mikkey

You have to be joking..... they like others of the AGW papal estate are trying to cover up the key issue . Key is that the emails show that data used by the IPCC was manipulated to fit the AGW theory and models!!! It also shows clearly a bias and agenda that has nothing to do with "science". Do you have any idea how many scientists and institutions will lose their income and funding if AGW does not happen???? I have always been sceptical about this theory because far too much exagerations were used based on computer models (shit in - shit out) and it always is intertwined with a religous believe of "man is destroying the planet and we have to repend..." Professor Aynsley Kellow warned about just this corruption of science by evangelism in his 2007 book "Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science. " He now writes: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

A lot of the media keeps this scandal under a lid, but it's big and shows what many of us suspected when all doubt was refuted by "the science is settled".... BS. Have a read, and follow some of the links to read some of the stuff... amazing. And please remember that this is Hadley CRU the main contributor to the IPCC data and key reference to all those AGW believers.... Read a good summary here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You are posting graphs that are out of date and incorrect. You should know that yoour 2005 claim is not correct and that the updated graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which measure global temperatures. Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters. I looked up the reference for your satellite graphs and they claim the data came from the Hadley Centre for Climate Research and the University of East Anglia so I chased it up. It seems you are cherry picking the last 10 years from a graph that runs for 150 years. That's not very honest. Here is the full graph: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif The temperatures shown are from sattelite data and not disputed - the peak was 1998 and since they have come down. You can hold your hands over your ears and pretend it aint so, but its the fact. 2005 was not warmer then 1998 - full stop. Attached another recent graph that shows both both satellite and surface data. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You are making an interesting point. Firstly carbon fuels are finite (we do not know exactly when we run out - but we can assume we will). Secondly we are basing the political process on a flawed theory and focus on "bringing down temperatures". My point is that IMHO we cant influence the climate the way the politician say they will and that the focus on CO2 can actually be unhelpful in developing alternative energy sources. We should focus of reseraching alternative energy. "Punishing" carbon energy wont help as it will undermine our wealth (and ability to do so). Introducing taxes to make energy more expensive does not achieve things - investing into reserach into the alternatives will. Do people really think that wind and solar power are the alternatives? They are expensive and have far too many limitations. Ever heard of baseload? The "market based" carbon approach will only increase and subsidise old insufficient alternative energy sources like wind and solar. We need other far more sophisticated alternative sources (e.g. fusion, thermal etc.). We need more government investment into the real thing - we need watershed solutions - not patches. I believe the current policies will mainly subsidise expensive and inefficient solutions - not the big ticket items. For example - I believe we should increase our efforts in the area of fusion energy, hydro energy, geothermal etc. This will not happen because you increase the cost of oil and coal - it needs major investment by goverment (a bit like a new moon landing project). In the meantime we are creating conflicts with the third world and India/China if we try to stop their access to cheap energy / development. The cost of what we are doing now can easily be higher then using money on addressing issues created by any climate change. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You are posting graphs that are out of date and incorrect. You should know that yoour 2005 claim is not correct and that the updated graphs I posted are the consensus from 3 out of 4 institutions which measure global temperatures. Temperatures have not increased since 1998 - you are really tring to muddy the waters. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

>You are not happy that that I use the data of cooling on Greenland the >last few years, but it was fine to use a period of stronger warming of >about 10 years to "prove" your point? Nope. I prefer the data from the past 150 years to prove my point. The last 150 years have shown warming after the small ice age. The last 10 years we have seen a cooling trend - so whats your point? You have been happy to use short term events when it suits you. >BTW - let me repeat - NOBODY says it has not got warmer! Cool, so you admit that the "antarctica is freezing" is nonsense. You are misrepresenting me - it has warmed until 1998 - since then its gone the other way - and you know it. And ice is increasing again. > The problem is that the focus on CO2 is rubbish . . . As I mentioned before, CO2 is merely the strongest forcing term. It is not the only term by a long shot. you have no prove of it and the data for the last 10 years as well as the ice core research demostrates the point. >The septics are saying that the science is NOT settled . . . The ones who are saying that do not understand the science. that is the biggest cop out. The leading sceptics are highly respected scientists in this field far more then many of those spreading the AGW hysteria. They include people who worked on the AGW side and changed their position once they looked closer at the facts. >and that we simply do not fully understand the climate That's definitely true! We do not understand the climate 100%. We do know for sure we have introduced warming through the increase in CO2. this is simply not true. We do not know if and how much. > and we have jumped to conclusions that fit a "green guilt" philosophy >and based on this we are undertaking very expensive and stupid >economic initiatives. I don't feel very guilty. Do you? very funny - if you looked at the misinformation spread by the AGW believers you knew exactly what I am talking about. And how comes that you personally have made yourself so carbon neutral at your house when you should know it does not make a difference (not that there is anything wrong with that)? >Let me repeat what Bjorn Lomborg has shown even if you accept all >the assumption . . . While I think Bjorn is a brilliant economist, I don't think he's much of a scientist. Rubbish again - Bjorn put the current proposals through exactkly the models the AGW believers use, showing that they wont make a difference. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

This is something I really dislike. The way so called skeptics are being smeared while any poorly researched alarmist claim is being promoted. There are some very famous scientists amongst the skeptics and there was a petition of 9000 scientists to the Kyoto protocol meeting in Bali a year or so ago (AFAIK 35%+ were PHD's). There are also more and more serious books being published. Like Ian Pilmer with "Heaven and Earth" and latest " The Climate Caper" by Garth Paltridge. These two are just some of many well reputed scientists who are telling you that the emperor has no cloth on. Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005). He was previously Professor and Head of Geology at The University of Newcastle (1985-1991). His previous book, A Short History of Planet Earth, won the Eureka Prize. Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in Tasmania as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre.He retired in 2002 and continues to live in Hobart.He is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Tasmania and a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University.His research ranged from the optimum design of plants to the economics of climate forecasting.>He is best known internationally for work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate.He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. He was in industry for a while as Director of the Environmental Executive of the Institute of Petroleum. He spent various separate years overseas in postings concerned with research or research administration - in the UK, Geneva, New Mexico, Colorado and Washington D.C.In Geneva he was involved in the early development of the World Climate Program. In Washington he was with the US National Climate Program Office at the time of the establishment of the IPCC. I would take some note what people like Paltridge say, --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Thats rubbish. Check the satellite data for global temperatures. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Firstly - there are several studies showing increase in ice - especially in Antarctica. See attached graph (you are very good attaching graphs - does not mean they are correct...) which is actually measured ice. Top is global, then Southern hemisphere and bottom Northern. You are not happy that that I use the data of cooling on Greenland the last few years, but it was fine to use a period of stronger warming of about 10 years to "prove" your point? BTW - let me repeat - NOBODY says it has not got warmer! The problem is that the focus on CO2 is rubbish and it has been clearly shown that the climate is changing constantly and we are actually in a cooling period now. The septics are saying that the science is NOT settled and that we simply do not fully understand the climate and we have jumped to conclusions that fit a "green guilt" philosophy and based on this we are undertaking very expensive and stupid economic initiatives. Let me repeat what Bjorn Lomborg has shown even if you accept all the assumptions for the AGW theory: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

So what does this prove when temperatures are no longer following CO2 increase in the atmosphere (which they haven't for the last 10 years)? Why did temperatures rise before without Co2 increases? I find it interesting that the AGW side constantly changes the arguments when the empiric proves them wrong. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

So, you're not capable of sharing your knowledge in reasonably simple terms. While I rarely agree with billvon on social issues, he blows you away technically. You clearly are not as smart as you think you are. QED. Henceforth, I will completely discount any and everything you may add to a discussion. Who needs to listen to someone whose best efforts are little more than name calling? Kallend - that is really rubbish - the real empiric data since the first IPCC reports have not come true and you should know it. Some say it has been not time enough - but the truth is the temperatures are not moving along the predictions. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Firstly Antarctica holds something like 80% of the earths ice - so quite a bit bigger. And the ice has actually increased lately - completely contrary to the AGW alarmists predictions and the stories distributed by the media. Temperatures in Greenland have also stabilised lately and the last 2 winters were colder then previous. I now I am repeating myself - but the empiric data does NOT support the argument! --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well, it has happened before in history - the climate has always changed - this is why the hockey stick is such a con. It was probably warmer around the year 1000 then it is now. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Try to read this article by Bjorn Lomborg, It both talks about the witch hunt mentality of the AGW "priests" and the waste of our money and wealth through carbon caps and trading without having any substantial effect even if the AGW theory is correct. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25783305-7583,00.html and --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

One of the issues I have with AGW proponents is their use of "data". the famous hockey stick has long been proven to be false and a lot of ground temperature measurements like wise, because they are not always "representative" of the globaltemperature and especially ecause they have been compromised by urban development over the years (close to build up areas, traffic, air conditioners etc.). The only reliable measurements are sattelite based and they show a different picture. See attached one that shows increase in Co2 and temperature. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

The reason I provided the initial link plus some others, was simply to revisit this debate because nearly every new empirical data does not fit the models used by AGW proponents and ALL the forecasts and estimates made by the IPCC in previous years have so far NOT come to fruition. I find it amazing that not more people are starting to revisit their positions (actually quite a few scientists actually are). I find it also annoying how the media is repeating alarmist stories without checking the facts. Al Gore was just down here and repeated some of these lies and it really gets up my nose. It is not long ago when we here were told by AGW scientists that the bleaching of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef was caused by AGW i.e. CO2 and that the Reef would be dead soon. Since then the coral has begun to recover rapidly - so clearly nothing to do with CO2. I could go on and on - from lack of predicted seas rises, increases of Antarctic ice instead of catastrophic decline, lack of temperature increase etc. etc. AGW fits so nicely into the modern feeling of humans being guilty and destroying the planet. The comparison to a new age Catholicism where humans are born with guilt is quite interesting. I can not understand why we are introducing ineffective new tax schemes (carbon trading) that will destroy industries (very important ones here in Australia) and which will just shift to China and India without having any effect even if the AGW theories had some merits. I am all for subsidising and developing alternative energy sources - carbon based energy is finite. But we are sucked into stupid ways of doing it and lots of other ineffective measures. It will be interesting to see how this debate develops as the empiric data continues to undermine the theory and models. For me the moment of truth came to me when I found out years ago that it was so warm in the Viking age that Monks in England produced wine and the Vikings grew crops on Greenland (and called the place "Green"land). I was asking myself - when we see such strong fluctuations in a thousand years (swinging back to a little ice age a few hundred years ago during this period and then back to warming) - why do we insist that a recent warming period has to be man made? For those who are open minded - try to read and follow some of the links I provided. Most of the media has invested too much into the AGW hype to fairly report on this issue. Do your own research and try to read what some very respected and qualified sientists on the other side have to say. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

On so called consensus, I like the following qoute by Ian Plimer: If you are not too brainwashed by the AGW proponents, you might want to read the linked article. http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml The book (by Plimer) the article talks about is the a well reserached argument on the sceptic side of the debate. Note Plimer is a very resepected scientist (so good luck trying to smear him). This morning Al Gore was here in Melbourne - jetted in on a private jet -to tell us that the deadly bush fires, the drought etc. was alll caused by global warming. (he gets paid very well for it too) All of it is complete BS - as most of us who live here do know (we had the same conditions before but we are now so many more people living here that the effects of the same conditions are far more serious - i.e. more people perish in fires, less water available etc.). Al also repeated the falshood that hurricanes etc. are now more frequent - which simply is not true. Al's tendency to bend and fabricate facts is also one of the main reasons I am a sceptic. Here is a qoute from the article I think is an important thought: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well have a read here and try to read the whole thing and check some of the links. http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/26/the-missing-hotspot/ --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

And for those skeptical about that "Skeptic's Handbook"; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22Joanne+Nova%22+debunk&aq=f&oq=&aqi= She's been debunked fairly thoroughly. http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change If you had cared to actually look at this web site you would have seen the debunking of the very amateurish articles above: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/22/desmog-accidentally-vindicates-the-skeptics-handbook/ Have a look. Here is a summary: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Now thats funny. There are huge holes - the models are not correct and the empirical data does not fit the theory. AGW proponents have used 27 years of stronger warming (which is a very short period) when it suits them. Now the data for the last 10 years does not suit them and its too short. Funny. Like when new ice core data showed the opposite cause and effect between warming and CO2 then what Al Gore claimed (by 800 years in average). The whole problem is that that you think some lab tests can underpin the climate change issue. I repeat - there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the climate variations we see through history. There is only theory and more and more real data is creating bigger and bigger holes in this theory. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Well if you care to check with the main site of http://joannenova.com.au - you will see a lot of empirical data that debunks the so-called debunk. One of the new popular new "evidence" against the measured halt in warming are claims that the oceans are warming. Well, funny they actually stopped a few years ago. Have a look here: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/01/ocean-temperatures-the-new-bluff-in-alarmism/ I find this paragraph a good summary: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Funny, I looked at the so called "debunks" and can see its all about new ways of trying to show the earth is still warming (even so it hasn't for a few years now) as well as more theories to plug the holes in the old theories that have been punched by empiric data. The problem is that showing that warming has occurred does not proof its Co2 and there is still no explanation why the observed temperatures lately are not following the models and why there is no hot spot. There is also still no satisfactory explanation why we had strong warming periods in the middle ages when there was no industrial activity followed by a little ice age. The whole issue is that we do not yet fully understand how the climate works and that the AGW people do not want to accept that other forces then human activity have influence on it. The earth has cooled and warmed continuously. The arrogance of those who still do not admit that there are huge holes in the AGW theory "you have been told" - "the debate is over" "there is consensus" - is mind boggling. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Been busy.. like I have a live.. Still having a look when I have time, just not time telling Mr. Rich to leave the rest of us alone... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

This is a comprehensive summary for those who feel skeptical about Al Gore & Co. For those who are not - it might trigger some food for thought. http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-22_lq.pdf --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Yes much of it is. Used it because it simply summarises the issues and my concerns well. Dont think its important (IMHO as the guy who I took it from is not known to anyone outside the US). The important thing is that the data it refers to is fully attributed and should be dicsussed more openly as we are heading in a direction that will cost us a lot and do very litttle... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.