climate change

Feb 25, 2011

A medieval climate

Just last week, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Dr Andrew Glikson, earth and paleoclimate scientist at ANU, writes: The end of the IPCC?

Just last week, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.

Let me offer some examples of the ‘rationale’ in the background of this vote:

Representative Luetkemeyer (Missouri) said: “Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”

US Congress Representative John Shimkus (Illinois) said: “Today we have about 388 parts per million [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere… I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” He goes on: “The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

The Representative is correct in pointing to the wealth of fauna and flora in the age of the dinosaurs.

The only error he makes is in overlooking the fact that humans, as a part of nature, are the product of environment changes associated with cooling of the Earth since the mid-Pliocene about 3 million years ago, followed by the glacial-interglacial eras during which H. sapiens and civilization arose. The other error is that rapid shifts between climate states result in mass extinctions.

But then its not clear how many of the new House majority accept Darwinian evolution?

Representative Joe Barton (Texas), who is competing for the position of chairman of the Congress Energy and commerce Committee states: “Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.”

Never mind that in nature winds move air from cold high pressure to warm low pressure zones, such as in onshore sea breeze or the polar vortices.

E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, argued that because the “biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God, humankind couldn’t possibly be affecting the climate.”

Some are happy with ongoing carbon emissions, since they apparently serve as “plant food”, in what some of them regard as a “carbon starved world”.

A new kind of science is being invented, free of data and unrelated to the basic laws of physics and chemistry.

Just in case those who reject the science may not be correct, at least Congress continues to support space research programs.  In search of habitable planets when Earth is no longer suitable for human life?

Defenders of the IPCC are in retreat. Representative Waxman (California) stated: “The US contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without US support.”

In Noam Chomsky’s view: “All of this combines the latest election a couple of days ago…. You could almost interpret it [the Republicans victory in the Congress elections] as a kind of a death knell for the species.”

How consistent is Noam Chomsky’s prediction with climate science projections?

With rising global and in particular polar temperatures:

And the acceleration of extreme weather events (Figure 3), predicted by the IPCC, the rise in energy levels of the atmosphere-ocean system, evaporation and precipitation, are increasingly expressed by a series of extreme weather events – cyclones, floods, snow storms, heat waves.

The emission of >320 Gigaton carbon over the last two centuries leads to a shift in state of the climate (>2 Watt/m2; +0.8C mean temperature; ~2 ppm CO2/year) on a scale unknown from former interglacial periods and the last 3 million years of geological history.

How should Noam Chomsky’s claim the return of the Republicans constitutes “a kind of a death knell for the species” be interpreted?

Is Chomsky referring to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the “rupture” by fundamentalists? Is it the ideology of human mastery over nature, vested fossil fuel interests, well funded “conservative” think tanks, media cover-up, cowardly politicians, the basic reluctance of people to face global issues beyond human power, or all of these factors combined?

Hopefully the Representatives are correct and Chomsky is mistaken. As “internet science” tells, the world is not warming or, at least, not due to human factors, and climate research organizations (Hadley-Met, NASA-GISS, Colorado-NSIDC, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM) and peer reviewed science are all in error?

Should this not be the case and the future lies in the hands of those who reject the scientific method, claiming authority to speak in God’s name, this would herald the end of the enlightenment, an era of intellectual, scientific and cultural life emerging from the 18th century where evidence and reason are the basis for legitimacy and authority.

(Visited 4 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

242 thoughts on “A medieval climate

  1. danr

    How can Andrew Bolt say that man made global warming is not real when governments have spent billions worldwide to research the problem.

    There are thousands of PHDs who know that AGW is very real and will lead to runaway global temperatures far too soon for us and our children.

    As Shane says above, “Australia has the worst pollution record in the developed world” and we must take action now.

    Surely. He cant be serious when he questions the ABC. The ABC is a Government funded institution and has the benefit of all Government scientific resources at its disposal.

    If it pushes a certain view it is because it must be so confident of it’s position that there is no need to be impartial.

    It’s just more convenient that way.

  2. danr

    “But Nick also believes Tobacco isn’t addictive or harmful.”

    yeah Yeah Yeah

    we’ve seen that sort of claim on every warmer posting site.

    Hit them anywhere but in the science.

  3. Bellistner

    I agree with you.

    So you agree that the world hasn’t cooled then. Because I disagree with Minchin.

    Or you could just be putting words in my mouth, be trying to obfuscate the argument further, and are actually agreeing with Minchin, a non-Climate Scientist and Economist claiming another non Climate Scientist and Economist doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Minchin had better be careful, otherwise his comments like “[Garnault] is on the Government Payroll, and is being paid to tow the Government line” might come back to bite the Reactionary Right when they have a Government employee ‘towing the line’ on, say, workers rights, or fossil fuel subsidies, or moar roads, or less regulation, or foreign ownership.

    But Nick also believes Tobacco isn’t addictive or harmful.

  4. danr

    “Just yesterday Nick Minchin said the globe was cooling.”

    I agree with you. Everyone knows there has been little measurable temp change in the last 50 years. Minor fluctuations like those he mentions are part of the normal temp flux.


  5. Bellistner

    It may gives some people on this site to experience what it’s like when the boot is on the other foot; ie dealing with pre-packaged crap.

    We deal with pre-packaged crap all the time. Just yesterday Nick Minchin said the globe was cooling.

  6. red under bed

    This troll danr seems to be even more clueless, delusional and imbecilic than your average denier, and that’s saying something. Wisely, it looks like many contributors here have realized that and have stopped trying to reason with that moron. What idiot, without presenting any evidence, would claim that climate scientists don’t have “a proper grounding in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Orbital Mechanics and the modeling of complex interactive physical and chemical systems.”? And this from someone who probably didn’t even do high school science. Over at RealClimate, they send those really stupid, conspiratorial posts which add nothing to the debate to a section called “the Bore Hole”, but I think even that’s too lofty for him.

  7. danr

    I’ve got to admit that statements like:

    ““Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.”

    are a bit over the top and not related to the real issue of science at the core of what I am supposed to be focused on.

    It may gives some people on this site to experience what it’s like when the boot is on the other foot; ie dealing with pre-packaged crap.

  8. Captain Planet

    danr is clearly at least partly a bot. It posts completely out of left field statements like

    “Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.”

    and continues to reiterate the same ridiculous sensationalist unscientific nonsense, despite it having been verified over and over that the audience here will not fall for that talkback radio crap.

    This is astroturf, people. You’d be better off NOT FEEDING THE ASTROTURF TROLLS.

  9. PeeBee

    because even idiots would not write that.

  10. PeeBee


    danr has to be a bot because even idiots would that.

  11. kdkd


    Please continue. you’re displaying your ignorance and stupidity rather nicely. Me? I’m just displaying that I’m sick of ignorant stupidity emanating from idiots like you.

  12. danr

    “Well I have some background in using scientific method for situations where classical experiments are not possible,”

    Now I know what you mean

    Positive CO2 feedback

    Energy from nowhere.


    Perhaps even Voodoo

    or maybe just Dog Doo

  13. kdkd

    danr: then you must be dead then as the biochemical processes that keep you alive rely on positive feedback

    Worthless. Moronic. Drivel. An attempt at humour makes you look like even more of a dick than we already thought.

  14. danr

    I’m positive that there is no such thing as positive feedback.

  15. PeeBee

    No education past high school

    Explains everything.

  16. kdkd

    [ the supposed runaway CO2 effect ]

    Bzzt! Wrong. Positive feeback is not the same as a runaway positive feedback. Your ability to understand the science is clearly woefully deficient, and this forum is not the place to correct your lack of education. so go away and stop polluting the place with your imbecilic crap, please.

  17. danr

    However these comments pages are not the place for a scientific debate”

    There is no need for any more debate.

    The IPCC argument all hinges on fanciful science like the supposed runaway CO2 effect which is unknown to mainstream science.

    There is no such thing as “amplification” or “feedback” effect of CO2.

    This is a political / financial construct which has been deliberately confused so the public can’t understand it.

    More money for those in the right places.

    Holidays in Tahiti.

  18. danr

    Respiration IN; 380 ppm CO2.

    Respiration OUT: 40,000 ppm CO2.

    And yet no one dies from CO2 poisoning.

    What’s going on fellas?

    Sitting in the movies or a crowed hall: 10,000 ppm CO2. No one dies.

    According to the US EPA we should all be dead from the excess CO2?

    Has the US EPA been bought by a political interest group?

  19. danr

    “Well I have some background in using scientific method for situations where classical experiments are not possible,”

    Just as I thought. No education past high school and inane claims like the above.

    Mumbo jumbo.

  20. kdkd


    same as everything he has to say. He pulled it out of his arse.

  21. PeeBee

    danr, you have made a strong statement in 220. You must have based it on a something. Do you mind telling us what science stream you have studied, to what level and where?

  22. kdkd

    [ If you had any background in the scientific areas that underpin the “science” of global warming you too would see that the claims about human involvement in “global warming” are fanciful. ]

    Well I have some background in using scientific method for situations where classical experiments are not possible, and from that I can see that your understanding of climate science is fanciful. However these comments pages are not the place for a scientific debate as you have amply demonstrated, so you can go away and be delusional somewhere else please.

  23. danr

    If you had any background in the scientific areas that underpin the “science” of global warming you too would see that the claims about human involvement in “global warming” are fanciful.

    The basic atmospheric physics supposedly supporting AGW does not exist.

    There is more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the re-radiated and reflected ground IR many times over. This , of course is only for the spectra covered by CO2. What this means in practical terms, which the IPCC doesn’t want you to know about, is that adding more CO2 will not trap any more heat energy than is currently being trapped.

    If solar output is held constant and CO2 is increased, guess what happens. Nothing.

    By contrast if you hold CO2 constant and increase solar energy output then the atmosphere will heat up.

    Of course this is all meaningless because we have left out the major factor in all this: water vapour.

    I feel sorry for those who have been conned into doing “Climate Change Studies” at Universities without a proper grounding in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Orbital Mechanics and the modeling of complex interactive physical and chemical systems.

    Having a PHD in plant biology or economics and a big computer just doesn’t work.

    The scam goes on.

  24. danr

    BHP and RIO are rubbing their hands together trying to work out their claim for compensation.

    Who do people in this blog think will pick up the tab if not BHP?

    Yep. The taxpayer.

  25. tones9

    no, it’s a dirty stinking turd.

    it’s a bit obvious when westpac announce they can’t wait to make billions out of carbon trading

  26. danr

    Do you think they smell a rat??

  27. tones9

    oops. everyone’s on board to save the planet.

    4% swing in 2 weeks.

    JULIA Gillard’s carbon tax plan has sent Labor’s primary vote support reeling to its lowest level on record, with the Prime Minister also suffering a significant slide in her personal standing.

    The latest Newspoll survey, conducted exclusively for The Australian, reveals Labor’s primary vote has fallen from 36 per cent two weeks ago to 30 per cent, below the 31 per cent record when Paul Keating was prime minister in 1993, as the Coalition rose four points to 45 per cent.

    On a two-party preferred basis, based on preference flows at last year’s election, Labor now trails the Coalition 46 per cent to 54 per cent after being tied at 50 per cent support two weeks ago.

  28. tones9

    thanks rohan

  29. kdkd

    the record is a bit over 2319 coments. Again on a pointless discussion of climate change science. The delusionals in this case had better understanding of science than danr/tones9 and quickly lapsed out of totally psychotic madcap conspiracy theory ramblings when they realised they’d overstepped the mark.

    danr and tones9 have nothing at all worthwhile to say though, so it’s not worth the effort.

  30. tones9

    Rohan what’s the record?

    Let’s go for it.

    This transcript should be kept for historical evidence of cognitive dissonance.

  31. PeeBee

    danr, how did all those colluding scientists convince the glaciers to take part in the conspiracy?

  32. Rohan


    as scintillating as your contributions are, I reckon you could probably combine them into a single post and not lose any impact.

    If this thread is going to break the Rooted record for number of posts it’s only fair it does so for the right reasons.

  33. kdkd

    yeah, well we get to the point were idiots like danr can be shown to not understand the subject, and that they’re paranoid nutjobs who have opted out of reality. And at this point we can leave them to disintegrate into a mumbling mess, as it’s been clear for some time that they have no worthwhile contribution to make.

    (I think that danr and tones9 are the same individual posting under different accounts btw)

  34. danr

    . “Peer Review” has generally become a laugh, as the Hoaxters now all review each other’s work, and the cash register keeps ringing.

  35. danr

    Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

  36. danr

    Quote kdkd “150-200 years of accumulated scientific knowledge”.

    Are you kidding?

    There is evidence of serious scientific skills going back more than 4,000 years.

  37. kdkd

    Well if you take climate change from a scientifically illiterate point of view, I guess you can either trust 150-200 years of accumulated scientific knowledge, or if you’re of an insanely delusional persuasion, you can pretend it’s all a massive conspiracy from the illuminati, jewish bankers or whatever. Yawn.

  38. danr

    No I don’t.

    Copenhagen was CANCELLED.

    Spain has finished with the romance of “free energy from the sun”.

    Every politician that breathes on Earth is trying to work out how to avoid getting caught up any further..

    Ah!! What about Malcolm Turnbull you say. A man of moral courage.

    Do you mean Malcolm Turnbull the BANKER whose former bank stood to make squillions out of carbon trading??

    And so on.

  39. kdkd

    and with no relevant or correct scientific evidence to show we get back to nutjob paranoid conspiracy theory. You. Still. Lose. Looser.

  40. danr

    It’s called protecting everyone in the system.

    Those who approved his application, those who approved the paymenst, University staff who knew it was fraud etc

  41. danr

    Alec Rawls probably sums up the IPCC corruption best: “What I found interesting in the IPCC report is how blatant the statistical fraud is, omitting the competing explanation from the models completely, while pretending that they are using their models to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming. These people are going to hang on to their power grab until the bitter end.”

  42. kdkd

    Yeah, the political corruption of the state of virginia’s attorney general was found to be inconsequential. You. Still. Loose.

    [ Judge Paul Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli and his staff failed to demonstrate that an investigation was warranted, ruling that The nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute… The Court…understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did that was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia. ]

  43. danr

    I hope the State of Virginia succeeds in prosecution warmers who have made false scientific representations to get more State funding.

    It will be a good start.

    No 200 Wow

    Isn’t science exciting?

  44. danr

    WATER vapour. is 95% of all the greenhouse effect. CO2 IS INCONSEQUENTIAL and always will be.

  45. kdkd

    Danr #197

    Just goes to show how poorly you understand the science. The end.

  46. danr

    Last time I checked, carbon was still carbon wherever it was.

    Both the car and buffalo consume carbon that has been sequestrated, how I love that word, and create CO2 gas plus methane plus the most dangerous greenhouse gas of the all.

    WATER vapour.

    The point is:

    CO2 has little effect on world temp and the man made component of CO2 even less.

  47. kdkd

    danr: You don’t understand the difference between fossil carbon, non-fossil carbon apparently.

    tones9: #194 is a feat of projection and standing your ground in the face of all the evidence.

  48. PeeBee


    still waiting for your analysis.

    Without it I will have to agree with Captain Planet… you are nothing but a troll.

    Ask for one piece of original analysis and you fall on your face.

  49. tones9

    Danr we shouldn’t assume they have intelligence, below avg or otherwise.

    From the previous thread, kdkd
    -couldn’t read columns in a graph
    -interpreted trends in the opposite direction
    -said the 90s and 00s were predicted well by climate models
    -provided evidence of literature as a link to a meaningless google search
    -thought GISS land is the same as land and sea
    -earth warmed this decade
    -IPCC primary data isn’t Hadcrut
    -denies long term trend calculations
    -calculates trends which don’t exist

    tones9 19
    kdkd 0

  50. danr

    A buffalo emits about the same amount of methane (CH4) as driving your car 13,000 km. miles – No time given for buffalo emission..A year?

  51. danr

    Some statistics :

    50% of the population is below average intelligence.

  52. danr

    Tones9 there is another reference from 2008.

    Mar 05, 2008

    The Manhattan Declaration – from the 2008 International Climate Conference

    “Global warming” is not a global crisis

  53. kdkd

    sorry I did acknowledge my spelling errors. Misposting to a wrong is a risk for those of us who use RSS rather than labour intensive manual web browsing, again demonstrating that you do not deserve respect, and that your views are equally invalid wherever you spout them.

    kdkd ∞+1, tones9 0

  54. kdkd


    Yeah I did acknowledge your errors, and how they, trivial as they are demonstrate the lack of respect that I hold for your off-topic, delusional, preconception based, anti-science views. The more you gibber on about this ephemeral irrelevance, the more we can see the delusional stupidity of your position.

    The final scores are out: kdkd ∞ tones9 0

  55. tones9

    kdkd refuses to acknowledge errors.

    tones9 10
    kdkd 0

  56. kdkd

    Captian Planet #185

    I tend to agree. Although #186 shows exactly how delusional tones9 is about the quality of his argument and evidence.

  57. tones9

    let’s update the scoreboard. it was
    tones9 4
    kdkd 0

    since then:
    kdkd “warming trend has increased since 2008”
    kdkd posts on the wrong blog – double points
    kdkd can’t spell
    kdkd claims intellectual superiority

    tones9 9
    kdkd 0

  58. Captain Planet

    PeeBee and kdkd,

    I strongly recommend you cease feeding the trolls.

    danr and tones9 will continue to spew nonsensical propoganda provided by the Merchants of Doubt, in order to fulfill their roles as paid astroturfers.

    After all this time and all these threads, the best danr and tones9 can come up with is a whole heap of puerile name calling, unjustified childish smugness, and baseless, ludicrouse assertions like “there is no science behind AGW”.

    I wouldn’t waste my time engaging with them anymore, if I were you. I tried it once, and it is clear that no amount of reason or debate on our behalf will encourage them to participate on an adult level.

    The sooner their boring, repetitive trolling is ignored by the bigger minds amongst us, the less of a platform they will have to extoll their foolishness. I advise that the wisest course of action here is to ignore their crap, otherwise we will soon see yet another (otherwise quite valid and stimulating) comments thread taken over with vacuous kindergarten behaviour.

    Don’t give them oxygen.

  59. kdkd


    low blow the spelling card. let’s just say that I show my contempt for your poorly thought out delusional positioin by typing fast, and not wasting any more than the bare minimum of time with your worthless, off topic content free delusional argument.

  60. tones9

    Peebee is still in denial about owning up to nonsensical comments.

    Peebee doesn’t comprehend posts 135 and 159.

    Peebee will never understand logic flaws.

  61. PeeBee

    Sorry tones9, your last statement at 180 startled me…. your posts are devoid of statistical analysis, and to say they are all I need is at odds with what I have been asking from you through out these threads.

    Your agruments may be all the ‘thought bogans’ need, but once you take on the grown ups you need to be a little more thorough.

  62. PeeBee

    But tones9, you can’t say that until you have done your analysis of statistical significance…. something you have avoided up until now.

    Here is your big chance to show you are a credible climate scientist, provide your proof. (Perhaps they skipped that part in your TAFE course?)

  63. tones9

    No peebee you can’t weasel your way out of it.

    You said the paper (1998-2007) proved it had warmed in the last 10 years.

    You even put it in context saying it was “something that tones9 has been arguing against.”(158)

    That’s right it has cooled in the last 10 years 2001-2010.

    Own your comments.

    Own your stupidity.

    All my posts have all the logic and analysis you need.

  64. PeeBee

    Tones9, I can see how you get confused. When the article in question said it had warmed in the last ten years, it had. Just because it was published in 2008, you concluded I was thinking it was 2008 now….. I can see how you could jump to the conclusion…. how stupid of you.

    But of course that doesn’t help your cause, because you still haven’t come up with your analysis. I suppose I will have to wait 3 years for that while you do your maths degree.

    Although that would have been covered in the first year (and also in the first year of a science degree), but you would now that wouldn’t you, as you have a science degree. What was it again, Food Science at the local Tafe?

  65. tones9

    kdkd thanks for confirming all my (assessemnt woops you can’t spell either) assessments of the validity of your stupidity.

    I’ll read between your postings, which you made on separate blogs because you didn’t know the difference.

    There is no need to address the meteorological record, or your false allegations.
    They speak for themselves.

  66. kdkd


    Thanks for confirming my assessemnt #175 of the validity of your position. Seeing as you’re too proud and delusional to fess up that your position is not valid, I’ll read between the lines and take #176 as a full retraction and apology for wasting our time with your drivel :).

  67. tones9

    welcome back kdkd!

    I’m glad you have posted on the right blog.

    I know it can get difficult, with all those words and things.

  68. kdkd

    See here tones9 knows deep down beneath the delusional veneer that he has no worthwhile opinions on this issue. So he hits name calling and posturing instead.

    The “it hasn’t warmed since 1998” argument was poor in the first place. Adding the pretense that this argument has improved in validity in recent years is past ludicrous and out into the far flung counter-reality world of the most delusional climate contrarian position. Maintaining this argument requires an abuse of logic and mathematics, which if used in physical applications would result in bridges falling down, medical procedures failing and a whole load of other problems caused by an analysis that bears no relation to reality.

    So if it’s all the same to you I’ll stick with the consensus opinion as defined by a range of scientific academies, not the delusional rantings of idiots like tones9, danr, Tamas Calderwood, Christopher Monkton, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Jennifer Maohasy, the American Republican Party and so on.

  69. tones9

    Peebee your logic flaws have been pointed out in previous posts.
    I don’t know how your brain can’t comprehend it.

    Here is evidence of your stupidity:

    peebee @158
    “And what does the paper prove? That it has warmed in the last 10 years”

    Wrong. That paper was for 1998-2007, not the last 10 years.

    Now acknowledge you got it wrong, or admit you don’t know which year we are in.

  70. PeeBee

    danr. Pretty good pick up there. A CONSPIRACY…. how come no-one ever thought of that before. Sorry have to go and check under the bed….

  71. PeeBee

    Tones9, stay focussed, where is your proof? Don’t try to change the subject just provide some justification for your conclusions.

    If you can’t, just admit it.

    I mean you have made some pretty dumb conclusions before – peebee thinks it is 2008….. do you really believe that?

    Still if you base all your other conclusions on dodgy evidence, you do come up with some howlers.

    But for now, I’ll wait until you come back with your analysis of the statistical significance.

  72. danr

    I had a look.. QLD floods. Everything bad is caused by us driving cars and watching TV.

    Don’t be too hard on them though. A couple of years ago I also assumed that this AGW thing must be rigi didge. The power of authority figures at work. Then I heard comments that were blatantly wrong from the science point of view. This whole thing is right up my area of expertise, especially the modeling. So I went to work to follow the science. And found what? There is no science. It’s all politico -psycho – pseudo science. The key issue of the guilt of man through CO2 emissions cannot be demonstrated as happening and there is NO plausible mechanism under which it might happen. It’s all a political construct to draw in the gullible vote.

  73. tones9

    Danr I told you this would be fun didn’t I?

    In case u r wondering if peebee and kdkd are just acting dumb in order to continue an argument, or if they really are intellectually impaired?

    Well here is your peer-reviewed evidence.

    kdkd has tried to reply to peebee here, but has done it on a completely different blog post!

    Posted March 5, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Peebee: yeah, the levels of irrationality and delusional stupidity from the likes of danr and tones9 are pretty amazing.

    This is hilarious.
    can it get any better?

  74. PeeBee

    Come on tones9, enough of the name calling and diversions, time to put up.

    Where is your analysis showing the statistical significance of a ten year time frame to show a trend.

    Can’t produce it? No problem, you can apologise now and I will accept it.

  75. tones9

    Peebee still doesn’t know what year it is.
    Peebee still doesn’t believe a paper by alarmist scientists cited by an alarmist website.
    Pebee can’t accept reality.

  76. PeeBee


    Congratulations, you have taught tones9 a new term ‘cherry pick’ – amazing how people can be doing something all this time and not know what it is called.

  77. PeeBee

    kdkd, I should have mentioned…. queue the abuse. Tones9 didn’t disappoint. You could almost see the spittle flying through the screen.

    Having just cited a study that proves it has warmed over the last ten years he comes back with his –0.2 degrees per decade delusion. Excellent work tones9.

    But it doesn’t matter because is all hangs on if a ten year time frame is long enough to get a statistically significant answer to decide either way.

    So where is this paper? Can’t find one? Ok I make it easier for you. Just work it out yourself, and show us. That should do it.

  78. danr

    You guys fail to see the cynicism in this? “This is about governments having another reason to tax us. If BHP and RIO manipulate the system, as they will, and get rich too, who cares, maybe they’ll donate at the next election in thanks.”

    BHP in a properly designed system shouldn’t be able to manipulate anything for their own benefit. The government wants the appearance of a tax.

    Big business will buy their way out for as long as you don’t hold the government to account for letting them off the hook.

    The only ones to get shafted are the taxpayers.

  79. tones9

    kdkd claims the dumbest crown, and gives up.
    it was never really a contest anyway.

    The warming trend has increased since 2008??
    Apart from an astonishing cherry pick, what the hell does it mean??

    I know that the long term trend since 2008 has DECREASED.
    But maybe we are meant to just look at the trend after 2008?
    Yep that looks right. Negative 0.2C/decade. Perfect.

  80. kdkd

    In general the warming trend has increased since 2008. I know who’s dumbest. Anyway I’ve given up on these delusional losers, left to their own devices they’ll implode in a bunch of contradictory crap that they’ve made up.

  81. tones9

    that should be I don’t know who is dumber.

    It’s a very difficult calculation…

  82. danr

    tones9 4
    kdkd 0

    that’s funny

  83. tones9

    Peebee, do you know which year we are in now?

    No I didn’t think so.

    We are in the year 2011.

    The paper was written in 2008.
    The period studied was 1998-2007.
    That is not “the last 10 years”.

    I don’t know how you could get any dumber?

    Is it possible for someone who claims intellectual superiority to be more ignorant?

    Even a 5 year old knows what year this is!

    I don’t who is dumber, peebee or kdkd?

  84. tones9

    Peebee you must love humiliating yourself.

    Your entire argument was about a paper on 10 year trends. Now you don’t dare mention it, let alone concede defeat.

    My original post made 4 separate points about SS logic.
    I’m not surprised you can’t distinguish between them.
    The 10 year trend argument is separate to significance.

    You see there are many logic flaws in the warmist science, some of them contradict each other.

  85. PeeBee


    Don’t you just love it when the deniers get so twisted up they start providing evidence that contradicts their previous stance. Case in point:

    the paper proves, a 10 year trend is significant, which was my point.

    And what does the paper prove? That it has warmed in the last 10 years, something that tones9 has been arguing against. Keep it up tones9, you are doing well, in a few more posts you will be hailing Gore as a people’s hero.

  86. PeeBee

    danr, you are some strange environmentalist. Happy to leave environmental protection to the corporations. Mmmmm yes that should work. Don’t mention Deep Horizon, Bopal, the Grand Banks, Exon Valdez, Fly river, Minamata, etc etc all great successes of when you let the corporations look after the environment.

  87. PeeBee


    Oh dear tones9, you were referring to statistical significant in original statement, and I do not see that described in the Fawcett and Jones article. They talk about temporal averaging, which, I suppose to the innumerate is the same thing.

    Just to refresh your memory this is what you said. No statistically significant cooling, but no statistically significant warming either. – which I agree with, but you claim only works one way.

    However, as you think you have a case and did read that in their article, just point to part where they mention statistical significance.

  88. tones9

    kdkd once again you prove that you can’t read, let alone comprehend an argument.

    1. tones9 made that comment, not danr u idiot.

    2. the paper proves, a 10 year trend is significant, which was my point.

    3. the paper made a conclusion about the existance of warming. This proves my point also.

    4. Using the logic of Fawcett and Jones, “There is justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 2001-2010 is downwards.”

    tones9 4
    kdkd 0

  89. kdkd


    [ Pathetic and illogical ]

    So you’re claiming that Fawcett and Jones support your argument? Let’s repost the abstract here to check quickly:

    [ There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious. ]

    Mate, you’re a delusional idiot.

  90. tones9

    Danr, you can’t debate science against ideological conviction.
    That’s why they have to resort to personal abuse, and then ‘what if you’re wrong?’
    I told Captain Planet in the last thread to educate himself on the reality of consensus and number of scientists. He has no interest in reality.
    The ideology is man is a selfish greedy destroyer of the planet, capitalism is evil, big oil big coal and big corporate is evil. CO2 is just the means to achieve the objective. It’s why they can never concede a single point, and everything proves their worldview.

  91. tones9

    Peebee are you trying to prove me right again?
    My point was SS is pathetic and illogical.
    It states “ Fawcett and Jones 2008 although their analysis is much more rigorous (as you’d expect in a peer-reviewed paper).”
    So John Cook explicitly states it’s a peer reviewed paper.
    Are you saying it isn’t? If so then you are proving what a load of dishonest crap that website is.
    Either way, a paper by the head of NCC at BoM is good enough evidence for the veracity of a ten year temp trend.

  92. kdkd

    danr #134 and subsequent.

    Yeah you have nothing interesting to say, and have clearly aligned yourself with the lunatic fringe. As I predicted previously, it’s clear that as soon as you realise your argument is indefensible you try to cover your tracks with irrelevance.

    tones9. #135 and onwards. You are clearly a scientifically illiterate paranoid, also with nothing of interest to say.

  93. danr

    “Time for the big polluter’s cash – bloated PR behemoth to descend on our little country and try desperately to convince us that AGW is a great big fake.”
    Stop being a sook. Get an education, stop being led by self interested groups like WWF etc and work it out for yourself. Until you do get an education you will remain vulnerable to this type of exploitation.

  94. danr

    “mass generated condescending propoganda automatically assembled by denialist”

    Yes , sounds like SkS.

  95. danr

    Garnaut – an economist. Hailed as Australia’s leading Climate Spokes Person. That about says it all. This is about governments having another reason to tax us. If BHP and RIO manipulate the system, as they will, and get rich too, who cares, maybe they’ll donate at the next election in thanks.

  96. danr

    OK Cap’n. You talk about “Big Carbon”. In my mind big C is BHP. They aren’t worried by the Carbon Tax. Big companys and government will find a way to profit from it. The only losers are the tax payers. In the meantime we still keep burning fosil fuels because the only real replacement is NUCLEAR and everyone knows its too dangerous. btw, someone should warn the Europeans.

  97. danr

    “You’re not turning green on us are you?” PeeBee I am an environmentalist from way back. I love the bush and despise governments which allow pollution of the environment. As I said earlier, “Don’t beak that eco friendly light globe.” There was a reason for that comment. I was pointing to the ease with which “environmentalists ” can be so easily led. Never trust a government – especially one which claims to be on your side. If all that is necessary to win “green” votes is to mandate for the use of “eco globes” then they’ll do it. Stuff the environment and especially, who gives a rats about you or your family’s health. The mercury in those things IS DANGEROUS. In my home town there was a recent large scale undertaking which showed complete contempt for the environment and it was run, managed and ticked off by our state government. Hypocrisy on a large scale.

  98. Captain Planet

    I have concluded that danr’s posts owe at least 75 % of their content to mass generated condescending propoganda automatically assembled by denialist, CO2 polluter funded organisations.

    I have concluded that tones9 is actually a real human, in the pay of the heartland institute or a similar denialist organisation.

    Both have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to think or argue either nicely, sensibly, rationally or with an open mind.

    It is no coincidence that the denialist rhetoric, baseless assertions, personal attacks and flooding of blogs and websites with misinformation and lies, have reached a hysterical crescendo.

    Australia is RIGHT NOW thrashing out the details of a soon – to – be – implemented carbon tax. Australia is still the world’s highest per capita emitter of Greenhouse Gases. Australia has vast reserves of coal and also vast potential for renewable energy. We can get our energy any way we want – the only difference is that Big Carbon stands to lose out if we do the responsible thing and introduce a price on Carbon. We’re about to do exactly that.

    Time for the big polluter’s cash – bloated PR behemoth to descend on our little country and try desperately to convince us that AGW is a great big fake.

    Just how all those tens of thousands of professional scientists, and the hundreds of organisations that represent them, have managed to misconstrue the evidence and/or participate in this enormous “hoax” is quite beyond me. Maybe they’re just doing it for kicks?

    Or maybe they’re actually right. Hmmm, you decide.

  99. PeeBee

    danr – No one told me to do that…. I suppose that doesn’t stop you making claims without evidence as that is what you have been doing all along.

    I, on the other hand require evidence to support the claims that is why I asked for peer reviewed research. Peer review is the mechanism by which BS is strained out – leaving only robust evidence. As you advise, I prefer to stick to the science.

  100. PeeBee

    danr – you said @140 Put in in the garbage so it can break in the ground and contaminate the local ground water. Then it’s someone elses problem.

    I thought you would be happy contaminating ground water…. because isn’t that something the communist inspired EPA would try to prevent? You’re not turning green on us are you?

  101. danr

    Tones 9 they know to ask for — ‘peer reviewed’ evidence because the SS site told them what to do.


  102. PeeBee

    tones9, own goal (talking about being ignorant)…. , but re-read the challenge. Paricularly the part about ‘peer reviewed’. And when I say peered reviewed, Imean something that published in recognised scientific journal – (I have to put that rider in because you are just as likely to produce an essay written by a year nine student that has been looked at by another year nine student).

    And I won’t ask you to apologise….. not just yet anyway, I’ll give you another chance to rise to the challenge (and fail).

  103. danr

    More AGW inspired, politically correct, lunacy.

    Don’t beak that eco friendly light globe .

    It’ll poison your family.

    Put in in the garbage so it can break in the ground and contaminate the local ground water. Then it’s someone elses problem.

    Modern political ethics at work.

  104. danr

    Hi tones9,

    Just trying to understand what is going on in the climate change world and what makes people “believe ” in AGW.. It seems we all need to belong to something. I really am concerned for the people who have been drawn in because in a few years time it will be plain to all that the Co2 AGW fiasco was a giant hoax.. How are they going to feel at having been sucked in so badly?
    At the moment the wheels are falling off but the cart is still moving.

  105. tones9

    Oh Peebee you love being ignorant don’t you?
    Your partner in stupidity kdkd has a link to SS which cites a peer reviewed paper by Fawcett and Jones 2008 from our own National Climate centre.
    It says: “Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to year fluctuations.”

    Let’s see if you will apologise this time?

  106. PeeBee

    tones9: Ten years is too short to determine a trend, unless you want to prove a warming trend and can do so showing a peer-reviewed paper which proves a 10 year trend is relevant to show whether global warming exists.

    Simple test: show us one peer reviewed paper that says this.

    Come on guys stop making this stuff up.

  107. tones9

    oh and the one I like the best is –
    You can’t measure warming with temperature.

  108. tones9

    Danr I’m pleased you’re still having fun with the fools.
    SS is the bible cos it has illogical arguments, like:
    No warming since 2001 cos there wasn’t warming from 1998-2007.
    No statistically significant cooling, but no statistically significant warming either.
    Ten years is too short to determine a trend, unless you want to prove a warming trend and can do so showing a peer-reviewed paper which proves a 10 year trend is relevant to show whether global warming exists.
    The best science and data is that used by the IPCC, except when it doesn’t suit.

  109. danr

    The most important place in any warmer web page:


    to support SkS

    The Scientific Guide to….blah blah blah.”

    Have YOU donated yet to show your belief in the cause?

    The guy needs a holiday in Tahiti.

  110. kdkd

    aah the old it hasn’t warmed since 1998 argument. Yawn yawn seen it all before. Don’t get your knickers in a twist darling, it’s a ludicrous argument which requires egregious abuse of statistical theory.

    So your first argument was put together by making up stuff to replace the bits of physical chemistry that you didn’t understand with stuff you’d made up. Now you want to replace the logic of statistics with something you’ve made up.

    Looks like a pattern.

  111. danr

    13 years of global cooling while CO2 goes up.

    Isn’t that’s what’s known as a Negative Correlation .

    In pre – Climate Change Science that would indicate that a new hypothesis should be investigated; namely “that increased Carbon Dioxide reduces atmospheric Temperature”?

  112. Rohan

    @danr please don’t go anywhere.

    This is awesome.

  113. kdkd


    Yeah, he’s exploded in a fit of mad posturing. I think he needs to read this paper.

  114. danr


    Employment available; start immediately.

    Location New York.

    Employer the United Nations.

    Job Description.
    The UN IPCC is urgently looking for suitably qualified personnel to help locate the Medieval Warming Period and the Upper Atmospheric Hot Spot.
    No scientific expertise needed as this is a political appointment.

  115. danr

    Revised IPCC thermodynamics

    Heat IN = Heat Out + Explosive Feedback Energy.

  116. danr

    feedback –the magic IPCC key to Global Warming.
    Creating energy out of nothing.
    Heat IN = Heat Out

  117. PeeBee

    kdkd, I am astounded that danr cannot concede that he could be remotely wrong. It appears his science is all self taught and wrong. Then goes on to say everything should be based on science. If he were remotely right he would be a noble prize winner many times over.

    He is also divorced from reality. Even his idea that all the heat re-radiating from the earth is done so in the first 10 meters would give any thinking person pause for thought. Has he not heard of children dying of heat strokes while trapped in a car when the heat from the sun is retained in a small area.

    His last post is half boast (Hurray big corporations don’t have to worry about looking after the environment anymore) half ramble (pick any example) which makes me think you are right – he is not a bot, just a psychotic individual.

  118. kdkd

    danr #123 (PeeBee you’re right it is pretty close to what a spam bot might write).

    Wow, what a delusional and irrelevant post. You could try harder to undermine your own argument even further, but it would be really quite a challenge. Clearly since #120 confounded your expectations, and demonstrated exactly how faulty your view of the underlying scientific theory is, you have to resort to irrelevant psychotic ramblings instead.

  119. PeeBee

    danr, are you a bot? The thing that makes me think this is that no human could say what you are saying. It would have to be machine generated.

  120. danr

    In the USA the EPA is now under serious attack from Republicans with heavy budget cuts proposed. The following quote explains the scenario.

    “The cuts are aimed at restricting the EPA’s legal authority and financial capacity to act on climate change, but they would also stop the agency from regulating broader concerns such as mountaintop mining removal and coal ash.”

    If it loses its capacity to fight issues like mountaintop mining removal and coal ash it will be a paper tiger. The AGW brigade have gone too far in involving the EPA in the Climate inspired war on carbon. EPAs recent talk about CO2 and carbon has been scientifically baseless and exposed it as being ideologically driven and a tool of the Obama climate crazies. This thoughtless, short term, moment in the Climate sun, has put it in an indefensible position. It has shown itself to be a highly politicised organisation rather than a Scientifically driven one. It now faces the very likely scenario of it being unable to defend the public against the real issues that go with all industrial activity. It has lost moral authority by NOT STICKING to the SCIENCE. Climate change theory of the AGW persuasion is scientifically unproven and scientifically implausible. You cant escape the Science for ever. As I mentioned to Frank earlier, its approaching the end.

  121. PeeBee

    gregb, I’m think danr is a bot. Is there a sure fire ‘bot’ test to find out for sure?

  122. gregb

    Oh this is hilarious. I go away for a day and danr is still clueless about the physics of IR absorption. He thinks it’s magic. kdkd, you have more patience than me to deal with a dunce like danr. He is unteachable.

  123. kdkd


    [ Just how does this mechanism function. And don’t say: “it just does, someone I trust told me so it must be true”! ]

    It’s a long time since I covered this stuff at uni, so my ability to explain is rusty. However the core of the idea is that as chemical bonds have length and energy components, they will absorb light and emit light as specific wavelengths (which also has length and energy characteristics) via phenomena related to resonance.

    In the case of CO2 bond lengths and energy determine that absorbance in parts of the visible spectrum result in emitting in the infrared spectrum.The scientific understanding of this is very good and is at odds with your confabulation.

    And aside from using spectroscopy for protein and DNA work (a technological application of this theory), my ability with the broader physical chemistry of the theory is limited, as it requires substantial knowledge and expertise.

    There goes your other foot!

  124. danr

    “The greenhouse effect involves the absorbtion of energy from certain chemical bonds which is then re-irradiated as infra red.” Now this is the magic..

    Pure magic of the IPCC.

    Just how does this mechanism function. And don’t say: “it just does, someone I trust told me so it must be true”!

    Please explain this process.

  125. danr

    You cant shoot yourself in the foot with rope.

    Resonance. The absorption of UV enemy by O2 and N2. ie the greenhouse effect.

    keeping our planet warm.

  126. danr

    Cherry picking was the word.

  127. kdkd

    danr: one concept that you need to understand the greenhouse effect is the idea of resonance. Go and look it up with reference to the electromagnetic spectrum. Your irrelevant change of the subject at #114 helps confirm my comment at #112.

    You’ve just shot yourself in the foot with more than enough rope again.

  128. danr

    “absorption of energy from certain chemical bonds”

    as i said before

    OK you’ve got a mouse and computer.

    what about an education?

  129. danr

    OK guys. Practical geology 101.

    Go to Tanna in the Pacific and look into the volcano. Crazy. Molten lumps of lava blown vertical out of the seething mass of molten rock. The vent would certainly hold all yes ALL of the smoke stacks at every power station in Australia. Most amazingly, the invisible gases pushing up through the magma include CO2. Lots and lots and Lots. Darn.

    There are also many more of these world wide – not to mention those hidden under sea.

  130. danr

    “Do you agree the earth has warmed in the last 100 years? Yes or No?”.

    Sounds like someone trying to select the most appropriate data.

    You should try to get a job with a pharmaceutical company, they’re good at that.

  131. kdkd

    danr #107

    Oops, that’s a massive fail. The greenhouse effect involves the absorbtion of energy from certain chemical bonds which is then re-irradiated as infra red. O2 and N2’s bonds do not participate in this process so therefore they are not greenhouse gasses.

    Your misunderstanding is fundamental. Until you correct your opinion, anything else you have to say about the greenhouse effect has no value.

  132. kdkd

    While we’re on plimer, you can examine the errors in his book starting with Tim Lambert’s post and its links. The climate delusional camp have a choice: defend the scientifically indefensible, or fess up and admit that their approach to date has had a tangential relationship to reality.

  133. danr

    “Evolution: God put us all here on the planet”. What denial of evolution????
    Cant you take a joke?

  134. danr

    Ian is no fool,

    I agree with you, the book is a work of art and tells it like it is.

  135. danr

    This is the same Representative who apologised to BP while their well was gushing Oil into the Gulf, yeah?

    No doubt a disgusting act but.

    What has this to do with global warming theory?

  136. danr

    “But your failure at physical chemistry” What failure? You just cant understand science, can you.
    O2 and N2 remove heat from incoming solar rays and become HOT.They then bump into and transfer some of their excess energy to the CO2 which is cold when it is at high altitude. Equilibrium is attained. Magic. Because they help heat he atmosphere, O2 and N2 are “green house gases”.

  137. Bellistner

    Skipping over the rest of the danr thread…

    Representative Joe Barton (Texas)

    This is the same Representative who apologised to BP while their well was gushing Oil into the Gulf, yeah?

  138. PeeBee

    [email protected], can’t argue with you there! Not because your arguments are robust and cannot be countered, but rather they are so bizarre nothing can be said about them.

    Make it simple. Do you agree the earth has warmed in the last 100 years? Yes or No? Even your mate tones9 agrees that it has warmed in the last 100 years.

    As for using Plimer as a source. Ian is no fool, I have known him for a long time and that is why I am so disappointed when he produced his book. More so, when he defended his errors when they were pointed out to him. I knew him as a man of principal and integrity, and I don’t know what has happened to him.

  139. heavylambs

    Danr @ 92,that claim is pure bullshit,as is most of your self-indulgence here. The stuff @79 is hilarious: “AGW theory is an insult to real science” Yep,I can see that outrage reflected in the positions of the world’s national academies. What is your [email protected]?An argument from incredulity? Wow. Witter on.

  140. kdkd

    FDF #86

    [ In just FOUR DAYS, the volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its’ first spewing of volcanic ash, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of us. ]

    This is false. I wouldn’t go using Plimer as a source, it’s very clear that accuracy is the last thing on his mind in his book. He’s only interested in using falsehoods to score political points.

    danr #97

    Ooh a complex system. But your failure at physical chemistry shows that your appreciation of complexity very partial.

    #96 Funnily, I have done some statistical analysis of the publicly available climate data. A series of multiple regressions show that solar influences were dominant in the early part of the 20th century and before, but some time around the 1970s the relationship changed and solar effects were about half the strength of greenhouse gas effects. The work I did is not top quality (it makes the assumptions and uses the conventions that a behavoural scientist would use rather than a physical scientist would) but it’s way better than your horribly mangled understanding of how the greenhouse effect works. My data analysis is here.

  141. Frank Campbell


    far more of them manifest BrownBolt disease. Must be the humidity.

  142. danr

    Frank Campbell

    There are a lot of people on this site who seem to meet the criteria for DK.

  143. Frank Campbell

    “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.”

    Darwin said the same thing in eight simple words.

    1st Law of Psychology: Psychologists convert pithy truisms into verbose jargon.

    Then there’s the Bolt-Brown corollary to Darwin: Absolute certainty about uncertainty delivers tyranny.

  144. danr

    “I didn’t CLAIM to have in depth knowledge of IR spectra.”

    Definition of an Engineer.
    1. He can do something for 10 cents which any fool can do for a dollar. Also,

    2. what knowledge Engineers don’t have readily to hand can be obtained by effort and reason.


  145. danr

    “kdkd Posted March 3, 2011 at 7:48 am | Permalink The Dunning–Kruger effec”

    OK so you’ve got a computer with a search engine.

    What about an education or at least a bit of discipline in your comments.

  146. danr

    Outstanding, refreshing comment Frank D Farmer. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

    Frank D I’ve also done a second Uni degree including Psychbiology, Neuroscience, Statistics and Abnormal Psychology. The amazing thing is that Carbon Dioxide is the essential moderating gas in our bloodstream. Too little CO2 and we are in trouble. On the other hand, exposure to excess CO2 has NO deleterious effect at all. Witness US submariners exposed to ambient CO2 levels of 8,000 ppm for extended periods. No problem. On the other hand if you panic and over breathe too much you will reduce CO2 in the bloodstream below safe levels and suffer alkylosis. Trivia Time. Singing is calming because it increases the CO2 content of our blood stream. The exact opposite breathing pattern, Cheyne-Stokes Breathing, is the mechanism by which we leave this Earth permanently. To end our lives we must remove CO2 from the bloodstream and induce alkylosis. Trivia, but it shows that not only is CO2 harmless to humans but essential.

  147. danr

    It was colder back in 1860. But then , it was warmer still some hundreds of years before that. As an engineer you should know that large complex interacting systems can move for many reasons.
    What has #89 got to do with AGW?? As relevant as evolution. Just giving kdkd a bit of stick he has invited on himself.

    If you’ve done stats may be you could look at the serious correlations that show up between temperature and orbital phases of Earths passage around solar system? No such correlation is evident with CO2 as the variable is there. No effect measurable. No plausible mechanism demonstrated. Therefore AGW theory is not relevant.

    A bit of trivia. Was in New York’s Central park 3 years ago. 16,000 years ago, before the big melt, it was covered by 1,500 metres of ice. That’s about a mile deep ice field, still there about 14,000 years after the last Neanderthal perished. The Earth is a very complex system . Most of the ice from the last ice age is gone. Its melting caused ocean levels to rise 120 metres to their present levels and there were fluctuations of 2 metres as this big melt settled down. The peak, about 4,000 years ago was actually 2 m higher than today. Earth Moves. The only reason CO2 has been singled out to blame for all this is that is has an association with Trees and Fossil Fuels. Neanderthal man did not drive a car. Despite this the Earth warmed dramatically over an 8000 years period which ended about 4000 years ago. The warming has stopped.

  148. PeeBee

    danr, actually I have done both, and used both sets of knowledge in making (a very good) living.

    Are you being flippant with your comments in 89 or do you really believe that? (I hope it is the first alternative).

    So before continuing can you please tell me, do you agree the earth has been warming over the last 100 years?

  149. danr

    PeeBee if you had done some stats and geology you might see Earths temperature fluctuations in a different light.

  150. danr

    Every body needs to look at the credentials of so called “climate scientists”. The US Universities are pumping them out in their thousands. Look at the course work. No basic physics, no basic chemistry, no basic maths, no basic modeling work. Just “Climate Change 101, CC 202 and CC303. Is that a little restrictive.
    By contrast even PeeBee and I both have 2nd year physics plus engineering courses in an Australian University , not the US. We are probably equivalent to many of their PHDs.

  151. danr

    Yes PeeBee
    “How about this inconvient truth, the earth is warming,” I agree. Every morning it warms and not just 1 or 2 degrees. Some days it can go from 18 C at 6 am to 29 C by noon. Obviously caused by everybody increasing the amount of CO2 exhaled on waking.

  152. danr

    and for kdkd

    Both oxygen and nitrogen absorb in the direct solar radiation (UV) and so reduce the the returning IR absorbed by the CO2.

  153. danr

    I don’t know what the “Dunning-Kreuger” effect is but there now seems an obvious connection. Dunning-Kreuger or DK or dk or mirrored (very scientific) kd and repeat kdkd. WOW

  154. kdkd

    Frank #76

    Pointless assertion. I’ve never seen you discuss anything of scientific substance, so I’m going to discount your opinion as politicised and meaningles, although you’re not a bad as the delusional morons like danr. Speaking of which …

    danr #79:

    [Did you actually finish that degree? Your comments and lack of basic knowledge of absorption of IR blah blah blah ]

    Your explanation of IR absorbance is faulty beyond belief (especially considering how #85 exposes your partial understanding so well). Therefore the quoted comment above appears to be a perfect example of psychological projection. Mixed with a large measure of the Dunning-Kreuger effect. An inconveninent truth indeed. Oh dear.

  155. Frank D'Farmer

    Please see this link below to a short video by Piers Corbin (meteorologist and astrophysicist) who states the obvious question, “what has happened to all the weather stations?”

    Piers Corbyn Warm Weather Not Causing Cold

    Piesr Corbin has been accurrately predicting weather for years using solar and lunar forcing techniques that have a 80+ % accuracy. I have been using his forecasts and I strongly believe he knows his stuff.

  156. Frank D'Farmer

    I am a man on the land.
    I dont condone threats or acts of violence against anyone, but I have been threatened because I dont believe in man made climate change. So what is a man to do, stay quiet or defend themselves for having an opinion??? – what happened to freedom of speech and thought!!!! Climate change is NATURAL!!!!! Weather patterns constantly change!!!! Nothing in nature is Set in Concrete!!!!!
    This Green agenda (proposed Carbon Tax) will destroy this lucky country, for no gain in controlling climate change. What a load of CRAP!!!! Its all about control and the money!!!!!

    Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
    If you’ve read his book you may agree that this is a good summary.
    Are you sitting down? Okay, here’s the bombshell.
    In just FOUR DAYS, the volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its’ first spewing of volcanic ash, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of us.
    Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
    I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, holidays at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 pence light bulbs with £10.00 light bulbs …well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
    The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just FOUR DAYS by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time – EVERY DAY.
    I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
    Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well recognized 800 year global heating and cooling cycles, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
    I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years…and it happens every year.
    Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
    Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
    Just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
    But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

  157. danr

    What makes greenhouse gases special? I assume that when you use the term greenhouse gases you are talking about the atmosphere. All gases, including O2 and N2 keep energy in the atmosphere. Not just CO2. Water is the best energy trapper – check out the overlapping IR absorption spectra.

  158. PeeBee


    How about this inconvient truth, the earth is warming, but the denialists do not offer any alternative explanation. We have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 100 years, and yet they somehow discount it. I would like to know what alternative hypothesis they have for this warming, but usually only get ‘its natural’ or ‘its done it before’. However, there is never a convincing explanation of the method. danr came back with sunspot activity, but that one has been debunked…. love to hear a reasonable explanation.

  159. gregb

    What makes greenhouse gases special? Are you trying to be funny? Maybe that without them the earth would be at about -17degrees C all year round? Let’s hear your argument against that inconvenient truth.

  160. gregb

    Danr, you really are a fool. If you had read my post you would see that I didn’t CLAIM to have in depth knowledge of IR spectra. I’m not a physicist, I’m an engineer. However, I’m sure I’ve done more study of general physics than you. The other big difference between me and you is that I don’t go around claiming extra-ordinary things about subjects that I am not expert in. You don’t even know that diatomic gases don’t absorb IR but yet you claim to be able to overturn 150 years of scientific knowledge on absorption spectra. Can you say “Dunning-Krueger”?

    Another sign of your general cluelessness is that you are trying to attack the aspects of climate science that are the MOST confirmed and the LEAST deniable. This IR spectra stuff is easily measurable, and it is measured. The underlying physics is so iron-clad that you’d have to disprove the Planck equation to overturn it. When will you be lining up to receive your Nobel prize for overturning quantum mechanics theory? Not even that goggle-eyed maniac “Lord” Munchkin spouts the nonsense you’re spruiking here. Has he been duped by the global warmist conspiracy too??

    And yes, I did finish that degree, in the allotted time too.

    You said: “Evolution: God put us all here on the planet”. What denial of evolution????

  161. calyptorhynchus

    …. to turn from the denialist spambots for a moment…

    What the Representatives are quoted as saying is so far from any sane interpretation of Christianity that I can only think of two possible explanations:

    1. They are actually reflecting the beliefs of their constituents; or
    2. Their constituents don’t necessarily think like this, but the Representatives are making up pseudo-Christian arguments on the hoof and hoping so long as the sound-bytes sound like “…God…climate change…” their constituents will be happy.

    I hope it’s the latter.

  162. danr


    Oxygen and nitrogen absorb in the UV spectrum. But they do absorb and reduce energy available from the radiated IR.

    Just what do Greenhouse gases do that makes them so special and dangerous?

    “And this is why I’m not interested in your carry on about water vapour and overlapping spectra”.

    It’s obvious if you don’t understand this you have never done second year physics.

  163. danr

    Excellent comment Frank. It’s nearly over when compared with the 20 years gestation of this problem. True it will take a lot of effort but you can’t stop the weight of outraged scientists who want an end to this stupidity. AGW theory is an insult to real science and there should be a Royal Commission into it. Typical of the AGW supporters are those who insist we fall for their diversion tactics. They wont discuss the science and try things like demanding the topic be changed to evolution. Typical warmers.

  164. danr

    Did you actually finish that degree? Your comments and lack of basic knowledge of absorption of IR shows you are poorly equipped there. Seems to me there’s a good mate for you in kdkd.

    What denial of evolution. You can’t read either.

  165. gregb

    Danr, I actually had work to do. So forgive me for not engaging with you immediately. Good to see you acknowledge that you were taking “a shortcut” by not “refreshing” your knowledge on atomic absorption spectra. However, I suspect that you’re not being honest. I suspect that you have no thorough understanding of absorption spectra at all. You don’t understand what you’re talking about when you bang on about water vapour and overlapping spectra etc. You’ve been reading these “arguments” on denialist websites and now you’re trying to parrot them here to us. Some people may fall for this but you’re not convincing me. The area of physics that you’re trying to spin to suit your purposes is actually quite complex and difficult to understand. I certainly don’t understand much more than rudimentary basics. But if YOU had even the faintest clue you wouldn’t NEED a “refresher” about the atomic spectra of diatomic gases. You would KNOW that they don’t absorb infrared radiation. You would KNOW that “greenhouse gases” are molecules with more than 2 atoms. This is the elementary stuff. If you had taken the effort to understand what’s going on from a reputable source (I suggest Spencer Weart’s writing on this subject), then you would be better informed. And this is why I’m not interested in your carry on about water vapour and overlapping spectra. Your credibility is totally shot and you should stop before you embarrass yourself further. Tip: stop getting your information from WTFUWT or any other denialist websites.

    Danr, do you really think that if your understanding of how the greenhouse effect works were true that no-one else would have been able to demonstrate it? Do you really think that trained atmospheric physicists would not have realised this? Your writing here seems to indicate that you do think you’re brilliant for working it all out. Your arrogance is astounding.

    Your admission that you also deny evolution demonstrates that you are not interested in truth on any subject unless it aligns with what you already think on the matter. If you had any respect for science you would be able to answer this question. What data would YOU need to see to prove that global warming is real and caused by man? I would be interested to know the answer to that question from you.

  166. Frank Campbell

    KDKD : ” Presumably you’re talking about opportunist contrarians like Richard Lindzen, politically driven ideologues like Bob Carter and Ian Plimer here?”

    The cult has two sides, both equally tendentious. There’s nothing but ostracism and insult for scientists who want to critically test AGW- and no funding. That has to change.

    As for “Frank’s light green posturing” , many years among the rednecks made me a militant.

    Between rednecks and tossers like you, we are in the poo.

  167. kdkd

    Also I am amused about Frank’s light green posturing, and his failure to realise that all environmental problems related to industrialisation are intimately connected to each other.

  168. kdkd

    While danr is clearly just delusional, Frank’s comment shows that he doesn’t really understand science:

    [ No one knows if the science of AGW is faulty. That’s one reason we need funding for “opposition” scientists. ]

    Presumably you’re talking about opportunist contrarians like Richard Lindzen, politically driven ideologues like Bob Carter and Ian Plimer here?

  169. Frank Campbell

    @Danr: “It’s nearly over. Bankers are getting out of green investments in Europe and America. Like rats getting off a sinking ship. Money speaks louder than words and no one will risk money in green investments anymore. Look at Spain. Their alternative energy forray has bankrupted the country. The Global Warming con is exposed and all that has to happen now will be in slow motion. The politicians have to extract themselves very carefully from the big lie and will take tier time over it. The big problem for them is to disconnect all the Universities from the funding lifeline that AGW has given them. The science of AGW is faulty and in 5 years time any polly supporting it will be seen as a crackpot.”

    (i) No one knows if the science of AGW is faulty. That’s one reason we need funding for “opposition” scientists. The dominant paradigm has to be tested to destruction. A separate career structure is needed to break the Climategate clique monopoly. Should have been the first priority.
    (ii) AGW is actually a long chain of linked hypotheses. Many are speculative. Climate science is still in its infancy. If anyone says they have the answers, they’re talking through their cumulus.

    (iii) You say “money speaks louder than words” and thereby miss the point: the ghastly piratical crew of carpet-baggers only want the money: wind-spivs, solar salesmen, turbine manufacturers…but capitalism is prostitution in a suit: Big oil and coal and the local milkbar all turn into sluts if the price is right. The staggering subsidies to wind etc are entirely down to politics- the social democracies all made the same error. Now every opportunist from the Mafia to local councils are sucking at the public tit. This great rort is by no means over. You have to kill the cult first.

    (iv) Votes are to politicians as money is to capitalists. Even the Greens. Mark my words: Brown and his band of Protestant hypocrites will be swept away by new Greens if the cult souffles completely. When pollies start losing votes, Climate Armageddon will be magically postponed. Wrestling in the mud over this form of tax or that scheme concedes the argument to the cult. This is Abbott’s biggest risk: he’s fighting on Cult assumptions. These assumptions have to categorically rejected and an alternative proposed. That alternative is (a) high priority R and D of economic renewable/alternative technologies; (b) funding of anti or non-AGW science (c) any carbon abatement scheme which has multiple environmental benefits, a healthy cost/benefit analysis and which does not bugger the poor.

    It’s not nearly over. It’s hardly begun.

  170. kdkd

    Aah yes, it’s all the fault of those greenies. Nothing to do with the subprime mortgage debacle that brought the world to the brink of 1930s style depression. Good call, no need to evaluate the actual evidence, just use political ideology and preconceptions instead, that’s a much better approach.

  171. danr

    It’s nearly over. Bankers are getting out of green investments in Europe and America. Like rats getting off a sinking ship. Money speaks louder than words and no one will risk money in green investments anymore. Look at Spain. Their alternative energy forray has bankrupted the country. The Global Warming con is exposed and all that has to happen now will be in slow motion. The politicians have to extract themselves very carefully from the big lie and will take tier time over it. The big problem for them is to disconnect all the Universities from the funding lifeline that AGW has given them. The science of AGW is faulty and in 5 years time any polly supporting it will be seen as a crackpot.

  172. kdkd


    No reference for that source = fail. It looks like a variant of the failed argument that the CO2 component of the greenhouse effect is weak.

    Please continue with your delusional incoherent gibbering though, it’s quite entertaining in a sick kind of a way.

  173. Frank Campbell

    @Peebee: “Frank, stop coming here, you are doing yourself damage.”

    it’s ok. I always wear rubber gloves.

  174. danr

    This is someone elses work:

    “How far does infrared radiation travel in the atmosphere before being absorbed? This is easy to calculate. From the extinction coefficient in Ref.[10], at the Earth’s surface, 380 ppm CO2 will absorb half of the incident radiation within 133 cm (4.35 feet) and 99% of the radiation within 531 cm (17.4 feet). This is for infrared radiation at 4.2 microns. At other wavelengths, the extinction coefficient and the distance traveled will be different. (Note added 1/01/2011)

    It is true that if you add more CO2 you will absorb a very small additional amount of IR energy. Law of diminishing returns applies here.

  175. danr

    So where is gregb. Checking the absorption spectrum for water??

    This is a discussion on the science of AGW not evolution. I can see the point though. Anyone who “believes” in AGW could be led to “believe” that the Earth was made 4011 years ago at 1pm.

    Yes Folks we may be on to something here. We may be about to discover a previously unknown “greenhouse Gas” named WATER.

    Let’s ban water otherwise we may all be incinerated.

  176. danr

    I wasn’t aware you had given me any information on Evolution. What info?

  177. danr

    You’ve heard some science Good. The high energy UV gets through the atmosphere relatively easily. If it hits us we get sunburn. If it hits the ground it is absorbed into the earth as heat. The earth then radiates energy in a lower frequency spectrum (IR) in all directions including up to waiting gases. There is an energy balance. Energy in Incident UV from sun = Energy left in ground (residual warmth) + Radiant Energy (IR). Where surface is shiny or light colour more energy is reflected back. Where surface is rough or black more energy is left in ground.

  178. PeeBee

    Frank, stop coming here, you are doing yourself damage.

  179. PeeBee

    danr your comment @26 Solar high frequency UV hits ground (Earth) – energy is lost had me thinking.

    Isn’t that against one of the laws of thermodynamics. – energy cannot be created or destroyed?

  180. danr

    OK gregb

    I have to acknowledge that you understand more than the average poster here. When you deal with posts like those from kdkd and others you start to figure why bother. I was taking a short cut by not refreshing myself on the absorption spectra of N2 and O2. However if you want to play that game why don’t we talk about the absorption spectra for water. Perhaps it becomes an inconvenient truth that water competes with something else for the same band width?? Right but we are only talking about CO2 here, aren’t we? Something for you to consider: where do N2 and O2 get their energy from? Yes you guessed it; collisions with excited CO2 molecules.

    CO2 has no discernible effect on atmospheric temperature that can be attributed to combustion of fossil fuels.

  181. gregb

    Witness danr trying to cover up the fact that he didn’t know that O2 and N2 do not “absorb” infrared radiation. He was actually talking about the heat capacity of gases as “absorbing” energy. Riiiiight. Totally and utterly clueless. And greenhouse gas is a term to confuse politicians? From what I can see it’s a term used to confuse danr. It’s utterly impossible to engage in “science” with you because the complete mess of ideas that you’ve presented about CO2 above is impenetrable.

    But I guess I’m just being a rude, educated “leet” that went to university and studied engineering which included three years of chemistry, two years of physics and three years of mathematics.

    Thanks for your answer re evolution. It does complete the picture. You’re an ideologue who couldn’t give a jot about any evidence you’re presented with. You believe what you believe. I just wish that you didn’t feel the need to foist your ignorance on innocent people.

  182. danr

    The term “green house gas” is a term used to confuse politicians and cannon fodder for the greenie movements. Is a greenhouse gas supposed to be hovering over us in a band. High in the sky, quietly absorbing energy until it can’t hold anymore. What happens then? Does it explode and incinerate us all? All gases are miscible.

  183. danr

    This may come as an enormous shock to you but: All gases absorb energy, otherwise they couldn’t expand. Water vapour absorbs as well.

    I’m here to discuss the faulty theory of CO2 and AGW but since you insist.
    Evolution: God put us all here on this planet.
    If you think about that answer perhaps it’s the answer you deserve.

  184. danr

    Forgot to mention in #55 that IR continues up into the atmosphere without the energy it originally had in the CO2 absorption bands.

  185. gregb

    Nice try, danr. Care to engage with the substance of my post? “To get more energy out of the IR you need something else besides CO2. Try water vapour, nitrogen(!), oxygen(!), SO2….”. Danr thinks that oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases and yet encourages others here to “go to university”. It would be comical if it weren’t so sad.

    And btw, what DO you think about the theory of evolution?

  186. danr

    Hi greg

    “the picture that I have of you in my mind”.

    I’m not sure that having me in your mind is good thing. Why don’t we just stick to the science.

  187. danr

    Hi NicM
    You are right. The Effect is not constrained to the first 10 m of atmosphere. Obviously the heated CO2 rises and mixes until it reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere. The point about 10 metres is that IR emitted from ground (initially heated by solar UV) is absorbed by a column of CO2 of 10m length. The heated CO2 is replaced by colder CO2 through convection.

  188. danr


    Never say you don’t have a choice. You do. Go to University and study some basic physics and chemistry. Then you might understand that when CO2 in the first 10 m of air picks up energy from IR ground emissions it does something funny. It rises.

  189. gregb

    As if we needed any more evidence that danr doesn’t have the foggiest idea what he is talking about, comment #49 comes along. “To get more energy out of the IR you need something else besides CO2. Try water vapour, nitrogen(!), oxygen(!), SO2….”. Wow! I wonder if Arrhenius would have agreed that nitrogen and oxygen could absorb infrared radiation. I think that for the rest of this thread every time danr makes a comment, start a reply by quoting that sentence. Maybe if he reads it often enough he’ll make an effort to go and understand the basics.

    Danr, please tell us what you think of the theory of evolution. I’d be keen to complete the picture that I have of you in my mind.

  190. kdkd


    Generally working for a university institute is an indicator of expertise (for staff) and developing expertise (for students). Claiming corruption like this in the university system is to belittle much of the innovation that’s occurred since The Enlightenment. More black is white orwellian speak from the climate delusional camp.

  191. kdkd

    danr #49

    It appears that you don’t understand:

    a. The concepts of forcing and feedback.
    b. The concept of atmospheric circulation.

    This “in the first 10m above ground” stuff appears to be total insanity by the way. Please show where you got this from.

    I’m a bit concerned how this set of comment threads are getting taken over by the lunatic fringe like danr and tones9 here. I have a choice, either ignore them and watch them die of starvation from the oxygen of publicity, or b. assume that they are undead zombies that will keep coming back.

  192. danr

    Surprise, surprise. the author of this article works for a University (publicly funded) Climate Change Institute. Is that a Scientific conflict of interest perhaps?

  193. danr


    If you don’t understand it how can you possibly make any comment at all. here’s a clue. Solar high frequency UV hits ground (Earth) – energy is lost and remaining low frequency radiation emitted by ground (Earth) as IR – CO2 “resonates” with emitted Ir and drains it of all energy in CO2 spectrum in first 10 m above ground. Other frequencies keep going up into God’s care. To get more energy out of the IR you need something else besides CO2. Try water vapour, nitrogen, oxygen, SO2, CH4 and so on. More CO2 cant do it. You can’t wring blood out of a stone. Maybe you can see the analogy , maybe you don’t want to. It is frightening to try to adjust to the fact that politicians and wealthy greenie executives have led you up the garden path. have a go anyhow.

  194. danr

    Hi PeeBee

    Are you sure that the sun’s output has been constant. Check out sun spot variations.
    This isn’t important though. The main thing is that CO2 didn’t do it since it’s CO2 we are debating. The Earth is a very large system and there are many forces at work which have large fluctuations in effect. The rise from 1860 was preceded by a similar drop from a warmer, earlier period. According to the IPCC this sudden temperature drop before 1860 would have been caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. There was no drop in CO2.

  195. Rohan

    Frank, it’s obviously highly therapeutic for you to punch out your Frank assessments of what things are really, really, truly all about.

    Why not write a book? That way you can unleash with all your favourite metaphors and inimitable style of adjectives every second word, till you finally get your fix.

    I promise I’ll buy it.

  196. kdkd


    [ legless under the scientific scrutiny of the basic UV – IR – CO2 interaction ]

    Repeating a false assertion does not make it true. Just thought you’d better know.

  197. kdkd

    Frank: I think you’re just annoyed because it’s not your intellectual sewer.

    p.s. it’s not my problem that you fail to perceive that environmental problems are all connected to each other. Meanwhile the time to be polite is long gone.

  198. Frank Campbell

    This really is an intellectual slum. Semi-literate, repetitive technobabble laced with thoughtful observations such as these:

    ” Not that you’re interested really, you’re just trying to score points with a combination of lies, misunderstandings and personal attacks.”

    “…we are powerless over the delusional, vaccuous retardeness of “internet science…”

  199. PeeBee

    danr, don’t listen to tones9. He is a misleader. He has been told many times that statements he has made are false and why they are false. He cannot defend his statements but rather repeats them over and over again to a new audience. He must know he is trying to mislead people, so I wonder why he persists.

    A little like the Monkton fellow but at least in his situation it is understandable, he is being paid to do it.

  200. PeeBee

    danr, still waiting for an answer to my question @27. You attempted an answer @36 but it didn’t address the question.

    So to repeat my question: Why has the earth heated up in the last 100 years when the out put from the sun has been constant? According to you, it cannot be due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere because it has absorbed as much heat as it can. So why is the earth heating up?

  201. danr

    tones9 that set of comments was the same as this lot. No science just personal abuse. The sad thing is they are doing the work of defending the “theory of AGW” and not even being paid for it. Look at the guy operating out of UNSW. Just before the Copenhagen Climate Change Cancellation Conference , he came out on cue to promote it for Kev the Sequestrator before he took off. His resume showed multi million dollar grants to push AGW while real scientists beg for funding. What really set me off though is the main article above – full of beautiful diagrams and pseudo scientific posturing which all stands legless under the scientific scrutiny of the basic UV – IR – CO2 interaction. More CO2 will change nothing in the atmosphere as far as temperature goes. Giant moneymaking hoax.

  202. kdkd

    Yes, we are powerless over the delusional, vaccuous retardeness of “internet science” apparently. It doesn’t bode well.

  203. NicM

    C02 and the other greenhouse gases not only absorb energy but they re-radiate it as well, and in all directions. Some of it heads back towards the earth and heats the land and oceans. Some of it escapes into space and is measured by satellites. The decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (as a cosequence of incresing greenhouse gases) has been measured by these satellites. See

    I don’t think that would be possible if, as you say, all the C02 effect was constrained to 10m above the surface.

  204. tones9

    I’m surprised this thread is still going, but I’m not surprised no one has been able to defend Glikson for such a vacuous article, or provide any supporting data.

    danr if you want to see the intellectual powers of kdkd and peebee, enjoy this laugh

  205. kdkd


    I’m not responsible for your lack of understanding of the physical chemistry of the greenhouse effect. I also lack the professional expertise to explain it to you (although my grasp of the theory was reasonable enough to pass exams, and use lab techniques that rely on the same theory of chemical bonds at a couple of points in my life). A first year uni chemistry text book will explain the basic scientific theory underlying the greenhouse effect for you though. Not that you’re interested really, you’re just trying to score points with a combination of lies, misunderstandings and personal attacks.

  206. danr

    Hi PeeBee,

    The Earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years or so but the rate of warming has slowed in the last 4,000 years to almost flat line. There are still minor fluctuations that are not abnormal. The most recent surge started in about 1860 when my great grandfather came here from Wales.

  207. danr

    Wikipedia is quoted. Is that anything like the ABC?

  208. danr


    Have you ever noticed that as you get further away from a hot object the heat becomes less intense? Do you know the difference between UV and IR?

  209. kdkd

    [ Cliche after cliche after cliche ]

    Nope, I just asked for reputable scientific evidence. Instead you fulfilled my prediction in post #21 and moved to personal attack because if you’re honest with yourself, you know that your position has no substance.

    My work here is done.

  210. danr


    Cliche after cliche after cliche. You obviously have no clue about atmospheric physics. Too bad you’ll just have to trust an expert or in your case someone posing as an expert.

    NO SCIENCE at all.

  211. danr


    this has nothing to do with God. It’s about the science.

  212. Frank Campbell

    Another day, another eruption of gas in this sterile, phony “debate”. This time it’s the Gliksonian zealots vs their god-soaked gringo opposites. The unspeakable in pursuit of the unbearable.

  213. kdkd

    I’m becoming more convinced that danr is one of the climate sceptic astroturf brigade – part blog spam comment bot, part ideologically blind human being.

  214. kdkd


    [ As it passes through the air it manages to lose energy to CO2 until all the energy in the CO2 spectrum is absorbed. At about 10metres above ground this process is all done. All the CO2 in the air above this 10 metre boundary layer is not involved and represents spare capacity to absorb any increase in energy available from increased solar activity. ]

    Wow, what an absurd made up set of assertions. It’s an excellent case study in how climate delusionists spout superficially plausible sounding [1] made up crap that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. What’s the mechanism that light is converted to IR radiation (i.e. heat)? It’s not the theory of chemical bonds is it? Well that’s in agreement with the scientific consensus. It’s a shame that the rest of your made up crap is just that.

    You appear to be describing is the theory[2] of greenhouse gasses with some kind of added theory that the light or the molecules are self-aware such that they know if they’re traveling from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere, rather than from the top to the bottom? And maybe that laws of diffusion, and stuff to do with the weather (like wind caused by pressure gradients) are also non operational? It’s difficult to tell. Do you have any credible[3] sceintific references?

    [1] Plausible sounding for people who weren’t paying attention in high school science lessons that is
    [2] Theory has some specific meanings in science that are distinct to its meaning in conversational usage. See this entry in Wikipedia’s list of common misconceptions
    [3] I’ll accept material from a text book from a reasonable academic or school text book publisher, or failing that something from the quality scientific literature.

  215. PeeBee

    danr, if that was the case as you describe, how do you explain why the earth is warming and has been doing so for the last 100 years, yet the sun’s output has been constant over this time?

    Peter Phelps, how can make the leap that the earth was warmer in the past when you look at specific places like Rome?

  216. Peter Phelps

    How ironic that this article uses the title that it does, given the repeated attempts by AGW disciples to eliminate the Medieval Warming (and the Roman Warming for that matter) from the Earth’s cliamte history.

  217. danr

    Not sure what’s happening here but! Yes “AGW theory is “a hoax of gigantic proportions” simply because nothing of it is “repeatable and testable”. It seems that the only ones who proved it exists are the IPCC Elite who are going to keep their deliberations secret from the rest of us poor unscientific dummies. If I can’t take the IPCC method and redo the experiment to my own satisfaction, it is not science. Rohan that is just the problem. You believe. Scientists work things out, one step at a time so that there is no uncertainty.

  218. Rohan


    How can this be the case given you just revealed to us that AGW theory is “a hoax of gigantic proportions”. That’s calculated, not coincidental.

    I’m confused now. I don’t know what to believe.

  219. danr

    Arrhenius’ was a man ahead of his time. A great scientist. It’s unfortunate that people living now have even less understanding of science than he had. If Arrhenius was alive today he would immediately see the fault in AGW theory. There is no evidence for AGW. There is no measurement and no postulated mechanism that can be shown. Where is the science. All there is is personal abuse and censorship of real science.

  220. danr

    The science doesn’t need any support apart from being repeatable and testable. Coincidentally these are not properties exhibited by the theory of AGW.
    The incident solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface in the UV spectrum is re-radiated as IR into the atmosphere. As it passes through the air it manages to lose energy to CO2 until all the energy in the CO2 spectrum is absorbed. At about 10metres above ground this process is all done. All the CO2 in the air above this 10 metre boundary layer is not involved and represents spare capacity to absorb any increase in energy available from increased solar activity.
    It’s funny that Carbon Dioxide is getting such a bad rap when it is the staff of life for plants and humans alike. Tones9 opinion is not needed to confirm the science.

  221. kdkd

    danr (are you an astroturf lobby bot?)

    Hal Lewis eh? Who’s resignation letter from the American Physical Society contained crackpot rubbish about global warming conspiracy for funding? Who’s now a part of the anti-science think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a well funded organisation with a political agenda with secret donors? Yes, very credible. We must revise 200+years of scientific theories based on this.

    I’m also interested to see your assertion about the lack of scientific understanding of the action of CO2 in the atmosphere defended properly. The long-discredited “CO2 is a trace gas and is plant food” delusional argument will not be an acceptable answer, as it fails to account for the complex interactions within the system it operates in. You’d do well to start by reviewing Arrhenius’ initial findings and how they’ve become better understood over the past couple of hundred years, and show us how that leads to the opposite conclusion of the scientific consensus.

    Can’t do that? Try personal attacks or changing the subject instead.

  222. Rohan


    the fact that tones9 has not leapt to thank you for supporting him should tell you something.

    As you were.

  223. danr

    Hi PeeBee.
    It seems that there is at least one scientist at heart in this group. Thanks for asking. I noticed in an earlier post you commented on another blogger who referred to trends. The fact that these long and short term trends are being brought up is good in that it shows that people are trying to find answers. You can find answers in the geologic temperature – CO2 estimates but as you illustrated it is a murky area. Very briefly the whole issue hinges on one very simple fact concerning the interrelationship of CO2 and the solar energy which is re-radiated from Earths surface. The mechanism by which CO2 is heated by radiant energy is well established science. The problem for the AGW theory is that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 500 times more energy in its energy spectrum than is currently the case. This concept can be hard to grasp but it means that if we add more solar energy to the mix ie. the sun becomes more active, then the Earth will heat up because the CO2 has the capacity to trap the resultant re-radiation. On the other side of the balance if we increase the amount of CO2 available and hold solar energy constant then there will be no temperature change. The sun is the only real variable unless there was so little CO2 in the atmosphere that some of the energy in the CO2 absorption spectrum was going untouched.

  224. danr

    Since the Truth in Science problem has been raised by kdkd maybe there should be comment. Calling people like Hal Lewis an “anti-science ideologue” leaves a gaping credibility gap. Rubbishing the views of distinguished scientists to help maintain the myth of Anthropometric Global Warming by CO2 is not good in the long run. It simply makes people wonder why the Science behind AGW is never discussed by those attacking scientists who point to errors in the theory. It’s a sad day when people can take money from tax payers for promoting weird science like AGW theory. There is a simple and undeniable fault in the CO2 – AGW theory which proves that this is about politics and not science.

  225. PeeBee

    Ok danr, I’ll take the bait re: I could give you a demonstration by posting a scientifically irrefutable demolition of the Carbon Dioxide causes heating assertion and I’m sure it would be attacked by everyone on this site despite its scientific accuracy

    Let’s hear it. There could be a noble prize in it for you.

  226. kdkd

    Wow, the delusional fossil fuels always and forever astro turf brigade have come out in force. Just because you can make an assertion that climate science is a grab bag of irrelevant rubbish designed purely for feathering the nest with research grants doesn’t make the assertion true. However it does show that a reasoned discussion with these anti-science ideologues is not possible, and that their delusional nonsense should be treated with the contempt and derision that it deserves.

  227. danr

    The pro warmer bloggers always follow the same pattern. There is the same old philosophy of science which tries very hard to impress by pasting up some interesting basic science which is tangentially related to the main argument. At the end of the piece there is the cry “so therefore Carbon Dioxide did it”. Looking back through the text it is never possible to find the scientific step which links the theory to the practical situation of climate change. The IPCC doesn’t have the missing link either. It’s a hoax of gigantic proportions.

  228. danr

    Tones 9 The phrase “a new kind of science, free of data,” applies to the AGW theorists who still cannot point to any real science to confirm their claims about the dangers of CO2.

  229. danr

    tones9. You are wasting you time here. Science has no place in the Climate Change world of Al Gores followers. Nothing you do or say will change the way believers feel about this subject. I could give you a demonstration by posting a scientifically irrefutable demolition of the Carbon Dioxide causes heating assertion and I’m sure it would be attacked by everyone on this site despite its scientific accuracy. But why bother. It is too late for them to admit they have all been conned.

  230. LisaCrago

    ps I seriously hope that Shimkus was reminded by his god bothering Reps about a little thing called the Great Flood and a guy called Noah and his boat…animals 2 x 2 etc…. Seems God does do Flood.

  231. LisaCrago

    Well, all the AGW theorists are very busy telling us all that “the science is in…it is true….we already know…the globe is warming” so why fund this expensive scientific talkfest?
    this IS a rhetorical question.

  232. PeeBee


    no use explaining anything to Tones9. He is happy to keep misleading people with ‘trends’ over a very short time frame trends to support his arguments. He does this repeatedly even when poeple point out that the data over such a short time period is not significant.

    The only person he seems to have convinced he is onto something is himself.

  233. tones9

    Oh heavylambs, even you should see the hypocrisy of a scientist critical about “a new kind of science, free of data,” who provides no relevant data, cites non-scientific reports, and links to websites which don’t provide the evidence he claims they do.

    Your advice to do the research myself is wise, as Glikson provides little evidence to support his claims.

    I shall have to repeat here:
    IPCC uses Hadcrut.
    IPCC projections are from 2001.
    Our National Climate centre does study 10 year linear trends, and writes papers which make conclusions about global warming, “I’m surprised you’ve not come across them:”
    “Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to year fluctuations.”

  234. heavylambs

    Tones9, heard of the ‘IPCC”? It’s an obscure panel that has published referenced synthesis reports/meta-analysis for several decades. If Dr G cites them,it’s because they provide information that is ‘rich with data’.

    Global temperature did not cool last decade. NASA GISS.and the two satellite based records show warming. Hadley barely dropped. Run it from 2000,and all four metrics are in agreement on a rising trend. Who gives a stuff anyway? You’re looking at too short a period given what we know about decadal variability. So very,very many papers have discussed natural variability within the trend of CO2 forced climate change,I’m surprised you’ve not come across them.

    Given the IPCC’s AR4 has been available for almost four years,Dr G probably assumes you know where to find it,and in which chapter [10] you will find discussion of extreme event outlooks.

    Given that Munich RE’s annual Topics GEO reports are available online,you should know how to find them and use their references.

    Then perhaps you can stop exemplifying the ‘free of data’ paradigm that Dr G identifies.

  235. tones9

    quantize…of no intellect to contribute

  236. quantize

    tones9…resident denialist

  237. tones9

    Dr Glikson claims “A new kind of science is being invented, free of data”, yet provides no evidence for his many alarming claims.

    He writes “How consistent is Noam Chomsky’s prediction (of a death knell for the species) with climate science projections? With rising global and in particular polar temperatures:”
    Polar temperature projections are not mentioned.
    Global temperature predictions and data are not mentioned.
    Maybe that’s because global temp cooled last decade when IPCC projected 0.2C warming.
    Glikson’s science is ‘free of data’.

    Which scientific paper is cited for “acceleration of extreme weather events”?
    An insurance company report. A new kind of Glikson science is being invented.

    The link for “predicted by the IPCC” is to an article by Glikson himself, on a poltical opinion website. It contains no IPCC predictions. Zero. Another Glikson claim free of data.

    “are increasingly expressed by a series of extreme weather events – cyclones, floods, snow storms, heat waves.” That link is to an article which states “A cursory reading of the popular press (in the UK at least) would suggest that various elements of the Earth system have already passed a tipping point.” A new kind of Glikson science is being invented.
    Cyclones, floods, snow storms and heat waves are never mentioned in the entire article. Another Glikson claim free of data.

    No wonder there is a war on climate science.

  238. Peter Smith

    Interesting that they prefer the age of the dinosaurs. Seems appropriate, somehow.

  239. Rohan

    The sentence “A new kind of science is being invented, free of data and unrelated to the basic laws of physics and chemistry” says it all.

    AGW sceptics are closer to New Age fruit loops than biological twins are to each other.

  240. gregb

    Oh and a clever title, too.

  241. gregb

    A good article Dr Glikson. Unfortunately, those of us in the reality based universe can’t begin to imagine what goes through the minds of the (mainly) conservative troglodytes such as those that inhabit the US Congress at present. Australia has a good helping of these selfsame fools who mainly populate the party rooms of the Liberal and National parties. Of course you make a strong argument, but these people are not interested in argument but I know for a fact that no argument will change the minds of these morons. But thanks for the effort anyway.

    PS Xtian fundies talk about the “rapture” not the “rupture”. I know, tomayto/tomahto both make as much sense.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details