de Freitas on solid ground

what is weather

(h/t Bob D for most of the references)

Journalist Chris Barton has a story in yesterday’s Herald titled The climate dissenter holds his ground. After looking at Barton’s alarmist arguments I’ll stand with Chris de Freitas on the solid ground.

The story begins with the implication (not that the journalist says it this plainly) that, even with the planet battling weather extremes, that is not enough to convince an Auckland climate scientist (Associate Professor Chris de Freitas, at the University of Auckland) of the truth of human-induced global warming. We’re supposed to feel exasperation: “What will it take to get that man to see sense?”

But Barton is dead wrong. For why should “extreme” weather be an indication of man-made global warming? How could we get more extreme weather out of global warming?

What is weather

Weather is made up of several elements: temperature, air movement (wind), precipitation (rain, snow), sunshine, water vapour and clouds. What does it mean for those factors to become extreme? Remember that “extreme” might mean more or might mean less. Less rain equals drought.

Mr Barton must be saying that under global warming it will become both hotter and colder, winds will both increase and decrease, precipitation will be both less and more, and clouds will both increase and decrease. Presumably water vapour will go both up and down.

Chris de Freitas

And this will all come from the same cause, which is increased warmth. How amazing.

This means only that weather will continue as usual. The expression “extreme weather events” means “climate.” We’ve always had extreme weather events.

We’ve been reading for years that global warming will cause floods and droughts to increase simultaneously, so perhaps that bold reasoning has softened our brains, and we’re now ready to accept any climatic nonsense.

Mr Barton ought to think about what he’s writing. Because the notion of the planet battling the weather, when it’s the planet itself which patently produces the weather, is plain illogical. Certainly, we battle the weather, but the planet doesn’t.

Just think association

Then he catalogues a string of bad weather events as though no other year had them but neglects to offer any reason to link them to global warming. We’re merely invited to “associate” those unpleasant and often tragic events with his mention of global warming. He omits to say that the northern winter of 2010-2011 produced record low temperatures and snowfall throughout England, Wales, Ireland, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Poland and Belgium and other places across the northern hemisphere.

But he’s claiming, in effect, that all damaging weather is caused by global warming and that makes no sense. Those record cold northern temperatures were not caused by warming.

He mentions the Mississippi floods, but they were caused by record snow melt, combined with poor maintenance of the levees and waterways. It’s unclear how record snow was caused by global warming.

Warming that persists during cooling

There has been no atmospheric warming for over a decade, and the oceans are clearly cooling. So even if we were to discover some mechanism by which “extreme weather” can be caused by global warming, we must then ask what kind of warming persists during cooling?

The claims regarding recent weather events are incorrect. The strong El Niño/La Niña sequence we saw in 2010/2011 was responsible for many of these events, and any half-decent environmental research should have revealed this.

There’s no indication that global warming will result in stronger storms. The World Meteorological Organisation announced earlier this year they find no connection between global warming and hurricane activity.

Stronger storms tend to be associated with larger north-south temperature differences. Global warming will tend to raise temperatures at higher latitudes, which will reduce those north-south differences, so reducing storm intensity. That’s the opposite of what Barton is saying here.

Russian Heat Wave

NASA/NOAA:

“Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.”

Pakistan floods

The Pakistan floods were linked to this same blocking event.

Queensland Floods

Australian Climate Report, page 42:
“The floods across eastern Australia in 2010 and early 2011 were the consequence of a very strong La Niña event, and not the result of climate change. That is, the underlying cause of the floods is a natural part of climate variability, which is part of the reason why Australia has always been a “land of droughts and flooding rains.” The extent, if any, of the influence of the warming planet on the intensity of these heavy rains and floods is simply unknown at this time. There is no evidence that the strength of La Niña events is increasing due to climate change.”

Tornadoes

The IPCC has never even attempted to link tornado activity to global warming, simply because tornadoes are caused by cold air masses meeting warm air masses. A search of the IPCC SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) has zero results for the word “tornado”. Similarly for the “Regional Climate Projections.” Also, before the tornado season even began, most US meteorologists were predicting a record season this year because of the influence of the La Niña event.

The Texas drought, although severe, pales into insignificance beside the 1930s Dust Bowl, and the terrible droughts of the 1950s and the late 1980s. They are not demonstrating any increase in “severity.”

In aiming (ostensibly) to correct misapprehensions about dangerous human-caused global warming, Mr Barton instead exposes a very deep ignorance of it.

However, now Barton goes for the personal throat of the good professor, arguing for defects in a course de Freitas teaches at the university. He describes the “pretty simple” science that underlies episodes of extreme weather:

Increased heating leads to greater evaporation. Warm air holds more moisture. Hence increased water vapour and more energy in the atmosphere. Sooner or later the trapped energy has to go somewhere, and inevitably it ends up as weather. Thus increased surface drying, thereby increasing the intensity and duration of drought. And storms – whether with thunder, rain, snow or cyclones – are supplied with increased moisture, producing more intense precipitation events.

If we overlook the fact we’ve seen no increase in atmospheric temperatures for perhaps fifteen years (except in a single famous dataset managed by the “father of global warming,” James Hansen, at GISS), then this seems a reasonable mechanism. So do we observe this in nature? Well, yes, we do. This local increase in temperature gives rise to thunderstorms, which, according to Willis Eschenbach’s thermostat hypothesis, take the heat away most efficiently. Before extreme weather events occur. Or you could call a thunderstorm an extreme event, couldn’t you? Albeit a very common one.

The total opacity of Martin Manning

Barton turns now to Martin Manning for help. Professor Manning provides an extraordinary statement, obscure to the point of total opacity:

“What we are now starting to see is a collective extreme event which is occurring simultaneously across wide regions,” says the director of Victoria University’s NZ Climate Change Research Institute. “There is a huge spread of these events that makes them new and different.”

Simultaneously? But Barton’s own description shows many events occurring over many months. What does “starting to see” mean? It will continue? This is only the beginning, folks, and it’s all been predicted. This is nonsensical, frightening science by fiat from on high. We cannot take it seriously.

What’s a “collective extreme event” “occurring simultaneously” that actually takes months to happen? Further, there is a “huge spread” of these events. This is ridiculous. He’s talking about simple weather, which hasn’t changed at all.

Prof Manning, kindly supply graphs of increased storm (or any other “extreme” event you like) frequency and intensity showing a correlation with increasing atmospheric temperaures. Please. Thanks.

Applauds fraudulent hockey stick

Barton makes a detailed attack on de Freitas’ Geography 101 course, applauding Mann’s completely deprecated hockey stick graph of global temperature over the last 1000 years, omitting the fact that the strong recent upturn in the graph is caused by a single tree above the Arctic circle. It’s laughed at in serious academic circles and the author for many years refused FOI requests to release the data.

Barton thinks you can get better opinions from students about the quality of a course than you can from the professor who creates it. But how can that be true? They don’t even have a degree yet.

It was good to hear Glenn McGregor supporting de Freitas’ right to express his opinion freely. It was not so good to wade through Barton’s attack on that right.

Manning says those who are teaching students need to cover the full range of what goes in to scientific literature in a balanced way. “When you are teaching courses to students you really have a responsibility to cover the range of understanding and not just be dominated by a personal stance,” he says. “Courses in universities and schools should not be personal opinion.”

So, Prof Manning, do you similarly insist on having the “sceptical” climate view taught alongside your own establishment climate view? Come back to us on that, if you would.

Barton says:

To explain de Freitas’s view it’s necessary to acknowledge that he is one of a rare breed of climate scientists who oppose the climate change consensus as declared by the IPCC in 2007.

But this is disingenuous, because he does not “explain” Chris’ view. Nor is de Freitas one of a “rare breed”, he’s actually one of many thousands of scientists who have publicly declared doubts about the IPCC AR4 of 2007. Far more than the mere half-dozen or so credible voices responsible for the statement in the AR4 that humans are probably causing climate change. Nor is it hard to have doubts when the temperature can be seen not to have risen since about 1995.

But the company he keeps numbers just six in New Zealand and 142 worldwide according to the ICSC which keeps a register of “climate experts” who challenge “the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change”.

This is outright deception or incompetence by Barton. A brief inspection is enough to discover that the register only records those who notice the web page and trouble themselves to enter their details. This journalist needs a better grasp of his ethical duties.

Claims are rising naturally

The references to the insurance industry are laughable. With more people living in situations of greater peril, such as on the coast, and living everywhere in greater numbers, such as in Christchurch or northern Japan, you would expect insurance claims to rise with every damaging event.

Those insurance companies are large organisations themselves, and they’re often subsidiaries of even larger ones and all of them are in the forefront of investment in the new and lucrative carbon credit markets and the alternative energy industries. We can expect them to talk up the global warming risks at every opportunity, simply to maximise their chances of a profit.

Very comic concept

Finally, we’re treated to the idea of scientists forensically examining individual events for telltale “fingerprints” of climate change. (They’re apparently “beginning to show” in extreme weather.) This ends a laughable treatise with a very comic concept.

So let’s try to understand this. We have an undefined concept, “climate change”, which means any weather at all, now to be identified by telltale fingerprints which are also undefined, and all of this will prove to us that humans are endangering the earth. Hmm.

It seems that the existence of weather proves our exacerbation of that weather.

Tell us what the fingerprints are, Chris, so we might believe you. No?

Oh well, we don’t believe you!

Kevin Trenberth says weather records are getting smashed. What’s the evidence for that? Did Barton ask him for evidence?

Well, did you, Chris?

36
Leave a Reply

avatar
19 Comment threads
17 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
AndyAntipodean59Richard C (NZ)Mike JowseyAnthropogenic Global Cooling Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
out the back
Guest
out the back

It does indeed appear that each “weather extreme”, as they are called, comes with a note, and it always goes like this: the worst (whatever) in 50 years/60 years or you name it. So what are they saying: 50/60 odd years ago it was similar or even worse. All “extremes” do indeed appear to be in line with the pattern at the end of the last warming period exhibiting itself in the late 40’s and 50’s “extremes. What a surprise. And then of course we got “global cooling”, the next human induced ice age. Perhaps Phil is right, carbon tax is a non-event but we keep it anyway, lets introduce capital gains tax so we can appeal to all social thinking NZ’ers to pay their “fair” share of tax.

Flipper
Guest
Flipper

Excellent Richard.
NZ H Ed Murphy should publish it, but he will not.
That is O’Herald, circa 2011

Australis
Guest
Australis

Prof Richard Lindzen, doyen of climate scientists, says extreme weather events are associated with a steep temperature gradient as between the equator and the poles.

As all the climate records suggest that temps at higher latitudes (especially the Arctic) are warming much faster than the tropics, the temperature gradient is DECREASING as a result of the perceived AGW. Some even go so far as to suggest that the warming at high latitudes (which abates extreme events) is a “fingerprint” of AGW.

How does Trenberth circumvent this blockage in his theory?

Richard Treadgold
Guest

So that’s the “fingerprint” they’re talking about? I didn’t know. A connection might be claimed with “climate change” because that’s rather nicely undefined, but what’s the connection with fossil fuels? Why should extra GHG warm just the upper latitudes?

You ask a good question. I don’t believe he’s mentioned it. I shall ask him.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

What I find extraordinary about this attack by Chris Barton is I can recall no similar occasion when an unqualified (climate-wise) journalist at the Herald has had the temerity to criticise the detailed course content of a professor at New Zealand’s highest rated university. And then on top of that he gets all his facts wrong.
The Herald should be hanging its head in shame.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/oceania.html
http://www.topuniversities.com/top-100-universities-in-the-world-2011

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

The NZ Herald has been a gutter press propaganda rag for a while now. If you look at all their AGW articles they no longer have comments, as the AGW crowd were getting crushed by those who were informed. The moderator made every attempt he could to remove my comments concerning the tropospheric hotspot when it became plainly obvious the AGW crowd had no answer for it’s absence.

Now they just resort to spouting any old rubbish in support of AGW, slander & misrepresent de Freitas, and deny comments to anyone wanting to counter their BS claims. When Moncton gets here I can guarantee they’ll see it as their duty to do a slanderous hatchet job on the guy on a daily basis.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I’ve asked editor Tim Murphy for space to reply.

Andy
Guest
Andy

CdF wrote a pretty good article in the Herald back in January

“Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10697845

Read the comments that got though moderation

Note mine with 7 “likes”

Andy S (New Zealand)
11:14 AM Thursday, 20 Jan 2011

This article seems like a reasonable summary to me. The question is, why has the mainstream media failed to provide this kind of information to date, preferring to spin us with pseudo-scientific claptrap?

Edit: I see that Hot Topic are on the case now.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Maybe you could approach the editor with the argument that the Herald should present a balanced view, as Martin Manning exhorts Auckland University to do.

btw – Bishop Hill also covered the article briefly here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/16/de-freitas-profile.html

Andy
Guest
Andy

The article is somewhat bizarre.

A student said

“No, nothing,” a student in the course told the Herald. “I learned all that in my Environmental Science class.”

so he/she learnt it in their environmental science class, not the geography 101 class

What exactly is this student’s complaint?. The issue that they may be getting some critical thinking skills? You can’t help feeling that there were some very leading questions from the writer. One also wonders who put Barton up to the task.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Is this the same Martin Manning that’s given up citing supporting science and now cites European banks and insurance companies instead?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Mike Palin from Otago shows that he has some ethics on this issue, I am glad to see
http://hot-topic.co.nz/de-freitas-feeds-his-students-sceptic-propaganda/#comment-26863

Ron
Guest
Ron

>One also wonders who put Barton up to the task.
A Kiwi Neil Wallis? 😉 (http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/14/covert-operations-by-east-anglias-cru/)

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Is he in the pay of *gasp* Big Insurance?

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

>What exactly is this student’s complaint?
Very good point Andy. Trying to walk a mile in student moccasins, have come up with 3 possible complaints(I am sure there may be more):
1. “Gee, how come they taught us this climate change stuff in Environmental Science?”
2. “Gee, they taught this stuff over here, so why didn’t they duplicate the teaching over here?”
3. “Gee, Prof. de Freitas actually wants us to think outside the Box, like real scientists. Too radical – can’t he just tell us what to say in the exam?”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

This will be the same “Big Insurance” who are stalling on my ChCh earthquake claims? The ones who base their predictions on “Big Science” who fiddle with their vanity climate computer models while a few poorly funded real scientists try to map seismic faults that overlap my house in two directions?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Journalist Chris (Barts) Barton does climate science. “Increased heating leads to greater evaporation” 1) What type of “heating” are you referring to Barts? Is it solar short-wave thermal radiative heating? Or down-welling long-wave radiative (DLR) heating from GHGs? If it’s the latter you have a problem because the heating effect of DLR is minimal and it doesn’t heat the oceans, lakes and rivers (heating isn’t the only cause of evaporation BTW Barts). Also, it may come as a surprise to you Barts but DLR isn’t increasing. If the “Increased heating” that you are referring to is in terms of temperature, see 4) below. “Warm air holds more moisture.” 2) True, but how long does it hold it before cloud nucleation occurs and it precipitates out (check out the hydrological cycle Barts – much to learn)? “Hence increased water vapour” 3) No, not “hence” Barts, because first you’ve failed to discriminate between water vapour that remains in the atmosphere and water vapour that has been removed by precipitation. And second, you’ve just assumed that the remaining water vapour has increased but it hasn’t in the GHG critical pressure zones where a decrease has been… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I’m so glad you’re on our side, Ricky, m’lad! You lead a merry dance and the devil take the hindmost. That was illuminating.

ZACH
Guest
ZACH

__________________________________

Chris de Freitas IS THE MAN!! I have been taught by him on multiple occasions, he has a gift and he does well at presenting literature and both views. Keep up the GREAT WORK, CHRIS!
__________________________________

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Looking at the boring nature of Chris Barton’s other newspaper articles, it’s my guess that he’s taking up AGW as a means to attract readers to his articles on the Herald website. AGW is always a very controversial subject, and the mere mention of it will draw people from both sides of the debate, especially if it’s controversial & untruthful. I saw Deborah Coddington mention on Facebook the other day that her job in her NZ Herald articles was purely to stir people up – perhaps it’s a Herald MO to attract readers comments. I also wonder if some of the long time bloggers that comment on the articles are actually NZ Herald employees intentionally stirring the pot.

If anyone has an issue with Barton’s articles the last thing they should do is refer people to the Herald website to read them, it’ll only encourage him & the Herald to spout more rubbish propaganda. As he’s hardly ever mentioned AGW previously, perhaps it’s an act of desperation to save a failing job.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Plus it was a bloody good laugh! Thanks RC – brightened up my whole day, you did. (In a surgically astute manner, I might add).

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Thanks for the insight AGC. I actually sent Barts an ’email’ via the Harold website pointing him at this article. Hope he’s had a look.

I was interested in the discussion yesterday on National radio (with regard to the News of the World phone hacking scandal) where Rob Oram was opining that due to falling readership many papers, including the Herald, were moving to tabloid style in an effort to shock or titillate their readership rather than dispassionately reporting the news. Your comments seem to align with this.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Thanks for that Zach, it’s good to hear he has support where it matters: AU past students.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

What Barts should have read first:- Lapse Rate, Moisture, Clouds and Thunderstorms. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html The vertical profile of atmospheric temperature http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/atmprofile.gif Tropopause and lower stratosphere http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/htrop.htm Tropopause pressure – NH & SH http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/tropo/trop_pres.html Then he could move on to detailed atmospheric thermodynamics, the theorized concept of greenhouse gas induced global warming.and the elusive “hot spot” predicted by climate models and conventional ‘greenhouse’ theory e.g. article:- Dr. Noor van Andel: The data does not agree with the theory of greenhouse gas induced global warming Dr. Noor van Andel has updated his paper CO2 and Climate Change and explains in greater detail how climate scientists have adjusted radiosonde (weather balloon) data to try to bring it into agreement with their computer models and concept of greenhouse gas induced global warming. This is the opposite of the normal scientific procedure of adjusting the models to fit the data. The unadjusted data does not show the elusive “hot spot” predicted by climate models and conventional ‘greenhouse’ theory. Dr. van Andel’s latest version also expands on the descriptions of Miskolczi’s ‘saturated greenhouse’ theory and the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/02/dr-noor-van-andel-data-does-not-agree.html Paper:- “CO2 and climate change”, Noor… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The syllabus for Columbia University’s “The Climate System” course would no doubt be acceptable to de Freitas detractors. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/syllabus.html The Climate System EESC 2100 Spring 2008 http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/index.html Week 2 “Understanding the Greenhouse Effect”. calculates the effect of additional GHGs. They must assume (like Barts) that upper tropospheric WV increases as a matter of AGW course and that warming is occurring in the places that AGW says it should because in Week 3 they study “Mitigation options for greenhouse gas induced global warming”. Then at the bottom of the syllabus under Supplementary Readings we see:- Related Online Material http://realclimate.org – RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group-1 Fourth Assessment Report. Good solid “consensus” stuff and nothing that I can see that actually checks their assumptions against reality, nor is there any mention of the huge body of science contrary to the “consensus”. I wonder what de Freitas detractors have to say about this unbalanced (and clearly warmist) syllabus? Might be an interesting exercise to look at the equivalent syllabus to Columbia’s The Climate… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From the Herald article:- The Herald asked Professor Glenn McGregor, director of the School of Environment at Auckland University where Geography 101 is taught, whether he agreed with De Freitas’s view. “There is no debate over the direction of change” 1) No, no debate but let’s look at the “direction of change” since the last Ice Age to get some perspective:- Climate has been fairly stable over the Holocene. Ice core records show that before the Holocene there was global warming after the end of the last ice age and cooling periods, but climate changes became more regional at the start of the Younger Dryas. During the transition from last glacial to holocene, the Huelmo/Mascardi Cold Reversal in the Southern Hemisphere began before the Younger Dryas, and the maximum warmth flowed south to north from 11 000 to 7 000 years ago. It appears that this was influenced by the residual glacial ice remaining in the Northern Hemisphere until the later date. The hypsithermal was a period of warming in which the global climate became warmer. However, the warming was probably not uniform across the world. This period ended about 5, 500 years ago, when the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The companion Herald article cites Kevin Trenberth:- Global warming ‘influencing weather extremes’ By Isaac Davison 5:30 AM Friday Jul 15, 2011 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10738572 “Christchurch-born climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, now employed by the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, said the effects of cumulative greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere was most evident in rising ocean temperatures and ice melt. He calculated that the sea surface temperature has increased 0.55C since the 1970s. This meant the water vapour in the atmosphere immediately above the ocean increased by 4 per cent.” Sea surface temperature 2002 – 2011 update is here :- Global SST Update: Still No Sign of Resumed Warming http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/global-sst-update-still-no-sign-of-resumed-warming/ Water vapour levels are here:- http://climate4you.com/ (click “Greenhouse Gasses”) WV “immediately above the ocean” is the 1000 mb (hPa) pressure zone. It’s difficult to see Trenberth’s “4%” increase” but selecting 1970 as a start date obviously helps his cause. No increase this century though. The data sources are linked and I suggest everyone becomes familiar with WV data and trends because I think we will be hearing a lot more about “extreme weather” as time goes on and the warming hiatus becomes more and… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

There’s a previous article from last week by the same Herald author that I missed

When a group of final year Auckland Medical School students began a week-long assignment on the impact of climate change on public health, they were given a CD of suggested reading material and a list of climate change experts they should talk to.

Chris de Freitas was on the list and the CD contained several articles disputing climate change and its effects – one written by de Freitas.

The students were bemused. “The project was on the consequence of climate change on human health – things like temperature-related illnesses and changes in disease patterns – not whether climate change was occurring or not,” said one. Professor Alistair Woodward, head of the School of Population Health, which ran the short course, agrees: “It wasn’t the best use of their time and we won’t run the course that way in the future.”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738747

One may ask, of course, how we can distinguish the anthropogenic signal from the natural one, and then attribute that to human health.

However, I think that these studies only reinforce the misconception that ALL climate change is human-induced.

Ron
Guest
Ron

Well spotted Andy, tendentious reporting IMHO. As was said above by Anthropogenic Global Cooling, it looks like an attempt to stir up some controversy. Why does it merit an article in the NZH that 3 med students are badly informed about AGW, lack critical thinking abilities and were given an ill-thought out assignment. (Never mind the insinuations about Holocaust denial and academic freedom!)

Andy
Guest
Andy

We should note that de Freitas has been hounded for years.
This climategate email from Tom Wigley tells a very similar story.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1061298033.txt

If you are interested in the UEA emails, the eastangliaemails.com site appears to have disappeared.

However, this site gives some good search options

http://yourvoicematters.org/cru/mailsearch.php

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

And the paper (“CR fiasco” apparently) that Wigley and the “greenhouse community” were trying to quash “under De Freitas’s editorship”? Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? Shaviv and Veizer, 2003 http://www.juniata.edu/projects/oceans/GL111/celestialdriverofclimate.pdf ABSTRACT Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate. Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. Both drivers are presently discussed in the context of daily to millennial variations, although they should also operate over geological time scales. Here we analyze the reconstructed seawater paleotemperature record for the Phanerozoic (past 545 m.y.), and compare it with the variable CRF reaching Earth and with the reconstructed partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 (pCO2). We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models. I’m looking… Read more »

Antipodean59
Guest

Anthropogenic Global Cooling says, Now they just resort to spouting any old rubbish in support of AGW, slander & misrepresent de Freitas, and deny comments to anyone wanting to counter their BS claims. – Great point. In fact the BBC Trust recommend ignoring the skeptics as official policy as Melanie Phillips points out http://tinyurl.com/42toztf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Chris de Freitas and Keith Hunter: The great climate debate

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10740806

Comments are open.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Keith Hunter’s arguments seem pretty weak. He even quotes Munich Re, a company that has a financial interest in climate alarmism to back up his claims

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Weak and a desperate scramble to divert debate from the inconvenient truth. Trenberth, Hunter, Manning et al are all jumping on the “extreme weather” bandwagon citing water vapour levels at near surface levels that are increasing – so what? WV levels at 1000 hPa don’t matter a zot in terms of the ACO2 induced warming of AGW, that’s supposed to happen at 300 hPa but instead of WV and temperature increasing there, both are decreasing.

Hunter and Manning are both singing from the same song sheet, they’ve given up on AGW relevant science (too hard) and now rely on anecdote and the operating strategies of Euro insurance companies and banks.

When they abandon scientific rigour, they don’t deserve to be addressed as “Dr” or “Prof” IMHO because they are not adopting a doctoral or professorial approach, they’re just ordinary Joe Schmo’s saying “look! bad weather” and “hey! banks and insurance companies are looking to profit from it” so “man-made climate change must be real”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Donna Laframboise brings up this tawdry topic in her well-researched piece on the NZ scene here:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/25/prof-condemned-for-not-teaching-ipcc-reports/

This is suberb. It really skewers our “scientists”

Post Navigation