Climate Contrarian Monckton calls young climate activists “Hitler Youth” and "Nazis"

Wed, 2009-12-09 14:57Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Climate Contrarian Monckton calls young climate activists “Hitler Youth” and "Nazis"

Fifty young U.S. clean energy activists stormed the stage today in Copenhagen during a live webcast organized by Americans for Prosperity and featuring climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton

When the youth group interrupted the webcast to deliver the message that real Americans want clean energy and a fair climate treaty, Monckton went ballistic, calling the students “crazed Hitler youth” and “Nazis.”

The incident was not likely the intended result Americans for Prosperity hoped for as it launched the COP15 version of its “Hot Air Tour” (a.k.a. denial-a-palooza). AFP sent its team to Copenhagen “to make sure that our side of the story is told.” But their live event today – complete with the student protest - was webcast to over forty climate denier rallies taking place in cities across the United States.

SustainUS reports that “a paltry audience of five conference attendees” attended the event to hear Monckton’s (planned) speech, with the balance of the audience comprised of AFPers and the youth activists (who entered surreptitiously in small groups before taking the stage with their clean energy message).

The young activists, representing a number of youth action groups including SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs, kicked off the protest by holding banners in front of the cameras reading “Climate Disaster Ahead” and “Clean Energy Now.”

When AFP staffers ripped the banners out of their hands, the students began a five-minute chant of “Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy,” leaving AFP organizers scratching their heads about what to do.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips and his camera crew tried unsuccessfully to focus the lens more tightly on Monckton as he continued speaking, hoping to take back control of the event despite the protest in the background.  With several of the youth activists clustered around the podium, AFP kept the cameras rolling, continuing to stream the footage to the broader audience back in the U.S.

That’s when Monckton let loose, saying live on camera: “You are listening now to the shouts in the background of the Hitler youth.”

Monckton’s tirade aside, the American youths had a clear message to deliver, highlighting the fact that “clean energy creates jobs.” Rachel Barge, a 24-year-old entrepreneur from San Francisco, CA who was the first young person to raise her voice at the event, said afterwards that “These climate action delayers and science deniers are stealing bold, new economic opportunities from the American public.”

That sentiment was echoed by Laura Comer, a 21-year-old from Strongsville, Ohio who also participated in the action. Comer said, “We’re representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy - not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science.”

Update: For some reason, Americans for Prosperity enjoyed the stunt so much, they posted their own video of the protest. Watch AFP’s own footage of the “radical protesters” (a.k.a. students with a non-violent, coherent message) as they “attack” AFP, (or so AFP says). Note that Monckton’s tirade is not included in AFP’s version.

UPDATE: I interviewed Monckton briefly outside the Bella Center about his “Hitler youth” comment. Here’s what he had to say (along with some fascinating delusions about coal and oil, which Monckton claims are as clean as wind and solar power):

Comments

“the IPCC report is wrong ” Climategate proves that.

“2: the Earth is not flat?” You cannot disprove a negative. I can give all kinds of evidence the world is a sphere, but I cannot “prove” the earth is not flat. That’s like me saying there are angels, prove they do not exist.

“Climategate” proves nothing. The IPCC report is probably too conservative if anything. But despite the work of thieves an liars who steal and distort people’s private emails, AGW is clearly occurring now.

VJ – join me in the science discussion with Wakefield. I’m reading section 2.9 of the IPCC report now to see where he says it errs. –Dennis

RE: “So given the fact that you just wrote “Global Warming is a religious cult,” don’t you think it is fair that just once I am permitted to compare your group to the Flat Earth Society?”

Yes it would be fair if we believed that the earth were a flat disc. We don’t beleive this, but you “believe” in “global warming.”

Physics and Chemistry do not demand belief since they are not systems of faith. Global warming demands your belief which is why it ais a relious cult

RE: “For example: do we agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?”

Of course we do, we simply can find no workable proof that it is a dominent driver of the earths chaotic climate systems. Planting crops has a far greater influence (still minimal however) on the earths chaotic climate. What next, limit food to regulate the climate?

RE: “So given the fact that you just wrote “Global Warming is a religious cult,” don’t you think it is fair that just once I am permitted to compare your group to the Flat Earth Society?”

Yes, it would be fair if we believed that the Earth were a flat disc. We don’t believe this, but you “believe” in “global warming.” See the difference

Physics and Chemistry do not demand belief since they are not systems of faith. Global warming demands belief which is why it is a relious cult. See the difference.

RE: “For example: do we agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?”

Of course we do, we simply can find no workable proof that it is a dominent driver of the Earth’s chaotic climate systems. Planting crops has a far greater influence (still minimal however) on the earths chaotic climate. What next, limit food to regulate the climate?

You are engaging in rhetorical nonsense by parsing my words like “believe” and then asserting “Global warming demands belief.” I am talking about science, not faith, so please drop any and all discussion of religion.

The IPCC reports have demonstrated the science. As I challenged in a reply to JR Wakefield a few minutes ago, show me the published, peer-reviewed scientific research that demonstrated the IPCC findings are wrong.

RE: “I am talking about science, not faith, so please drop any and all discussion of religion.”

Why should I

Instead, why dont you tell us just where belief belongs in science

Just how much different is science than faith. Is “peer reviewed” faith called science? ie if the greatest “god colleges” on earth grant Phds in theology and these theologians “peer review” their findings don’t they also have the right to demand government funding and establish papers for “policy makers” (ie unrepresentative tyrants)

After all, you couldn’t possibly know more about God than they do could you? They are after all, “God scientists” who have studied God for their entire lives. Got the degrees to show it too.

RE: “The IPCC reports have demonstrated the science”

The IPCC is a political organization appointed by unelected political thugs, even some political thugs worse than our own: the Robert Mugabees, Kim Sung Ils, Fidel Castros all have a say in what the IPCC is. It sure as hell isn’t science anymore than communism or even catholism is,

Bruce Frykman writes:
“The IPCC is a political organization appointed by unelected political thugs, even some political thugs worse than our own: the Robert Mugabees, Kim Sung Ils, Fidel Castros all have a say in what the IPCC is. It sure as hell isn’t science anymore than communism or even catholism is,”

I was hoping to discuss science. I guess that’s impossible with you. Conversation over.

RE: I was hoping to discuss science. I guess that’s impossible with you. Conversation over.”

No you weren’t or you wouldn’t be bringing in political organizations formed by thugs. Game…set…match

RE: “I was hoping to discuss science. I guess that’s impossible with you. Conversation over.”

No you weren’t or you wouldn’t be bringing in political organizations formed by thugs. Game…set…match

In other words, what do we have that falsifies AGW?

Two actually. First is climategate. We simply cannot trust the numbers any more. The entire premise of AGW from historical records is going to have to be completely redone from first principles. We need the raw data and EVERYONE who wants to evalutate that data MUST be given the ability to do so, including McIntyre, Watts, or even me if I so choose to do so. Don’t give me this crap about having to be a climatologist. No, all one has to understand is how to do statistics. Data is data, regardless of its source. So applied statitics is all that is needed to see trends.

Second, there are hundreds of papers published, to the bane of the hockeystick team, that shows the correlation between CO2 and temp is not 1:1 and has a great variation, that the medieval warm period existed warmer than today, higher CO2 was in the atmphere even recently (200,000 years), and the world did very well in warmer climates. There are even papers that question the resident time CO2 stays in the atmosphere. 5 to 16 years, not the 1000 years the Gorcle claimed on CNN.

But you will just ignore any of those I put here right? You all have so far. That’s what cultists do.

OK. Let us first deal with ‘Climategate’ or as I think of it now ‘VapourGate’.

One example – ‘Hide the decline’ as Tim Lambert on Deltoid describes is not about a decline in temperatures but of ‘tree ring density’.

Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Extract:

But Mcintyre has mislead his readers by leaving out the parts of the emails that show that his intrepretration of them is false. Deep Climate has the bits that McIntyre deliberately left out:

[i]’But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation. …’[/i]

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Seriously, any time one sees McIntyre using elipsis it’s a good idea to check it out.

From DeepClimate:

McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

Now McIntyre makes lots of noise humphing around moaning about the release of data when in fact he should be aware that data has been hidden in plain sight.

There is more on this over at RealClimate (please don’t bother to argue that RC is politicised – it isn’t and continued attempts at saying so are becoming boorish and only reinforce the opinion that you do not grasp the science, any of it).

See here:

Data Sources

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Now this little gem:

‘Second, there are hundreds of papers published, to the bane of the hockeystick team, that shows the correlation between CO2 and temp is not 1:1 and has a great variation,’

Firstly, even without Mann’s hockey stick there are enough other studies using other data sources that agree with Mann’s conclusion as reflected in that hockey stick. And of course the relation between CO2 and temperature is not linear – why should it be?

Try to learn something about this aspect:

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/index.html

As for temperatures and CO2 levels in the past what you need to understand is that the biosphere was very different then, for a start humans were not trying to support a 6.5 billion population size with an increasingly affluent life style for a growing number, as was the arrangement of the continents.

Some areas now in the tropics were formerly at the south pole and much of eurasia and north america has drifted from the tropics to temperate latitudes. Even in the recent past at the dawn of civilization large areas of now arid, almost barren land – in the middle east and India was lush veld with forests. Even the British Isles were once covered with forests which by even Roman times was in steep decline. Our decimation of the environment has a long history and one with a common theme, it has accelerated apace.

For a history of how civilizations have pushed up against and overshot the limits of their environment I suggest a read of Jared Diamonds ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed’

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375

That should be enough for now. Come back when you have learned something.

RE:: “I am talking about science, not faith, so please drop any and all discussion of religion.”

Well im talking about “peer reviewed” god science from people who have Phds in god science.

Their god science disproves climatology science. After all, which science has a longer peer review process? God science or climatolgy science?

God science told us that hurricanes would diminish in intensity and number over three years ago; your climatology science said the opposite

Ergo god science trumps your climatology science.

Yes, I agree it is. That is not the issue, the question is three fold:

1) is the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere from our emissions large enough to alter the climate in any measurable way?

2) How do you parse out a natural climate event from one supposedly caused by our CO2 emissions?

3) How do you know that a warmer climate is bad or even catastrophic?

Those are the items I have full right to challenge and question.

Those who dogmatically believe those, based on the AGW hypothesis, and refuse to look at counter evidence, and conduct ad hominen attacks against skeptics, are indeed cultists.

You made three posts, but I will respond only to this one, as it is the only one that is about the science.

You write: “Yes, I agree [CO2 is a greenhouse gas]. That is not the issue, the question is three fold:”

It is the issue. It is the issue for a very important reason. I have wasted too many conversations with people who agree CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” but then say it cannot have an impact on “temperature.” What? That is the definition of a greenhouse gas! It absorbs heat. And because the CO2 molecules have more heat, and the heat from molecules is what we are actually measuring when we measure “temperature” here on earth, it MUST have an impact. If you believe I have my science wrong there – read no further – stop me here, and we will continue this discussion at this point. I have said repeatedly that I would like to believe that this science is wrong. I’m giving you a chance to convince me.

You write: “is the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere from our emissions large enough to alter the climate in any measurable way?”

That is a good question. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for radiative forcing of 1.66 Wm-2. Figure TS.5 of the IPCC report shows all the radiative forcing and demonstrates that atmospheric CO2, which has increased 30% in the past 150 years, has the single, strongest radiative forcing by a factor of three. Do you agree or disagree with these statement? And if you disagree, READ NO FURTHER! Stop me here, show me where that science is wrong, and we will continue this discussion at this point. I have said repeatedly that I would like to believe that this science is wrong. I’m giving you a chance to convince me.

You write: “How do you parse out a natural climate event from one supposedly caused by our CO2 emissions?”

I don’t know what you mean by “climate event,” but suspect you are asking how we know the added CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. One key answer is from the differences in the carbon isotopes contained in the CO2 molecules between those which naturally occur in the atmosphere when measured against those from fossil fuel emissions. There is a known difference between the two, and that differences demonstrates that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. AGAIN: if you disagree, – – read no further – stop me here, and we will continue this discussion at this point.

You write: “How do you know that a warmer climate is bad or even catastrophic?”
Not to be discussed that this point. This is not science. “Bad” and “catastrophic” are subjective terms.

That is the end of the science. If you agree with everything I wrote above, we can turn to the next topic. But I suspect you will disagree in some measure with what I have written above, so the science so far is enough to continue this discussion.

CO2 molecules have more heat, and the heat from molecules is what we are actually measuring when we measure “temperature” here on earth, it MUST have an impact.”

Correct, but what is the degree of that effect? If I put a tiny amount of garlic in my spegetti sause it tastes great, if too much it’s awful. So what counts is the degree of the effects. CO2 is a vey very small percent of the atmoshere, .0035%. Read below as there is more.

“atmospheric CO2, which has increased 30% in the past 150 years, has the single, strongest radiative forcing by a factor of three.”

That is not a linear increase over that time frame is it. It’s a growth curve of about 2% which is a doubling time of 30 years. That means HALF of all that CO2 in that 150 years has been since 1980. 90% of that CO2 has been in the past 60 years, 1950’s. So explain how such a tiny amount of our CO2 emissions back in the 1850’s, less than 1% of current emissions, started this warm trend.

Plus, there is evidence that it’s only the first percent increases that have the biggest affect on the temps, subsequent increase in CO2 has less effect.

Also, we know for a fact that CO2 has wildly increased in the geological record, by many times. So fluctuations are normal. We know that 35myo CO2 fluctuated between 500 and 1300ppm and the temp did not fluctuate in step with it.

“I don’t know what you mean by “climate event,” but suspect you are asking how we know the added CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels.”

No. I mean climate events, which we see as weather. Hurricanes, storms, rain patterns, droughts, heat waves, etc. We hear from your side all the time, such and such weather event is because of global warming. How do they know that? How do you scientifically know that a hurricane this year was from a natural event, but last year it wasn’t. How do you scientifically measure a human caused weather event from a natural caused weather event? Simple question.

“Not to be discussed that this point. This is not science. “Bad” and “catastrophic” are subjective terms.”

BS. Since the entire premise of Copenhagen is to stop catastrophic climate change, it is VERY relevant to question that assumption. What scientific evidence do you have that shows the future climate will be bad. Not computer models, as they are not science. Evidence please.

“That is not a linear increase over that time frame is it. It’s a growth curve of about 2% which is a doubling time of 30 years. That means HALF of all that CO2 in that 150 years has been since 1980. 90% of that CO2 has been in the past 60 years, 1950’s. So explain how such a tiny amount of our CO2 emissions back in the 1850’s, less than 1% of current emissions, started this warm trend.”

growth curve of about 2%, doubling time of 30 years, since 1980, past 60 years … STOP: science break – you lost me right here (a garlic/spaghetti sauce analogy would be more helpful here). I addressed the radiative forcing of CO2, as reported in the IPCC report. I’m looking right at section 2.9 of the Report “This section begins by synthesizing the discussion of the RF [radiative forcing] concept.” I sense you are trying to tell me that some parts of the analysis in this section (and therefore some of the peer-reviewed references in the IPCC chapter 2) is incorrect. Is that a correct assumption? If you believe this is wrong, then let’s delve deeper into this research – both the IPCC’s and what you wish to offer up.

The amount of CO2 we put into the atmospher per year today is not the same as what we were emitting 150 years ago. Civilization grew, population grew and fossil fuel use grew.

All growth has a doubling time. Our CO2 emissions had an average growth rate of about 2%, which has a doubling time of 30 years. Each current doubling period has the same volume as ALL previous periods COMBINED. That is, the past 30 years we have emitted the same volume of CO2 as in all of the previous 200 years combined. That’s what growth is. It is a mathematical fact. 90% of all emissions have been in 60 years. That’s the 1950s. Prior to the 1950s, for the entire 100 years to the 1850’s the TOTAL emissions over that time is only 10% of all our emissions. Go back to the beginning 50 years of the industrialization and that number drops to less than 1% of todays emissions.

Volcanic eruptions and natural forest fires emitted more CO2 in one year that we did in the entire first 50 years of industrialization.

The population was less than 700 million people then. Very very small percent lived in industrialized countries, and of that a very small percent again had the advantage of that industrialization.

The point is this.

World average temps (what ever that means) increased from the 1850’s at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, and continued to increase until the end of WWII. Yet during that entire time our CO2 emissions were a very small percent of what natural CO2 emissions were. Right when we started the ball rolling, when our CO2 emissions increased FIVE TIMES, the average temp DROPPED (you can even see it in Mann’s hockeystick graph). Then in the last 30 years, when our emissions equilled the entire emissions of the previous 200 years, we had the last 12 years of NO INCREASE but a decrease in temps.

So it seems from those FACTS alone the forcing of CO2 is not absolute, but subject to other forcings, which likely we do not understand yet.

Second, what if the measurements of CO2 from the past were cherry picked to show only the low values, and larger ones were ignored by these “scientists”?

BTW, the IPCC IS NOT PEER REVIEWED. You want to keep with the science, then drop the IPCC as a reference as they are a political organization with an agenda, and that agenda is to make sure AGW is kept regardless of what the evidence is. Climategate PROVES we cannot trust anything from the IPCC.

And what about your evidence that a warmer world will be bad?

Wakefield writes: “You want to keep with the science, then drop the IPCC as a reference as they are a political organization with an agenda, and that agenda is to make sure AGW is kept regardless of what the evidence is.”

You are about the third or fourth person I have run across on this forum who claims he wants to discuss science but ends up resorting to comments like that. Do you or do you not want to discuss science? I referenced Section 2.9 of the IPCC 4AR as a place where I suspect you assert the report is wrong. You have yet to point out to me the errors in the report or referenced literature. I ask again.

Because you people keep falling back to the IPCC to support your claims, and not the original papers those claims are based on. That’s why. The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization – InterGOVERNMENTAL. It was started by politicians not scientists. And as we now know the CRU shows clear lack of science. Many from your own side are saying just that.

Interesting, however, is you fall back on the IPCC when it suites your purpose, but when the IPCC disagrees with the radical exaggerations, such as sea level rise, you abandon it claiming the IPCC is too “conservative.” Code word for being wrong.

But, sure, back to the science. Explain how CO2 in the past caused the beginning of the current warm period 150 years ago. Is my assessment on the growth of CO2 correct? If not show why not.

Wakefield,

Please look back at the thread again and see who posted what. You appear to be directing replies to me for items that I did not post.

you wrote, some while back “is the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere from our emissions large enough to alter the climate in any measurable way?” I responded by addressing CO2’s very strong radiative forcing value of 1.66 Watts per metre squared. YOu seem to assert that this is somehow incorrect or immaterial. Do you or do you not want to talk about that?

I assume that is today. Do you understand the growth and doubling periods I discussed above?

This is interesting about your CO2 forcing number:

“The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

According to this site, however, it shows the forcing of CO2 is increasing. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Unfortunately that table is an image, would be interesting to project those numbers back to 1850.

You write: “According to this site … it shows the forcing of CO2 is increasing. … would be interesting to project those numbers back to 1850.” (Oddly, this post states it was written on Sunday – so I guess I missed it.)

Figure 2.23 in the 4AR has exact plot you are looking for. (Chapter 2, p. 208)

Interesting, I plotted those values in that table and it’s a straight line, which goes to zero at 1937. That means, by these numbers, CO2 had no forcing value at all prior to 1940. That’s a serious problem since this warm period started in 1850, 90 years earler.

I think there needs to be more data to explain what you are talking about. For starters, can you provide the specific reference for “That table?” Why don’t you put all your numbers, assumptions, and calculations up here?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Just enter the values into Excel and plot, then do the Slope function and the Intercept function. You will see the value drops to zero in 1937.

You write: “http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Just enter the values into Excel and plot, then do the Slope function and the Intercept function. You will see the value drops to zero in 1937.”

You introduced data that we have not talked about previously. When you referred to a table before, I assumed you were addressing one of the tables in IPPCC 4AR chapter 2, as that is the only information that has been previously mentioned in this thread. Please elaborate on what data we are discussing here and what question we are trying to answer.

So I looked it up in many places and found this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

I assume you people consider them reliable?

Guess the information in there is not to your liking.

You write: “I assume you people consider them reliable? Guess the information in there is not to your liking.”

I was hoping you would explain why you directed us to that data.

I have no clue what you are talking about now

I’m waiting for this evidence.

BTW, the IPCC IS NOT PEER REVIEWED.’

That is ample demonstration of your ignorance of the role of the IPCC.

The IPCC is not set up as a scientific research group and thus peer review is irrelevant at this stage because the IPCC draws from a wealth of already peer reviewed scientific studies in many sub disciplines which inform on global warming and climate change. The IPCC then draws up reports agreed by its members based upon that science. It is in the nature of that agreement that some aspects are reduced in emphasis and thus IPCC projections of climate change tend to fall towards the middle of the possible range.

Trouble is that many of the feedbacks have been underestimated and as the years pass newer scientific studies suggest ever more strongly that the projections could be more towards the higher end. That is projections of temperature, sea level rise and in the frequency of extreme weather events.

In the UK alone we have seen an increase in periods heavy rain fall (perhaps you would liike to come and talk to the people of Cockermouth, Hull, Tewksbury and York about such events) and frequency of strong storms e.g. around the Hebrides particularly in the last 15 years. I know what that feels like I was on an aircraft carrier steaming through The Minch in a force 12 and have known hurricanes off Cape Hatteras.

‘You want to keep with the science, then drop the IPCC as a reference as they are a political organization with an agenda.’

No. The IPCC uses science to inform politics.

Your remarks are typical of those exposed to too much propaganda from the likes of Monckton et. al., snake-oil, propaganda, inspired by the likes of the Heartless (sorry Heartland) Institute.

It is way past time you started drinking from other than poisoned wells.

“In the UK alone we have seen an increase in periods heavy rain fall (perhaps you would liike to come and talk to the people of Cockermouth, Hull, Tewksbury and York about such events) and frequency of strong storms e.g. around the Hebrides particularly in the last 15 years. I know what that feels like I was on an aircraft carrier steaming through The Minch in a force 12 and have known hurricanes off Cape Hatteras.”

Ok, let’s see the data to back up your ascertion that storminess has increased, rainfall has increased, over the past 150 years.

This is one of the questions I have posted, yet no one can answer. How do you know these climate events are because of our CO2 emissions and not due to natural flucations?

Show me the peer reviewed papers the IPCC relies upon to back up your claim in this regard.

I have already pointed you to sources, if you do not understand the instruction that is not my problem.

Really? I just checked all your posts on this thread, and no references, no links to support your premise that there is more rainfall in the UK because of global warming.

Seriously, you are adopting the stance of the naive schoolboy who says, ‘Miss that isn’t in this book’.

To which could be replied, ‘Silly boy, go and look in another book’. In this case for book read thread.

Whatever.

A read of ‘High Tide’ by Marl Lynas and especially the first chapter ‘Britain’s Wet Season would inform you, and within that the section headed The ‘Smoking Gun’.

Extracts:

Lynas interviewing Tim Osborn of the CRU University of East Anglia gets this response:

‘Over the period from the 1960s to the mid-1990s there was a doubling of the amount of rain that came in the “heavy category” in winter. So in the 1960s something like seven or eight per cent of each winter’s rainfall came from what we call the “heavy” events, whilst by the mid-1990s that had increased to about fifteen percent.’

And of course has continued to rise since.

Lynas then goes on:

‘What’s more this heavier winter rainfall was directly related to rising atmospheric temperatures’

This of course comes from straightforward atmospheric science.

‘The relationship between temperature and the airs capacity to hold water vapour is not linear [note that term that you raised before] - in fact air can hold proportionally more water as temperature rises’ This is the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship.

Lynas again:

‘In the most comprehensive survey of all, [at the time High Tide was written] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that rainfall was getting heavier and more extreme in the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, the UK, Norway, South Africa, northeast Brazil and the former USSR.’

Note 15 suffixed on that paragraph expands as:

Folland, C. et al., 2001:’Observed Climate Variability and Change’, Chapter 2 in IPCC, 2001:Climate Change 2001:The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University.

I’ll make it easy for you to find this ‘book’:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

As seen above the numbered notes in Lynas’s book actual go somewhere valid which is atypical of work from Lomborg.

Now of course such changes to climate can wreak havoc on the environment and ecosystems that is unexpected to the uninitiated. This is where a read of ‘High Tide’ would be worth your while. As would a read of ‘The Weather Makers’ by Tim Flannery who is a scientist and one who has gone to the extremes of the earth to be able to report from first hand.

BTW. Geologists do not necessarilty know much about atmospheric science which subject has varied and high intelluctual demands. Also many geologists have close connections with fossil fuel industries so treat them with particular caution as would become clear if you read Jim Hoggan’s ‘Climate Cover-Up’.

Go to:

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/index.html

also recommended:

Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach by William James Burroughs

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Change-William-James-Burroughs/dp/0521690331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260793525&sr=1-1

So get your head out of the sand and start learning.

The same people who have now been compromised. Nothing can be trusted from these people until a full investigation and re-evaluation of the data is finished.

Interesting from the UK MetOffice prediction of rainfall due to climate change: http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/samp/slides/OxJan08-JonesRichard.pdf

“Summary of recent and predicted
future UK rainfall extremes
Climate modelling predicts increased risk of
extreme rainfall in winter. No clear changes in
summer extremes are indicated.
June/July `07 extreme rainfall resulted from
high rainfall weather patterns which models
suggest will occur less often in future.”

Go here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/

I downloaded Southhampton and plotted the rainfall for each month from 1961. Sorry, but the trend line IS FLAT. There has not been any change in rainfall, just variation.

The last three year period has been the quietest period of hurricane activity on record in the US.

Where did the climate alarmists (really just communist tyrants) predict that this would happen?

I would appreciate any IPCC links or any “peer reviewed” “science” links that predicted that AGW would cause fewer hurricanes in the US.

Oh I forgot this “science” isn’t about accurately predicting anything and consulting an Astrologer would have been just as useful.

Climatology will one day soon join the ranks of Astrology as a completly self-serving fraud. A priesthood sucking up 10 billion dollars a year from the American Taxpayer.

The fact that anyone still believes any of this crap explains why palm readers can still make a good living.

Bruce Frykman writes:
“I would appreciate any IPCC links or any “peer reviewed” “science” links that predicted that AGW would cause fewer hurricanes in the US.”

Here’s your answer:
“…the total number of tropical cyclones globally is projected to decrease.” (from IPCC 4AR, Technical Summary, page 74. There’s a lot more about hurricanes if you care to read it.)

You write:

‘The same people who have now been compromised. Nothing can be trusted from these people until a full investigation and re-evaluation of the data is finished.’

Which goes to show how little you know about these emails and how science is conducted.

Try looking some of the truth before embarrassing yourself further:

Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An “exhaustive review” shows “the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/13/must-read-ap-analysis-of-stolen-emails-an-exhaustive-review-shows-the-exchanges-dont-undercut-the-vast-body-of-evidence-showing-the-world-is-warming-because-of-man-made-greenhouse-gas-emissi/

AND

More on the stolen emails

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_the_stolen_emails.php

I would be careful about repeating lies if I were you.

‘Interesting from the UK MetOffice prediction of rainfall due to climate change:

I downloaded Southhampton [sic] and plotted the rainfall for each month from 1961. Sorry, but the trend line IS FLAT. There has not been any change in rainfall, just variation.’

I find that reply curious because it does not answer the point I was making. Go back to my post and read it again, carefully, and see why.

You have made some incorrect assumptions.

Not only that you have picked an monitoring post that is atypical for the type of weather events under discussion.

I wonder why that was?

Either you are clueless about the fragmented nature of the climate of the UK or you were lead there by another professional troll. In other words a deliberate ‘cherry pick’.

Storms, plus marine climate impacts in general.

On storms:

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON STORMS AND WAVES

http://www.mccip.org.uk/arc/2006/storms-and-waves2a.htm

on SSTs:

Marine climate change impacts
Annual Report Card 2007-2008

http://www.mccip.org.uk/arc/2007/default.htm

There is little doubt that Britain’s climate is changing with a move to grow more plants from mediterranean climates.

Apple orchards will have to move north as such plants need frost to set seed amongst many other changes in agriculture that will be required. Such dislocation is going to more than offset any increase in growth from elevated CO2 levels.

High Tide reminded me of the plight of Alaska, and other large swathes of tundra in the north. Look up Fairbanks for example and also discover the ‘drunken’ forests that collapse into holes as frozen ground turns into wetlands.

Then there is the problem of large glaciers melting and also the ground on mountain ranges thawing out and falling downhill. This could have, in some parts of the SA-NA mountain chains, the unexpected effect of relieving volcanoes of overlaying mass and thus trigger eruptions - Mt St Helens style.

Only by reading widely can you hope to grasp the perils that rising global temperatures can bring.

>>>>Let us Stick to the Science Submitted by JR Wakefield on Sat, 2009-12-12 11:48.

CO2 molecules have more heat, and the heat from molecules is what we are actually measuring when we measure “temperature” here on earth, it MUST have an impact.”

>>>>Correct, but what is the degree of that effect? If I put a tiny amount of garlic in my spegetti sause it tastes great, if too much it’s awful. So what counts is the degree of the effects. CO2 is a vey very small percent of the atmoshere, .0035%.

1. Quoting irrelevant factoids and bogus anologies are NOT science..Science is about hypothesis and gathering evidence..

2. The actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is MORE THAN 11 times higher than JR Wakefield claims…(0.039%)..If he has to bore us with irrelevant factoids then at LEAST he should get them right..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/27/arctic-carbon-dioxide-levels

If you want to know the degree of the impact of rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Don’t get spindoctored by people like Wakefield..

Read an IPCC report by REAL scientist.. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Don’t worry about me being “spindoctored” by Wakefield or any others. As I pointed out to him a few moments ago, he veered off the science, and I have asked him to veer right back. Despite the data and analysis he presents, I am well aware that the numbers he present don’t easily reconcile with the fact that the naturally occuring miniscule amounts of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere already account for a warming of 21C. But I intend to allow him have his say on the science – provided he sticks purely to the science.

That one word say it all.

Global Warming is a religious cult. Science is about skepticism and proof. All that Global Warming has proven is that if your “science” can be used to extract trillions of bucks in taxes from the producers of the world, then the politicians will reward your “science” careers with ten billion bucks a year in totally useless “research” grants, provided your theories stay in lockstep with this religious cult’s catechism.

Is it warming? That depends upon where one is measuring from. Its actually warming, cooling, and staying the same simultaneously.

Where’s all the carbon?

70 times more of it is the oceans than is in the atmosphere, where it typically stays submerged for 800 to 1000 years. When the sun warms the oceans up a bit then a little more CO2 bubbles out (like a soft drink sitting out in the sun). When the sunlight declines the oceans suck up more CO2.

CO2 does not drive climate; climate drives CO2. Man’s puny input to this equation is totally laughable.

I know you people are communists; but Global Warming wont get you where you want to be. Try “justice for the proletariat” or “money for the useless slugs” as your slogan to rob the productive people of what they earn. Better yet, just get a gun and simply hold them up directly; using government to rob productive people up is filled with too many uncertainties.

And yes, your oracle, Al Gore, is not just an idiot - he’s a corrupt idiot. I can tolerate each individually, but to be both at the same time it more than any SANE person can endure. And for you idiots - Al’s tree planting does not sequester the millions of tons of fossil carbons he lets loose to warn us all not to do as he does. Hes going to have to park his ass in an effciency hut and walk to his tofu farm -No more Jumbo Jets for Al

Have any of you useless slugs figured out where the carbon goes when Als tree farms either die by rot or fire?

No, that would mean that that just one of you has been endowed with an IQ greater than room temperature.

And who planted the Earth’s Trees before Al Gore invented them?

Hint CO2 is tree fertilizer and that, with a little water and soil, is all they need to be fruitful and multiply - even though Al Gore probabaly taught them this before he invented the internet or won WW-II single handedly with only a sharpened stick.

If you people are so brilliant how come you choose a corrupt idiot like Gore to speak for your “science” - QED this aint science.

by resorting to the “religion” card at the start of your screed and invoking Al Gore (the climate change discussion equivalent of Godwin’s Law) is that you have no arguments based on science. Oh, and that when you do attempt to discuss the science you get it wrong.

You got the description of CO2 acting as a feedback to an initial forcing right with your example of a warming ocean, but the fact that CO2, being a greenhouse gas, then acts as an amplifying feedback and adds still more warming seems to elude your understanding.

And since CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback, what do you suppose adding a third more CO2 directly to the atmosphere in the absence of an initial forcing would do?

Try looking up the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) to see what happened in the past.
Or the End Permian Event.
Or hypotheses about how Earth emerged from global Snowball Earth glaciations at a time when the sun was only 70% as intense.

Oh, look, three natural examples of CO2 and methane greenhouse gas driven climate change.

People who have such a poor grasp of the science and Earth’s history should be careful who they call religious cultists, communists, corrupt idiots, and useless slugs.
I’m just saying.

“You got the description of CO2 acting as a feedback to an initial forcing right with your example of a warming ocean, but the fact that CO2, being a greenhouse gas, then acts as an amplifying feedback and adds still more warming seems to elude your understanding.”

Reference please.

“And since CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback, what do you suppose adding a third more CO2 directly to the atmosphere in the absence of an initial forcing would do?”

Actually no. Explain how come CO2 was 2 to 4 TIMES higher only 35 million years ago and the planet was just as livable then.

“Try looking up the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) to see what happened in the past.
Or the End Permian Event.
Or hypotheses about how Earth emerged from global Snowball Earth glaciations at a time when the sun was only 70% as intense.”

So you agree CO2 and temps vary all on their own, so how do you KNOW it is us doing it today?

“Oh, look, three natural examples of CO2 and methane greenhouse gas driven climate change.”

We have never disputed that. The dispute is two fold:

1) is our current emssions of CO2 affecting the climate? That has not been proven. Our emissions of CO2 is puny. And the real bulk of that emissions was in the last 30 years (because it’s a growth curve the doubling time is 30 years at 2% growth. That means the last 30 years of emissions is the same as the previous 120 years combined). Yet when our emissions was even smaller, less than 1% of today, back at the beginning of the industrial revolution, is when we emgered from the LIA. There is NO WAY such a tiny amount of CO2 back then could have had any effect on the climate. If anything it COMPLETLY disproves your premise that more CO2 causes more cooling. If our CO2 from 1850 started this current warm trend, which was less than 1% of today’s emissions right up to 1940’s, and was the bulk of the current warm trend, then our current emissions of the last 30 years (50% of all emissions) has hardley added any more temp (especially since the last 12 of those 30 we were flat or dropping in temp). Seems the more CO2 we emitt the SLOWER the rate of temp increase in proportion to the CO2.

2) is such changes, ie warming, bad? The geological record says no, warming is BETTER for all the world’s biota.

“….Explain how come CO2 was 2 to 4 TIMES higher only 35 million years ago and the planet was just as livable then…”

There were not some 6 billion people all needing to be fed back then. It was not just as livable.

Try reading any 100-level earth science text book sometime.

“Explain how come CO2 was 2 to 4 TIMES higher only 35 million years ago and the planet was just as livable then.”

For who? There were no humans or even hominids around 35mya, nor were any of the plant or animal species that humans grow or herd for food. And since everything you know as civilization, including agriculture, has developed over the last 10000-12000 years there is no record of how human civilization will deal with the change in climate produced by an increase of 2-4C.

And yes “we,” meaning you deniers, certainly have disputed natural greenhouse gas driven climate change. In fact, I have never encountered a single one who would admit that greenhouse gases could be a climate forcing.

You are assuming that some how humans are not biological units. Since we are one has to show why we would be different when every other population did just fine.

Also, you forget humans evolved in the hottest place on the planet – Central East Africa. We migrated to all other places and had to invent ways to adapt to colder climates (fire, clothing and shelter). So biologically we are animals of the tropics. We do best in warmer climates.

RE: “Try reading any 100-level earth science text book sometime.”

Have your ever wondered why they tack the word “science” on to every bonehead unscientific BS course?

Why not “Chemistry Science” or “Physics Science”?

The reason they dont is that for physics and chemistry any masquerade would superfluous. We already know that physics and chemistry are really science.

On the other hand, “natural history” is not science.

Its actually “history: ie an unprovable explanation of the past; whose tale varies by each of its authors. Simply calling “natural history” by another name “Earth science” sounds swell to the boneheads with an IQs like Al Gore’s, simply too low for the real stuff.

Real science is about proofs; as Mattels Barbie Doll would say: “real science is hard”

If they tack “science” onto the course it isn’t really science ie “social science”, “Earth science”, “climate science” etc. These are courses for people who lack the inventiveness and intellectual effort to actually prove what they claim; ie boneheads .

Similarly, if they tack the word “studies” on the course, then no studying is required: ie “black studies, “womens studies” etc.

Boneheads coarses end always with “sciences or studies” The best BS‘ers end up teaching this crap then getting billions of dollars in “grants” if they support someone elses political agenda: Michael Mann et al

RE: “then acts as an amplifying feedback and adds still more warming seems to elude your understanding.”

I would put it in the same catagory as I would the Book of Revelations. It doesn’t as much elude my understanding as does as does credulity.

For instance, if I were to counter this totally fabricated idea with one of my own:..Releasing a few extra molocules at this point in time (certainly not in the past, since CO2 concentrations have been far greater in the past) will cause greater evaporation in the seas and thus greater cloud cover which will then increase the Earth’s albedo thus lowering the solar energy received, thus plunging us into a new ice age….

I dont really believe this popular 1970’s climatology theory for the same reason I dont believe its currenly popular counterpart. I would need demonstrable proof for any theory that opposes Occam’s Razor: Roughly that the simpler explanation should be used lacking any proof to the contrary.

I’m not much a a fan of critical balances in nature, I tend to believe that nature is always seeking some dynamic equilibrium and that man certainly influences this equiliabrium just as nay living creatures do; “tipping points” are much the stuff of science fiction or the Earth would have “spun out of balence” long ago through the vast innumerable changes it has undergone - no tipping points yet - no hard slams into oblivion.

Sure an asteriod really could kill us all but man’s influence on the climate is simply the latest tool in the age old quest for a scam to enslave us all. In the past we were enslaved because we offended the Gods. Now it appears we offend nature instead, which is just another name for God when it comes right down to it.

Some of us are sheep and go quietly to the slaughter simply because we believe that the ranchers hay will keep us well fed. I think you want to believe in “global warming” simply because you want to believe that big government is here to take care of you — lots of “Jobs”. I, on the other hand, see it as a predator. This means my belief system is different from yours. But I dont mix my beliefs with my proofs however. That makes me a man of science; not a man of the cloth as you are. You see you are a man of faith and that is your right but I don’t like mixing government with faith systems. Its that offending their god stuff again.

Pages