Littlemore vs Monckton: Except with Facts This Time

Thu, 2008-08-21 06:25Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Littlemore vs Monckton: Except with Facts This Time

Below, courtesy of James Taylor at the Heartland Institute, is a transcript of the debate between Christopher Walter (or Viscount Monckton, as he prefers to be known) and me on Roy Green’s phone-in radio show last Sunday. I have taken the liberty of annotating lightly (and in capitals) to point out my own mistakes and to offer contradictory evidence in the several cases were Monckton says things that are at wide variance with the truth.

Green

Richard, in layman’s terminology, make the case for the IPCC human-induced climate change position.


Littlemore

I’ll give you the brief spiel. After a long peace and period of climate stability, the Earth’s climate has started to change, and change quickly. In an effort to answer why, the Earth’s great scientists have gathered all the best research in a report by the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s last report says that there is a 90-plus percent certainty that humans are causing the problem, mostly by burning fossil fuels.

The governments of Stephen Harper in Canada, George Bush in the United States, the governments of Britain, France, Germany, China, India, and 137 other countries all signed off on that report. It’s not some like weird socialist thing. Everybody signed it.

Are there still scientific uncertainties? You bet. Real scientists are arguing all the time in labs and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not in newsletters. Are we going to argue serious science today in 22 minutes in a debate between two guys, neither of whom has a degree in any scientific field or is doing any scientific research? I don’t think so.

The public debate about climate change is not about science, it’s about public relations. That’s what we do at DeSmog Blog, which is a climate change Web site. We do research on the credentials and the funding of people who argue that climate change isn’t happening, that it doesn’t matter, or that it can’t be stopped. Then we publish the results, and I can tell you it’s all about public relations.


Green

Let me have Lord Christopher respond to that.


Monckton

Well let’s first of all begin on this question of funding, and let us talk about the funding for DeSmog Blog. Now DeSmog Blog was founded with $300,000 of money from a man called John Lefebvre who is an Internet gaming fraudster convicted last year of making hundreds of millions of dollars – a large chunk of which he is now being made to pay back to the U.S. government – by unlawfully laundering money to do with unlawful Internet gaming.

He is the person who got into bed with Mr. Littlemore’s boss at a PR [public relations] company, a Mr. James Haugen(LOVELY IMAGERY HERE, VISCOUNT; JOHN AND JIM WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL TOGETHER), and they took up the DeSmog Blog, whose job of course is not to debate the science of climate, but to inaccurately misrepresent the alleged or supposed or imagined funding of anyone who dares to challenge the supposed consensus on the climate (INACCURATELY MISREPRESENT THE ALLEGED OR SUPPOSED OR IMAGINED FUNDING??? YET MONCKTON DOESN’T DENY HIS OWN CONNECTION TO A SPPINSTITUTE CREATED BY EXXON MOBIL. NICE.). So let’s get that thing clear first of all. DeSmog Blog was founded, is funded, and is run by a convicted and self-confessed crook, and furthermore that crook is now in the business of running a solar energy corporation (I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF J. LEFEBVRE’S SOLAR INVESTMENTS, BUT TIM LAMBERT AT THE SCIENCE BLOG DELTOID REPORTS HERE THAT MONCKTON IS TALKING ABOUT THE WRONG JOHN LEFEBVRE) and therefore has a direct vested interest in peddling the climate change scare.

I would start by making it clear that Mr. Littlemore is a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster.


Green

Lord Christopher, let me just jump in here if I may. I appreciate you saying this, and I want Richard to respond, because I have the stories and the news stories as well. But I really want to get to the climate change issue because that is what our listeners want to hear most about from each of you. So Richard, respond to that and then let’s get to the issue of climate.


Littlemore

John Lefebvre hasn’t been convicted of anything (THIS IS A TERRIBLE ANSWER, AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT, BUT OVERLY DEFENSIVE . JOHN HAS SUBMITTED A GUILTY PLEA IN A DEAL WITH U.S. OFFICIALS THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN RESOLVED). He had a legitimate Internet banking company that was registered in your country because it wouldn’t have been legal if it was registered in the United States (MORE CLEARLY, HE RAN A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS THAT WAS LEGALLY REGISTERED AND TRADED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE. IT SURPRISES ME THAT THE LIBERTARIANS AT SO DELIGHTED TO SEE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY HIS MONEY. AND IT’S DISAPPOINTING, GIVEN THAT JOHN HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT, OTHERWISE, HE WAS GOING TO GIVE THE LION’S SHARE OF IT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER WORTHY CAUSES). Yeah, he gave us our money. I didn’t start off by saying that you’re the senior policy advisor for the ‘SPPInstitute,’ for an organization whose Web site is the ‘SPPIstitute,’ which was started with $100,000 that the Frontiers of Freedom spun off from ExxonMobil to begin the Science and Public Policy Institute. I told you this wasn’t going to be about science, so this is about public relations in every aspect.


Green

Let me turn it around then. Let me ask you each a question. I have one question. We’ll start with this, and then we’ll take a break, and you’ll think about the question and then we’ll come back and we’ll debate it and see where it goes from there.

The question I have is this: I have done a lot of research on this issue as well. Have global temperatures – and please listen to the question carefully – have global overall temperatures increased in the past 50 years – not the past 100 years – because we know the temperatures globally rose after the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and that global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Celsius in the past 100 years. But have global temperatures risen in the past 50 or 60 years, or have global temperatures been stable during that period?

And remember warming temperatures globally swung upward – at least my information tells me this – in the first half of the twentieth century before World War II and the post-war industrial boom – and the second half of the century, with all of the industrial activity, didn’t global temperatures remain fairly static?


[BREAK]


Green

My question is, did it [global temperature] go up 1 degree in the last 100 years or did it go up 1 degree in the first half of the twentieth century with very little increase in temperature in the second half of the twentieth century? Lord Christopher, perhaps you first.


Monckton

Just to clear up one thing, Mr. Littlemore said that his paymaster, the crook Lefebvre had not been convicted. He was in fact convicted by a U.S. court in July 2007. So you are not going to get straight facts from him, but you will get them from me.

Now the temperature record is like this; the temperature went up very fast between about 1906 and 1940. Indeed in the 1920s and 1930s it went up very fast indeed. From 1940 until about 1975, it fell a little. From 1975 until 1998 it went up quite a lot – about 0.5 Celsius overall over the 50 years you are asking about. And that is of course preceded by a 0.5 degree Celsius increase long before humankind could have had anything to do with it in the first 50 years of the twentieth century. (WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? ASIDE FROM LITTLE PROJECTS LIKE THE DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE, HUMANS BEGAN RELEASING CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE BIGTIME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, SAY AROUND 1780.)

So yes there has been an increase, however that increase has been going on at a rate on average of about 0.5 Celsius per century for 300 years, during 250 of which we could not possibly have had anything to do with it (FOR A “MATHEMATICIAN,” CHRIS SEEMS BADLY OUT OF HIS DEPTH HERE. 2008 MIINUS 1780 IS 228., THAT LEAVES 72 YEARS OUT OF 300, NOT COUNTING THINGS LIKE THE EARLIER DEVASTATION OF THE IRAQI BREADBASKET THROUGH OVERIRRIGATION). And now that temperatures have been falling for the last seven years and falling at a rate of about 0.4 degrees Celsius per century according to the Hadley Center’s records, HADLEY CENTRE RECORDSor per decade I should say, the overall effect is that there has been no increase in the long-run warming rate over the past 300 years. (AGAIN, FOR A MATHEMATICIAN, CHRIS SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, BUT NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH DATA MANIPULATION. IF YOU PICK THE ANOMALOUS HIGH POINT OF 1998 AND TRACK ONLY FOR EIGHT YEARS, TEMPERATURE IS FLAT OR BARELY FALLING. IF YOU PICK ROY GREEN’S DATE OF 50 YEARS AGO ….) There has been no particular change in the second half of the twentieth century. (….THEN THIS STATEMENT IS A BAREFACED LIE.)


Green

Richard Littlemore, respond to that please.


Littlemore

I don’t know where you’re getting a lot of this. But if your listeners would like to Google climate or um, global warming, um, or go to Wikipedia and look up global warming, they can get a nice graph the U.S. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration – a pretty reputable organization – that will show you some of the ups and downs that have been mooted here. But from 1950 until now, if you put a ruler on the curve it goes up at about a 45 degree angle. Eleven of the hottest years in recorded history occurred in the last 13 years. How that can be characterized as anything other than a considerable increase. … I mean it’s not just 11 of the hottest years in recorded history. According to some very good climate reconstructions going back at least 1,000 years, we’re talking about the hottest decade in 1,000 years at least )


noaa GRAPHGreen

Lord Christopher?


Monckton

Well no, we’re not. The ‘hockey stick’ graph that is purported to abolish the Medieval Warm Period was based on bristlecone pine reconstructions from tree rings using a process which the UN climate panel had itself said ought not to be used. If you take out the bristlecone pine record and use all the other datasets you find that, just as history confirms, there was a Medieval Warm Period during which temperatures were considerably higher than they are now (THIS, TOO, IS PUREST FICTION. THE ONLYEVIDENCEMONCKTON COULD PRODUCE OF AN MWP WITH TEMPERATURES “considerably higher” THAN NOW WOULD BE A HAND DRAWN MAP BY TIM BALL). In the 10,000 years of the present interglacial period between ice ages, the temperature has been warmer than today about two-thirds of the time. (HIS ABILITY TO SAY THIS WITHOUT CHOKING IS A GREAT ASSET TO EXXON.) And in each of the previous four or five interglacial periods, which occur every 125,000 years, the temperature has been up to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, and humankind cannot have had anything to do with it.

NHS Jouzel: JOUZEL (THIS GRAPH GOES WITH A PAPER IN THE JOURNAL SCIENCE. IT SHOWS TEMPERATURE RECORDS TEASED OUT OF ANTARCTIC ICE CORES. IT FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LAST TIME TEMPERATURES WERE AS HIGH AS THEY ARE NOW WAS ABOUT 125,000 YEARS AGO.)

What is more, the Sun has been more active and for longer over the last 70 years than at almost any previous similar period over the past 11,400 years since the end of the last ice age. (A PERIOD OF HIGH ACTIVITY THAT ENDED ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO .)


Green

Make your point, Richard.


Littlemore

I’m sorry that we’re not on television instead of radio, no offense. If you go to DeSmogBlog.com, or if you just Google this is not a hockey stick, you will find that the story that has just been told to you about the hockey stick debunking is flagrantly incorrect, um not to say false, um, well and to say false. The bristlecone records which are featured in the hockey stick, and this gets really, this is why we shouldn’t be talking about science on the radio. But anyway, the bristlecone record is corroborated by ocean sediments, by lake sediments, by glaciers. I’ve got eight other graphs on the DeSmog Blog, none of which has been questioned in the least, all showing a hockey stick shape in the temperature from 1,000 years ago to today, and all of them showing a pretty similar – the idea that there was a Medieval Warming Period during which the temperature was higher than it is now is, that is like, flagrantly incorrect is the nicest way that I can say it. 9AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE PHRASE THAT DANCED ON MY TONGUE WASABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.”)


Green

Well wasn’t it called the Medieval Climactic Optimum – optimum meaning the best?


Littlemore

[laughter]


Monckton

Yes it was. And of course, the IPCC’s report in1990 shows the graph which illustrates the existence of the Medieval Warm Period very clearly. I can produce 30 graphs from different scientific papers from all around the world from ocean sediments, from Lake Vikal, from the Alps, from all over the place establishing that the Medieval Warm Period was real and it existed. (THIS IS VERY NICELY PUT. I CAN ONLY AGREE THAT THE MWP “was real and it existed” AND I HAVE NO DOUBTS MONCKTON CAN PRODUCE GRAPHS TO PROVE IT SO. BUT HE HAS ARGUED, ONLY A MOMENT AGO, THAT IT WAS WARMER THAN TODAY, A CONTENTION FOR WHICH HE HAS NO PROOF WHATEVER.)

That’s when the great cathedrals of Europe were built. That’s when civilization began to flower because of the warmer weather. We know this perfectly well. If you go to Valsay in Greenland, where the archaeologists have been digging recently, they have found the burial site where the major Viking settlement there used to exist. That burial site was not under permafrost when people were buried there because they wouldn’t have been able to dig into it. It is under permafrost still today. Why? Because Greenland is cooler today than it was in the Medieval Warm Period.

Records from all over the world show, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – paper after paper after paper – that the Medieval Warm Period was real.


Green

Richard, when I said Medieval Climactic Optimum – optimum meaning the best – you laughed.


Littlemore

Yeah, it gets to the question of ‘Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if it was warmer.’


Green

Well, many people are saying that. Many people are arguing that if the planet is getting warmer, it is not necessarily a bad thing. (IT’S ABOUT HERE WHEN ROY GREENTHE MODERATORGIVES IN TO THE TEMPTATION TO JOIN THE DARK SIDE.)


Littlemore

Many people don’t live in Bangladesh, which if the oceans go up a meter 60 million people are in danger of losing their home. You know, whether somebody in Whitehorse thinks that there is going to be a slight advantage to having climate change, doesn’t address the significant risks that tend to – climate change at a pace that could be faster than at any time in the last [unintelligible]. … (I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT I SAID, EITHER, BUT I HAVE TO SAY, AGAIN, THAT THE HEARTLAND HAS DONE A CREDITABLE JOB ON THE TRANSCRIPTION.)


Green

Over how long a period of time does the IPCC suggest the oceans will rise? And are we talking all the oceans or just some of them by a meter?


Littlemore

It’s a moving target. The IPCC – Andrew Weaver, who is like the best climate modeler in Canada or one of the best, said you know, meter, two meters at the outside is all that he can show in models in this century. So you know, everybody can build dikes or can perhaps build dikes and not worry about it.

[BREAK]


Green

Can we address this whole issue of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter influencing Earth and other planets? Triton, Neptune’s moon, is experiencing melting of its surface of frozen nitrogen. Pluto has warmed some 3 degrees. The Red Spot has a mass I understand of more than 300,000 times greater than Earth, with a temperature of roughly 20 million degrees Celsius at its core. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the Red Spot may be responsible for any modest increase in global temperatures? (HERE I AM THINKING: IS THIS A SET-UP?) Lord Christopher, first to you. (AND HERE I’M THINKING: YUP!)


Monckton

Well, I don’t think it would cause any increase in global temperatures. But certainly what I think is happening is there is a giant, bright object at the middle of the solar system, from which the solar system gets its name, that has indeed been becoming more active recently, as I was saying earlier. And it is that which is probably causing the simultaneous warming that has been observed over recent years on many of the planetary bodies in the solar system.

But to just very quickly go back on the sea level rise point, Mr. Littlemore didn’t answer your question about what the IPCC said. What it said is that a 43 centimeter – that’s 1 foot, 5 [inches] – is their projected sea level rise for the next century. That’s their best estimate. They have reduced their top end estimate down from 3 feet down to less than 2 feet. So we are looking at really quite a small sea level rise which is really not going to threaten anybody very much. And there’s no real expectation that there is going to be any more than that.

Indeed, I was consulting [unintelligible] the other day, who is the world’s greatest expert on sea level, and has written several papers on it, and he said he is not expecting it to rise very much more than the eight inches we saw in the last century, and that in itself is only about a fifth of the 4 feet per century which has been the average sea level rise per century over the last 10,000 years, with sea level rising over 400 feet in that time.


Green

Let’s go to Richard Littlemore for a response to that, and then a question for you both.


Littlemore

Well I’m not sure what I’m responding to. The bamboozling on science. … We’re looking at the most serious collapse of Arctic ice in all of recorded history.(BY THIS POINT, I HAVE COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN MY RESOLVE NOT TO GET CAUGHT UP IN ARGUING ABOUT SCIENCE, WHICH, AS I POINTED OUT IN MY INTRODUCTIN, IS not MY FIELD. I SAY, “RECORDED HISTORYWHERE I SHOULD BE SAYING, “SINCE WE BEGAN TAKING SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS.) This is the third year in a row when the Northwest Passage is navigable and this could be as bad as last year, which was the biggest melt in history. You know when the ice melts the sea level rises. (AS SEVERAL DELIGHTED COMMENTERS HAVE POINTED OUT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, WHEN FLOATINGDEFENDING THE IPCC.) It’s melting way faster than anybody anticipated that it would. So it stands to reason that the sea levels might rise a little more quickly. ICE MELTS, IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO SEA LEVEL - EXCEPT THAT IT NO LONGER HOLDS THE CONTINENTAL ICE IN PLACE AND, SUDDENLY, GREENLAND ICE IS SLIPPING INTO THE SEA AT RATES FAR ABOVE WHAT THE IPCC HAS BEEN EXPECTING. SO, CHRIS AND ROY NOW HAVE ME IN THE POSITION OF WANTING TO SAY THAT THOSE GUYS AT THE IPCC HAVE LIKELY MISSED THEIR GUESS ON THIS COUNT, AND I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE


Green

[Asks about extent of Arctic ice decline.]


Littlemore

The last two years have seen a catastrophic decline. If you go back to three weeks ago and look at what the Canadian ice service was saying, they were saying, ‘Hey, big recovery after last year. This is great news. We had a good cold winter and there looks like really a fabulous recovery.’ Last week they said, ‘Oops, just kidding. It’s got quite stormy up there. All that ice is broken up. It’s looking now like we’re on track to have again one of the Earth’s worst years ever.’

On the solar thing, the idea that the Sun – I mean it’s – there are all these side issues but first of all, all the people who say, ‘Ooh, it’s solar forcing, not CO2 forcing, they bring out these charts and graphs, and the charts and graphs all end sort of in 1980 (OR 1990 ).

And the reason they all end in 1980 is that the Sun’s activity graph and the global average temperature graph track almost perfectly until 1980. And then, oops, the Sun’s activity goes straight into the dumpster and the temperature goes straight up. So you get a guy like Tim Patterson from the University of Ottawa (MY MISTAKE: CARLETON UNIVERSITY) who does speeches about this all over town, his graph always ends at 1980, like there’s something really unsavory about that. If as well, you were to think that so much additional energy is coming from the Sun that it’s lighting fire to Jupiter, if that much energy is getting to Jupiter to be creating that spot, if there isn’t some other function happening out there, then we would all be toast like.


Green

On that point, Lord Christopher, how do you want to wrap this up? (WHICH IS TO SAY: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE LAST WORD?)


Monckton

Very quickly, let’s deal with the Arctic ice which is a little bit nearer to home. The fact is that there has been far less Arctic ice around than there is now. In the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries, when sailing ships had been able to sail through the Northwest Passage. (WELL, ONE SAILING SHIP, CAPTAINED BY ROALD AMUNDSEN, WHO TOOK THREE YEARS TO MAKE THE TRIP.) It was free again in 1945, (ACTUALLY, 1940 AND 1944, FOR THE ICE-FORTIFIED SCHOONER, THE ST. ROCH) it’s free again now. These things come and go.

In any case, even if the entire Arctic ice cap was melted, it is floating and therefore doesn’t add a single millimeter to sea level rise.

In any case, all his point about the fact that the Arctic has been showing some signs of warming was disposed of very thoroughly by NASA last year in a paper saying that most of that warming is attributable to changes in the great ocean currents as they push more warmer water up to the Arctic and this has nothing to do with global warming. (IF MEMORY SERVES, THE RESEARCH ACTUALLY SUGGESTS THAT THE CHANGES IN OCEAN CURRENTS ARE, ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING.)

The point is that merely because you see a phenomenon of warming somewhere doesn’t mean the whole planet is warming. It doesn’t mean that the cause of the warming has anything to do with us. There is more Antarctic ice than ever there was (NOT TRUE: RESEARCHERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL REPORTED THIS YEAR THAT OVERALL ICE LOSS IN ANTARCTICA HAS INCREASED ABOUT 75 PER CENT OVER THE 10 YEAR PERIOD FROM 1996-2006 AND THAT MODELS PREDICTING AN INCREASE IN ICE MASS ARE NOT BEARING OUT: IT’S DECLINING EVERYWHERE.)and the overall ice mass of the planet – if you take the Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic together – has shown no trend whatsoever, up or down in the last 50 years since we have been keeping detailed records. There has been no change.


Green

I thank you both very much. All the best to you both.

GREEN THEN WENT TO 15 MINUTES OF PHONE-IN COMMENTS IN WHICH EVERYONE AGREED THAT THERE HAD, INDEED, BEEN A REASONABLE DEBATE ABOUT SCIENCE AND THATTHAT LEFT-WING GUYHAD BEEN ROUNDLY THRASHED BY THE NOBLE HERO, VERY NICE.


 

Previous Comments

Even though this was just two normal people debating and can’t really be used for much other than entertainment … you got pwned.

Traciatim, yes and no. Littlemore might have performed far below his optimal level, but it’s quite clear now that the number of people `converted’ to either side of the debate is 0.00. There’s still no sign of a `mass exodus’ of people to the `skeptic’ side. None.

- - -

To all global warming activists and inactivists:

Please sign the “Sue Us” Petition ( http://tinyurl.com/6265jx ) to urge Monckton, Coleman, and McShane to sue Gore and Hansen for “conspiracy”, as repeatedly threatened!

Climate inactivists, if you Monckton truly is right, then you should strongly urge him to bring his lawsuit against Gore and Hansen, so that he can stop this multi-billion-dollar
global warming `scam’ right away!

I’m going to take issue again with that 45 degree comment as it was ridiculous and you should know better. The angle of a line through points on a graph is completely dependant on the scale of the graph. Even dependant on the size of the graph on the paper or image. Stretch that image 20 times higher and the angle will increase towards 90 degrees, squish it down to a few pixels and the angle will reach near zero.

The important factor in determining the relevance of the points is in the regression line Y = mX + b. If you don’t believe me go ask your friend David Suzuki, he used to be a scientist.

Besides, that graph is not in perspective. It’s missing 2001-2008 which shows a DROP of temps during those years. It is also missing 1900-1950 when the rate of change (the slope of the line) was the same rate as 1975-1998.

Points to consider and why the 1900-1945 could not be from human CO2 emissions. But it’s mathematical, so try and follow. All growth has a doubling time. For fossil fuel consumption that growth is around 3% per year since the beginning some 120 years ago. The doubling time is around 35 years. This means in the last 35 years (1973-2008) we have consumed the same volume of FF as in all the years 1880-1972. That’s what doubling means. 80% of all the FF consumption we have done in the last 120 years was from 1950 onwards. So the warming from 1880 to 1950 CANNOT be from our CO2 emissions.

And when we consumed the 80% of all FF what did the temp do? 1945-1975 a cooling trend happened. 1975-1998 a warm trend happened. 1998-2008+ a cooling trend. Right in the last 35 years when we consumed 50% of all FF the temp DROPPED in the last 10 of them, almost 1/3 of the time when 2/3s of the last 50% was consumed!!

There is no correlation between CO2 and these temps.

But there is more I’ll get to later.

Richard, you REALLY need to read the reviews of refereed papers in www.co2science.org. Monkton was right. 500 years of temps warmer than today (Greenland had inhabitants then but you cannot live there like they did then today). It was world wide. It’s all on that website. No bullshit.

That site is a notorious spin site; they don’t link to the original articles (not even their abstracts!) at all, so it becomes difficult for you to see whether or not they’re legitimately representing the research. In my experience, they are almost always being dishonest.

But don’t take my word for it. Look at the editor from Nature Geoscience: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/08/more_for_the_annals_of_climate_1.html

Excuse me, but they review PEER REVIEWED PAPERS every week. So I don’t buy that BS. You just want to discredit them because they challenge the dogma.

Brian, you beat me…

I was also going to link to funding that they received from Exxon; about $100,000. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

That site is all lies. Go and see what it says about Richard Linzen. Completely false and fabricated lies. Lindzen will send to anyone who asks what his total take was from all FF companies, some $300 because he was a witness for a court case to cover some of his expenses.

Besides, RealClimate is owned and funded by Environmental Media Services a radical left wing lobby group with deep pockets.

And about funding in general, over the pasty 20 year 50 BILLION has been funneled into some form of AGW, with less than 2-3 million from “Big Oil” funding the skeptics. Even Suzuki gets funded by Toyota, who are trying to convert people to hybrids. So the money accusation flies both ways, more to AGW.

Junior Wakefield wrote:That site [Exxon Secrets] is all lies.

If it’s all lies, that would constitute libel. I suspect that Exxon Secrets is still online because of one little principle in journalism, the truth is an absolute defense. In other words, you can’t libel someone (or some company) by telling the truth.

RealClimate is owned and funded by Environmental Media Services a radical left wing lobby group with deep pockets.

Please provide a link about how this left wing group is getting rich by sponsoring Real Climate. An expose in a reputable paper, perhaps.

Junior Wakefield wrote: And about funding in general, over the pasty 20 year 50 BILLION has been funneled into some form of AGW, with less than 2-3 million from “Big Oil” funding the skeptics.

Links please! If you consider funding renewable energy projects, then I suppose that you might be able to support that claim. Otherwise, I’m calling bullshit.

Even Suzuki gets funded by Toyota, who are trying to convert people to hybrids. So the money accusation flies both ways, more to AGW.

Actually, Toyota would make far more money by continuing business as usual, since hybrids account for less than three percent of Toyota’s sales… Since committed environmentalists believe that we need more trains and buses, and far fewer cars, Toyota, in giving money to the Suzuki Foundation, is actualy investing in a nonprofit that works against their business interests.

http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=17

However, Big Oil is giving money to groups that support their own financial ends, and help make more money. Can you understand the difference?

JR are my first name initials not “Junior”. Interesting that you inferred the initials to mean that, and not just assumed it was my initials. Interesting indeed…

If it’s all lies, that would constitute libel. I suspect that Exxon Secrets is still online because of one little principle in journalism, the truth is an absolute defense. In other words, you can’t libel someone (or some company) by telling the truth.

But unless one has PHYSCIAL EVIDENCE to support that accusation then it is just that. I could just as easily put in blogs that Desmogblog gets $5,000 a day in funding from Gore. Deny it all you want, but I can still spread that lie and there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. Even if someone like Lindzen refutes the claim, people like you will refuse to belive it because YOU DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE HIM.

From Lindzen:

Statement concerning support.
My research has never been supported by any industrial source. I have always had research support from one or more of the following: the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Energy.
I have accepted two lecture fees from oil and coal firms about 17 years ago. In each case, I shared the platform with speakers from the environmental movement. The same was true of a talk I gave at a meeting sponsored by OPEC around the same time. It was claimed that the publication of that talk was sponsored by OPEC. That is untrue. The lecture had been prepared earlier as part of a series of lectures delivered at Tel Aviv University where I was a Sackler Visiting Professor. It was subsequently published the Cato Institute in their magazine Regulation.
During the early 90’s, I also served for a couple of days as an expert witness for Western Fuels in a court case in Minnesota. Western Fuels is a small coal cooperative serving publicly owned utilities in the upper midwest. It is relatively unique among fuel companies in that it has no customers to pass its expenses on to. It was created under President Carter as part of his policy of reducing dependence on oil. Again during this period, I responded to a request to testify before a Senate Committee. After testifying, I discovered that it is the practice of Congress not to cover any expenses (travel, hotel, preparing 100 copies of testimony, etc.) associated with testifying. Moreover, one is not permitted to use government grant funds for this purpose. Since I was broke at the time, I accepted $300 from Western Fuels to cover some of the expenses. I should add that this policy on the part of Congress has the effect of largely restricting testimony to government employees and advocates. I covered my own expenses for subsequent Congressional testimony.
The above represents the totality of my paid association with oil and coal firms.

Richard S. Lindzen
April 5, 2007

JR Wakefield wrote: But unless one has PHYSCIAL EVIDENCE to support that accusation then it is just that. I could just as easily put in blogs that Desmogblog gets $5,000 a day in funding from Gore. Deny it all you want, but I can still spread that lie and there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. Even if someone like Lindzen refutes the claim, people like you will refuse to belive it because YOU DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE HIM.

No, JR, you don’t understand. Exxon Secrets (ES) is a published web site; If the investigators behind ES are making false and libelous statements, then Exxon would be able to shut them down and take every cent they owned in a court of law. The fact that Exxon isn’t doing so is telling… And that’s because the truth is an absolute defense.

Here is a simple fact for you: Exxon is a publicly traded company, and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists (and presumably Exxon Secrets) have all the details they need to prove the truth about who Exxon gives money to by researching Exxon’s own publicly filed documents.

People in the media can’t say what they want with impunity because if it is untrue, it’s libel.

And now… the case against Lindzen, copied and pasted from Wikipedia. It certainly sounds like he’s taken more than $300:

Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.”

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from “fossil-fuel types” in the 1990’s and had not received any money from these since. (BTW, Beam supports Lindzen)

According to a PBS Frontline report, “Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon’s own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler’s Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

And now… the case against Lindzen, copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

It’s there because I put it there!! This is an email I got from him personally who he sends to anyone who asks.

“Dear Richard,
Attached is a response. This and other false accusations have appeared for years. That is why I am sending you a stock response. That said, I would have few objections to getting support from big oil except for the fact that 1) I haven’t needed it, and 2) they have never offered it.
Best wishes,
Dick”

It certainly sounds like he’s taken more than $300:

Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.”

Lies. Lindzen makes that clear in his letter.

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from “fossil-fuel types” in the 1990’s and had not received any money from these since. (BTW, Beam supports Lindzen)

Lies. Read his letter!! It’s in there.

According to a PBS Frontline report, “Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon’s own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler’s Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.”

That does not mean he got any of that money. I’m sure there are many who hold the same position as him. Why don’t you get the FACTS from the horses mouth and just write him and ASK!

And about funding in general, over the pasty 20 year 50 BILLION has been funneled into some form of AGW, with less than 2-3 million from “Big Oil” funding the skeptics.

Links please! If you consider funding renewable energy projects, then I suppose that you might be able to support that claim. Otherwise, I’m calling bullshit.

Citibank Pledges $50 Billion Dollar Investment Program in Climate Change
http://lawandenvironment.typepad.com/newcarboncycle/2007/05/citibank_pledge.html

How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521685719&ss=exc

“Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

Newsweek’s Global Warming Blunder
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml?s=us
“Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 billion in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 million by comparison.”

That seems to be $50B investment towards alternative energy research and reducing the Citibank footprint, not $50B towards a PR campaign pushing AGW so I’m not sure how you can compare it to what Exxon is funding?

Do you really think Exxon and the other fossil fuel giants are just trying to be nice and doing everyone a favour when trying to get us to stop worrying about the climate? Or could they perhaps be protecting their profits, which apparently are the biggest that any company ever made through all of history?

Oh, and that Newsmax page - they have a link “Bomb Iran? Vote here now!”. You guys are such nice people…

The National Research Council investigated all of these issues.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

Regarding a strong “world wide” MWP:
“Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.”

Regarding the individual proxies:
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.”

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

“However, the figure of 0.52 was insufficient for W&A’s purposes. Their problem was that the key component of the hockey stick had a verification RE of 0.48, leaving it tantalisingly just below the calculated benchmark. They needed it to be in the top rank and getting it there was going to be tricky. For each simulation, a thousand runs through the statistical sausage machine were perfomed and the RE number, the correlation with the temperature record, was recorded. Then all the runs were sorted in order of RE value, the best runs having the highest RE and the worst the lowest. W&A needed to show that the hockey stick RE was right up there with the best simulations - in the top one percent. While its RE was high, it wasn’t good enough. And it was no good simply removing runs which had a higher score than the hockey stick, since this would not increase its position enough - they would have been reducing the total number of runs as well as the number of runs which were scoring better than the hockey stick. To get the answer they needed, the higher scoring runs had to be made to be lower than the hockey stick, but left in the calculation.

To do this, Wahl and Amman came up with a value which they called a calibration/verification RE ratio. As the name suggests, this was the ratio of the two RE numbers for calibration and verification. This ratio is however, entirely unknown to statistics, or to any other branch of science. But it was not plucked out of the air. The ratio and the threshold value which was set for it by Wahl and Amman was carefully calculated. They argued that any run with a ratio less than 0.75 should be assigned a score of -9999. Since the hockey stick had a score of 0.813, 0.75 was pretty much the highest level you could go to without rejecting the hockey stick itself. However if you set your ratio threshold too low, not enough runs would be rejected and the hockey stick would no longer be “99% significant”. Some of the results of this ratio were entirely perverse - it was possible for a run that had scored a reasonably good RE in the calibration (there was a good correlation between it and the actual temperatures) to be thrown out of the final assessment on the grounds that it had done very well in the verification - the correlation with actual temperatures was considered too good!”

and I’ll believe the NAS over a blog thanks.

This is a recap of historical events that actually happened. Reality weather (PUN) you like it or not.

The Bishop Hill article is a summary of accusations. The NRC report is a summary of the science. That is, medieval warmth occurred at different locations and different times, and that most regionally diverse proxies show that it is warmer now than in the middle ages.

An excellent summary of the NAS report thank you. Much appreciated, a good read to if anyone ever gets interested

This is also a lie, there are no temp reconstructions that can support this point.

Global temps past 2000 years. Note MWP sticks out:

http://www.weatherquestions.com/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

1979 to 2008, notice the current drop and over all no change since 1998

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/blog_UAH%20Globally%20Averaged%20Satellite-Based%20Temp%2C%20Graph.jpg

Monthly Mean Global temps from 1998 - 2008, looks flat to me. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

No you claimed it was warmer during the MWP than now. That is a lie, there is no science to back that up. The link is a non published source try…

P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471

P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42

A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617

J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677

These are all temp reconstructions, as well the NAS has an excellent report/review on paleoclimate. And wow, those are some pretty top notch publications, you know in science or nature….which in general is more likely a reliable source of information compared to you know an internet self published website. So really be serious, why are all your claims based on blogs? or self published trash?

Richard, the third person who called in was a rancher from Big Valley (hardly a left-wing stronghold) and he attacked (in a passive-aggressive manner) Roy Green’s claim it was cow flatulence by trapping him in a quandary: If it were cows, then what of the recorded herds of bison miles across that dwarfed modern herds 400 years ago? Why no warming then?

Green’s response? 10,000 years ago, Australia’s outback was a rain forest. I kid you not, that is how he countered this claim before hanging up on him.

Oh, and while I’m here, I find it hilarious that JR Wakefield scolds you about linear regressions and then botches not only linear regressions (1998-2007 has a warming trend in HadCRUT and GISTEMP; annual data from 2008 isn’t available yet) but also statistical significance (1998-present isn’t statistically significant).

Green’s response? 10,000 years ago, Australia’s outback was a rain forest. I kid you not, that is how he countered this claim before hanging up on him.

The point being, change is normal, change happens, and change can be radical.

Oh, and while I’m here, I find it hilarious that JR Wakefield scolds you about linear regressions and then botches not only linear regressions (1998-2007 has a warming trend in HadCRUT and GISTEMP; annual data from 2008 isn’t available yet) but also statistical significance (1998-present isn’t statistically significant).

Really! So how come RealClimate and the IPCC admit that trends have been flat or down since 1998?

Do you agree or not agree that the 45 degree angle comment was inappropriate?

No, the point is that “Australia’s outback was a rain forest” is utter meaningless fantasy - http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/flora_and_fauna.html

The problem with you deniers is that you will accept anything from anyone provided it fits the version of reality you want to exist. You do no research to verify the claims, you simply regurgitate them whenever you enter a ‘debate’.

What you need to grasp is that global temperature is not going to be a nice, linear movement on the graph. You only need look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg to see it has been oscillating for a long, long time - but only a fool cannot see where the long-term trend is heading.

In science there is no such thing as a denier. The proper term is skeptical. And it is skepticism that keeps disciplines honest. The use of the term “denier” is only used to try and belittle anyone who wishes to question the polemic of AGW. Well, I don’t get scared from such blatant racist comments as that. I see it for what it is. An attempt to scare people away from challenging the authority of AGW. Poeple who do that have something to hide, generally that their dogma cannot win over reality. Well, I challenge authority at every opportunity!

And no, I look at the EVIDENCE period.

And only a fool would think that a trend will continue as is when the planet is clearly oscillating between limits. Always has and always will. Well, until the sun consumes the planet in 5 billion years.

Fact is, you do not have a crystal ball. You cannot predict what the future climate will be, and your “models” are nothing more that guesses that are more wrong than right. They have to be teased into matching reality with fudge factors. They certainly did not foresee this cooling trend!!

You flatter yourself - you are not a scientist and you are not a sceptic. A sceptic doubts a claim until presented with compelling evidence. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming - you simply deny it and cling to any lie or cherry-picked data that supports your ideological desire. You are therefore a denier of reality, no different to a flat earther or creationist.

And it must sting that the deniers of AGW only inhabit right wing sideshow blogs, and the comments of websites, such as this one. The climate scientists of every national science academy on the planet stopped debating the reality of AGW decades ago - they’re now simply refining and expanding the models which tell us how bad it’s going to get and how quickly.

Keep your head buried in the sand, or wherever you choose to stick it - your thoughts and comments, along with Little Lord Fauntleroy’s, are irrelevant to the conversation.

JR Wakefield said: “In science there is no such thing as a denier. The proper term is skeptical. And it is skepticism that keeps disciplines honest”.

Any scientist who purposely misrepresents scientific consensus is neither skeptical nor a denier, he is a liar.

Those opposing AGW do it on the basis of lies.

“Looking” at something and “seeing” it are two entirely different processes. If you are “looking” at the scientific evidence and making the comments you are making you must have your eyes closed.

Ian Forrester

So explain to me how I’m lying. PROVE IT! Seems to me you are too emotionally attached to AGW for some reason, like some religeous fanatic than to look at the issue from a scientific point of view alone.

Yes, I am skeptical, I do not deny it and anyone who claims I’m otherwise must be lying. Right?

Rejecting “evidence” is not denying anything, they just do not accept the evidence as presented. That’s how I see the “evidence” for AGW. BTW, what evidence IS there for it? Not much these days. Sea level has not accelarated. Been cooling for the past 10 years:

Global COOLING Continues: 2008 So Far Coolest For at Least 5 Years Says World Meteorological Organization – ‘First half of 2008 the coolest since 2000’

Excerpt: - The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Wednesday. The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average. […] The global mean temperature to end-July was 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the UK-based MetOffice Hadley Centre for climate change research said on Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000. […] Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino. “We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years,” said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO. “Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say.” “Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it’s warmer than average,” added Baddour.  http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49875/story.htm

Since you appear to be word challenged (like so many other AGW deniers) I will reword my comments. Since you do not tell the truth you are a liar. It is as simple as that. There are plenty of documented papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature which honest people reading this blog can go and check to see if what you are saying is in fact true.

They will find that you are not telling the truth. Therefore you are a liar. QED.

And just as an example of your dishonesty, trying to suggest that the last 6 months of weather data represents climate just shows that you are both dishonest and stupid.

Ian Forrester

Lying means I must have known BEFORE I was shown otherwise. Show me ONE ITEM I have presented here that I KNOWINGLY knew was a lie.

Really! So how come RealClimate and the IPCC admit that trends have been flat or down since 1998?

This is a lie, run a linear regression and you will see that it is a lie.

JR, you demean yourself by trying to have a discussion with Knuckledragger. He’s a failure with a massive chip on his shoulder, and his only “contributions” to this site are invective, liberal use of words like “liar” and “idiot” with a smattering of profanity. He’s a common nuisance who should be banned but, to the best of my knowledge, the only people who get banned from DeSmog are skeptics.

ZOG, are you allergic to the truth? Every time I or some other knowledgeable person corrects you you resort to gutter level slanderous remarks.

Please stay on your medication, it will benefit everyone who visits this site if you do not pollute it with your viscous and nasty comments.

Ian Forrester

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Good one Ian.
Knowledgeable!

LOLOLOLOL

Ian, All you ever do is call people liars.
You contrbute nothing of value at all.

Gary said: “You contrbute (sic) nothing of value at all”.

That is what is funny Gary. If I wasn’t contributing anything of value, why are you, and the other ignorant trolls, trying to shut me up?

The people who are attacked the most by you ignorant trolls are, in fact, the ones who are contributing to the knowledge base on this blog.

It is those of us who understand and challenge you trolls on the science who get the most venomous comments directed at them.

Why are you so afraid of real knowledge?

Ian Forrester

I would never ever attempt to shut any of you up.
I really enjoy your comments.

I am all about free expression and open dialog.

You will never find any post from me attempting to invoke censorship.

The court would be a dull place indeed without jesters.

I take back my comment that you contribute nothing of value.
That was clearly a mistake on my part.
You do contribute comic relief and very often great entry points for counter arguements on dumb pseudoscientific arguements.

Actually, my point was that he was using a purported rain forest 10,000 years ago to explain why there was no warming 400 years ago under his assumption that it was livestock farts. Green’s explanation was that the rain forest absorbed more of the gases – forgetting that the majority of the GHG given off by herd animals are methane (which plants don’t sequester) and that plants lack the ability to absorb CO2 from the future.

I should also note that Green’s position – that it’s GHGs from cows – was contradicted by Monckton’s “academic paper” (which Green praised, despite it not being peer reviewed and making basic mathematical errors), which says that climate sensitivity to GHGs is much lower than the IPCC result. In other words, Monckton says it’s purely the sun and can’t be GHGs, Green says it’s GHGs – and neither saw the contradiction there. JR Wakefield, please explain this – neither noticed the contradiction in their positions, not noticing that the ONLY thing they agreed on was that it couldn’t be us.

JR Wakefield wrote:

Really! So how come RealClimate and the IPCC admit that trends have been flat or down since 1998?

The links to support this claim, please!

And we don’t want a link to some propaganda site. I want you to provide direct links and references to the IPCC and to Real Climate so I can read it there.

Just do a search on their site. It was back in March, Gavin admitted in reply to a comment I made that if the current trend continues for another 10 years they will have to seriously reconcider their position may be wrong.

THE IPCC: ON THE RUN AT LAST” http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352

“For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming. ”

Soon as AGW falls apart there will be lawsuits all over the place.

It should be noted that the sat coverage in terms of temp reporting is not global and secondly 10 of the warmest years on record have been within the last 13 years. Serious cooling indeed. In any regard the lack of global coverage of the sat record might account for some of the reason that the last 3 years shows no increase. Course again, I’ll go with the NAS for detailed analysis of global warming over a newspaper in this case.

You said: “It should be noted that the sat coverage in terms of temp reporting is not global ….”

Justify that statement. I don’t think you have even looked at the actual data sets. The satellite datasets have a far better global coverage than GISS.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/

Richard Wakefield Says:
14 May 2008 at 9:23 AM
This begs a question. Should you lose the bet, what ramifications does that have for AGW theory? How many years of cooling will it take before AGW theory is debunked? Let’s see a commitment from RC staff on this. How many years of continued cooling will it take for AGW theory to be rejected? You like bets, then place one on that.

[Response: None. About 20. Like I said. Lot’s of bets have been offered - few taken. - gavin]

Thus they admit that 20 years of cooling, just 10 more, and RealClimate would reject AGW.

As long as Hansen is in control of the temperature data, it will always be “Warming”.
Even when it is cooling, Hansen will find another “adjustmet” needed in the historical record that will make the past cooler.
Just enough to show a consistant warming curve.

[Response: None. About 20. Like I said. Lot’s of bets have been offered - few taken. - gavin]

Thus they admit that 20 years of cooling, just 10 more, and RealClimate would reject AGW.

Erm, where does it say in these 14 words by Gavin that climate has been cooling over the past 10 years?

Well, many people are saying that. Many people are arguing that if the planet is getting warmer, it is not necessarily a bad thing. (IT’S ABOUT HERE WHEN ROY GREENTHE MODERATORGIVES IN TO THE TEMPTATION TO JOIN THE DARK SIDE.)

Well, can we not use the past to see if that comment of Green’s has merit? Yes we can. 55 myo it was 8c warmer than today, and tropical forests in North America were all the way up to the Arctic Circle. Palm trees grew in Greenland. It was the time of the great mammalian radiation into the major clads we see today.

One can have increase in average temp, what we have seen the last 120 years up and down, without having an increase at the top end, the max temp in the year, increasing. But instead milder winters. This is what has happened in the past, including 55myo. If that is the case, then Green’s comment would be very true. It would be much nicer not having to heat our homes, have longer growing seasons.

The alarmist position is not a give as a definitive future.

When’s the Heartland Institute going to allow comments on their web site?

DeSmogBlog should seriously consider changing its free-for-all comments policy, at least until Heartland starts changing their no-comments policy.

Pages