Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Uncategorized

Apr 8, 2009

Climate change cage match -- a fight to the death

The following debate will take place around the general consensus on climate change (yes, there are still a few sceptics who love to thrash it out and who are we to stop people from making fun of them?)

User login status :

Share

The Crikey Daily Mail’s hallowed Comments, Corrections, Clarifications and C*ck ups section is always jammed with heated arguments over climate science. In particular, there’s one regular commentator who manages to poke at this particular sore so effectively as to enrage and engage readers in a never ending tit for tat that, quite frankly, drives our production editor insane (we’re looking at you, Tamas Calderwood.)

So in the interests of creating a bit of breathing space in the email, and sharing the (not always informed) debate with Rooted readers, we’d like to present the CLIMATE CHANGE CAGE MATCH — a fight to the death.

There’s a robust discussion taking place on the Wilkins Ice Shelf (or what’s left of it) elsewhere on the blog, but the following debate will take place around the general consensus on climate change (yes, there are still a few out and proud sceptics who love to thrash it out and who are we to stop people from making fun of them?)

Picking up where we left off,  here’s Tamas Calderwood from yesterday:

Stephen Morris (yesterday, comments) says that CO2 has recently increased to the “unprecedented” concentration of almost 0.0004 of our atmosphere and says this increase “almost exactly corresponds with the large temperature increases over the last 50-100 years”. First, CO2 has been more than 10x current levels in the past.
Second, what large temperature increases is he talking about? Once again, we’ve had zero warming in the past 10 years, less than 0.4C in the past thirty years and around 0.7C in the past hundred. The data are available to anyone with access to Google and the ability to type “temperature data”.

Ding ding ding! Play nice kids…

Sophie Black —

Sophie Black

Crikey editor

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Sophie Black

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

2321 comments

Leave a comment

2,321 thoughts on “Climate change cage match — a fight to the death

  1. Hi kdkd,

    Look forward to a beer together with you and Tamas. Definitely missing you on SKS. Seems like the site is degenerating into AGW propaganda threads.

  2. You wanna keep believing in that cause the alternatives are too scary. Its not that You dont know you dont know, its youtr too scared to really look. Even if you see videos showing another view.

    http://www.magenergy.us/

    It takes a certain type of bravery to contemplate it. Most people dont have that kind of bravery. Most people even climate change skeptics, God bless them, fall into this category.

    Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal

  3. It seems that even John Cook is struggling to russle up a good scientific story at SS. Getting a bit lightweight I think. Just when I produce the killer numbers everyone goes home.

    I just popped in for a look at the Cage Fight kdkd – looks like you would be happy to have me visit after Jak and Wendy.

    Gee I even accept that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK all on his own.

  4. As the FBI’s once former head, J. Edgar Hoover, once warned, “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he can’t believe it exists;” or media “guru” Marshall McLuhan’s statement, “Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by sheer public incredulity.”

  5. A gigantic disaster will overwhelm the world which will wipe out three-fourths of mankind. [8 November 1945, Angiras Rishi Hill, Tapovan to Adi K. Irani]

    —Source: Meher Baba quoted in Lord Meher 9: 3081

    AGW wont matter at all then

  6. The other end: No..ooo. HAARP. Illuminati. freemasons. Media control. 9/11 inside job and the little sister…lets make up a new science and call it AGW. We know nature is rebelling and the sun is changing and HAARP warfare is changing the weather so it will be eay to get some data to make AGW seem like the total answer so we can Tax the shit outa them. Do your own research sheep

  7. Jak: Evidence? No you haven’t shown any. Just a bunch of thinly disguised personal attacks. My attempts to engage you on the scientific literature have met with you transparently ignoring it. I think you like being ignorant and deluded. The end.

  8. No you cant safely ignore me because what I am saying is going to impact you very heavily. You got your little hobby AGW and feel cosy and superior with what you think is cutting edge science. But the world is not as you think it is man affects weather alright but not just pollution (15% at most) theres HAARP too. Weather warfare

  9. Jak:

    but as you’ve been unable to show any credible evidence to support your ludicrous position, we can safely ignore you.

  10. Jesus I mean Epo

    maybe Id read back and say my concerns are not met.

    The Science for AGW is junk science cause its a conspiracy. The best lies are 90% truth. Thtas what u got. The ugly sister = the small dick view

    Me I got the big view, how the Elite manipulate most things = hot sister

  11. Jak, if you read back through the thread, you might find that all of your ‘concerns’ have been addressed… over and over and over and over again.

    Being last man standing does not make you the winner. It might actually mean that everyone else finds you too incompetent to deal with. #JustSayin

  12. Jak,

    Repeating something doesn’t make it true. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your failure criteria?

    Oh dear you don’t have an argument, all you’ve got is the ability to repeat total crap again and again and again and again. SOL loser.

  13. BTW, connecting the “9/11 was an inside job” argument to climate change is a prime example of a non sequitur. It doesn’t do your crediblity much good aside from that either.

  14. Jak:

    It’s interesting how you won’t tell me your failure criteria. It seems like you’re using politicial posturing in lieu of evidence.

    If you’ve thought your position through well, then it should be a simple matter for you to explain it. Otherwise you’re a troll and it would be better if I ignore you.

  15. Badger all u like. KD life is strange. we are all going to die but who acts like we are?

    The Science you have on your side is accepted by Govts. Hey millions of flies like shit too but its still shit. The beauty of this cunning plan is that it wont be until time rolls by that the shit science will be seen for what it is.

    You dont believe in The Elite, in conspiracies, that 9/11 was an inside job. You never will. Your scared KD……..scared shitless to look. Thats Ok brother

  16. Jak #2288

    This is quite strange, because you’ve been unable to provide a coherent explanation of why you are correct. If you manage an explanation that’s both coherent and supported by the scientific data then I’ll happily accept your argument as valid.

    BTW, where’s that failure criterion I asked you about in #2287 and previously? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.

  17. Nah no presuming…you got the dumb arse plain sister, the good old AGW scam. I got the hot naughty view…the whole picture.

    You got suckered in, but your not alone

  18. Jak: # 2286

    Presumably you mean you’ve been seduced by a Siren given that you haven’t given a single piece of credible evidence to support your view.

    You didn’t answer my question: What are your failure criteria? What weather would you expect to see that would cause you to re-evaluate your position?

  19. The sexy sister is winning…you got the plain sister with boring old AGW and cooked data. I got sexy sister and the bigger picture

  20. Jak: #2284(!)

    Well it’s clear that the plain sister comes from the fossil fuel industry, not from grant giving bodies that fund the fundamental scientific research. What’s your point again? That the science can’t be trusted because of the anti science lobbying of Exxon, Koch industries, the Heartland institute and so on?

  21. Response to KD from closed thread. The economies of the world are in trouble. All magic bullets have been fired. Only super funds and New taxes are left. Carbon is the new possible tax. So yeah there is a vested interest to Make the AGW science look good, even if it does not. Conspiracy? depends on your defintion. You like the term lobby KD. astro turf lobby. . ‘Lobby’ is the plain sister of the sexy sister called ‘conspiracy.’

    has AGW data been fiddled. Absolutely.

  22. Following on from this thread

    The presentation that Jak linked to is in german! I don’t speak any german, so I can’t assess the claims in the presentation at all. Additionally, the video doesn’t show any of the slides from the presentation, just talking heads which is interesting, given that the claims made seem to be very similar to Christopher Monkton’s discredited (astro-turf lobby sponsored) claims.

    Additionally, Professor Landfried seems to be a political scientist, which means that we should not take his pronouncements on climate science at face value. That really would be an argument from inappropriate authority.

  23. Aah, Ken’s delusional nonsense exposed in Friday’s crikey. Also it looks like BP over at skeptical science is getting a thorough doing due to failure to address his assumptions/preconceptions. Over at SS, Ken’s just gone into empirically unsupported repetition mode 🙂

  24. My prediction:

    In the unlikely event that Abbot makes PM, they’ll do fuck all for eighteen months, and then call a double dissolusion election where they will be thoroughly thrashed due to all the accumulated anger at their backward do-nothing idiocy. But to be honest, I think sanity will prevail.

  25. LOL Ken, Wishful thinking. I see no fat ladies, just an old idiot in the corner drooling over his beloved sexist racist backwards anti science religious freak leader. More examples of the poor company you keep 🙂

  26. Hope you are crowing over the next PM being one T. Abbott.

    If you think the Greens are going to drive the ETS agenda from the Senate – watch one go through the Reps first with Bob Katter Jnr having his say…………

  27. kdkd #2275

    Looking for someone to talk to kdkd??

    Pity about your knowledge of thermodynamics – the slight of which you must have got from me.

    Is that a third of all Russian farmland on fire kdkd? You should be able to see that from up there on Kieren view………….

  28. Tamas,

    I continue to be grimly amused at your delusional gibbering in the Crikey letters page. I hope it gives you some satisfaction. Just a couple of fact checks for you, followed by some suitable invective.

    Firstly, ENSO has nothing to do with global temperature anomalies, it’s a phenomenon that is concerned with the redistribution of heat around the planet surface. First law of thermodynamics mate. You’ll note that the redistribution of energy is far in excess of the thermal imbalance.

    Secondly, your “12 year flatlining” is a fiction. Not so long ago you were claiming that it was a decline, so I see that you delusional ideation has had to adjust to reality to some small extent.

    Happy idiocy, delusion boy. You’ll see Ken (Captain Paranoia) having his illogical, delusion based arguments being thoroughly demolished over at Skeptical Science.

  29. I see you also have delusions of grandeur Ken. From an objective point of view your job was to retreat into your own delusional head space (aka up your own arse) even further than previously.

    Looking forward to the Greens having the balance of power in the senate. Did you see how the chinese are trying to ratfuck us in a devious manner?. It certainly confirms your do as little as possible approach (sarcasm)!

  30. kdkd #2270

    Well, by the poor quality of the recent topics on SS, I would say that the owner is running out of good science to throw up.

    My job is just about done. The Rudd kiddie was riding for a fall, and even I did not anticipate the ruthlessness with which the Maid of Melbourne was induced into pulling the trigger. At least we will be spared the Rudd ETS – a potential plaything of finance spivs here and abroad. Anyone heard from Ms Wong lately? Is she a crouching tiger or a burnt out dragon??

  31. Ken,

    I think you’re engaging in transference there. I think that the moderators are allowing your defective arguments to speak for themselves – especially in the way neithr you or BP never address the critical flaws with your arguments, rather maintaining the “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU APPROACH” to maintaining your deluded approach to the topic. At least you both spout better quality bullshit than Tamas I suppose though, so thank heavens for small mercies.

  32. kdkd #2269

    It looks like you are talking to yourself on SS kdkd. Notice how the blog owner John Cook never intervenes on any OHC discussion where BP or I am involved. Probably gone to have a hard look and think about his ‘ROBUST” and Von Schukmann posts. Anyway – SS is by far the best discussion despite recent tendencies to personalize and engage in rather silly smear tactics.

  33. Ken

    I thought you’d gone away to have your shallow argument torn to shreds elsewhere. Anyway, we’ve clearly established that your argument is based on a lack of evidence, and a lack of understanding of critical things like statistics.

  34. kdkd

    You should not team up with mate Chris to have a go at my numbers kdkd. Thats a good way to get a bloody nose..

  35. Ken #2266

    Blah blah. Read the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Your latest post is just the usual discredited delusionist crap and misdirection. You can go away now.

  36. kdkd #2265

    Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW kdkd. The issue has always been about quantifying the CO2GHG effects and all the related effects.

    I would not be too worried about catastrophe kdkd – CO2GHG effect is logarithmic and radiative cooling is exponential. The OHC and energy balance stuff simply points to there being a flattening of the warming, which puts in doubt the magnitude of the CO2GHG effect.

    Temperature measurement is under review – CRU data is being investigated, USA land temperatures are probably distorted and exaggerated by the waste heat effects. I would have a punt on there being more scandals on the horizon with discovery of manipulation by advocacy scientists to sex-up the AGW story.

    I notice than Tim Flannery has gone quiet since the drought has broken and there is more water in inland Australia than there has been for 20 years. Maybe global warming brings more rain – how good is that??

  37. [ Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor evidence of presence ]

    actually a nice display of the moronic desperation of your argument. Let me paraphrase what you said for you:

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence.

    I already said that idiot. Clearly desperately grasping at straws. Stop wasting my, and your time.

  38. Ken,

    [ Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor evidence of presence ]

    To make a strong conclusion about the absence of AGW based on this logical contortion means ignoring the multiple lines of independent evidence. You achieve this through a combination of selective blindness and a dash of ideologically driven paranoid conspiracy theory.

    Again, stop wasting your time with the OHC stuff until the measurement model is better. Stick with the very large amount of remaining evidence – for reading, start with the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

  39. kdkd #2262

    “Or put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    For once I agree; and the logical extension of that is:

    “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor evidence of presence.”

    Boom…. boom..

  40. Ken,

    [ And because you don’t understand basic thermodynamics ]

    My understanding of thermodynamics is far superior to your pathetic understanding of statistics (as seen by the way that you dismiss statistical arguments as irellevant despite their extreme importance). Both of these concepts are extremely important for understanding this system.

    It’s obvious to everyone that the OHC/TOA measurement model is inadequate for drawing strong conclusions, which is why the work we see at the moment is exploratory rather than confirmatory, and therefore useless for drawing strong conclusions. However you keep trying to do so, despite the clear invalidity of your approach in the absence of a much better measurement model. Or put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Stop wasting your time until the measurement model is of better quality.

  41. kdkd #2260

    Ah! ….but the bit you are missing is that TOA imbalances must show up in the only significant storage device in the biosphere ……….the oceans.

    And because you don’t understand basic thermodynamics —-the first law—-you can’t make the connection of how important OHC is in confirming ‘global warming’.

    SS’s John Cook made the connection clearly in the “Robust warming of the global upper ocean” blog, where he correctly states that TOA imbalances must show up in the oceans.

    The evidence he produced for global warming via OHC increase was seriously flawed; as amply demonstrated by BP and myself.

    When OHC is measured comprehensively accurately and repeatably enough we will then have good evidence for the presence and extent of global warming.. that is when “oceanographers got their act together on processing and
    analysis of data”……and wide, accurate collection of data.

    Maybe new Prime Minister Julia will be able to summon up such evidence from her and Ms Wong’s extensive knowledge of the subject.

  42. Ken,

    [ OHC is uncertainty personified – not theorized nor measured in any coherent way. ]

    Thanks for supporting my point that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions from the OHC/TOA energy balance stuff due to the incoherence of the data. It’s certainly not a coherent argument to try to use this uncertainty to propose a variant of the it’s not happening argument, which is what you appear to be trying to do (or possibly the it hasn’t warmed since 1998 argument, which we’ve done to death and comprehensively demonstrated your idiocy on that score).

  43. kdkd #2258

    It’s there but we just can’t measure it?? Turning the scientific method on its head kdkd. Observe (measure) and then propose a theory – test it against further measurement.

    OHC is uncertainty personified – not theorized nor measured in any coherent way.

  44. Ken:

    [ “I am aware of at least 6 other analyses of ocean heat content that find
    rather different results and there seems to be no doubt that the
    oceanographers have not yet got their act together on processing and
    analysis of data.” endquote ]

    This statement clearly supports my argument that you’re confusing measrurement uncertainty with scientific uncertainty, and that you can’t draw strong conclusions about AGW from the current OHC analyses. Ergo your argument is intellectually bankrupt and based on a delusional approach to the topic.

  45. #kdkd 2255,56

    I have not got permission to quote ‘climate scientist’ by name. But he/she is a class act – whom I would not sully by exposure to your grubby invective.

    Suffice to say that I received some revealing and serious answers which confirmed the large uncertainties in the science.

    I will share this quote with you however to show where we are at; (comment is on the von Schukmann OHC paper)

    Quote
    “I am aware of at least 6 other analyses of ocean heat content that find
    rather different results and there seems to be no doubt that the
    oceanographers have not yet got their act together on processing and
    analysis of data.” endquote

  46. Ken

    Well you must have gone away to leave me alone, because you were spotted repeating the same old discredited crap elsewhere, but you couldn’t answer my simple question at #2255.

    It’s general practice for the winner to hide themselves away like that. I must assume that your claimed expert also called you out as a foolish ideological delusional fuckwit.

  47. Ken

    Anyway what happened to that “climate scientist” that you claimed to be talking to? Just bluster? Or someone with impeccable delusional credentials? Or did they just start telling you things that you didn’t want to hear?

  48. Ken #2253

    Nope thats your delusions taking over again. BP is doing very poorly and starting to expose his superficial approach to the subject (as you confounding measurement uncertainty with scientific uncertainty, and attempting to claim unsuccessfully that scientific problems are equivalent to engineering or mathematical problems).

    And the reason you get a face full is because of your lack of attention to the evidence, and my total bordeom with and contempt for your argument. SS has a strong comments policy – I can’t be dragging any of the discussion down as none of my recent posts have been deleted. It’s your pathetic biases and delusional approach to this topic that have you shadow boxing at the moment.

    You should be satisfied with your victory though and so should go away and stop wasting my time.

  49. kdkd #2252

    Looks like BP is doing OK in the latest posts. A healthy respect for each other in a civil discussion.

    Pity your presence here has dragged this blog down to a punch-up – but hopefully when your foul mouthed self leaves – others will dramatically improve the tone.

  50. Ken #2251

    This post demonstrates your scientific ignorance rather nicely. You’ll also note that BP is getting a thorough going over over on SS regarding his insistence that scientific problems are essentially interchangeable with mathematical/logical/engineering problems.

    But I wouldn’t expect you to understand this, you’ve displayed your scientific ignorance, and inability to acknowledge your lack of understanding of this area in spades, which is why your argument is such a winner – because you fail to deal with the evidence properly, but in such a way that maintains the illusion of intractable uncertainty rather nicely.

  51. kdkd #2250

    Notice that you are trying your statistical and Dunning Kruger arguments out on BP. He seems a remarkably well educated chap who is not impressed with your auto-fellated points.

  52. Ken #2249

    Happy to. Just so long as we’re clear that your victory is the result of stupid propaganda and delusional fuckwittery rather than any actual substance to your argument. All you have to do to end it all is to stop wasting your and my time posting.

  53. Ken,

    You’re more than welcome to read the IPCC reports yourself – an excellent introduction with a very small number of errors (especially when compared to the climate delusionals record). As far as the OHC/TOA models go, again you confound and fail to recognise the difference between scientific uncertainty and measurement uncertainty.

    And its this tedious repetition of yours with nothing new to add (except for continuing to expose your poor grasp of science, and the lack of content in your argument), which is why I’m entreating you to fuck off.

  54. kdkd #2246

    OHC is not small scale – neither is sea level rise kdkd. Neither are the arguments discredited.

    Run past us the physical, biological and geological models kdkd – particularly the biological and geological ones.

  55. Ken,

    You’re incorrect. We’ve been through this ad-infinitum, yet you still repeat the small scale largely discredited arguments as if they refute a much larger body of knowledge. It’s your delusional thought system, and good luck with it, winner.

  56. kdkd #2244

    The only inconsistency which needs thorough investigation is sea level rise.

    With no increase in OHC – how do we explain sea level rise which is claimed to be a steady 3mm per year?? Ice melt can explain a portion – but not all of the 3mm.

    Both the flat OHC and steady sea level rise can’t be right at the same time.

    BP might be pointed to turn his attention to that issue.

    If the CSIRO tolerance of +/-5mm for satellite measurement is taken seriously – what is the value of a measurement of 3 +/-5mm?? The Australian tide gauges (17 in all) with proper IBP correction and well sited should be reliable – but what of others around the rest of the planet’s coastlines?

  57. Ken,

    Your argument requires that I ignore large amounts of independently derived physical, biological and geological models, and ditch them in favour of your single very imperfect measurement model over an inappropriately short duration.

    So, so as long as we ignore all the other data, then you’re correct. We can safely ignore some of it by appealing to crackpot conspiracy theory, but not all of it. Ergo, you win by remaining constantly beholden to your facile delusions. The end. Now go away and stop wasting my time.

  58. kdkd,

    The arguments are simple.

    The issue is global warming.

    To have warming you need an excess of heat energy entering the biosphere over that leaving.

    To raise overall temperatures the heat content of the biosphere must increase – tending toward a higher equilibrium.

    The main place to store this heat is in the oceans.

    The ocean heat content in fact should show up the integral WRT of most of the radiative imbalance at TOA.

    The last 6 years of upper 700m OHC is flat and deeper 3000m is not much either (0.1W/sq.m according to latest Willis on Argo).

    So finding an increase in OHC is critical to the whole theory of TOA heating imbalances – and the theory of AGW.

    So far OHC content measurment before 2004 by XBT is fraught with error, poor coverage and probably useless. Argo is better – but the 6-7 analyses show OHC in the upper 700m converging on flatness.

    NO increase in OHC – NO global warming. CO2GHG theory (and all the other estimated forcings) must be neutral for no warming to occur. AGW collapses.

  59. Also, if the climate delusional camp routinely lie, misrepresent and engage in highly selective reporting (which is clearly demonstrated repeatedly) there’s no shame in pointing this out repeatedly. Your delusional thought processes are what make you believe this to be an incorrect approach, but the problem here is with the way you think about this topic, and not anything else.

  60. Ken,

    You seem to be under a number of misapprehensions. First that BP on SS is some kind of authority. Like you, good on a couple of small aspects of the big picture, but the more you press him, the more his argument falls apart. But your main misapprehension is that you are convinced against all the evidence that your argument is somehow valid.

  61. kdkd #2239

    You can tell when the dogs of AGW alarmism (kdkd included) are hunting in packs.

    Looks like they are trying to tear down BP on SS …. but he is a doughty warrior.

    Note that the avowedly non-political SS has started up attack threads on Monckton and Bolta and skeptics in general. So much for no ‘political or ad hominem comments’.

  62. Ken,

    Nope, I said that you’re replete in your hollow victory. It’s based on self deception, delusion and your rancid ideology, but it’s still a victory. This will have to do for you, as your actual argument is very insubstantial, and you have to appeal to figures that are totally discredited in order to maintain it.

  63. kdkd #2237

    I’m not going anywhere son – not while your foul-mouthed presence remains.

  64. Ken

    Go away, you won through the powers of self-deception, persistent delusions and rancid right wing ideology. That ought to be good enough for you. Now go and recycle your tedious discredited ideas elsewhere please.

  65. Tamas #2235

    Thanks Tamas. Your bravery and persistence with Crikey Comments is amazing. kdkd has seen his ‘greatest moral issue of our time’ pissed up against a wall by the Rudd kiddie and his world of AGW racked with uncertainty, conformism and exaggeration.
    No wonder kdkd is feeling Rat*fu**ed.

  66. [ Persistence and logic win every time ]

    Nope, in fact we have demonstrated the opposite. Illogic and ignorance are powerful tools, and you’re still delusional fuckwits. But winning delusional fuckwits with medals made of shit.

  67. Ken,

    It’s a hollow victory, you’re the winner through your own stupidity and ignorance. You win because of your huge score in the Dunning Kroeger effect, your moronic repetition and your failure as a scientist. It has nothing to do with the quality of your argument, just your persistent ability to ignore the important facts. It’s a common pattern in climate delusionals.

  68. kdkd #2231

    Is that you throwing the white towel into the cage kdkd??

    In that case, shall I inform the delightful Sophie Black that I am the winner of the Cage Match.

  69. [ *Statistical thermodynamic* – a new branch of science invented on June 9, 2010 by kdkd. ]

    You’re an Ignorant fool it’s a well established field.

    You also clearly know nothing about science and the scientific process. Which along with your right wing ideology driven preconceptions is why you’re understanding of climate science, and the scientific process is so piss poor.

    As I said, you win. Go away now.

  70. kdkd #2228

    Apart from that kdkd – I assume that you still want to publish our joint paper on climate change from a *statistical thermodynamic* viewpoint.

    *Statistical thermodynamic* – a new branch of science invented on June 9, 2010 by kdkd.

    BTW, have a look at comments #72 and #77 – it looks like BP has found a chunk of geothermal warming in the deep oceans: viz

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=202#comments Comments

  71. No Ken,

    I’m bored now. All you have to say moronic repetitious crap in the defense of lying idiots. Aside from your somewhat reasonable understanding of thermodynamics (but total ignorance of statistical thermodynamic which is critical in this field) your position is bullshit, based on nothing but lies, misrepresentations, your idiotic preconceptions and rancid ideology.

    You win because you lie in the cesspool of your own delusions. Monkton is a lying fool. Tamas is an idiot. Plimer is a vain self-agrandising moron etc.etc.etc. You win because your repetition of lies and stupidity can not be countered. The end. Now go away, I’m done with you, you geriatric fool.

  72. kdkd #2226

    “the large independent data sets available that contradict it somewhat”….are these the CRU and NASA/GISS datasets kdkd??

    Notice that the SS team are debating Monckton and his alleged ‘cherrypicking’ and distortion of data – but ignoring Nobel prize winner Al Gore; a similar propagandist on the alarmist side of the debate.

  73. Ken:

    [ That’s the *it’s there but we just can’t measure it argument* kdkd and its wearing a bit thin.]

    Nope it’s your argument – “one imprecise short term cryptic measurement is slightly inconsistent with the bigger picture, but it falsifies the large independent data sets available that contradict it somewhat” argument that never wore thin becuase it was transparrently unjustifiable in the first place. Because you don’t understand the importance of the difference between scientific uncertainty and measurment uncertainty

  74. kdkd #2219

    “and it’s reliant on the fact that you confound scientific uncertainty with measurement uncertainty in a manner to suit your preconceptions.”

    That’s the *it’s there but we just can’t measure it argument* kdkd and its wearing a bit thin.

    Let’s get through the verification of the temperature records from CRU and NASA/GISS and then get much more accurate measurement of OHC and see how it goes. Jury out at the moment kdkd …… hopefully not being RatFu**ed by the Chinese.

  75. Tamas,

    It’s a term used in psychiatry to describe refactory delusions – i.e. those that are not responsive to treatment or presentation with the evidence. Aka you’re in cloud cookoo land, and I hope you enjoy yourself there.

  76. No tamas. What you’re loving is your fixed delusional ideation and your inability to descriminate between lies , politics and real science.

  77. Haha – thanks kdkd.

    Your world sure is falling apart right now. The global warming scam is falling apart at the seams. And I’m loving it.

  78. Tamas,

    Good to see that your moronic drivel is instantly recognised for what it is by the Crikey readership. There’s no hope for you, I hope you and your tiny mind are happy with your delusions.

  79. Ken,

    You’ve done this to death, it’s your only line of argument, and it’s reliant on the fact that you confound scientific uncertainty with measurement uncertainty in a manner to suit your preconceptions. It’s actually impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this topic precisely because you don’t understand the difference between these two points. You demand that people continue counter your repetitious arguments with the same old responses then you ignore them, because again their valid rejoinders do not fit your preconceptions.

    But the real reason we know that your argument is in an awful state is that you align yourself with proven liars and delusionals like Chris Monkton, Anthony Watts, Tamas Calderwood and Ian Plimer.

  80. kdkd #2217

    Notice that you and DougB and other AGW boosters ducked out the back door from the SS “Robust warming of the global upper ocean” discussion as soon as the numbers started showing up the large unknowns and uncertainties of the science and the measurement.

    Also notice that SS is getting down to a political and ‘religious’ discussion in the latest issue; trying to divert attention from the weakness in the science by resorting to psychoanalysis of the sceptics.

  81. Ken,

    I get sick of your endless repetition, and your abuse of data analysis in the service of nothing but confirming your preconceptions. The SS piece on Monkton’s least incredible claims still show that his argument is a failure, just in a way that’s more polite than it deserves.

    Your claims about a lack of consensus are not borne out in the quality peer reviewed literature – again that’s you assuming that your preconceptions have primacy over any actual evidence. I think I’ve been very patient with you all things considered.

  82. kdkd #2215

    Good to see you are back in abuse mode kdkd – for a few days I had the impression you were actually absorbing the SS arguments.

    It is clear that your religious belief in alarmist AGW is still blotting out the reality that the ‘concensus’ never existed.

    The concoction of ‘concensus’ was an invention of green driven polemical scientists who verballed their media shy colleagues (thousands of IPCC participants) into minimising the great uncertainties of climate science and exaggerating anything which smacked of warming.

  83. Ken, WTF

    Monkton is barking mad, and and unethical liar to boot. You’re allowing your preconceptions to get in the way of being able to critically evaluate arguments again. If you won’t take your medication, I suggest you get yourself nice and comatose from the metho.

  84. kdkd #2213

    Thanks for the compliments kdkd. Looks like today’s post in SS is giving Lord Monckton a run – and not claiming that he is barking mad.

    Seems that even John Cook is even having some doubts about the ‘concensus’.

  85. [ A couple of part-time amateurs like BP and yours truly seem to have shown that the ‘Robust’ was not that robust at all and that the claimed warming over the last 16 years was an illusion fed by instrumentation transition errors. ]

    Medication time Ken. Taking youse guys analysis at face value (BP has been making some pretty elementary mistakes lately showing that his objective is to confirm his preconceptions – just like what you do) is like taking serious advice from a pair of metho-soaked street drinkers advice on home decor and maintaining good personal relationships.

  86. “Until the OHC models certainty improves, you can’t use it to draw conclusions about the state of the scientific consensus, and you’re misrepresenting the purpose of the work in that subfield.”

    Unless you think it supports “concensus” AGW theory and in that case – use it like crazy with headlines like “Robust warming of the global upper upper ocean”.

    A couple of part-time amateurs like BP and yours truly seem to have shown that the ‘Robust’ was not that robust at all and that the claimed warming over the last 16 years was an illusion fed by instrumentation transition errors.

  87. Ken,

    It’s all models, you’ve misunderstood the nature of measurement systems. Also until the reasons that the OHC contradicts the rest of the available data are understood and corrected, we don’t throw out everything else and rely on incomplete inaccurate data.

    So I don’t think so indeed. Until the OHC models certainty improves, you can’t use it to draw conclusions about the state of the scientific consensus, and you’re misrepresenting the purpose of the work in that subfield.

  88. kdkd #2209

    I don’t think so kdkd. Your 15-30 year time spans are only working for OHC to show significant warming when instrumentation errors (offsets) are included. Take out the impossible jumps and not much OHC warming is going on at all – far less than predicted by CO2GHG.

    Again the satellite data is high precision but low accuracy. CERES is showing an imbalance of something like 4.5-6.5W/sq.m – when Dr Trenberth’s number is 0.9W/sq.m. BP is showing that the year to year variation from the satellites are NOT showing enough change to get anything near the 0.9 number and this is borne out by flat OHC .

    Dr Trenberth says in his papers that the 0.9W/sq.m is derived by MODELS.

    So in effect what the climate science ‘consensus’ is saying is that when the observation does not match the MODEL – then the MODEL must be right and the observation is not good enough (wrong).

    This turns the scientific method on its head.

    The method of observation – model – observation – adjust model – observation – refine model: is turned into – MODEL and go away and find observations which match it.

  89. Ken,

    You’ve complained about my usage of the term “false premises” in the past. However this is what you, BP and Lindzen’s latest load of crap are all using to maintain your argument. “False premises” means that the initial propositions upon which your base your argument are incorrect. Here’s why:

    If the measurement system is insufficiently precise, then you need to either develop a better measurement system, or in the absence of that, use much longer time spans over which to perform the analysis. The scientific consensus is based on the use of appropriately long time spans and a slow incremental attempt to improve the measurement model. Your argument is based on inappropriately short time spans which results in your fitting signal with noise. Trenberth’s argument is not what you think it is about – it is exclusively about the quality of the measurement model.

    Your argument is therefore devastatingly rebutted, and you still have not a leg to stand on.

  90. kdkd #2207

    As you can see on SS – nobody is able to offer a stong argument against what BP and I have said about OHC. The ‘consensus’ is that the measurement system is not good enough to accurately quantify the problem.

    That being the case – then the argument that *its there but we just can’t measure it* is not science but more like “discredited crap” kdkd.

  91. Ken:

    The important differences between my ideology and yours are:

    1. Mine requires that a rigorous approach that relies on supported facts, non-selective use of scientific information and an appropriate time frame to understand the problem.

    2. I don’t constantly repeat the same discredited crap over and over again.

  92. kdkd #2205

    “you look like an ideologically obsessed idiot.”

    Takes one to know one kdkd.

  93. No Ken,

    For the ocean heat model (it’s a model) the CO2/GHG models don’t predict the noisy measurement model (it’s a measurement model) well over short time frames. Your frame of reference is wrong therefore your argument is intellectually bankrupt bullshit. Over longer time frames CO2 is required to predict the observed temperature anomolies, and your argument collapses in a pile of false premises.

    We’ve been through this before your constant repetition of discredited crap is tedious and makes you look like an ideologically obsessed idiot.

  94. kdkd #2203

    “which would be indicators of warming – but not necessarily AG warming” is really wishful delusional thinking seeing as the role of co2 in using models to predict actual observations is so strong.”

    That’s the trouble kdkd – the Models using CO2GHG forcing at 1.6 – 1.7 W/sq.m are not predicting the observations. As you know this number reduces to about 0.9W/sq.m according to Dr Trenberth and on his best estimate just over half of this has shown up in the oceans ASSUMING that the OHC measurements prior to 2004 are correct – which being massaged XBT measurements they probably are NOT.

    Since 2004 the OHC on Argo analyses (top 700m) is pretty flat – so no imbalance there and the sole 2000m analysis of Von Shukmann finds about 0.54 W/sq.m (over the global surface) which is still just over half of Dr Trenberth’s figure, and it looks like VS could be troubled by strange bumps and offsets in its curve.

    If you look at the satellite data for TOA over the last 10 years see BP#30;

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html

    then there is nothing doing from year to year when giant leaps of OHC were supposed to occur in the 2001-2003 period.

    The measurements show that the OHC and TOA imbalance are NOT as CO2GHG theory predicted.

  95. Ecosystem changes, migration of species, increased rainfall and so on. The independent converging lines of data are actually broad, and the “include sea level rise and ice melts etc – which would be indicators of warming – but not necessarily AG warming” is really wishful delusional thinking seeing as the role of co2 in using models to predict actual observations is so strong.

    We can’t measure it without 100% accuracy therefore it isn’t happening (or some variant) does indeed look like you’re engaging in delusional ideologically based wishful thinking.

  96. kdkd #2201

    Roger Pielke Snr is onto the case with this:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/comments-on-nature-commentary-by-kevin-trenberth/

    kdkd:

    “If there weren’t multiple independent lines of convergent evidence, then it might be to do with the scientific consensus, but because there are, it isn’t.”

    Your other lines presumably include sea level rise and ice melts etc – which would be indicators of warming – but not necessarily AG warming.

    You can’t escape the fact that if there is little or no TOA imbalance then the CO2GHG forcing is being smothered or was exaggerated to start with – and the CO2GHG theory and modelling were inaccurate.

    The argument that *its there but we just can’t measure it* is looking increasingly like wishful thinking kdkd.

  97. Right Ken,

    What you have in #2200 is fine, but it’s nothing to do with the scientific consensus, it’s to do with measurement uncertainty, a completely different beast. If there weren’t multiple independent lines of convergent evidence, then it might be to do with the scientific consensus, but because there are, it isn’t.

    You lost the debate, now you’re just hanging around to be lightly beaten by an iron bar every now and again …

  98. kdkd # 2199

    This saves you looking through the threads at SS. Don’t forget that the TOA imbalance proposed by Dr Trenberth is not ‘measured’ at all – the CERES is not accurate enough. It is based on MODELS.

    Ken Lambert at 23:30 PM on 24 May, 2010
    BP#6 has probably got the intepretation about right.

    Figure 2 shows a huge increase in OHC from roughly a 2 year period 2001 to 2003 in which the OHC rises from the zero axis to about 7E22 Joules or about 700E20 Joules. This is about 350E20 Joules/year heat gain.

    Dr Trenberth’s 0.9W/sq.m TOA energy flux imbalance equalled 145E20 Joules/year. Therefore a rise of 350E20 Joules/year in OHC equals about 2.1W/sq.m TOA imbalance – a seemingly impossible number.

    Coinciding with the start of full deployment of the Argo buoys around 2003-04 this impossibly steep rise in 2001-03 looks like an offset calibration error. Similar would apply to Fig 3.

    In such case, fitting a linear curve from 1993-2009 and calling it a ‘robust’ 0.64W/sq.m is just nonsense.

    One might also note that the better the Argo coverage and analysis gets from about 2005 onward – the more the teams curves converge on a flattening trend – no OHC rise – no TOA imbalance.

  99. Ken,

    You need to take a leap of faith/illogic to conclude that your argument that global warming has somehow stopped or slowed or whatever from Trenberth’s analysis, or from the analysis in the latest Nature paper. Here are some key quotes seeing as you don’t appear to have read the comment from Trenberth you linked to:

    [ The severe under-sampling of the ocean until about five years ago, along with the variety of methods used to correct for problems and biases, has led to many estimates of how the temperatures in the ocean have changed over time. ]

    Which is the problem of the missing heat that he’s referring to, not some potential problem with the scientific consensus. Theres your main leap of illogic easily identified.

    [ In spite of all the difficulties, Lyman et al. are able to demonstrate a robust warming of the global upper ocean from 1993 to 2008 … This is reasonably consistent with expectations from other indications of global warming ]

    And here’s the final paragraph for you:

    [ Although Lyman and colleagues’ paper1 reinforces the overall view that the ocean has been warming at a rate consistent with radiative imbalance estimates from anthropogenic climate change, the slowdown since 2003 is at odds with top-of-atmosphere radiation measurements9. This discrepancy suggests that further problems may be hidden within the ocean observations and their processing. It also highlights the need to do better, and the prospects for that. Experience in the atmosphere has long highlighted the desirability of working with ‘anomalies’ as departures from a well-established climatology. Moreover, methods of analysis and interpolation of gaps in space and time should take account of the warming climate, and care is needed not to bias results towards background values. As the relevant analytical methods mature, ocean heat content is likely to become a key indicator of climate change. ]

    Short version: It’s the measurement system stupid. Instead, you’re setting a fire in your underpants and claiming that the scientific consensus is shot. So all you end up with is smouldering underpants and a total lack of credibility … well done!

  100. kdkd #2195

    SS is running that same stuff:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html

    At a glance there are several glaring problems with the data:

    1) Argo has only been deployed since 2004 and the OHC from Argo is pretty flat for the last 6 years. Argo is supposed to be the most accurate by far. Nothing like the 0.64 W/sq.m claimed over 16 years tryng to chase Dr Trenberth’s 0.9W/sq.m of imbalance.

    2) Argo does not run above or below 60 deg lat N or S – so is not monitoring a big chunk of the cooler oceans. I don’t think XBT ever got down there in any kind of numbers.

    3) Mixing massaged XBT data with Argo is probably worthless. The big jump up to the Argo data in the 2002-2004 period is probably an offset, as it involves a huge rate of heat gain in a very short time if true.

    Note that BP has jumped in with a comment showing a heat loss at the most recent end of the record – although I am not carrying a torch for BP after he ducked out of the last discussion just when it was getting interesting.

  101. Ken, Tamas,

    Another one of your delusional talking points demolished (via the bbc.

    [ Professor Roy Spencer, for instance, is a climate sceptic scientist from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    But when I asked him about the future of Professor Phil Jones, the man of the heart of the UEA e-mail affair, he said he had some sympathy.

    “He says he’s not very organised. I’m not very organised myself,” said Professor Spencer. “If you asked me to find original data from 20 years ago I’d have great difficulty too.

    “We just didn’t realise in those days how important and controversial this would all become – now it would just all be stored on computer. Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we’re not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway.” ]

  102. Ken #2193

    Blah blah blah boring. You are under several misaprehensions:

    1. That I think the current political system produces appropriate political outcomes, and will leap to the defence of the Labor party. I’m not a member of any political party I’m afraid.

    2. That I thought the ETS was in any way good policy.

    3. That narrow self interest, the greed of big business and prioritising short term political gain over proper policy is the way to run a political party (and in the libs case poisoning the political debate by over-simplifying complex issues to appeal to people’s baser instincts).

    Abbot is an impulsive dickhead, John Howard was a narrow minded selfish jerk, and Rudd is a coward.

    At least you’ve stopped parading your scientific fictions as somehow valid, well thought out and relevant 🙂

  103. kdkd #2192

    “Libs the party of the priveleged (sic) self-interested” – indeed that is why the two most successful Liberal Prime Ministers – governing for a total of 28 years out of the 39 years of Liberal Coalitions since 1949; were from very modest backgrounds.

    Bob Menzies’ father was a small shopkeeper in Victoria and John Howard’s father ran a service station in NSW. Both achieved their positions from natural ability and hard work.

    Hard work kdkd – something you might view from afar in your ivory tower.

    $180 million Malcolm Turnbull – member for Goldman Sachs – happy child of an edifice of corporate greed and avarice on a monumental scale; was in fact jettisoned by the Liberal party in favour of a failed priest.

    Thank God we missed out on the Rudd-Turnbull ETS – a bastard child and plaything for all those Goldman-like finance spivs in their carbon casino.

    If you want to equate modern wealth with privilege – you could do no better than the Swiss Family Rudd. Mrs Rudd holds most of the family jewels – gained by what must have been quite profitable government contracts from John Howard’s reforms of the job placement system, and similar lucrative overseas contracts from the Blair-Brown and European socialist paradisos.

    Ah, but the Rudd fortune is different – it was gained not from privilege – but under-privilege – all those difficult to place disabled and sheltered workers which nice Mrs Rudd helps into employment out of a Mother Teresa-like concern for their welfare. Just don’t mention the handsome taxpayer funding for her successful philanthropy to blossom into a beautiful smiling empire spreading across the seas.

  104. Ken,

    You’ve had your argument, which you think is much broader scope than it actually is rebutted many many times. However your delusion index is so high you don’t recognise the fact and think you’re a genius pitched against those evil self-interested scientists.

    p.s. as you’re clearly a liberal voter you will in denial about the fact that the libs are the party of the priveleged self-interested. As a result of this, your argument becomes inconsistent immediately and is rubbish based on paranoid delusional political ideology.

    See you lost the argument thoroughly, but you’re too stupid to realise.

  105. kdkd #2190

    “There’s very few ways to deal with that politely according to the comments policy of that blog.”

    There is one way kdkd – present a plausible technical argument which debunks what I have said here and on SS.

    Notice that John Cook never comes out to play on my posts and Chris (same as our Chris?) never delivers a knockout argument either.

    All in all, on both technical and political fronts – I would suggest that the sensible sceptics are winning hands down.

  106. Ken,

    That’s just pathetic inflation of uncertainty in your “last word”. There’s very few ways to deal with that politely according to the comments policy of that blog. If it would make it I’d post “shut the fuck up and stop repeating yourself”. People just get bored of countering your tenuous claims masked in a cloak of illusory technical respectability.

    Your argument is wafer thin and gnawed by rats, and you know it.

  107. Ken:

    Must be your delusions, but your last word certainly didn’t go unchallenged.

    Your argument is looking pretty ropey. I don’t think you’ll find any good quality evidence pointing at the likelihood of negative feedbacks, although I would stand corrected if you did. All you have to go on here is cherry picking particular studies at totally inappropriate time ranges. But if that’s what the voices in your head tell you what you must do, then so be it.

    Yeah, the heat’s all out of the debate, with the Chinese likely to implement a price on carbon by 2012 or so, and the Americans with a strong strategy to follow suit, sidestepping an irritable congress with bureaucratic regulation if necessary. As has been pointed out before , Australia is a minnow or smaller in this game, just one that’s squandering the opportunity to show some foresight and leadership.

    Your argument has tenuous relationship to reality, has no legs, and deep down you know it.

  108. kdkd #2186

    I don’t know if anybody knows with certainty what the sign of the feedbacks is. For example, there is some interesting blog stuff going around which talks about the tropics not showing much temperature change and the higher colder latitudes doing more of the emitting to space.

    Don’t forget that Dr Trenberth’s 0.9W/sq.m energy flux imbalance is still open, and that he did canvas the possibility that the ‘missing heat’ was being lost to space. Minus 273 degc is a helluva heat sink.

    Notice that the thread on this SS blog petered out at #107 with yours truly having the last word:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=59&&n=178

    I think that I did OK.

    On the political front – notice that all the ‘heat’ has gone out of the climate change debate since Kevin07 wimped it and did a runner. All the kiddies who voted for the Mandarin Candidate are spewing into their iPods, iPads and iPhones and switched tweet following to Bobby Brown.

  109. Ken #2185

    Lindzen may well be making (up) these claims, but he doesn’t actually have any evidence to back it up. The majority of evidence to date is that positive feedbacks dominate such as this one.

    Lindzen’s record on predicting this kind of stuff from theory is pretty piss poor (apparently based on wishful thinking), which is why he’s reduced to having is op-ed in a crappy regional american newspaper re-reported in the execrable, inaccurate and anti-science Watts Up With That.

    Apparently the only evidence you have to back up your position is your own wishful thinking.

  110. kdkd #2184

    kdkd, I think the issue is that Lindzen reckons that CO2 feedbacks are probably negative overall when the tropical and polar regions are accounted; whereas IPCC concensus scientists reckon that CO2 feedbacks are positive to drive the AGW theory.

    The other main point is that theorized CO2 warming effects are logarithmic, whereas heat emissions from a warmer Earth are exponential (proportional to T^4). This also dictates that there can never be a runaway greenhouse.

    Where the two curves cross is the new equilibrium, where warming and cooling balance. If the forcings are cyclical then the balance is trended towards but never reached.

  111. Ken #2183

    Yes, more crap. If Lindzen is such a crash hot scientist why is that article refer to an op-ed in a shitty regional newspaper [1], and not something from a decent scientific journal.

    Bu the way, another diagnostic of a complex system: the system will not reach equilibrium. Facile nonsense. You got any good sources for your delusions, or do you just fill the cavity in your head with crap to cope with the void?

    [1] If you write to a newspaper about factual inaccuracies in their op-eds they’ll respond that it’s an opinion piece and therefore does not need to be fact checked.

  112. Ken.

    I know some Lib Dem activists, and while they’re surprised and confused by the end result, they seem pretty positive about it, mainly because they’ve got a lot of what they asked for, especially electoral reform of their hideously broken democracy.

  113. Ken #2177

    The chances of Abbot forming a coalition with the greens are about the same as the british Labour Party forming a coalition with the British National Party.

  114. kdkd #2176

    When the Greens are going nuclear its time for some radical thoughts.

    After the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ was wimped by the Rudd kiddie, don’t be surprised if Tony Abbott forms a coalition with Bob Brown to implement my 10 point plan – at least direct action in a sane program would yield vastly more that the piss and wind of the Rudd-Wong wank.

  115. There is indeed some very interesting stuff going on in the nuclear area check out Bill Gates’ recent TED talk on the matter, and this talk from Stewart Brand at the Long Now Foundation about low maintenance nuclear solutions. However, Australia lacks the expertise in the area – I think development of these technologies as commodities are a good decade away, and best developed by the Americans and the French. With Australia’s abundant natural resources, we’re in the best position to develop geothermal, solar , wave, tied and wind resources.

  116. EP #2173

    Ken Lambert’s latest 10 point Plan in descending order of conservatism:

    1) Reduce consumption of petrol and diesel by converting to gas. Convert coal fired plant to gas where feasible.

    2) Encourage electric public transport – train and light rail – free and frequent as possible.

    3) Encourage line haul road transport onto electric rail by tax concessions or differential taxation.

    4) Encourage viable renewables such as solar hot water, geothermal, hydro, wind, and possibly solar-thermal with tax concessions.

    5) Encourage electric car technology, particularly viable potential technologies such as ultra-fast recharging of batteries and battery exchange systems with tax concessions.

    6) Encourage energy conservation by insulation, energy saving lighting, thermally efficient design, water storage systems, building management systems and star ratings etc.

    7) Start a crash program of building nuclear power plants of viable scale (maxi and mini) using perhaps Dr Wang Fang’s pebble bed ‘non-melt downable’ reactor technology from China; as close to major loads as possible. Run electric rail and grid systems with nuclear power as soon as available.

    8) Start building a nuclear storage and reprocessing facility in SA or WA stable geology served by a dedicated port, railway and airport, serving all the nations to which we export uranium. Pursue the nuclear producers coalition with USA and Canada to close the nuclear cycle.

    9) Examine the feasibility of ‘power ships’ carrying multiple mini-nuclear plants to supply power local decentralized coastal grids and export locations. Ships could discharge spent fuel and fuel up at the dedicated port/reprocessing facility. Export energy not uranium. Pursue the nuclear producers coalition with USA and Canada to close the nuclear cycle.

    10) Pump coal fired flue gases rich in CO2 into long skinny greenhouses, lakes of green slime or seawater farms and grow forests of salad greens for the greater and greener good. (surely speculative but maybe not as crazy as burying CO2 in holes in the ground)

    You might note that the UK is planning 10 new nuclear power plants, the cool Swedes 1, and the Chinese plan 300 nuclear plants by 2050. The absurd moral and political position of selling uranium to the world, but not using it ourselves will be mugged by reality.

  117. Eponymous: the ten point plan was last commented on by me here, and there’s a link to the original in that post.

  118. [ Well, lets wait for another 10 years or so to get a handle on the climate and the OHC and in the meantime start my 10 point plan. ]

    You delusional idiots have been saying that for three decades now, and the amount of evidence against your argument increases all the time. Delay is not acceptable, and ironically the sane parts of your derivative 10 point plan are quite sensible things that should have been done two or three decades ago.

    So your argument is discredited, demolished, toast, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it is an ex-argument. If you had not nailed it to its perch it would be pushing up the dasies etc…

  119. Well, lets wait for another 10 years or so to get a handle on the climate and the OHC and in the meantime start my 10 point plan.

    Gotta be a better than Kevin07’s ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’…..well at least it was that last week until our Mandarin Candidate found a new moral challenge this week – the credibility gap between his top and bottom lips………….

  120. kdkd #2168

    Well if 7 years is not long enough then 17 years is not that much longer when you are claiming that 30 years is the minimum period for a valid statistical analysis. So toss out the sea level chart that Chris posted – not long enough.

    I will agree with you that BP seems to be a hit and run merchant – he does not hang around for an in-depth to and fro. I have the impression that he thinks that our efforts are all beneath his tablets of wisdom delivered from on high. This does not mean that he is wrong – but that he is probably wrestling with the complexities and conflicts in the observations and trying to understand the system, just like the honest climate scientists out there.

  121. Ken,

    Once you correct for the fact that the data is only meaningful in annual chunks (due seasonal variability) the illusion that your chart shows something profound post 2007 disappears. Or put more precisely the grand regression line is not statistically significantly different from the pre-2007 regression line or the post 2007 regression line) once the seasonal effects have been removed.

    Not a consensus buster.

  122. kdkd #2166

    Think of your legacy kdkd………..you could easily do this with your programs and prove my point. It is eyeballingly obvious that the sea levels have flattened in the last 7 years or so from Chris’ graph.

    What do you want to do kdkd??…..run with the alarmist crowd and be a small red face in it…..or distinguish yourself as the star rational AGW sceptic in a small regional university…..national profile, increased research grants when Tony Abbott becomes PM etc etc etc..

    Think about it..

  123. [ In this case the year to year measurements have flattened in the last 7 years. ]

    In order to demonstrate this you have to show that there is a statistically significant difference between the regression slope of the last 7 years versus time, and the prior available data. However, because this is time series data, the difference would have to be large to be statistically significant.

    Again it’s an example of you trying to draw strong conclusions over far too short a time period. This is a fruitless area to try to and contradict the scientific consensus with because you lack statistical power.

  124. kdkd #2164

    I can’t get the SS blog to answer at the moment so you will have to do;

    The CSIRO paper by Domingues et al..comes up with a global average sea level rise of 1.6+/-0.2mm (published 2008) viz:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

    Dr Trenberth uses an ‘observed’ number of 2.5mm in his energy budget calculations made up of components with wide error bars eg. 0.8 +/-0.8mm.

    Both the above are well below the average 3.2mm of Chris’ graph.

    The CSIRO quotes the satellite sea level figures with error bars of +/-5mm.

    This seems to be another case of high precision but low accuracy – only good for year to year measurements and the possibility of large offsets – as with other satellite data such as SORCE TIMS monitors.

    In this case the year to year measurements have flattened in the last 7 years.

  125. Ken,

    You’ll also notice that your habit of eyeballing graphs, and trying to pretend that objective conclusions can be drawn from your subjective perception is widely seen as a total load of crap, given the responses from me and others over at SS.

    You really have to lift your game. Trying to make strong conclusions denying the scientific consensus from far too little data, and then trying to pretend that a subjective analysis is appropriate, where objective techniques are easy and well understood together show the shallowness of your argument, and highlight the fact that it’s really based on a total load of crap resulting from your delusional ideation…

    I see that the more he goes on, the more BP’s arguments are shown to be pretty shallow as well – like you he seems to have a good grasp of some of the physics, but insufficient understanding of statistics.

  126. The 30% figure the mismatch between the theoretical balance and that measured at the TOA. It’s a good enough estimate of the lack amount of precision/uncertainty of the theoretical model right now. The parameters include surface temperature, ocean temperature, melt etc. Anything that can contain heat. It’s obvious that the time span for decent ocean measurements, and insufficiently good estimates of many of the other parameters means that we’re unable to draw decent conclusions from the OHC/TOA figures at this stage.

  127. kdkd #2161

    KL Answer:

    “Moving existing heat around in your ’stochastic’ chaotic system is not going to change the ‘global’ heat sum of OHC, land, atmosphere, ice etc.

    Heat popping up in an El Nino or AMO in one place must be missing from some other place unless there is external forcing (a net imbalance).

    Forcings ‘external’ to the atmosphere, land, oceans, ice can only be Solar (TSI), Volcanic, and waste heat from exothermic reactions like burning fossil fuels, nuclear etc.”

    kdkd response: “Theoretically you are correct. The theoretical model underpinning the ohc/toa calculations is indeed deterministic. However in practice we seem to be missing about 30% of the parameters (expressed in amount of energy) for the theoretical model to describe the measurement system well enough.”

    Question: And what parameters are these kdkd….?? Where do you get the 30% number from??

    Answer: Over to you kdkd…

  128. More pathetic time wasting, and a strong indication that this is your main reason for being here – you don’t care about the science or the issues, just about point scoring from ludicrous grammatical nit picking and highlighting your own scientific misunderstandings.

    Here, from #2148 was what you haven’t answered:

    [ You have not produced any argument, let alone a convincing one as to why you think it is appropriate to treat a stochastic system as if it is deterministic. Until you do so, your argument is based on a wildly over extended conclusion. Observing the divergence between data and theory is not the same as reaching an illogical conclusion based on the same. Which is what you appear to have done. ]

  129. kdkd #2159

    “Now answer the question, or face more derision.”

    What was the question kdkd….??

    Your derision is like a fart in a football crowd…..nobody cares..

  130. Ken,

    Your continuous questioning is tedious, its a pretty transparent attempt to avoid answering the questions that are put to you.

    Your OHC/TOA model does not accurately reflect the full range of observations. It appears to be out by about 30%. The measurement model is inaccurate, either due to missing (unknown) parameters and/or due to innacurate measurement of known parameters. To improve accuracy you need better models, measurement systems, and more full annual cycles of observations. In the absence of the first two, we can increase the sample size of the third, but 30 annual cycles is a minimum with which we can make meaningful conclusions.

    Now answer the question, or face more derision.

  131. kdkd #2157

    “However in practice we seem to be missing about *30% of the parameters*(expressed in amount of energy) for the theoretical model to describe the measurement system well enough.”

    And what paramaters are these kdkd….??

  132. Non-equilibrium conditions (with no possibility of reaching equilibrium) are of course diagnostic of a complex system, which is the area of mathematics where the rules of calculus do not apply (http://necsi.org/projects/baranger/cce.pdf : Baranger, M. (2002) Chaos, complexity, and entropy – a physics talk for non-physicists. New England Complex Systems Institute.)

  133. KL #2154

    And, I almost forgot – In the ‘external forcings’ list we need add the ‘Enhanced GHG effect’ which purportedly exists in non-equilibrium conditions.

  134. Ken,

    Theoretically you are correct. The theoretical model underpinning the ohc/toa calculations is indeed deterministic. However in practice we seem to be missing about 30% of the parameters (expressed in amount of energy) for the theoretical model to describe the measurement system well enough. Claiming that the theoretical model is good enough by itself is incorrect, but this appears to be required for your argument to be valid.

    Therefore your argument is not valid, given the limitations of the measurement model.

  135. The internal variability of the system is not the issue here kdkd..

    Moving existing heat around in your ‘stochastic’ chaotic system is not going to change the ‘global’ heat sum of OHC, land, atmosphere, ice etc.

    Heat popping up in an El Nino or AMO in one place must be missing from some other place unless there is external forcing (a net imbalance).

    Forcings ‘external’ to the atmosphere, land, oceans, ice can only be Solar (TSI), Volcanic, and waste heat from exothermic reactions like burning fossil fuels, nuclear etc.

  136. [ Is that ‘chance events effect outcomes’ or ‘affect outcomes’ ]

    effect (n): a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause

    affect (v): have an effect on; make a difference to

    Grammatical nit-picking — you must be desperate to avoid answering the question.

    [ And what has this to do with the first law (of thermodynamics) ]

    Well chance events effect how you go about measuring the system in a precise way, so you have to account for stochasticity in the measurement system. Looking at OHC/TOA alone would appear to be too simple a model be a suitably comprehensive measurement system.

  137. Ken,

    It means that it’s going to be very difficult to account for all of the variability, especially when you haven’t got very much data. Are you attempting to avoid justifying why your strong conclusions are warranted here?

  138. Is that ‘chance events effect outcomes’ or ‘affect outcomes’ kdkd…

    And what has this to do with the first law??

  139. A stochastic system is one which is subject to the rules of probability – chance events effect outcomes. A deterministic system does not have this property.

    Now answer my question from #2148 or is this another one you need to avoid answering to avoid exposing the fact that you’re a delusional fuckwit?

  140. “you have not produced any argument, let alone a convincing one as to why you think it is appropriate to treat a stochastic system as if it is deterministic.”

    Your new buzz words kdkd….trying to make you sound intelligent.

    Explain to the viewers what is the difference in the two kdkd….with reference to the immutable first law of thermodynamics.

  141. KeN,

    you have not produced any argument, let alone a convincing one as to why you think it is appropriate to treat a stochastic system as if it is deterministic. Until you do so, your argument is based on a wildly over extended conclusion. Observing the divergence between data and theory is not the same as reaching an illogical conclusion based on the same. Which is what you appear to have done.

  142. kdkd #2146

    Why don’t you both label the OHC graph at the start of the SS blog as “numerology” as well – because it contains numbers which you don’t understand??

  143. Ken #2145

    [ All it means is that you and Chris (same Chris late of this blog?) have felt threatened enough to try countering my arguments. ]

    Nope, it means for us armchair scientists, it’s clear as day that your argument is a load of crap, that is seemingly plausible because it hides behind a net of energy calculations that are shown to be totally irrelevant as they ignore the stochasticity of the system. Yeah, substantce. My argument is full of it. Your argument is superficial crap. End of story, try another one, or give up.

  144. kdkd #2144

    All it means is that you and Chris (same Chris late of this blog?) have felt threatened enough to try countering my arguments.

    The result is a raft of your and Chris’ non-specific assertion; eg “that’s not quite right, Ken” stuff which fails to follow through with any substance.

    Labelling my stuff as numerology is just another smear tactic because you can’t debate the substance of John Cook’s blog.

    Why don’t you both label the OHC graph at the start of the SS blog as “numerology” as well – because it contains numbers which you don’t understand??

  145. Ken,

    Looks like you’re getting a thorough beating concerning your numerological approach to climate science in the Skeptical Science thread too.

    Hehe, numerology. Funny. Highlights the delusional moronicity of your argument nicely.

  146. Tamas,

    It’s amusing that you constantly cite the excerable, anti-scientific wattsupwiththat site as some kind of scientific authority. In fact, Watts has been shown to be wrong on seeveral counts (especially his urban heat island effect stuff) but repeatedly refuses to acknowledge that the data shows the opposite of what he claims.

    But you rely on this anti-scientific bullshit to maintain your delusional ideation. So please, by all means publicly humiliate yourself with your fuckwitted nonsense all you like, but expect the humiliation to continue if you do.

  147. kdkd:

    “Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!” is actually part of the quote from Kelly to Jones.

    Seems those boys aren’t too confident eh!

  148. Tamas,

    I see your ludicrous post to Crikey comments on Friday has had a thorough doing – not a factual statement in your most recent spray. How pathetic.

  149. Ken #2136

    Actually having thought about it a bit more, I’m even more amused at your continued delusional ideation.

    Having comprehensively demonstrated that given the stochasticity of the TOA/OHC figures, that they do not differ in any statistically significant way from the CO2/temperature anomaly figures. Despite your continued assertions these figures indicate continued warming of sufficient magnitude to be of grave concern (as predicted by models about 20 or 30 years ago).

    This was the only argument you had left, and given that I’ve demonstrated that your argument is clearly unsupported by the available data, you’re harping on about stuff that’s clearly based on wildly over-extended conclusions. Your badly baked conclusion tart is showing signs of being made of the wrong ingredients, and of being left in a far too hot oven for far too long.

  150. Tamas #2134

    Excellent posts Tamas…

    kdkd is is getting over the ‘anger and denial’ phase about *lack of warming*.

    He is getting steadily ground between the opposing mill stones of incriminating private Climategate conversations and the reports from respected scientists such as Dr Trenberth all talking ‘lack of warming’.

  151. Tamas,

    [ Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing! ]

    Finishing off with a nice unscientific statement there. Doesn’t look like that’s going to happen – so far 2010 is as warm as ’98 or warmer. Also remember the decadal trend shows exactly the opposite of what you’re claiming – the naughties were the warmest decase on record with the 90s second warmest, and the 80s slightly cooler … etc.

    #2133 Crackpot conspiracy theory there. Tell you what, I’ll let you away with that if you acknowledge the big oil / tobacco lobby connections with the climate delusional camp.

    Half arsed nonsense of dubious provenance devised by you to maintain your delusional ideation. Nothing to see here, move on.

  152. Ken – her are some Climategate emails on the lack of warming we are experiencing:

    3-Jan-2009, Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones, Folland and Chris:

    I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

    We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

    Similarly, in an email dated 24-Oct-2008, Mick Kelly wrote to Phil Jones [5]:

    Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk and noted that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn’t look too hot.

    Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!

  153. Ken,

    So you’re claiming that Crikey is morally obliged to publish fact free delusional bullshit, because doing otherwise is censorship? That’s a strange argument.

    I thought I’d annoy you with custard metaphors by pointing out that you repeatedly manage to mistake the recipe for omlette as the recipe for custard (metaphorically), such is your wild overenthusiasm for your own half baked conclusion tarts.

  154. “Claiming a unequivicolal “lack of warming” from this data is over egging your custard rather”

    I think your over-egging my over-egging metaphor kdkd…..

    As for throwing molotov cocktails – your attempt to direct the editors of Crikey to stop publishing Tamas’ pieces smacks more of Climategate where the Mann-Jones clique had editors sacked and tried to suppress publication of papers by scientists with opposing views. Not exactly revolutionary kdkd…more like the KBG or the Stasi.

  155. kdkd: #2128

    “Interesting that nobody bites about my argument on stochastic versus deterministic.”

    So explain to us how this affects the temperature or energy balance numbers kdkd…?

    BP stuff ups: Your example is a poor one kdkd…I think that he might be right about heat transfer directly to space. Dr Trenberth even suggests the possibility of heat being radiated out to space at a rate greater that predicted by theory.

    Note that I am asking BP for more detailed explanations.

    He could yet disappoint; he could be a bit of a ‘hit and run’ merchant without a fully resolved set of arguments. Let us see.

  156. Ken #2126

    Yes, there is a problem here somewhere between the energy imbalance observations and the global mean temperature observations. I’m interested to see where it has come from over the coming years, but for now, we can’t make strong conclusions that will drive policiy decision from the OHC/TOA figures becuase they’re clearly not good enough to do so. Claiming a unequivicolal “lack of warming” from this data is over egging your custard rather.

    #2127

    No I just feel sorry for Tamas and his total disregard for the facts caused by his delusional ideation (Ken’s nearly as bad but not quite as anti-science, although he’s do well to study some statistics because without it he’s clearly lost). I think you’d find that in the totalitarian state you’d be the one with the trench coat and the jack boots, and I’d be the one with the molotov cocktails fighting for your freedoms to be an idiot.

    Interesting that nobody bites about my argument on stochastic versus deterministic. Must be scared to engage me because I’m right.

  157. Tamas – kdkd writing to Crikey trying to shut you up….

    Laughable if it was not a serious indication that kdkd would be an informer for the secret thought police in his ideal totalitarian state.

    Without seeing your pieces as threats to his ideology, which must be suppressed; one wonders why he would bother to expose his preposterous attack on free speech.

    We must be messing with his mind Tamas…

  158. kdkd #2120

    Still repeating the “lack of warming” lie I see.

    How do you interpret John Cook’s Figure 1 from the SS post:

    Figure 1: Estimated rates of change of global energy. The curves are heavily smoothed. From 1992 to 2003, the decadal ocean heat content changes (blue), along with the contributions from melting glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice and small contributions from land and atmosphere warming, suggest a total warming (red) for the planet of 0.6 ± 0.2 W/m2 (95% error bars). After 2000, observations from the top of the atmosphere ( 9) (black, referenced to the 2000 values) increasingly diverge from the observed total warming (red).

    “Figure 1 has many interesting features. The blue area shows the rate of ocean warming. Note that when it falls after 2005, this doesn’t mean the ocean is cooling but that the rate of warming slows. The red line is the total amount of net energy change. This means that all the energy going into the melting of sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers plus the warming of land and atmosphere is the tiny gap between the blue area and the red line. However, the most interesting feature of this graph is the divergence after 2005. From this point, the satellite data (black line) continues to show a growing energy imbalance. But the ocean seems to be accumulating less heat.”

  159. Tamas,

    You are aware that newspaper opinion pieces do not have to be factually correct? And presumably you’re aware that his credibility seems pretty piss poor these days?

    As for Crikey continuing to publish your comments… They’re heartless bastards aren’t they – at least people like me have the compassion to try to prevent you from making a total idiot of yourself repeatedly.

  160. Ah yes, THE SCIENCE.

    Richard Lindzen is is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US.

    Pretty credible, don’t you think?

    And thanks for writing to Crikey asking them to shut me up. They don’t seem to listen to you though, do they?

  161. Wow Tamas,

    I see in your absence you’re just a gullible a moron as ever. At least Ken makes the pretense of being interested in the actual science from time to time.

  162. Ken,

    As you don’t like politics mixed with your scientific conclusions (presubably because the conclusions don’t agree with your unsurmountable ideological blinkers), here’s the base conclusion from my statisical analysis reiterated for you here:

    [ the TOA/OHC data that BP presented is what we would expect for a moderately sensitive system with only a small number of data points – and thus limited statistical power ]

    Given that it appears to be entirely consistent with all of the other bits of the scientific consensus.

  163. Ken,

    [ Perhaps waking up that there really is a legitimate technical argument going on about the reality of AGW, when SS starts to showcase the real issue of ‘lack of warming’ in recent times ]

    Still repeating the “lack of warming” lie I see. Good luck with that.

    Additionally you’re basically wrong about the ocean heat content measures being strong evidence against a severe and enduring problem that threatens civilisation, because you’re trying to treat a stochastic system as if it is deterministic. Doing so is a legitimate approach (given the acknowledgement of uncertainty), but requires rather more data than the 9 years available. Seeing as the only thing that you use uncertainty for is to promote your political agenda, and you avoid using uncertainty to understand the limitations of the science, I think it’s been fairly comprehensively shown that your opinions have very little in the way of validity.

  164. “BP (apparently a well educated Hungarian, but that’s what you get for one of the best education systems in the world…) seems similar, although he’s careful never to explicitly state his point of view.”

    Don’t project your biased political analysis on BP kdkd…. he has aired his ideas of how the climate system works, and is evolving as the science is revealed in very recent papers on OHC etc.

    A few of his ideas have been criticised (the thunderstorms theory) and he has been left high and dry with some higher maths to which no-one can respond – but I think his theory that OHC is the key to tracking the energy imbalances fits with Dr Trenberth’s papers, and the killer will be if the ‘missing heat’ is found below 700m depthor not. BP dismisses this idea – so the key will be the oceanographers getting their act together.

  165. kdkd #2117

    You are a much more reasonable chap these days kdkd…..Perhaps waking up that there really is a legitimate technical argument going on about the reality of AGW, when SS starts to showcase the real issue of ‘lack of warming’ in recent times – AND is brave enough to let a good discussion run.

    John Cook is to be given full credit.

    Contrast SS with the fascists at Climate Progress who snuffed out any dissenting opinion poste haste.

    And Tamas is right as usual – Germans frightening us with 3 degC by 2100 just doesn’t cut it for Tamas and I after more than 12 months in the trenches of climate change.

    Check the latest post at SS – I think I am on to what BP is talking about.

  166. Well Ken, the way that you work seems to be that you try to hide your political ideology behind technical ideas that superficially look plausible. BP (apparently a well educated Hungarian, but that’s what you get for one of the best education systems in the world…) seems similar, although he’s careful never to explicitly state his point of view. The technical pieces that he posts are rather underdeveloped by and large, and tend towards producing arguments that under-play the importance of anthropogenic causes of global warming. On the other hand he seems to have a good understanding (better than me) of the components that go together to make up the physics of the climate system. Note the careful wording of that last sentence.

    Spotted Tamas with his usual uninformed delusional utter drivel in the comments in Crikey today. I’ve sent them a note asking them to put him out of his misery by removing the oxygen of publicity.

  167. “Actually I’ve been watching him, and there are a lot of mistakes that he makes driven by his ideological blinkers.”

    So how did you work out BP’s ideology kdkd….??

    I have not read anything but technical pieces from him…

  168. Oh yeah …

    [ Keep your politics for this blog kdkd – ]

    Well the whole purpose of looking at the indicators of AGW is to formulate an appropriate policy response based on the scientific conclusions. So if you demonstrate that a certain dataset is inadequate for making changes to policy, then that should be stated explicitly. It’s not pure theoretical work, it’s applied, which is why my quick n’ dirty statistical methods are useful. They’re useless for proper theoretical work though.

  169. Actually I’ve been watching him, and there are a lot of mistakes that he makes driven by his ideological blinkers. It’s largely hidden by the fairly dense (yet often simultaneously under-developed) technical nature of his posts. Anyway, my understanding of thermodynamics, and what it’s useful for is better than your understanding of statistics.

  170. kdkd #2112

    I would admit that my lack of understanding of statistics might be as wide as your lack of understanding of thermodynamics.

    I get the feeling though that BP is on to something here.

    We did agree that he was one to watch.

  171. Ken,

    What exactly do you think is wrong with using statistics for evaluating an argument based on noisy data? I suspect it’s merely that you don’t really understand what statistical methods show.

  172. kdkd #2110

    Keep your politics for this blog kdkd – and the technical argument for Skeptical Science.

    It looks like you are trying to knock over BP’s argument with a flurry of statistics.

    I ‘get’ what he has done with the graphs after his detailed explanation.

    It will be very interesting to see how he deals with your statistics.

    Clearly BP is unimpressed with the ‘deep ocean’ hidden heat storage argument – for lack of a short term mechanism to get it down there.

  173. Ken,

    I’ve posted something over at Skeptical Science looking at BP’s calculations statistically. My less moderated conclusion is that the so called climate sceptics are trying to beat this up to exaggerate the uncertainty by displaying data (but not looking at it statistically, as that would show the argument is suspect) over inappropriately short time scales. The comment / fairly crude analysis is over at the relevant skeptical science thread.

  174. kdkd #2107

    BP is coming up with some scary stuff on SS kdkd….

    Very interested to see how JC and others like HR who seem to know some of this stuff respond to his latest posts.

    I would like to see a resolution of BP’s last two graphs to each other – they don’t seem to fit.

  175. Ken,

    No idea. Looks like the most likely culprit for the missing heat is the ocean though, so that’s the dataset to go prodding about in.

  176. kdkd #2105

    “So your first step is to develop a falsifiable hypothesis that will tell you which end of the model/observation system is going wrong the most.”

    How do you suggest that I do that kdkd?…

  177. So your first step is to develop a falsifiable hypothesis that will tell you which end of the model/observation system is going wrong the most. I think that’s what I said in different words.

  178. “If there are inconsistencies, there is a problem in need of further investigation, starting with determining which end the biggest problems lie at.”

    I thought the ‘scientific method’ was something like: observation – hypothesis – test hypothesis against further observation – modify hypothesis to correlate with observation – test new hypothesis – feedback – feedback – feedback – until hypothesis predicts closely and repeatably the observation.

    Observation is the driver here – not hypothesis.

    This should be up your academic alley kdkd…

  179. Ken,

    That’s all quite interesting stuff. My impression from reading the discussion between climate scientists here is that the energy balance model is not sufficiently well understood to justify it as a significant driver as climate policy given we have a range of other good quality observations and models from multiple independent sources that tell us that we already have a substantial problem that will be difficult (but if done right not economically destructive) to solve.

    Therefore in the absence of better information, we should have been doing our utmost to avoid the IPCC business as usual scenarios over the past 20 years, and we should certainly be ramping up our activity now, in view of the poor progress achieved to date.

    As for your models question at the end, obviously models and observation complement each other. If there are inconsistencies, there is a problem in need of further investigation, starting with determining which end the biggest problems lie at. I think that your habitual politicisation of the scientific process leads you to want to believe things are much more black and white than they actually are.

  180. kdkd #2101

    kdkd keep track of the current discussions on Skeptical Science….it is a very good coverage of the state of play with OHC and energy balance issues.

    The Pielke – Trenberth exchange is very interesting. Note that Trenberth is umimpressed with the current work on OHC – he mentions 6-8 analyses which do not give consistent results.

    The answer to the OHC ‘divergence’ problem will be the key to the future of AGW theory.

    I have canvassed many of the issues already in this blog.

    John Cooks’ blog does confirm the ‘lack of warming’ of recent times in the discussion of the OHC divergence problem.

    As BP correctly points out…..the OHC direct measurement is only being compared with the computer models – not the satellite data which is far too inaccurate for absolute measurement.

    If you are comparing real measurement with theoretical computer models – which would you consider more important – the observation or the theory??

  181. Well, you implied lazy and stupid with your comments on the Argo Buoy system previously – troubles with calibration and measurement of temperature at depth for example.

    Unfortunately your idealised measurement system is not going to be possible, so you need to use sophisticated statistical methods to apply the correction and clean the data set. I have no idea how much of an improvement in measurement this would create, and I have no knowledge of the work being done here.

    My point was that you have the hypothesis that the heat is missing because it’s not there. The location of the missing heat is a big unknown, and your hypothesis is one of several possibilities. What’s interesting to me is that the missing heat only becomes apparent when the measurment system changed. So is what we’re seeing the result of greater precision, or of calibration problems? I don’t have any answers on this, but given all the other available evidence (e.g. the temperature record showing a continued warming trend at the magnitude predicted by models over 20 years ago), that the heat is merely ‘not there’ is at best a good null hypothesis.

    Conclusion: scientifically interesting, but hardly given the rest of the evidence we have about the size and magnitude of the AGW problem, it is does not provide data that shows we should worry less about it, merely that the measurement systems show great uncertainty.

  182. “I’m sure you claimed previously that lack of precision in the ocean records was a sign of lazy and stupid oceanographers…”

    Where did I say ‘lazy & stupid’ kdkd….come on…. show me….

    The variety of results from Willis, Domingues, von Schukmann et al indicate that global OHC is very hard to measure accurately.

    The Argo buoys should be a big improvement, however I suggest that my proposed methodology is the ‘ideal’ to get an accurate measurement. It you had half a brain and an adult approach, you might like to critique my proposal.

    The issue then becomes how closely can the Argo and other methods get to the ‘ideal’ and what valid statistical corrections could be made to give a valid result.

    For example, since the Argo are not tethered to a particular spot, and float around in the currents, do we know if they are congregating in places which are warmer or cooler than the surroundings or does it make no difference?? Initial assumptions and experiment design would be critical here.

  183. Right, so now you’re claiming that measuring the ocean heat accurately is diabolically hard. I’m sure you claimed previously that lack of precision in the ocean records was a sign of lazy and stupid oceanographers…

  184. kdkd #2097

    Have a read of this kdkd….

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tracking-the-energy-from-global-warming.html

    and follow the Pielke-Trenberth emails.

    Neither John Cook, Kevin Trenberth nor von Schukmann are finding all the missing heat.

    I have read some of the Willis and von Schukmann papers but it is very hard to discover their exact methodologies of bricking or tiling the oceans and then measuring the heat content of each tile. A tile might be 200m deep x 5nm x 5nm (nautical mile) or some such volume – I don’t know the resolution, but have made the point before that unless an instantaneous snapshot at time T1 was compared with a snapshot at T2 of the whole volume of the oceans (all the tiles) then it would seem hard to measure an accurate difference between the OHC increase or decrease between T1 and T2.

    eg. for major currents like the gulf stream – running at 4-5 knots could move heat from one tile to another in minutes to hours.

    The Argo buoys would have to report all at the same instant – eg. 12.00 noon GMT at T1 and then at T2 (probably on the same day of the year) and a buoy in the same place would have to report on that ’tile’ to be accurate.

    I don’t know if the current Argo methodology can correct for the movement of the buoys, the time elapsed between measurements and estimate the ’tile’ heat content.

  185. Ken,

    See, you can be goaded to take a scientific path if you’re lead by the nose. Unfortunately your tendency to treat hypothesis as conclusion means that you wildly overstate your case as soon as possible.

    At the moment, it appears that your hypothesis is that its not the deep ocean that is absorbed the heat between 2003 and 2008, but the beginning of a negative feedback effect caused by a range of atmospheric effects.

    Well I think you can find empirical data online that can test your hypothesis. However the range of empirical evidence in at the moment suggests no support for it. Speaking scientifically you can try to stake your claim, but it does require collecting or collating data, and analysis. If you don’t do this, or get someone else to do it, your argument is currently based on a guess not terribly well supported by the data, but well supported by your ideological preconceptions.

    Get to it, and come back when you’re done to tell us which peer reviewed journal you got the paper published into.

  186. KL #2094, kdkd #2095

    “but would make the point that Dr Trenberth considers 5-6 years of lack of warming a notable enough event to write a paper with it as a central focus viv-a-vis the missing heat. Put another way, why mention it at all if the period was insignificant ‘weather’ which simply regurgitates existing heat in and out of the oceans.”

    Looks like Dr Trenberth can’t tell the difference between climate and weather either kdkd?

    Enlighten us with a reasonable answer to the above..

  187. Answer: “I don’t know”.

    And you still can’t tell the differenence between weather and climate.

    Thanks for making my point clearly for me.

  188. kdkd #2093

    “What would be the probability that the missing heat isn’t there? Given the accuracy of the models, and the soundness of the physics and chemistry underlying global warming theory then? 50/50 at best. Yes, there’s a great big heat sink below 300m that we can’t really measure, and putting aside from the last handful of years of weather no theoretical basis for discarding the missing heat.”

    You have actually asked a reasonable question kdkd…..well done.

    I don’t know that probability ….but would make the point that Dr Trenberth considers 5-6 years of lack of warming a notable enough event to write a paper with it as a central focus viv-a-vis the missing heat. Put another way, why mention it at all if the period was insignificant ‘weather’ which simply regurgitates existing heat in and out of the oceans.

    As we already agreed a long time ago – there is no global warming or cooling without an external forcing imbalance, and the first law dictates that that heat must go somewhere.

  189. And Ken,

    What would be the probability that the missing heat isn’t there? Given the accuracy of the models, and the soundness of the physics and chemistry underlying global warming theory then? 50/50 at best. Yes, there’s a great big heat sink below 300m that we can’t really measure, and putting aside from the last handful of years of weather no theoretical basis for discarding the missing heat.

    And given your history of arguing on the basis of political ideology is of prime importance, unwarranted assumptions, and misrepresentation of the facts, you expect us to take your argument seriously?

    You really need to get this weather versus climate thing sorted in your head by the way, it’s preventing you from thinking clearly about the problem (but the fug of delusion probably doesn’t help either).

  190. kdkd #2091

    The Guardian report is pretty accurate – Dr Trenberth has ‘found’ about 0.55W/sq.m of his purported 0.9 W/sq.m imbalance in his budget (mainly in the oceans) – roughly half.

    BUT

    He confirms that surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures have NOT warmed as IPCC predicted and ONE of the explanations is that the ‘missing heat’ is locked in the oceans below 7-900m.

    He laments the fact that we are not measuring the oceans NOR the energy balance at the TOA accurately enough to find the ‘missing heat flux imbalance’ or the total OHC.

    He mentions in his paper that other possible explanations are that ‘clouds are brighter’ (reflecting more heat), OR heat may be radiating out of the atmosphere at higher than the ‘predicted’ levels, again because CERES data is not accurate enough to measure it.

    But finally, being an IPCC author he plumbs for the missing heat being hidden deep in the oceans, and *”It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”*

    He would plumb for that because he probably genuinely believes it, but he has not mentioned in the Guardian article the possibility that the ‘missing heat’ never existed – isn’t there….because that would require a major adjustment to the theory of the purported warming imbalances.

    He was unimpressed with the von Schukmann paper (John Cook’s anchor on this issue) which ‘finds’ most of the missing heat – or he would have mentioned it in the article.

    If you applied Ockham’s Razor – the more likely explanation for something you try, but can’t measure is that *it isn’t there*.

  191. Looks to me like Trenberth would be horrified at the misrepresentation that Ken’s been giving his work:

    [ The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” Trenberth said. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.” ]

    I know it’s bad form to kick a man when he’s down, but in this case I think it’s ethical.

  192. Ken,

    Given the models predicted the last 30 or so years well, after we first realised this might be a serious problem, your conservative approach seems 30 years too late.

    Soundly thrashed, I suggest that you retire from the cage defeated.

  193. kdkd #2087

    Well then lets wait 25 years – see how OHC works out and in the meantime adopt Ken Lambert’s 10 point plan. Get away from the oil based sheikdoms and send them back to the desert, wean off coal as cleaner technologies become viable, and greatly improve overall efficiencies.

    Sounds good to me kdkd…

  194. Ken #2085

    Yes, the weather for the past 5-6 years has been a bit odd. We can only make sense of what this means for the climate by thinking in chunks of 30 or so years. A point which we have both conceded.

    So again, nice try but not terribly relevant to the AGW hypothesis on such a short time scale.

  195. kdkd #2085

    If sea level rise has flattened in the last 5-6 years then the thermal expansion + land ice melt or both must have reduced.

    As we know from Dr Trenberth’s budget – very little heat is absorbed globally in land ice melt (I think is was 1-2 E20 Joules out of 145), so the oceans are the giant heat sinks which react much much slower than the atmosphere or land to an applied heat imbalance.

    The graphs reproduced by Domingues et al and von Schukmann show very steep rises and falls in OHC, which imply global rates of heat transfer which are stupendous. As BP pointed out in a reaction to the von Schukmann graph – there is a bump in 2007 which would imply an 8 degC temp rise in the tropics over a short period.

    Climate scientists are unimpressed by the oceanographers at the minute (I have it on good authority).

    I suggested this to JR at Climate Progress – but he/she suppressed my post – clearly not as brave as kdkd……….in facing up to a contrary viewpoint.

  196. Ken,

    But as we know to think about climate change we’re thinking in 30 year or so chunks, not a piddling 5 or 6 years where the ‘noise’ is clearly greater than the ‘signal’. Was there some profound point you were trying to make about the internal vairability of the system, or is this another distraction?

    In other news more delusional talking points shown to be irrelevant. I do agree that the scientists should solicit more statistical support from the professionals. Like the CRU researchers I have my own disciplinary set of statistical methods that serve me well. On the other hand I work with professional statisticians from time to time, which gives me a broader view of the field. It would save the climate scientists some grief in dealing with the talking points (like Ken’s current favourite of no recent warming) if they got a good response to this from a real statistical pro, and not using their own amateur arguments.

  197. kdkd #2083

    Yeah, I got my HP plotter and a little red pen and programmed it…..

    Well the flattening levels since around 2004 do coincide with flattening surface and atmospheric temperatures, so it could be ‘independent’ corroboration kdkd is always talking about.

    ….and which Dr Trenberth discusses in his 2009 paper.

    I note that the CSIRO paper cited in Dr Trenberth’s paper getts a much better correlation of sea levels with a model *including* volcanic factors – which suggests that volcanic might not be a negligible transient in the scheme of things.

  198. [ Looks like they have flattened out since about 2004 ]

    As we had to agree following your entrapment, anything less than 30 years (i.e. 1980 onwards) is pretty meaningless without greater historical context. Also where’s the raw data for the charts? As far as I know you just made the graphs up.

  199. Ken,

    Considering the sound thrashing that you’ve had for the last 1500 or so posts, I guess that it’ is indeed a good time to stop 😉

  200. Ken,

    Actually it’s the Chinese and the Americans that need to attend to this problem most urgently. Your Australocentric perspective is not terribly useful in analysing what I said in #2076. The effects of toxic political lobbying (of which you seem to be an enthusiast given the enthusiasm with which you grab onto poor quality unscientific discredited arguments originating from the fossil fuel lobby) serve to impair progress in making this happen.

    Again your post #2077 is yet another attempt to misrepresent my argument for what are essentially political purposes to promote the status-quo, using poor quality scientific and economic arguments.

    Did you actually have anything new to say at all that doesn’t depend on misrepresentation or discredited unscientific arguments? No, didn’t think so. Anyway, I’m keen to bring this discussion to a close, ready when you are.

  201. kdkd #2076

    Thats if you really live in a deluded state yourself kdkd……….a state where Australia could shut down tomorrow and make a 0.02 degC difference to projected IPCC warming in 2050.

    A state where Australia is likely to lead the world to salvation by its actions; a state where the three ring circus which was Copenhagen did not happen; and a state where the Chinese and fast developing world do what the developed West say is best for them.

    That state kdkd is your old Disney favourite………..Fantasyland!!

  202. Ken,

    I don’t think it’s a major boo boo, I think its an irrelevant side issue. Please note that I never actually referred to that chart – it had no relevance for to trap that I was setting you (although it does highlight your persistent attempts at misdirection I suppose).

    CO2 reduction and climate change mitigation should have started two decades ago at least. So claiming there’s the need for delay in action due to insufficient evidence is yet more of the political delusionist speaking. Ken’s conservative softly softly approach will lead to economic pain and mitigation failure.

  203. kdkd #2073,74

    I am happy to wait another 10-15 years to see what the temperature will be before doing anything other than Ken Lambert’s 10 point plan, which would save us imported oil and belatedly put us into the nuclear age; hopefully before the Chinese turn us into white trash puppets.

    Notice viewers that kdkd has ignored his major boo boo with the 2003.5 OHC Chart.

  204. Ken:

    You said

    [ UAH Chart goes up and down and looks pretty flat since 1998 ENSO ]

    Aside from the usual caveats that you’re not interested in the science, so I’m really wasting my time here, this statement warrants a bit more exploration, because it’s another excellent illustration of climate change delusional idiocy.

    The correct thing to do here is to apply a correction for outlier values in time series. Or at the very least be aware that they will have an influence on the results. We know that 1998 is an outlier for two reasons:

    1. It was a very strong El-Niño event.
    2. We know that the satellite measures over-estimate temperature during El-Niño events compared to the instrumental record.

    So we know that the temperatures in 98 are “too high” in this series, relative to the other values. We can correct for this aproximately by assuming that the temperature in ’98 was closer to that observed in the early 2000s. After having applied this correction (admittedly in a vague handwaving way, but it’ll do when talking to youse half-wits) we see that in fact in the early naughties the jump in temperature anomaly was rather sudden, despite the record solar minimum.

    Conclusion: inappropriate cherry picking of spurious data leads to erroneous conclusions. In any case I’m happy to stick with the 30 year trend as a minimum, because at least we know we’re on solid ground there. Having accidentally shot yourself in the face again, you’re going to have to agree.

  205. Aah, so now the shoe is on the other foot, you object to cherry picking data points. Let’s agree that looking at anything less than the thirty year trend is pretty meaningless.

    Oops, there goes another massive quantity of your talking points.

    Yes, this was a trap to highlight the inconsistency of your argument. If it suits your political motivations, anything goes, if it doesn’t we apply arbitrarily high standards.

    You keep aiming at the knockout to find you’ve accidentally punched yourself in the face again Ken. Got anything new not based on delusion? No, didn’t think so.

  206. kdkd #2071

    I never ignored the UAH Chart at the top kdkd……UAH and RSS are probably the only reliable temperature records we have got!

    I said: “It is as meaningful as the coolest quarter in the last 10 years occurring in 2008.”

    UAH Chart goes up and down and looks pretty flat since 1998 ENSO…

    Would you like to explain the coolest quarter in 2008??

    Notice viewers that kdkd has ignored his major boo boo with the 2003.5 OHC Chart.

    Thats two in one day kdkd…………out by only a factor of 10 this morning ………but fading to a crook OHC finish tonite………

  207. Ken,

    Good work on the confabulation. Did you see the UAH graph at the top? I think that’s more to the point. Pointing out the deficiencies in one graph while ignoring the evidence in another does not a valid argument make. Every time you make a claim you’ve got to ignore large amounts of the available evidence as otherwise your claims are immediately exposed as invalid.

    Again, do you have anything that’s not totally stupid to say, or are you trying to impress us with your superlative abilities as a totally deluded fuckwit?

  208. KL #2069

    Correction ……….on closer examination, the OHC Chart ends in 2003.5 not 2005.

    Your Tardis is working better than I thought kdkd………..

  209. kdkd #2068

    Quote from your link ‘Climate Progress’:

    “Of course, there never was any global cooling — see Must-read AP story: Statisticians reject global cooling; Caldeira — “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous.” Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the warming went right where scientists had predicted — into the oceans (see “How we know global warming is happening”):”

    (Then is reproduced the OHC Chart)

    Pity I can’t reproduce the OCH Chart (Dominigues et al, 2008) because it stops in 2005 – 5 years ago kdkd….

    So here we have a report talking about the first quarter of 2010 being the ‘hottest on record’ and then saying that; ” Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the warming went right where scientists had predicted — into the oceans (see “How we know global warming is happening”) FROM A CHART WHICH ENDS IN 2005!!

    Hello?? How do you get the heat from 2010 into a chart which ends in 2005 kdkd??

    Warming has enlisted *time travel* on its side…………!!

    It is as meaningfull as the coolest quarter in the last 10 years occurring in 2008.

    If you read Dr Trenberth’s 2009 paper he specifically points out that the OHC divergence starts around 2005 and the last 4-5 years cannot be balanced.

    You should read your ‘Climate Progress’ propaganda before posting it kdkd….and get out of the Tardis…….

  210. Ken #2066

    More irrelevant twaddle from the prince of delusional fuckwittery (still a way to go before you usurp Tamas’ crown I’m afraid). As you have constantly stated, absolute measures are impossible, so we’re stuck with relative measurements (i.e. trends). As the trends between the different data sources are not (statistically) significantly different from each other, then they independently corroborate each other. Open and shut case.

    Why do you feel the need to constantly recycle your limited repertoire of discredited rubbish? Surely if your argument was at all robust you could come up with something new and interesting which was actually supported by the scientific literature.

    So what’s the reason you can’t do that then? Must be because you’re talking out of your arse. Prove me wrong or as they say in Scotland, get tae fuck.

  211. kdkd #2065

    “And again you’re ignoring the multiple sources of independent corroboration of the GISS and HADCRUT data.”

    List the “multiple sources” kdkd….and give their calibrated warming numbers in degC to compare with the instrumental record.

  212. Lindzen is incorrectly claiming that the continuing the decadal trend is not evidence for global warming. He is claiming that “a few tenths of a degree per decade” of warming is not evidence for global warming. The fact that the models assuming a strong AGW effect predict about one tenth of a degree’s warming per decade, and have done so accurately for several decades (in advance) put the lie on Lindzen’s crappy politically driven contrarian claims.

    And again you’re ignoring the multiple sources of independent corroboration of the GISS and HADCRUT data. Because not ignoring them would require that you to admit that your argument is a load of crap.

    Perseveration and delusion Ken. Give me some real scientific evidence or go away.

  213. kdkd #2063

    0.1 degC is ‘one’ tenth of a degC per decade – that is not a ‘few’ tenths of a degC.

    This is what Lindzen said in relation to the ‘warmest decade on record’:

    “Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question.”

    ‘and the records themselves have come into question’ – Yes… a big question for Dr Phil and the CRU/NASA/GISS team.

    You have my permission to take your bat and ball and leave the cage kdkd….

    You can go cry on Harold’s shoulder about that monster in the cage……….

  214. Nope, a few tenths of a degree per decade is entirely consistent with the models Ken. Your perseveration due to your political delusions are preventing you from discriminating between typos and real errors.

    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Pathetic loser is indeed the correct terminology for what we are observing from Ken right now. Got anything of substance to add? No, didn’t think so. Can we end this yet?

  215. “Don’t be such a pathetic loser and perseverate over typos.”

    If this is a typo then your following point makes no sense ie:

    “So ‘a few tenths of a degree’ is more warming than a naive interpretation of climate sensitivity would suggest we’re due.”

    Should be: “So ‘a few *hundredths* of a degree’ is more warming than a naive interpretation of climate sensitivity would suggest we’re due.”

    Hello?? What does that mean kdkd??

  216. oops, originally posted this to the wrong thread.

    Ken,

    Don’t be such a pathetic loser and perseverate over typos. Obviously I meant decade rather than year. If that’s your best come back your argument is utterly lost.

  217. kdkd #2059

    “Second let’s do some sums. If climate sensitivity is 3ºC and the co2 level in the atmosphere doubles over a 300 year period, then that’s 30 decades and we’d expect to see on average a rise in temperature of 0.1ºC per year.”

    Wrong again kdkd…..

    3 degC divided by 30 decades is 0.1 degC per *decade* not per *year*.

    It is 0.01 degC per year. Hard to measure I would expect.

    Only out by a factor of 10 this time kdkd…….certainly better than 1000 or was it 4000 last time you did sums??

    Maybe Harold could explain why I am wasting my time fooling with an academic genius like kdkd who has trouble with the decimal system.

  218. Actually I’m extremely unimpressed with Lindzen’s statement that ‘We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. ‘

    First we have the independent confirmation of the records by the satellite data so this statement looks lie a political lie. Second let’s do some sums. If climate sensitivity is 3ºC and the co2 level in the atmosphere doubles over a 300 year period, then that’s 30 decades and we’d expect to see on average a rise in temperature of 0.1ºC per year. So ‘a few tenths of a degree’ is more warming than a naive interpretation of climate sensitivity would suggest we’re due.

    Oh dear Ken, you’ve allowed a contrarian professor of meteorology to shoot himself in the foot while he’s simultaneously stomping on your toes! That’s got to hurt.

  219. Ken,

    Show me where he’s made those claims in a peer reviewed journal article please, not some worthless newspaper op-ed.

    As for the “few tenths of a degree”, that’s precisely what the models were predicting two decades ago, come to pass in the present day. Your ‘no warming for 15 years (or insert other cherry picked start date here)’ claim is thoroughly discredited, except when you use the epistemology of delusion.

    So the pair of you are buggering around with the evidence for political purposes, no question about it. Lindzen is on the fringe here (and there’s suggestions that he’s been less than straightforward about the funding and motivation for his AGW activities too). Find me mainstream evidence in the sceintific literature supporting your claims, not some polemic nonsense in an op-ed.

  220. kdkd #2056

    If you are calling me a liar, then call Lindtzen a liar as well….this is what he said in the 8APR10 article cited previously:

    Quote

    “The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

    However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

    Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.”

    endquote

    looks like he agrees with me on the ‘warmest decade furphy’ and 14 years of no statistically significant warming……….

    Are you going to argue with the AP Sloan Professor of Climatology at MIT kdkd???

  221. Aah

    [ Lindtzen does not think that there is ‘zero evidence’ for his position. He says that the ‘lack of warming’ over the last 15 years is evidence for his hypothesis. ]

    That will be evidence based on a fallacy or a lie then. You know if the evidence that you cite doesn’t actually exist then it’s not evidence at all.

    Not sure what you’re doing confabulating with the Trenberth paper. I strongly suspect that you’re unscientifically over-extending your conclusions as usual, but I lack the expertise to assess it properly.

    Conclusion: basing your argument on a persistent lie, and ignoring the 20:1 ratio of scientific papers which suggest things are currently worse than expected rather than the same or better. Weak case with minimal support from the available evidence.

    Next!

  222. “However, you then go on to take these hypotheses and assume that at a later stage they will be supported, despite zero evidence supporting them in the present day.”

    Lindtzen does not think that there is ‘zero evidence’ for his position. He says that the ‘lack of warming’ over the last 15 years is evidence for his hypothesis.

    When I started out on this blog in April 2009, I thought from IPCC AR4 that AGW theory said there was a heating imbalance of +1.6W/sq.m applied to every sq.m of the Earth’s surface.

    When I read Dr Trenberth in November I found that the net imbalance had theoretically reduced to 0.9 W/sq.m due to his assessment of feedbacks, but that he could only find 0.55 W/sq.m in his energy budget for the planet from surface warming, ice melts, ocean heat content etc.

    So in one year of research (and fooling around with kdkd) I have reduced the problem from 1.6 to 0.55 (34% or where it started) using recognized IPCC sources and lead authors.

    There is some evidence for you kdkd..

  223. So Ken,

    Let me get this straight. In the spirit of scientific scepticism, you suggest hypotheses that help us understand the cliamte response to greenhouse gases, based on the work of Lindzen, Trenberth and others. That’s fine.

    However, you then go on to take these hypotheses and assume that at a later stage they will be supported, despite zero evidence supporting them in the present day. One would assume that the correct thing to do would be to continue to attempt to falsify the hypotheses while promoting political and economic action as if your hypotheses can not be supported (which is what the evidence points to in the present day). Correct?

    Given the above I have much trouble digesting your argument as a coherent and consistent whole. You appear to jump the gun as to the apparent truth of your hypotheses. What do you think?

  224. Ken,

    Useful hypotheses, but nowhere near falsifying the “be very alarmed” conclusions that we’re reaching based on the IPCCs reviews of science to date and the 20-1 ratio of recent scientific papers suggesting something like worst case scenarios rather than as expected or less than expected.

    By the way, broadly speaking, you get theoreticians, modelers and field scientists as three separate kinds of beast. They’re not all the same, and to have a decent scientific consensus, you need all three camps producing results that are consistent with each other. As a theoretician, Lindzen’s pronouncements about the observations and models are rather at odds with the findings as they’ve actually been reported too.

    Your statement that “All climate science is, in critical aspects – theoretical” strongly suggests that you don’t understand the scientific process very well by the way.

  225. kdkd #2050

    “wheras Lindzen is in some respects an important theoretician.”

    All climate science is, in critical aspects – theoretical.

    “Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen’s theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.”

    CERES data is not yet extensive or accurate enough to measure the energy imbalances at the top of the atmosphere. (Ref: Trenberth)

    Some good discussion on Skeptical Science on this very issue which is really the nub of AGW CO2-GHG theory.

    My take on this is that the doubling CO2 issue at say a 3 degC rise means that roughly 1 degC increase will occur at TOA to balance the increased S-B emissions and 2 degC across the atmospheric column (enhanced greenhouse insulator?) to give a 3 degC rise at the surface.

    I was grappling with the ‘insulator-absorber’ nature of the enhanced CO2-GHG effect in the Karaoke – and I still don’t fully understand the CO2 – water vapour interaction and sea surface temps etc.

    This is a very complex issue – remember that what ‘average’ temperature and emission spectrum which Space sees Earth determines the outgoing longwave radiation and this brings into play the S-B relationship in some form. Higher temperatures mean higher outgoing longwave proportional to T^4.

  226. His climate sensitivity figure is 1ºC as well, which we’ve previously demonstrated is far too low. Your 1.6ºC from the analysis of the Trenberth paper is a reasonable minimum estimate as we have established previously, but it’s much more likely to be between 2 and 3 ºC according to models and observations.

  227. Ken,

    I think when perseverating over his other nutty ideas and how they are irrelevant to your arguent (you are partially correct here), you missed the evidence that his theories are not terribly well supported by the evidence. Especially the following:

    [ Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen’s theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere. ]

    Which coincidentally is what we’re seeing with the mesospheric cloud in the arctic as well. Looks like a bit of a contrarian like Bob Carter – although we know Carter’s climate science credentials are non-existant, wheras Lindzen is in some respects an important theoretician.

    You’re going to have to find some better evidence if you want to maintain your argument. You’d do well to start with people who don’t try to politicise the science.

  228. kdkd #2047

    I would not agree with any comment that ‘weakly’ links lung cancer to tobacco. The article with this reporter’s comment is here:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/output/print

    You attempt to use the tobacco smear and the Exxon smear really misses the point.

    What you have to do is defeat his arguments on global warming – particularly on climate sensitivity.

    He is the son of a Jewish refugee and has made it to a professorship at MIT – so probably a lot smarter than both of us.

  229. More interesting stuff on Lindzen here. I thought that the section on “Lindzen’s Discarded Global Warming Arguments” was especially interesting, but there’s other interesting stuff in there too.

  230. Ken,

    Lindzen seems to be a bit of professional contrarian too. There’s been a bit of tobacco denial in his past, and as far as we can see the assertions made in his article are not supported by the evidence:

    [ Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen’s theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere. Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system’s water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming.Contrary to the IPCC’s assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid. Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.40 °F). Lindzen gave an estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree Celsius. Lindzen based this estimate on how the climate had responded to volcanic eruptions. James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, estimated a climate sensitivity of 3–4 degrees Celsius based on evidence from ice cores. ]

    (from his rather thoroughly referenced Wikipedia page). Conclusion: the information used in your article appears not to be properly supported by the available evidence. There’s also a good bit of crackpot grandstanding going on in that article too.

  231. Ken:

    Watched the Catalyst piece. So what evidence do we have that your “clouds will save us” hypothesis is suported given that the arctic temperature has been rising precociously at the same time that these mesospheric clouds have been increasing in extent? Looks like they have a small effect, you’ll have to find some other mechanism.

    Looks like you’ve fucked up your custard with too much egg again. Hint: use the yolk only, and even then a relatively small quantity. Don’t let the voices tell you to add too much.

  232. Harold:

    Technically I’m a working social scientist, but I’m more statistically literate than most soc scis in my current area of research.

    Ken: at this stage all my funding comes from industry projects, so I’m not sure that you do pay my wages.

    And finally, Ken, you do refuse to answer sensible questions no matter how often they’re posed of you. The only conclusion we can reach is that you don’t answer them because either you cant, or because you know that answering them will expose the fact that you have something to hide.

    Finally:

    [ kdkd’s basic questions have been answered endlessly and he has been floored on countless occasions with detailed information and analysis from me and Tamas. ]

    This I found amusing, and highlights your delusional ideation. As you can see from the 11 points in a recent post your record of answering questions properly is about zero.

    Again you continue to show the weakness of your argument, and I encourage you to continue doing so.

  233. HT #2042

    Welcome back …………darling Harold!!

    Have you worked out those green energy uutility rates yet….from about 6 months ago??

    Dear dear, it this kdkd’s boss being brought in to save his floundering foul mouthed protege??

    “kdkd is a working scientist whose labours may well produce some advances in human knowledge, something I doubt you comprehend and certainly don’t respect.”

    Oh dear, kdkd as hurt puppy who is misunderstood. A saviour of humankind no less..

    Listen up Harold, I am a working applied scientist (engineer) who designs things, employs people and exports things and together with thousands of other productive taxpayers probably pay kdkd’s salary.

    kdkd’s basic questions have been answered endlessly and he has been floored on countless occasions with detailed information and analysis from me and Tamas.

    He needs to stop sucking on the RealClimate teat and develop some arguments of his own.

  234. “The reporter was coy about drawing any conclusion (which might contradict AGW orthodoxy and on the ABC must always predict doom).”

    Don’t feed the trolls… arghhh! So, Ken, is this the same ABC that gave lavish and uncritical publicity to the amusing fraud Monckton and virtually none to the internationally renowned scientist Hansen on their recent visits? http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/18/balance-on-climate-change-reporting-where-does-it-lie-at-the-abc/

    Care to retract the ‘must’? Truly, the we-are-the-unheard-victims whinging of the denialists is extraordinary. Andrew Bolt even does it, from the soundproof eco-fascist-induced punishment cell of, erm, his nationally syndicated column and blog.

    Hint: if you want to appear like a victim, stop sounding so smug. Smugness and victimhood don’t rationally coexist. Oh, and if you can’t answer kdkd’s questions at 2026 (and it’s obvious you can’t) you’ve lost the argument.

    BTW, I won’t respond to the ravings you and Tamas will post in response until you’ve serially addressed kdkd’s basic questions, which you can’t and so won’t. kdkd is a working scientist whose labours may well produce some advances in human knowledge, something I doubt you comprehend and certainly don’t respect. You’ve run out of new and even recycled discredited talking points. Time to shut up.

  235. [ The reporter was coy about drawing any conclusion (which might contradict AGW orthodoxy and on the ABC must always predict doom). ]

    You were doing very well there until the voices told you to pull out a washed up old paranoid conspiracy theory. The ABC is being quite sensible and scientific in responding to new information in a scientifically conservative way if that’s how they presented it.

    Individual cloud pixels can change quickly (see you’re relying on the language of computer modeling there !), but you need a theoretical justification backed by observation as to why and how this may change greatly on global scale for an extremely long period of time. To the best of my knowledge, no such thing exists, so your assertion at the moment is at best a hypothesis that needs to be tested, and at worse a spurious assumption driven by political ideology.

    And we know that the behaviour of the climate over Antarctica is quite different compared to the rest of the planet due to that large lump of ice, and the southern ocean weather patterns, so it would be foolish to try to generalise from Antarctica to the rest of the planet without a theoretcal model (backed by observations) which was very robust indeed.

    Will catch Catalyst on iView some time within the next few days …

  236. kdkd #2038

    Are we trying the sane and reasonable kdkd mask today kdkd??

    “And the cloud albedo issue is on a much shorter timescale than CO2. The way you’re presenting it as a possible large and permanent negative feedback effect is frankly weird. In fact this is the key problem with your argument. You are making the strong assumption that negative feedback effects will jump in and save us, based on the confounding the idea of statistical uncertainty with the idea of level of scientific uncertainty, which is logically incorrect.”

    The aggregate of cloud cover over the planet is what counts – not the short life of any individual cloud pixel.

    Reflectance both up and down etc is still poorly understood. Different types of cloud and their heights do different things. They generally cool during the day and warm during the night. The overall effect of increasing cloud and sulphates is generally cooling.

    I saw a report on Catalyst last night which suggested that clouds have ‘brightened’ over Antarctica which might mean more reflection of incoming solar. The reporter was coy about drawing any conclusion (which might contradict AGW orthodoxy and on the ABC must always predict doom).

    The overall effect – heating or cooling of a changes in clouds is far from certain and that is why the error bars are wide.

    And to boot we can’t yet measure the energy balance at the TOA directly – a point which Dr Trenberth laments in his famous paper.

  237. Well water vapour is a side issue as it is a positive feedback. Bereini Peter’s highlighting of non-tropospheric water vapour seems of marginal relevance. It’s difficult to understand how you can justify the role of water vapour in the process as something that might make us less concerned about anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

    And the cloud albedo issue is on a much shorter timescale than CO2. The way you’re presenting it as a possible large and permanent negative feedback effect is frankly weird. In fact this is the key problem with your argument. You are making the strong assumption that negative feedback effects will jump in and save us, based on the confounding the idea of statistical uncertainty with the idea of level of scientific uncertainty, which is logically incorrect.

    So that was a nice try on your part, but unless you can find peer reviewed papers supporting your assumption (no appeals to paranoid conspiracy theory about corruption in the peer review process please), then we can essentially dismiss your argument as again fiddling around the margins of uncertainty with key logical errors in your argument.

    Bereni Peter uses the same technique as you – he produces excessively technical posts that are difficult to interpret. He relies on theoretical models, and uncertainties of questionable relevance to do wink-wink-nudge-nudge innuendo that suggest the observational data underpinning the scientific consensus are somehow negated by this vague and fairly poorly explained theory.

    I’m just here until you go away. The only reason I jumped in in the early days was that you assumed the silence countering your confabulations was acceptance that you’re right. I’m not really sure that this was the right thing to do, but your constant presentation of misinformation riled me.

    I’m gone from here the moment that you are. There are more people far more coherent on the scientific issues than me who do a much better job of explaining things, and weighing the evidence in a fair and balanced way.

    In other words, ready to end it here when you are.

  238. kdkd #2036

    If you want a serious and interesting discussion on ‘Is the science settled’ – have a look at:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=118&&n=136

    The discussion zeroed in on the water vapour, CO2 and cloud albedo aspects of the the warming mechanism. All very ‘unsettled’ topics.

    BP and fdystr*** seem to be holding their own pretty well and John Cook is to be given credit for running this discussion. His comments seldom show up at the bottom of the sceptics telling posts.

    For sure the ‘Science is not settled’.

    Realclimate could take some tips from Skeptical Science. Gavin’s syncophants chime into all the discussions and no well furnished sceptic bothers to try get past his ‘editing’.

    So……….. megaphone man – get serious and run your stuff in a blog with a bit of grunt and see how you go.

  239. Ken,

    The meaningful content you’re contributing to this discussion is rapidly approaching zero. Inversely proportional to the quantity of psychological denial about the quality of your argument 😉

  240. kdkd #2028 et al…

    When you start posing and answering questions in my and Tamas’ names in a ‘flurry of punches’ MO — you are just revealing desperate shouting into your own echo chamber…

    Talking to yourself ………..or shouting to yourself ……is a worrying sign kdkd…..funny farm is not far away I fear.

  241. Acctually you do a pretty good job of charicaturing yourself with your paranoid delusional anti-evidence inconsistent non scientific approach to the subject at hand. But if that’s what you want to do please keep going. As per the outline in #2028 it shows the weakness of your case rather well. And it’s all self-inflicted.

  242. Ken,

    I think you’re on the defensive here because you know I’m onto your modus operandi big time. Essentially your argument is that it’s all unknowable so therefore of no relevance. It’s more avoiding of the big picture along with exaggeration of the uncertainty.

    Rabbet is a real scientist by the way. His mode of expression is eccentric, but his comments on the CRU non-data-loss are sound. Unlike yours.

    See you haven’t got anything better, you have to fiddle around the edges, misrepresent and generally remain as detached as possible from the science. I was looking forward to ending this at post 2000, why don’t you oblige?

  243. “That’s an interesting discussion starter there. However, I fear that the angle you are taking will attempt to use solopsistic methods to attempt to demonstrate that the modern knowledge we have of the behaviour of the arctic ice sheets with unequiocal warming is therefore of no relevance, and the methodological problems so great that further investigation would be futile.”

    You are so fearful – you are putting words in my mouth kdkd…..

    Is this the flurry of punches from the dope who is destined to be roped??

    So what is controversial about suggesting that strange ice might not be strange after all if you had a long enough record to discover the range of natural variation in strangeness??

    Desperate looney websites you are dredging up kdkd…………..bunnies and Bogeys and Cagneys making silly caricatures of sceptics as hate figures.

  244. Ken #2029

    That’s an interesting discussion starter there. However, I fear that the angle you are taking will attempt to use solopsistic methods to attempt to demonstrate that the modern knowledge we have of the behaviour of the arctic ice sheets with unequiocal warming is therefore of no relevance, and the methodological problems so great that further investigation would be futile.

    Which would terminate the discussion rather abruptly, being the scientific equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting “I CAN’T HEAR YOU I CAN’T HEAR YOU”

    Also your conveniently ignoring the Nature paper I cited recently which suggests that the “very strange behaviour” that’s being observed is potentially a highly significant portent of change to a complex system.

  245. kdkd #2026

    “The way the ice is behaving is simply the strangest we have ever seen.”

    What strange ice you have, Grandma???

    Perhaps the correct explanation is that the observers have not been ‘seeing’ Arctic ice for all that long.

    The limits of ‘natural variation’ would be expected to widen the longer the observation is made.

    With Amundsen being the first through the northwest passage in the 1910’s I think, and scientific observation of the Arctic would be less that 100 years old.

    You would probably need the whole of the Holocene (11,000 years) to pick up all the natural variation since the last ice age.

  246. While trawling through the archive I also found the following questions that the delusional fuckwit duo have manifestly failed to answer. Let’s assess how you’re doing on each point:

    [ 1. Refute the Greenhouse Effect.]

    Fail

    [ 2. Prove another mechanism for heat/energy retention ]

    Ken’s confabulation of the Trenberth paper fiddles around the margins of the uncertainty but makes key faulty assumptions.

    [ 3. Explain ice core data ]

    Fail via the mechanism of paranoid conspiracy theory.

    [ 4. Explain changes in habitat/flora/fauna relationships, i.e. why habitats are moving to higher latitudes/higher elevations or flora and fauna or out of synch, or why populations are crashing/climbing for various flora and fauna… etc. ]

    Well you mainfestly fail at this one by totally ignoring it as an issue.

    [ 5. Explain why the Arctic sea ice extent and mass have dropped precipitously since pre-2005. ]

    Tamas tries to deal with this one by constantly bringing up discredited delusional talking points.

    [ 6. Explain net land ice losses in Greenland and the Arctic. ]

    Fail.

    [ 7. Explain why the number and intensity of weather-related disasters has risen precipitously. ]

    Tamas again goes for “evidence” (hahah) from right wing economic think tanks, and ignores the scientific evidence. He also claims that it’s all a conspiracy from the insurance industry.

    [ 8. Explain why the overall temp trend is up. ]

    Well her we have the delusional duo exposing their lack of understanding of statistics and appealing to paranoid conspiracy theory again

    [ 9. Explain why temps are now higher than they have been for at least 2 million years. ]

    More confabulation, paranoia and failure from the delusional duo.

    [ 10. Explain why the proof of climate denial by the GCC, Exxon, GC Marshall Inst., etc, is not pertinent and why, given that is the source of your skepticism, why this proof (yes, it is fact) does not affect your stance. ]

    Here the delusional duo engage in outright denial.

    [ 11. Refute the risk assessment that: given temps are rising, given they will continue to rise for 1k+ years even if we had zero emissions starting today, given the risks of rapid climate change and long-term temp rises are real and threaten our ability to function as a society, etc., we should act to mitigate these threats, particularly since the actions to be taken will lead to a healthier existence for humanity even if AGW/ACC turns out to be wrong. Meanwhile, doing nothing saves us from nothing, but makes the negative outcomes not only worse, but certain. ]

    Ken tries here, but it really make the rest of his claims rather inconsistent, and shows the rather unsavoury cosying up to the climate delusionals for what it is – caused by a lack of interest in the science, and a perception that his political ideology is more important.

    Well done guys, 0 out of 11 is pretty good going over the course of 1700 odd posts. It really shows how strong your argument is!

  247. There you go Ken, I trawled through the archives and posted a similar question at RealClimate here (will only be available when the comment is through the moderation queue). The text of the question I asked is:

    [ Is there any chance of a comment on the relevance of the following papers which suggest that the MWP was a global phenomenon, and it’s relevance to the questions that the so called sceptics raise about historical temperatures?

    Cook, E.R., Palmer, J.G. & D’Arrigo, R. (2002) Evidence for a’Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1, 100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 12–1.

    Jin, Z., Shen, J., Wang, S. & Zhang, E. (2002) The medieval warm period in the Daihai area. Journal of Lake Sciences, 14, 209–216.

    Neme, G., Gil, A. & Durán, V. (2005) Late Holocene in southern Mendoza (northwestern Patagonia): radiocarbon pattern and human occupation. Before Farming, 2.

    Tyson, P.D., Karlén, W., Holmgren, K. & Heiss, G.A. (2000) The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 96, 121–126. ]

  248. Ken:

    [ Clearly the Mann group has an interest in minimizing the MWP to inflate their alarmist claims. ]

    How about you try to make your case without appealing to paranoid conspiracy theory?

    Tamas:

    Here’s a more balanced report on the current Arctic sea ice extent (“Arctic winter ice recovers slightly despite record year low, scientists say”). And a key quote for you:

    [ “The way the ice is behaving is simply the strangest we have ever seen.” ]

    Rather consistent with the ideas in the Nature paper I cited previously eh? My prediction is that Tamas will latch onto some delusional spray in the comments and claim that invalidates the content of the article.

  249. “Locally – in the North Atlantic region – climate reconstructions do indeed show higher temperatures than today (see Fig.); hence there is no contradiction to the anecdotal evidence about Greenland and Scotland … ”

    Gavin wouldn’t engage me and others on this issue in Realclimate kdkd….

    The above claim is wrong – there are multiple papers I have cited to show that the MWP was *global*.

    He tried to confuse dates by saying that the proxy periods don’t line up and when asked bluntly to define ‘his’ dates for the MWP …….he went quiet.

    Clearly the Mann group has an interest in minimizing the MWP to inflate their alarmist claims.

  250. Tamas:

    It appears that I’m not the only person who spotted that Der Spiegel article as a load of crap, but I certainly wasn’t going to waste my time on a detailed rebuttal for a delusional fuckwit like you.

    But there’s some nice stuff in the RealClimate piece. Here’s some highlights for you:

    [ The quality of raw data from worldwide weather stations and vessels is indeed often unsatisfactory, especially if one goes further back in time – after all they were gathered to help forecast the weather and not to determine long-term climate trends. However, the error margin has been carefully analyzed – as is standard in science – and is shown in the temperature graphs on the Hadley Center´s website as well as in the IPCC report, and to date there is no reason to assume that the actual temperature evolution lies outside these error margins – the more so as the satellite data correspond well with the ground data. Whether the global warming trend was 0,15 or 0,17°C per decade in the past decades is of no relevance to any practical concerns. ]

    [ According to DER SPIEGEL Jones has erased raw data and is “an activist or missionary who views ‘his’ data as his personal shrine” who “is intent on protecting it from the critical eyes of his detractors”. However, Jones is neither the producer and owner nor the archivist of these data – it is simply data from the national weather agencies, who also are responsible for its archiving or for the question to whom and under what circumstances they may be passed on. The majority of these data is freely accessible online. However, some weather services do not allow their data to be passed on because they sell such data. Other scientists have compared the CRU-data with freely available raw data from weather stations. And at NASA one can find the computer algorithms which are used to calculate the global mean temperature, publicly available for everybody. There is hardly any other scientific field in which more data and computer codes are freely accessible than in climate science (e.g. also codes and data of my current papers on sea level rise in Science 2007 and PNAS 2009). Do for example economists, on whose advice many political decisions depend, disclose their raw data and the computer codes of their models? ]

    [ DER SPIEGEL resurrects one of the oldest shelf-warmers of the “climate skeptics”: the hockey stick debate and a series of flawed accusations with it. … ” There are many indications that in medieval times, between 900 and 1,300 A.D., when the Vikings raised livestock in Greenland and grape vines were cultivated in Scotland, it was in fact warmer than it is today. ” No scientific evidence in support of this claim is mentioned. Locally – in the North Atlantic region – climate reconstructions do indeed show higher temperatures than today (see Fig.); hence there is no contradiction to the anecdotal evidence about Greenland and Scotland … The hockey stick debate exemplifies how the „climate skeptics“-lobby has tried to discredit an inconvenient scientific finding over the course of many years, without success. The scientific conclusions have proven to be robust. ]

    [ “Levelheaded” is the well-worn SPIEGEL-parlance for describing anyone who downplays climate change, regardless of whether their claims are scientifically well-founded. ]

    [ SPIEGEL defames some of the best scientists worldwide, who not least for this reason have become prime targets for the “climate skeptics”. If you look at publications in the three scientific top journals (Nature, Science, PNAS), the just 44-year-old Mike Mann has already published 9 studies there, Phil Jones 24 (comments, letters and book reviews not included). In contrast, DER SPIEGEL always calls upon the same witness, the mathematician Hans von Storch, who has published only a single article in the prime journals mentioned (and that was faulty). ]

    [ It is obvious that DER SPIEGEL does not care about science. This really is about politics. ]

    Tamas: please try to restrict yourself to only posting material with scientific merit. This will cause your output to cease if present form continues, so everyone will win.

  251. Ken,

    I fear for your mental health here. As well as being content free (as we have come to expect) #2021 and #2022 make no sense.

    I’m very happy for you to continue down this track as it demonstrates how much you are wasting our time with your total crap. Did you watch the videos by the way? Not just read the Guardian articles. There are quite a few of them, but tightly argued and totally apolitical. Unlike your idiotic ramblings for example.

  252. #2020

    Be patient kdkd…………..I have limited time to get through a large amount of data and multi strands in 1-2 hours a day.

    Not doing too bad as a McExpert so far……………have got you reacting like one of Pavlov’s puppies for fear that the viewers might see some logic in my case..

  253. kdkd #2020

    Bogey and Cagney playing Dr Phil and Dr Trenberth – infantile propaganda dressed up as reasonable comment.

    You can’t be serious………………………….

  254. Ken,

    Nope it’s fine. You’ve obviously run out of material given the content-free nature of your last few posts. You’ve been exposed as having a hollow argument largely based on a partisan approach to the subject, and disinterest in the actual scientific knowledge. A great time for you to leave, I’d encourage it.

    But if you want to continue highlighting the absurdity of your argument by continuing, then be my guest.

  255. kdkd #2017

    Seeing that we are in a Stockholm-like grip kdkd….if I left the Cage there could be a concern for your mental balance ….it could tip you over the edge.

    It just shows that my beliefs include those of Christian charity; concern for one’s enemies and neighbours – no matter how unpleasant they might be.

  256. Ken

    I got it wrong, you reply is based on total disinterest in the science, and an overwhelming desier to take a view of the topic based on your political ideology and delusions. And you wonder why I’m rude to you. It’s because your replies deserve contempt. To demonstrate good faith you could try a serious answer, or you could do what you promised to and go away after the 2000th post.

  257. “What have you got to say about the 20-1 ratio of “it’s as bad orworse than IPCC projections” appearing in the literature? My bet is either nothing or paranoid conspiracy theory.”

    “Are these based on CRU Temperatures kdkd?………..or Dr Trenberth’s ‘lack of warming’??

  258. Ken, I raise my mental pygmy to your intellectual amoeba.

    Saw that coming, so I thought I’d help you out by directing you to the correct delusional talking point. Check the variance of the proxy measures during the roman warm period. Much more data needs to come in before we’re able to draw conclusions on the size and extent of this RWP. It’s not evidence against the strong scientific consensus, it’s yet another irrelevant distraction.

    What have you got to say about the 20-1 ratio of “it’s as bad orworse than IPCC projections” appearing in the literature? My bet is either nothing or paranoid conspiracy theory.

    Here, have some more rope, you’re going well. What’s the next astounding jump of illogic going to be? We wait with bated breath.

  259. “With the usual misdirection and misrepresentation, as well as a good deal of inability to interpret a graph, the delusionals will try to claim some vague insinuation about the roman warm period from the data presented in that paper. Merely more of the same bullshit drawing conclusions from woefuly insufficient evidence.”

    Is this a *disclaimer* kdkd??

    A new proxy method shows a strong Roman warming period, and a MWP, and a LIA and somehow we are deluded by drawing any conclusion about a Roman warming which does not fit the alarmist AGW version of history.

    What if the Roman warming had shown a strong cooling kdkd?? Would you have issued a disclaimer for sceptics of alarmist AGW in that case??

    I bet you would have happily jumped on the Mann bandwagon and shouted loudest.

    I think I am tiring of playing with kdkd….. a mental pygmy in his own echo chamber.

  260. [ No one demands perfection – but when the future of the planet is supposedly at stake based on Dr Phil’s science – a decent set of records – or better than average is a reasonable expectation. ]

    Given murphy’s law, our best bet in this situation is to try to find evidence that independently corroborates the CRU’s data set. Good job we’ve got the sattelite record, various proxys, and independently derived calculations with the same data set then, all of which are in broad agreement. New proxies which may be more reliable, and numerous are being developed too.

    With the usual misdirection and misrepresentation, as well as a good deal of inability to interpret a graph, the delusionals will try to claim some vague insinuation about the roman warm period from the data presented in that paper. Merely more of the same bullshit drawing conclusions from woefuly insufficient evidence.

    So Ken, in the spirit of giving you more than enough rope, what part of your delusional belief system do you want to discuss next?

  261. kdkd #2011

    Struggling with the record keeping issue is not the same as *failing* at it kdkd….

    No one demands perfection – but when the future of the planet is supposedly at stake based on Dr Phil’s science – a decent set of records – or better than average is a reasonable expectation.

    Otherwise where is the ‘peer review’ – how do we know that Dr Phil has ‘processed’ the data correctly??

    Who can check the method if it is lost in Dr Phil’s synapses and he has no record of how he did it??

  262. Ken,

    You have just confirmed that complete records of the kind you are demanding are fairly difficult for you to keep in a field where the work you do is fairly concrete. Now in a field which is much more abstract, where more work is exploratory, and so not subject to things like ISO9001 and GMP, and tools you develop are highly likely to be single-use by one person only, then the whole thing becomes much harder to achieve.

    Additionally your claim that the data is lost has been exposed as false by the otherwise heavily-influenced-by-delusional-propoganda Der Spiegel piece.

    So there’s your straw man demolished. Please keep going. I’m enjoying the way that you expose the inconsistent, intellectual dullard nature of your argument the longer you go on.

  263. kdkd #2009

    “I shouldn’t bother with the next bit as I know you’re not at all interested, but I can tell you as someone who does a lot of data processing and cleaning (in social sciences, but the tasks are the same), that prior to the recent invention (21st century) of good quality, low friction, free version control software, keeping track of what the fuck you’re doing when wrestling a difficult research problem is often close to impossible. Easy to use version control will help you improve your record keeping between 70 and 90% depending on your level of discipline and familiarity with the tools. Given the likelihood that you’ll use the code precisely once is exceptionally high, complete record of the kind you suggest is not really been possible or desirable, given the resource constraints that scientists are always working with.”

    Applied scientists (engineers) wrestle with the same record keeping problems kdkd….you are not special in this regard.

    Without 21st century software which reliably and automatically creates archive files…..the well trained and disciplined applied scientist used magic tools like a diary and notebook.

    You know ….boring stuff like dating the top of the page and manually noting file names and changes between file versions of each design model. I struggle with the same issues each day with getting staff to ensure that hard copies have updated fields, amendment notes and print-out dates.

    Setting up an archive system is vital – and making sure that it is operated every time is obviously required.

  264. [ kdkd “a *vein*attempt to call the dogs off.” ]

    Nope, it’s fine by me. Every time you waste electrons on this, you make it clear that the shallowness of your case is transparent and pathetic.

    [ It looks like the Arctic sea ice is not behaving according to the script either?? ]

    Well if you were an idiot who looks at short term weather as a proxy for climate, you might make this conclusion. But those of us who do not have an imbecilic attitude to the subject see this as part of the osscillation of a complex system. See the Nature paper I cited recently for more info on this.

    [ By the way the Spiegel article suggested that Dr Phil had not lost all the raw data – but he has lost his notes on how he *processed* it.

    It did sound incredible that a central figure in climate science was so sloppy that he lost the raw data – but *forgetting* your method of processing the data is even more amazing. ]

    You clearly have no experience of scientific computing. This is just a pathetic slur from someone who doesn’t really understand, and has no interest in the nature of scientific work.

    I shouldn’t bother with the next bit as I know you’re not at all interested, but I can tell you as someone who does a lot of data processing and cleaning (in social sciences, but the tasks are the same), that prior to the recent invention (21st century) of good quality, low friction, free version control software, keeping track of what the fuck you’re doing when wrestling a difficult research problem is often close to impossible. Easy to use version control will help you improve your record keeping between 70 and 90% depending on your level of discipline and familiarity with the tools. Given the likelihood that you’ll use the code precisely once is exceptionally high, complete record of the kind you suggest is not really been possible or desirable, given the resource constraints that scientists are always working with.

    So please keep going if you must Ken, it really shows your idiotic preconceptions and lack of real interest in the science for what they are.

  265. kdkd “a *vein*attempt to call the dogs off.”

    ‘vain’………….. kdkd…………..if you are abusing someone you need to get the spelling right.

    It looks like the Arctic sea ice is not behaving according to the script either??….. kdkd

    Natural variation I suppose.

    By the way the Spiegel article suggested that Dr Phil had not lost all the raw data – but he has lost his notes on how he *processed* it.

    It did sound incredible that a central figure in climate science was so sloppy that he lost the raw data – but *forgetting* your method of processing the data is even more amazing.

    Dr Phil is probably a lovely guy under profound mental stress and we should not get personal…but such ‘forgetfulness’ does suggest that he should be playing in reserve grade with the ‘sandals and socks’ brigade ….. around kdkd’s level….

  266. Ken,

    Nice rambling content free post with a nice hint of incoherent paranoid conspiracy theory (not based on any evidence of course!) for you to finish on. Well done!

  267. kdkd #2005

    Back refreshed and fighting fit from a great Easter break.

    Tamas – congratulations on Post #2000 – after all the Cage Match was set up for you by the delightful Sophie – and lets face it …………she hasn’t been heard from since.

    “tobacco, acid rain, CFC and asbestos “scepticism” – what happened to thalidomide and pedophile priests kdkd…..

    Surely Tamas and I are connected to those malignant forces as well??

    kdkd……………..Is that Robin (100m of sea level rise) Williams…who refused to read the Climategate emails because he feared finding that his warmist heroes had no clothes….and one of his particular favourites, Dr Phil had lost the plot…………..and the planet’s raw temperature data to boot.

    By the way Tamas, I have noticed Crikey’s decline – since that format change about 6 months ago – and without your and my regular contributions to Comments ….the discussion is poor fare………….time we shook the joint up a bit..

    Cheers Ken

  268. This weeks Science Show has interesting stuff on the origins of Tamas and Ken’s scientific delusions, and their gullibility to a concerted well funded PR campaign from the same people who brought you tobacco, acid rain, CFC and asbestos “scepticism”. You’re rumbled guys – give up now.

    Interesting fact – the number of scientific papers indicating that AGW is worse than the IPCC’s projections is currently running at about 20 to 1. A far cry from Tamas’ idiotic solipsistic claims.

    Cue some right wing paranoid conspiracy theorising from the delusional fuckwit duo in a vein attempt to call the dogs off.

  269. Tamas,

    If you do an google search on your claim, you see the odd non-quoted attribution, but nothing from the horses mouth, and quite a lot of attribution from the climate delusional press. Looks like climate delusional talking points to me.

    Secondly, “the science is settled” is a straw man. It is a logical fallacy to equate this statement as being equivalent to the statement that “the scientific consensus is sufficiently strong that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming seems insurmountable”.

    Please continue, you expose the weakness of your argument, and its basis on lies, misrepresentations and poor quality logic every time you say anything.

  270. kdkd – Are you kidding me? “the science is settled” is one of Gore’s signature lines! Google it, for goodness sake. I got 285,000 hits on google for “Al Gore the science is settled”. The first 10 links quote him directly for that statement.

    Anyway, nice to see you are backing down from your strident claims that all the science is in. You’re a little late to the party but it’s good to see you admit it anyway.

  271. So in summary, I agree that you are grasping at straws, and encourage you to continue demonstrating how shallow and uninformed your argument is.

  272. Tamas,

    Where is the quote from Al Gore where he says that “the science is settled”? I strongly suspect that you’re going off a misquote there. In any case, find me a scientist (as opposed to Politician or delusional idiot) who claims the science is settled. The scientific consensus is very very strong though – despite your idiotic uninformed blitherings on the topic. You seem to consistently get complexity and uncertainty confused in your tiny delusional mind.

    Also rather than tackling my central point, that the poor quality reporting from the times has nothing to contribute regarding the state of the scientific consensus, you prefer to stick to a peripheral matter of even less relevance than your original point. Nice work delusional fuckwit boy (that’s your new superhero name by the way).

  273. So when Al Gore says “the science is settled”, he’s just repeating lines from the “oil-tobacco lobby”? Gosh.

    Who’s grasping at straws here?

  274. [ Amazing stuff eh? Scientists making mistakes and getting it wrong. Who would have thought? I mean, isn’t The Science settled? ]

    Nope, thats your delusional camp straw man – “the science is settled” is a phrase originating with a so called climate skeptic in the pay of the oil-tobacco nexus.

    Tamas using your expertise now develop a statistical model to predict average ice extent, size of perturbations and average age of arctic ice over the next half century in order to make your point properly. Then we can evaluate how it performs against observations. Maybe a hindcast model would do too, so that we wouldn’t have to use our crystal ball or time machine.

    Large ossicilations like this are actually consistent with significant changes in complex systems ( see Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V. et al. (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/full/nature08227.html )I’m really unsure of the relevance of this newspaper article in terms of providing evidence for or against the scientific consensus that you’re so convinced is bullshit.

    Sorry Tamas, you’re grasping at evidence without providing any intellecutally coherent argument in order to maintain the pretence that your delusional thought processes have grounding in reality. Again your barrel is in fact your head, and the fish are the few neurons left between your skull.

    Please keep going, you demonstrate the fundamental weakness of your argument very well.

  275. Today’s fish-in a barrel shot:

    “Arctic ice recovers from the great melt”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7086746.ece

    To quote:

    +++
    “In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event,” Serreze said.”

    Also “Scientists have made mistakes over other short-term trends such as increases in tropical storms. In 2004-5 an increase in the number and severity of storms, including Hurricane Katrina, prompted some researchers to suggest a link with global warming — but this was then followed by a decline in storms.

    Similar fears were raised in 2005 when scientists at Southampton University published research showing that some deep Atlantic Ocean currents, linked to the Gulf Stream, had slowed by a third.

    They issued a press release entitled “Could the Atlantic current switch off?” which suggested that circulation in the ocean, which gives Europe its temperate climate, might shut down. But more recent studies have shown that such currents slow down and speed up naturally, so short-term changes cannot be seen as evidence of global warming.”

    ++
    Amazing stuff eh? Scientists making mistakes and getting it wrong. Who would have thought? I mean, isn’t The Science settled?

  276. Tamas,

    I’m not really interested in your constant repetition of the same old discredited delusional crap, yet you continue subjecting us to it.

  277. Tamas:

    Nice bit of yellow journalism there: “A religious war is raging between alarmists and skeptics”. Plenty of misreporting of Climategate as well.

    Here’s another nice piece of misinformation in that article:

    [ German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is urging the IPCC to deal with its own errors more proactively. “The IPCC should openly admit its mistakes and correct them,” he told SPIEGEL. “It is imperative that trust in the work of the IPCC be restored as quickly as possible.” ]

    I think you’ll find that’s what actually happens when the IPCC finds errors, unlike say when someone like Tamas makes mistakes or repeats the errors of others – the usual occurance. In fact, when Tamas says stuff, we can usually assume that it’s based on a factual error or a lie, his record is so woeful.

    Won’t waste my time reading beyond page two because the article you linked to is clearly without scientific merit.

    In other news, here’s a nice piece on why being polite isn’t necessarily appropriate:

    [ We may all disagree, the concern troll maunders, but surely we can all agree to be polite and show each other respect.

    Now who could possibly object to that? Of course, this merely opens the door to allowing other invading spammers and trolls simply posting and reposting their talking points as if they have not yet been civilly dealt with. It can’t possibly rein in those trolls who come to the group with outlandish and utterly unfounded slanders — which those of us who see them for what they are are supposed to dignify with counter-argument.

    People who post with a reckless disregard for the truth, who lack the seriousness and discipline to anticipate and address likely objections and yet hold themselves out as experts have not earned respect or the right to be dealt with civilly, IMO. ]

    Which is why calling out Ken and Tamas as delusional fuckwits is entirely appropriate.

  278. Ken:

    1. Go read the literature – many of the pdfs are downloadable from Google Scholar directly.

    2. Your memory is faulty, but that’s ok, we’ve already established that you’re totally disinterested in the actual evidence.

    3. Tamas makes you look smart — his intellectual stuntedness, delusions, narcissism and information illiteracy is so great. But that’s just relatively – you’re more the master of confabulation and circular argument.

    4. What part of “relative measure” and “magnitude of the trends is not significantly different” do you not understand? Why are you bothering with this nonsense. Oh yes, because your case is so weak it’s the only thing you’ve got left. Hahaha.

    5. What an idiotic statement. You either look for overlapping confidence limits, or you do a specialist statistical test. Just because you don’t understand statistical methods doesn’t mean they don’t exist I’m afraid. (same as you wouldn’t know what to do with raw data if it sat on your face).

    6. Well if I start climbing mt everest and mt baw baw baw at 0 metres elevation you might have a point. However the analogy is more that I start climbing everest at 0 metres, and mt baw baw at about 6500 metres below sea level – this illustrates the idea of relative measurement rather nicely, and also the total stupidity of your argument.

    Please go on – you’re continuing to illustrate the hollow, delusional, fact free nature of your argument rather nicely. Roll on post 2000, I’m sick of your boring nonsense.

  279. “It’s called the divergence problem”

    Explain it to us kdkd……good until 1959 and 11 months – no good after 1960 and 1 month.

    If memory serves me correctly – you and Tamas disagreed hotly about the trends in the UAH data. UAH was considerably cooler than HADCRUT.

    The first Karoake was on your own NH temperatures, the second on HADCRUT global which got a lot cooler, and I can’t recall seeing the UAH Karaoke – but it must have been cooler still.

    For you – two upward trend lines no matter what the slope must have ‘no statistical difference’.’

    Just like there is no statistical difference between climbing Mt Baw Baw and Mt Everest…….

  280. More of Ken being a total dickhead here:

    [ Maybe you could start with Briffa’s tree rings post-1960……..after all isn’t it the last 30 years in which the temperatures have ‘hockeysticked up’?. ]

    It’s called the divergence problem. It’s much discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Maybe you should take a look at the literature. Hardly a scientific conspiracy to “hide the decline”. Anyway, I’m not sure what your point was. It appears to me like you were making some moronic baseless insinuation.

  281. Err, Ken

    In your continual quest to determine how much egg you can put in your custard before you can’t call it custard any more (hint, a long time ago), you again make fundamental errors that are easily rebutted.

    I used all available data sets, HADCRUT, GISS and UAH data. And get this, you’ll like it: they do not differ significantly from each other.

    Conclusion: Ken is talking utter crap as is his right as a right wing delusional fuckwit right. He does not pay an iota of attention to the evidence presented to him, because if he did, it would mean that he would have to question his delusional belief system.

    Hey, where’s the answer to the question I posed in #1941? It’s pivotal to your argument. Your continued failure to answer it (it was not the first time I posed the question either) strongly supports the hypothesis that you’re not really interested in the science, just the contents of the inside of your own head.

  282. “2. I did indeed provide strong statistical evidence that supports my hypothesis in the Climate Karaoke quite some time ago. Short term memory loss Ken?”

    And what was Karaoke based on kdkd…..HADCRUT – Hadley-CRU-Temperature – unable to be validated due to Dr Phil’s lost data. So you can throw out your Karaoke and start again.

    Show us the absolute temperatures and trends for ‘your other sources’ kdkd.

    Maybe you could start with Briffa’s tree rings post-1960……..after all isn’t it the last 30 years in which the temperatures have ‘hockeysticked up’?.

  283. Ken,

    Just to be absolutely clear:

    [ UAH and RSS Satellite temperature data is sourced from the same satellites and processed independently and closely agree – they show positively global upward trend of lesser slope and a negative trend over Antarctica. ]

    Antarctica aside (there is effectively no decent ground record for the whole of Antarctica – but there’s a clear warming trend in the surrounding ocean), there is no statistically significant difference between the UAH/RSS trends and the GISS/CRU trends. How frequently do you want to repeat this fallacy, and have it pointed out to you that it is a fallacy? I’m not going to let this go, because what you are making is a false statement.

  284. Oh yeah, the satellite data is not raw data either, it’s rather heavily processed too. Does this mean that you will no longer consider that this data has any validity either?

  285. Ken,

    Your fallacious reasoning continues to show that your case is exceptionally weak. The processed data is indeed based on the raw data. The fact that it is not available is unfortunate, not because you’d know what to do with it if you could get it, but that it would shut you up.

    If there were major inconsistencies in the CRU data with the other independent data sources, then your point might have some validity. However there aren’t (your Antarctica distraction doesn’t count for good technical reasons that have been discussed elsewhere).

    Finally I’m seeing another #1940 moment here when Ken’s questions are answered and he claims that they are not later on:

    [ Prove it kdkd………not assert it. ]

    1. Statistical methods do not provide proof they provide support for hypothesis. You’re abusing logic in a desperate attempt to hold on to your delusions.

    2. I did indeed provide strong statistical evidence that supports my hypothesis in the Climate Karaoke quite some time ago. Short term memory loss Ken?

    No cover up here ken, and no need to constantly repeat things that have been roundly and repeatedly demonstrated to be not true, unlike you and Tamas.

    Please keep going, the weakness, idiocy and inconsistency of your case is demonstrated even more strongly every time you put fingers to keyboard.

    p.s. See how I answer the questions that you put to me? I see that you never return the same courtesy and we can only conclude that this also demonstrates the fatal weakness of your argument.

  286. “There is no statistically significant difference between temperature trends in the hemispheric or global satellite records and the other instrumental data sets.”

    Prove it kdkd………not assert it.

    Here is your argument in a nutshell:

    NASA/GISS ‘processed temperatures’ show a positively global upward trend, but the existence or slope of that trend cannot be verified because the raw source data is lost.

    UAH and RSS Satellite temperature data is sourced from the same satellites and processed independently and closely agree – they show positively global upward trend of lesser slope and a negative trend over Antarctica.

    kdkd claims that there is no statistical difference between the two temperature groups even thought the first – CRU/NASA/GISS is unverifiable against the raw source data – so for hard scientific purposes – does not exist.

    Science is supposed to be a relentless search for truth – and logical deduction used to be a vital part of that.

    How do you logically deduce that Set 1 has no statistically significant difference from Set 2 when Set 1 does not scientifically exist….. kdkd??

    All the ‘proxy’ data – cherry blossoms, arctic ice etc, etc might indicate warming – I have neven denied warming has occurred – what is really important is the *extent and rate* of warming and absolute degree of warming to determine whether it is a serious problem of not.

    That is what you are trying to cover up with your prattle about ‘statistical significance’ of one valid sloping line (UAH/RSS) with another invalid sloping line (CRU/NASA/GISS).

  287. Ken #1980:

    [ The Satellites read *LOWER* temperatures and flatter trends than CRU/NASA/GISS. ]

    Yes the relative tempearutre for the satellite readings are lower than the other data sets, but as you’ve said before we can only aspire to relative measurements. But here’s your fundamental mistake:

    There is no statistically significant difference between temperature trends in the hemispheric or global satellite records and the other instrumental data sets. Feel free to repeat your lie though – repeating it demonstrates the hollowness of your argument quite nicely.

  288. So let us pretend to take Ken and Tamas’ assertions seriously for a minute or two as an intellectual exercise. What they’re claiming is:

    Because the raw data for the CRU temperature data is unavailiable, it means that the global temperature record is completely untrustworthy. On the face of that, it looks like it might be plausible if this single source of data was inconsistent with other available data. So is it?

    Well it’s consistent with the (independently derived) satellite data, so that’s strike one.
    It’s consistent with the (independently derived) ice core data, so that’s strike two.
    It’s consistent with the change in arctic sea ice age and extent, again independently derived, strike three.
    It’s consistent with the change in range of plants and animals to what appears to be a response to changing temperatures – strike 4
    It’s consistent with the change in the time of onset of spring in the northern hemispere, strike 5.
    It’s consistent with the changes in the energy balance model over the last few decades no matter how hard Ken bleats about it – strike 6.

    So we can take lots of independent evicdence and see if it’s consistent with each other, which it does appear to be, in a very coherent way. Or we can accept Ken and Tamas solipsistic rubbish.

    Please keep going guys, you’re demonstrating the idiocy of your position quite nicely.

  289. Ken – indeed.

    Still, not that it takes a “great mind” to dissect this bu*lshit.

    The warmest argument is not backed up by data. How can we possibly take them seriously? Well, I guess we don’t.

  290. #kdkd #1978

    “Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”

    Which ‘international datasets’……………. kdkd??

    The only others we know of are UAH and RSS satellite data which read the same satellites.

    The Satellites read *LOWER* temperatures and flatter trends than CRU/NASA/GISS.

    End of story.

  291. kdkd – your quote above says” the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets”

    What other data sets? NASA? We have shown that 98% of their data comes from CRU!!

    Name the data sets! Name them!!!

  292. Here’s a nice quote form the first CRU enquiry (there will be more):

    [ “Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.” ]

    Let me repeat that for you: the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified. Now awaiting more “black is white, war is peace and fucking is virginity” arguments from our two resident delusional idiots.

  293. Ken,

    Straw man. Due to the lack of permanent surface stations in the polar regions, the instrumental record has to extrapolate excessively, and here the sattelite data is more accurate. There is certainly no significant difference between the global trends for the different data sets. What was the point that you were trying to make again? was it that it’s always easy to find small enlments of uncertainty in a large and complex area of scientific research?

    The over-egging of the custard here (and the burning of your accidental omlette) is trying to extrapolate this to your intellectually incoherent, paranoid, delusional political argument, and pretending that you’re somehow still doing science.

  294. kdkd #1967

    “Well we can see clearly that in terms of the trends data (that’s relative temperature measures), that there is no significant difference bweween the CRU data and the sattelite data.”

    So 30 year Satellite trend lines are slightly positive for most of the planet, and negative for Antarctica, and CRU/NASA/GISS are more positive for the whole planet and positive for Antarctica – and this proves that ‘there is no significant difference’ between them -AND THE LATTER CAN’T BE VERIFIED??? HELLO???

    And when that argument fails – fall back on the proxies – what? – ice cores, Russian Tree rings?? – the very things that are only used prior to 1860 BECAUSE there were no global instrumental records.

    Pull the other one kdkd……

    Tamas – did anyone suggest that mixing pre-1960 tree ring proxy data with post-1960 instrumental data was invalid science??

    As the alleged emails revealed – Briffa showed his discomfort and incurred Mann’s wrath and he eventually went along with mixing the two to ‘hide the decline’. So the falling tree ring proxy temperatures did not fit the AGW script – so just stop them there in 1960 and add on thermometer data to ‘hide the decline’ and keep the curve upwardly mobile.

    And this is just an honest splicing out the dud data from the tree rings? Hello??

    Well what about the rest of the tree ring data pre-1960 – could it be dud as well?

    What is magical about 1960 – pre-1960 good – post-1960 bad.

    Orwellian crap science anybody?….

  295. Tamas:

    The tree ring divergence problem is reasonably well understood, and the ice core record (for example) doesn’t suffer the same problem. Then the satellite measures kick in for extra validation. Aside from showing us your limited range of material by talking around in circles, what point was it that you were trying to make, or were you just showing off your miniscule intellect?

    Everything in your post #1974 is firmly debunked, and just repetition on your part. As a delusional fuckwit, you’re exceptionally boring.

  296. kdkd – but the proxies showed a decline in temperatures from the 1960s. Remember? That’s why they had to “hide the decline”

    And how is there a “scientific” consensus? There is no data to be independently verified, so there is no science.

    This report is a whitewash but it is telling nonetheless. The cracks are forming in the global warming consensus and the dam is beginning to burst.

    The CRU must now release its data. The sceptics will go over it very, very closely.

    Mean time, the world refuses to warm. How long now? 12 years since the 1998 peak? Yawn, wake me when the world finally cooks.

  297. Tamas,

    Same pattern with the proxies though. In general they’re pretty good. Tough titties.

    I hope you read this bit:

    [ “We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus” ]

    Oops, there goes your entire argument. Not that such an inconvenient truth will stop you, we know the deluded separation from reality is terminal.

  298. And I must also quote NASA again:

    Analyses of global surface temperature change are routinely carried out by several groups, including the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and a joint effort of the Hadley Research Centre and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (HadCRUT). These analyses are not independent, as they must use much the same input observations.”

    So NASA’s data is not independent from the CRU’s “data”. But as we know, the CRU doesn’t have any “data”.

    What. A. Joke!

  299. Chris: do you mean to smoke this part?

    “(the enquiry) sharply condemned the unit for witholding information requested by outsiders under Britain’s freedom of information laws.”

    “The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change skeptics, we felt was reprehensible,” committee chairman Phil Willis told a news conference.

    I can’t wait until they are forced to share their data. I think we sceptics will have a field day then.

    kdkd – We only have 31 years of satellite temperatures. The record before that is, eh hem, “lost”, so we can’t verify that today is warmer than, say, the 1930’s. NASA’s US data, by the way, shows the 1930’s were warmer than today. Only when combined with the CRU’s “data” does the record show that the world is warmer today than the 30’s.

    So, once again, no data no argument.

    This stuff is too easy…

  300. Ken,

    Well kdkd has given you a reasonable explanation.

    I’ve have never seen any other field where part timers, hobbyists and sheer amatures are so desperate for raw data. Frankly I don’t think any of you would know what to do with it if it was made available to you.

  301. Ken,

    Well we can see clearly that in terms of the trends data (that’s relative temperature measures), that there is no significant difference bweween the CRU data and the sattelite data. Therefore we can draw two conclusions. Either that the satellite data is also untrustworthy, or that this is a robust independent validation of the CRU’s data set.

    You can also validate other parts the CRU’s processed data against the proxy record in a similar way. I know it suits the delusional case that you need all of the raw data, or the whole thing is irrelevant, that’s clearly a case of the delusionals ‘over-egging the custard’ again.

    Your repertoire is very tedious. Come up with something new that’s not insane, or better admit defeat and give up.

  302. Chris #1964,65

    Had a quick look at the NT news report.

    The bit that the originator did not mention is the Dr Phil has ‘lost’ the CRU’s original raw temperature data for the planet.

    You might explain to Tamas and myself (and kdkd) how one can verify CRU’s temperature reconstruction for the planet WITHOUT the original raw source data?

    C,mon – c’mon —- tell us Chris??

  303. Ken,

    I think that you’ll find that #1940 was dealt with briefly in #1941, as well as many times previously – they were not new points that you raised. Funnily the question mentioned again in #1941 still goes unanswered despite the fact that it’s pivotal to your argument.

    Given that you constantly misrepresent the evidence, ignore questions, deny the relevance of questions that are pivotal for you to answer in order to place your claims on a solid footing, engage in meaningless paranoid conspiracy theory and ideological posturing, I think that remaining patient for a couple of hundred posts prior to treating your arguments with the contempt that they clearly deserve is perfectly reasonable.

    We don’t have to remain civil in the face of constant lies, misrepresentation and disrespect for an important area of human knowledge. I’m actually quite reasonable to people who are not trying to maintain their climate delusions in the face of the unequivocal evidence. It’s just that you’re not one of those people.

  304. kdkd

    My post #1940 was chock full of content kdkd – all of which you were unable to answer.

    I am grateful to you for exposing us to all the shots in the AGW alarmists arsenal, and being a responder to a range of our sceptical arguments – a good try-out for the bigger leagues.

    I must thank you also for presenting the nastiest, most arrogant and intolerant face of AGW alarmism to the viewers, who, being members of the sensible public are ‘tuning out’ to AGW alarmists and doomsayers.

  305. Ken,

    Your only hope left is to answer the questions I’ve been asking for the last 1000 or so posts. However, you’ve ignored every single one. You wasted #1060 on content free rubbish. I can assure you that unless you can go back, find the questions, and answer them, coherently without self contradiction, and without trying to politicise and engage in the usual paranoid conspiracy theory, then your argument is already well and truly lost.

    Ans we’ll be leaving the metaphorical corpse of your argument in a ditch to be gone over by the jackals and vultures.

  306. kdkd #Latest threesome;

    You are sounding like a broken record kdkd… frothing and jabbering your high blood pressured abuse and expletives like a flatulent fraud..

    Not long for the funny farm I suspect….but hold in there for Post #2000 and a world record.

    Sophie will have to declare a winner which I hope will go to Tamas or myself and you will be free to foul your own nest elsewhere.

  307. Anyway, Lovelock was instrumental in discovering the ozone hole, his Gaia hypothesis is extremely instersting and is a great introduction to the “interconnectedness of all things” that’s really anathema to the climate delusionals argument.

    I that the delusional duo are also overstating his thoughts. They’re not peer reviewed science, they’re speculations that may be useful to people formulating policy and research in the area, but interpreting them as unambiguous facts as the delusional duo clearly are, is again, less over egging the custard, as placing all the rotten eggs in one basket and then trying to sell them on as some tasty sweet.

  308. I also think carbon trading is not a good solution by the way, a carbon tax is much more transparent and deals with the currently not-paid-for externalities much more efficiently. I’m afraid that the delusional sceptics as expemplified by Tamas and Ken do us no favours at all, they just show us how intellectually lazy illogical arguments seem so attractive to people who haven’t dedicated a significant part of their life to understanding scientific methods.

    Happy delusions guys. You probably need to hire one of those guys like Caeser did, but instead of getting them to whisper “remember you are mortal” in your ear constantly, they’ll need to be whispering “rememeber you’re a delusional fuckwit”.

  309. And to cap it off:

    [ I think the sceptic bloggers should worry. It’s almost certain that you can’t put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening. This is going to resolve itself and global heating is going to come back on stream and it’s these bloggers who are going to be made to look weird when it does. When something like this happens again, they’ll say we had all this before with ‘Climategate’. But there’s a danger that you can go off too strong, like they have. They are not sufficiently aware of the longer-term consequences. I think the sceptics have done us a good service because they’ve made us look at all this a lot more closely and hopefully the science will improve as a result. But everything has a price and an unexpected price may hit these bloggers. It’s the cry-wolf phenomenon. When the real one comes along, they’ll be laughed at. ]

    I know it’s not tough for either of you because the delusions are so strong, and you’re so convinced of them, and the evidence is so unimportant by comparison that there’s nothing left for you except to distance yourselves as far as possible from the observed reality. Don’t forget the orignial source of the stuff you’re currently cherry picking.

  310. Tamas #1953

    Great Post Tamas – some telling revelation on the state of the science:

    Mind if I borrow this gem:

    “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.”

    Agrees with some of my speculations kdkd….Cop that!!

  311. kdkd -yeah, yeah – it’s always about “context”.

    “Science has got overblown”.

    “Carbon trading… is basically a scam”

    “it’s deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it”

    “It’s obscene to have 10,000 people flying to Bali or whatever to talk about the environment”

    “Careers have been ended by this affair and the reputation of the institution [CRU] will go down for a while.”

    Care to explain the “context” around those quotes? Does the “context” change their meaning?

    I think not.

    Your world is collapsing buddy. I know it must be tough for you.

  312. Tamas,

    Apart from cutting out the context where Lovelock clearly states that anthropogenic global warming is a serious and pressing problem, you’re late to the party. I posted a link to the same transcript this morning, but to the primary source, not just an excerpt edited by a climate delusional to remove critical pieces of context.

    Your fish in a barrel shot shows the extent of your delusions. The barrel is in fact your skull, and the “fish” your brains – metaphorically of course you just blew your own brains out – see delusions can be dangerous if you act on them!

  313. Today’s fish in a barrel shot:

    Green guru James Lovecock says:

    I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

    Careers have been ended by this affair and the reputation of the institution [CRU] will go down for a while. It’s sad because there are some good people there. They have to clean their house if they know people are behaving badly. They have got a rotten job ahead, but it will blow over in a few years.

    We’re very tribal. You’re either a goodie or a baddie. I’ve got quite a few friends among the sceptics, as well as among the “angels” of climate science. I’ve got more angels as friends than sceptics, I have to say, but there are some sceptics that I fully respect. Nigel Lawson is one… I wouldn’t put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.

    I respect their right to be sceptics. Nigel Lawson is an easy person to talk to. He’s more like a defence counsel for the sceptics than a right-winger banging the drum. His book is not a diatribe or polemic. He tries to reason his case.

    The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.

    We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.

    Copenhagen was doomed to fail. But I think it was worth their while trying. A lot of people put their hearts into it. But I’ve never felt entirely happy with that sort of environmental wing-ding. It’s obscene to have 10,000 people flying to Bali or whatever to talk about the environment. It just shows how hopeless humans are.

    We shouldn’t let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they’re nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point. For example, it’s deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it. Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong.

    [Lovelock on what it will take to convince the public that meaningful action is required to tackle climate change]:

    There has been a lot of speculation that a very large glacier [Pine Island glacier] in Antarctica is unstable. If there’s much more melting, it may break off and slip into the ocean. It would be enough to produce an immediate sea-level rise of two metres, something huge, and tsunamis. I would say the scientists are not worried about it, but they are keeping a close watch on it. That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion.

    I don’t know enough about carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we’re doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.

    [Lovelock on the surveys showing that public trust with climate science is eroding]:

    I think the public are right. That’s why I’m soft on the sceptics. Science has got overblown. From the moment Harold Wilson brought in that stuff about the “white heat of technology”, science, in Britain at least, has gone down the drain. Science was always elitist and has to be elitist. The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy. We’re paying the price for it now.

    Thanks to Tom Nelson at http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/03/james-lovelock-on-value-of-sceptics-and.html

  314. Ken

    [ That which he cannot answer – label lies and keep repeating lies, lies, lies in the hope that his tormentors will go away. ]

    Wow, talk about more “war is peace, lies are truth, and fucking is virginity” arguments from the other half of the delusional duo. I generally answer your questions the first couple of times they come up, but then the repetition and your total ignoring the answers becomes tedious, so I resort to the more entertaining vitriol.

    So Ken, your pathetic justifications for not answering any of my questions, and your total ignoring my answers to the questions you ask and the issues you rais are really very rude. Not directly rude like I am when I call you a delusional fuckwit and similar, but a much worse kind of indirect rudeness, which shows that you’re not really serious about this subject, you’re not serious about the debate, and you’re not serious about the evidence.

    Stop wasting everybody’s time and go and skulk in a corner like a good little dunce.

    Same goes for you Tamas.

  315. And we can note that Ken still has no justification for ignoring my pivotal question (not to mention all the other ones you’ve been compelled to ignore).

    It doesn’t look good for you. Anyway, highlighting the lies is just calling it out how it is, denying the fact that you are lying is another lie, and / or an indication of your continuing ideological stupidity on this topic.

  316. kdkd #1949

    If you are not in therapy right now kdkd…..frothing at the mouth definitely requires clinical treatment.

    Lies, lies, lies, – shame, shame, shame…..the sum of kdkd’s argument technique.

    That which he cannot answer – label lies and keep repeating lies, lies, lies in the hope that his tormentors will go away.

    Watch out for the ‘big yellow taxi’ kdkd… and don’t stand on any window ledges.

  317. Well

    It’s instructive to illustrate how comments out of context can have a large impact on the apparent direction of an argument. Tamas came up with more delusional crap in #1766 misrepresenting James Lovelock’s recent talk. Here’s more of what he had to say, with more context added:

    [ I think the sceptic bloggers should worry. It’s almost certain that you can’t put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening. This is going to resolve itself and global heating is going to come back on stream and it’s these bloggers who are going to be made to look weird when it does. When something like this happens again, they’ll say we had all this before with ‘Climategate’. But there’s a danger that you can go off too strong, like they have. They are not sufficiently aware of the longer-term consequences. I think the sceptics have done us a good service because they’ve made us look at all this a lot more closely and hopefully the science will improve as a result. But everything has a price and an unexpected price may hit these bloggers. It’s the cry-wolf phenomenon. When the real one comes along, they’ll be laughed at. ]

    Even more context here at the Grauniad. More of the usual “black is white, war is peace and fucking is virginity” rhetorical technique from you eh Tamas?

  318. [ Which one of my 6 points from #1940 ]

    Haha. I guess translated this means “I was unhappy with my evisceration in #1942, can you please remove more material from my gut cavity”.

    [ Observations and Theory are if anything diverging at the moment ]

    Wrong, this is unchanged and has been for many years.

    [ ‘Lack of warming’ diverges from increasing ‘forcing’ from CO2 GHG. ]

    Repeating the lie. There is no lack of warming. See penultimate paragraph at #1941 – why not answer the question if your case is strong. Your evidence does not speak for itself.

    [ ‘Inability to measure energy fluxes directly’ leaves great uncertainty about forcing magnitude of the CO2 – water vapour mechanism.

    ‘Inability to measure absolute TSI’ means that the equilibrium TSI and energy balance of the Earth system – pre-industrial…. is not accurately known.

    ‘Low LOSU of clouds’ means that we are not too sure of how much heating or cooling they produce.

    ‘Conflicting data on ocean heat storage’ means that we are not too sure if the extra heat is crouching in the oceans at the minute getting ready to spring out.

    “The leading expert on Earth energy balance’ can only account for about 60% of the warming he thinks we might have had over the last 5-7 years. ]

    More lies. This of the sort that makes the false claim that uncertainty in measurement is the same as having no or inadequate knowledge about a system to draw strong conclusions. This line of argument highlights the intellectual sloppiness of your case.

    [ It is indeed a ‘travesty’. ]

    Stupid comment cherry picked out of context, give it a rest.

    Clear enough for you, or would you like to be called a deluded fuckwit again?

  319. kl #1940 Tamas #1942

    Great link Tamas – I did not know that the UK Head of Greenpeace was calling for the head of the IPCC.

    Which one of my 6 points from #1940 is wrong kdkd?….

  320. The facts rebutting the idiotic content of that article have been discussed to death here and elsewhere. Your insistiance on returning to first principles every time you present a new source of information (even if the information is old and based on previously established delusions, lies and/or misrepresentations) also highlights the weakness of your argument.

  321. Tamas,

    Straw man. People who perceive that their livelihood who are contingent on maintaining the status quo (economic growth at all costs based on cheap energy and not being charged for externalities). If you have to make such a ludicrous case to try to defend the author of the idiotic pamphlet you linked to, then your case is fatally flawed indeed.

  322. kdkd – I love it. The “resource exploitation industry”? Ever driven a car? Been in a building? Ever used, I dunno, a computer? Where did all the “resources” that created these things come from?

    In any case, do you have any facts to rebut the article?

  323. Tamas,

    Wow, the rallying call of the fossil fuel lobbiests to the vested interests and the delusionals. Less over-egged custard there, more some kind of disguising burned sweet omlette. Why don’t you look for stuff not contaminated by the resource exploitation industry, rather than the predictable bullshit you offer again and again?

    Oh I know why, because outside of the delusional and vested interest circles, such information does not exist. You should widen your reading boy, this delusional crap is shrinking your brain.

  324. Ken,

    Stop repeating your delusional crap.

    Be aware that you can not coherently account for why the satellite measurement of temperature is in close agreement with the instrumental record without irreparably damaging yuor case . Be aware that you can not coherently account for the agreement with the seasonal onset and other ecosystem changes’ agreement with the instrumental and satellite records without irreparably damaging your case. Be aware of your misuse of the term “Level of Scientific Understanding” – conflating LOSU with statistical uncertainty. Hint: they are not the same thing. The remains of your post is the usual crap trying to inflate uncertainty through the usual delusional and illogical arguments – basic climate delusional dishonesty that’s easy to see through.

    Finally please note again that you haven’t answered the key question last asked here. Your repeated failure to answer this pivotal question unequivocally shows that your “argument” is an incoherent mass of poorly crafted bullshit.

    Oh dear Ken, you’re not so much on shaky ground, but up to your nose in a cesspool of your own crap.

  325. kdkd 1939

    Observations and Theory are if anything diverging at the moment kdkd…

    ‘Lack of warming’ diverges from increasing ‘forcing’ from CO2 GHG.

    ‘Inability to measure energy fluxes directly’ leaves great uncertainty about forcing magnitude of the CO2 – water vapour mechanism.

    ‘Inability to measure absolute TSI’ means that the equilibrium TSI and energy balance of the Earth system – pre-industrial…. is not accurately known.

    ‘Low LOSU of clouds’ means that we are not too sure of how much heating or cooling they produce.

    ‘Conflicting data on ocean heat storage’ means that we are not too sure if the extra heat is crouching in the oceans at the minute getting ready to spring out.

    “The leading expert on Earth energy balance’ can only account for about 60% of the warming he thinks we might have had over the last 5-7 years.

    It is indeed a ‘travesty’.

  326. Ken,

    So the “original” parts of your plan are the ones that are of questionable sanity or wouldn’t have any impact on CO2 emissions.

    So half hearted apoligies for the inflammatory language in my previous. Some of the first 7 points are quite sane, but they’re inconsistent with the rest of cliamte-delusional’s argument.

    Look, I know that it’s very easy to play the “everyone is alarmist” card, and in many situations this is the prudent thing to do (e.g. the autisim vaccine research so thorougly debunked). However in the case of anthropogenic global warming, the climate delusionals position require such a big divergence from reality as estimated by the observations and theory, that the delusional position is clearly ludicrous, based on lies and wishful thinking.

  327. kdkd #1937

    “And there’s nothing wrong with the 10 point plan you have plagiarised from elsewhere.”

    The plan has some obvious features which are widely discussed – but the last two or three points are original thoughts kdkd…..and the composition entirely original.

    “plagiarised from elsewhere” is untrue and libellous kdkd….so I advise you withdraw that remark.

  328. Ken see post #1931 for a solid and insurmountable rebuttal of:

    [ The breaking of the drought in Qld and the Northern half of the MDB lends weight to the sensible argument that this is all part of ‘natural variation’ ]

    See also the many posts highlighting the idiotic inconsistency of your argument, and refusal to answer reasonable questions because doing so would cause you and Tamas to show that your entire argument is based on fiction, misrepresentation and lies.

    Very puerile. I’m only here because of your fictional delusional crap:

    [ the only reason Tamas and I are playing with an unpleasant intellectual dwarf such as yourself kdkd ]

    There are certainly delusional intellectual midgets on this thread.

    Finally, I am also no big fan of Earth Hour (and don’t participate), we’re actually engaged in Earth Life, as Jackie French wrote in the Crikey comments last week. And there’s nothing wrong with the 10 point plan you have plagiarised from elsewhere. It’s just it’s inconsistent with your cosying up to the unreconstructed delusionals who’s main provenance is the embracing of philosophical solipsism and idiotic arguments inspired by the kinds of intellectual crap beloved of the evolutionary creationists.

  329. kdkd #1933,4,5

    Stuttering in three’s again kdkd…

    You know the only reason Tamas and I are playing with an unpleasant intellectual dwarf such as yourself kdkd….. is to get the Guiness world record for largest number of posts in a blog.

    The fizzer which was Earth hour last weekend shows that the public is sick of alarmist charlatans screeching doom and gloom and is *tuning out*.

    The breaking of the drought in Qld and the Northern half of the MDB lends weight to the sensible argument that this is all part of ‘natural variation’ in Australia’s climate – not sinister ‘climate change’ boosted by the Tim Flannery style alarmists.

    And it also points to the public being receptive to something sensible and non-destructive of the economy like Ken Lambert’s 10 point plan instead of Rudd’s ETS which will become a plaything of finance spivs in a carbon trading casino.

  330. Ken #1933

    Also you’ll note that my post #1932 was perfectly civil (by my standards) but still calls you and Tamas out on the pile of deluded fictional crap you present as an argument.

    I think mainly you don’t like having the fact that your argument is not inspired by a reality-based view of the scientific evidence constantly thrust in your face.

  331. Ken,

    [ infantile abuse and expletives just show he is losing the argument.]

    Sorry, I thought it was your massively illogical and inconsistent, contradictory mix of crap that showed that you two were using the argument. I wasn’t aware that it was an etiquette competition.

    As I said to Tamas, stop talking total crap based on fiction, and I’ll happily tone it down.

  332. Tamas, its probably time to ‘sin bin’ kdkd again. The infantile abuse and expletives just show he is losing the argument. I suggest that we only respond to Chris and other civil players until kdkd stops the expletives and abuse.

  333. Tamas

    Yet more delusional interpretation:

    [ I suspect it will resuming its warming in 10-20 years, just like it did after a 30 year lull in the mid 1970s. This warming trend is natural and not a crisis. ]

    If you’d been paying attention you’d know that we don’t expect a large scale irreversible crisis until around the year 2100. Sure we’ll get incremental problems especially beyond 2050, but we don’t expect to see immediate catastrophe.

    However, this is the killer point: What we do today affects what’s going to happen in 2050 and 2100. The wrong decisions will cause catastrophe at this time in the future, the right decisions will avert it. Unfortunately your (ill)logical position means that you can’t acknowledge that this is the scenario that we’re looking at. Instead you fill the airwaves with creationist style bullshit arguments, and then set up a straw man with a dash of illogic (“no catastrophe today therefore no catastrophe error”) in order to try to support your deluded point.

    Ken’s no better, he just confabulates a story a bit more effectively, with the illogic and misdirection a bit better hidden behind argument that looks (very) superfically plausible.

  334. Tamas,

    [ I have long maintained that there has been a general warming trend for around 300 years now. It is not rapid and it does not seem to correlate with CO2 emissions. ]

    Wrong, the relationship is closely associated with co2 emissions, as I have empirically demonstrated with a range of data sources in the distant past, with the relationship to emperature and co2 strengthening markedly in recend decades. This fundamental mistake of yours invalidates the remains of your deluded logically circular argument.

    [ And really, do you need to keep calling me a f*ckwit? You’ve made your point. Now you just come across as crude. ]

    I tell you what, you produce an argument that’s clearly not delusional, retarded or fuckwitted, and I’ll stop calling you a delusional fuckwit. Deal?

    Chris:

    Good point. All hallmarks of severe intractable delusions IMO.

  335. kdkd – it’s like arguing with a naughty 5 year old sometimes with you.

    I have long maintained that there has been a general warming trend for around 300 years now. It is not rapid and it does not seem to correlate with CO2 emissions.

    Thus, one would expect the past decade to be warmer than previous decades.

    However the world is not warming right now. I suspect it will resuming its warming in 10-20 years, just like it did after a 30 year lull in the mid 1970s. This warming trend is natural and not a crisis.

    And really, do you need to keep calling me a f*ckwit? You’ve made your point. Now you just come across as crude.

  336. Tamas,

    What have you got to say about the decade 2000-2009 being the warmest on record since the beginning of the industrial revolution? This little picture thinking you’re engaging in is the product of a small and delusional mind by the way. The so called lack of trend since 1995 is also of very little relevance to the big picture.

    Go on come up with some other nonsense now. Reinforce the fact that you’re a delusional fuckwit (on this matter at least).

  337. kdkd – keep a lid on that temper, old boy. It is ill becoming.

    As for the trend since 1998, I will happily accept that there is no trend (what’s the word for it again… oh yeah – a plateau). The regression line is negative, but yes, yes, it’s not statistically significant.

    But hey, if you go down that path I’ll just quote Dr Jones again on the lack of trend since 1995.

  338. Tamas:

    [ Also, it’s not “crap” that the world has not warmed since 1998. A simple regression on the temperature data since 1998 shows a slight negative trend. ]

    It’ll be your statistical literacy that’s crap then. Please keep going, it’s really highlighting the fact that you’re a delusional fuckwit rather well.

  339. Chris – Jones admits that he does not have the raw data to back up his temperature estimate. This is not news. Google it.

    And I gave evidence of NASA using the CRU’s temperature record for everything outside the US above.

    Also, it’s not “crap” that the world has not warmed since 1998. A simple regression on the temperature data since 1998 shows a slight negative trend.

    Finally, if you have to “choose your words carefully” because some people will interpret a plateau as, well, a plateau – then your argument is in pretty big trouble.

  340. Chris,

    [ some people involved in this debate are not careful with their words ]

    I think the delusional camp are actually beyond help here. No matter how hard one chooses one’s words, they will still pull out the old creative misrepresentation to spin a kind of argument that’s been especially popular among climate delusionals, and the creationists.

    Tamas latest installment of total bullshit #1921

    [ If we say the temperature has plateaued, we are lying. But if Steven Chu also says it then, well, there are all sorts of contortions in his argument to justify it ]

    You already got your answer here, you just chose to ignore it. To remind you, the logically solid and devestating rebuttal to your attempt to misrepresent Chou’s comments. Here’s the reminder: “lack of complete understanding is not equivalent to no understanding.”

    Your comment on 140 years is also total solipsistic bullshit, again you’re trying to claim uncertainties in the record mean that our understanding must a priori be zero. If we held such high standards to life in general, we’d never get out of bed due to the uncertainties involved (assuming that there was even a bed for us to get out of, and so on into the abyss of complete solipsism).

    Cut the total crap. Or maybe don’t, carry on. Every time you say anything, it becomes clearer and clearer to everyone that your case has no merit because you’re a deluded fuckwit who’s [ insert classic Orwell insult here]. Got it?

  341. Unfortunately Tamas, some people involved in this debate are not careful with their words and when Chu used the word plateau he should have known a whole horde of internet experts would jump on the chance to us those words as evidence. Yes, it is correct to say that temperatures between point A and point B not risen significantly, and you could call that a plateau, but using that word may give it too much authority.

    As to CRU losing the data, well I can’t verify that and I can’t verify your other arguments about NASA measurements being based on CRU data. Point me in the right direction will you. And quit with the “hasn’t warmed since 1998” crap will you. If you have a reasonable argument then you shouldn’t have to rely on such misleading statements.

    And the reason for the warming up to 1940 is here

  342. Chris – oh, come on. Can’t I have a little fund with kdkd and his hysterical accusations? If we say the temperature has plateaued, we are lying. But if Steven Chu also says it then, well, there are all sorts of contortions in his argument to justify it.

    Now, to your real point. Yes, there has been warming over the past 140 years. Well, maybe. There is no actual data to check this because the CRU lost it all. But there is some evidence to suggest that the world has warmed a bit.

    However, it has not warmed since at least 1998 despite record CO2 emissions. Why not?

    And the previous warming spurts, as admitted by Dr Jones, were of the same magnitude as the one that stopped in 1998. Yet CO2 emissions are vastly greater today.

    Work through the logic Chris. It all points to CO2 being a minor player in any observed warming.

  343. Wow Tamas, you’ve just disproved climate change by relying on three sentences cherry picked from a one hour speech!

    Now repeat after me: The plateau in the last decade is not statistically significant. The upward trend in temperature from 1880 to 2009 is statistically significant.

  344. Tamas #1918

    you’re over egging your custard again. Chou’s argument is so far from your “it’s not happening or is or a tiny magnitude or is not caused by human activity” position, that it just goes to show how deluded your vewpoint is. Hint: lack of complete understanding is not equivalent to no understanding.

    As for #1917. It’s rude to lie and giving your argument any credibility would be lying. Therefore highlighting your deluded fuckwittery is a service to the readers pointing out your deluded lies.

  345. Ken – this is just too easy.

    Here is the US secretary for energy, Dr Steven Chu: “It’s fair to say we don’t understand these ripples. We don’t understand the downward trend that occurred in 1900 or in 1940. We don’t fully understand the plateau in the last decade.”

    So I guess the US energy secretary is lying as well…

  346. Ken – did you get kdkd’s message? It’s rude not to paste links.

    It’s ok to call people “fu*kwits, morons, liars” etc etc, but it’s rude not to paste links. Got it?

    What a weird, distorted world kdkd lives in.

  347. Sorry, the idiotic contortions of the delusional duo know no bounds. Previously ken supported the statement that the temperature record was unreliable and measured noise. Now he’s claiming that we can make strong conclusions about tiny amounts of variation in a noisy system.

    Inconsistent much? Yep indeed, delusional and intellectually bankrupt crap.

  348. Ken #1914

    1. It’s rude not to link. Don’t make the reader look for the stuff you’re referring to. here’s the graph that ken wouldn’t fess up to. It makes you look like you’ve something to hide.

    2. Which in fact you do. You are implying that this ‘plateau’ is a cessation of the long term warming trend. In fact it’s impossible for you to justify this claim. I count 10 “plateaus” of the kind you see as bringing AGW into question across the graph, of which the terminal one in the series is just one example. Here’s the question you didn’t answer before (because you can’t provide a coherent answer that supports your case). What distinguishes this latest bump in the graph from all the other ones, that makes you claim warming has stopped?

    3. If you and Tamas are the “more sensible” delusionals, then your case is even more based on totl bullshit than we already knew.

  349. kdkd#1913

    Go have a look at the graphs in the latest Economist article – the latest temperature curves peak and flatten. A good overall summary I thought – not quite so dismissive of the more sensible sceptics (like Tamas and I).

  350. Ken,

    1. There is no plateau. You need to appeal to this lie constantly to support your case. Bad look, invalidates your argument (hint, relying on a lie for support automatically does this).

    2. Yes, we can’t take the estimate of temperature as an absolute measure, but the trends in the different series are statistically indistinguishable from each other. Trying to deny this is another form of lying, and again the reliance on a lie to support your case automatically invalidates it.

    As you can see from 1 and 2 above, you’re bullshit argument is screwed.

  351. kdkd 1909,10,11

    Stuttering in three’s again kdkd…

    No…all it means is that the satellite plateau is at a lower temperature than Dr Phil’s ‘corrected’ plateau.

  352. What’s especially interesting about the delusional duo’s current bout of spouting total crap is that now their argument is essentially the opposite of their misrepresentation of the unwise comment about”no significant warming or cooling” during Phil Jones’ BBC interview. Now they’re trying to argue that statistical insignificance is of no relevance, except in this situation the statistical insignificance makes the point that the satellite data validates the other measures rather nicely.

    Give up guys, is this lies or stupidity? As I said it’s your choice, but these are the only viable conclusions we can reach about the inspiration for your argument.

  353. Correction: your point 1 is dealt with comprehensively and irrefutably by my rebuttal of points 2 and 3.

  354. Ken,

    1. Notice that the points that you claim are killer points are no such thing. They’re idiotic distractions. Your point 1 and 2 is dealt with comprehensively and irrefutably by my rebuttal of points 2 and 3.

    2. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it. First you claim that absolute measurements are not possible, and we have to rely on relative measurements, now you claim the opposite. Which is it to be? Well we know that the correct answer is “relative” so why are you trying to perpetrate this lie?

    3. Nope, it’s just that the relative measures from the tree cores and ice rings [sic] are consistent with the other measures including the satellite measurements. And then you go on to misrepresent the “hide the decline” quote again – it is in fact “correct for the divergence problem” making your point irrelevant and yet another bullshit misrepresentation.

    Which leaves us with the only conclusion that the satellite record validates the remaining measurements quite well.

    p.s. The sattelite record over-estimates the magnitude of temperature anomalies during strong El Niño events, which again helps you misrepresent the observations to make your point, but only if you ignore the big picture and perform your other misrepresentations, a small number of of which are highlighted in this post.

    Wow, you’re soundly beaten yet you still harp on with the same old delusional crap.

  355. Tamas #1906

    Notice that kdkd has not challenged the killer points;

    1) 98% of the instrumental record cannot be verified because the raw data is lost

    2) UAH and RSS satellite records closely agree and are generally significantly cooler that the unverifiable ‘instrumental record’

    3) kdkd then falls back on ‘ice cores and tree rings’ – proxies which are checked against ……….you guessed it – the instrumental record. Remember the ‘hide the decline’ was all about meshing the declining tree ring proxy after 1960 with ‘instrumental record’ to correct it and ‘hide the decline’.

    Which leaves us with the the only conclusion – the satellite record is it!!!!

  356. Tamas,

    We know to ignore the tree ring data because we know that you misrepresent the divergence problem, and ignore the substantial literature validating the accepted approach to fixing it. You also ignore the way that the satellite data validates the rest of the instrumental record and associated proxies.

    Something is crashing, and someone is having to be very selective about the data that they ignore. So my argument remains unchanged, and remains extremely robust, because the selective reporting and misrepresentation that you have to engage in is so transparent, solipsistic and ridiculous that it’s clear your argument is based on lies and delusions.

  357. Kdkd – but we should ignore the recent tree ring data, right. Because jones et al had to ‘hide the decline’ of the recent tree ring proxies given that they diverged from their lost temperature data.

    What. A. Joke.

    So now all you have is ice cores to say it warmed in the past 140 years?

    Ken, what kind of resolution can ice cores give us? I’ll look into it but I’m guessing it’s pretty low.

    Kdkd’s world is crashing. No data, no argument.

  358. Ken #1903

    Your argument only works if you ignore key data, especially the sattelite data, as well as the recent proxy data (e.g. ice cores) which independently suport the instrumental record.

    Let me repeat for you: your argument is a masterpiece of pathetic splipsism with no merit. Stop wasting our timewitu this crap. You have nothing worthwhile to say on this topic.

    Come back when you don’t have to ignore key bits of information in order to maintain a supposedly coherent argument. Come back when you can answer reasonable questions rather than ignore them for fear that they expose the stupidity of your argument. Meanwhile stop wasting my time with this paranoid psychotic rubbish.

  359. kdkd #1902

    “So you’re claiming that the ice cores and other proxies are measuring noise and that the close relationship between the satelite data and the instrumental record is irelevant?”

    YES, YES, YES …YOU HAVE GOT IT IN ONE AT LAST KDKD…..go to the top of the class.

    That’s because the ‘instrumental record’ raw data has been lost by Dr Phil and nobody can now review and verify it………wait…..there’s more….

    98% of NASA/GISS ‘instrumental record’ was constructed from …..you guessed it…..Dr Phil’

    So 98% (100% of CRU x 98% of NASA/GISS) of the incestuous ‘instrumental records’ of CRU and NASA/GISS are not independent at all. ‘Thousands of scientists’ have been fleaing off an endlessly quoted ‘instrumental record’ which has been adjusted and massaged from the raw data by Dr Phil who has upped and lost the raw data…

    The ‘instrumental record’ which AGW theory and GCMs and computer models and myriad papers try to explain is unverifiable becauise one man on the planet ‘lost’ the raw data.

    And this travesty is called ‘climate science’……

  360. Tamas

    So you’re claiming that the ice cores and other proxies are measuring noise and that the close relationship between the satelite data and the instrumental record is irelevant?

    Well in that case your argument is a masterpiece of pathetic splipsism with no merit. Stop wasting our timewitu this crap. You have nothing worthwhile to say on this topic.

  361. kdkd – the “Other lines of evidence for rising temperatures” you site says “Surface temperature analysis by NASA GISS find strong correlation with two independent analyses by CRU’s Global Temperature Record and NCDC.”

    Yet as we have demonstrated, NASA and CRU site each other and neither has the temperature data to back it up.

    Where’s the data? where is it? where, where, where???

  362. Tamas,

    You clearly didn’t read to the end, “Other lines of evidence for rising temperatures” and beyond.

    Poor little Tamas, just because his opinion isn’t based on anything other than his own delusions and gullibility, he sulks and doesn’t pay attention to what’s going on around him. Coochie coochie coo!

  363. Kdkd – your link only discusses the uhi effect. It says nothing about the non existant data for the temperature record. Where is the data? How can we accept a scientific hypothesis without supporting data?

  364. No tamas, you are avoiding the point by trying to claim that there are no reliable consistent temperature records and that they are not reflected in unambigouus observations, which is clearly shown to be a lie by this evidence. More of the old Dr Goebbels technique with constant repetition of lies there Tamas, are you wearing the appropriate arm band?

    Shame about the science museum in london reacting to the delusional camp’s politicisation of the marginalia around climate science in this way, but at least we know it’s just the result of a load of coprophrenic bullshit along with a good dose of political credulity.

  365. Tamas #1891

    [ you don’t seem to understand. The past 31 years of concurrent satellite / land records correlate up until the past decade. Then they begin to diverge. ]

    Sorry, that’s your delusions speaking. Any perception of divergence that you have is wishful thinking, and is not statistically significant. Again we’re seeing that you have to constantly repeat lies in order to make your claims.

  366. Such levels of delusion Ken. The last 50 or so posts have clearly demonstrated that your whole argument is based on pathetic attempts to misdirect and fabricate.

    I’ve done the stats for you before which show no significant differences between the trends in the data sets. The page I linked to do a good job of demonstrating this graphically (implicitly – find me the raw data and I’ll spell it out for you). You can over-egg the custard all you like, but this doesn’t alter the fact that the satellite data independently corroborates the other data.

  367. “kdkd
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 7:58 pm | Permalink
    Ken,

    I guess that makes you a pretty pathetic masochist as well then””

    No, it just confirms that Tamas and I are winning the argument hands down when our opponent resorts to dummy spitting low class abuse.

    From which bog were your forebears dragged kdkd??

  368. kdkd #1888

    What is this blog supposed to prove kdkd??

    viz: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

    I did not see any analysis of statistical similarity of UAH and GISTEMP on the whole blog. Except for Australia – all the UAH temp trends were lower for UAH than GISTEMP.

    In Antarctica the UAH trend was significantly cooling while GISTEMP was slightly warming.

    Southern Ocean SSTs were flat. I can’t see how anyone could make a warming southern ocean out on this data.

    As Tamas rightly points out – without verifying Dr Phil’s ‘lost data’ we don’t even know if GISTEMP is valid.

    Which leaves UAH – and AGW would have to be revised seriously if it was supposedly based on UAH as the only reliable dataset.

  369. kdkd – you don’t seem to understand. The past 31 years of concurrent satellite / land records correlate up until the past decade. Then they begin to diverge.

    But whatever, our point is that prior to the satellites, they don’t even have the data to back up their claims of 0.7C warming in the past 140 years.

    NASA’s 2%-of-the-world-USA-only records show the US was warmer in the 1930’s than today. The international data for the same period can’t even be checked. So how do we know today is warmer?

    We don’t. And the climate scientists have “lost” the data they say proves that we are warmer. Uh huh… sure.

    Basic point is that you don’t have data to back up your claims that the world has even warmed in the past 140 years. And even then the CRU says the warming periods it “calculated” weren’t any more dramatic than the one that ended in 1998.

    Bummer dude.

  370. Ken, same goes for you. Key words that apply to your and Tamas’ position:

    dickhead, gullible, delusional, fuckwit sensationalist.

    Understand?

  371. Tamas #1884

    So that leaves you with now having to explain why the satellite data is not statistically significantly different from the instrumental record. This is the chip of rock that you cling to, and it’s looking pretty crumbly, so good luck with that.

    Yes I do keep an eye on some of the delusional blogs, and it astounds me how dickheads like you and Ken are so gullible as to have fallen for such a poorly made tapestry of lies, sensationalism and not so much over-egging the custard, as pretending that the unflavoured cooked cornflour is custard in the first place.

  372. Tamas #1884

    Onya Tamas. Your expertise on the UAH and other temperature datasets is manifest.

    I think we could agree that if 98% of NASA/GISS temperature dataset cannot be verified independently because Dr Phil has lost the original data – then Houston …..we do have a problem….

    Farcical – the edifice of AGW rests on what should be a reliable hard core set of surface temperature data – and 98% of the original data has been lost and can’t be revisited and verified.

    Not just farcical – incredible…….

  373. Chris. When I say “one down, two to go” it is because I am deeply suspicious of the other two data sets.

    As Ken points out above, NASA rely on CRU for all their ex USA data. But as we have established, CRU cannot be verified. Thus the NASA data set now looks awfully suspicious.

    This has been revealed in recently released emails from NASA to the competitive enterprise institute.

    In an email from Reto Ruedy to USA today in 2007 (cc’ing James Hansen) he writes: “… we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center’s data to get what we need to evaluate our model results”… and “My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the US means and Phil Jones’ data for the global means”.

    So where does this leave NASA’s data set? It happens to have diverged rather a lot with the satellite temperatures over the past decade as well.

    Two down, one to go…

    Aren’t you just a bit suspicious yet?

    Finally, Ken and I seem to read a lot of the pro AGW literature. Do you read WUWT, Climate Audit, etc? They make some very compelling arguments. I’d say our minds are firmly open on this issue and that’s why we have reached this conclusion.

  374. kdkd #1881

    “Are you talking about the UAH satellite data being consistent with both NASA/GISS and CRU?

    The answer is obvious. Pretending greater than the usual stupidity is unbecoming.”

    It is not *that* obvious kdkd – please enlighten me and the viewers with some proof of the above claim.

  375. #1879

    [ Are you talking about the UAH satellite data being consistent with both NASA/GISS and CRU? ]

    The answer is obvious. Pretending greater than the usual stupidity is unbecoming.

    #1880

    [ Isn’t it great – its called free speech ]

    Again, irrelevant to your argument and suggests even greater stupidity than we already knew about.

    Got any substance, or now that your argument is totally demolished you’ve nothing new to add? Thought so. Can’t answer my questions, and everything else you have to say is yet more delusional nonsense. Good luck, and hopefully farewell.

  376. “jokes about Al Gore’s weight, racial slurs about the chair of the IPCC)”

    Isn’t it great – its called free speech.

    After all gluttony is one on the seven deadly sins and there is some irony in the apostle of energy restraint and reduced consumption for the rest of the developed world; himself turning into the Sergeant Schultz of warmist alarmism.

    As for Fakir – one who knows India and the meaning of that word would find it a non-racist culturally appropriate description – a religious charlatan – one who pretends to have special knowledge with which to fool the ignorant – and is then tried and found wanting.

  377. kdkd #1876,7,8

    Jabbering in three’s again kdkd – you must be fearing another knockout punch.

    #1878 sounds tricky – which claim did you make??

    Are you talking about the UAH satellite data being consistent with both NASA/GISS and CRU?

  378. Ken #1875 (again yawn)

    Just to show how you engage in distortions to try (and fail) to win your argument:

    [ Your claim is that the CRU and NASA/GISS datasets are ‘independent’ but then not statistically different from each other. ]

    I only made one of the claims above. You can work out which one and the impact that it has on your argument yourself.

  379. p.s Climate depot has to be the worst designed most sensationalist pile of crap Ive seen in the climate delusional blogs yet. A new low!

  380. Ken #1875

    There’s no need to prove anything to rebut your point as the sattelite data independently corroborates the veracity of the other data sets.

    Bzzz you lose. Next victim!

  381. kdkd #1873

    Your claim is that the CRU and NASA/GISS datasets are ‘independent’ but then not statistically different from each other.

    Climate Depot claim that NASA use all of CRU’s data for the rest of the world (98% of the surface area) and that the continental USA data (2%) come from NCDC.
    The two are then blended together to produce the NASA/GISS dataset.

    Prove that claim wrong!

  382. Ken #1870

    Whenever I see an irrational argument such as that produced by Tamas, I’m afraid I will feel compelled to provide a rebuttal if I can, notwithstanding that kdkd is more than capable of dealing with it on his own.

    What is more concerning though is the clear evidence that Tamas has chosen his position in this debate and will not be swayed no matter how compelling the evidence is. His post at #1866 is illuminating in this regard.

  383. Wow Ken #1871

    No wonder you didn’t link to your source. Even in your befuddled post-medicated delusional state, you know that over-egging the custard isn’t in it. This is like they’re trying to make custard from a whole chicken farm.

    [ Meaning NASA’s data set is 98 percent made-up ]

    [ even if you ignore NCDC’s myriad problems of using temps from thermometers moved to airport runways, next to barbecue grills, and the like ]

    And then there’s the poor linking to the FOI emails, and the failure to mention key bits of context …

    [ For example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that our extrapolations of anomalies into the Arctic were conservative. ]

    Shame you’ve got to rely on a load of crap with the context removed for the “evidence” to support your argument. Your grade is F, effort required, or just admitting that your output to date has been total bullshit.

  384. Ken #1871

    So if we’re to believe you (which seeing as you don’t link or cite your sources is questionable anyway), then you still need to explain why there is no significant difference between the CRU, GISS and the sattelite data. Or is somebody fiddling that too.

    #1869 and #1871 are descended back into paranoid conspiracy theory. Let’s examine what you have to do to in order to maintain your case again.

    Constant repetition of lies and misrepresentation of data
    Ignoring large swathes of the available evidence, as it does not fit your preconceptions
    Constant repetition of marginalia not central to the scientific consensus
    Constant refusal to answer reasonable questions about your argument
    Ad hominem attackes (jokes about Al Gore’s weight, racial slurs about the chair of the IPCC)
    Appeal to paranoid conspiracy theory if all else fails

    There are doubtless more, but that. You can end your ritual humiliation at any time by just walking away by the way.

  385. #Tamas #1866

    Here is a gem for Chris and kdkd from Climate Depot:

    “The latest jolly has just come from taking a quick spin around Al Gore’s interwebs to see what NASA might have said about Climategate, and to review in the wake of that huge embarrassment the alarmist walk-back on the importance of CRU, which one establishment pressure group dismissed as merely “one of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history of average global surface temperature.” That spin from Pew is not quite accurate, but seems to have been thrown out there to stave off reality.

    *The truth as we now know it is that NASA admits its data is not independent at all, but thoroughly dependent upon CRU’s* — which, we have established, doesn’t exist. I’ll let the kids at Climate Progress do the math from there.”

  386. Chris #1867

    Run your own race Chris. Playing Tonto to kdkd’s Lone Ranger will destroy your credibility

  387. kdkd#1868

    “If only I could bring myself to do it, but letting their drivel go unchallenged is too hard for me.”

    That’s because Tamas’ and Ken’s ‘drivel’ is so threatening – makes ordinary common sense and is not afraid to debunk the warmist bias and propaganda spouted by the green agenda driven spinners and ratbags and their media fellow travellers.

    The tipping points were Climategate Copenhagen and Glaciergate. You can probably thank that Fakir, Dr Pachauri for fatally damaging the credibility of the IPCC. ‘Thousands of scientists’ vetted AR4 – accepted a preposterous 2035 date and despite a few brave objections, dissent was dismissed and labelled ‘voodoo science’.

    A piece of catastrophic claptrap – no matter how flimsy was grist to the mill of alarmist AGW.

    Like all converts, kdkd is more catholic than the pope so debunking his warmist religion is seriously messing with his head.

  388. Err Tamas #1867

    The latest in the deluded fuckwit chronicles. As I said, I established somewhere before the thousandth post in this godforsaken thread that there is no significant difference between the CRU, GISS and satellite data. I’m not going to repeat myself and demonstrate this again. You’ll just have to go back and read the archives (and climate karaoke) or take my word for it. Funny how you never mistrusted the satellite data until you were informed of the above fact 😉

    There is no evidence to support your conclusion or your assertions. Please go away and stop wasting my time.

    p.s. thanks Chris. I think maybe we should leave these guys alone to wallow in their delusional cess pool alone. If only I could bring myself to do it, but letting their drivel go unchallenged is too hard for me.

  389. No Tamas, you’ve got it all wrong.

    An independent third party may take your word for it, or they may read the blog and see that kdkd’s posts, which contain a touch of exasperation, are based on an argument that they can verify by other sources. Then, they may investigate the science further, studiously avoiding Watts Up With That and Climate Audit (amongst others) and discover that kdkd has faithfully reported the actual science, whereas you and Ken have been talking out your ….

    Seriously though, your last two sentences are very telling. You say you must test the other two data sets, but it is clear you have already made up your mind when you say “One down, two to go”.

  390. kdkd – the fact that the CRU cannot share their data means their conclusions are invalid. They cannot be independently tested. It is therefore irrelevant that their conclusions are similar to the other data sets.

    To help you understand, here’s an analogy:

    I think your are a poor debater, use rudeness to cover for a lack of logic and reason and have appalling grammar. Ken also thinks this. An independent third party who has never read this blog may take our word for it and say “I think kdkd is rude, a poor debater and has bad English too!!”.

    But without reading your drivel on this blog they would never really know because they have not independently verified your rudeness, poor debating skills and atrocious English.

    See?

    Anyway, back to climate change: this means we must test the other two data sets to ensure they are correct.

    One down, two to go.

  391. Tamas,

    I knew you’d bite at that one because you’re soooo predictable (Ken’s psychosis is more dangerous).

    Some time in the aincient (pre post #100) I clearly and easily demonstrate that there is no significant difference betweenthe CRU data, the GISS data and the sattelite data rendering your point utterly irellevant.

    Now, who was the phrase ‘delusional fuckwit’ being applied to again, can’t have been me because I only draw conclusions based on observations.

  392. kdkd – actually, the evidence I present is from, um, Dr Phil Jones. He said in emails and to the UK enquiry that he doesn’t have the raw data to back up his temperature reconstruction.

    Got it?

  393. Tamas

    Well done, the only “evidence” you can present to make your point is a bunch of delusional crap.

    Go away and stop wasting our time. Your posturing and general un-reality based rubbish just shows everyone what an imbecilic fuckwit you are about this topic.

  394. Hah – no problem Ken. I am pretty confident I could win a debate against The Goreicle on this topic, just like you.

    What’s fascinating about the Economist article is that they say “There are three records of land surface temperature put together from thermometer readings…on of which is compiled at the CRU”. They then say “within academia, their reliability is widely accepted”

    What a joke. The CRU have “lost” the data behind their temperature record, as explicitly admitted by Phil Jones. How can their reliability be widely accepted if no one can replicate the data? What kind of academia accepts the word of others without any data to back it up?

  395. Ken,

    You just ignored the fact that the majority of the indicators in the IPCC reports show that the observations are coming out at the upper end of the predicted range – closer to worst case scenarios rather than best case. “If the averages are right” indeed.

    The climate sensitivity literature is pretty clear on a range of around 2ºC to 6ºC by the way. You have to mistreat the observed data pretty egregiously to get figures below this range.

  396. kdkd #1848

    My Economist does not arrive until today – so I have not read the full article.

    Of course your point that sceptics are taking the extreme ‘low’ end of the ‘error bars’ has some validity if the averages are accurate, and can equally be applied to the ‘warmer alarmists’ which take the ‘high’ end to make their doomsday predictions.

    That is “if the averages are accurate” – and we need to see independent review of all the CRU produced data and probably anything to do with Hansen’s group which heavily influences IPCC reports.

    The ‘lack of warming’ at the present is a real difficulty for those who continually claim that warming is ‘tracking the upper levels’ of the IPCC predictions. The heat content of the oceans is still a very confused picture.

    I have read several papers lately on climate sensitivity which come up with numbers like 0.5 degK and 0.6 degK up to 1.5 degK. It is pretty complex stuff, but the OLR is dependent on the assumed temperature which space sees Earth as a longwave radiating body compared with the surface temperature. This is hard to determine and far from settled science.

    Your Junkscience talks about the ‘Hansen factor’ where same assumes the extreme end of the climate sensitivity range (also adopted by the IPCC reports) where others take a middle or low end, giving results far less than 3 degK for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  397. Wow, what a content-free nadir Ken has reached.

    And he’s still ignoring my interesting, useful, and if Ken had any case whatsoever, and wasn’t performing an intellectually incoherent psychotic performance they’d be easy to answer.

    Thanks for exposing the hollowness and lack of reality in your argument Ken, much appreciated. We can end this discussion now. Although if you want to post 244 posts of nothing but smiley faces and links to the profoundly idiotic wattsupwiththat.com then you’ll get to the magic 2000 posts mark easily.

  398. Chris #1856

    An unkind comment on Al Gore – ‘puffed up’ – really means that he is puffed with self-importance (and consumes more than his fair share of the planet’s food resources to boot).

    A fat friend of mine always says that fat people will inherit the Earth – if they don’t consume it first. He might be right.

    Apologies to Tamas – of course (like kdkd, me and yourself) he knows more about the science of climate change than Al Gore.

  399. Ken #1852 and other posts

    I think your reference to Al Gore’s weight and dietary intake are a little unfair and irrelevant to the debate. As to whether I know as much as Al Gore, well I wouldn’t make that assumption, although I notice that you didn’t include Tamas in that list.

    Pachuri’s alleged cover up of ‘Glaciergate’, while lamentable if true, would also be understandable to some extent in this toxic atmosphere of allegations of data fixing, data deletion, data denial and grand conspiracies from the tin foil hat brigade. But it is largely irrelevant when weighed against the overwhelming scientific conclusions.

  400. Notice viewers that Ken clearly has something to hide as he won’t answer any of my questions.

    Re Pachuri. I prefer not to politicise the discussion of climate science, and Ken’s question is clearly political. In terms of Pachuri’s motivations, you’d have to ask him. I’m not prepared to engage in baseless speculation about this. As far as I can see, “glaciergate” is a silly error that doesn’t affect the underlying scientific consensus in any way whatsoever. Again the delusionists are cherry picking errors (i.e. ignoring their own, and latching on any little thing out of context that might be a bit of mud that sticks).

    So Ken, About those questions. You know if you don’t answer them, it looks like you’re engaging in lies rather than stupidity. Now I think deliberate lies makes you look worse than merely being stupid, but you may disagree.

  401. “Al Gore – a puffed up poseur, purveyor of powerpoint prattle which the British High court judged as propaganda unfit to be shown to schoolchildren as ‘education’.”

    A bit hyperbolic I agree – but not far off the mark – good alliteration though;

    puffed up (too many burgers), poseur (kdkd, Chris and I would know more about the science than Al), purveyor of powerpoint prattle (giant screens and ladders, polar bears stranded on ice floes, hurtling hurricanes…)

    Notice viewers, that kdkd and Chris did not take me on regarding Post #1831 re Pachuri and his cover up of the ‘2035 Glaciergate’ error before Copenhagen.

  402. Ken,

    Regardless of whether you think your point is made, it’s a much weaker claim than you pretended.

    What about answering the questions in #1849 and #1811?

    I know it’s hard for you, answering the questions highlights the weakness of your argument, while failing to answer them does the same by clearly demonstrating that you have something to hide from.

  403. My point is made – without the ‘Guidance Note’ the judge found that the film was fit for the politicizing of schoolchildren but unfit for their ‘education’.

  404. Perfect example of Ken ignoring the evidence to fit his preconceptions:

    Ken’s case rests on the idea that the IPCC are somehow systematically over-estimating the severity of climate change. However, the majority of the observed evidence available to us shows that the IPCC are likely underestimating the impacts due to the inherrent conservatism of the scientific process.

    Ken: here’s another question for you to ignore: how do you reconcile your argument with the above mentioned inconvenient facts?

    I think maybe it’s not uncomposted manure your rest your case on, but the maggot-ridden festering corpse of your discredited ideology. Somebody is trying to politicise climate science here and it’s you.

  405. Ken,

    Your entire argument is based on over-reach at the opposite extreme. Your latest total crap being a great example.

    You rest your case on a bed of un-composted manure by the looks.

  406. Chris #1842, #1845

    The Judge said: “It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme”….

    That is not a judgement that Al Gore’s interpretation of science is robust – and with kdkd’s 9 examples of ‘overreach’….er…..
    egging the custard…..exaggeration…..alarmism……failure to explain uncertainty or even mention the scale of uncertainty involved…renders the film a ‘political statement’ which needs a Guidance Note ie… *corrections* before it suitable to ‘stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes’.

    The clear implication is that without the ‘Guidance Note’ the film could ‘influence the opinions of children’ – ie politicize them with alarmist exaggeration.

    My point is made – without the ‘Guidance Note’ the judge found that the film was fit for the politicizing of schoolchildren but unfit for their ‘education’.

    I rest my case again.

  407. Tamas #1844

    Wow, the article in the economist that you didn’t even bother to link to doesn’t even support your claim that the science “isn’t as robust as we were being told”. Here’s the conclusion for you to beat yourself over the head with:

    [ Using the IPCC’s assessment of probabilities, the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than 1.5ºC in such a scenario has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of such a desirable outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction. ]

    Which leads nicely to Ken’s fallacious thinking. “The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large” which given that most indicators are tracking the upper limits of the IPCC’s projections, would seem to be especially prudent.

    Such moronic knee jerk delusionism from the pair of you. You’re either playing lies or stupidity. Your choice – I suggest you try to pick the one that you think makes you look less bad.

  408. Tamas:

    No it shows something quite deeply disturbing about the gullability of people such as yourself, and the people who prefer not to think about things too much in as much as their ability to evaluate complex scientific evidence goes. Not one bit of the recent “scandals” place the scientific consensus under question. The Economist’s attitude is a. rather inconsistent, and b. often written by people while not as scientifically illiterate as you who still lack some scientific background to be able to evaluate the facts in an informed manner.

    So to repeat: So you’re welcome to your opinion, but please don’t be surprised when people laugh at you and/or treat your gullible credulity with contempt.

  409. Chris: It’s not just me saying it. The lead article in this weeks issue of The Economist (which has long been a climate change believer) says that the science is far from certain. Sure, they go on to repeat why all the evidence supports climate change (and I haven’t read the survey yet) but this is quite a change from the previous certainty that was constantly pronounced.

    Surely you admit that recent events (IPCC errors, climategate, etc) show the science isn’t as robust as we were being told.

  410. Tamas #1841,

    Well if you can say that then I can’t take anything you say seriously. The science is robust and the British High Court has confirmed that, along with almost all scientists who are expert in the field.

    This article is for you.

  411. Tamas,

    Your opinion in #1841 only has credibility in an upside down world where we take your lies and delusions as representing truth, and the corresponding opposing scientific view as some sort of elaborate fiction cooked up by a conspiracy of thousands of people over hundreds of years.

    So you’re welcome to your opinion, but please don’t be surprised when people laugh at you and/or treat your gullible credulity with contempt.

  412. Chris: I would say that the “scientific research and fact” it is based upon has been shown to be questionable at best. That is what Ken and I are arguing.

  413. Ken #1838

    Al Gore – a puffed up poseur, purveyor of powerpoint prattle which the British High court judged as propaganda unfit to be shown to schoolchildren as ‘education’.

    That is what you said Ken. Quite different to the actual result don’t you think?

    I read this stuff for a living Ken. I know what it means. The fundamental point of the film is not disputed and the Court only required guidance to be provided on those particular points.

    Don’t forget Ken,

    The following is clear:
    i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact

  414. Ken #1838

    Sorry, your argument makes no sense. As the judge notes, with the exception of 9 examples of over-reach (not the out and out lies of which you and Tamas are fond by the way but something milder, unlike your misinformation subject to the rule of law), the basis of the film is based on sound scientific knowledge.

    What was your point again? I think you manifestly failed to make it, because as usual your point was not supported by the evidence.

  415. Chris #1838

    “It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme…I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” (paragraph 7 above) but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes” (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website”

    In other words to warn children that this is political propaganda – a Guidance Note must be included in the pack.

    “the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme…” – precisely my lud……..

    My lud is obviously trying to protect the immature and impressionable minds of children from ‘influencing their opinions’ with a Guidance Note which will cleanse the propaganda into a more benign form to ‘stimulate children into discussion of global warming and climate change’.

    I rest my case…

  416. Ken #1835, Chris #1836

    Ken, Way to go shooting yourself in the foot (or was it your head) again. It would appear the judgement is specifically worded to avoid the politicisation of climate change. Seeing as one of your unstated goals is to use a bit of dog whistle politics to attempt to politicise what is a scientific issue, I would have thought that you would have been dead against this judgement.

    But on the other hand, if there’s a way to lie about and misrepresent its contents to serve your political goal (so long as your audience is sufficiently gullible) you’ll do it, no matter how inconsistent and divorced from reality it leaves your argument.

    You’re being torn apart by a pack of hungry wolves here Ken, I’d give up before you disappear in a puff of logic.

  417. Ken #1835,

    OK, get a load of this:
    I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
    i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme…I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” (paragraph 7 above) but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes” (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.

    See the rest here .

    Cigar store Indians, I think they are sometimes called. I know what you are referring to and as it is a representation of Native American in a particularly stereotyped manner, I think using it as a reference is fraught with danger. But that’s just me.

  418. Chris, kdkd #1834, #1835

    Well why don’t you quote the actual words of the BHC judgement – not the opinion of the Childrens Minister who was on the defensive. Go on…..

    Chris….you might be generationally challenged, and misunderstand the meaning of “Wooden Indian”.

    In certain Americal States it was not uncommon to find a carved timber American Aboriginal head in feathered dress at the entrance to small town drugstores – particularly in places like Tennessee in Senator Gore’s era.

    Excess Botox and burgers have rendered Al Gore’s countenance not unlike one of these Braves……being wooden they did not talk much sense, and their facial muscles did not move much ……Al Gore to a tee I would respectfully suggest……

  419. Chris #1833

    On the other hand we have to applaud Ken for going on his latest rampage, which has totally destroyed his credibility and placed him firmly in the unrehabilitatable delusional idiot camp along with Tamas.

    Funnily, my “you’re not fit to scrub the whorehouse in which your mother works” (mis-)quote from Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell is less offensive than the latest rancid crap Ken’s been coming up with 🙂

  420. Ken #1830.

    “The Wooden Indian…”? Ken, you don’t know when to stop.

    And kdkd has shown you the error of your ways at #1832. The British High Court did not find that the film was “propaganda unfit to be shown to school children as education” at all and specifically held that it could be shown, so long as attention was drawn to controversial or disputed sections. And the Court agreed with the main theme of the film “that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

  421. [ Al Gore – a puffed up poseur, purveyor of powerpoint prattle which the British High court judged as propaganda unfit to be shown to schoolchildren as ‘education’. ]

    Nope, that’s not what happened. A small number of statements presented as fact in the film were shown to be not justified, but hardly of the scale to engage in the desperate denialism that you favour.

    Here you go

    [ Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: “It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

    “Nothing in the judge’s comments today detract from that.” ]

    You clearly do think we’re idiots, while simultaneously exposing your own ideological stupidity on this topic.

  422. Ken,

    Denying the link between climate delusionism and the fossil fuel industry (which seeks to question the scientific consensus on all sorts of dubious grounds) while trying to big up the alternative energy’s industry’s link with a small number of people involved in communicating the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change is disingenuous, and shows that your argument is indeed desperate and with little or no solid foundation.

  423. Chris # 1825 – PS to my #1831 comment;

    I don’t know about Smith, but I could substitute Gore as an American Fakir par excellence if you like. The Wooden Indian who could not win his own State against the worst president in US history – George W. Bush.

    Check out the lineage of the Gore family – southern Senator Gore of Tennessee – great environmentalist who taught it all to Al at his knee.

    Al Gore – a puffed up poseur, purveyor of powerpoint prattle which the British High court judged as propaganda unfit to be shown to schoolchildren as ‘education’.

    ‘Wars and rumours of wars’ – a old phrase which described the sort of frights which kept the public in a state of fear and panic.

    Fear mongering for commercial gain from the ‘Gores and rumours of Gores’ – a bit clunky but not bad….Get it??

  424. Chris #1830

    No, it was not aimed at the colour of his skin – more the content of his character – the criterion on which we would all like to be judged.

    He was ‘economical with the truth’ about the fact that he had been informed of the ‘2035 error’ well before Copenhagen and suppressed it before that meeting to prevent the embarassment of such a howling error following on from Climategate.

  425. Ken #1825,

    I’m not concerned with Winston’s use of the phrase, I’m more concerned with yours. It was unnecessary and aimed at Pachauri because of the colour of his skin and not because of the nature of his interests.

  426. Aah yes, I note that Ken has again totally ignored my question, this time from #1811 indicating that he is unable to coherently state his case about his popular lie that the temperature record is plateauing or cooling (depending on how long it was since his last medication). Haha, your case is in tatters because this exposes the total logical fallacy of your argument. Remember we’re not laughing with you, we’re laughing at you.

  427. Sigh. According to this article “Dr Pachauri said that any money he earned from advising companies went to Teri, which aims to provide solar power to people without access to electricity.” Now just like mobile phone technology, solar is an excellent leapfrog technology. Straw man, go away.

    Contrast this with the climate delusion industry where we are asked to take the credulous position that we are to ignore an overwhelming scientific consensus, and to take the status quo commercial interests as not contaminating their intellectually bankrupt positions in any way.

    Stop treating us like idiots Ken.

  428. Chris #1825

    Yes it was a bit derogatory – about as derogatory as the ‘voodoo science’ comment.

    Winston was a racist – albeit a mild one for his times and generation and notably devoid of anti-semitism. There were very few white men in public life in that era who believed that the brown or black man was the equal of a white man despite professions of the religious belief that all men were created equal. In fact the first draft of Australian Constitution was explicit in creating a ‘white Australia’ – and it met with an objection from the British Govt which would not condone specific racist provisions in a Dominion constitution.

    Check out Mr Pachuri’s commercial interests – and see if conflicts of interest are manifest.

    Some of my best friends are Indians.

  429. Ken #1820 aka setting the dogs on you

    [ urgent economy destroying action ]

    This is the rambling paranoia of someone with an ideological attachment to the status quo. There’s plenty of evidence that a timely response to climate change doesn’t need to destroy any economies.

    Please do not insult our intelligence with ridiculous assertions like this.

  430. Ken #1820 (again)

    Your quote from Churchill is bordering on racist, unnecessary and denigrates your argument. Would you make the same comment if the head of the IPCC was named Smith?

    You are also making wide sweeping statements about all climate scientists based on a few (yes a few) errors and exaggerations.

    “Gores and rumours of Gores are a joke”. I have no idea what this means.

  431. [ But you do argue that there has been no warming for the last 15 years and that is where I think you are mistaken. ]

    More that it is an irellevant argument. #1820 indicates that Ken is a climate delusional who appeals to all of the popular types of fallacious arguments . Then for good measure at the end he gets upset and says that the “smears” that we make on his crappy arguments are rude and unjustified.

    What’s rude is the degree to which he wastes our time (although he’s not as abad as Tamas who has no redeeming features on this topic at all).

  432. Ken #1820,

    Fair enough. All though I did say some variation on the theme.

    But you do argue that there has been no warming for the last 15 years and that is where I think you are mistaken.

  433. Chris #1816

    “You and Ken argue that it is because there is no global warming, or some variation on that theme, but the real answer is because we can’t argue with any confidence on the basis of results from a shorter time period.”

    I have ever argued that there is ‘no global warming, no climate change, nor an increase in temperature over the last 100 years or so’.

    I have argued that the contribution of human released CO2 is only a part of that warming and its contribution is difficult to quantify when the complexities of the problem are understood; and the uncertainties are very significant – far from certain that we must take urgent economy destroying action, or that temperature rise is a serious threat.

    The Climategate and Glaciergate scandals reveal that interested climate scientists have ‘over-egged the custard’ and all their data and methods should be thoroughly checked.

    Gores and rumours of Gores are a joke, bringing the Nobel into disrepute and contributing to the growing distrust of some prominent scientists who in fact practice ‘advocacy science’, exaggerating the certainties and not highlighting vast uncertainties.

    A prime example of the arrogance and humbug involved was Yogi Pachuri’s smearing of criticism of the preposterous 2035 Himalayan glacier melt as ‘voodoo science’.

    As Winston would have said: “a Fakir of a type well known in the East”.

  434. Tamas,

    And so you answer your own question also answered in #1817. Why you think this is hillarious when it clearly demolishes your idiotic non-scientific conclusion I have no idea. Oh no, I do, it’s because of your faith based approach to argument and complete ignorance of the facts.

  435. Kdkd – your hatred is hilarious. But like a broken clock, occasionaly you are correct. The co2 / warming factor is logarithmic. Thus, more co2 = leas warming.

    Hahahhha!!!!

  436. [ You also dismiss my point about the similarity of the warming periods from 1860-80, 1910-40 and 1975-98 by saying “ask a climate scientist” ]

    Well, this one actually is an example of the climate delusionals arguments coming back to bite them. The response of co2 to temperature is logarithmic, so given the large internal variability of the system, the warming pattern is exactly what the climate sensitivity model based on thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds predicts.

    Go away loser, your delusional arguments merely show that your psychotic attitude to this subject invalidates everything you have to say about climate change.

  437. Tamas (again, please go away).

    [ few subjects demand trillions of dollars and a complete change to our way of life ]

    This statement is also the result of a viewpoint detached from the reality. The only way this happens is if we (as looks likely partly due to the succes of the climate delusionals in polluting the political agenda) fail to deal with the problem in a timely manner.

    Given you don’t understand the topic, don’t understand the science, and don’t understand the economics, but stick to your deluded preconceptions instead, it’s best that you just shut up and keep the crap inside your head which is unrelated to reality to yourself.

  438. Tamas #1813

    [ We will just have to agree to disagree ]

    Nope, everyone but you will have to agree that you’re a deluded fool who as far as climate science goes, is so far detached from reality and the empirical data that your opinions are more worthless than an ashtray on a motorbike.

    Got it? Your scientific illiteracy doesn’t make your opinions more valid, they make them invalid.

    p.s. the rest of your comment is even more incoherent crap. As I said before, piss off and stop wasting our time.

  439. Tamas #1813

    Yes, there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years (the word statistically is vital: don’t leave it out), but the question why is important. You and Ken argue that it is because there is no global warming, or some variation on that theme, but the real answer is because we can’t argue with any confidence on the basis of results from a shorter time period. Saying there is no warming is just as valid and as misleading as saying there is cooling or warming or a perfect zig zag pattern. You cannot reach conclusions from this information.

    By the way, I disagree that we have to agree to disagree. While I am here I will keep arguing this (as I suspect you will) because it is fundamental to your misunderstanding.

    And if you ask me questions that I can’t answer than I am afraid my answer will always be “ask a climate scientist”.

  440. Chris: We will just have to agree to disagree on the warming since 1995. My interpretation of Jones’ comment is that there has been no significant warming for 15 years. I cannot comprehend any other interpretation, but there you go.

    You also dismiss my point about the similarity of the warming periods from 1860-80, 1910-40 and 1975-98 by saying “ask a climate scientist”. C’mon… seriously? Phil Jones is the guy that stated that fact! Jones didn’t ponder the meaning because it so obviously contradicts his thesis, but how can human CO2 be causing dangerous warming if the magnitude of the warming spurts hasn’t changed while human CO2 has increased dramatically? That is a simple, logical question with only one possible answer: human CO2 has little effect.

    And to why I am obsessed with this subject… well, that’s a long story. I am not like this about every subject, but few subjects demand trillions of dollars and a complete change to our way of life. Climate Change does. Thus my intrigue.

    I also disagree that many climate scientists don’t say the science is settled. The head of the IPCC dismissed criticism about the glacier claim as “voodoo science”. And look at the statements by Joe Romm, Stephen Schneider and some of the stuff in the leaked CRU emails. These guys are engaged in a weird group-think that brooks no criticism. Plus the nobel prize winner Al Gore is always going on about the settled science. The entire GW movement’s credentials rest on this science being settled. Sceptics are “deniers” of the settled science… and so on. I think it is disingenuous to claim that the GW movement does not say the “science is settled”.

    Anyway, yes, this debating stuff is like quicksand: Hard to get out once you’re in.

  441. Once you step into the quicksand it becomes extremely difficult to extricate yourself…

    Tamas #1801, where to begin,
    One of us is having trouble understanding what Phil Jones said, and it ain’t me. Yes, both periods are too short to be statistically significant, but you are able to interpret the longer period as being more likely to indicate something than the shorter period, even if it is unsafe to do so. But more importantly, you cannot argue that both of these time periods are not significant and then say there has been no warming, because by saying there has been no warming you are giving one or both of these time periods regard that is unwarranted.
    I don’t know why those periods were of equal magnitude in circumstances where CO2 emissions have risen. Ask a climate scientist.

    I didn’t ask when you will stop investigating this (climate change), I asked why only this, or do you adopt this approach with all facets of life.

    It is not the scientists who say the science is settled. They understand the uncertainties. They continue to further their understanding. Sure, they might occasionally adopt a rhetorical flourish to make a point, but generally they agree that the science is not settled, but that they are confident to a large degree that the earth is warming and undergoing change as a result of the intervention of man. As to skeptics being called idiots … if the shoe fits.

    Ken #1810,
    When I say margins, I don’t say your argument is marginal, I mean that posting on this blog is marginal, as are your posts on Real Climate and Skeptical Science (and wherever else you may post). If you are serious about this stuff then put it to the relevant climate scientists. If you are just intent on being a shit-stirrer, you are on the right track. As I’ve said before I do not have the skills to answer your questions, but I am willing to say this: without confirmation or denial from Trenberth, you could interpret his statement as saying that, “We should be able to say what causes this variability and why warming does not follow a smooth upward line. We know it is natural variability but we should be able to describe it better. We need better measurement techniques”. But then again maybe he says something completely different. I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him.

  442. Ken,

    The only minds you and tamas are messing with are your own – plumbing the depths of solipsism, illogic and nonsense to maintain your delusions. A bit of pompous self-agrandisment puts the cherry on the icing in your case.

    To take you seriously would be to dignify your position as having any validity. Here’s a question you’ve repeadedly failed to answer. Given your claim:

    [ And of course the kdkd argument about the warmest years , decades etc in history is not inconsistent with being on a ‘plateau’ ]

    Please explain how other similar patterns in the instrumental record are distinguised from the current trend? How come warming hadn’t really stopped then, but you feel the claim that warming has stopped now is some how valid.

    Here’s the answer you’ll give: oh no you won’t answer it you’ll either give a stupid excuse, or ignore the question outright, because doing so would exposed the idiocy and lack of logic inherent in your argument. You’re transparrent, we can see right through your ludicrous claims.

  443. Chris #1802

    Thanks Chris – your points are worth noting in comparison to the kdkd madness…

    In fact I am involving myself at a more serious level. I assume you read the link to Dr Trenberth’s paper and its contents.

    The sentence means what it says. Despite the increasing GHG forcing – there has been a ‘lack of warming’ in recent years and Dr Trenberth is bewailing climate science’s lack of an explanation.

    Surely this is not ‘at the margins’ of the geatest issue of our age – whether or not the Earth is warming, cooling or doing nothing statistically significant.

    Great claims require great evidence.

    And of course the kdkd argument about the warmest years , decades etc in history is not inconsistent with being on a ‘plateau’, even it they were fully verified.

    When climbing up onto a plateau, the heights you reach each hour might very well be the highest you have ever climbed, which predicts nothing about whether you will ever climb higher or fall over the edge.

  444. Tamas #1803

    Hear Hear Tamas. A lucid and rational appraisal of the arguments.

    For the kdkd’s of this world – a good faith disagreement means that one side is truthful and the other tells lies. He is really quite unbalanced and probably clinical in his abuse – hysterical in fact.

    We are pulling his little world apart and messing with his head. He obviously is frothing at the mouth in #1806 – probably ready for committal to the funny farm.

  445. More gems

    [ Our arguments are factual and the arguments we present have not been sufficiently rebutted ]

    Better give up your day job and go professional with the stand up comedy. Remember that we won’t be laughing with you, we’ll be laughing at you.

  446. Tamas (again, yawn)

    [Sorry, but Phil Jones said there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. ]

    You are apparently incapable of rational thought. This does not mean what you claim it does. You have been repeatedly told that your statement is false, and on occasion this has been presented with rock solid justification. But you just can’t help continue spouting lies.

    Piss off and stop wasting my time.

  447. By the way, 1.5% is a huge proportion for such a sensitive system. Nobody was fact checking you because we know that everything you claim is false.

  448. Tamas,

    I am rude to you because your trite, facile, moronic view of this subject does not deserve any respect at all. Your claim leading on from my quote in #1802 is a perfect example of your idiotic aproach. The abuse of logic and intellectual contortions that you’ll go through to claim that your position is in any way rational beggars belief. The word fuckwit is too mild to describe your approach. If there was a way of twisting the George Orwell’s famous insult “you’re not fit to scrub the floor of the whorehouse in which your mother works” to your attitude to climate science, I’d do it.

    Clear enough for you? If you were approach this subject rationally I might treat your views with something other than the contempt they deserve.

  449. My apologies gentlemen – I just checked my numbers and humans add around 1.5% extra per year to total CO2, not 0.00015%.

    Difference between kg and tonnes is the zeros.

    My bad.

  450. kdkd – you say, “just because we don’t fully understand why short term variability occurs doesn’t mean that we can magically alter the rules of statistics”.

    First, what on earth does that mean??

    Second, if we don’t “fully understand why short term variability occurs”, then how could we understand how medium or long term variability occurs?

    And please note Chris’ reasoned and polite approach to this debate. Why must you be so rude again?

  451. Chris:

    Sorry, but Phil Jones said there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. “But only just” doesn’t cut it. If you accept the non statistically significant warming since 95, then you accept the non statistically significant cooling since 2002.

    I accept you can’t distinguish the trend from the noise in either one. That is exactly my point. The world should be warming but it is not. How long do we have to wait before this theory can be proven empirically? Why must we spend trillions to “fix” this problem when the problem cannot even be shown to be statistically significant for the past 15 years!?

    Why were the previous warming trends from 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 of the same magnitude as the most recent one from 1975-1998, when recent CO2 emissions have been so much greater?

    You ask where do I stop investigating this? Well, never. If I am being asked to believe in this apocalyptic story then I will investigate it until the apocalypse happens.

    The fact that science academies and governments endorse this nonsense is not good enough. They cannot explain the inconsistencies Ken and I constantly highlight.

    You say you “respect the scientists whose work I am aware of because they offer reasonable arguments and admit their doubts and questions.”

    Yet this is the crowd that says “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED”. There is no questioning of this theory. They do not express doubt. Sceptics are dismissed and called idiots – look at kdkd’s vitriol as a proximate example.

    In any case, you may not accept my arguments but it is unfair to call us sceptics liars. Our arguments are factual and the arguments we present have not been sufficiently rebutted.

  452. Tamas #1796,

    What is it when you say “the head of the CRU says no warming since 1995” when the correct comment is “yes, but only just” to the question of “Do you agree that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995”. They convey two different meanings. There has been warming since 1995. The apparent cooling since 2002 does not cancel out the warming from 1995 to 2009 because you cannot distinguish a trend from the noise. Neither period provides enough data to provide a reliable trend, but that does not mean that the earth has not warmed.

    So I call it a lie, although it is possible that you just do not understand. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, although your posting history may suggest I am being generous.

    It is admirable that you want to investigate the answers for yourself, but where do you stop? Do you take this approach with all facets of life? Or is it just climate change and if so why? I don’t believe any one particular scientist over another. I don’t have the knowledge and experience to critically analyse their research, and I suspect you don’t either. What I do is take an holistic approach. I see that most governments take the threat seriously. I see reasoned arguments from the scientist. I see unscrupulous journalists and publications twist their words. I see Bolt and Sheehan and Devine and Blair cherry pick and lie. I see Calderwood offer arguments full of holes (your in good company there Tamas). And I am cautious because I have two little boys who I want to see grow up in a reasonably safe world. I respect the scientists whose work I am aware of because they offer reasonable arguments and admit their doubts and questions. I distrust the other side because they don’t.

    Ken #1798,
    There is a lot about that sentence I do not understand … the context for a start. Tell me this Ken: what do you understand about that sentence and have you confirmed with Trenberth that your understanding is correct? Or is your experience in climate science significant enough that you don’t need to. It seems to me that you have a reasonable grasp of this topic but you seem content to argue at the margins. Why not involve yourself on a more serious level, if you are so concerned that the science is lacking.

  453. Ken.

    Just because we don’t fully understand why short term variability occurs doesn’t mean that we can magically alter the rules of statistics. Anyway there’s no way of you wheedling out of this one. Repeating the same lie doesn’t make it true. Check this page. Here’s the relevant quote:

    [ The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2009. The year 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 2004 ]

    Illuminates that your constantly repeated lie is as all sensible people understand, total bullshit, and the argument of a desperate man with no coherent case.

  454. Chris, kdkd

    The description is illuminated by the author (Dr Trenberth):

    “The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest
    since about 2000 (Figure 1). Given that there is continual
    heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by
    accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Figure 1) and
    other greenhouses due to human activities, why is the
    temperature not continuing to go up?”

    “why is the temperature not continuing to go up?”

    Chris, kdkd – what don’t you understand about this sentence?

  455. [ Now, you can’t have it both ways. Either it has warmed a tiny amount since 1995 but also cooled a tiny bit since 2002. Or, neither trend is significant and the temperature is basically flat. ]

    The alternative (correct) interpretation is that the questions relate to something that is statistically meaningless and needs to be examined in context with the other available data. Once you examine it without abusing statistical methods, and in context of the broader set of available data, you see that your position is false. Your repetition of this “fact” in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong appears to be the result of deliberate lying or less deliberate abject stupidity.

    There’s plenty of evidence Tamas, but it doesn’t fit your delusional view of this topic, so you refuse to accept it. The problem here is that your frame of reference to the reality of this topic is totally screwed up, that is all. Try looking at the real evidence rather than the intellectually bankrupt mish-mash of delusional misrepresentations that is your preference.

  456. Chris:  thanks for entering the cage and I encourage you to post more often.  Ken and I get a little bored with kdkd… J
     
    To your point:  I think you are being unfair saying I am “lying”.
     
    As Ken pointed out, Phil Jones said very clearly that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (although the linear regression line shows 1.2C of warming per decade)  he also said that since 2002 there has been 1.2C per decade of cooling, but this is also statistically insignificant.
     
    Now, you can’t have it both ways.  Either it has warmed a tiny amount since 1995 but also cooled a tiny bit since 2002.  Or, neither trend is significant and the temperature is basically flat.
     
    To claim Jones said it has warmed since 1995 and to ignore the cooling since 2002 is asymmetric and inconsistent.
     
    I also disagree with your Waleed Ali point.  It is not good enough to invoke the authority of the CRU, Jones, Mann, the IPCC etc.  You must therefore invoke John Christy, Dr Vincent gray, Richard Lindzen, Dr Ian Clark, Dr C lee Campbell, Dr Robert Balling, Tim ball, Jan Veizer and many, many other skeptical scientists.  This shows clearly that the debate rages and there are no firm conclusions.
     
    However, even more than that, the spirit of the enlightenment is that every person can think rationally for themselves.  I cannot accept many theories purely on trust – I need evidence.  And when I look for evidence of man-made global warming I find very, very little and far better explanations in natural variability.

  457. Chris is absolutely right. Ken’s claims in #1792 are an abuse of statistical methods and have no validity. The correct answer to the journalists question would have to insist that the question was meaningless without the context of the larger temperature record.

    Ken, If you have to repeat lies and misrepresentations like this, and ignore the wider context to avoid presenting contradictory information, then your argument is desperate.

    Looking forward to your delusional conversation with Bob Carter…

  458. Ken #1792

    I don’t agree it is a split decision. Warming from 1995 to 2009 is not significant because the time period is not long enough. So it is not significant “but only just” according to Jones. 2002 to 2009 is an even shorter period, so less reliance can be placed on any trend there. So in reality, the trend from 1995 to 2009 (which includes the cooling from 2002 to 2009) is much stronger, than any cooling trend, but Jones is not confident enough with the sample size to say that the warming is statistically significant. There is a huge difference between that and what Tamas says and I think you should recognise that.

    As for the rest of your post, I have kept a close eye on the Cage and have seen your arguments.To be honest, most of this stuff goes over my head and I do not have the time to delve to deeply. I repeat what I said at 1789 (the post not the year). I only stepped in because Tamas’s statement was totally without foundation and I felt competent and compelled to comment on it.

    I note your claim in previous posts to be in communication with a climate scientist and I look forward to reading the correspondence when and if you choose to make it public.

  459. Chris #1789

    Quote from Tamas #1583;

    2) Here is what Jones said in its entirety:

    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    Um, so the trend from 1995 is not significant, but it’s still positive. But the trend from 2002 is in fact negative, but it’s not significant either.

    endquote

    So there we have it from the horse’s mouth.

    Warming trend from 1995 is close – but not statistically significant and cooling trend from 2002 is not statistically significant.

    Looks like a split decision to me – a ‘plateau’ – pretty flat for the last 7-15 years.

    If you play with the smoothing you can get a slight warming trend for the whole period, and visa versa.

    For Chris’ benefit:

    Check out the temperature data from Figure 1 from the below paper by IPCC lead author Dr Trenberth:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

    The temperature data is from:

    Time series of annual global mean temperature departures for 1861–
    2008 from a 1961–1990 mean (bars), left scale, and the annual mean
    carbon dioxide from Mauna Loa after 1957 linked to values from bubbles
    of air in ice cores before then. The zero value for 1961–1990 for
    temperature corresponds to 14 8C and for carbon dioxide 334 parts per
    million by volume (ppmv). Updated from Karl and Trenberth [16], original
    data from HADCRUv3. (see next post for link)

    The description is illuminated by the author:

    “The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest
    since about 2000 (Figure 1). Given that there is continual
    heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by
    accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Figure 1) and
    other greenhouses due to human activities, why is the
    temperature not continuing to go up?”

    “why is the temperature not continuing to go up?”

  460. Chris #1789

    Quote from Tamas #1583;

    2) Here is what Jones said in its entirety:

    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    Um, so the trend from 1995 is not significant, but it’s still positive. But the trend from 2002 is in fact negative, but it’s not significant either.

    endquote

    So there we have it from the horse’s mouth.

    Warming trend from 1995 is close – but not statistically significant and cooling trend from 2002 is not statistically significant.

    Looks like a split decision to me – a ‘plateau’ – pretty flat for the last 7-15 years.

    If you play with the smoothing you can get a slight warming trend for the whole period, and visa versa.

    For Chris’ benefit:

    Check out the temperature data from Figure 1 from the below paper by IPCC lead author Dr Trenberth:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

    The temperature data is from:

    Time series of annual global mean temperature departures for 1861–
    2008 from a 1961–1990 mean (bars), left scale, and the annual mean
    carbon dioxide from Mauna Loa after 1957 linked to values from bubbles
    of air in ice cores before then. The zero value for 1961–1990 for
    temperature corresponds to 14 8C and for carbon dioxide 334 parts per
    million by volume (ppmv). Updated from Karl and Trenberth [16], original
    data from HADCRUv3 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
    #datdow, and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.

    The description is illuminated by the author:

    “The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest
    since about 2000 (Figure 1). Given that there is continual
    heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by
    accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Figure 1) and
    other greenhouses due to human activities, why is the
    temperature not continuing to go up?”

    “why is the temperature not continuing to go up?”

    Chris, kdkd – What don’t you understand about that sentence?

  461. Tamas,

    [ And just ponder those numbers. It might help to reveal what a crock the whole thing is. ]

    Making incorrect assumptions based on your own intuition and political biases does not make a coherent and correct argument.

  462. No Tamas #1785 and #1788, the head of the CRU never said no warming since 1995 and temperatures have not been flat since 1995. Jones specifically said there had been warming since 1995. Repeating such a blatant lie just denigrates your whole argument and you don’t need to be a scientist to understand why you are wrong. Just a basic knowledge of statistics will suffice.

    I don’t know why I am bothering to post this. kdkd has pointed this out to you on numerous occasions and still you continue with the lie. I just wanted to get it off my chest I guess.

    I agree with what Waleed Ali said on QandA on Monday night. Most of us don’t really understand the complexities of climate science, so who are we going to believe? The climate scientists who have spent years working on this stuff, have an intimate knowledge of the intricacies involved? Or Tamas Calderwood, Ken Lambert, Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbot or Miranda Devine?

  463. Tell it to phil jones kdkd. The head of the cru says no warming since 1995.

    And just ponder those numbers. It might help to reveal what a crock the whole thing is.

  464. Tamas,

    Your understanding of the science is clearly woefully deficient, and you’re complicit with getting yourself taken by a ride by the oil/tobacco nexus and their delusional hangers on. AKA you’re a gullible fool. An intuitive analysis isn’t good enough – you need to do the numbers and examine the evidence, which clearly shows your position is utterly wrong.

    [ No wonder temperatures have been flat for 15 years huh? ]

    You do realise that constantly repeating this lie doesn’t make it true yes? Apparently you don’t. Repeating falsehoods does not improve the quality of your argument, or provide it with a solid foundation.

  465. Actually, co2 is 0.038% of the atmosphere, so subtract another order of magnitude from that pathetically small number.

    How weird is the hysteria surrounding such crazy-small numbers?

  466. Ken – I was just thinking about some numbers for perspective:

    Earth’s atmosphere has a total mass of 5000,000,000 gt (that’s five billion gigatons, or five billion billion tons)
    CO2 makes up 0.38% of that total, or 1 900 000 gt.
    Humans add 29gt to the total each year (and we have no idea how much is re-absorbed naturally).
    Thus, 29/1900000 = 0.0000153 or 0.00153%
    Thus, humans add 0.00153% to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere every year.

    Sheesh… No wonder temperatures have been flat for 15 years huh?

  467. Similar kind of stuff up to confusing the doubling time of co2 concentration to be 2100 rather than 2050 eh? Or confusing scientific issues with political issues. International sea level rises are at the top end of the range of IPCC projections, that support the idea that we have a bigger problem than anticipated, rather than the delusional case that the problem is either small or does not exist.

  468. kdkd #1780

    I heard today an alarmist news item on ABC radio talking about 10mm/year sea-level rises around the Australian Coast quoting CSIRO data.

    I had promised a sea level analysis since the Xmas holidays and I found all the Australian Govt data which ‘The Australian’ screwed up last year and which John Church screwed up also.

    I still have some numbers to crunch – but the main ‘screw-up’ was confusing the rate of rise/fall with the *change* in the rate of rise/fall.

    It is the same error as confusing acceleration with velocity. ‘The Australian’ graphic reported the *change* in the rate – not the rate itself. Church further confused the issue by claiming that ‘The Australians’ numbers were not IBP corrected (Inverse barometric pressure). Both were wrong.

    I will post some links to the data to show what is going on and how it compares to the rest of the planet.

  469. I was listening to some radio last night which contained among other things, a range climate change stuff , and what struck me was the absolute total divorce from reality that Tamas, Ken and their like must have undergone. It’s really quite amazing, but I suppose if you hold your political beliefs that strongly, the objective evidence doesn’t really count for anything at all really.

    p.s. like your constantly calling out my desperation and other “Black is White” arguments. That’s straight out of the Goebbels/Orwell book of propaganda, and sort of funny in a “showing off the total absence of an intellectually coherent case” kind of a way. But that is because I appreciate sick humour.

  470. kdkd #1769

    How did you guess kdkd..

    Tamas …..we better stop tormenting kdkd – I think signs of barking madness are appearing in his responses..

  471. Tamas,

    That’s your lie and your sticking to it. Shame the evidence shows precisely the opposite. The joke here is the depths of your delusions. I’m amazed that Ken will associate himself with you at the extremist end of the delusionosphere, but I suppose that when things are that desperate for your argument, you’ll allow any old shit to stick.

  472. Kdkd – the world has been cooling since 2001. So it’s been getting cooler, um, everywhere…

    I can’t believe how deeply you have fallen for this joke of a scientific theory. It’s why I’m not rude back to you. I just feel sorry for you.

  473. Tamas,

    Where’s it been getting cooler? I think someone’s been having you on. Did you know they’ve taken the word gullible out of the dictionary?

  474. Kdkd – you are a joke. So warmer proves global warming, cooler proves global warming, no change proves global warming. Does anything not prove it?

  475. Bit of a joke there, Lovelock is not even making the claims you suggest he is.

    [ No one should be complacent about the fact that within the next 20 years we’ll have added nearly a trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. When a geological accident produced a similar carbon rise 55m years ago, it turned up the heat more than 5C. And now? Well, the effect of man-made carbon is unpredictable. Temperatures might go down at first, rather than up, he warns. ]

    But then they might not … who knows … perhaps the models are useful for helping to predict this after all …

    His message is certainly inconsistent. Not long ago he was going along with the “it’s the end of the world as we know it” approach with the most extreme doomsayers.

  476. The Nazi slur is justified I’m afraid repetition of lies and distortions to make the false claim that your opinion somehow becomes true. Also the flat earth smear and the creationist sphere apply as well.

    Now just because you only take your advice from the delusionosphere doesn’t automatically make that true. It makes your opinion based on poor quality reporting, and a failure to read the evidence properly. You have all the insight into this topic of a geriatric schizophrenic who has been hospitalised most of thier life. Essentially you deny that the laws of physics work and provide quality predictions (although you would dispute this despite the fact that it is clearly true).

  477. kdkd -you should read the comments in that story you linked to. Hilarious!

    And I can only surmise that if Lovecock did say those things then you would be upset. Do some googling and check it out. Your boy Lovecock said it kdkd. Ouch, it must really sting.

    And I love the Nazi slur. You know what happens in an argument when you resort to Nazi slurs.

    Ken – interesting comment’s by Berényi on sea ice.

  478. Tamas,

    I’m saying you’re a dickhead for assuming that the Express’ quotes are accurate and in context given their history of failure on reporting on climate change issues with any degree of accuracy. It’s not even worth engaging with you. Your opinions and analysis are worthless.

    Meanwhile here’s the the best argument against global warming for your edification.

    Face it the only way you can maintain your argument is with the intellectual coherence of a concussed bee, and the politics of Joseph Goebbels.

  479. Ahh.. kdkd.

    So are you saying the Express didn’t quote Lovecock accurately?

    Or are you saying Lovecock is a dic*head?

    The collapse of credibility in the global warming movement must be tough on you buddy. That’s why Ken and I go easy on you.

    I mean, given all the material we have to work with, it’s not like we have to try hard…

  480. Tamas, The british daily Express… sources of the highest credibility eh? What a dickhead!

    Ken,

    Looking forward to your Q&A. Just hoping you haven’t got some waster fossil fuel lobby apologist masquerading as a climate scientist. That would make you look very bad indeed.

  481. Tamas #1766

    Had not seen the story on Lovelock – good stuff. No doubt kdkd will claim that Lovelock is senile and demented just like Freeman Dyson.

    kdkd is probably metaphorically standing on a ledge wailing and gnashing his teeth.

    Should have something to publish in a week or three. I notice that Crikey is still printing your sensible viewpoint – I am struggling with time to send in comments. Notice the ABC is in turmoil about giving the ‘sceptics’ a go.

    Did you look at the ‘climate sensitivity’ stuff back to post #1730?

    Also have a look at the comments of Bendryl? Peter in Skeptical Science.

    This guy seems to be ‘in the trade’. Will quote a link in next post.

    I have had a couple of posts in that and RealClimate but both Cook and Schmidt won’t come out to play. See my comment #1761

    Best

    Ken

  482. Ken – looking forward to the Q&A when you can publish it.

    Here’s some news for you. James Lovecock now claims CO2 emissions are good.

    From the UK Express:

    “I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing.

    “We’re not guilty, we never intended to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, it’s just something we did.”

    Dr Lovelock’s comments come in the wake of the scandal at the University of East Anglia where leaked emails suggested climate change data had been manipulated.
    The 90-year-old British scientist, who has worked for Nasa and paved the way for the detection of man-made aerosol and refrigerant gases in the atmosphere, called for greater caution in climate research.

    He compared the recent controversy to the “wildly inaccurate” early work on aerosol gases and their alleged role in depletion of the ozone layer.

    He said: “Quite often, observations done by hand are accurate but all the theoretical stuff in between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing this with climate change. We haven’t learned the lessons of the ozone-hole debate. It’s important to know just how much you have got to be careful.”

    And so we see the beautiful collapse of the global warming movement. kdkd must be the last holdout.

  483. kdkd #1762

    As you could imagine, receiving substantial answers from ‘very well known climate scientist’ would be unlikely if the questions were ill-informed.

    I am not at liberty to say any more until I have been given permission to publish the exchange in Q&A format.

    To be a useful contribution to the debate, the Q&A will be verbatim and any interpretation or conclusions drawn by me will be clearly identified and open for discussion.

  484. Funny, desperation was what I thought your argument stank of from the start. Funny how when you make mistakes, you don’t admit them. I think you should fess up to who your “very well known climate scientist is”. You have my email address, so you can tell me privately.

  485. kdkd #1759, #1760

    Desperation is what you are showing kdkd – trying your old trick of setting exams for me. I would be happy to critique your summary of my arguments.

    By the way, I have been talking to a very well known climate scientist and he/she has some very interesting responses to my questions. Receiving responses at all was quite edifying, and when I have some more answers I will seek permission to publish the Q&A from same scientist.

    Suffice to say that what I have been writing about in the last two months or so has not been entirely based on my amateur musings.

  486. Ken

    Your paranoid conspiracy theory doesn’t wash. Edit up what you have to say so that it’s clearer, tighter and less rambling. Otherwise I’ll do it for you.

    Your hypothesis may be internally consistent (I lack the skills to determine if it is fully), but when you relate it to observations, and when it becomes clear that you have to use lies in an attempt to support it then it does not concistent with the external evidence.

    Another thought: find me an asymptotic function with an analogue in the real that plateaus suddenly and precipitously without warning. This is what you are claiming the climate system has done, or is going to do presently.

  487. kdkd #1757

    I have already engaged Gavin on Realclimate and he won’t come out to play. Same with John Cook.

    That is the trick with all these AGW alarmist propaganda blogs posing as sober forums of scientific debate:

    When a challenging and well argued post is made (Mr Peter for example), the controllers of the blog – Gavin Schmidt or John Cook is these cases can choose simply to ignore the argument made and not comment.

    In this way the blog can be slanted so that only the weakest arguments are answered by the Gavins and Johns, and the tougher questions go through to the keeper or are argued by other bloggers with no particular standing.

  488. [ Funny that – could it coincide with the current ‘lack of warming’….in fact all we are might now be seeing is the ‘natural noise’ signal on top of a 0.75 degC ‘plateau’? ]

    It’s your lie and you’re sticking to it eh?

    The decadal