Suppression of sceptical views continues

Climate Realists carried a letter from John O’Sullivan on 2 November, claiming ill treatment at the hands of Suite101.com, in terminating their publishing arrangement with him. I note that two of O’Sullivan’s articles are still available at Suite101 but this is his letter:

Friends,

I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101 was terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles published over a two-year period with them are now removed from the Internet. I believe this is in retaliation for my latest article ‘New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory’ revealing the shocking fact that the Japanese ‘IBUKI’ satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations.

The consequences of this story are that, as such, all international policies aimed at compelling western countries to reduce their carbon emissions are premised on a scientific con trick. See more here: New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory.

One respected online skeptic analyst, E.M. Smith (‘Chiefio’), has reviewed the article favourably and had this to say:

“I think it’s pretty clear that the “CO2 From the Evil Western Polluters” meme has a serious hole in it. I expect we’ll be seeing a whole lot of Song & Dance and not so much logic and reason – as usual… But one can hope.”

How right he was! It appears a self-serving and influential clique of zealots, fearful that the story may go viral, is desperate to kill it. This morning my Suite101 article had already gotten over 400,000 crosslinks a mere two days after publication. This evening a Google search shows that number cut to 297,000; so much for free speech and easy access to information on the Internet.

But what these ecoloons fail to understand is that they may shoot down one or two bloggers, but there are legions more waiting to step up to the plate. By such egregious censorship they merely draw more attention to their eco fascist attack on our freedoms.

Along with my skeptic colleagues, I will continue with our work to expose the climate fraud and to defend our freedoms. We will tirelessly fight to expose those global warming gatekeepers who cynically try to control the worldwide web as perniciously as they have the mainstream media.

The struggle for truth continues!

John

55
Leave a Reply

avatar
21 Comment threads
34 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Anthropogenic Global CoolingCara HernandezTruth SwordRobertAndy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I suspect though that after spending 18.3 billion yen on the Ibuki project, Japan will not likewise suppress the news that industrialized countries are generally net absorbers of CO2 whereas a number of developing blocks are net emitters. Expect to hear of this from the Japanese delegation at COP17 Durban. Japan Launches GOSAT Jan 26, 2009 TOKYO – The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has a new tool for analyzing global warming following the Jan. 23 launch of the Greenhouse gases Observing Satellite, or GOSAT. GOSAT and NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) satellite, due for launch Feb. 23, will map the real-time distribution of greenhouse gases. JAXA says GOSAT alone can provide coverage of 56,000 real-time data points around the globe, updating every three days. […] Satellites like GOSAT and NASA’s OCO could help create a standard measurement of carbon absorption and emissions, helping measure compliance with the Kyoto Protocol and marking a large leap from self-declared, presumption-based calculations about the volume of oil consumption, industrial gas emissions, etc. Hamazaki also thinks GOSAT could help detect and monitor leaks from natural-gas pipelines around the world, with its spatial resolution of 10 kilometers. He… Read more »

askolnick
Guest

About the only thing John O’Sullivan got right in his factually-challenged article and his letter claiming censorship was the name of the Japanese satellite: Sorry. He got that wrong too. It’s IBUKI not IBUKU. Those who have been following Mr. O’Sullivan’s career closely have a better idea why he may have been terminated by Suite101.com, where he has published more than 60 articles similarly chuck full of errors, deception, and frequent defamations. Recently, Mr. O’Sullivan has been deleting certain credentials from his online resumes in response to an investigation into his claims by the Law Society of British Columbia, and possibly the American Bar Association. Several months ago, when I confronted Mr. O’Sullivan that most of the academic and professional credentials in his online bios are dubious and even false, he taunted me and told me to take the matter up with the “authorities.” I did. Last week, the Law Society of British Columbia sent me its findings in a summary letter. Readers can see for themselves how the society found Mr. O’Sullivan was (and still is) falsely claiming to be working as a “legal counsel” for the Victoria law firm Pearlman Lindholm.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Good work shooting the messenger askolnick. But could you explain why the message is “factually-challenged” please? That being:-

“Japanese satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations”

i.e. Industrialized countries are generally net absorbers of CO2 whereas a number of developing blocks are net emitters – not the sort of message that gets shouted from the rooftops is it?

BTW, recourse to JAXA Ibuki GOSAT data and plots to support your explanation would be instructive.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

You are apparently Andrew Skolnick, though you don’t sign your name. Welcome, and thank you for painting an interesting picture of John O’Sullivan, but your story is not completely persuasive. You claim his article about the Japanese satellite observations contained nothing but errors and even a typo. The typo is easy to understand. If we are to believe you, you should specify all the other errors and not leave them to our imagination. The same applies to your comments on O’Sulllivan’s “more than 60 articles similarly chuck full of errors, deception, and frequent defamations.” If I were to attempt to write 60 articles containing nothing but errors and deception I would be hard pressed to do so without mentioning the truth somewhere, so I find it hard to believe what you say. You don’t cite any “online resumes” or say where they can be found, so your assertion about the reason for recent changes cannot be confirmed. He makes an exaggerated or simplified claim about his dealings with a law firm. The confidential letter you “release” offers as much confirmation of O’Sullivan’s credibility as your comments malign it. Finally, it’s not at all… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The messenger speaks for himself here:- John O’Sullivan: Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8638&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29 Quoting:- “Skolnick has further sought to tarnish my reputation by claiming that my dismissal from my employment as science writer with Suite101 is due to misrepresentation of my credentials; this is another lie. Suite101 have now admitted that they dismissed me (I argue, unjustly) from my employment solely due to matters connected to my publication of controversial new evidence from JAXA’s IBUKI satellite. Pro-green co-writers at Suite101 appear to have lobbied for my dismissal as they took exception to my revelations that discredit UN man-made global warming claims. My JAXA article shows there is no scientific basis for western policymakers to impose ‘polluter pays’ carbon taxes on their citizens because the JAXA data proves there are far fewer carbon emissions from industrialized western nations than undeveloped Equatorial regions. Dr. Ball has now published a compelling article adding weight to my story. As the evidence grows that Mr. Skolnick has no basis in fact for slurring my reputation I shall now be considering my options for a libel suit against him. I conclude with… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

What Does CO2 Have To Do With Climate?

Little or nothing, if Tim Ball is correct. This post on his web site packs more iconoclasm (and useful information) into a shorter space than just about anything I have read on the subject:

Recently a Japanese Research Institute published a satellite map of sources of CO2 emissions. It was virtually ignored by the mainstream media, but that has become an inverse measure of its significance to the climate debate. It showed a pattern that most would not expect because of the misleading information presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) amplified by most media.

Here it is: [See diagram as in post above]

North America is a net consumer of CO2. Dr. Ball explains: “The map is only surprising if you believe that humans are the primary source of CO2.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/what-does-co2-have-to-do-with-climate.php

UPDATE: The alarmists are trying to shut Dr. Ball up. Two of them, the notorious Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are suing him for libel

John O'Sullivan
Guest

Skolnick is a liar and has now been exposed as such. His complaint about me to the British Columbia Law Society was dismissed in it’s entirety. It turns out it is Skolnick who has been misrepresenting his credentials. Contrary to his claims, he lost two lawsuits he claims to have won and was dismissed from his post at the AMA for misconduct because he couldn’t tell the difference between truth and fiction.
It also appears he has falsely claimed to have been a Pulitzer Prize nominee and possess a Masters’ degree! Read more here:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team

askolnick
Guest

Richard Treadgold, I don’t debate people who play word games in an effort to deflect, disguise, or deny — as you do in dismissing my charge that O’Sullivan’s Suite 101.com articles were “chock full of errors, deception, and frequent defamations.”

You replied, “If I were to attempt to write 60 articles containing nothing but errors and deception I would be hard pressed to do so without mentioning the truth somewhere, so I find it hard to believe what you say.”

“chock full” means “brimming,” “bursting,” “crammed,” “crowded,” “jam-packed,” “loaded,” “packed with,” “stuffed with,” — it does NOT mean “nothing but.”

O’Sullivan’s articles have some truth in them. For example, he always spells his name correctly. And he almost always gets the name of scientists he defames right. Usually the universities and organizations they work for are correct. But it goes downhill from there.

I won’t waste time on people who depend on twisting words and making bogus, red herring arguments. I find it hard to believe anything they say.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

You, Mr. Skolnick, are an antagonistic troll – full of smoke-blowing and arm-waving, but without any substance to your ranting. Despite a specific request (“could you explain why the message is “factually-challenged” please”), you have yet to provide or demonstrate substance. Until you do so, your ad-hominen accusations are simply red herrings.

You are hoist by your own petard with these words:

I won’t waste time on people who depend on twisting words and making bogus, red herring arguments. I find it hard to believe anything they say.

askolnick
Guest

Every single comment by John O’Sullivan is false — including his ridiculous claim that he was cleared of wrong doing by the Law Society of British Columbia. The Law Society sent me the following statement last week when I inquired about the status of its investigation of O’Sullivan’s unauthorized practice of law. “As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.” Hopefully, when their investigation is complete and the make-believe lawyer is served with an injunction, he might finally stop claiming the complaint against him was “dismissed in its entirety.” Don’t hold your breath; his role as a leader of deniers is to lead in denial. In addition to waiting for the Law Society of BC to take action, I’m also waiting for the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Despite the venom that may flow here,” ?

Sorry to disappoint you Andrew, your anticipation of venom flowing here seems to have a similar basis to your anticipation of catastrophic man-made climate change.

askolnick
Guest

Richard, try to follow along. Whether human activities are or are not contributing to global warming has absolutely NOTHING to do with John O’Sullivan fraudulently passing himself off as a successful attorney and science journalist whose articles are published in National Review and Forbes magazines.

Suite101.com’s editors fired O’Sullivan soon after I alerted them about their writer’s bogus credentials. O’Sullivan wants you to believe his firing was an act of censorship. His firing, I believe, has more to do with his use of fraudulent credentials.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the bogus man-made climate change proposition Andrew, why else would we be having this discussion?

As for John O’Sullivan’s credentials, I’ll wait and see how his libel suit against you plays out (or any other action or judgment arising).

askolnick
Guest

“As for John O’Sullivan’s credentials, I’ll wait and see how his libel suit against you plays out (or any other action or judgment arising).”

While holding your breath I hope.

Readers who aren’t so reality-impaired as Richard can check out the veracity of John O’Sullivan’s bogus credentials for themselves.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

John O’Sullivan can defend himself (as will you), I’m focused on the bogus man-made climate change proposition Andrew, sorry – much bigger picture.

askolnick
Guest

If you are “focused” on the “much bigger picture,” why are you wasting your time and everybody else’s posting comments on something you say is irrelevant?

You definitely do have trouble forming a rational picture of reality.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Here’s the rational picture of reality Andrew, framed by the words of Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III:- “….one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” So the posited science of man-made climate change is merely a peripheral activity as long as everyone accepts an undocumented hypothesis (cite one paper documenting AGW Andrew) of anthropogenic global warming because that is the premise for the wealth redistribution. The problems start Andrew, when people from inside the science publish papers contrary to the (very loose) hypothesis and people from outside the science but with enough transferable skills gained from their own specialties do likewise and tear to shreds in the process, the shonky papers of climate scientists that engage in dubious methods that would not pass the rigour of other fields e.g. drug approval by the FDA. Similarly, inconvenient data that rains on the AGW (and wealth distribution) parade such as the origin of the world’s major CO2 fluxes, become highly problematic to the AGW establishment. The response to findings, refutings and reports contrary to the prescribed UN narrative range from the plaintive e.g.… Read more »

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Hear, hear, well said Richard!!!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Official: I Just Bet My House on the Outcome of Science Trial of the Century Written by John O’Sullivan | December 07 2011 No truer headline will you read. Yesterday this author literally wagered his home, life savings, and all his possessions on the outcome of a crucial global warming lawsuit currently ongoing in Canada. So what is it that drove me to such apparent recklessness endangering not only my own well-being but that of my family? Well, to me this pivotal lawsuit encapsulates the archetypal ‘good versus evil’ battle no conscientious parent can ignore. Facing each other is Plaintiff, Dr. Michael Mann (he of ‘hockey stick’ graph infamy) representing so-called UN ‘consensus’ climate science. Mann claims his work proves humans are dangerously warming the planet. Defendant, retired Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball believes Mann was a key player in the Climategate scandal and has hidden his dodgy tree-ring data for over 13 years to cover up fakery in the numbers. Mann and his ilk are not only responsible for scaring the bejesus out of our kids but of being a part of a bigger plot involving population control and wealth re-distribution; none… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Mann characterizes “the premise for the wealth redistribution” as “the cause” so I suppose that is how it should now be referred to.

Thanks to Australian Climate Madness for drawing my attention to this important point

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/12/the-cry-grows-quite-stale-and-threadbare/

John O'Sullivan
Guest

Richard C (NZ) has astutely figured out Skolnick’s ploy. For my part I’ve repeatedly posted my responses to Skolnick’s bogus accusations and pointed out that I’ve better things to do than follow the fool around the blogosphere refuting every shabby post of his. Nonetheless, it again bears noting that Skolnick’s employers fired him from his journalism job after he was caught making numerous false claims. He’s a compulsive liar and I’m delighted others have now turned the tables and dug out the truth on him. It appears among Skolnick’s many bogus assertions are that he possesses a master’s degree from Columbia (he has a bachelor’s), won two court cases (he didn’t) and he laughably was a Pulitzer Prize nominee! Despite being repeatedly challenged by others to man up and show some evidence to either prove I’m a liar and/or that accusations against him are false, the weasel ignores the challenge. Skolnick truly got his comeuppance after he boasted that his complaint about me to the British Columbia Law Society was going to expose me as a ‘liar.’ How wrong he was! Not only did the BCLS dismiss his complaint in it’s entirety, but… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Desperate Climate Campaigner Stoops to Criminality to Smear Skeptics John O’Sullivan In a week when skeptics of the predicted man-made climate catastrophe are having their computers seized by police, a more patently criminal campaign of harassment is now underway in the blogosphere. But is an ironic twist in store? It appears faked and defamatory web pages are currently being created and disseminated around the Internet by green crusader, Andrew Skolnick, a former Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) fired from his post for misconduct. […] Below I submit for reader examination Skolnick’s “John O” evidence so that it may be seen it is a counterfeit by comparing the page formatting, text, color and layout with my actual Linkedin profile page. Skolnick’s “John O” fabrication is on the left, on the right is a bona fide screenshot of my actual Linkedin profile that anyone can verify as genuine by visiting the Linkedin website here. [See images…] But so damning for Skolnick is that Linkedin may soon confirm there is no such profile currently on their server because the bogus “John O” never did exist to begin with. So where… Read more »

askolnick
Guest

Richard Treadgold — and “Richard C,” you have committed libel by choosing to republished an article written by John O’Sullivan, that is full of defamatory statements he published with malicious intent to damage my reputation.

You have aggravated this injury with a defamatory headline falsely accusing me of “Criminality.”

Unless you immediately remove these and all other statements that maliciously defame me from your web site, your names will be added as co-defendants in the libel suit I’m preparing against Mr. O’Sullivan.

This will be the only warning.

Andrew Skolnick

Richard Treadgold
Guest

That means you must be visiting New Zealand, since you can’t sue anyone in absentia. Let me know when you’re arriving and we can meet, have a drink and a chat. Cheers.

Oh, and I was just giving Mr O’Sullivan right of reply to your earlier nasty accusations against him, so forget about me, old chap, I’m just the messenger. Pay attention to refuting him if you can.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Have let the regulars at Climate Change Dispatch know of this demand and the consequences of failing to comply:-

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9691-desperate-climate-campaigner-sinks-to-criminality-to-smear-skeptics#comment-31927

BTW Andrew, “choosing to republished an article” ?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Wow, it must be Christmas time for the lawyers. Tallbloke, Mann, and now the evil Richard’s in NZ.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

woohoohahahahaaa

Andy
Guest
Andy

Check out Greg Laden’s blog and the comments (now closed) on his libel of Tallbloke

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/computers_of_criminal_cyber-th.php

This could get interesting.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andrew, make sure your demand is effective otherwise……… Walter Mitty is a fictional character in James Thurber’s short story “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”, first published in the New Yorker on March 18, 1939, and in book form in My World and Welcome to It in 1942. It was made into a film in 1947.[1] Mitty is a meek, mild man with a vivid fantasy life: in a few dozen paragraphs he imagines himself a wartime pilot, an emergency-room surgeon, and a devil-may-care killer. The character’s name has come into more general use to refer to an ineffectual dreamer, appearing in several dictionaries.[2] The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Walter Mitty as “an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs”.[3] The most famous of Thurber’s inept male protagonists, the character is considered “the archetype for dreamy, hapless, Thurber Man”.[4] Although the story has humorous elements, there is a darker and more significant message underlying the text, leading to a more tragic interpretation of the Mitty character. Even in his heroic daydreams, Mitty does not triumph, several fantasies being interrupted before the final one sees Mitty dying bravely… Read more »

askolnick
Guest

If anyone thinks the Sky Dragon Slayer’s “company” Principia Scientific International is anything more than a facade should look at its “Upcoming Events” page:

Annual PSI Conference scheduled for London, England

First Annual PSI Conference set to take place in London, England, October 2011. Delegates from 12 countries expected to attend three-day event. Further details to be posted.

http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/article/48-upcoming-events/101-second-annual-psi-conference-set-to-take-place-in-boston-mass

It’s a shame how everybody missed it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Walter Andrew, at the same site you will find:-

Why PSI is a Private Association

WHY PSI OPERATES AS A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION AND NOT A LIMITED COMPANY OR CHARITY

http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc

askolnick
Guest

Richard C, I have to say you really do have a way with an irrelevancy. LOL!

askolnick
Guest

Richard Treadgold, it won’t cost me any money to add your name to the suit and while I don’t expect to get any money out of you, I will get a judgement that exposes you for what you are, if it comes to that.

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

I have to laugh when I see what the proponents of AGW will try to stoop to when their science doesn’t add up, it really shows how weak the case for AGW is. They just get more & more pathetic as more & more of their predictions fail, and their inability to face the reality of it means they desperately grasp at straws as they lose their battle with reality & slip into delusion. The sad fact is that AGW has already suffered numerous fatal blows, and it’s just a matter of time before it slowly bleeds to death. Every climate summit it dies a little more as it slips ever further into irrelevancy & oblivion.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

How’s “the cause” coming along Walter Andrew?

“Utopia” on the way?

Robert
Guest
Robert

No you won’t get a judgement, you haven’t been able to provide credible evidence of any of your claims or credibly refute any of O’Sullivan’s statements instead you simply redirect and point us to more of YOUR screenshots or to some website or another and expect your interpretation of what it means to influence people. And, like so many others these days, you think your hand waving about a libel suit will scare people into submission.

What you fail to take into consideration is no one has written or stated anything about you that is more harmful to your “reputation” than your own behavior has been.

Cara Hernandez
Guest
Cara Hernandez

If I may, I’d like to comment on the science in the John O’Sullivan blog entry relating to IBUKI satellite measurements of carbon dioxide flux. In this regard, I refer to the press release from JAXA, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency entitled “On Estimating Global Monthly Carbon Dioxide Fluxes by Region, utilizing the observational data obtained by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT).” O’Sullivan’s first error is confusing carbon dioxide flux with emissions. As described in the JAXA press release, the images presented represent regional fluxes, not emissions. Therefore, several of O’Sullivan’s assertions are wrong because they are based on his misunderstanding (or confusion) about the difference between flux and emissions. For example, O’Sullivan writes ” …the IBUKU maps prove exactly the opposite of all conventional expectations revealing that the least industrialized regions are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet.” The IBUKI image presented by O’Sullivan is not a map of emissions so his claim is simply wrong. O’Sullivan’s second error is far more problematic in that he misrepresents a seasonal flux figure (corresponding to summer in the northern hemisphere) as an annual figure. The most generous interpretation is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

How exactly do satellite observations differentiate between “emissions” and “fluxes”?

And how do you you reconcile your apparent disregard for the massive natural CO2 fluxes as observed by IBUKI GOSAT and the corroboration by say the NOAA ground launched observations that show the greatest fluxes originating from Equatorial regions, North Africa. in particular (irrespective of whether those regions are net emitters or absorbers).

John O’Sullivan is merely pointing out what the Japanese have learned from their project and one would suspect it has lead them to conclude that continued participation in the Kyoto Protocol is futile and one of the major reasons why they have pulled out.

Cara Hernandez
Guest
Cara Hernandez

Richard C, Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of my remarks. I am correcting errors in John O’Sullivan’s report on the GOSAT measurements. The errors I noted are the following: 1. Mr. O’Sullivan confuses carbon dioxide flux with emissions, causing him to make a number of inaccurate assertions. 2. Mr. O’Sullivan bases his analysis on a single seasonal flux map (corresponding to summer in the northern hemisphere) which he presents and treats as representing annual carbon dioxide flux. This misrepresentation leads Mr. O’Sullivan to reach incorrect conclusions about regional carbon dioxide flux. Your comments don’t address the fact that Mr. O’Sullivan’s analysis is factually incorrect. I hope you will acknowledge this point after reviewing the JAXA press release. I see no point in taking the conversation in a different direction until we finish discussing the fundamental scientific mistakes that undermine Mr. O’Sullivan’s analysis. I appreciate that you may wish to discuss other topics, but my initial post was in response to your invitation to point out the errors in Mr. O’Sullivan’s blog article. You also indicated that “recourse to JAXA Ibuki GOSAT data and plots to support your explanation would be instructive”–as requested, I’ve… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“…the ball is now in your court” – no it isn’t. The ball is in the court of the respective national governments, Japan in this case and I really don’t think they care (or have even heard of) John O’Sullivan but if he is confusing fluxes with emissions then so are they because (as you omit to address) their observing systems make no distinction. You cite (but do not link to) a JAXA Press Release that I assume is this most recent one so lets look at it (i.e. “recourse to JAXA Ibuki GOSAT data and plots to support your explanation would be instructive”):- On Estimating Global Monthly Carbon Dioxide Fluxes by Region, utilizing the observational data obtained by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT) http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2011/10/20111028_ibuki_e.html These are FLUXES (that include emissions) note. Figure 2 shows a comparison of 1 yrs data 6/2009 – 5/2010: “Results for south-western Tropical Africa (A; top panel) and north-western Temperate North America (B; bottom panel) are shown”. Except for months 9,10 and 11 of 2009, all of the SW Tropical African fluxes are greater than the NW Temperate North American. Herein lies the problem for pinning… Read more »

Cara Hernandez
Guest
Cara Hernandez

Richard C, You still are not addressing the subject at hand, i.e., errors in John O’Sullivan’s analysis. I find it curious that you seem hesitant to discuss the specific issues I raised. Let me try to simplify the issues so that we can move on. 1. Do you acknowledge that John O’Sullivan confuses carbon dioxide flux with carbon dioxide emissions? Yes or no? 2. Do you acknowledge that John O’Sullivan makes incorrect assertions based on his confusion between flux and emissions? Yes or no? 3. Do you acknowledge that John O’Sullivan misrepresents a single seasonal flux map (corresponding to summer in the northern hemisphere) as representative of annual carbon dioxide flux? Yes or no? 4. Do you acknowledge that John O’Sullivan’s analysis based on a flux map for a single season leads him to reach incorrect conclusions about regional carbon dioxide flux? Yes or no? I apologize for insisting on specific responses to these points relating to Mr. O’Sullivan’s article, but you did invite readers to post specific criticism of Mr. O’Sullivan’s analysis. I think it makes sense to thoroughly discuss the fundamental flaws associated with Mr. O’Sullivan’s article, especially since it has… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“insisting on specific responses to these points” does draw attention away from the bigger picture doesn’t it? Nice tactic but I’m not biting. You obviously want me to focus on a microcosm of the topic of this blog “Suppression of sceptical views continues” whereby any presentation of data that does not fit your world-view must be suppressed by all means (see the Climategate emails for a primer, esp 2.0) even if that means attacking the messenger (John in this case) to do so. But as far as I’m concerned, if you want answers to your 4 questions then take up the issues with him directly. You could contact him via this address http://climatechangedispatch.com/contact-us but a third party argument over his interpretation vs yours is of no consequence to anyone except yourself.. Irrespective of whether Johns interpretation is incorrect or not (if you want it to be then that’s your choice) we have John to thank for bringing to our attention a major study that adds considerable weight to the argument that human CO2 emissions are inconsequential e.g.. the SW Tropical African fluxes vs the NW Temperate North American. comparison. If CO2 really was… Read more »

Cara Hernandez
Guest
Cara Hernandez

Richard C, Let me clarify a point of confusion. You invited specific scientific analysis of John O’Sullivan’s article early in this comment thread. Let me remind you what you wrote: “[Can] you explain why the message is “factually-challenged” please? That being:- “Japanese satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations” i.e. Industrialized countries are generally net absorbers of CO2 whereas a number of developing blocks are net emitters” I’ve accepted your invitation and have provided a detailed analysis that explains the scientific errors in John O’Sullivan’s article. Now that I’ve done this, you refuse to discuss the scientific issues involved in Mr. O’Sullivan’s article. I’m trying to understand your sudden disinterest in information you specifically requested. You are correct that, ideally, Mr. O’Sullivan should address my criticism of his work, but that observation has no bearing on the fact that you–not he–requested the analysis I have provided. Thus I am struggling to find a satisfactory explanation for your sudden disinterest in the subject. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that your refusal to discuss the article–a discussion you invited–reflects your displeasure… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“you refuse to discuss the scientific issues involved” Okay, let’s discuss. Cara, you say:- Once again, let’s quantify carbon dioxide flux for South America and Africa using data from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (all units PgC yr-1): Africa 0.14 South America 0.20 You will have to provide reference links to this information otherwise it’s meaningless. What period? What is the total flux and what are the emitted/absorbed components (how are these figures derived)? I assume that those figures correspond to the NOAA CarbonTracker (“CT2010”) North America figures here (“guessed” by NOAA note):- http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=North_America#imagetable And compared to North Africa it would give the impression that North America is the villain and North Africa less so. However there is more NOAA information to look at before jumping to conclusions (see below). Looking at the GOSAT data here http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2011/10/20111028_ibuki_e.html I see total fluxes varying between -1 and +2.5 gC/m^2/day over the course of one year SW Tropical Africa and -2 and +1.5 gC/m^2/day for NW Temperate North America. These 2 regions were highlighted by JAXA because they “represent regions where ground-based measurement sites are sparse and dense, respectively”. So then I go to the… Read more »

Cara Hernandez
Guest
Cara Hernandez

Richard C, In answer to your first question, the data I posted for Africa and South America corresponds to calendar year 2009 (just as with the data posted for North America and Europe). The net carbon dioxide flux quantities I posted for Africa are based on a simple sum of the net carbon dioxide flux for Southern Africa and Northern Africa using the CarbonTracker (CT2010) Flux Time Series: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=Northern_Africa#imagetable http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=Southern_Africa#imagetable The calculated values of total carbon dioxide flux for 2009 for Northern Africa and Southern Africa are shown in the Results Summary Tables (PgC yr-1) as 0.05 and 0.09, respectively, giving a total of 0.14 PgC yr-1 for Africa in 2009. Similarly the net carbon dioxide flux quantities I posted for South America are based on a simple sum of the net carbon dioxide flux for Temperate South America and Tropical South America using the relevant CarbonTracker (CT2010) Flux Time Series:. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=South_American_Temperate#imagetable http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=South_American_Tropical#imagetable The calculated values of total carbon dioxide flux for 2009 for Temperate South America and Tropical South America are shown in the Results Summary Tables (PgC yr-1) as 0.19 and 0.01, respectively, giving a total of 0.20 PgC yr-1 for… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Cara, would you care to continue “to discuss the scientific issues involved”? For example, what is your response (given that you are so focused on CO2) to these responses to an article in The Australian “Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth” by MIKE Sandiford:- Climate change a slogging match of claim v claim * by: TALKING POINT * From: The Australian * January 02, 2012 12:00AM 1)a) It is the trend that matters and both data sets indicate that the rapid global warming of the 1970s and 80s has ceased. Sandiford seems convinced of the heat-trapping effect of CO2. As a physicist I am sceptical for the reason that convection, not radiation, controls lower atmosphere temperature. 1)b) I would have thought active submarine volcanoes recently discovered along the Gakkel ridge near the North Pole provide a more convincing explanation of Arctic warming. Perhaps geologists are unaware that submarine tectonic heating is never included in climate models. 2)a) The issue is not that the climate has warmed or that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased. Both of these facts are acknowledged by sceptics and warmers alike. The issue is what proportion of that… Read more »

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

‘If CO2 was as effective as AGW proponents theorize, the atmosphere should be heating at a faster rate than the earth’s surface but the 33 years of satellite observations that we now have show that the opposite is the case – where does that leave the AGW hypothesis?’

Personally I think that’s the main issue regarding AGW, everything else is a distraction to obscure the scientific truth that the hypothesis proposed by the IPCC is an impossibility without the positive feedback.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Cara, you really are on a personal crusade aren’t you?

I see this contribution in comments under the Forbes article ‘Climate Science Reaches a Landmark That Chills Global Warming Alarmists’:-

carahernandez5 3 days ago

@GM

We share one point of agreement: you have a serious problem separating fact from fiction.

This may be the source of your confusion about climate science. You don’t have sufficient knowledge to distinguish sound scientific research from hogwash. I imagine this is the reason you were touting the misinformation about carbon dioxide flux as measured by GOSAT. Instead of using common sense and relying on scientific principles, you accepted as truth a fraud perpetrated by John O’Sullivan.

Please try to learn from your mistakes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/12/28/climate-science-reaches-a-landmark-that-chills-global-warming-alarmists/#comment-2294

Also a cameo (and familiar refrain) from dana1981 (Page 4 of comments):-

dana1981 4 days ago

It’s really infuriating that somebody can say so many stupid, blatantly wrong things and get it published in a mainstream media source like Forbes.

For those interested in factual reality (unlike James Taylor), here is a scientifically accurate article on this same subject:

http://skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part2.html

That article must have ruffled some feathers going by the reactions.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

AGC, I’ve used the satellite record there but there’s so much uncertainty (and confusion) who really knows? A good example in comments under the Forbes article ‘Climate Science Reaches a Landmark That Chills Global Warming Alarmists’:- cyruspinkerton 1 hour ago James Taylor wrote: “Surface temperature measurements, however, indicate more rapid warming at the surface of the earth than in the lower troposphere.” But this isn’t true according to a report (“Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences) co-authored by some guy named John Christy. Let’s see what the report says on this subject: “Since the late 1950s, all radiosonde data sets show that the low and mid troposphere have warmed at a rate slightly faster than the rate of warming at the surface. These changes are in accord with our understanding of the effects of radiative forcing agents on the climate system …” And this: “For observations during the satellite era (1979 onwards), the most recent versions of all available data sets show that both the low and mid troposphere have warmed. The majority of these data sets show warming at the surface that is greater than in the… Read more »

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

I always thought the warming was supposed to occur in the upper troposphere, that’s what the IPCC predicted (i.e. hot-spot). Wasn’t water vapour at lower levels supposed to reflect heat back into space?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The hot-spot is a localized phenomenon in the upper troposphere above the tropics (tropics because that’s where the stratocumulus activity takes place) that occurs in IPCC climate model simulations and is a readily identifiable anthropogenic fingerprint (although the laymen warmists e.g. Bryan Walker aka Mooloo in the Herald I think, are of a mind to deny that of late). The chain of events there being that the 100 – 200 hPa pressure zone (roughly) is the last intercept before outgoing radiation can escape unhindered to space. The posit being that the zone immediately below that (200 – 400 hPa) should exhibit a warming trend due to heating by the re-emitted radiation back down from the zone above due to rising CO2 levels. In the lower troposphere it’s cloud rather than WV that’s the fly in the ointment for the IPCC, The AR4 climate models don’t resolve low cloud in detail so absorption/re-emission and albedo reflection aren’t modeled as they should be in radiative terms (Not heat terms, heat isn’t reflected by cloud albedo effect but dissipates toward cold space by convection. Heat terms would be a better diagnosis but nuther story). Lower troposphere… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Probably should add that the WV amplification (positive feedback) comes into consideration because raised levels (from more evaporation) of WV provide more capacity in the atmosphere to store heat due to the greater heat capacity of WV compared to CO2 that by itself is ineffectual.

Problem there is that although WV levels have risen at lower troposphere in the last couple of decades after a fall prior, levels at mid and upper troposphere have fallen.

There’s still the necessity for a heat source (or wind conditions) other than solar to really crank up the heat. There’s a good example of that in Victoria AU a the moment. If you look at the SST anomaly http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif the Great Australian Bight is warmer than normal. There was a similar situation last year near Perth WA when there was a very warm pool offshore (gone now).

Then there’s the question of how long the WV stays in the atmosphere before it precipitates out. Last I heard the average is about 9 days but the hydrological cycle modulates by speeding up and slowing down. Seems to be cycling fast this summer where I live.

Anthropogenic Global Cooling
Guest
Anthropogenic Global Cooling

‘Problem there is that although WV levels have risen at lower troposphere in the last couple of decades after a fall prior, levels at mid and upper troposphere have fallen.’

Thanks Richard, that’s the thing that I find the most interesting & I think it’s what the AGW proponents fear the most. I have to smile when I see them clutch at straws on their way down on this point – they rush off to scepticalscience.conjob & then run in circles panicking when they see there’s no evidence for AGW.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The Water Vapour Feedback section on this page at Climate Change Science (compiled by Ken Gregory) is a good resource on the topic

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour

Also the Water Vapout page at Global Warming Science (compiled by Alan Cheetham)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm

Best plots I think are at Climate4you (select Greenhouse gasses on left hand side – atm WV at top of page)

http://climate4you.com/

Post Navigation