Snouts in the trough, that's all, just a bunch of snouts in the trough.

Follow the money!

Strange how scientists complain about lack of resources yet can afford to fly and stay in Bali.

Global Warming = New World Control

If I recall the other great problems of my young life.

Mercury in Fish
Breast Implants
DDT

On a micro / macro level, somethings are just plain bad for you, but anytime a crisis is whipped up, I wonder who is truely to gain and loose from such a crisis.

If I were a drought stricken farmer I should be looking to spending the air fare to Bali on a borehole for some water.
10,000 hypocrites in one town must be a record! Still the "ladies" of Bali shouldn't have much trouble making their 25% increase in prices stick for the duration of the conference.
I shall certainly be amused when that motley crew recommend that I should take next year's holiday at home instead of the USA.

These 215 scientists with their petition remind me of that bunch of economists who wrote to the press foretelling the demise of the UK economy just at the start of the longest period of sustained prosperity in UK history.
215 out of 2500 world class contributors to the IPCC ie 8% obviously represents the loony fringe.

More to the point, how many would have turned up if it had been in Skegness ?

We need another bandwagon this one has run its course.

We had the Cold War and Communism, then the Berlin Wall came down.

We had Aids, but that was what happened to 'naughty' people who have sex, and we got condoms and Retrovir.

Now we have Global Warming, which we can all jump on and pretend we are doing good, while African dictatorships continue to line their pockets and buy guns. We can save all those poor starving children by not using plastic bags, and leave the corrupt government officials to sell us cheap coffee.

You would think there was no such thing as video conferencing.

The Nobel prizewinners have detailed the problem and causes. What now are their practical solutions? The philosophies of Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations), Abraham Maslo (Hierarchy of Human Needs), Dennis Norris (The Naked Ape) and Milton Friedman - Nobel Laureate in Economics, are flourishing in spite of all the world's religions. Change them and you might get somewhere. Meantime we still have Christmas Parades, Lighted Truck Parades, Sailboat Parades, Runs for Cures (Excess CO2 from runners). How many prizewinners heat domestically with CO2 neutral wood?

#7 You have missed out the millennium bug the biggest non-event of them all that made millions for the doomsters brigade

10,000 Cretins is probably conservative, however a word or two for advice to them is to make sure everybody knows they need a flak jacket. Lots of smiling bombers in that neck of the woods..WE KNOW!

I take it 1-11,think that global warming is a bit of a joke,I hope your right,because nobody else is going to fix it for us..

Good. The importance of the damage caused to this planet is now being taken seriously.

So seriously that the press are starting to castgate those who hold the levers of power , and can inform and influence the decisions that have to be taken to provide alternatives.

This is a much more useful carbon expense than the thousands of footbal fans who cross and recross Europe following their teams, the Hundreds of cricket fans who tour the globe in the wake of the cricket "circus", or the hundreds of thousands who will be travelling to the Olympics next year.

Perhaps those who criticise this conference in Bali are planning t travel by bicycle to stay in their local hotel on holiday next year. ?

If we all did this .. now ...that really would make a huge difference to global climate. It would also bankrupt airports, aircraft operators and holiday resorts worldwide.
It is to find a way to adjust human behaviour in a way acceptable to a huge diversity of interests , that this global conference in Bali is convened. There is no other way to do this.

I find it laughable the UN’s climate change conference which is to take place on the paradise island of Bali has itself become a major contributor to global warming. Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners (laughable) and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is supposed to be similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

Chris Goodall, a carbon emissions expert who did the calculations, estimated that each person flying to Bali would, on average, generate the equivalent of 6.48 tonnes of CO2. If 15,000 people attend, this adds up to over 97,000 tonnes of CO2. To this must be added about 13,000 tonnes of CO2 from the conference venue and hotels — a total of 110,000 tonnes.

In this age of modern technology i.e. video conferencing, did they all feel that they all had to attend for Al Gore along with his cronnies to sit there saying “flying don’t do it, it is harming the environment!”

It reminds me of Heathrow earlier this year! The 2,000 campaigners/tree huggers, supposed to be there protesting about climate change and the prospect of another Terminal arriving in various modes of transport from all around the UK and other parts of Europe! This on top of the worlds media, by the van load not to mention 1,800 police officers from four other forces in the UK in various vehicles which shows what a farce it is.

I also found it quite ironic that tree hugging/vegan, space cadet Heather Mills suggests what would should do to save the planet by telling us we should be drinking rats, cats or dog milk and what does she turn up in but a 4 x 4!

My tip to tree huggers, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

Comments 1-12: If the ignorance, stupidity and cynicism that you display so egregiously holds sway then we really are in for a catastrophic future.

Fortunately, more and more people, particularly and most importantly decision makers, have taken the trouble to look at the evidence, see that it is overwhelming and know that we have to act.

No doubt people like you will continue in your negativity (Rules - I'm surprised at your comment: I thought you had more understanding) and will complain when your views are vilified. Meanwhile the rest of us have to get on with making the necessary and urgent changes to make the best we can of the future.

#14 Upbeat

You are clearly suffering from some delusional disorder. Get help now. Apparently, if the illness is caught early enough there is every chance of a cure!

#16 Slioch.

Most, if not all scientists avoid the use of words like "catastrophic". People who use such words are doing it for political reasons or because they have a vested interest in scaring people. You are wrong when you say that the evidence for GW is overwhelming. The Hockey Stick is broken and there is plenty of evidence to show that it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the data which was quickly latched onto by that eco-warrier Al Gore. Instead of posting emotive diatribes on this board, give us some real evidence that what you believe has a real basis in science.

........and let no one forget that while we in Scotland tear up our peat bogs and heather moors to build windfarms in some misguided attempt to do our bit to save the planet,...........after China and the USA , .......... Indonesia is already the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet.

#14 and #16 - you have missed the point. Posters are pointing out the hypocrisy of the junketeers.

Answer the question #6 poses.

17 connaughtboy

I suppose you imagine that you are being amusing.

Many us deal with reality as we find it. The evidence for climate change and the anticipated consequences, if nothing is done to moderate behaviour, has been set out time and again for you here. Many links to the scientific papers that contain the reasoning behind the theories, have been given for those who wish to understand. .

Do stick with your conspiracy theories about every aspect of human existance that you do not wish to understand , if that makes you happy.

Oh ..and while you are at it ....please explain what long distance travel to an " away" football game achieves for the sum total of human progress. IDo you consider long distance travel by spectators to football games and other sporting events more or less useful, than a global conference about moderating human behaviour.?

Global Warming is a NATURAL phenomenon caused primarily by the SUN's raditation. Human greenhouse emissions while having an effect are insignificant by comparision to the effect of the sun's radiation. I assume all the self-serving activists gathering in Bali will find a solution to how to reduce the Sun's radiation... and then go for a dip in the sea before climbing back on their jets to return to their respective countries in search of additional government grants... what a sham!

Are this mob of pigs, with their snouts well and truly in the trough, going to discuss why the climate on Mars is heating up at the same rate as the climate on earth?

Maybe someone should tell them what that big, bright, shiny thing is, up in the sky.

11 & 20 Margaret L.

You have made many strange remarks that have been challenged over past weeks on these boards. But never return to address the points made.

Your off beam comment about the millenium bug is somehow typical. Had the bug had the effect that was anticipated, it would have been catastophy. that the work was done to anticipate this, and sufficient measures were put in place to mitigate the supposed effects shows the advantage of forethought and planning. This "forewarned is forearmed" analogy follows straight through to the Bali conference.

Now you ask if I will think about Skegness. You have read somewhere that Bali is a tourist resort. It is much more than this. This is not about attractive venues.

Bali happens to have the facilities..hotels and conference buildings, and it is adjacent to the area of the globe that is now developing most rapidly. Bali is in the developing world, not the developed, and is just a short plane ride from many other developing countries. Arguably, no region on earth is more directly affected by these issues than SE Asia and the Western Pacific nations.
Indonesia as a powerful economy in the region. It is within these Asian economies that the biggest impact on potential increases in the causes, that are linked with climate change, can be addressed.

18. connaughtboy

The word "catastrophe" refers to an "overturning" - a change to different and undesirable situation. In the context of climate change, that can be understood to refer, for example, to the onset of sufficiently strong positive feedbacks (such as the release of methane and carbon dioxide from warming Siberian bogs, or release of methane from sub-sea clathrates) such that increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere become outwith human control, so that nothing we could subsequently do (save possibly some engineering solution) would be effective in reducing them.

That possibility is very much under discussion by scientists and even the staid IPCC reports occasionally make use of the word "catastrophe". If we continue with "business as usual" then such a future becomes ever more likely.

As for the "hockey stick" - before I answer your present statement, tell me: what do you consider to be the meaning and significance of your statement "the Hockey Stick is broken"?

16. Slioch
Ouch heavy criticism there!!
I stand my comments that 10,000 + heading for Bali
is pure idiocy. What are they going to do there ? wave flags, chant the end is nigh?
Any rational person knows anything that can be done to reduce greenhouse emissions is a must. Climate change has been going on as long as earth has been spinning but I stay my position there is too much illogical spruiking going on.

Through all the hype about global warming, there has been a constant claim by non-believers that it's the Sun wot done it. Now yet another scientific study says the same thing. http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3223603.ece
"Between 1645 and 1715 sunspots were rare. It was also a time when the Earth's northern hemisphere chilled dramatically.

Scientists call that event the "Little Ice Age" and it affected Europe badly. In response to the more benign climate of the earlier Medieval Warm Period, Europe's population may have doubled. But in the mid-17th century this all stopped, in part due to the reduced crop yields caused by climate change.

By the end of the 20th century the Sun's activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years, but in only the past decade or so the Sun has started a decline in activity,

The past decade has been warmer than previous ones as a result of a rapid increase in global temperature between 1978 and 1998, but since then average temperatures have held steady. Computer climate predictions say that global temperatures will rise again in a few years, but they don't take into account the change in the Sun's behaviour.

Some Russian scientists estimate that this may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020, larger than most sensible predictions of man-made global warming over this period."

Shouldn't governments now encourage people to increase their carbon footprints forthwith?

Will the 15,000 UN delegates in Bali, (Al Gore's there, it's nice at this time of year), agree to drop the taxes on fuel and electricity so we can afford to keep warm?

22 n/

Been to China have you ? Good for you.

It is very unwise to come here to question the life experience of people you meet on these boards. . You will almost always get it wrong.

With the stamps of over 45 countries, worldwide, in my passport , (and counting ), you may care to reflect, on your error of judgement. For, in the last 3 decades I have worked in many of these nations too.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/more-on-the-med.html

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/hey-the-medieva.html

29. "With the stamps of over 45 countries, worldwide, in my passport , (and counting ), you may care to reflect, on your error of judgement. For, in the last 3 decades I have worked in many of these nations too."
Don't do as I do, do as I say.

25# my apologies if I've not come back to you in the past but I have a life to get on with.

You obviously haven't read the article this thread is based on. To save you the bother - "Two massive climate conferences have been held in less than a month, at Valencia in Spain, and now in Bali. They were preceded by scores of smaller gatherings, including Bangkok, Paris, Vienna, Washington, New York, Sydney and Rio de Janeiro."
No mention of Skegness there or even one non-attractive city.

And my strange remarks? Here's another one - according to Feynman the definition of science is that it is "concerted skepticism of expert opinion".

28. Harbinger

That's an interesting article and picks up a few threads that have been blowing in the wind recently.

A few comments on it:

1. The lack of sunspots correlating with the Little Ice Age is well known, though the mechanism whereby any effect may take place is far less certain. Similarly the correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures in recent decades is also well known and the mechanism whereby any effect take place is in this case very well known. However sceptics readily accept lack of sunspots as the cause of the LIA, whilst denying CO2 causes the recent warming because "its only a correlation".

2. No great significance can be attached to the year 1998. That was a powerful El Nino year during which large amounts of heat are released from the Pacific ocean to the atmosphere. Typically that causes an increase in global temperatures of +0.2C - which is exactly what happened in 1998. (Ie. that extra 0.2C had nothing to do with global warming and really should be ignored we are wanting to follow long term trends.)

3. The total solar radiation has, if anything, been declining slightly in recent decades and there has been no particular trend in sunspots: so it is very difficult to make a reasonable case that "it was the sun wot done it" with respect to warming in recent decades.

4. If indeed the sun is now changing such that it will cause a cooling trend for - well for how long? - then that is indeed good news, and may give us a bit more time to get CO2 etc reduced. But two warnings need to be sounded (if indeed it is true):
Firstly, it does not negate the causal link between increased CO2, CH4, NOx, CFCs and warming,
and secondly, it certainly doesn't mean that we can relax about greenhouse gas emissions. We have little understanding, and absolutely NO control about events in the sun: Suppose the sun does cause cooling for a decade or so, then increases again. If we re

Whether you love us or hate us, I do hope that those in this group who rightly question the tactics and "facts" of the global warming alarmists appreciate the United States for being the only industrialized country--now that Australia has crumbled--standing up to the pressure of these environmental loonies and their control freak cronies.

We could certainly use some help.

34# Yes your leading advocate of man-made global warming theory, James Hansen recently said

"Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains - no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

It is difficult to think of anything more offensive than that but that is the sort of person who now has the ears of world leaders.

First crucial point, 2003. We've all seen Al Gore’s movie. It was the early, low resolution ice core data first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO2 was the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature marched in rose and fell in lockstep over the last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (results from 1985 – 2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was ASSUMED (bad assumption # 1) that CO2 levels controlled the world’s temperature.
After further research, new high resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000 – 2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2 changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels, and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started back-pedalling away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003:
So why did we go wrong? Another set of recent observations show why the UN climate models got it wrong.
Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm up to 560ppm (which is roughly were the IPCC says we will be in 2100) is calculated to raise the world’s air temperature by 1.2C in the absence of feedbacks such as convection and clouds. This is what you would get if the air was in a flask in a laboratory. Everyone roughly agrees with that calculated result.
But the modellers ASSUMED (bad assumption # 2) that increased warming would cause more rainfall, which would cause more clouds high up in the atmosphere — and since high clouds have a net warming effect, this would cause more warming and thus more rainfall and so on. It is this positive feedback that causes the UN climate models to predict a temperature rise due to a rise in CO2 to 560ppm to be 2.5C - 4.7C (of which we have already experienced 0.7C).
But in September 2007 Spencer, who spent a few years observing the temperatures, clouds, a

upbeat #29..... and seemingly learnt little !

On your bike upbeat and open your eyes and even your mind if that is at all possible,
although by your postings
the latter may prove fruitless. Three decades of blinkered travel will take some undoing!

35. Margaret L

Can you explain why you find Hansen's quote (I haven't seen it before, but assume you are quoting him correctly) so offensive?

Basically, he is saying that continued burning of large quantities of coal will cause the extinction of "uncountable irreplaceable species."

All indications are that that is true.

northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001:
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1.
1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2.
2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
3.
From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.
The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

James Hansen...an embarrassment to America--almost on the scale of Al Gore.

I am sure if anyone misses the jolly to Bali…whoops Climate conference, they will have the one in Poland next year.

Although that would be a bit colder for the likes of Al Gore, who is more used to Bali or even Nairobi at the end of that meeting, the phrase climate tourists was coined to describe some delegates who attended just to see Africa and take snaps of the wildlife.

With places like Rio de Janeiro, Milan, Morocco, Buenos Aires and New Delhi etc they are really thinking about the environment, considering they seem to occur in either November and December!

#36 and #39 George

You're my hero.

Some good additional analysis:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=1...

36. George.

A few quick comments on your post:

First, trivially, "We've all seen Al Gore’s movie." Well I haven't, nor have I read his book. Al Gore is simply a messenger and politician. He isn't a scientist.

"It was ASSUMED (bad assumption # 1) that CO2 levels controlled the world’s temperature" - no it wasn't. It has been considered that changes in Earth's orbit, not CO2, initiated transitions between glacial and interglacial period since at least the 1970s.

The constant reference to increase in CO2 lagging increase in temperature during glacial conditions by sceptics, simply demonstrates they are confused or seeking to confuse others. It is not an argument against CO2 causing warming.

I have to go - may be back later.

38# oh dear if you can't see the offensiveness of an analogy that compares the cold bloodied murder of six million people to coal mining then I feel sorry for you.

37 n/

And your thoughts about the effect of global travel on Climate change are..... ?

It is always revealing when those who have little to add to any discussion resort to being gratuitously offensive to some who have .

We will take it that you disagreed with something..in post 14...post 21...25...or 29.

You have not said what it was that you disagreed with. Nor have you countered any ideas set out there by adding your assessment .

You have simply been offensive.

As I said earlier , you reveal much about yourself.
" Good for you ! "

32 MargaretL

Thank you for responding.

I suspect that the choice of venues has more to do with attracting Scientists, Politicians, industrialists etc. who have not got the time or resources to travel far from home to major conferences. That the Washington and New York ( ? UN sponsored? ) conferences might have raised the profile of Climate change issues in North and Eastern America, The Rio conference raised the profile in South America, the Valencia one did the same for Europe, Sydney for Australasia etc etc passes without comment.

There seems to be an assumption here on this board , which may or may not be borne out by fact , that it is the same people who junket around the world to all of these conferences. For the majority of those attending each conference this would be unlikely to be the case.

To fly half way around the world each time to hear and discuss the same message over and over, is not a very useful thing for the continuity of the work of most scientists .

It is better to think that each new venue brings together fresh faces from that global region, sub continent etc, to learn from the experience of others.

Does the press have real data concerning each of the individual attendees, to show who they are, where they come from, and how many similar conferences they have attended. ? I suspect not.

And so the media hysteria continues...
Man's contribution to "greenhouse gases" is so small, we couldn't change the climate if we tried.
Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFC's, contribute only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6%.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities is only 3.2% of that, hence only 0.12% of the greenhouse gases in total.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin that is creating the current hysteria.
These tactics can fool the public, but they don't fool Mother Nature. Warming still happens.

I salute Slioch, Upbeat et al in your valiant efforts to educate the philistines.

However, I think your efforts are in vain as is evidenced by the pathetic responses you receive.

I believe that the motivation of denial is analagous to religious belief:

People believe in religion because they are afraid of death and religion promises an afterlife.

Likewise many people are afraid of the predicted consquences of climate change and manifest this suppressed fear by denial.

This has become a big issue simply because of three reasons. Politicans like Al Gore are becoming famous and rich, corporations are positioning themselfs to make big bucks, the UN is playing the game of gaining more power in it's quest to be the one world government, and a lot of governments are using it to find more ways to tax the individual and the media has found a way to scare the population and increase their readership, or fans of their news programs.

I have read a lot of what was said but also found where many a scientist laugh at Gortex's book and call it pure rubbish. I don't save hyper links but have read the following and are out there in the web. The inner ice caps are gaining on ice build up, in the news Russia claimed some land by using a nuclear sub to go under the ice cap.

Almost if not all of Gore's claims have been disclaimed by scientist, I have also read where sun spots had and do affect our climate. I have also read a study where the climate has changed by volcano activity which does make sense. I have also read that water is our biggest problem because it's absorbs more heat than CO2 does. Being a retired firefighter I can relate to that.

What is need is honest studies without any politicans, university scientist, corporation represenatives or actives having imput.

We are running out of non renewable resourses, nobody can deny that. I believe that is the true problem but wouldn't get much attention but in the meantime all countries are jockying to control those resourses. We are the gardians of nature. It is there for us to use not abuse. Waste is a big abuser.

Thinkl we need less hysterics and confrontations and scare mongering and more honest appraisal of exactly what is happening. It won't happen because there is too much money and power to be had.

P. S. this morning when I got up at 7:30 A.M. EDT it was 12 degrees which is a little low for this time of the year here.

Funny. All of those people flying in all of those planes to talk about climate change while making massive use of an extraordinary pollution generator. Why not just do a Webex? I guess online grandstanding's not in vogue just yet. It would be a lot greener though.

#54 Aoda. Remember, the host site is using that crazy new fangled metric system. They'll think your 12degrees to be pretty warm for this time of the year.

#52 Now there's a funny thing I have always accused the global warning types (Slioch and Upbeat in these discussions)of being of a religious bent. Every religion one way or the other is predicated on warnings of global doom. As I have said before the word preacher comes from the Latin for predictor of the end of the world. In this secular age we do not have the luxury of a god to keep us all in a state of misery so we need to invent scientific reasons.

Take the self-righteousness (cycling to work with a halo round one's head), the hypocrisy (Bali), the lies (ice cores show CO2 increases caused global temperature to rise) and the religious gatherings (See Scotsman article). All that is missing are the hymns and the prayers. But I am sure they will come.

#52

Scientists and sceptics or as you called them “deniers” don’t argue that the planet is getting warmer. They’re just not ready to fault human activity, and they tend to equate a sense of urgency with hysteria.

The only interest seems to be to discredit the people they call "deniers" and to pressure government into adopting the policies that will ultimately prevent the use of fossil fuels.

But I am sure while the delegates are catching two weeks of sunshine staying in £400 to £500 a night single rooms £330-a-night suites around the hotel's "free form" pool, with their own teak-floored bedroom, living room and dining room and doing their Christmas shopping in Bali, they are thinking of us all.

It is a tough life being a tree hugger!

Too the tune of the twelve days of Christmas:

15,000 - The number of politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television staff attending

100,000 - The amount of extra CO2 in tons their trips will create

13,000 - The amount in tons of CO2 emitted by conference venues and hotels

90 - Delegates from EU attending - even though member states each sending own.

And a partridge in a Pear tree!

#58, you are right, forgot they use centigrate, guess using quick math that would but us below 0 c.
Thank you

"It has now been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the observations."
We have just altered the data to fit.
"The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend."

If you allow for the uncertainties in the observations, the theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled.

What they are saying is this all the satelites that measure atmospheric temps are faulty and the results need to be adjusted but the ones that measure the suns activity are all in perfect working order and no adjustments need to be made to the data. This biased adjustment has been carried out with satelite measurements of sea levels.
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.

And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely

# 2 You couldent have said it better,http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2236c

measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/a-brief-window.html

"MORE than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists have lost their patience and urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose".

This thread is pretty well representative of the views of the 2500+ climate scientists contributing to IPCC. 91.4% of whom were not prepared to sign up with the alarmist brigade represented above.

52. fred bloggs

Aye, I think you are probably right Fred. I've just come back in and looked to see what has been said meantime, and what you say about the pathetic responses and the religious bent of denial appears to be true. It is a worrying situation when ignorance and prejudice become rampant.

46. Margaret L

The analogy is apt: destabilisation of the climate by continued release of CO2 by, for example, coal burning will certainly lead to huge numbers of extinctions and many millions, possibly hundreds of millions, of human deaths if the tipping points into uncontrollable climate change are passed. Of course, the grotesque inhuman cruelty of the holocaust is missing, but those, like yourself, who continue to deny and to attempt to impede progress are nonetheless part of the problem.

As for your personal comment: "I have always accused the global warning types (Slioch ... of being of a religious bent."

I don't normally respond to personal comments, but will merely say: I am an atheist, always have been. I base my beliefs on evidence, not wishful thinking, let alone some imaginary deity, and am always prepared for those beliefs to be falsified by further evidence. If someone came along tomorrow with evidence and an hypothesis to show that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening and that all my beliefs about it were incorrect, I would be overjoyed.

That is the difference between a scientific and a religious outlook. The former is always looking for new evidence and is willing to be shown to be wrong. The latter is confirmed and secure in his religious belief and nothing, absolutely nothing, in the way of evidence will convince him otherwise. That, it seems to me, is a far closer description of the incoherent and ignorant views expressed by those in denial about climate change than ever could be ascribed to those who, like myself, address this issue with such justified urgency.

I find it fascinating that 10,000 people use jet aircraft that burn tons of hydrocarbon fuels to attend a meeting for the purpose of discussing global warming when the Internet provides means to hold the meeting in real time without leaving your comfy home digs! Of course, Bali is a lot more "central" than Nashville, or Coventry, or Gdansk, or Brno or... ...and there isn't the possibility of body to body -- sorry! -- face to face contact, is there?

If they have all these supposedly educated people going to this conference, they might feel like correcting the terminology used to describe the current propaganda-driven "crisis".

For a start, the emissions from complete burning of hydrocarbons is CARBON DIOXIDE and WATER. It is not, and has never been CARBON in any manner, shape or form.

Secondly, the idea that planting a tree to compensate for using fossil fuels is totally rediculous. Whilst the tree may eventually mature enough to absorb carbon dioxide from the air in significant proportions, it will take millions of years before it replaces the fossil fuel consumed. In this respect, there is not such thing as "carbon neutrality" and the phrase itself is manufactured and meaningless.

This may seem trivial but until they can get their terminology right, I am NEVER going to listen to them---and neither are many others.

.
.....and given Indonesia's record shows it to be, after China and the USA......the worst emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet ..why make it even worse for the Indonesians........with Al Gore and his buddy pals dumping on them.

#66 Alternative(high octane)Fuel Head...... .your comments are pearls before swine........ go and do something more useful such as having a drink at the pub.

#64 I'm an atheist too. What I was trying to say was that that those who have the psychological trait that in the past would have led them to a religious bent in the 21st century are global warmers because all the same characteristics are there. Wasn't meant to be personal just a psychological observation. (Though, and I have to apologise here, I missed out that the most important trait from my list, and that is telling other people how they should live their lives.)

# 63 If you study the facts the world is doing what it has always done, you know the saying history repeats its self, like wise weather.in the year 2000 the people thought the earth was going to tummble, what happend was our magnet feilds started to work in the opposit direction as it has done some many years ago, our world is energy based and by 2012 the earth will be making a shift, the Goverment knows this and they lead people to think diffrently and base fear onto us,you cant tell me they are worried about the greens or they would not be using chemtrails, blowing up countrys, using radation, if you dont beleave me study we are just peas in a pod being led by a bunch of energy stealing race and it will only get worse if people dont start reshearching and ask yourself WHY!

Al Gore is making millions from the fear he is creating. All a plot on his part to seem sincere, yet he does not walk the walk. He believes so much in his carbon trading that he has applied it to eating as well. If you haven't noticed, he has gained a lot of weight lately. This is because he has paid poor villagers in africa to not eat so the he may eat more.

#14 et al.

How many of these tree huggers took a canoe to Bali and how many private jets added to the "carbon footprints" they already have???
this is all a croc of sh---.

70. Margaret L

"those who have the psychological trait that in the past would have led them to a religious bent, in the 21st century are global warmers"

So, your idea is that the sort of people who used to be religious are now scientists??

Oh dear ...

#72 bogmon, Wales

It wouldn’t matter how much evidence that as you call us “deniers” would bring forward as you would just ridicule us like the sheep you are!!!

Case in point! Al Gore himself used tons of fossil fuel to jet his entourage to Singapore as part of his global tour, where he scoffs at the "deniers" who had the audacity to disagree with the in-crowd even though their disagreement is based on a mountain of scientific evidence.

Conversely, best-selling author Dennis Avery (co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years which was nice reading on a long haul flight) amassed physical evidence of past warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.

How inconvenient that Al Gore, has ducked going into debate with the author. Maybe he had to jet home, to switch his heated pool temperature down.

77. PJ, Edinburgh

If you want to read some debate about Avery's book see here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/ave...

Of course "variations in solar activity" have effected the Earth's temperature in the past. The problem with the warming of the last few decades is that such variation in solar activity has been a) small and b) towards a cooler climate. The rapid warming of the last few decades cannot therefore be assigned to changes in solar activity.

#78

Ah one of the sheep! I have read that debate on the real climate web-site unlike most people I tend to read both sides of an argument and not be led bleating into a sheep pen. I have read arguments for and I have seen the hyped Inconvenient Truth.

Only a pity that Al Bore didn’t enter into a debate with the author, he mustn’t be to sure to of his own findings. If the environmentalists are pleased with their documented evidence, why are they offering $100,000 to back up claims asserted in the Inconvenient Truth. I am sure for that amount of money, anyone would say the world is flat.

IPCC, the UN body pushing for laws that would limit man-made carbon emissions through a series of ultra-draconian regulations aimed primarily at developed nations, has a dirty little secret: its scientists have fudged their data to make the global warming picture look worse than it actually is.

http://www.informath.org/

79. PJ, Edinburgh

Actually what you link to, as far as I can see, is a report of one scientist at present under investigation concerning a few ground station data points in China with as yet no conclusion.

This you report as "a dirty little secret" of the IPCC whose "scientists (sic) have (not "alleged to have") "fudged their data to make the global warming picture look worse than it actually is."

This, even though the source you refer to also states:

"even if the study [ie the one that you ALREADY claim is "fudged"]
were wholly invalidated, this would not imply that the conclusion [in the IPCC report] was unsupported."

In other words, there is no conclusion yet concerning any "fudging" and even if there were, even the complainant accepts that it would not necessarily discredit the IPCC report (which is obvious to anyone who thinks for a couple of seconds about the matter: how can mistakes, if there are any in a few ground stations in China invalidate the conclusions from thousands of other ground stations around the world, not to mention copious satellite data.

But this shows how you denialists work: some possible minor discrepancy in data collection is discovered. It is published in a disreputable rag like "Energy and Environment". And then exaggerated and wholly unsupported claims about it hit the blogs from people like you. Which is taken a fact by people who want to believe that sort of stuff ... and so it goes on.

Meanwhile, back to Avery: I haven't read his book, but you say you have, so can you explain how his 1500 year sun cycle accounts for the warming in the last few decades of the twentieth century when the previous period of warming was the medieval warm period, less than 1000 years ago? That's a genuine question - I'd be interested to know how Avery accounts for it.

It wouldn’t matter what I say, when little sheep bleat their usual reply “Your wrong and I am right!” In many ways that Al Bore does!

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. The initial research on that period and the following Little Ice Age was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. Did they sit their and blame carbon emmisions?

No because they were not even a factor then, instead it was blamed on predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (known as Milankovitch cycles) or in the case of the Little Ice age a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum or the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Science fact not science fiction like inconveniant truth!

Douglas Keenan an obvious global warming “denier” as you would call him checked over the claims made by Dr. Jones, Wang and their associates. Keenan discovered discrepancies that he says couldn't possibly be accidental. So the only logical conclusion is that Jones and his cohorts lied. Keenan's charge stemmed from the fact that the United States Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a joint report, which stated that 49 of the 84 weather stations had no history as to location, or instrumentation changes available. The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms.

The significance of moving a weather recording station, according to Keenan, is that if a station is relocated downwind of a city from being formerly upwind, then the temperatures it records will tend to be higher, as cities generate heat. Conversely if a weather station is relocated near a l

Frequent readers will know that I have argued for a while that substantial biases exist in surface temperature records. For example, I participated in a number of measurement site photo surveys, and snapped this picture of the measurement station in Tucson that has gotten so much attention:
Global warming catastrophists do not want to admit this bias, because it would undermine their headlines-grabbing forecasts. In particular, they have spent the last year or two bragging that their climate models must be right because they do such a good job of predicting history. So what becomes of this argument if it is demonstrated that the "history" to which their models correlate so well is wrong? (In fact, their models correlate with history only because they are fudged and plugged to do so, as described here).
Ross McKitrick, a Canadian economist, performs a fairly simple and compelling test on recent surface temperature records. The chief suspected source of bias is from urbanization. The weather station above has existed in Tucson in one form or another for 100 years. When it was first in place, it sat in a rural setting near a small town characterized by horses and dirt roads. Now it sits in an asphalt parking lot near cars and buildings, a block away from a power station, in the center of a town of a half million people.
McKitrick looked at the statistical correlation between economic growth and local temperature records. What he found was that where there was growth, there was warming; where there was less growth, there was less warming. He has demonstrated that the surface temperature warming signal correlates strongly with urbanization and growth:
Our new paper presents a new, larger data set with a more complete set of socioeconomic indicators. We showed that the spatial pattern of warming trends is so tightly correlated with indicators of economic activity that the probability they are unrelated is less than one in 14 tri

So how has the IPCC reacted to his work? For years, the IPCC ignored his work and his comments on their reports. Finally, in the last IPCC report they responded:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and [Dutch meteorologists] de Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanization and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

So the IPCC argues that yes, areas of high industrial and socioeconomic development do show more warming, but that is not because of urban biases on measurement but because of "atmospheric circulation changes" that happen to warm these same urban areas. Now, this is suspicious, since Occam's Razor would tell us to assume the most obvious result, that urbanization puts upwards bias on temperature readings, rather than on natural circulation patterns that happen to coincide with urban areas.

But it is more than suspicious. It is a complete fabrication. The report, particularly at the cited sections, has nothing about these circulation patterns either showing that they coincide with areas of economic growth or that they tend to preferentially warm these areas. And does this answer really make any sense anyway? A recent study in California showed warming in the cities, but not in the rural areas

Climate Models Match History Because They are Fudged
When catastrophist climate models were first run against history, they did not even come close to matching. Over the last several years, after a lot of time under the hood, climate models have been tweaked and forced to match historic warming observations pretty closely. A prominent catastrophist and climate modeller finally asks the logical question:

One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.

One wonders how it took so long for supposedly trained climate scientists right in the middle of the modelling action to ask an obvious question that skeptics have been asking f

man have to look like for our models to be correct." There are at least four reasons I strongly suspect this to be true:

Every computer modeler in history has tried this trick to make their models of the future seem more credible. I don't think the climate guys are immune.
There is no way their models, with our current state of knowledge about the climate, match reality that well.
The first time they ran their models vs. history, they did not match at all. This current close match is the result of a bunch of tweaking that has little impact on the model's predictive ability but forces it to match history better. For example, early runs had the forecast run right up from the 1940 peak to temperatures way above what we see today.
The blue line totally ignores any of our other understandings about the changing climate, including the changing intensity of the sun. It is conveniently exactly what is necessary to make the pink line match history. In fact, against all evidence, note the blue band falls over the century. This is because the models were pushing the temperature up faster than we have seen it rise historically, so the modelers needed a negative plug to make the numbers look nice.
Here is one other reason I know the models to be wrong: The climate sensitivities quoted above of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C are unsupportable by history. In fact, this analysis shows pretty clearly that 1.2 is about the most one can derive for sensitivity from our past 120 years of experience, and even that makes the unreasonable assumption that all warming for the past century was due to CO2.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/climate-models.html

81. PJ, Edinburgh

"It wouldn’t matter what I say"

Is that why you just waffle?

You don't answer the question I posed, so I repeat it: "can you explain how his [Avery's] 1500 year sun cycle accounts for the warming in the last few decades of the twentieth century when the previous period of warming was the medieval warm period, less than 1000 years ago?

Instead you ask an imbecile question: "Did they sit their and blame carbon emmisions?" [No. of course they didn't, and neither has anyone with any sense ever suggested such a thing.]

The fact that previous changes in climate have [OBVIOUSLY!] been caused by factors other than anthropocentric provides NO information about any anthropogenic contribution to present climate change.

BTW the Milankovitch cycles are associated with the c.100,000 changes from glacial to interglacial and vice versa during the ice ages. What reference do you have which associates them with the MWP? The Milankovitch changes have NOTHING to do with changes in solar activity.

As for your final paragraph: again you demonstrate that you just like throwing mud about and making silly unsubstantiated accusations. If you have evidence: provide it. That, after all, is what science is about.

82. George said,

"Frequent readers will know that I have argued for a while that ...."

No George. What we know is that you don't actually argue anything. You hardly ever even cobble a sentence together. All you do is cut and paste from other peoples work, which is what you have done in this case.

I will repeat what I posted at 60. First regarding the fact that satelite measurements only show half the warming of ground based stations
"It has now been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the observations."
They just altered the data to fit.
However if you accept that there are uncertainties in the satelite data for temps then the same uncertainties must exist in the satelite information regarding solar activity. Therefore the following must apply

If you allow for the uncertainties in the measured solar activity, the theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled.

It has also been proven that they fudged the sea levels as satelites do not show any trend.

87 yes quite right I did cut and paste the story from the climate skeptic as per the link on 83. So you can attack me all you like try attacking the information I post.

#86 Slioch, Scottish Highlands

You are coming across as the usual ones who have their mind has been warped by Al Gore, with his global warming religion the elite of the scientific community and the well-to-do of the social set. Where the sceptics are ridiculed, denounced, and pointed at as they were the idiots.

a) there is no "scientific consensus" on the issue of man-made global warming. In fact, there are many scientists that consider the theory of man-made global warming to be simply untenable when confronted by the data.

b) there have been periods in relatively recent human history, with much warmer climate, such as the Medieval Warm Period.

c) the Earth's climate is not, has never been and will never be, something static. The Earth's climate is very dynamic, and is always changing. That's why we have had so many episodes of ice ages, then warming, then ice age again, then warming, and so on.

d) the paleoclimatic evidence so often cited by Al Gore and the eco-alarmists, when analyzed deeper, shows that the ice-core records reveal something very different from what these eco-alarmists pretend. Those ice-core records show that the changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 do not precede, but FOLLOW the warming or cooling of the Earth's atmosphere. This lagging effect has been calculated to be of approximately 800 years. Thus, it is not CO2 that is driving climate change, but in any case it is the other way round.

e) you will learn of a very interesting alternative hypothesis that explores the role of the Sun on climate change.

Or Baa-Baa!

89. George.

Sorry, George, I don't bother reading your posts any more - I know they are just cut and pastes from elsewhere. If I want to get involved in discussions about them I go to the original source, or to somewhere, eg Realclimate that is discussing them. I don't think these Scotsman comment columns are a suitable place for transplants of whole articles.

86. "As for your final paragraph: again you demonstrate that you just like throwing mud about and making silly unsubstantiated accusations. If you have evidence: provide it. That, after all, is what science is about."
Just google "Scientists who are suing to have their names removed from the IPCC report"

Realclimate. Michael's friends say he is right regarding the Medieval warm period and other AGW nonsense. How many times do they have to show that their work is flawed at best.

The main reason I post articles is to give as much information to other readers as I can regarding either flawed science or scientists that are being down right deceitful
i.e. Temps, sea levels and others.

90. PJ, Edinburgh

You still haven't answered the Avery question - it's a very simple question and one that Avery's book must surely have dealt with. If not, it is a glaring omission and suggests he was talking nonsense as far as explaining the present warming is concerned.

As for whether my "mind has been warped by Al Gore", well if it has he will have demonstrated remarkable mental powers as I have neither read his book nor watched his film/video. Perhaps he's been beaming evil mind waves at me in my sleep.

Let me address just your paragraph d). You are referring there to the several transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions over the last million or more years of the present ice age. Those have been widely accepted since at least the 1970s as having been initiated by orbital changes with a cycle of c.100,000 years [Milankovitch] which caused changes in solar insolation. (eg see JD Hays, J Imbrie and NJ Shackleton, Science, v194, #4270, p1121, 1976/12/10).

That being the case OF COURSE one would expect temperatures to start to rise before CO2 levels - and that is what the greater resolution of recent core demonstrates. But the changes in solar insolation caused by Milankovitch are small: it is difficult to explain the large changes in temperatures at those times without additional factors: positive feedbacks that kick in as temperatures begin to rise. One of those is a change in albedo - white ice and snow being replaced by dark rocks or ocean that absorbs more heat for example, another is that warmer oceans/wetlands release CO2 (and possibly methane). The increased levels of CO2 and the changes in albedo amplified the initial Milankovitch induced warming.

There is nothing in this evidence (though obviously the detail is complicated) that is at all in conflict with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Nor is it the scenario "very different from what these eco-alarmists pretend".

Once again this is an exampl