Cooking up warming

Among the difficult, arcane arguments entangled in the doctrine of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), the simplest, most immediate and most understandable is that a general warming leads to dangerous climate change. First warming, then dangerous changes. Nobody seems to argue with that — not openly, anyway.

But we find lots of talk about “climate change” that has nothing to do with warming, as though we can have one without the other, which in turn means that humanity can be criticised for “damage” they have no hand in. In these ways warmists work to alarm the naive. We must keep our heads on our shoulders.

Talking only about “climate change” shouldn’t confuse us: warming is required before we can cause changes in the climate system, even when warming isn’t mentioned. Nobody predicts that reduced rainfall, for example, might lead to cooling over Ethiopia, or that accelerated sea level rise could produce a heat wave in New York. Warming must occur first. Without warming, DAGW doesn’t exist.

So if we humans do indeed alter the climate, we must first heat it up. There’s no other way. Let’s put it backwards. In order to show a human hand in climate change we must first observe warming and then demonstrate that it was caused by human activity.

There’s one further point. There are two time threads in the DAGW fracas: predictions for the future and conclusions about the past. The future holds more climate calamity, according to the DAGW theory, than we can imagine. It’s going to be terrible. But it hasn’t happened yet and it might not happen, since there are no guarantees. No matter how compelling the arguments, no proof of future events is possible. It’s all study and debate, and reasoning and trying to find a consensus on what’s likely, according to the brightest and best-informed minds of our generation. Today we leave that future to itself and consider the past.

No warming for 16 years

The past is clearer because it has actually occurred and we observed it. We’re told that climate changes are already under way and people are studying them. Great, we could learn something. So this article looks at the past, not the future. Remember the warming has to come first and it has to be caused by us.

The facts are that for about 16 years there has been no substantial warming. This is astonishing, considering that we’re told almost daily that warming is “unequivocal” and that the evidence is “overwhelming.” No substantial warming has been seen since last century, certainly not as much as predicted 25 years ago, even though atmospheric carbon dioxide (the “evil cause” of warming!) has been rising remorselessly. For example, from Dr Roy Spencer’s blog, here are GISS global temperature predictions presented to Congress by James Hansen in 1988 compared with the subsequent satellite temperature observations from UAH and RSS:

Hansen predictions wrong

This graph from Mauna Loa shows the inexorable rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide over a slightly longer period:

CO2 Feb 2013

Some senior climate scientists have acknowledged this significant stasis (fully half the standard period for judging climatology) in global warming, including James Hansen and the British Met Office.

Other senior climate scientists have remained silent or have continued to claim substantial warming. For example, Dr James Renwick, climate scientist at Victoria University of Wellington, says that there’s “probably” been a temperature hiatus this century. But he cannot stop himself from also claiming “this doesn’t mean climate change is not happening.” Which is having one’s cake while eating it. Yes, 16 years is not 30 years (the normal period) but it’s a hell of a fraction! For the previous predictions to hold up, temperature must right now take an unbelievably huge step upward. Of course, that won’t happen.

Anyway, people keen on a climate crisis have noticed the hiatus (while pretending it doesn’t exist) and have become desperate to demonstrate that it’s still warming — it really, really is. What are they to do? They can’t just abandon “the greatest challenge in human history” as though the last 20 years of their lives have been a complete waste of time, even though they were. Imagine the humiliation.

So they search, as might be expected, for secondary, even tertiary, effects of warming and cite them as evidence that it has, after all, and in defiance of the failure of the thermometers to record warming, been warming. Now they talk confidently of “many lines of evidence”, none of which is the slightest bit convincing.

If these events occurred during global warming, we might agree they are the result of warming. But they have all occurred in the almost complete absence of global warming, which kind of breaks the spell. It spoils the illusion of DAGW. Because if the globe didn’t warm while these things happened, our burning fossil fuels had nothing to do with them. They were the result of natural variability and there’s no cause for concern.

This is not to say the future holds no measurable climatic effects from our steel mills, concrete plants, thermal power stations, internal combustion engines and profligate lifestyles — in fact, it’s quite reasonable to expect some — but there have been none detected so far.

Here’s a short list of secondary effects cited by warmists as proof of warming with brief comments.

  1. Changing onset of seasons

  2. I searched Google using the following key words:

    GOOGLE SCHOLAR “season creep” 2008 – 2013: 11 results
    GOOGLE SCHOLAR “onset of seasons” 2008 – 2013: 35 results

    Since there were 415,000 results for “climate change” from 2008 to 2013, 46 seems a small number of papers for such an important topic, although there may be phrases better suited to the search.

    Is the onset of the English summer advancing? “…the onset of summer in England has been advancing since the mid 1950s. The occurrence of ‘summer’ temperatures has advanced more than early summer flowering, by eleven and three days respectively in the 1990s compared to the period 1954–1963. This may have encouraged drought or heat wave conditions by prolonging the period of warm temperatures and lower rainfall in which these events occur.”

    I’ve spent hours looking for time series of the start and duration of seasons over two centuries or so, without success. Maybe they don’t exist. Without such a comparison, I strongly doubt that variations of “eleven and three days respectively” are outside the range of natural variability or even significant — much less caused by human activity.

    Consequences of Climate Change for Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in the Tropical Andes “While recognizing uncertainties in climate change projections, we suggest that the climatic fate of ecosystems and ecosystem services in the tropical Andean region will be largely related to a few key trends. First, there is widespread evidence of increasing air temperature across the region (+0.11°C / decade over the past 60 years), a trend that has intensified in the past 25 years (+0.34°C / decade; Vuille and Bradley 2000; see Marengo et al., Chapter 7 this volume). Recent studies have suggested that warming across the region is more evident in the minimum than maximum temperature time series (Vuille et al. 2008; see Marengo et al., Chapter 7 this volume). Second, there is some evidence of change in patterns of precipitation, but these changes vary between eastern and western slopes of the Andes and inter-Andean valleys. Third, changes in cloud cover may also be significant for ecosystems, both in terms of rising cloud levels (Foster 2001; Ruiz et al. 2008; 2009) and in terms of the sunshine to cloud ratio. Some evidence suggests a decrease in occurrence of cloudy weather in the northern Andes, a trend that leads to more hours of sun exposure (Ruiz et al. 2008; 2009; Chapter 12, this volume).”

    It’s difficult to be impressed by the magnitude of the variations in these climate metrics.

    Tropical Andes temperatures 1939-2006

    The original caption for this figure is: “Figure 1.1. Temporal and spatial changes in mean temperature and precipitation in the tropical Andes. (a) Annual temperature anomaly with respect to 1961-90 average in the tropical Andes (1°N-23°S) from 1939 and 2006. Gray shading indicates ±2standard errors of the mean. The long-term warming trend (0.10°C/decade) is also indicated (from Vuille et al., 2008).”

    I can’t see any cause for concern in these temperature anomalies, can you?

    We must take the discussion of the “creeping” seasons with a huge grain of salt, since there’s no definition of the seasons to begin with, so how can anyone say with confidence how they might be shifting?

  3. Sea level rise

  4. NASA says: “Global sea level rose about 17 cm in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.” But it speaks with forked tongue. Here’s the record from the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado:

    Sea level Feb 2013

    Compare this with the New Zealand record at Auckland, 1899 to 2007:

    Sea level Auckland 1899-2007

  5. Polar bear endangerment

  6. They’re fine.

  7. North pole ice cap melting

  8. Only when winds and currents move the stuff into the North Atlantic.

  9. Antarctic ice melting

  10. Yep, every year. Details, anyone?

  11. More and stronger cyclones

  12. Nope, not happening.

NASA, that bastion of dependable astrophysical, but not climate, science, adds:

  • Warming oceans

  • Not too much, obviously, or the air would be warming, and it isn’t.

  • Shrinking ice sheets

  • Declining Arctic sea ice

  • Glacial retreat

  • For some, but by no means all glaciers.

  • Extreme events

  • Not happening.

  • Ocean acidification

  • Maybe, but it’s patchy, low magnitude and there are no historical reference points.

Visits: 610

148 Thoughts on “Cooking up warming

  1. Magoo on 17/02/2013 at 10:09 pm said:

    It’s interesting to note that the effects of AGW are supposed to be visible from the early 1980’s onwards. The temp record shows a warming from approx 1980 until 1997. In other words, the only warming attributable to AGW is 17 years followed by 16 yrs of no warming – hardly decisive evidence of AGW, especially when all the computer models failed to predict the lack of warming. The global sea level rise graph in the technical summary of the IPCC’s draft AR5 (page TS 79) shows that the rise in sea levels is slowing down instead of accelerating.

    Both the lack of warming for 16 yrs and the slowing of the rise in sea levels has occurred during a consistent rise in CO2 levels as evidenced by the top graph in the IPCC’s AR5 draft page 79. Combined with a failure to provide evidence of positive feedback from water vapour during the years 1980-1997 there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for AGW, let alone that of the catastrophic kind. As for Arctic sea ice, this nice movie from NASA shows how the ice was destroyed by a storm instead of AGW:

  2. Simon on 17/02/2013 at 10:24 pm said:

    You seem to be arguing that the warming exhibited over the last 50 years is natural variability but the hiatus over the last 16 years is somehow not. If n=30 years is a sufficiently large sample for statistical testing, then the converse is surely true. The choice of 16 years is, of course, a piece of cherry-picking to make the start-point the 1998 mega El Niño. We all agree that the warming over the past 30 years is statistically significant, so why try and deny it?

    • Magoo on 17/02/2013 at 11:35 pm said:

      What warming over the last 30 years? It’s only been warming from the beginning of the 1980 to 1997 – 17 yrs.

      The IPCC’s draft AR5 shows no warming during the last 16 yrs (page 79, 2nd graph ‘temperature anomaly’) & not only has it not warmed but the temperature has dropped out of the bottom of all the computer model predictions.:

      This finding is reinforced by the UK Met Office – CRU:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 3:19 pm said:

      Climb down on drought, FOD Technical Summary (Magoo’s link above) page 32:-

      1 While the AR4 concluded that it is more likely than not that anthropogenic influence has 1 contributed to an 2 increase in the droughts observed in the second half of the 20th century, an updated assessment of the 3 observational evidence indicates that the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in hydrological 4 droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. Owing to the low confidence in observed large-scale 5 trends in dryness combined with difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long 6 term climate change we now conclude there is low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over 7 global land since the mid-20th century to human influence. {2.6, 10.6}

      Not much of a stretch substituting “temperature” for “drought” in that assessment, so we get:-

      Owing to the low confidence in observed large-scale trends in temperature combined with difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in temperature from long term climate change we now conclude there is low confidence in the attribution of changes in temperature over global land since the mid-20th century to human influence

    • Simon,

      You seem to be arguing that the warming exhibited over the last 50 years is natural variability but the hiatus over the last 16 years is somehow not.

      Not natural? That’s ridiculous and it’s not what I said. I’m saying that CO2 cannot be driving the temperature because it’s not getting warmer.

      The choice of 16 years is, of course, a piece of cherry-picking to make the start-point the 1998 mega El Niño.

      No (1998 + 16 = 2014), this is 2013. The 1998 El Nino isn’t a factor – have you seen the UAH graph? Take it from 2001 if you like — that’s still 12 years, and all of it level or a slight decline. In fact, my Mk I eyeball reckons there’s been no warming since about 1988, which is 25 years.

      This is not cherry-picking, Simon, because I’m stating clearly the period of interest. The point is to show a significant chunk of the 30 years for climatology wherein the global temperature has risen well below the predictions. That is a true statement. So for the predictions to come true, there’ll have to be an impossibly steep warming occurring quite soon, which is unlikely to the point of impossibility. Do you disagree?

    • Simon on 18/02/2013 at 9:01 am said:

      Both the 1996/97 and 1997/98 El Niños were exceptional warm. You would get a warming trend if you started in 2001, but that’s not really long enough to be definitive.
      2013 is shaping up, barring volcanic activity, as one of the hotter years ever recorded so it will be interesting to see if you change your analysis period next year. Because this is how you view global warming.

    • Andy on 18/02/2013 at 9:10 am said:

      Funny how I knew that was the escalator graph from SkS before I even hovered over the link.

      2013 is “shaping up” to be one of the hottest ever recorded? There must be some confident punters out there given that we are only 6 weeks into the year.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 9:35 am said:

      It hasn’t occurred to SkS and acolytes that escalators have landings.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 9:20 am said:

      >”2013 is shaping up, barring volcanic activity, as one of the hotter years ever recorded”

      You make this assessment after ONE month? But to be expected in the current standstill regime anyway – duh!

      BTW, what will be the drivers for the rest of the year if it is to follow your prediction and what were the drivers for the January spike given the localized concentrations of heat in the geo-spatial plots (Australia heat wave hardly a blip).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 3:41 pm said:

      >”You would get a warming trend if you started in 2001″

      No you wouldn’t.

      Note RSS includes the latest January upwards spike but HadCRUT4 doesn’t and yet RSS has the greater negative linear trend.

      That’s the thing about only using linear trends all the time Simon, it warps your thinking. Anyone who has applied more statistically appropriate trend methods (best R^2 values) knows perfectly well that the peak passed in the early 2000s and wouldn’t have made the unsupportable claim you did.

      The negative linear trend is even more pronounced since 2002:-

      But HadSST2 SH is the leading indicator:-

    • Simon on 18/02/2013 at 11:30 pm said:

      RT’s graph was UAH.
      Fitting multi-order polynomials is highly inappropriate because of inflection points that lead to wildly misleading future extrapolations. If you are not going to use any explanatory variables then you are better of considering temperature data as a time series and find an appropriate process e.g. random walk with trend or AR(1). Better yet, create a simple climate model with multiple significant variables, e.g. ENSO, volcanic episodes, Milankovitch cycles. See if you can do it without having to add some explanation of upward trend such as CO2 🙂

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 9:04 am said:

      >”Fitting multi-order polynomials is highly inappropriate….”

      Are you denying statistically superior R2 values compared to linear regressions Simon? The object of the exercise is to apply a trend that BEST represents the data. A straight line is NOT an appropriate representation of cyclical data but a polynomial or moving average is. A single linear trend does not identify the data peak (zenith) in the early 2000s, a polynomial or moving average does.

      >”…because of inflection points that lead to wildly misleading future extrapolations”

      Huh? At what point did I extrapolate anything? But identification of inflexion points (whether new data verifies a phase change or not) can be done with multi-linear or polynomial curves, that is the whole point. Sceptics are pointing to an inflexion identified by an increasing length of time without a statistically significant rising trend. At this juncture, the inflexion is verified by statistically superior trend methods and both line (since 2002) and curve are pointing to a negative phase change. We will have to wait a few years to see what actually transpires of course.

      >”See if you can do it without having to add some explanation of upward trend such as CO2″

      But what “upward trend” is there in temperature? There is has been no statistically significant “upward trend” in temperature for 16 – 23 years depending on series despite the upward trend in CO2 – get that into your head.

      There is a perfectly good explanation from celestial cycles without invoking CO2. The current elevated temperature and standstill is consistent with solar activity, the solar grand maximum passed in the late 20th century but there is still plenty of accumulated heat in the planet’s greatest heat sink to keep levels elevated for some time. Once the source of energy diminishes however, there’s no driver for further temperature rise. Remember too that CO2 “forcing” is simply recycled solar-sourced energy.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 10:05 am said:

      Has Global Warming Stalled?

      For this analysis, data was retrieved from and the ironically named This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets. The first number in each case was sourced from WFT. However the second +/- number was taken from

      For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
      For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
      For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
      For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
      For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
      For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
      For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
      For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
      For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
      For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

      If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set, they are as follows: RSS since September 1989; UAH since April 1993; Hadcrut3 since September 1993; Hadcrut4 since August 1994; GISS since October 1995 and NOAA since June 1994.

    • Simon – you mention time series and AR(1). This isn’t an area of expertise of mine, but Doug Keenan has written about it here

      This article also appeared as an Op Ed in the WSJ

      (I alluded to this upthread)

      The key part of his argument is

      To draw that conclusion, the IPCC had to make an assumption about the global temperature series. The assumption that it made is known as the “AR1” assumption (this is from the statistical concept of “first-order autoregression”). The assumption implies, among other things, that only the current value in a time series has a direct effect on the next value. For the global temperature series, it means that this year’s temperature affects next year’s, but temperatures in previous years do not. For example, if the last several years were extremely cold, that on its own would not affect the chance that next year will be colder than average. Hence, the assumption made by the IPCC seems intuitively implausible.

      and he then goes on to say

      In other words, the assumption used by the IPCC is simply made by proclamation. Science is supposed to be based on evidence and logic. The failure of the IPCC to present any evidence or logic to support its assumption is a serious violation of basic scientific principles.

      Moreover, standard checks show that the global temperature series does not conform to the assumption made by the IPCC; one such check is discussed in a separate section below. Thus, the claim that the increase in global temperatures is significant—the principal conclusion of a major chapter of the IPCC report—was based on an assumption that is insupportable. More generally, the IPCC has failed to demonstrate that global temperatures are significantly increasing.

    • Simon on 19/02/2013 at 5:45 pm said:

      John von Neumann once said: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
      What he meant was that he could make a model fit anything but it doesn’t mean that the model reflects reality. Once again you are confusing trend with variation.
      If temperatures are static to declining for thirty plus years then you would have a fair argument and there would be presumably some measurable explanation, e.g. an aerosol or cloud effect.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 6:09 pm said:

      >”Once again you are confusing trend with variation”

      But there is NO variation in CO2 Simon, it is a monotonic trend. Some other forcing is obviously overwhelming what was thought to be the major climate driver since the late 70s to create the variation, therefore the significance of CO2 (if there ever was any) is significantly diminished from what was previously thought.

      We are certainly not confused between the two in that context but has it not occurred to you that there just MIGHT have been a regime change given the change from statistically insignificant warming to standstill so that what you are considering to be variation could possibly be the new trend for a while consistent with an alternative driver, say solar (see down-thread)?

    • If temperatures are static to declining for thirty plus years then you would have a fair argument and there would be presumably some measurable explanation, e.g. an aerosol or cloud effect.

      or your theory is wrong

    • Australis on 28/02/2013 at 1:37 pm said:


      Yes, there has been a warming trend over the past 30 years and even over the past 20 years. There have been three warming episodes since instrumental measurements began around 1850 (1860-80, 1910-40 and 1978-98) and they have all been at the same rate.

      The IPCC believed the latest trend was different – not a transient product of scores of natural influences, but a sustained distortion proportionate to GHG emissions from fossil fuels.

      The only “experiment” available to prove the IPCC hypothesis right or wrong was to wait and watch. If the IPCC is right, the late 20th century episode won’t stop – it will just keep ploughing on. But it has stopped!

      One can play with semantics and say the past 16 years is an (unexplained) “lull” or “timeout” or “gap”. That’s what they said last year and five years ago. But there’s no evidence of that. It’s just stopped happening.

      The question now is whether a new warming episode might start. But the old one is kaput.

    • Skeptical Science don’t accept the “pause” or whatever. See my comment #46 and beyond

    • So much arm waving…. Good insomnia cure, that thread

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 8:43 am said:

      >”The choice of 16 years is, of course, a piece of cherry-picking to make the start-point the 1998 mega El Niño.”

      Wrong. There’s been no statistically significant warming in RSS for the last 23 years and none in UAH for 19, the 16 yr span is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

      >”We all agree that the warming over the past 30 years is statistically significant, so why try and deny it?>

      Who’s denying that Simon? The point is, when the temperature standstill is out to around 20 yrs of a 30 yr climate period as in the satellite record but CO2 has continued to rise and diverge, any temperature/CO2 correlation there may have been (tenuous at best) is now at the point of becoming a proven fallacy i.e. the statistically significant 30 yr warming isn’t even anthropogenic in origin, let alone dangerous.

      But of course in the face of the standstill in atmospheric warming we have AGW stalwarts insisting – based on every convoluted and contorted data torture exercise they can think of – that global warming continues unabated, “the true background anthropogenic global warming signal” apparently.

      As David Rose puts it – “Who are the deniers now?”

    • If you follow Doug Keenan’s line of reasoning on time series then there has been no statistically significant warming, at all, since records began

      However, regardless of that, I think the key point is that the temps are deviating from the model trajectories (as shown on the AR5 graph posted by Magoo)

      If this carries on, then they either have to decrease to central estimate of CS, or increase the error bars.

      Or you could adopt the SkS strategy and claim that the warming is going into the deep ocean

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 1:20 pm said:

      >”If this carries on, then they either have to decrease to central estimate of CS…”

      Looks like they’re leaving that for AR6 2019 (postponing the inevitable). SPM SOD page 11:-

      25 Key Metrics Characterizing Anthropogenic Climate Change
      27 • Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most 28 likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely.

      >”Or you could adopt the SkS strategy and claim that the warming is going into the deep ocean”

      My big bone-of-contention is the anthropogenic attribution to ocean heating. Neither SkS or the IPCC actually specify “deep” ocean, just that 90% of warming “goes into the ocean” but SkS actually contradict themselves (see below). I’m writing up Part 2 of a 2 part article analyzing quotes from IPCC WGI SOD Chapter 10, Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli that describe their respective versions of an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism and the notion just becomes laughable when you look closely at the assertions. SkS are actually offside (the subtitle of the 2 part article) with the IPCC saying solar-sourced heat is not coming out of the ocean (an insulation effect) in contradiction to the IPCC (and Nuccitelli – his view is ambiguous) who say GHG-sourced heat is “going into” the ocean. Those are fundamentally different mechanisms.

      Meantime AR5 SPM SOD page 4:-

      40 • Warming of the ocean accounts for more than 90% of the extra energy stored by the Earth between 41 1971 and 2010. Upper ocean (0–700 m) heat content very likely increased at a rate between 74 [43 to 42 105] × 1012 W and 137 [120 to 154] × 1012 W for the relatively well-sampled 40 year period from 1971 43 to 2010. Warming has also been observed globally below 4000 m and below 1000 m in the Southern 44 Ocean, in spite of sparse sampling

      From that and some very dubious (laughable on close scrutiny) Chapter 10 reasoning they conclude (page 10):-

      6 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

      41 • It is very likely that more than half of the ocean warming observed since the 1970s is caused by external 42 forcing, mainly due to a combination of both anthropogenic forcing and volcanic eruptions (see Figure 43 SPM.4). It is extremely likely that this warming has resulted in global mean sea level rise due to thermal 44 expansion during this period. {10.4.1, 10.4.3}

      # # #

      There are 4 major issues developing for the IPCC that I can see so far and as Annan puts it wrt CS, the IPCC are in “a bit of a pickle”. That applies to their atmospheric temperature, solar and ocean heating assessments too.

    • Thanks to Ken Perrott who links to this comment via his profound new post Climate Change is not Simple

      Really? So why did you link to a comment about time series analysis Ken?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/03/2013 at 12:16 pm said:

      Ken’s reasoning being based on the assumption that GCM’s are all realisticallly parameterized. Given the 21st century GO from them he might like to think about the possibility of GI. And the fact that one of only two institutions to actually mimic 21st century temperature so far doesn’t regard CO2 to be a major climate driver (RAS).

      He might like to check out Mike’s AGU trick too wrt “Isn’t cherry picky wonderful?”.

    • Sorry Andy – the link was to identify you, not the blog post. I wrote:

      “So we get this sort of thing being promoted by climate change deniers (thanks to Andy for this one). Didn’t someone say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? And isn’t cherry picking a great way of restricting knowledge?”

      Just wanted to give people a taste of your arguments.

      I have changed the link so that it is more appropriate.

    • Oh thanks Ken. I really appreciate that link. As I have said before, I do stand by everything that I say against you and the sanctimonious semi-literates that hover around NZ “science” blogs.

      So if you wish to hover around here like a bad smell then I would be more than happy to infest your blog once again with foul and intemperate language.

      By the way Ken, have you had a word with Pachauri who seems to think that there has been a pause in global warming for 17 years. Or do you think that “deniers” having misquoted him?

      It must be hard for you Ken, having no one visit your “science” blog, then you have to come over here, run hit pieces on me to drum up support so your skinheads Richard Christie and Cedric Katesby can have a little fun

    • So what is it Ken? Do you want me to drop by your “science” blog and litter it with profanities so you can link back to it later?

      A simple yes or no will do Ken

    • Magoo on 04/03/2013 at 2:08 pm said:

      I’ve often wondered whether openparachute would be better off as a facebook page, that way it might have a wider audience than 2 people.

    • This “cherry picking” that shows 16 or 17 years of no warming has now been acknowledged by the head of the IPCC

  3. Australis on 18/02/2013 at 2:36 am said:

    Richard Tol has just published a graph showing net economic benefits from global warming up to a level above 2°C.

    So, if crusading governments manage to reduce emissions to a point where there is no further AGW, the populace will be demonstrably worse off. Not only to they bear the mitigation cost but they miss out on the improved food production, reduced disease, etc which would have accrued if the governments had butted out.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 10:05 am said:

    >”I’ve spent hours looking for time series of the start and duration of seasons over two centuries or so,”

    David Archibald at WUWT ‘The UK Growing Season’ 1772 – 2011:-

    Nothing on season start though but David’s observations on a shorter growing season than what is currently enjoyed in combination with energy constraints is sobering:-

    “There has already been an increase in winter deaths in the UK as some pensioners have not been able to afford to heat their houses. Starvation, on the other hand, is something you can do all year round, irrespective of the season. As the prices of fossil fuels that aren’t oil converge towards the oil price as the oil price itself rises, physically doing anything in the UK will use energy priced as if the energy source was oil. The UK will find itself bidding for the shrinking supplies of oil and grain, the two basic commodities that keep machines and men fed, on international markets as the decade progresses.”

  5. Magoo on 18/02/2013 at 10:51 am said:

    Thought I might just throw this into the soup as well from an article on WUWT.

    It would seem that, according to Simon, all these lines of observation are wrong as well as the findings of the IPCC and the UK Met Office, and the temperature is actually really rising. The real mystery is how the IPCC are going to spin it in their next report, it’s a good thing someone leaked the draft before they get the chance.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2013 at 12:35 pm said:

      >”The real mystery is how the IPCC are going to spin it in their next report”

      WGI SOD takes the safe option and ignores the issue altogether in Chapter 2 from what I can see. They’re blinkered (also fingers in ears – “I can’t hear you, la la la…”) by 1979 – 2011 linear trends (starts page 28):-

      SPM SOD same (page 3):-

      1 Atmosphere Observations
      3 Widespread warming is observed from the surface of the Earth throughout the troposphere and cooling is 4 identified in the stratosphere. Globally averaged near surface temperatures have increased since the 5 beginning of the 20th century and the warming has been particularly marked since the 1970s. Each of the last 6 three decades has been significantly warmer than all preceding decades since 1850.

      21 • The global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about 0.8°C over the period 22 1901–2010 and about 0.5°C over the period 1979–2010 when described by a linear trend.

      Then from that they conclude (page 10):-

      6 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
      8 It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global 9 average surface temperature since the 1950s

      # # #

      I don’t know why they even bothered with another assessment if they’re just going to ignore the most significant developments since the last report that cast considerable doubt on that conclusion and instead regurgitate specious linear trend based reasoning.

      Just fulfilling their mandate I guess.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 4:12 pm said:

    Abdussamatov cooking up cooling:-

    ‘Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth’

    Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS


    Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

    Page 4.:-

    4. Bicentennial Decrease of the TSI Leads to the Little Ice Age

    From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and bicentennial components of TSI variations are decreasing at accelerating (at present) rate (Fig. 2), and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the Earth is declining at practically the same rate (e.g., Fröhlich, 2011; Abdussamatov, 2007b, 2009a, b). Average value of TSI in the 23rd cycle was by 0.17 W/m2 less than in the 22nd cycle. Smoothed value of TSI in the minimum between the cycles 23/24 (1365.24 ± 0.02 W/m2) was by 0.26 W/m2 and by 0.33 W/m2 less than in the minima between cycles 22/23 and
    21/22, respectively. However, forming from early 1990s long-term deficit of TSI (see Fig. 2) was not compensated by decrease in the emission of the Earth intrinsic thermal energy into space which practically remains on the same high level during 14±6 years due to thermal inertia of the World Ocean


    This gradual consumption of solar energy accumulated by the World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after 14±6 years because of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth. This, in its turn, will lead to the rise of Earth albedo, the drop of atmospheric concentration of the most important greenhouse gas – water vapor, as well as of carbon dioxide and other gases. Let us note that water vapor absorbs ~68% of the integral power of the intrinsic long-wave emission of the Earth, while carbon dioxide – only ~12%. As a consequence, a portion of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth will gradually go down together with manifestations of the greenhouse effect caused by the secondary feedback effects. The influence of the growing consecutive chain of such changes will cause additional decrease of the global temperature exceeding the effect of a bicentennial TSI decrease.


    In the nearest future we will observe a transition (between global warming and global cooling) period of unstable climate changes with the global temperature fluctuating around its maximum value reached in 1998-2005. After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055±11. Thus, long-term variations of TSI (with account for their direct and secondary, based on feedback effects, influence) are the main fundamental cause of climate changes since variations of the Earth climate is mainly determined by a long-term imbalance between the energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere and the total energy emitted from the Earth back to space.

    The charts:

    Figure 1. Variations of both the TSI and solar activity 1978 – 2011

    Figure 2. Variations of the TSI 1978 -2011 and deficit of the TSI since 1990

    Figure 3. Variations of both the TSI and solar activity 1978 – 2011 and a forecast of their variations in cycles 24-26 (up to the year 2045)

    Figure 4. The TSI and solar activity variations since 1611 and our forecast their changes (dash lines)

    By the way, this is not just “any” scientist.

    In addition to his work as head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov is also head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

    I’ll have a look for this citation in the AR5 SOD but I very much doubt it’s even acknowledged.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 4:18 pm said:

      Also from RAS

      “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

      “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

      The RAS INM-CM4 model mimics 21st century temperature better than any other CMIP5/AR5 GCM (blue line):-

      Ironic that these Russians have the freedom to offer contra-consensus opinions without losing their jobs.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 5:49 pm said:

      >”I’ll have a look for this citation in the AR5 SOD but I very much doubt it’s even acknowledged.”

      Nope, not in Chapter 10 or 12 and no Russian authors of Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing so (probable reason) no Abdussamatov citation. Page 32:- Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of TSI
      43 Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001; Usoskin et al., 2003) reveal that currently the Sun 44 is in a grand activity maximum that began ~1920. However, SC 23 showed a previously unseen activity 45 decline (McComas et al., 2008; Russell et al., 2010; Smith and Balogh, 2008). Most current estimations 46 suggest that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI than the previous ones (Abreu et al., 2008; 47 Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). Recent 48 estimates of the RF between the modern minimum in 2008 and this 21st century minimum indicate a 49 negative RF of about 0.04–0.07 W m–2 (Jones et al., 2012; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). However, much 50 more evidence is needed and at present we have a very low confidence concerning future solar forcing 51 estimates.
      53 Nevertheless, if there is such a diminished solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations 54 will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).

      They have “high confidence” TSI variation will be smaller than GHG forcing because they haven’t looked into the future solar scenario that Abdussamatov documents.

      Page 20 Chapter 12:-

      12.3.2 Implementation of Forcings in CMIP5 Experiments

      50 Natural forcings (arising from solar variability and aerosol emissions via volcanic activity) are also specified 51 elements in the CMIP5 experimental protocol, but their future time evolutions are not prescribed very 52 precisely. A repeated 11-year cycle for total solar irradiance (Lean and Rind, 2009) is suggested for future 53 projections but the periodicity is not specified precisely as solar cycles vary in length. A few models include 54 the effect of orbital variations as well, but most do not.

      For some perspective, Abdussamatov’s TSI forecast is for a reduction of over 6 W-m2 by 2045 but these guys (including Weaver, Wehner, Fasullo and Rahmstorf) think “A repeated 11-year cycle for total solar irradiance (Lean and Rind, 2009) is suggested for future 53 projections” is a complete and realistic review – the Chapter 8 guys checked out the “negative [solar] RF of about 0.04–0.07 W m–2” from around 2008 so no need to go investigating 6 W-m2 TSI reductions predicted for 2045 even though they have “low confidence” and “much more evidence is needed” (so why didn’t they acquire what was available?).

      The separation of IPCC thinking from solar specialist thinking could not be anymore stark than that.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2013 at 8:04 pm said:

      Can’t find Velasco-Herrera et al 2012 anywhere but Jones et al 2012 is here:-

      ‘What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near surface temperature changes?’

      Gareth S. Jones, Mike Lockwood, and Peter A. Stott

      Model-based study in which projections were already out-of-the-money by 2010 (page 42). Just skimming, the largest TSI forcing they ran was 0.44 Wm2 (page 38), others were 0.22 and 0.17 Wm2. Compare that to Abdussamatov’s 6 Wm2.

      Needless to say they conclude (page 17):-

      “Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences”

      “…a Maunder-minimum like future change gives relative reductions of less than 0.13K”

      And that ladies and gentlemen is the best solar scenario that the IPCC can buy

  7. Off topic (slightly) but locals at Hot Topic question my analysis of the latest Bloomberg “report” that wind energy is cheaper than coal.

    These guys really are quite slow off the block. Obviously, when we know that wind is probably the most expensive way to generate electricity known to humankind, it comes as a surprise that suddenly it is the cheapest

    But of course, if you were on the ball you would have noticed Bishop Hill’s blog post on Feb 11th, ( a whole 9 days after Herr Thomas decided to troll me for comments) in which the Bish links to a “consensus” blog that demolishes these claims fairly swiftly

    I would comment on their own blog but I am on permanent moderation and the boss in on holiday.

  8. Bishop Hill on detection and attribution seems very relevant here

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2013 at 10:19 am said:

      Chapter 10 (D&A) will be dissected remorselessly. Already I see the words “pickle”, “headache” and “disintegration” being used.

      And from what I’ve read of the Chap 10 SOD so far there will be more of that language to come – but probably less polite I suspect.

  9. Norman Page’s article in WUWT would appear to be right up Richard C’s street.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2013 at 10:56 am said:

      I thought it more a case of stating-the-obvious than anything – something the IPCC struggles with at times e.g. SREX 2011 from that post (my emphasis):-

      Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability

      At least that’s sensible (in IPCC terms) but that statement actually contradicts AR5 Chapter 8 SOD reasoning based on Gareth S. Jones, Mike Lockwood, and Peter A. Stott 2012 (linked up-thread) who say:-

      “Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences

      Given the solar scenario that Lockwood thought (and Jones and Stott must have agreed because they referred to the opinion) had only a 5% chance of occurring looks to be playing out as predicted, the SREX authors might survive with credibility intact but I’m thinking there could be some red faces among the AR5 Chapter 8 authors (and the authors of the papers they cite) from about 2014 onwards, certainly by 2020.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2013 at 9:43 pm said:

      Now I see why Jones, Lockwood and Stott are cited in Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution but Abdussamatov is not. Stott is a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 10, Jones and Lockwood are Contributing Authors of same.

      ‘Nuff said.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2013 at 8:25 am said:

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

    That’s another 13 to 23 years of insignificant rise or standstill by his reckoning but what if in 4 years time (2017) the trend has broken BELOW the lower significance limit of the present trend – that is not out of the question in the current solar regime.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2013 at 8:43 am said:

      “present trend” should be – present 17 year trend.

    • He also acknowledges that shale gas has played a big role in reducing emissions in the USA, and that nuclear is an option.

      His friends at Greenpeace will not be happy at all.

    • The article is paywalled, but the full text (from a reliable source) is here

      Nothing off-limits’ in climate debate

      by: Graham Lloyd
      From: The Australian
      February 22, 2013 12:00AM

      THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

      Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.

      In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

      In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

      “People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said.

      He said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena”.

      Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

      Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.

      Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.

      “The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.

      “If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.

      “What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.

      “This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”

      He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.

      “If you look at the last century, records tell you that the increase in average surface temperature has been 0.74C,” he said.

      “If you have five or 10 years when you don’t have the same trend, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are deviating from the trend – you are still around the trend.”

      Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer – following a record melt last winter – was consistent with the current understanding of climate change.

      He said the IPCC had “clearly specified there are going to be extreme precipitation events”.

      “If in the Arctic, for example, we get a huge amount of snowfall this year, you will get ice formation,” Dr Pachauri said.

      “That again is something that doesn’t deviate from the trend, which time and again has shown that ice cover in the Arctic is shrinking.”

      Dr Pachauri said the IPCC was yet to finalise its estimates for sea-level rises and the contribution from melting ice sheets.

      Commenting on the global energy transformation, Dr Pachauri said renewables faced an uncertain future in Europe, where public subsidies were being wound back and the carbon trading market had slumped.

      He said there were many reasons for this, including the global financial crisis.

      Dr Pachauri said nuclear energy was a reality that “you can’t wish away” and would be dealt with in the upcoming fifth IPCC report.

      He said the shale-gas revolution sweeping the US was already having a big impact on that country’s carbon dioxide emissions.

      “In terms of emissions, gas is certainly less than coal,” Dr Pachauri said.

      But he added that the importance of gas as a transitional fuel globally would depend on availability and price.

      Overall, Dr Pachauri said, “we aren’t doing all that well” in global attempts to combat climate change.

      “There is a lot of awareness now but a lot of people also talk about these things of a fashion, without necessarily understanding what it represents and what sort of actions we need to take.”

    • Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change

      This man has been taking the crazy pills again

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2013 at 10:30 am said:

      Notice though that climate change is a foregone conclusion in his statement so yes, we can discuss the controversies all we like (he’s given us license), that’s just somehow part of tackling climate change. I’m not quite sure how that works but he should know.

      Tom Nelson picked out this:-

      “If in the Arctic, for example, we get a huge amount of snowfall this year, you will get ice formation,”

    • but I thought this 17 years of no warming “denier meme” (to use the vernacular) had been repeatedly debunked

      How can the great man himself start using headlines from The Daily Mail.?

      Was it really Pauchauri? Has anyone seen Monckton recently?

    • Of course, we could have flat-lined temps for a thousand years and the creed will still be claiming a warming trend, just by plotting a flat line between start and end points

      However, it is fairly academic, as western civilisation will be well gone long before then.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2013 at 6:58 pm said:

      The Rajendra Pachauri Puzzle
      February 20, 2013
      By Donna Laframboise

      “This explains a number of things that have puzzled me. Now that I understand that Pachauri’s life has been lived in a cocoon, I realize that nothing in his previous experience taught him that it isn’t sufficient to claim to be “working on an objective assessment of all aspects of climate change.” In order to be taken seriously, a person actually has to behave as though they are objective.

      No one has ever demanded that Pachauri walk the talk before. This is a brand new concept for him. And he has been an extraordinarily slow learner.”

    • Richard C,
      my guess is that Pauchari had a very long flight in which he took advantage of the inflight Daily Mail and then happened to bump into Monckton at the airport who was dressed in drag as a Greenpeace activist, who fed him the lines

      I can’t think of any other rational explanation.

    • I can’t think of any other rational explanation.

      Gotta be right, then.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2013 at 8:52 am said:

    Science to ‘win’ on climate

    * by: Graham Lloyd, Environment writer
    * From: The Australian
    * February 23, 2013 12:00AM

    A PAUSE in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office and NASA climate scientist James Hanson, was temporary and science would win out over climate change denial, public ethics professor Clive Hamilton said yesterday.

    Professor Hamilton’s comments follow acknowledgement by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri of the British Met Office’s downward revision of its forecast global temperature average to 2017. The downward revision has been widely reported internationally as meaning the global average temperature would have remained steady, at a record high level, for two decades.


    Professor Hamilton said: “Of course I accept the Met Office’s analysis, but I reject the spin put on it by some news organisations, including The Australian, that it is some kind of admission that global warming is not as serious as previously believed. The Met Office itself has attempted to correct that distortion.

    “The factors responsible for the levelling out of warming, albeit at record highs, are expected to pass in a few years. Then we are in real trouble.”


    Professor Hamilton said: “Of course everyone has the right to question the science of climate change, in the same way that everyone has the right to deny that smoking causes lung cancer.

    “And in the same way that The Australian has the right to its continuing campaign to discredit climate science. But that does not make distortion of the facts any less irresponsible.

    “For all of the hindrance to action caused by the campaign of climate science denial, in the end the science will win out.”


    “distortion of the facts” ?

    “expected to pass” ?

    • Andy on 23/02/2013 at 9:51 am said:

      Hamilton is a certifiable lunatic. A true follower of the irrational anti science climate cult.

    • Mike Jowsey on 23/02/2013 at 4:01 pm said:

      IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’

      What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.


    • Andy on 23/02/2013 at 4:21 pm said:

      What these dishonest B&strds fail to mention is how these years of no warming would affect the value of climate sensitivity. If we have 40 years of no warming, then there is no way we can get to 3 degrees

      Mike, thanks for the article, too.

    • Bjorn Lomborg writes on facebook today

      Good. The UN climate chief, Pachauri, accepts that there is a now a 17-year global warming standstill. What was once something you couldn’t say in polite society is now commonly known.

      While this standstill doesn’t mean global warming is not happening, it very likely indicates that the climate sensitivity is lower, rather than higher — that global warming will be less bad rather that worse.

    • A scanned version of print edition of The Australian article about Pachauri and his claims about lack of warming is here

      Note that “Religion to lose protected status” is the next article, purely by coincidence of course

  12. Simon on 25/02/2013 at 10:48 am said:

    An excellent article from Tamino:
    The salient point is that those who are trying to “explain” temperature change over the last decade are barking up the wrong tree. There’s nothing to explain. Temperature has continued to evolve according to climate forcing and known noise factors like ENSO.

    • “Temperature has continued to evolve ”

      What the heck does that mean?

    • Maybe this graph from AR5 SOD shows temperature evolution.

      Of maybe not. After all, it is reality. “Temperature evolution” is not based on reality

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 1:31 pm said:

      Foster – “Perhaps I’ll compute and remove the influence of solar variations”

      Yeah right. Wouldn’t it be good if the IPCC would make recourse to the solar specialists on that rather than non-specialists like Foster but they don’t do they? Because solar-centric papers explain (with the same fast/slow response via the oceanic heat sink as Tamino uses but with downstream feedbacks) temperature without invoking CO2 they don’t get cited, they have no place in the IPCC mandate to find the human fingerprint in climate. The only papers that do make it are what the gatekeepers allow i.e. their own. Stott, Lockwood and Jones up-thread case-in-point.

      Therefore the likes of Abdussamatov 2012 (predicting Maunder Minimum conditions) or De Jager and Duhau 2012 (predicting Dalton Minimum conditions) never get seen by anyone reading IPCC assessments, they (the readers) are completely oblivious to all that science going on in the sphere of astrophysics where CO2 is not a driver. Instead they read solar assessment through CO2-biased analysis complete with in-their-dreams projections based on GCMs that are already out-of-the-money (except for the RAS who don’t view CO2 institutionally as a major climate driver and actually manage to mimic 21st century climate).

      But now we are at crunch time. The solar scenario that the astrophysicists (and others going back aways to Landscheidt/Svalgaard) predicted recently (but Lockwood thought had only a 5% chance of occurring) is playing out right on schedule. And the scenario “explains” the standstill perfectly well.

      The likes of Foster have maybe another year before the solar recession starts feeding through to atmospheric temperature (see Abdussamatov 2012 up-thread), intermittently at first producing wild fluctuations but by 2020 there will no be mistaking the downturn. There’s no El Nino on the way to save Foster in the meantime so what will drive temperatures on his trajectory if the energy just isn’t there anymore and wont be for decades? Foster’s model trajectory is just not cognizant of the planetary energy budget as described by Abdussamatov.

      I suggest ‘Closed Mind’ is a more appropriate name for Tamino’s blog..

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 2:39 pm said:

      >”Foster’s model trajectory is just not cognizant of the planetary energy budget as described by Abdussamatov”

      This graph for starters:-

      Figure 2. Variations of the TSI 1978 -2011 and deficit of the TSI since 1990


      “This gradual consumption of solar energy accumulated by the World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after 14±6 years because of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth”

    • Simon on 25/02/2013 at 5:05 pm said:

      But maximum solar variation is only about 0.1%-0.2% so it is a fairly insignificant forcing unless you start making some exotic assumptions about cloud seeding due to cosmic rays. As a skeptic, that is a significant burden of proof to hurdle. 🙂

    • By “exotic assumptions”, I presume that you mean non-politically correct science that has been (partially at least) measured in a laboratory at CERN

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 7:22 pm said:

      >”But maximum solar variation is only about 0.1%-0.2% so it is a fairly insignificant forcing unless you start making some exotic assumptions about cloud seeding due to cosmic rays”

      Really? Lets see what Abdussamatov says (page 2):-

      “….all periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were caused by bicentennial quasi-periodic TSI variations. However, direct influence of relatively small bicentennial fluctuation of TSI (according to recent reconstructed data (Shapiro et al., 2011) – of the order of 0.5 % ≈ 6.8 W/m2) is insufficient to explain corresponding cyclic bicentennial temperature variations on the Earth from global warming to the Little Ice Ages. We need a kind of amplifier of direct influence of TSI variations on observed climate changes. The role of such amplifier can play TSI secondary additional influence in a form of feedback effects: natural change of the Earth’s global albedo, Bond albedo, and of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (first of all, water vapor and also carbon dioxide, methane and other gases). Bond albedo is determined by three global optical parameters of the whole globe with its air and water envelopes averaged along a whole vertical line surface-atmosphere: by the values of both the atmospheric albedo and albedo of the Earth surface, as well as by the value of atmospheric transmission in the solar spectrum. Thus, Bond albedo is one of the main physical parameters in the energy budget of the Earth as a planet. Its (albedo) significant changes could be potential powerful engine climate variations. The value of the Earth’s albedo is rising up to a maximally high level during a deep cooling and drops down to a minimal level in the process of global warming while variations of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration take place in an opposite direction since their abundance is mostly determined by the temperature of the World Ocean. Variations of characteristics of both the surface of the Earth and its atmosphere caused by bicentennial variations of TSI give birth to a subsequent chain of further additional temperature changes caused by multiple repetition of this cause-and-effect cycle of secondary feedback effects even if TSI remains constant for a certain period of time. The influence of the consecutive chain of such changes caused by secondary feedback effects can result in additional amplification of the climatic changes to the extent exceeding the influence of bicentennial TSI variations. Similar picture was observed at the end of the XXth century.”

      Nothing about cosmic rays or “exotic assumptions” but plenty of conventional application of thermodynamic concepts that explain the apparent solar variation shortfall (more below), an amplification of which the IPCC has acknowledged must exist in the AR5 SOD BTW but they went off on a cosmic ray tangent – why not just cite Abdussamatov?.

      The IPCC solar forcing since 1750 (their only natural forcing) is only 0.12 W/m2 after division of TSI by 4 (geometry) and times 0.7 (albedo) which by itself is wholly inadequate let alone the actual value, Dr Norman Page:-

      “The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch Orbital Cycles, Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents, Earths geomagnetic field strength and all the Solar Activity data time series – eg Solar Magnetic Field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.”

      The TSI variation Abdussamatov is referring to is from 1700 not 1750 i.e. if Maunder Minimum conditions are repeated by around 2050, not only does the extra 1750 – 2000 solar input from TSI disappear but there is even LESS than there was in 1750 so where does that leave the forcing concept? Nor are the GCMs trained with a realistic TSI dataset, what’s used just assumes 2000 levels (Grand Maximum near enough) continue right out to 2100 – that is bonkers. And the IPCC forcing concept is a crock anyway because the relevant thermal construct is enthalpy which properly accounts for energy input-lag-output effects. Abdussamatov again (page 2):-

      “Specific power of the enthalpy change for the system Earth-atmosphere – a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation E is described by the equation:

      Е = (S+ΔS)/4 – (А+A)(S+ΔS)/4 – εσ(Тр+Тр)4; E=CdTp/dt (1)

      where S is the TSI, ΔS – increment of TSI, А – Earth global albedo (Bond albedo), A – Bond albedo increment, ε – emissivity of the system Earth-atmosphere,  – Stefan-Boltzmann constant; Тр – thermodynamic temperature of the planet, Е – specific power of the enthalpy change for the active layer of the atmosphere and the Ocean (W/m2), С – specific surface heat capacity of the active layer of the atmosphere and the Ocean, with regard to the total surface of the planet (J/м2К), t – time. 1/4 in the right part of the equation reflects the fact that the flux of solar radiation is projected (on the circle) and reflected from the circle, while the Earth emits from the total surface of the sphere (which is four times larger). Specific power of the enthalpy change of the Earth, E, denotes the deficit or excess of thermal energy which can be regarded as energetic balance of the average annual budget in the debit and credit of the thermal power of the planet.”

      [And then the temperature change and time lag (page 3)]

      “The increase of the Bond albedo by ΔA=+0.003 (1.0%) will result in decrease of the effective temperature by ΔТ≈ – 0.27 К, which is practically equivalent to bicentennial decrease of the TSI value ΔS = –5.88 W/m2 (0.435%).

      Thus, the long-term change of the Bond albedo is a powerful force for variations of the Earth climate. Decrease of TSI by 0.5% S= – 6.83 W/m2 with constant Bond albedo, А = 0, leads according to (8) to decrease of the effective temperature of the whole Earth with its air and water envelopes by ΔТe = – 0.32 К (the difference between changes in temperature of global surface air with time-lag and radiation is insignificant). Decrease of the effective temperature of the Earth by ΔТe = – 0.32 К, following (6), can cause increase of the Earth global albedo by А = +0.0035 or by 1,16%. With such increase of the Bond albedo by 1.16% the effective temperature of the Earth as a planet will additionally decrease by ~ 0.3 К, which results in a chain of such cycles. However, the effective (radiative) temperature of the system Earth-atmosphere describes inertia-free process of radiative heat exchange in the equilibrium thermal regime. Due to this the instant radiative balance is realized with advance relative to total energetic (or heat) balance of the planet – formula (1) with account for slow changes the enthalpy of the system Earth-atmosphere. Effective temperature is a radiative temperature of the planet and does not reflect temporal variations of the planetary temperature, but indicates the tendencies in direction of the planet climate change. Thus, the change of the Bond albedo value significantly affects changes in the effective (radiative) temperature of the Earth thus being one of the most important factors determining forthcoming climate changes. However, changes of the thermodynamic temperature of the Earth due to variations of the Bond albedo and TSI do not occur instantly but with significant time-lag, determined by the thermal inertia of the planet (Abdussamatov et al., 2010).

      t = 0.095 (1 + 0.42·l) yr, (12)

      where l – is the depth of the active layer of the Ocean. If the depth of its active layer is about 200-500 м, the thermal inertia is:

      t = 14 ± 6 yr. (13)”

      [End quote]

      Somehow I don’t see Grant Foster (Tamino) going through Abdussamatov’s exercise.

      The IPCC of course being wedded to their own RF “forcing” methodology and NEVER deferring to non-CO2 solar specialists employing conventional thermodynamic concepts know absolutely NOTHING about all this and nobody reading their assessment will ever know about it either unless exposed to it elsewhere – like here at CCG Simon.

    • Simon on 25/02/2013 at 9:04 pm said:

      Exactly. The solar forcing is insufficient by itself, it requires positive feedback from albedo and greenhouse gas emissions. Albedo and greenhouse gases amplify both ways, as more reflective ice and snow leads to cooler temperatures and cooler oceans absorb more CO2.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 9:39 pm said:


      So you agree with Abdussamatov’s solar amplification explaining Grand solar Max/Min warming/cooling over the last 7500 yrs Simon? You’re a natural cycle guy now if you do.

      BTW his feedback effects were:-

      “……..natural change of the Earth’s global albedo, Bond albedo, and of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (first of all, water vapor and also carbon dioxide, methane and other gases)”

      Bond albedo is the significant amplifier (see calcs). Water vapour is not an “emission” and only a minor fraction of carbon dioxide is an “emission” i.e. the feedback is not dependent on “emissions”.

      So how do you reconcile your “exact” agreement with Abdussamatov and understanding of solar amplification with (I assume) your ideas that temperature will rise radically sometime in the future to make up for the current standstill now that the solar scenario is tracking Abdussamatov’s prediction (and many others besides) and the whole thermodynamic process is going into reverse (GHGs too eventually that you seem to concur with – “cooler oceans absorb more CO2”)?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 7:53 am said:

      >”only a minor fraction of carbon dioxide is an “emission” ”

      What I mean here is that the natural feedback is emission/absorption as per your “cooler oceans absorb more CO2” Simon. However, only the minor fraction of that is anthropogenic emissions.

  13. Local eco-fascists seem to have a little problem with The Australian interview with Pachauri

    Was he misquoted? Has he been taken over by “big oil”?

    It is really hard to get inside the “minds” of these people. Like a death cult intent on killing everything in their way, rational thought has long since disappeared off the agenda.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 12:34 pm said:

      Heh, thought that would be bill. Remember Andy, science “will” win. Even if they have to replace democracy to do so:-

      ‘Australian academics: Democracy should be replaced by ‘elite warrior leadership’ in order to fight global warming’

      All they need is some global warming and winning’s a cinch.

    • Ah I get it now. The article is in The Australian

      The Australian is “right wing”, therefore everything in it is wrong.

      The Blessed Ones get all their information from Approved Sources ™

      Approved Sources ™ include the The Guardian, HuffPo, “Think” Progress etc.

      Approved Sources filter all that ugly “right wing” stuff from them so that the Blessed Ones can live in their fluffy little world of sanctimonious self-righteousness.

      When a person makes a video complaining that they cannot live next to a windfarm because of the noise (for example), it is not true unless it comes from Approved Sources ™

      Thus The Blessed Ones can continue to prattle on about their superiority, how many solar panels they own, their latest Prius, etc etc

      The problem is, when the proverbial hits the fan, so will reality hit them.

    • bill on 25/02/2013 at 8:22 pm said:

      Reheating leftovers from 2007 there, Dixie?

      Do any of you ever wonder why you’re reduced to such seedy recycling exercises; convincing each other you’ve found some ‘smoking gun’ in a book nobody has read – least of all you lot – written 6 years ago by an obscure South Australian MD? Are you planning to go all Alex Jones and claim he was an ‘IPCC Professor’, too?

      Speaking of fantasy – how are the magical undersea volcanoes going? 😉

      And didn’t you do well over at SkS recently?


    • bill on 25/02/2013 at 8:30 pm said:

      I’ll note, Richard T, that I’m apparently on moderation here in this heartland of free-spirited democratic dialogue, whereas your little martyr here routinely uses inflammatory and abusive terms such as ‘eco-fascist’, ‘Khmer vert’ and ‘climate skinhead’ and yet was tolerated on Gareth’s blog for an extraordinary period of time before his running off here to crow about his invented victories (this is certainly about the only forum in which he could ever hope to claim any) and obsessive idee fixe regarding wind turbines finally undid him.

      You can have him.

    • Andy, is this true?

      Bill, I don’t remember, but you were probably banned for abusive comments and not talking about the topic — both of which you’re guilty of again. Be moderate, and you’re perfectly welcome. If Andy is a problem for you, let me know and I’ll keel-haul him, the blackguard.

    • I was banned for comments I made on this blog, not on Hot Topic
      Actually this is the second time. The first time I was put on permanent moderation because of an intemperate comment I made here.
      This time, I have been banned for use of the term “ecofachist” that I used on this blog, not there

      I don’t feel particularly disposed to apologise for the use of this term (to them, anyway), but it is your blog RT, so I will concede to your wishes.

      I believe the term “fascism” describes a political movement that subsumes the rights of the individual in favour of the State. “eco-fascism” is merely the latest incarnation of this political movement.

      (You can read Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” for a good insight.)

      The reason I felt it necessary to respond to Bill in this manner was because of the completely offhand nature they responded to my comments about the serious health problems being experienced at some Australian windfarms. I provided a Channel 7 video on my own site that discussed this in some detail, but Bill and Thomas response was completely dismissive and apparently a “hoot”

      My latest round of questioning was around the Rajendra Pauchauri claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. Note that I have made similar claims (not actually 1 7 years, but I usually say the last decade or similar)

      These comments are usually met with derision. I get called a “rent boy”, a “moron” a “troll”. I have also been called much much worse, and had my contact details published on that blog without my permission.

      I am told that I am not welcome because I am rude and cannot conduct a civilised discussion, yet my recent comments were all moderated. (Unlike those who are free to call me a “rent boy”) I am told that I wonder off topic, yet it is me that stays on topic and everyone else changes the subject to ocean warming or whatever- apparently surface temperature series are not that important anyway

      Ho hum, bigger fish etc…

      [Andy, sorry for giving the impression I wanted an apology or even an explanation from you — there’s nothing further from the truth. I fully expected a robust denial of Bill’s accusations. You’re one of the good guys. It’s interesting to hear your story, but it shows you often deal with people of low self-esteem and a chronic absence of reasoning. I don’t know why you associate with them, but it’s a free world. As long as, here, we can keep fairly clear of personal abuse, a little is tolerable. I hate the way you’ve been treated and I won’t have people coming here to give you or anybody else more of the same. I let Bill’s comments through partly because it shows his character and demonstrates his lack of interest in or knowledge of climate matters. – RT]

    • bill on 27/02/2013 at 10:55 pm said:

      Bill, I don’t remember, but you were probably banned for abusive comments and not talking about the topic — both of which you’re guilty of again

      Now, that can’t be left unchallenged. Firslty; are you seriously denying that one should be entitled, at the very least, to respond to published accusations of being ‘ecofascists’?! – ‘off topic’ indeed!

      But, most importantly – please point out the ‘abuse’, Richard?

      Seriously. Was it ‘martyr’? ‘Seedy recycling exercise’? ‘fantasy’? ‘magical’?

      Golly; what delicate souls you all are! So much so that you can play host to the following –

      ‘eco-fascists’, ‘eco-fascist’, ‘maggot-ridden corpse’, ‘death cult intent on killing everything in their way’, ‘Hitler came to power via democratic means (did I Godwin myself? Oh what a shame)’, ‘bottom feeders’

      I suspect there’s a teeny-tiny part of you, Richard, that knows full well that the word for this is, um, ‘hypocrisy’. Queasy, isn’t it? How do you think this comes across to any ‘lay’ reader perusing your blog, would you say?

      But, of course, andy is ‘one of the good guys’, isn’t he? You said so yourself.

      And, andy, you’re merely lucky they took down your stuff at SkS. It was, frankly, embarrassing. And it was you that got yourself banned – compare Richard’s handwaving ‘I reckon you must have done something to deserve it’ justification for moderating my posts – and frankly amusing claim of ‘abuse’ – to you barrelling in at SkS and rabbiting on about ‘Marxist indoctrination camps’!

      What did you expect?

      Seriously, you cannot see yourselves from the outside at all, can you?

      And, again, I know reading this is making you all very angry, but, honestly now, it doesn’t contain any actual abuse, does it? Try re-reading it slowly.

    • Strangely enough Bill, i don’t feel like a martyr at all. I feel like someone who has spent
      hours in a very unproductive government department meeting, who has just found the exit door.

    • Bill, the term “eco-fascist has its own Wikipedia entry

      Part of this says

      There are barely disguised racists, survivalists, macho Daniel Boones, and outright social reactionaries who use the word ecology to express their views, just as there are deeply concerned naturalists, communitarians, social radicals, and feminists who use the word ecology to express theirs. […] It was out of this [former] kind of crude eco-brutalism that Hitler, in the name of ‘population control,’ with a racial orientation, fashioned theories of blood and soil that led to the transport of millions of people to murder camps like Auschwitz. The same eco-brutalism now reappears a half-century later among self-professed deep ecologists who believe that Third World peoples should be permitted to starve to death and that desperate Indian immigrants from Latin America should be exclude [sic] by the border cops from the United States lest they burden ‘our’ ecological resources

      Later on the article says

      The actual number of organisations that could properly be described as ecofascist is extremely small.

      One could probably also say the same about “deniers”, but as I say, I like a bit of symmetry

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 9:32 am said:

      >”Speaking of fantasy – how are the magical undersea volcanoes going? ;-)”

      Ask Jon Copley who is aboard the RRS James Cook on a research mission to explore the ocean’s deepest hydrothermal vents (We’ve just seen the news clip on national television BTW)

      >”And didn’t you do well over at SkS recently?”

      Must have touched a raw nerve because the mods had to do some damage control on the thread (retroactively). It seems to be the MO there when the going gets tough.

      BTW, writing up Part 2 of ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Skeptical Science Offside’. The “offside referring to SkS being diametrically opposed to the IPCC on anthropogenic ocean heating.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 9:41 am said:

      Same research report from BBC:

      ‘Deepest undersea vents discovered by UK team’

      You might also be interested in (but probably prefer to ignore) ‘Liberty Times: Don’t stake people’s lives on nuclear power’:-

      “According to a report issued by Wall Street Journal in 2011, all four of Taiwan’s nuclear power plants, including the near-completed Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, are located in high seismic activity areas.

      With more than 70 undersea volcanoes lying off the coast of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the government will have no way to build people’s confidence in the already flaw-ridden project no matter what safety inspections are conducted”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 9:55 am said:

      And of course those “magical” undersea volcanoes erupt from time to time:-

      ‘Volcano grows at astounding rate’


      An astounding pulse of destruction and growth at an underwater volcano north of New Zealand has provided a new insight into the behaviour of submarine mountains.

      The Monowai seamount, which lies at the intersection of the Pacific and Indo-Australian tectonic plates at the Tonga-Kermadec subduction zone, underwent one of the fastest episodes of volcano growth documented on Earth.

      It added about 8.75 million cubic metres of rock to its summit – a volume equal to 3500 Olympic-size swimming pools – in just five days.

      New lava flows raised that area by 79.1 metres, while part of the volcano’s summit collapsed by as much as 18.8 metres. Most striking was the creation of an entirely new volcanic cone.

      The changes were measured by crew aboard the research vessel Sonne who had set out on a routine mapping expedition in the South Pacific last autumn.

      Their findings have been published online in the journal Nature Geoscience

      # # #

      What? Undersea volcanoes in the scientific literature – surely not.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 10:16 am said:

      >”Do any of you ever wonder why you’re reduced to such seedy recycling exercises”

      Any seediness was the original repulsiveness of “Australian academics” suggesting “democracy should be replaced by ‘elite warrior leadership’ in order to fight global warming”. Remember they were on your side back in 2007 and probably still are – even though anthropogenic global warming is conspicuous by its absence now.

      And if you look at the rest of the thread you’ll discover we haven’t been “reduced” at all, on the contrary. But I note Hamilton’s been reduced to “will win” now i.e. he’s on the back foot along with all the others – UK Met Office, Pachauri, Hansen, Sato, Ruedy, James. The list is growing along with their squirming excuses.

    • Clive Hamilton has been regularly calling for the suspension of democracy to deal with the “climate crisis” and has also called climate scepticism a mental illness

      I think he has also suggested taking children away from their parents for “ecological retraining” if their parents do not conform.

      His “Australian Institute” is also in favour of a countrywide internet filter, ostensibly to remove porn but might also come in handy for all those “non approved sources” like The Australian

      People voted for this guy. That’s a worry. But then, Hitler came to power via democratic means (did I Godwin myself? Oh what a shame)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 12:26 pm said:

      I confuse Hamilton with Flannery who is benign by comparison. Good to revisit what he’s actually all about. Something of a relic even among his own kind going by this:-

      ‘C’mon Clive, environmentalism is now mainstream’

      [‘Clive Hamilton – an out of touch eco-warrior’ at DragOnista]


      Erwin Jackson progressed from Greenpeace to the ACF and is now the deputy at the Climate Institute, which is so derided by Clive Hamilton. Strangely, Dr Hamilton does not mention that he used to be Chairman of the Climate Institute, and perhaps this is the real source of his bitterness. That aside, Erwin has been instrumental in keeping the Australian Government’s hand to fire when it comes to climate action, and his patient approach suggests he knows that this is a long game to be won by engaged experts and not by the whingers braying on the sidelines.

      Clive Hamilton would probably call these people environmental sell-outs. I call them true environmental activists and ultimately, success stories. They have kept to their principles but adapted to the corporate/government world, and they have made a material difference.

      This is something that the reminiscent Clive Hamilton can only aspire to.

    • Bill, I see you are still crowing at HT about me.

      I guess you are right that Richard C and I will also get banned at “Skeptical” (sic) Science (sic) since they seem to be the same kind of bottom feeders that inhabit HT.

      Do you actually believe that wind power is cheap and has no downsides? Incredible. You must be smoking some pretty powerful stuff.

    • Bill, I hope that you do manage to get me banned from SkS as you propose. Isn’t it remarkable how the phrase “marxist indocrination camp” is deemed to offensive to SkS readers that they delete my comment, yet many use the odious term “denier” throughout the site

      Mind you, you poor little fluffy Greenies don’t like being called names, yet it is OK to refer me as a rent boy, a rapist a paedophile (just some of the names I have been called at Hot Topic) told to F* off etc.

      (For example, see here )

    • Local eco-fascist Richard Christie seems to also like sticking the boot in.

      It is really great to see all the vermin crawl out of the woodwork tonight, now that I cannot respond to their comments

      Hot Topic is like a maggot-ridden corpse. I expect it will also rot and die in due course, like their Green ideology

    • Watch the snipping begin at SkS

      here is my original comment for the record

    • So my last comment at SkS was deleted, completely

      Here is my query, for the record

      Local ecofachists must be possibly drooling at the thought that I have been banned from SkS.

      Come on girlies, where are you?

    • As expected, my previous inquiry at SkS was deleted without explanation. I imagine that local Eco-fascist Bill must be positively convulsing in joy at his conquest.

    • Andy on 25/02/2013 at 7:52 pm said:

      Nice to see Gareth has finally banned me from his blog. Now I can really make my feelings felt without holding my tongue.

    • Andy on 25/02/2013 at 8:33 pm said:

      There is of course a predictable line of comments after my banning, all making the claim that the article in Tne Australian is invalid, regardless of what Paucharis said, because it is “right wing”

      Therefore my earlier comments are reinforced. The warmist creed are not interested in science, they are only interested In left wing activism dressed up as science.

      I wonder if any of this dross will bother to comment here.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 9:52 pm said:

      >”Nice to see Gareth has finally banned me from his blog”

      Not sure what manner of empathy is appropriate. I’m thinking “good for you”.

      Go back to SkS. See how far you get before the mods modify the thread. At least it’s a variation of censure.

    • I just posted the following on SkS

      AndyS at 05:40 AM on 26 February, 2013

      Rather than speculate on whether Dr Pauchauri was misrepresented, can’t you ask him directly?

      After all, Dr Pauchauri is/was in Australia. Surely he had time to meet the battlers at SkS?

  14. It is time to stop “hiding behind warming trends” says Roger Jones at the Conversation

    Apparently, we have all been wasting our time looking at atmospheric temperature series.
    The authors of HadCrut, GISSTemp, the IPCC and everyone else have been following an irrelevant metric

    Of course, it was relevant until Pachauri split the beans, and until then it was OK to refer to people who used the “17 years of no warming” meme as “liars”, “morons” “deniers”, etc.

    Today, though, the goal posts have changed

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2013 at 9:01 pm said:

      Lets see now.

      >”In a nutshell, the theory says greenhouse gases act like a blanket, trapping heat near the surface.”

      That’s the theory but plummeting atmospheric temperature in La Nina events disproves any “trapping” notion.

      >”This creates a radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere”

      But it’s an oscillating imbalance, not a constant OLR deficit.

      >”The earth system warms to return this balance by increasing the heat escaping from the top of the atmosphere so that energy out equals energy in.”

      Sort of but like this:-

      >”This is a slow process, taking centuries,”

      Not in the Stackhouse graph it isn’t.

      >”because the ocean has to warm sufficiently to support a hotter atmosphere”

      And now it gets very woolly. There is no requirement whatsoever for the ocean to do anything at all to “support” a hotter atmosphere. The atmosphere merely lags the ocean. If the ocean warms the atmosphere warms, if the ocean cools the atmosphere cools. The atmosphere does not drive ocean heat, solar energy does. The IPCC, Skeptical Science, “consensus” climate science and Roger James are so wrong it is becoming embarrassing.

      >”The scientific confidence in this aspect of climatology is extremely high.”

      The IPCC confidence in the unconventional ASSUMPTION of climate science that the atmosphere warms the ocean (an anthropogenic action apparently) is “extremely certain” but the mechanism has not been documented and verified after 25 yrs of IPCC existence. That is an altogether different aspect to James’ woolly reasoning.

      >”A simple trend line is sufficient to measure this process. But on decadal time scales, the trend-line model fails. Most of the heat trapped in the earth system goes into the oceans.”

      Solar radiative energy accumulating in the oceans as heat, not heat trapped in the atmosphere and transferred (somehow) to the oceans. Once the solar driver behind the accumulation goes into recession as is now the case, the accumulation process goes into reverse hence the failure of a linear trend.

      Roger James wants everyone to stop hiding behind linear warming trends and “come to grips with the fundamental non-linearity of climate change” (actually I agree with him totally) but given his hiding-to-nothing stance on continued warming he better be thinking of a new set of goalposts because there’s a whole new non-linearity on the way.

      BTW I’m about 1/3rd way through writing ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Skeptical Science Offside Part 2’ (finished Part 1). The IPCC anthro mechanism is not impossible in natural circumstances let alone anthropogenically but it is improbable so the arguments for and against get quite tricky. It’s taking longer than I thought because no-one else that I can see has investigated the issue in detail so I’m out on my own.

      James cites Skeptical Science but probably doesn’t know that their in-house view of anthropogenic ocean heating and the IPCC’s view are diametrically opposed.

  15. SkS have “private communications” with the IPCC who proclaim that The Australian newspaper doesn’t represent his views

    However, they are unable to provide me with any evidence of this “communication” in their latest post.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 12:57 pm said:

      dana1981 at 07:43 AM on 26 February, 2013

      Regardless of what he [Pachauri] said, the most important point is that global surface air warming is not the same as global warming/heating. Certain parties intentionally conflate the two because the former has ‘plateaued’ while the latter has not, so it allows them to pretend global warming has ‘stalled’. This is simply wrong, and a misinformative error which must be corrected.

      Global warming/heating (the ocean metric) is not (certainly not proven to be) anthropogenic warming’heating. Certain parties intentionally conflate the two because they specialize in misinformation. This is simply wrong and must be corrected (at the IPCC, SkS are a sideshow).

      Useful quote for my ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?’ writeup perhaps.

    • Dana may or may not be right. The problem I have is that these guys have been defending the plateau for a long time now. We have had Ken,all sorts from HT etc claiming that either there is no plateau, or that the time scale is too short, or that the error bars are too big.

      Now, I don’t know whether Pauchauri was misquoted, but Hansen has also referred to the plateau, so there must be some kind of agreement out there that this is real (regardless of whether or not there is ocean warming)

      The IPCC projections are based on atmospheric temps. The main temp series – HadCrut, GISS etc, are based on atmospheric temps.

      My last or so comment at HT before my defenestration was along these lines, but apparently I am failing to understand that atmospheric temps are not the only proxy for “global warming”. No I am not. What I am failing to understand is why they think they can just move the goalposts and hope we don’t notice.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 2:19 pm said:

      I agree Andy. I put another comment duplicating an SkS comment along those lines (sort of) but it went AWOL. SkS link to it here:-

    • Funny how the usual suspects are on that thread and all want to talk about OHC, yet only you get snipped

      No one has told us about these “communications” between the IPCC and SkS yet

      It all looks like one big rumour mill to me.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 5:11 pm said:

      Yes I pointed out the double standard here:-

      Lets see if that gets snipped. Given what they didn’t want shown I can only assume that they haven’t got the answers and are completely paranoid when someone shakes their tree.

      Maybe better to stay on topic – not sure what that is exactly though given most of Dana’s post is off his own topic. His title is:-

      ‘Did Murdoch’s The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?’

      Pachauri can always make a complaint. If he’s not bothered than what’s the problem?

      I’ll go with that.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 5:25 pm said:

      >”Lets see if that gets snipped” – yep.

    • Funny, the SkS thread seems to be playing out the same as my little run at HT, shortly before my execution.

      Here’s the script chaps:
      “Make out Pachauri was misrepresented (without any evidence) and then quickly change the subject to OHC

      Things must be a little more polite at SkS; Ian Forrester on that thread has repeatedly referred to me as a liar and a “despicable person”. Maybe he hasn’t made the connection yet. Bill obviously has.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 7:15 pm said:

      My “on topic” comment complete with Glickson gif survived unscathed – I’m amazed.

      They’ve got a problem if Pachauri doesn’t share their indignation. After ARs 1 – 4, the public associates global warming and climate change with atmosphere first and foremost. No amount of SkS posturing will change that.

      All of these CAGW advocates are on the back foot now. SkS are just digging a deeper hole with OHC especially if 0-2000 plateaus too (got snipped when I went through the rationale for that). This 2013 SC 24 peak is the last gasp of OH accumulation. And the IPCC’s flimsy basis for anthro attribution and SkS diametrically opposed to the IPCC view just exacerbates their problem.

      That Glickson gif (it could be referenced – How Sceptics View IPCC Global Warming) is very useful to counter their bogus ‘How “Skeptics” View Global Warming’ escalator gif

    • If I got a dollar for everytime someone posted the “escalator gif”….

      The funny thing is that the latest claim is that “we” don’t understand that the climate is a complete non-linear system (hello?) and then they post their interpretation as a linear system via the infamous escalator.

      Not enough joined up thinking chaps

    • Latest from Willis looks relevant to the ocean heat content issue

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2013 at 8:36 pm said:

      The lead up was relevant too:-

      ‘Fact check for Andrew Glikson – Ocean heat has paused too’

      Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data.

      I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this [0-700m only] graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?

      Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003

      [it’s 0-2000m that’s the one to watch, not just 0-700m]

      Solar Update February 2013 (Guest post by David Archibald)

      Figure 1: MF, TSI, F10.7 Flux and Sunspot Number 2009 – 2013

      From Dr Svalgaard’s site, this figure shows that the F10.7 flux is hovering around 100, which is the breakover point between sea level rising and sea level falling. In turn that also means it is the breakover point between the planet warming and the planet cooling. Given that activity will drop once we pass solar maximum, cooling is in train from here.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2013 at 8:09 am said:

      >”My “on topic” comment complete with Glickson gif survived unscathed”

      Nope. Glickson gif snipped last night – “off topic” apparently. Good grief these guys are fragile. They can dish it out but can’t stand a whiff of contra-evidence.

    • Richard C – they seem to be snipping mainly your comments, but are allowing off topic comments slagging off David Rose at The Daily Mail

      Incidentally, I read the article by Rose and it is fairly accurate. Energy bills in the UK will skyrocket, they are heading for a new dark age (literally, as the lights go out) and Tim Yeo is a rent-seeking trougher.

    • Andy on 01/03/2013 at 10:24 pm said:

      I think I have had a gutsful of SkS.
      I thought the conversation might be slightly more intelligent than Hot Tiopic, but the same vermin seem to hang around there droning on abourt deniers and trolls.

      The thread on Pachauris interview with the Australanis a classic case in jpoint. Making valid points, some even acknowledged by the moderators, gets drowned out by a dawn chorus of denier denier denier. Even though I took a fairly agnostic approach,

      They are a sad little religious cult.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2013 at 8:56 am said:

      As long as these outfits are set up to bar/delete/modify or otherwise howl down contra views inside the confines of the protection afforded by their blog, they will never survive or even get to grips with the full scope of public debate outside it in the big wide world. All they can do is link to SkS as if that is some kind of authority. Bit like the IPCC really.

      Meanwhile actual climate drivers are having a say whether SkS or the IPCC likes it or not so we’re getting climate scientists saying things like they were “unprepared for falsification”. I’m thinking the next 5 years of climate will come as a shock to the equally unprepared (but still in denial) SkS chorus group and membership will decline rapidly when that sets in.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2013 at 8:45 am said:

    Robert W. Endlich: A visit to Santa Fe and James Hansen


    There were four questions; I asked number three.

    My question was, roughly, “Dr. Hansen, one of your slides showed a time series of warming periods, indicated by reds, and cooling periods, indicated by blues, over time, indicating to me that climate warming and cooling periods are the norm. But, your 1988 forecast to the Senate was for continuous increases in temperature, about 1C of warming, from 1988 to the present. Observations show 10 years of warming from 1988 to 1998, but steady and by many measures, even falling temperatures since, a period over 17 years where the temperature has not risen at all. The total rise since 1988 has been only 0.2 – 0.3C. To what do you attribute the poor performance of that prediction?”

    Hansen’s reply wandered around, saying there were three scenarios forecast and that actually the climate forcing was less than the “Business as Usual, Scenario A.” (In the basic talk he bemoaned CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use were on an ever increasing curve; to me, a non-sequitur) He then said that temperatures had NOT decreased, despite the fact that seven of the nine commonly watched measurements of global land, sea, and greenhouse temperatures have shown falling temperatures since at least 2001 during this time of increasing CO2. He then said I should have seen his 1983 paper and the forecast he made back then!

    It has been 34 years since I have been in Graduate School. I was disappointed that a world-renowned researcher could not provide a cogent, coherent answer to a pertinent question regarding accuracy of the forecast which brought him to prominence. “How has this guy passed his candidacy exam or prelims?” I thought.

    When formal questions were over, a number of attendees approached the podium; I joined the group. At my turn, I asked him a question about the paloeclimate records he referenced during the talk. I showed him a graphic of temperature and CO2 vs. geologic time with data provided by Berner and Scotese, which you can see if you Google “Berner Scotese Geologic CO2 Temperature Graph”.

    I asked him about two periods in geologic history. First was end of the Ordovician, about 450 million years ago when CO2 increased from 4000 to 4400 PPM but earth entered a “snowball earth” phase. Second was the end of the Jurassic 150 million years ago, when CO2 was increasing, but temperatures fell. He told me that the data were wrong.

    I specifically asked him about the measurements which showed large amounts of CO2 during the Cambrian and Ordovician about 4000-6000 PPM, and that even the IPCC speaks of large amounts of CO2 in the early Paleozoic. He said that there were no measurements of large CO2 amounts in the Paleozoic and again said I was wrong. I guess he has not heard of the Royer Compilation

    I then asked about the Vostok Ice Core data which shows four previous interglacial periods CO2 was about 200-270 PPM, and temperatures were clearly much warmer that the present. “Dr Hansen, doesn’t the fact that the previous interglacials were a lot warmer than now, falsify the claim that CO2 is an important driver of climate?” He argued with me that the Vostok Ice core data did not show this, and said I was wrong. Google to see the data yourself.

    Finally, I told him that the Greenland Ice core data showed that during the present interglacial period, temperatures were at a maximum 8000 years ago and have cooled overall since then. I asked him if CO2 has an important effect on climate, how this could be, and I said that there was nothing alarming about the present temperatures and rate of change of temperature. He told me that I was wrong again and his data showed today is the warmest in the Holocene Interglacial period. Google “Greenland Ice core data graph GISP2” and examine the geologic record showing temperatures and temperature changes to see how wrong Hansen is regarding this fact.

    Hansen says the science is settled and there are no data which contradicts the alarmist view of imminent catastrophic temperature change and tipping points.

    Who is the “denier?”

    Hansen can’t accept the fact that measurements, observations, facts and data show that present temperatures are quite ordinary and that the rates of temperature change are among the smallest of the past 10,000 years, despite present CO2 concentrations.


  17. Andy on 28/02/2013 at 7:31 am said:

    Bill, I use the term ecofaciat as what I see as an accurate description of your political idealogy. As you may be aware, my mum was brought up under a fachist regime, so there is a little family background to draw on.

    My term local ecofaciat is a play on words, because Ken Perrot likes to use the term local dener, a curious name because no one is denying local. I like a bit of symmetry in my words, so I hope you can see the balance.

    As you know, I also get regularly called a rent boy, and have also been called a rapist and a paedophile. I don’t think these are accurate descriptions of me as I have never indulged in any of these activities. Naturally, it is up to Rob Taylor to share his bizarre sexual fantasies with us on climate blogs

    I mentioned this in passing at SKS. I am glad that you seem to have got me banned there. I didn’t really say anything too outrageous except repeat what I said here. I have kept screen shots of the comments I have made before they were deleted.

    Now I am convinced that SKS is just another blog that is propping up e increasingly desperate warmist cause, inhabited buy zealots, so I am not unhappy to see the back of it.

    By the way, Cameron Slater, NZ most popular blogger, always uses the term Green Taliban, so I might adopt that in future as it was also used by UK minister George Osborne, and it is quite catchy. Can’t stand Osborne though.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2013 at 8:26 am said:

    “As the scientific community, we were just not prepared for the temperature not rising for a decade as CO2 concentrations rose. We had not thought enough about the possibility of falsification. […] We concentrated too much on looking ahead and said: Great! Everything fits our explanation. For many colleagues asking questions was frowned upon because this ‘could provide the climate skeptics with ammo‘. And that is a methodical failure”

    – German climate scientist Professor Hans von Storch, Author “Klimafalle“

  19. The “offensive” comment that I made at SkS was along these lines:

    Can I suggest that SkS make a list of “approved sources” for the newcomer, as not all of us were brought up in Marxist indocrination camps”

    This was in response to Tom Curtis’s disapproving comments about the GWPF, and being headed by a “denier” ( I presume he means Nigel Lawson)

    As it happens, I am not aware of the political landscape of Australian newspapers, so the general thrust of my comment was genuine (even if not worded for general approval) . I went to a very traditional university, where textbooks on science didn’t have chapters on “deniers”, like Cook’s latest tome.

    I guess students these days are fed this kind of pap – it is certainly the impression I get reading posts on the internet. Critical thinking seems to be a lost art.

    Irony is lost there too, as the comments policy states that political comments are not allowed, yet the entire post is a political one.

  20. This is the tosh that does get through moderation at SkS

    desertphile at 00:13 AM on 28 February, 2013

    Why was one of my comments removed? I stated a fact: there is no such thing as “AGW theory.” There is the theory of physics, which explains human-caused climate change.

    Meanwhile: “There appears to be a lot of use of the word ‘denier’ on this thread which indicates to me a lack of interest in science and a politically biased world view”

    1) If a Denialist objects to the word “denier,” the Denialist can suggest a better, or different, word to use for her or his behavior: is there a better one? The mental health care profession, when discussing the rejection of the evidence for human-caused climate change, uses the words “denier” and “denialism” and “denialist.”

    2) Science is supposed to be biased: science that is not biased is not science.

    The bit after “meanwhile” was my contribution, by the way.

    What a sad lot of people.

    • It gets better too at SkS

      In a letter to the President of the Royal Society, Lord Lawson has criticised Sir Paul Nurse for denying the reality of a global temperature standstill.”
      In his “call” as Chairman of the GWPF Lawson directly accuses Nurse of lying because “there has been no further recorded global warming at all for at least the past 15 years, as even the IPCC Chairman, Dr Pachauri, has now conceded. Whatever the precise reason for this, it cannot simply be dismissed or denied.” So here we have a denier denying he is in denial, indeed accusing another of being in denial – this on a subject of science which his organisation has supposedly no official or shared view.

      My head starts to swim reading stuff like this

  21. This man looks like he needs some more friends

  22. Andy on 02/03/2013 at 8:52 am said:

    John Cook presents us with Reality Drop

    This is an online tool that automatically aggregates climate related sites and matches up Denier arguments with ones from Approved Sources, and allows the user to gain points by adding comments to Denier sites with its easy to use cut and paste tools.

    This is a grassroots campaign that rewards you, the genuine person, against the evil Deniers that are funded by Big Oil and Big Coal

    I am not making this up. Watch the embedded video at SkS

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2013 at 10:19 am said:

      Steve Milloy – More like “DropReality”

      docsolstice is “1st place” in “top droppers” with this activity:-

      Received ‘Order of the Green Circle’. Check out “Megamyths I Crush Most” (spends 3/4 of his time on A and B):-

      It’s not bad
      It’s not happening (A)
      It’s not us (B)
      It’s too hard to shift to clean energy

      Strange, I don’t recall these being “crushed” or whether they are “mega” or “myths”.

      rob_honeycutt’s a “Rookie”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2013 at 10:52 am said:

      Had a look at their contra-argument to “It’s the sun” MYTH #22 DENIERS SAY: “The sun’s energy has increased over the last several hundred years, and that’s why Earth is getting warmer.”

      Their entire contra-argument is confined to the 11 year cycle and late 20th century, early 21st but only to 2010 i.e. they don’t address the time-span of the argument “the last several hundred years” nor are they up-to-date.

      Are they in for a shock when they catch up to what is happening right now, They are well behind the solar argument which is now along the lines of “The sun’s bicentennial energy component is decreasing rapidly in 2013 after being at elevated levels since Grand Maximum in the early 1990s and will continue to do so for decades, and that’s why earth is on the verge of getting cooler.

    • Andy on 02/03/2013 at 11:09 am said:

      The SkS guys seem to take this seriously. Computer assisted debunking, no thinking required

      Ranks – captain, lieutenant, order of the green circle.

      We should translate this site into German. It would look much more appropriate

    • Andy on 02/03/2013 at 5:42 pm said:

      So now I am on my last warning at SkS. I made a polite response to a commenter (who claimed that there was a consensus that I was a troll, therefore this was true).

      My comment has been completely snipped, suggesting that I made an abusive response, which i did not. It was completely polite and no sarcasm

      Basically, they just make stuff up at SkS.

      I would advise everyone to stay well away from there. If you do leave a comment, make sure you screen cap it so it have some record of what you said.

    • Andy on 02/03/2013 at 6:18 pm said:

      I feel slightly better reading this post from Anthony about John Cook and his antics

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2013 at 7:06 pm said:

      Climate Etc might be a more productive meeting of minds but I find the threads impossible to negotiate.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2013 at 9:20 am said:

    Ryan Maue – February 2013 global temperature anomaly compared to 1981-2010 mean: -0.001°C or 1/1000th of a degree below avg.

    This after a January spike up.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2013 at 9:26 am said:

    Imagine this in your face every day on your commute (if you were in denial of it that is):-

    CFACT billboard proclaims 16 years without warming:

  25. Andy on 02/03/2013 at 9:54 pm said:

    Local eco-fascist “Macro” links back to this thread from Skeptical Science here

    Comment #87

    It is really great that this site is getting so many page views from local ecofascists from Skeptical Science and Hot Topic.

    They must be really sick if they need to spend their days reading “crank” blogs written by people who believe the moon landings were faked and that 9/11 was an inside job. After all, this is settled science from Lewandowsky.

    We are all crazy here ecofascists. We will rot your brain. Go home to your semi-automated trollbots that debunk and rebut denialist memes via multiple orifices.

    Think of the children! We need top take action now! We need to DO SOMETHING! We just can’t go on living like this.


    • Andy on 02/03/2013 at 10:11 pm said:

      Actually Macro starts his little hate speech against me at comment #87 on this thread at SkS

      Trailer trash

    • bill on 02/03/2013 at 10:43 pm said:

      Andy, you really are losing it. Get some dignity, man!

    • Andy on 02/03/2013 at 10:47 pm said:

      So my cunning plan to draw them into the trap is working.

      (Evil laugh….)

    • bill on 02/03/2013 at 11:10 pm said:

      Andy, grow up. Seriously. I don’t care what you think. I don’t care what any of your fellow-travellers here think. I really, really don’t.

      I also don’t haunt the opposition’s pages sneering and jibing and abusing and generally trying desperately to get attention.

      But you do. It’s just sooo important to you, isn’t it? Why is that, andy?

      The fact is, you desperately needed HT, but despite Gareth’s remarkable patience you’ve blown that gig, and your behaviour is so unseemly that no-one else is likely to put up with you.

      (Well, Richard thinks you’re a champion, which is why you never get chastised for your distasteful invective. But it’s just not the same, is it?)

    • Andy on 03/03/2013 at 8:21 am said:

      Why do I need HT?
      Do I need people like Taylor to refer to me as a Rent Boy and a Paedophile?
      Do I need people to post my contact details without my permission.?

      The fact is, bill, climate change Is falling off the radar for most people. Your science is looking increasingly dodgy.
      The main propaganda site, SkS, uses tactics that deletes on topic and relevant comments from me , yet lets others post comments directed only at me, with links to other sites.

      The main issue for people now is dealing with the riduculous policies that are coming out of climate madness, like for example in Ireland 2000 windmills 180m high built on peat bogs, to export electricity to the UK
      We now now that the lights will almost certainly go out in Britain.So the hatred that I express here towards the green movement will escalate.

    • Andy on 03/03/2013 at 8:33 am said:

      Shub wrote a good piece on SkS and their dodgy tactics here

      Personally, I don’t trust anything that the climate spin machine puts out. I certainly don’t trust anything from the renewable energy lobby.

    • Andy on 03/03/2013 at 9:19 am said:

      Going back to the link.

      Comment 77 snipped
      I responded that I had read Hansens paper and listed a number of concerns around aerosols listed in the paper. I suggested investment in a new satellite

      mod response
      Moderator Response: [DB] Off topic and abusive usage of html snipped.

      Comment 81 ctg, responds to a claim that I never made

      Comment 88 from Macro links to here. Gets partially snipped but he gets thanked, with this veiled threat to me by mods.

      Thank you for trying to maintain a level of civility in this discussion and to keep others apprised of the off-topic commenting tendencies of some individuals. The moderation staff here is prepared to take any needed action with alacrity and full depth of measure.”

      note to SkS. I won’t be visiting your creepy little site anymore.

  26. David on 03/03/2013 at 9:59 am said:

    “note to SkS. I won’t be visiting your creepy little site anymore”
    To be fair, not many actually do. Their visit rankings are very low. We are in the end game for warmist’s lying propaganda.
    “The heats in the ocean”-bwahahahahaha

  27. Magoo on 03/03/2013 at 10:40 am said:

    Skeptical science is a joke. They just pulled out of the bloggie awards because they were going to look like idiots when their sole pro AGW blog was going to lose to the sceptic websites whose vote was split 4 ways. Surely one pro AGW website with it’s majority consensus could beat a minority split 4 ways … apparently not:

    They’ve lost the war – there’s been no warming in 16 years (confirmed by the IPCC and the Met Office), no tropospheric hot spot, no positive feedback from water vapour, sea level rises that are slowing down instead of speeding up, an impotent renewal of Kyoto, etc.

    Most people will just move on when they’re proven to be wrong on so many levels, but those who’ve placed so much faith on such blatantly flawed science are going be exposed as the fools that they are when they have to admit they were wrong. In a vain attempt to avoid this inevitable outcome they lie, and attack those who expose their flawed science and lies. Character assassination is all that’s left for them. If they had any evidence they wouldn’t need to attack people, which just further reinforces the fact that they don’t actually have any evidence. Just personal attacks and lies. I’d be tempted to feel a touch of pity for those who will inevitably fall victim to their fictional delusions, but their personal attacks and viciousness makes it a bit hard to show any sympathy. Best to avoid their snake pit blogs and live in the real world with the empirical evidence is my philosophy – you can’t argue with a sick mind after all.

    Speaking of lies, have you seen Climate Audit’s latest on ‘Mike’s AGU Trick’? The smell of desperation by the AGW crowd is rising to the level of a rotting corpse.

    • Andy on 03/03/2013 at 12:58 pm said:

      SkS comment deletion seems to be a real-time activity.

      #9 Foxgoose at 09:07 AM on 3 March, 2013

      Hmm …….. my earlier polite, on topic post has disappeared without trace and the remaining posts have been renumbered.

      Has SkS got a new moderation policy since I last visited?

      If so – what is it?

      Watch this one disappear too.

  28. The number of comments here is impressive, however, rather too many of them are off-topic.

    So we now have a new Open Threads | Controversy and scandal page, “Skeptical Science“, for discussion of events at that blog.


  29. Pingback: Climate change is not simple | Open Parachute

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation