the pre-environmental movement days, back when growth seemed like the only virtue, and ideas about natural limits was ‘commie talk’.

39. Gene - January 2, 2010

AJ, what a truly nose in the air, un-academic response! I guess I should (by now) expect nothing more from the you. Your “view” that “the vast majority of the worlds scientists” have an opinion that AGW is upon us is really very laughable (or perhaps very sad on your part). The vast majority of scientists would tell you the evidence does not yet support the Gore view. Had you bothered to actually research the question AJ, you would have found only about 18% of scientist “strongly believe” that AGW is a problem. The vast majority are waiting for something provable before they accept the AGW premise. Even the IPCC has had to admit that their climate reports are merely reactions to “climate scenarios”… that is a recent quote from the IPCC AJ… obviously something you failed to find.

Lets see, Professor John Christy, Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville and lead IPCC author, The NOAA, Professor Phillip Stott, U of London, Professor Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Climate Dept.
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, Jerusalem University
Professor Ian Clark, University of Ottawa, Prof. of Earth Sciences
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate forcaster, Weather Action
Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC and Pasteur Institute, Paris
Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC and MIT
Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team leader, NASA
Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Nigel Calder, former editor, New Science
James Shikwati, Economist and Author
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center
Professor Carl Wunsch, MIT, Dept. of Oceanography, and an Author
Professor Philip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, University of London
Professor Fredrick Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies, University of Virginia
Piers Corbin, Climate forecaster, Weather Action,
to name but a few scientists of the many I have listened to, all agree, AGW is far behind the provable causes of the earths 25 to 35 year cycles of warming and cooling over the last several hundred years…. were you aware of those cycles AJ?… You do remember the “Global Cooling” hype of the mid 1970′s don’t you? You are aware of the current “Global Cooling” predictions of a growing number of the worlds pre-eminent scientists… aren’t you?… right in line with the above mentioned cycles!

Maybe a few of your “world scientists” could explain their actions in hiding data that didn’t support their positions AJ, or they could explain why their paradigm is falling apart (9 straight years of cooling)?
You will have to ask Ross Reid about the Indian politician (try and keep your sources straight).

Your method of “debate” AJ is seriously flawed. Perhaps a course in interpersonal relationships would be of value to you.

40. Dr. David E. Parry - January 5, 2010

Nice one Gene, I’ve enjoyed your jousts with AJ Mack – let’s hope he gets over his fit of pique and replies. The AGW brigade are very quiet about the record big freeze in Europe, North America and Asia. I’m sure I’ll be told I’m confusing weather with climate!!

41. Gene - January 6, 2010

David, isn’t it interesting that it’s “climate” when the AGW crowd is using the data, but it’s “weather” if the data doesn’t support the paradigm. (yes AJ Mack, I know he difference)

Gene

42. AJ Mack - January 7, 2010

That’s interesting, Gene.
The list of scientists you provide there seems to be cut and pasted from “The Great Global Warming Swindle” – which you must surely realise is NOT a reliable resource.
Allow me to quote from one of the scientists on your list:-

“I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.”
- Carl Wunsch.

Also,
“My appearance in the “Global Warming Swindle” is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped ”
- Carl Wunsch.

By the way, I didn’t come on this site to seek “interpersonal relationships” so don’t insult me with the false insinuation.
My discrediting of your rantings, those of an obvious ideologue, has more to do with academic integrity than your misleading diatribe on social skills.

If you are genuinely interested in academic responses, you would do well to educate yourself at sites with more scientific credibility, eg:-

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-land-of-make-believe/

http://www.realclimate.org/

… or maybe even read some of the links I have already sent you.

Maybe, then you will stop reiterating the same old massaged statistics, logical fallacies, faulty arguments and rhetoric, eg:-

~ inferring that only 18% of scientists agree with the basic science behind the IPCC report, and the need for action on climate change
(there is a technical term for this, Gene, – it is called “a lie”)

~ bringing out the same old, many-times-over debunked, statements of “cycles of warming and cooling” as being more important, in the case of 20th Century warming, than GHGs.
(again, read the science websites, not the reactionary political ones manufactured to support your devout beliefs)

~ assuming the mini-drama of ‘climategate’ has anything to do with the way science is conducted by the vast majority of scientists
(this is called a ‘Manufactroversy’)

~ bringing up the cliched, reactionary, straw man argument of “the 70s global cooling hype” – a sure fire indicator that you are not up with the state of play in long-since-discredited rebuttals to the science of climate change

~ bringing up the widely discredited idea that “9 straight years of cooling” has any scientific bearing on long term projections of climate change.
(One of your sources is Hadley/University of East Anglia, centre of ‘climategate’, who presumably felt no need to “falsify data” in this instance, for some reason)

~ and failing to answer, or even address, any of my questions in the previous post, which indicate serious problems with your rather paranoid view of the subversion of science to fulfill some global political agenda.

I obviously haven’t made it clear enough yet, despite repeated efforts, that I don’t regard “debate” with you as worthwhile until you learn the state of climate science
Don’t just cut and paste from disreputable sources such as “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and other sites that are designed to ‘blind with science’ while convincing no-one of a non-ideological bent.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect you to come back with anything more than further cliches and false reporting.

And yes, ‘Dr Parry’, you are confusing climate and weather.
Obviously.

43. AJ Mack - January 7, 2010

Gene, there we have another of your myriad examples of supposition not fact.
There is a categorical, logical, definition of climate, and also one of weather.
These are different.
And more to the point, again, easily definable.
So your claims need to be backed up.
Eg.:-
When do “the AGW crowd”, use either term inaccurately?
Please provide examples.
Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass… yet again.
By the way, if you claim to “know he difference” yourself then why didn’t you point out the obvious error of Dr Parry yourself?
It seems that any misleading statement is okay with you, as long as it appears to be supporting your warped world view.

44. Gene - January 8, 2010

AJ, you have indicated that you feel the majority of scientists agree that AGW is a fact. If you truly believe that nonsense, you are a bigger fool than you come across as. (yes I’ve seen all the sites that parrot (as you do) the “consensus” of AGW.

What happened to your rebuttal of the Oregon petition, or that 62% of Canadian scientist are non-believers? Why are the Poles and the Russians so skeptical? Why do all the climate stations now agree… clobal cooling since 2001? Are NASA, RSS, UAH, and East Anglia U site that are designed to “blind with science”?

Skepticism is a healthy part of science AJ… believing everything you hear from your limited sources is not!

Here is a link that has a list of 50 articles from within the IPCC that dissent from the idea that there is any so called “consensus” on AGW.

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

June 17, 2008
Marc Morano

Alert: UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on UN – Sun Slows Down More! – Climate Fear ‘Running out of Gas’ – Spitting = Impact of Doubling CO2? – Round Up – June 17, 2008
[Note: The Sheer volume of scientists dissenting from UN IPCC climate views since 2007 has made it difficult for me to keep the database up to date. To read about the latest scientists to publicly speak out, see below and see: U.S. Senate’s report of now over 500 skeptical scientists (and constantly growing) of man-made global warming fears. See: Senate Report – It appears that man-made climate fears are literally -- as Meteorologist James Spann says below -- “rapidly running out of gas” both in peer-reviewed studies and in the claimed “consensus.” ]
As you have been unwilling… or unable… to answer my statement (based entirely on fact) that we are currently living in a period of time with the lowest level of CO2 and temperature, why do you continue to pretend you have something worthwhile to say? Isn’t this what you have accused Ian Plimer of doing?… therefore you can’t take his book seriously? Maybe you should question your own motives here AJ.

It seems that any scientist who appeared in the “Great Global Warming Swindle” couldn’t possibly be a credible source… why is that AJ… because they disagree with your view?
I guess James Hansen and Michael Mann must be heros of yours? Hansen believed in catastrophic “global cooling” in the mid 1970′s,and has been caught using false data at least 3 times trying to prove his latest false science.
Michael Mann simply removed the “little ice age” and the Medieval warming period from his “hockey stick” graph (since discredited and removed from the IPCC reports), and is a big part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal…. yeah they are really believable sources aren’t they AJ.

45. melogardener - January 8, 2010

So what if the Earth’s axis were tilted 90° to the ecliptic or some such was occurring ….could it occur? …or anything else that could suggest the coldest winter in a hundred years etc…and I in Canada prairies attest to what I heard a silly BBC weatherman snipped otherwise. I suspect it is somewhat simplistic to assume that the theory of climate change is any different than the theory of evolution but dare anyone, scientist included speak otherwise? Of course not because it is like nailing a thesis to the wall of politically correct liberalism that has dictated its religious dictates upon everyone including science this last millenia and I am forbidden to suggest they look up the word theory and suggest it is not proven fact! Curiously Orwells book 1984 bore more truth than these modern day theorists from Media and hollywoods arrogant pulp fiction mill to the crazy global political and industrial machinations ever will ! I am so tired of liberalist lies that have seeped into everything we teach our children and our world that has now distorted the right of scientist to even question what they want to preach as truth! I remember well the schientist and doctors that were shut up because hydrogenated fats were the going market sell…so now with climate change …is it another green sale? Of course the need to control our own lives and buy an electric car is a matter of common sense but lets be honest, it is not allowed because of those who control the world economies. So has the status quo greenie liberals sold me on global warming? Well at -45 celcius in alberta south…and winter that was 8 months instead of 6 or 5 last year and the year before…I have questions that go beyond the GW flusher I assure you. As a gardener …my questions are more legitimate as to why this global warming has lessened our summer days and increased our winter days so profoundly and yes I wonder about magnetic poles the axis changing! I want to hear from real scientist but alas they have all been locked out in the cold!

46. melogardener - January 8, 2010

I realize this is an old page but I would like to hear real conversations as to what are the many possibilities that science could suggest for what is going on everywhere and why we are all effected so diversely in different parts of the world…and not just from global warming gurus and their sellable films!

47. Gene - January 8, 2010

AJ, you seem to feel everyone but yourself is a fool… yet you have offered nothing but insults and left-wing sites to show how much you “know.”
chew on the following for awhile and get back to us when your embarrassment subsides… maybe putting a cork in your own ass would be a good start.

When you’ve read the entire article… all scientists involved are noted, with links to their papers… it will be a good start to the climate education you are so sadly lacking.

From “the Climate Depot”

July 6, 2009

Two prominent U.S. Government scientists made two separate admissions questioning the reliability of climate models used to predict warming decades and hundreds of years into the future.

Gary Strand, a software engineer at the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), admitted climate model software “doesn’t meet the best standards available” in a comment he posted on the website Climate Audit.

Meteorologist Watts also critiqued the current climate models, noting, “NASA GISS model E written on some of the worst FORTRAN coding ever seen is a challenge to even get running. NASA GISTEMP is even worse. Yet our government has legislation under consideration significantly based on model output that Jim Hansen started. His 1988 speech to Congress was entirely based on model scenarios.”

In 2009, the climate has changed dramatically — the scientific observational data and most surprisingly — the media climate. Even the BBC, the Houston Chronicle, the UK Times, the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and New York Times are no longer buying the insulting notion that when the UN IPCC “has spoken” the debate is over.

Another government scientist — NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt — admitted last week that the “chaotic component of climate system…is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.”

In June 2007, Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” Renwick conceded. (LINK)

Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, echoed Renwick’s sentiments in 2007 about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007.

(this is news to most of us… based on the IPCC reports)

Trenberth also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.” (LINK)

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK) & (LINK)

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,’” Gray noted.

In addition, atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers.”

“I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society,” Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK)

Climate Models Likened to Sony ‘PlayStation’ Video Games & ‘Tinker Toys’

On a New Zealand radio interview in 2007, the late Atmospheric Scientist Augie Auer ridiculed climate model predictions: “Most of these climate predictions or models, they are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3 [video games]. They’re really not justified in what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not right.” (LINK)

Atmospheric physicist James Peden ridiculed climate models in October 2008, calling them “computerised tinker toys with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.” (LINK)

In addition, top forecasting experts now say the models violate the basic principles of forecasting.

1) Ivy League forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72.” – January 28, 2009

2) Forecast Pioneers: Climate modelers violated 49 principles of forecasting – June 16, 2009

In addition, Prominent Physicist Freeman Dyson has referred to climate models as “rubbish.”

Dyson is a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.

“The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” writes Dyson in his 2007 book “Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe.” (See: Dyson: Climate models are rubbish – August 14, 2007)

Dyson is blunt in his criticism of climate models, mocking “the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.”

“I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests,” Dyson wrote.

Small Sampling of Reports and Links Challenging Climate Models:

Scientists Claim Computer Model Predictions are ‘Useless Arithmetic’- February 20, 2007 – Orrin H. Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, wrote a book in 2007 entitled “Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future.” The new book presents “an overall attack on the use of computer programs to model nature,” according to a February 20, 2007 New York Times book review. The Times book review explained how these models “may include coefficients (the authors call them ‘fudge factors’) to ensure that they come out right. And the modelers may not check to see whether projects performed as predicted.” “Nature is too complex, they (the authors) say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored — whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach,” the Times article explained. “And instead of demanding to know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern simply whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and average temperatures are increasing. And we should couple these models with observations from the field. Models should be regarded as producing ‘ballpark figures,’ they write, not accurate impact forecasts,” the Times article continued. The coastal models are so flawed that Pilkey recommends dredging up a lot of sand and dumping it on the beach “willy-nilly” and he predicts you would end up with the same result, minus the “false mathematical certitude.”

Here’s a number of sources to help with your lack of knowledge.

Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: ‘Earth has been cooling for ten years’ – ‘Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them’ – July 1, 2009

South African UN Scientist: ‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ – ‘Global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable’ – April 2009

Climatologist: ‘Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong’

Report: 5 years’ ocean cooling disproves models

Global climate computer models programmed without knowledge of Medieval Warming, Roman Warming and 500 previous global warmings’

NASA scientist: Climate models are ‘all make believe — if you took one look at the assumptions that go into this, you’d laugh’

Warming theory ‘dying the death of a thousand cuts’ – Ocean Conveyor Belt Model Broken: ‘Models are significantly wrong’

Wash. Post reporting makes progress! Article concedes sea level computer model ‘predictions could be flawed or flat wrong’

Even Computer Models Now Defying Predictions of Doom! New study ‘concludes global average sea level rise UNLIKELY to exceed one meter by 2100′

Meteorology Professor: ‘Global warming hysteria is based to a large extent on the unproven predictions of climate models’

Polling Data: ‘Loss in belief in man-made global warming happening even faster than’ models predicted!

All tapped out: Climatologist: ‘Only a matter of time before bets on climate models are revealed to be a very bad gamble’

48. AJ Mack - January 9, 2010

Gene, mostly what you have typed there is screed and screeds of smokescreen.
You missed my points by a mile. Or avoid them.
Again, I repeat, I don’t see any point in wasting time debating with you the complex epistemology of reliable sources – never mind explaining to what the definition of a source actually is.
(it is not – “Some Guy: ‘Said ‘This””)
Or in pointing out obvious errors, yet again, such as your listing Carl Wunsch as an anti-AGW scientist – still unaddressed despite your pages and pages.
I tend to believe that no-one changes anyone’s opinion in conversation, certainly such contrary and fastidious ones as we both hold, and that this activity we seem locked in to like some kinda arms race, on this backwater site, is going no where.
I am pretty sure you are a nice guy in person, and we would probably get on, but for Heaven’s sake let’s stop fooling ourselves that we are ever going to agree through tap-tap-tapping on here.
This is not a cue for a glib comment by the way, although I am sure it is tempting :)
I am sure we both have better things we can be doing.

49. Gene - January 9, 2010

I’m surprised at your waffling on what constitutes a “reliable source” AJ… I would have thought the IPCC scientists would fall under the “reliable” catagory… apparently not. You are so “all over the map” with your claims of my not having sources to back my position! No answers to any question you don’t agree with… yes I’ve looked at your links… and they are far less reliable than what I’ve given you.
My previous response contained nothing regarding the one scientist you could find that has changed his mind, simply because you seem completely unable to deal with the facts of the issue… most scientists disagree that the science is settled… even those that participated in the IPCC reports. Since you refuse to deal with the facts AJ, you make a disappointing debater… you have no substance in your replies.

50. AJ Mack - January 10, 2010

No substance?
You don’t get it, do you?
Is “the Great Global Warming” a reliable resource?
(ANSWER = NO )

You should be embarrassed to quote scientist Carl Wunsch as supporting your view, when he quite clearly and demonstrably DOES NOT, but instead you simply ignore the implication that you are sourcing from liars and spin merchants – JUST CATEGORICALLY DEMONSTRATED.
And then you move on to quote more of the biased sites.
Or to quote such reliable sources as the IPCC while failing to recognise the context of the information.
Your definition of reliable seems to be merely whatever backs up your pre-conceived view.

The basic science IS settled.
Let me repeat…
THE BASIC SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
That is:-
IT IS.
not
IT ISN’T.
So…
What is the basic science? (Agreed upon by the vast majority)
…just a few examples…
1. That the climate is changing.
2. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3. Temperature trends observed over a period of less than ten years have no validity as a measure of climate change. ( as opposed to merely weather)
4. Human beings are releasing huge amounts of CO2 through industry and farming, potentially creating tipping points in natural cycles.

What is actually debated (by more than a minority):-
- How much forcing the GHG CO2 is likely to achieve, in the upward global temperature trend (note – not if, but how much)
- How much CO2 is likely to be released in the future (industrial or other natural threshold tipping points occurring)
- How effective different political solutions may be.
- How close are the potential tipping points of extra GHG methane being released from melting permafrost.
- Which geographical areas are going to be affected the most.
- The cost/benefit analyses of dealing with technology change and massive economic and population upheavals.

To help you out, here is a scientist who supports your view who I would class as reliable:-
Dr David Bellamy.
But while he is hugely in the minority I respect his opinions and arguments, more or less.
The main reason I disagree with you, is that your arguments are old and transparently ideological, and you continually demonstrate a lack of diligence in your reporting – which, right from the outset, was a sure sign to me of someone with a viewpoint they were just desperate to prove, in spite of contradictions, even when pointed out to you.

51. Dr. David E. Parry - January 10, 2010

Dear Gene and AJ, As much as I enjoy the cut and thrust of your responses I fear that you are not taking the ‘honest debate” much further forward. You have both established your positions which are clearly not going to change and we, the public, will either agree with one or the other. I have made my position clear so AJ you can zap me if you like but I would prefer to hear your comments and arguments about adaption and mitigation to climate change and the fruitless search for international agreements to limit carbon emissions.

The debacle of Copenhagen proved what any observer of UN activities over the past 30 years could have foretold – the posturing and self-interest of the member states from both the developed and developing worlds paralyzes the UN and prevents its member states agreeing collectively on anything, let alone agree to massive and totally unrealistic cuts in carbon emissions by 2020 and 2050, respectively. The failure of the Kyoto Treaty to meet its miserly 5% reductions in emissions should surely have alerted any sane person to the impossibility of any substantive agreement at Copenhagen or at next year’s jamboree in Mexico.

So where do we go from here? The UN is impotent and so individual nations will have to plan mitigation and adaption strategies on their own or in groups of like-minded nations. One very positive thing to come out of this climate change debate has been the elevation of the environment and the oft quoted and much misused buzz word, ‘sustainable development’, to the top of most government’s political agenda because of the perceived and real linkages with climate change. As a soil scientist with 40 year’s field experience, I am delighted that the mantra I, and others like me, preached to governments 30 years ago about conserving an area’s soil and water resources and managing watersheds, forests and wetlands in a manner that enables them to continue performing their natural storage and water balancing functions is now the rallying cry of most of the world’s governments because of the collective concern for the environment that has been pushed to the forefront by the global warming enthusiasts led by the IPCC. For me, this is the right outcome for the wrong reason but let’s not get back onto that hobby horse!

The other major positives to come out of the debate is the growing demand for the development of renewable energy resources and search for alternatives to our finite supplies of fossil fuels and the concern to reduce pollution in all its forms. Again, none of these concerns are new but because of the power of the global warming movement these issues, which were way down the pecking order of most government agenda a decade ago, are now priorities.

All these issues need to be tackled and tackled now in a serious and concerted manner to improve the health of the planet and the welfare of its people. The obsession with a political solution through the mechanism of the UN is doomed to failure (and expensive failure) and by pursing this path the UN, the IPCC and the world’s governments are diverting essential resources of expertise and money away from dealing with more immediate problems related to climate change using tried and tested technology. This was the argument used by the 100 climate scientists who drafted a letter to the UN Secretary General at the time of the UN Climate Conference in Bali in December 2007. They expressed their concern that the UN Climate Conference was taking the world in entirely the wrong direction: The current UN focus on ‘fighting climate change” is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural (and possibly made made – my addition to the text) climate changes, whatever varied forms they may take.”

The obsession of many governments with carbon trading as a means of reducing emissions worldwide is a further example of misdirection. Carbon trading is a scam that will have no real effect on reducing world carbon emissions; it will only make money for carbon brokers and governments. Even the iconic leader of AGW, Prof. Hansen, has likened carbon trading to the medieval practice of the clergy selling indulgences to sinners. After the collapse of Wall Street and the near death of the modern international banking system caused by overly complex financial tools that few in the business understood, combined with a good dose of greed and poor judgement, I am surprised that any person with a modicum of common sense would entertain any form of carbon trading.

There’s enough to be going on with gentlemen, I await your respones.

52. Gene - January 10, 2010

As I said in an earlier posting, you are nothing more than a “devil’s advocate” AJ. Otherwise you wouldn’t have posted the obvious (mostly) statement below, totally ignoring what is meant by the statement “the science is settled.”

…”What is the basic science? (Agreed upon by the vast majority)
…just a few examples…
1. That the climate is changing.
2. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3. Temperature trends observed over a period of less than ten years have no validity as a measure of climate change. ( as opposed to merely weather)
4. Human beings are releasing huge amounts of CO2 through industry and farming, potentially creating tipping points in natural cycles.”…

Al Gore and the policy makers of the IPCC’s use of that term has nothing to do with basic science AJ… and you know it! So stop with the false indignation… you aren’t a fool, stop acting like one!

I would take exception with the idea that human released CO2 is “potentially creating tipping points in natural cycles.” Other than the much discussed “computer simulations” (merely ideas without any scientific data to support them) there is nothing backing the idea of CO2 levels reaching a “tipping point.” Records show CO2 levels this low are a rarity… not the norm! Those records also show high CO2 levels are associated with a much “greener” planet with more food production.

The “debate” you mention has no viable scientific data on the “forcing” and “upward global temp trend” the AGW side is trying to use… hence the massive resistance and skepticism to what is viewed by the majority of scientists as “junk science.” (Oregon petition et al)

I’d like to know if you actually believe that a rise in CO2 levels from the accepted low of 250 ppm to our current 385 ppm constitutes a pending “crisis.”… given that ice core records show most of recorded history had levels well over 1,000 ppm.

Here’s a mostly non-scientific, but to the point video that really puts this debate in an easily understandable format for us lay-people… John Coleman makes his points well.

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Try and remember this old adage AJ… “It’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!”
You have had no legitimate answers to most of the points I’ve attempted to make… your modus operendi is to hurl insults… you certainly aren’t an educator!… by the way, when did I use the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” as a source for any of my points?… I didn’t! The fact that the scientists who appeared in that video happen to be skeptics (Carl Wunsch not withstanding… Nir Shaviv was a convert from believer to skeptic), doesn’t lessen their intellect or their opinions. They were able to point out the fallacies of the AGW mantra for all to see… and debate.

53. Gene - January 11, 2010

David, thank you for a well written response and for sharing your expertise! It will be interesting to see if governments and the UN come to their senses.

On the renewable energy front, I have noticed the new fuel cell cars being touted at this years auto shows (Mercedes-Benz B class F-cell and Honda CR-Z). Double the energy of the densest automotive battery available, for the foreseeable future. So much greater range than any plug-in electric car (Autoweek)

54. Gene - January 15, 2010

Here is the opinion of a well respected climate modeler for the UN, professor Mojib Latif, who teaches at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University.

– January 11, 2010

30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says

From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.’s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.

Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures — a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world’s oceans.

Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause — a 30-years-long blip — in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.

Latif is a key member of the UN’s climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. He told the Daily Mail that “a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles — perhaps as much as 50 percent.”

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases. The agency also reports that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.

Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.

Also, have a look at this video by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel.

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

55. John Paul Finan - February 11, 2010

In all the conspiracy theorist, “armchair climatology” nonsense coming out of my country (America), it’s been difficult to learn about the actual problems with climate science. Several areas could use further investigation, according to the journal Nature. Check out 21 Jan 2010 for more (and check out the rest of the podcasts for awesome, informative, well-produced weekly science news.

http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/archive.html

Incidentally (and I apologize for my earlier unnecessarily inflammatory remarks) everyone reading this thread knows that its most prolific posters are not climate scientists, much less students of the state of consensus or reviewers of cumulative study data. As such, it’s a bit dubious to draw one’s own conclusions based on the arguments presented here, even if one side makes a lot more sense.
Since I can’t be an expert in everything, though, and I still need to make decisions, I have to learn to sift through the available human knowledge in order to discover if one view or another seems more likely to be correct. Some of these skills I am still learning, as a student of social science, but others I learned in a previous life as a successful IT sales rep.
In that job, I had to constantly listen to the presentations of ‘experts’ from IBM, HP, Microsoft, Novel, Oracle, etc in order to determine which of their myriad offerings would best satisfy my picky and knowledgeable clients. Try recommending one six figure pile of frustrating junk, and you’ve lost a great, ongoing account. Often, you insult a friend in the process.
Anyway, I developed a good ear for bullsh*t from sales guys. And aren’t we all in sales when we try to convince someone else to do something they may not want to do, like part with a lot of money or admit that they were wrong? Those are unpleasant things, and the more attached one is to one’s money or one’s pride, the harder it is to sell them anything (or be sold, conversely).
Once I got to the point at which I was busy all day, every day, and even my assistant couldn’t always keep up was to skip the chit chat and just start flinging hard balls at the sales reps. If there was a n IBM rep, for example, pitching their latest (always expensive, often excellent, sometimes maddening buggy and craptastic) solution, I might say “Your product sounds promising. What are your strongest competitors offering, and why might a customer be better off with them?”
Immediately, the reps who were just dumb or unprepared (and thus a waste of my time) were weeded out. The reps who were prepared would at least know their competitors. The ones who who *trustworthy* knew their competitors’ latest offerings, pricing, and strong points, as well as the obligatory weak points. They’d admit their own product’s flaws, and lay out the case for why certain customers (say, those with ample budgets but not enough time, and who need very high reliability but don’t care much about scalability, like a bank) would really be best served with IBM (theoretically) while the guy who needs turbo speed and expandability, like the hedge fund IT guy, might look at HP or even Fujitsu for their needs.
Now, that’s golden. I can then go to my customer base who would honestly be well served, I lay it out to them, and make some sales. I don’t call the guy whose systems aren’t even compatible, or whose budget versus reliability equation is a bad fit for IBM’s solution, or who I know lacks the technical expertise or time needed to get the product’s benefits. Everyone wins because we cut the BS and used our brains to solve problems.
One fascinating aspect of the American discourse regarding climate change is the consistent inability of detractors to either form cohesive arguments that can also address immediate challenges. The ones whose ideas I’ve explored are universally of the type that I would not trust if they were pitching an expensive IT product. They may present some evidence, or even a whole lot of ‘evidence’, but that evidence is always of two kinds. One kind is logically irrelevant,. Much of Gene’s points fall into this category. Much like how it doesn’t matter that a car salesman tells you the one he’s pitching can go 200 miles per hour while the other one tops out at a far lower 155 if you have zero intention of ever driving over 100 miles per hour, anyway, Gene’s links to articles about how some glaciers are, in fact, growing, or that ocean currents have a strong affect on climate, or that the Earth has varied in temperature over time are not germane to the discussion. I am quite sure some glaciers are growing, but the Fox News article, in addition to being from a highly dubious source, never claims that glaciers are growing overall. It quotes a single Antarctic scientist as saying that the glaciers there are pretty stable, overall.
Do you see how that’s irrelevant? Just like the fact that currents matter a lot – so what? I imagine they would. What does that have to do with whether or not it is wise to curb the release of greenhouse gasses? Has the Earth been warmer in the past? I bet it has. It’s been colder, too. Again, so what? Those arguments are so ignorant as to discredit their poster as trustworthy source because if he were honest or intelligent, he wouldn’t bother to posit them.
The second type of evidence is not immediately irrelevant. This kind is far trickier to judge. Well, what do you do? I don’t know how to interpret the data, so I look to what the field’s other experts say. In the case of Ian Plimer, his peers immediately came up with a long, detailed list of problems, top which I’ve linked earlier. Some were potentially innocent errors, while many of them were apparent blatant fraud. Now, typically, if a PhD is accused of fraudulent research, he or she gets offended and immediately rises to the challenge to defend their science against its detractors. For most people engaged in science, the desire to be correct, that is, to not just win an argument, but to actually know the truth, is quite strong. Big accusations call for big rebuttals.
Plimer has rebutted nothing, even given AMPLE opportunity to do so. Instead, he’s weaseled and hemmed and hawed – not inspiring behavior. So, like a judge presiding over a case in which the defendant, duly notified of the charges against him, fails to appear for court, I can only reach the conclusion that the many accusations against him are, in fact, correct.

56. Gene - February 12, 2010

Interesting post from John Paul Finan. He’s correct on a few of his statements, but way off base on a number of others. I too would have thought Dr. Plimer might have rebutted at least some of the perceived “problems” in his book.

Case in point; his “understanding” of the glaciers question shows he has no understanding at all. I will again submit for John this link:

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

John, a quick count of the listed glaciers that are growing is over 170…. and the source is not the most trusted source for news… Fox.

I guess if John were sitting on a jury, he would give no credence to a defendants past history? A defendant charged with bank robbery or embezzlement, with a history of such crimes, shouldn’t have past convictions for the same crime considered. It wouldn’t be “germane” to his current case!

How about this John;
We currently live in a period of time when both atmospheric CO2 levels AND temperature are at the lowest point in the last 600 million years. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html  Is that not “germane” to climate change?

Or this article, first printed in Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

Here was one of the proposals to combat the climate change:

“They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.”

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.” The Christian Science Monitor (“Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,” “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.” Newsweek agreed (“The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.” The Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”

Not “germane”?… The point being, we have heard all of this gloom and doom before, and data, regarding such points as glaciers or the Arctic and Antarctic, has only been collected since 1979. Hardly the knowledge needed to proclaim “the worst in history.”

Try sun spots John, science tells us that when there is a dearth of them, the earths temperatures diminish. When the sun has a period of time with active spots, our temperatures rise.

No one needs Plimer’s book as the sole source for all things related to the earths climate, and the areas of disagreement do not render the entire book wrong. There is much in “Heaven and Earth” that has been corroborated by other scientific sources.

You might have a look at the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman’s take on the warming scam. He certainly has the credential’s to give an opinion, as does Professor John Cristy, IPCC lead author, and professor of atmospheric and earth sciences at the U. of Alabama, Huntsville.

Now that the Russians have accused the AGW scientists at East Anglia University of doctoring the data by excluding those weather stations that showed lower temperatures, I would have thought John might have conceded that the “detractors” might have some legitimate points, ie the science is not settled.

John, have you conceded that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was riddled with mistakes and blatant errors yet? The British high court has.

Maybe you should stick to the business world you know, rather than opining about climate change that requires far more studying that you have been willing to do.

57. AJ Mack - April 19, 2010

Thank you John Paul Finnan (comment post number 55) for seeing through the smoke and mirrors.
Your canny assessment of the intellectual fraud on here seems very similar to the opinion I came to.
Though I suppose you won’t read this, as I imagine, like me, you have better things to do than debate with Gene and his ilk, and have also moved on to more useful things.
But, for those reading through these comments, post number 55 is the most useful summary of this entire thread.
It highlights the efficacy of dismissing outright the opinions of those who have been proved to be lying – even once.
(For Gene’s most obvious lie, see the list of scientists he claims are AGW skeptics in his post number 39. The list looks long, but is negligible compared to the list that could be posted of scientists supporting AGW, and more to the point he includes in it false names such as Carl Wunsch – a well known AGW supporter who was duped into appearing on “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and misquoted on there. So, the ‘lengthy’ list is irrelevant and padded with falsehood – just like Gene’s entire comment thread really)
Again:- EVERYBODY READ COMMENT N0.55. and save time ;)

58. Gene - April 19, 2010

Poor AJ Mack can’t see the forest for the trees! Nor apparently can Mr Finnan, who seems to have an expertise in sales, and figures that qualifies him to support the biggest scientific scam ever perpetrated on the world.

guys… does it matter to you that basically all the evidence for AGW has been based on doctored temperature readings?

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at http://www.kusi.com.

Does it make any difference to your paradigm, that The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

NASA is also guilty of using the same cherry-picked temperature readings… and has admitted it uses the HadCRUT data base information.

Isn’t it time you two took the time to try and disprove your own assumptions… that’s the scientific way after all! Not dabbling in the amount of minutia you seem to wallow in.

Take the time to watch the Coleman interview, and remember, there are a lot of scientists making a living from the government grants to study the AGW “crisis!” (common sense should have told you that)

Your ridiculous blathering about “lies” demeans you AJ! As was pointed out, most of us that are blogging here are not climate scientists. That includes myself, so I rely on information I have read (from both sides of the argument), to point out the obvious flaws in the AGW theory…. they are many!

You like to point out that one AGW believer was supposedly “duped” into appearing on the GGWS (was he spoon fed the words he spoke in the documentary?) Yet you ignore the British court ruling on the 9 major flaws (all admitted by the Gore folks during the hearing) of “An Inconvenient Truth!”… result, it’s considered a propaganda piece in Britain. Why? does that show your paradigm”s flaws?

Come on AJ (and John Paul)! Provide a comprehensive list of the evidence that supports the AGW theory. Hockey stick graph?… no, that was debunked (and removed by an embarrassed IPCC. Ice core samples?… no, that shows the exact opposite of Gore’s supposition. Temperature data?… no that’s been manipulated to eliminate cooler temperature readings that show AGW is a hoax. A steadily climbing “global” temperature?… no we’ve had “global” cooling since 2001, and warming stopped as far back as 1995

Professor Phil Jones Admits There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995!
February 15, 2010 – 12:58 am

The London Daily Mail reported on Sunday that Professor Phil Jones, who has been identified as a primary suspect at the heart of the Global Warming hoax, has made several admissions.
Professor Jones has admitted there has been no Global Warming over the past 15 years.  He also admitted that the climate has been warmer on Earth before, and humans did not cause the warming.  Professor Jones also admitted that he no longer has the data used to generate his infamous “hockey stick graph,” which has been used for years as “evidence” to support the hoax of human-caused Global Warming.
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

(gee guys… how convenient)

59. Eminent Professors Join Maverick new Global Science Body | johnosullivan - April 10, 2012

[...] provided specialist scientific testimony before the UK Parliament.  From Australia to PSI comes Ian Plimer, also famed for his unswerving stand against the politicization of climate science. Professor [...]

60. Pete Ridley - April 14, 2012

Professors Plimer and Reiter and anyone else contemplating teaming up with John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers” should have a careful read of Professor Judith Curry’s thread “Letter to the dragon slayers”. There are over 1300 comments posted there but a good starting point is investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick’s comments starting on 15th Oct 2011 (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122654). Reading the comments by Andrew, me and the “Slayers” provides a fair understanding of what the team of bloggers at PSI is all about.

Best regards, Pete Ridley


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: