My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« The new adventures of Trufflehunter | Main | Right back at ya Gareth »

Comments

Craig

Yup all the media are in the pocket of the communist tree huggers who have created a false world crisis to fund their left wing lovechild the UN.


Lord Mockinghim

Considering that you argue the world is only a few thousand years old, and that evolution is a communist conspiracy (or maybe it was invented by Helen Clark’s “gay” husband), I would give your anything you say about science much credence Mr. Wishart. Every major scientific organisation in the world disagrees with your position. You cherry pick data, and in the wider context you look foolish. Go back to writing your misogynist fantasies; at least they are entertaining to read.

[Well, old Mocker, prove you are not an idiot to all the readers here by showing me where I argue that the "world is only a few thousand years old".

And what the heck does "I would give your anything you say about science much credence Mr Wishart" mean?

Perhaps you have indeed proven you are the missing link.

The book isn't cherry-picked, and given the goofs Gareth has made whilst trying to tackle it this week, I think that proves the point.

By the way Gareth, when you read this, perhaps you can reconcile the GNS claim that submarine volcanism is "significant" in the oceans' heat matrix, with your continued claim that it is "trivial"?

Perhaps you can ask Lord Mockinghim here to provide the scientific explanation, :)

(moral of the story, never send a monkey to do the organ-grinder's job)]

AcidComments


Of interest:

Poll now only 34% believe in Climate Change caused by Human activity.

Even Greater Disbelief of Alarmists

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/20/even-greater-disbelief-of-alar

robk

Lard Mockinghim

Where does Ian "argue the world is only a few thousand years old" as you say? I've not seen him do this.

Can you give a reference please?

I have now finished Air Con, and I for one am impressed, it is very thorough. If Air Con is "cherry picking" as you suggest then I suspect the cherry orchard is now pretty much stripped clean! :-D

Carol Stewart

In relation to one of Ian's other 'victories' in this debate:

"NSIDC says this year's April melt is the third slowest on record, and there's a stackload of ice still sitting there happily."

Actually, Ian, what they say is this:
"However, as discussed in our last post, the spring ice cover is thin and hence quite vulnerable to summer melt. However this summer unfolds, scientists expect to see high year-to-year variability in ice extent embedded within the long-term decline." [of Arctic sea ice]
Got that, Ian? Long-term decline? And any readers that are keen enough to read more on the NSIDC website will find that this organisation are in no doubt that climate change is real and that human activities are responsible.
It's typical of your lazy and selective analysis to pick out little snippets that suit your argument and ignore the rest. And it is utterly spurious to imply that the NSIDC data backs up your views.

[Carol, I stated the fact that te NSIDC reports this April's melt is the third slowest on record. Then I added my own comment that there's a stackload of ice there.

In response, who quote me a forecast of what NSIDC "expects" might happen, provided certain variables kick in. Great, if it happens the way they predict I'll accept it, but until then it doesn't knock aside what has actually happened.

The longer the ice remains (or even grows), the hotter the summer melt will have to be to eradicate it. The Arctic is going into this year's summer stronger than it did last year, and I note that last year's "expert" predictions about the fate of Arctic sea ice didn't come to pass either. The loss in 2007 was said to be a "tipping point" because the 2008 single year ice couldn't withstand summer melt.
Newsflash, it did.

So let's just wait and see.

As for your accusations re quoting NSIDC, rubbish. I am interested in the factual data they obtain, not their opinions after reading chicken entrails. It is a condition of membership these days that scientists have to swear fealty to the great goddess Gaia and her cult of warming, but as I point out in Air Con the opinions and forecasts of global warming believers are fast losing touch with the reality of on the ground data.

"Long term decline"? You are not trying to extrapolate long term consequences from short term data are you, when our scientific knowledge [temperature readings] of climate on a 4.5 billion year old planet only goes back a century. Are you seriously trying to tell readers that either you, or Gareth, or for that matter even the NSIDC even have a clue what Arctic ice has done long term in the past?]


Carol Stewart

The long-term decline is the term used by the NSIDC, Ian, not by me. But what would these cryosphere scientists know?

[Don't be obtuse Carol. We only have "long term" records going back to 1979 when satellites could finally map the Arctic. It just so happens that the 1970s marked the end of a cold spell (remember those predictions of a looming Ice Age) and sea ice extent reflected the cold, so 1979 levels were likely quite high. Regardless, the graph shows that for this point in time, Arctic sea ice is currently approaching its historical average - this despite rising CO2 and GHG emissions.

The Catlin team are having to cut short their expedition by two weeks because it has been too cold and the ice is too thick to drill through for their experiments. When are you AGW believers going to wake up to the reality...the Arctic and Antarctic are not behaving as the models predicted]

Carol Stewart

Interesting your followers have gone silent .. perhaps they are busy reading the NSIDC website and discovering a few truths for themselves. But somehow I doubt it.

Carol Stewart

".. when our scientific knowledge [temperature readings] of climate on a 4.5 billion year old planet only goes back a century."

Actually, Ian, there is a branch of science called 'paleoclimatology'.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleostory.html


robk

Carol

Some of us have to work away from the blogs :-D

Are you saying paleoclimatologists have temperature readings that go back more than a century, contrary to Ian's claim?

Is that what you are saying above?

Carol Stewart

Yeah Rob, I have a day job too.
Go and read up on temperature proxies.

robk

Carol

That's great, we are among the lucky ones :-)

Look, a proxy is not going to impress like a thermometer.

Mind you, even a pleb like me would know not to situate a thermometer near hot asphalt! Reminds me of kids putting the thermometer in hot water to get the desired result (a day off school)

Now Air Con has pointed this out, will there be a flurry of moving official weather stations away from Urban Heat Islands to more accurate sites? I doubt it.

I've just read Air Con, now i'm interested in any new studies to see whose predictions are being confirmed.

Disclosure: I have shares in a forest, and would much rather have increased growth from extra CO2 than selling carbon credits... :-)

peter

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/22/plan-b-for-global-warming/2/

Where is external reference to volcano?

peter

interesting links

http://www.additiverich.com/morgue/archives/002894.html

http://nzquest.blogspot.com/2008/02/ian-wisharts-racismislamophobia.html

The comments to this entry are closed.