Suppression of sceptical views continues

Climate Realists carried a letter from John O’Sullivan on 2 November, claiming ill treatment at the hands of, 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:


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!


Visits: 330

55 Thoughts on “Suppression of sceptical views continues

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 07/11/2011 at 12:53 pm said:

    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 says as much as 1.5 percent of the gases passing through these pipes leaks out, which is a significant contributor to global warming.

    The 18.3 billion yen Ibuki project is jointly funded by JAXA and Japan’s Ministry of the Environment and the National Institute for Environmental Studies. Official observations are scheduled to begin in April.


    Getting NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory orbiting has been a little more fraught:-

    Whew! U.S. Earth-Observing Satellite Actually Makes It Into Orbit

    28 October 2011

    Third time’s the charm. Climate and weather researchers are breathing a bit easier today with this morning’s successful launch of a NASA satellite that will provide data to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project (NPP) satellite lifted off at 2:48 a.m. local time from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, breaking a string of failed launches that downed two previous Earth-observing satellites.

    NPP carries five science instruments designed to help researchers track everything from the ozone layer to ice cover, and to help them develop both long- and short-term forecasts. It is also supposed to test-drive technologies for NOAA’s pending Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), a multi-spacecraft system plagued with technical delays and budget problems. The first JPSS launch is not expected until 2016 or 2017 at the earliest, and the $12 billion program has gotten extensive scrutiny from budget-conscious lawmakers.

    …the $12 billion program has gotten extensive scrutiny from budget-conscious lawmakers.

    …The launch of the $1.5 billion NPP—which was originally supposed to fly in 2006represents a rare bright spot for the U.S. Earth-observing community. In 2009, NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory, designed to monitor carbon dioxide levels, crashed back to Earth after its rocket failed, and earlier this year a similar accident destroyed NASA’s Glory, designed to monitor atmospheric chemicals. NPP is expected to operate for at least 5 years.

  2. 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, 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. I obtained permission from the Law Society to make their confidential letter public:

    It also appears my complaint to the general counsel of the American Bar Association has had an effect. Mr. O’Sullivan deleted his false claim of membership in the ABA, which is ONLY open to lawyers licensed to practice in the U.S. He replaced it with an equally false claim of being a member of the New York County Lawyers Association. Unfortunately for him, NYCLA membership director doesn’t agree. If and when they make him delete this bogus claim,he’ll remove it, I’m sure, and replace it with another false credential.

    The following screen capture of his bio from and his current one shows the recent deletions compared with his current bio:

    And the following screen capture of his LinkedIn bio shows the same attempt to remove those incriminating false credentials:

    I’ve brought this matter of misrepresentation to the attention of LinkedIn and

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/11/2011 at 7:16 am said:

      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.

    • 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 obvious who writes the LinkedIn material you cite, or what control O’Sullivan has over it. So, again, your allegations cannot be confirmed.

      I loved to hear lawyer Michael Scherr say in the letter:

      “This litigation involves a scientific dispute truly global in proportion. I understand I am representing a client who is not on the “popular side” of the debate.

      “Billions of dollars are being spent on the theory that CO2 causes global warming. My client is a retired professor from the University of Winnipeg. For him to be able to financially support his defense including obtaining the necessary experts will cost several hundred thousand dollars. There are very deep pockets on the side of the plaintiffs and a whole machine dedicated to undermining the climate sceptics.”

      This gives an independent expression of the size of the battle we are engaged in.

      I notice that you say nothing about the climate science.

      Ah, I see Richard C has challenged you to say something substantive. I hope his goading succeeds.

    • 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 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 on 21/11/2011 at 7:10 am said:

      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.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/11/2011 at 7:47 am said:

      The messenger speaks for himself here:-

      John O’Sullivan: Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team


      “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 this plea: please punish the fakers and fraudsters and either donate to Dr. Ball’s legal fund or help to publicize Skolnick’s, Mann’s and co.’s cynical misuse of the legal system. The slur tactics of global warming fraudsters cannot be allowed to obfuscate the facts.

      John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hons), PGCE”

    • 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:

    • 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 as a consequence of drawing so much attention to himself Skolnick has been comprehensibly exposed as a fraud. The irony is delicious.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 15/11/2011 at 8:50 am said:

    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.”

    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

  4. 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 New York County Lawyers’ Association to finish its investigation of O’Sullivan’s “recent” “law degree” from University College, Cork, or University of Surrey, or that bogus online diploma mill “Hill University”.

    I almost feel sorry for people who swell up with venom when confronted with inconvenient truths. Despite the venom that may flow here, I will report the results of the investigations.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2011 at 6:05 am said:

      “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.

  5. 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.’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) on 07/12/2011 at 4:32 pm said:

      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).

  6. “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) on 08/12/2011 at 5:59 am said:

      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.

  7. 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) on 08/12/2011 at 4:31 pm said:

      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. Phil Jones:-

      ‘Why can’t people just accept that the IPCC is right!!’

      To antagonistic attacks by the AGW establishment on anyone voicing or divulging information that if widely known would destroy the premise of the UN, its IPCC and pliant scientists for the ultimate goal of redistributing the worlds wealth in its entirety but come unstuck in doing so e.g. Stefan Rahmstorf:

      German State Court Orders Stefan Rahmstorf To Cease And Desist “Violating Journalist’s Personal Rights”

      Equally coming unstuck is Dr. Michael Mann (of hide-the-decline infamy) who, taking offense to the suggestion that Mann should be in the State Penn rather than Penn State for his dishonest scientific activity, sued Dr. Tim Ball and the details of Mann vs. Ball are as follows:-

      US libel cases are governed by the First Amendment, “public figure” rules and other safeguards that ensure open, robust debate, and make it difficult and expensive to sue people over slights, affronts, insults, disagreements and jokes.

      Canada, unfortunately, has more limited free speech protections. So Dr. Mike sued Dr. Tim in Canada, assuming victory would be rapid and sweet. Surprise! Dr. Ball decided to slug it out.

      In Canada, the principal defenses against libel claims are that the alleged defamation constitutes “fair comment” or was in fact “the truth.” Ball chose the latter defense.

      Doing so means the penalty for losing could be higher than under “fair comment” rules. But arguing that his statement was based on truth allows Dr. Ball to seek “discovery” of evidence that Dr. Mann’s actions reflect a use of public funds to alter or falsify scientific data, present highly speculative results as solid facts, or otherwise engage in something that a reasonable person would conclude constitutes dishonest activity or criminal culpability, undertaken moreover through the use of taxpayer funds.

      Proving that will not be easy, especially since Mann has steadfastly refused to provide such potential evidence to anyone, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. That evidence might include Climategate emails; computer codes and data used, misused or used selectively to generate global warming spikes in historical graphs; and questionable research or proposals used to secure additional government grants, misinform citizens or lawmakers, or promote costly or harmful public policies.

      Clearly, this has not gone to plan for that particular branch of the AGW establishment and so an all-out assault on Tim Ball and his support team including John O’Sullivan is required to squelch any progress by the defense because the action has backfired on the plaintiff.

      That’s where you come in, isn’t it Andrew?

      And no, I had no trouble forming the picture Andrew – the big picture is crystal clear and your bit-part in it is typical of the tactics of a desperate band whose status has been shattered. It’s playing out in various guises all over the world (our blog host is party to a challenge of climate science that could go to court BTW) so get used to it.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/12/2011 at 7:49 pm said:

      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 of which is good for your family or mine.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/12/2011 at 8:33 pm said:

      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

  8. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 08/12/2011 at 8:09 pm said:

    Hear, hear, well said Richard!!!

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2011 at 3:36 pm said:

    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 did it originate? NY Police may soon have the answers if Linkedin can confirm grounds for “probable cause.” They can then execute a search warrant on Mr. Skolnick and seize his computer for forensic analysis. Now that’s a REAL reason for a police raid in these climate capers.


  10. 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

    • 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.

    • Andy on 19/12/2011 at 8:26 am said:

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

    • woohoohahahahaaa

    • Andy on 19/12/2011 at 8:39 am said:

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

      This could get interesting.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2011 at 7:50 am said:

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

      BTW Andrew, “choosing to republished an article” ?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2011 at 4:17 pm said:

      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 in front of a firing squad. In the brief snatches of reality that punctuate Mitty’s fantasies the audience meets well-meaning but insensitive strangers who inadvertently rob Mitty of some of his remaining dignity.

  11. 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.

    It’s a shame how everybody missed it.

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

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/12/2011 at 8:47 am said:

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

      “Utopia” on the way?

  13. 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.

    • Robert on 20/12/2011 at 11:23 am said:

      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.

  14. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 20/12/2011 at 7:54 am said:

    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.

  15. Cara Hernandez on 02/01/2012 at 5:24 am said:

    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 that O’Sullivan’s error is the result of carelessness; a cynical interpretation is that he intentionally withheld evidence that contradicts his argument.

    The JAXA press release announcing the GOSAT results presents a picture much more in line with common sense than the incomplete picture presented by O’Sullivan. The press release includes all four seasonal carbon dioxide flux figures. Of these figures, only the one representing July (the figure cherry picked by O’Sullivan for his blog) shows negative carbon dioxide flux over North America. Since summer in the northern hemisphere corresponds to the height of the northern hemisphere growing season and warmest temperatures (i.e., maximum carbon dioxide absorption and lower carbon dioxide emission), it is not surprising to find that this season has the lowest net carbon dioxide flux. All of the other seasons show net positive carbon dioxide flux over North America. If O’Sullivan had selected the October figure instead, he would have concluded that the worst carbon dioxide emitters (assuming that he again confuses emissions for flux) are the United States and Western Europe.

    Other seasonal figures contradict O’Sullivan’s other assertions. For instance, the January figure (corresponding to summer in the southern hemisphere) shows negative net carbon dioxide flux for the regions of Africa and South America below the equator. If O’Sullivan’s decision to base his analysis on a single seasonal figure was a simple mistake, it was a whopper because, besides misleading his readers, it is the kind of “convenient” error that leads to suspicion of dishonesty.

    Since John O’Sullivan describes himself as a climate science researcher, these simple mistakes are unforgivable. It reflects badly on the bloggers who echoed Sullivan’s fraudulent analysis too, because they accepted scientifically counterintuitive conclusions that they were eager to believe for political reasons. The lesson here is that people who are serious about being informed about climate science should check and rely on primary sources rather than interpretations by bloggers.

    I hope this comment will be accepted in the spirit it is offered–as an attempt to address the serious scientific flaws underlying Mr. O’Sullivan’s analysis. I also hope Mr. O’Sullivan will reply to this comment–I’m anxious to read a retraction of his original analysis or a justification for his claims that appear to stand in contradiction to information provided by JAXA.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2012 at 7:53 am said:

      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.

  16. Cara Hernandez on 02/01/2012 at 8:55 am said:

    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 referenced the JAXA press release with the relevant figures. Therefore the ball is now in your court; I will respond to any questions or comments you have regarding Mr. Sullivan’s article and/or my identification of his errors.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2012 at 10:50 am said:

      “…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)

      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 blame on developed North America for warming the planet extortionately – that warming BTW, having ceased for some time now. It seems (in view of the evidence) that human emissions of CO2 are not the climate driver they were thought to be.

    • Cara Hernandez on 02/01/2012 at 11:38 am said:

      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 been widely cited by bloggers, before moving on to other subjects.

      I also apologize for directing these comments at you. Ideally Mr. Sullivan would respond to my remarks, either acknowledging his errors or offering a defense of his work. Nevertheless, when serious scientific errors are made, it serves all of us who are interested in the advancement of scientific research and discussion to have those errors acknowledged and corrected.

      (By the way, the comparison you make between south-western Tropical Africa carbon dioxide flux and north-western Temperate North America carbon dioxide flux has no relevance to the incorrect conclusions that appear in Mr. O’Sullivan’s article. I’m sure you realize this but it’s worth stating for the benefit of other readers.)

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2012 at 12:57 pm said:

    “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 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 an effective warming agent in those 2 regions (let alone the entire globe) there would be a correlation with the temperature records for the corresponding areas over the same period. Let us know if you find that correlation.

  18. Cara Hernandez on 02/01/2012 at 2:24 pm said:

    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 with the scientific facts.

    More troubling in some respects is your surprisingly casual, incurious attitude towards establishing scientific fact. It’s clear that you’ve made no effort to focus your attention on the issue of carbon dioxide flux, evidenced by the fact that you make the factually incorrect statement that “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.” The “major study” that Mr. O’Sullivan seriously misunderstood does not in any way add “weight to the argument that human CO2 emissions are inconsequential.” Your statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the GOSAT data and an unwillingness to examine the scientific facts involved.

    Let me quote Mr. O’Sullivan from his article:

    “The Japanese satellite map shows regions colored the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.”

    This statement is blatantly false. The satellite maps (plural) show seasonal variation in carbon dioxide flux. Over the course of an entire year, the regions of Europe and North America both have positive carbon dioxide flux (i.e., they emit more carbon dioxide than they absorb).

    Let’s put numbers to this. Here are net carbon dioxide fluxes for 2009 from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (all units PgC yr-1):

    Europe 1.08
    North America 0.94

    These numbers confirm that John O’Sullivan’s analysis is faulty. Both Europe and North America show net positive flux, not negative flux as Mr. O’Sullivan asserts. Simply put, O’Sullivan is wrong.

    Let me quote from Mr. O’Sullivan’s article again:

    “By contrast the bulk of the regions colored red (so-called ‘carbon polluters’) were in undeveloped, densely forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America.”

    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

    Yet again, the data show John O’Sullivan’s claim is wrong–both Africa and South America show positive net carbon dioxide flux, but the flux is small compared to the flux for Europe and North America.

    And O’Sullivan is wrong again when he states “To all policymakers who study the Japanese maps it is apparent that the areas of greatest CO2 emissions are those regions with least human development and most natural vegetation: Equatorial Third World nations.” The facts, including the GOSAT flux maps Mr. O’Sullivan references and the data from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, contradict Mr. O’Sullivan’s contentions.

    Obviously I can’t force you to think about and/or discuss the scientific issues on which John O’Sullivan’s erroneous article is based. However, you asked for critical analysis of Mr. O’Sullivan’s article and I’ve provided it. It is up to you what you do with it. However, I strongly disagree with your opinion that a discussion of the scientific issues underlying Mr. Sullivan’s factually incorrect article is “of no consequence to anyone except yourself.” The creation of sound public policy depends on clear understanding of the scientific issues involved. This means that everyone should have an interest in deepening their knowledge of these issues and exposing factually incorrect analyses such as Mr. O’Sullivan’s.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/01/2012 at 6:48 pm said:

      “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):-

      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 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 NOAA CarbonTracker (“CT2010”), I select the long-term mean flux maps for North America: nd I see predominantly net negative fluxes in excess of -40 gC/m^2/yr which is at odds with the Time Series guessed by NOAA.

      I then select Flux Time Series for North Africa and I see net positive fluxes over the entire period 2000 – 2010.

      North Africa villain, North America squeaky clean using this comparison (not like-for-like but I think I make my point)

      You say:-

      Obviously I can’t force you to think about and/or discuss the scientific issues on which John O’Sullivan’s erroneous article is based

      Given NOAA’s corroborating (but oddly self contradictory) evidence, John’s interpretation is not “erroneous” (purely factual for July 2009) but it is misleading to present only the one month where NH is net absorbing and SH is net emitting.

      On the other hand he could also have highlighted the fact that the highly industrialized Eastern Seaboard of USA does not register much different to Equatorial Africa in January 2010 and April 2010 either. Possibly October 2010 makes USA the villain but why isn’t Pennsylvania and environs registering where there is major industry? That region is a net absorber in October 2010 again similar to Equatorial Africa.

      In respect to you not being able to “force” me “to think about and/or discuss the scientific issues” I already have looked at this issue thanks to John and have been amazed at what I have discovered. Clearly, this is not one of the “scientific issues” that the policymakers to which you allude, have a “clear understanding of” – and neither does NOAA apparently.

      From the 4 months provided by JAXA, what makes USA a worse emitter than Equatorial Africa in view of the completely disparate industrialization of each?

      As for Europe: July net absorbing; October net emitting; January net emitting; and, April neutral or net absorbing. What’s the problem?

      Taking all 4 months into consideration, Mongolia seems to be the worst emitter on the planet. This has not been big news in the media from what I have read, so why are they not cast as the villain?

  19. Cara Hernandez on 03/01/2012 at 6:23 am said:

    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:

    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:.

    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 South America in 2009.

    I hope the source of these values for carbon dioxide flux for 2009 is now clear.

    Regarding the long-term mean flux maps for North America that you reference, you write:

    “I see predominantly net negative fluxes in excess of -40 gC/m^2/yr which is at odds with the Time Series guessed by NOAA.”

    I assume you’re looking at the CarbonTracker 1°x1° land fluxes map, which represents the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 of the land biosphere averaged over the time period 2001-2009. Please remember though that this does not include carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions: “This NEE represents land-to-atmosphere carbon exchange from photosynthesis and respiration in terrestrial ecosystems, and a contribution from fires. It does not include fossil fuel emissions.”

    In fact, if you look at the summary results for North America, this information is consistent–carbon dioxide flux without accounting for fossil fuel emissions is negative (-0.60 PgC yr-1), but the net carbon dioxide flux (“total flux” from the table) is positive (1.25 PgC yr-1) when the contribution from fossil fuels is included (1.85 PgC yr-1). Therefore I find no inconsistency in the NOAA CarbonTracker data.

    Regarding the carbon dioxide flux for North Africa, it’s important to look at the details. First and most importantly, although the total carbon dioxide flux for North Africa is consistently positive, it’s also consistently small compared to North American flux. Second, please note the large role regional fires play in determining total flux. For example, the fossil fuel contribution is relatively small (0.13-0.18 PgC yr-1) while the contribution from regional fires is consistently large (0.36-0.71 PgC yr-1). Given that the mean total carbon dioxide flux for the period 2001-2009 for North Africa is 0.18 PgC yr-1, it’s readily seen that the contribution from regional fires is significant.

    With respect to your observations about the seasonal maps included in the JAXA release, I’m not in position to comment on the details of seasonal factors that affect specific regional flux contributions. I don’t have knowledge of the seasonal fire patterns in Africa, for example, and based on the data mentioned in the preceding paragraph, understanding the seasonal variations in fire patterns in Africa is necessary to explain the seasonal variations in carbon dioxide flux for the region.

    Finally, in response to your closing comments, I disagree that the NOAA lacks understanding of carbon dioxide flux data. Moreover, when the JAXA press release is studied carefully, it’s painfully clear that John O’Sullivan misrepresented the data presented therein, and that his conclusions based on this misrepresentation are incorrect. Data from NOAA’s CarbonTracker confirms that Mr. O’Sullivan’s analysis is blatantly wrong.

    Richard C, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate your effort to research the issue more deeply and to engage in this conversation.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/01/2012 at 7:49 am said:

      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 increase is attributable to ACO2 and why.

      2)b) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports the largest single driver of global warming is not ACO2 but the consequent water vapour. Cloud cover and solar radiation remain significant uncertainties.

      3)a) MIKE Sandiford does not mention that CO2 has no correlation with temperature on any time scale except for the last quarter of last century, and then only if the sun’s likely effect on cosmic rays and clouds is ignored.

      3)b) Changes in CO2 do not match temperature for the last decade, century, millennium or on million-year time scales. There have been periods of the past when CO2 was low and temperatures were much higher than the present, as well as periods when CO2 was a lot higher than today with temperatures much lower

      4)a) With ocean thermal expansion also at negligible levels and 4)b) the CERN experiments likely to confirm the link between solar activity and clouds in the near future, the climate alarmist house of cards is starting to crumble.

      Or is this not your area of expertise?

      What you have presented in your last comment is a clear indication of the miniscule contribution of ACO2 vs natural CO2 fluxes and even those we know are in turn of negligible effect in terms of atmospheric heating because it is water vapour (and the hydrological cycle) that is the greatest modulator of climate.

      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?

      Perhaps after this we can move on to the neglect by climate science of the heating effect on geologic material by downwelling long-wave radiation from GHGs?

  20. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 03/01/2012 at 9:19 am said:

    ‘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) on 03/01/2012 at 10:19 am said:

      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 troposphere. Some of these data sets, however, show the opposite – tropospheric warming that is greater than that at the surface. Thus, due to the considerable disagreements between tropospheric data sets, it is not clear whether the troposphere has warmed more than or less than the surface.”

      Oh no! The statements in the cited paper (John Christy, co-author) directly contradict James Taylor’s assertion! In other words, James Taylor is wrong (AGAIN!) unless you believe the scientific expertise of James Taylor (lawyer and PR agent for the fossil fuel industry) is greater than that of the 7 climate scientists (including John Christy) who are the lead authors on the paper.

      So there you have it, folks. You can choose to believe James Taylor (lawyer and fossil fuel company PR man, without a science degree) or seven independent climate scientist experts.

      cyruspinkerton thinks he’s got it wired but there’s more to that paper if Vincent Gray’s commentary on it is anything to go by:-


      A new publication on this subject by the NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), is now available in full (9.2MB) or in part, from

      The full title is “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”

      Its authors include T.R.Karl, T.M.Wigley, J.R.Christy, T.C. Peterson, F.J.Wentz, K.Y.Vinnikov, .R.W.Spencer, R.S.Vose, R.W. Reynolds, B.D.Santer, P.W. Thorne, C.K. Folland and D. Parker. This includes most of the people working on temperature records, with the notable exceptions of P.D. Jones and J.E.Hansen

      This study does not remove discrepancies between surface and lower troposphere temperature records, but, instead, confirms them. It shows that for temperature sequences comparatively free from the interference of natural influences there is no detectable warming in the lower troposphere, the place where the enhanced greenhouse effect is claimed to be evident. For six out of the seven the lower troposphere temperature records there is no influence of greenhouse forcing for a period of nineteen years, and even the seventh one shows no warming for ten of those years.. The warming evident on the surface for these periods cannot be due to greenhouse forcing, but must therefore have a different cause. Evidence that surface records are biased from urban influences, as shown by Gray (2001) and by McKitrick and Michaels seems the most likely explanation.

      Vincent R. Gray , M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C.
      Climate Consultant

      So yes, dropping the “GW” from AGW is a natural progression now that the “W” has eased off somewhat (AGC?). Besides, EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS in the here and now is an easier narrative to run with (and much more scary too).

    • Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 03/01/2012 at 5:38 pm said:

      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) on 03/01/2012 at 9:33 pm said:

      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 (or lower atmosphere) temperature is near-surface satellite (but not at-surface like Stevensons Screens note) and directly comparable to land-based thermometer series (also termed “near-surface”) taken from the Stevensons Screens. The trends of both should be near identical and any positive divergence should be by the satellite series but it’s the land-based series that are diverging positively from the satellite series hence the finger pointing at UHIE (and Hansens tweaking in the case of GISTEMP). Nicol 08 describes how CO2 is densest near the surface and also where the major radiative power absorption by CO2 takes place but convection and conduction provides rapid removal of heat from the land surface so satellites should be detecting a rising trend near-surface (faster than at-surface Stevensons Screens) due to accumulating CO2 if the theory holds and the measurements are true (they’re measuring heat and heat rises but supposedly then “trapped” by GHGs).

      Unfortunately it’s all haywire and land-based series reading warmer and accelerating positively away from the satellite series can be seen in the updates at

      The worst case is RSS and UAH MSU vs GISTEMP as can be seen in this comparison

      Hopefully I’ve got this right and haven’t put you crook because it’s a tricky concept to describe. Standby for lurker input if I’ve got it wrong.

      There’s another perspective that looks at both satellite and land-based series but without the familiar linear regressed trends on this page at Global Warming Science (including hot-spot down page, also recurrent cycles and PDO/AMO-temp correlation vs CO2-temp)

      Scroll down to:-

      The Satellite Era
      The following figure shows global average temperature from five data sets since the start of the satellite temperature data era in 1979 (RSS MSU and UAH MSU are satellite data, HadCRUT3, NCDC and GISS are surface station data sets – graph from From 1979 to 1997 there was no warming trend. The major El Nino then resulted in a residual warming of about 0.3 degrees. Since the 1998 end of the El Nino there has also been no warming trend – all of the warming in the last 30 years occurred in a single year. And yet this is the era that the IPCC says the warming is caused by CO2 – and alarmists are still saying that it’s getting worse, etc.

      ‘Climate Shift’ sums that up well I think (not a term we hear much of thanks to in vogue ‘Climate Change’).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/01/2012 at 12:21 pm said:

      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 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 on 04/01/2012 at 1:21 pm said:

      ‘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) on 04/01/2012 at 2:45 pm said:

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

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

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

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 03/01/2012 at 9:33 am said:

    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


    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.

    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:

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation