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

« Faith-based global warming | Main | Top climate scientist accused of more false reporting »

Comments

Rob Taylor

Ian ya drongo. I know you'd love to change the subject, throw in some mumbo-jumbo and a vague appeal to authority - special knowledge denied we ordinary mortals - and hope to keep the rubes guessing which shell the pea is under, but here is your claim regarding glacier melt:

"the melting we are seeing now is a delayed reaction to warming that took place between a hundred and a thousand years ago."

So, we warm up some ice and, some time later, it starts to melt?

Wrong, glaciers respond the way your fridge responds, to the current thermal environment. Ice has no "memory" of long-ago summers, just as your car has no memory of previous trips to the supermarket!

Gareth has highlighted your intellectual errors, let me briefly address your ethical failings; IMHO, you are the epitome of the fundamentalist businessman - one who prays on his knees every Sunday, then spends the rest of the week preying on the gullible...

Ian Wishart

You and Chicken Little are being a trifle obtuse.

Delayed reaction is set against the context in Air Con. It is not that the ice warmed in the year 1066, held its breath for 800 years and suddenly melted. That's Gareth's caricature of the argument.

From page 209 of Air Con:

"Hard as it may be to comprehend, most glaciers don't turn on a dime, retreating or advancing depending on this year's weather. The melting we are seeing today is not related to current CO2 emissions or human induced global warming...

"The largest NZ glaciers are shrinking overall, as a direct result of the warming that pulled the planet out of the Little Ice Age. Those glaciers have however not yet retreated to their pre-LIA levels."

Wanna challenge me on that?

Read the rest of the book, read it in context, then slap yourself for being an atheist fundamentalist, and slap yourself once more for following Gareth's strawmen in the gullible way you always do.

Meh!

Fred Dagg

Ian, I will certainly challenge any empty assertions of fact without supporting evidence, as that is mere superstition and ideology, not science.

"The melting we are seeing today is not related to current CO2 emissions or human induced global warming...The largest NZ glaciers are shrinking overall, as a direct result of the warming that pulled the planet out of the Little Ice Age..."

You make this claim against the instrumental evidence for AGW, backed up by basic radiative and thermodynamic principles known since the 19th century, themselves arising from the science of quantum mechanics which is fundamental to our modern economy.

If you have a coherent competing body of theory and evidence to that, then you are a genius unlike any that have ever lived - except you aren't, as you have already demonstrated that simple physical concepts are beyond your grasp.

I find it amusing that you promulgate this crap via your computer and the internet, given that, in your faith-based world, such technologies could not exist.

Stick to the religious tracts, Ian - at least until you've done Physics 101 and read the IPCC report...

Rob Taylor

testing... testing... had some problems posting the above under my own name, hopefully now resolved

Ian Wishart

Paranoid, and now schizophrenic?

First step to recovery is admitting you've had problems, so that's a good sign Rob.

Now, would this be the same IPCC report described by a co-ordinating lead author, Dr Phillip Lloyd, thus:

"The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more.

"In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.

"It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay."

I'll deal with the rest of your rubbish when I get back from my meeting.

In the meantime, if your are indeed having name problems, you should probably stick with Dagg - you're a real comedian. :)

Rob Taylor

Those unfortunates who are your intended audience, Ian, probably do not realise that the science in the IPCC reports is WATERED DOWN by the "policy makers" (e.g. such governments as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

Here is a similar quote to yours, sent to me by LaRouche conspiracist whack jobs (friends of yours?):
"The process used to produce the Summary for Policymakers is far from ideal and may be distorting the real messages from the available science. Some government delegates influencing the SPM do not understand the methodologies being used and misinterpret or contradict the lead authors.ˇ
Dr. Martin Manning, IPCC Vice Chair of IPCC Working Group II on Impacts until 2002, and currently Vice Chair of IPCC Working Group 1 on the Science of Climate Change.

Rob Taylor

"I'll deal with the rest of your rubbish when I get back from my meeting."

Off to confession, are we? Here's something for your fans to to read while we await your bold new theory of everything:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/print

CM

Ian, I'd be interested in reading your response to:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/oops-he-did-it-again/

Ideally it won't involve cherry-picking (ignoring the balance of evidence in favour of some obscure study result you've managed to dig up) or simply 'Read Con-Air'.

Let it be warm

I'm still laughing!
Empirical observations (aka facts) have proven the models are wrong. The system stabilises itself. The oceans aren't rising nor are they acidifying.
People die from cold, stop advocating that we must make the earth colder.

CM

>>>Empirical observations (aka facts) have proven the models are wrong.<<<

Could critique this for me then please?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Where is it fundamentally flawed?

>>>The system stabilises itself.<<<

AT which point does it 'stabilise'? The PETM alone suggests that's not right.

>>>The oceans aren't rising nor are they acidifying.<<<

Those are both nonsense, as any objective assessment of the available literature would tell you.

Steve Netwriter

CM,

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't.

The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin

It appears to have been in an email.

Do you wish to retract your reply?
Steve

Rob Taylor

Gosh, are you boys still hiding out in the toilets with those saucy-looking emails?

Get a life, guys - for a start, try actually reading the email (get a grown-up to help you with the big words) - once you've managed that, you could try reading the PUBLISHED PAPERS Trenberth references.

CM

>>>Do you wish to retract your reply?<<<

Not at all Steve. As Rob says, there are rather massive clues in the email. That will take you somewhere else where you can then determine what he's actually talking about. It's really not difficult.

This explains it in simple terms: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html

But I'd advise you to investigate yourself.

Rob Taylor

"I'll deal with the rest of your rubbish when I get back from my meeting."

Gosh, Ian, it must have been a long meeting - or do you have to wait until it's Monday in the US?

I expect that you're waiting for someone more knowledgeable than yourself, who can stick their hand up your skirt and pretend to respond.

Be that as it may, I really look forward to your new theory of quantum physics...

Ian Wishart

Actually Rob, I spent some considerable time in a hospital waiting room getting my daughter's finger checked, and then had other work to catch up on.

You said:

"You make this claim against the instrumental evidence for AGW,"

Excuse me? There's evidence of a warming trend that began in the late 1700s and continues to this day. Your attempt to definitively state it is anthropogenic goes against the IPCC AR4, which said it could only detect a possible human signature post 1970.

Stop making stuff up Fred.

I'm presuming the "instrumental record" you refer to is this one, which Pachauri claims is "totally consistent with" all the other databases the UN uses:

“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.

"So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em"

Anyone who wants to see for themselves how good the world's instrumental record is need only have a read of Ian Harris' epic notes. http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

You continue

"...backed up by basic radiative and thermodynamic principles known since the 19th century, themselves arising from the science of quantum mechanics which is fundamental to our modern economy."

You are beginning to sound like Joe 90. We've learnt a lot since the 1900s scientifically, and whilst we know the behaviour of CO2 in the lab, and the existence of a greenhouse effect around the earth naturally, we still don't know how much influence fluctuations in a trace gas have in wider climate variations. That point hasn't been established, and earth's climate is a chaotic system subject to a range of solar, galactic and earthly influences that are significantly more powerful than CO2.

As one "peer reviewed" study in Environment International last year concluded:

"Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth's complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.”

Again, stop making stuff up. You are one of the reasons Hot Topic is increasingly a laughing stock, IMHO.

"If you have a coherent competing body of theory and evidence to that, then you are a genius unlike any that have ever lived - except you aren't, as you have already demonstrated that simple physical concepts are beyond your grasp."

Actually, my thesis is out in the public domain, I put my money where my mouth is and subject myself to peer review daily.

You, on the other hand, are simply mouth.

Rob Taylor

Ian, I hope your daughter makes a full recovery. You, however, are probably beyond hope.

A denialist idealogue, you shamelessly cherry-pick discussions of experimental noise whilst ignoring the entirety of statistical science which extracts meaningful trends from real-world measurements.

Like religion, such dishonesty, sophistry and solipsism may provide short-term comfort to the ignorant whilst serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful, but is a sure road to a most unpleasant future for our descendants.

My grandchildren will at least know that I cared enough to fight for a decent future for them - what, I wonder, are you going to say to yours?

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1001/full/climate.2010.134.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/04/ipcc-climate-sceptics-rajendra-pachauri

calcium carbonate

Your tips are remarkable. I regularly read your blog and its very helpful.

The comments to this entry are closed.