Leaked emails mark dangerous shift in climate denial strategy 24 November 09

One feature of the Roman Crisis of the Third Century (which featured a degree of political, demographic, and economic strain / partial collapse):

Censuses and historical detail thin, as literacy and science declined during this period to be replaced by an “increase in mysticism, and knowledge by revelation”, as well as by “increased propaganda about patriotism, ancient Roman values, and superiority over the barbarians”.

I expect an intensification of the war on science in the decades ahead. And with attitudes like this, it is impossible to surmount the limits to growth on the planet and avoid apocalypse. Enjoy the show.

Yes, of course the extreme conspiracy charge leveled by the more loopy sceptics is absurd, but you’re missing the point.

The emails appear to show eminent climate scientists acting in a deeply unscientific manner: attempting to prove a case rather than to test their hypotheses, and even to suppress conflicting arguments and data.

For Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit, to state that his belief that “their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years… [and] no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean” is based on “gut feeling, no[t] science” is extraordinarily damaging to the scientific argument for AGW.

At least George Monbiot had the guts to acknowledge that something has gone badly wrong and called for Phil Jones’ resignation.

So much for the success of the scientific method in relation to climate science. Those leaked files from the University of East Anglia Climate Change Unit’s server paint a different picture. That’s put the sceptical human-made global climate change cat amongst the UN IPCC pigeons. We all knew that we couldn’t trust the politicians of the UN. Now it is clear that neither can we trust the scientists who are feeding them fodder for their propaganda. Those files tell a very unpleasant story which is going to leave a nasty stink hanging over scientists of all kinds for a long time. This is going to put another spanner in the spokes of the UN’s ambition to redistribute wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies and establish a framework for global government.

Numerous comments in the media and on the Internet suggest that those files that were leaked are private, but they are not necessarily so. As I understand it, in the UK E-mails exchanged using your employer’s facilities are not personal or private but available for legitimate scrutiny by your employer – who employs the researchers at the UEA. As a previous comment points out, the UEA CRU Policy on FOI states that such E-mails are not private property. Even if it is illegal for an unauthorised individual to steal or leak these files, it is quite possible that such an action would be considered justified under the circumstances. The English courts have recently ruled in favour of environmental terrorists who attacked an industrial installation QUOTE: Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law UNQUOTE (Note 5). It is possible that the courts would find that the threat of unwarranted taxation and economic damage in the guise of global warming justifies breaking the law.

The UK’s Lord Lawson today announced the formation of The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Note 2) of which Dr Benny Peiser said QUOTE:The Foundation’s aim is to become the most trustworthy and readily accessible source for those, whether in politics, the media or among the wider public, who wish to be informed of the most reliable and authoritative analysis of both the claims of climate alarmists and the policies currently in place or being discussed, whether in Copenhagen or elsewhere UNQUOTE. The only problem with this Foundation is that involves politicians, which immediately makes thinking people suspicious of its motives.

A more reassuring development is that QUOTE: TaxPayers’ Alliance Reports Phil Jones et al to Information Commissioner UNQUOTE (Note 3 and 4). The involvement of the UK’s TaxPayers’ Alliance is long overdue. I tried to get it interested months ago but it didn’t want to know. Well, better late than never.

Today the University of East Anglia issued statements (Note 6) which included complaints about the “illegal” manner in which those files were leaked. including one from Professor Phil Jones which acknowledges QUOTE: My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues. UNQUOTE. He has a very difficult task to persuade us to accept his closing words and would have an equally difficult task to convince a jury if his own actions are considered to be illegal.

No matter how hard Realclimate’s Gavin Schnidt tries to stem the flood, this will not go away. As is said elsewhere (Note 7) QUOTE: Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency. UNQUOTE.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html 2) see http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/the-global-warming-policy-foundation-gwpf-launched-today/ 3) see http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/cru-foi-emails-taxpayers-alliance-reports-phil-jones-et-al-to-information-commissioner/ 4) see http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2009/11/cru-emails-reveal-inconvenient-truths-about-foi.html 5) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html 6) see http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate 7) see http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/

Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic

Oh yes Pete Ridley rears up again and talks a load of nonsense. Science is stronger than scientists, its process of peer review is solid and works fine. Trying to state that for some reason climate science works differently is just pure hubris and utterly wrong.

Its based on phyics for heavens sake! I just despair at the constant poking around of the denialsits thinking that the consensus of AGW is brought down by a few leaked emails from a hacked server. Its just so contemptable to be laughable.

PS: As is said at climatechangefraud.com (Note 8) QUOTE: If the leaker/whistleblower is one of the CRU staff members listed below, it seems that they may enjoy protection under the UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998, which was enacted to protect whistleblowers. UNQUOTE

Note 8) see http://climatechangefraud.com/editorials/5657-if-the-cru-leak-was-an-inside-whistleblower-heres-the-line-up-of-potential-suspects-heroes

PPS: It has often been suggested by sceptics (ridiculed by their opponents) that data is manipulated by climate researchers. Well, the UEA CRU does have a member of research staff with specific rsponsibility for this (Note 9) QUOTE: Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris .. Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming UNQUOTE.

NOTES (cont.): 9) see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/

Mark, your stance on this immense scandal, the greatest of the modern age in terms of scientific credibilty, is totally at odds with your good friend George Monbiot.

There seems, for once, to be no consensus amongst climate scientists and advocates. Are we witnessing the break up of the grand coalition? Mark, you need to tell us.

http://www.infowars.com/a-message-to-the-environmental-movement-your-movement-has-been-hijacked/

I agree with Mark Lynas that a new information campaign is needed. The average person in the street, whilst disturbed by climate change, will not go out of his way to find out any details, and is comforted by any suggestion that it may not be happening.

All of these great, committed minds quarrelling over and dissecting the scandal is wasted time. Most people will accept that the hacking is a dirty trick by those with motives to deny the truth.

The IPCC and other important bodies talk to politicians, to the powerful and to those already engaged. Mark Lynas – you talk to a more general audience, but they still need to be sufficiently engaged already to pick up your books or read your columns.

One of the contributors above wonders what would happen if scientists sued for libel.Whilst I don’t think that’s the right course of action, it’s getting there. The IPCC – committed, trustworthy scientists, are faceless to the majority of people.

Get out there – tell people what you know (without terrifying them) and tell them what can be done. It’s OK to stress the urgency. Don’t worry about deniers pulling it all apart – your science can withstand that – it already has very many times – through peer review and by some less-than-peer review.

Most people I talk to don’t understand the complex chains of consequences. They don’t understand the importance of averting the tipping point. They feel powerless and so do not engage.

With this great burden of knowledge comes the even greater burden of responsibility. The more people who know – the more will bear that responsibility.

The deniers coordinate their efforts well. So must the soothsayers. Only people power will change things, and so the people must know. PLEASE tell them!

My faith in the IPCC process is not in the least shaken by the CRU trouble – it will be the same for many people – particularly if scientists speak directly to all of us in terms we can understand.

There appears to be some confusion in a comment above about the relevance of the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act. Under 43B (3) it states “A disclosure of information is not a qualifying disclosure if the person making the disclosure commits an offence by making it.” If hacking was involved, one might presume that an offence has been committed and therefore any disclosure or disclosures arising from such hacking would not constitute a protected disclosure(s) under the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, a test of good faith would need to be applied. Is it clear that the hacker was acting in good faith and committed no offence?

Those pushing the orthodox IPCC view have a problem. It is not new. You can fool all of the people some of the time – and you know the rest.

The man on Clapham omnibus knows it has got warmer – about 3/4 of Centigrade degree over the last 150 years.

He also knows human burning of fossil fuels has helped push up the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which with other GHG increases is equivalent to about 3/4 of the effect of a doubling carbon dioxide in terms of radiative effects.

Everyone now accepts more GHG is likely to increase temperatures but real observed data suggests a benign effect, indistinguishable from natural variation. If all of the warming of the last 150 years came from ghg increases it looks like the climate sensitivity is about half the minimum estimate of the IPCC.

Given a choice between computer models and real measurements you are on a hiding to nothing.

As for tipping points, this is a fanciful idea that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide but just water vapour. As an engineer I know that if a thing can happen it will. But it never waits millions of years to do it. It has been much warmer with oceans of water long ago in the past and there is no evidence to support this daft theory.

David Holland wrote: “Everyone now accepts more GHG is likely to increase temperatures but real observed data suggests a benign effect, indistinguishable from natural variation.” Utter hogwash. For a survey of the peer-reviewed literature including “real observed data” as of last month, see http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

We are already seeing that the effects of GW are not “benign” and we’re barely pushing 1°C. Tell the south Australians that the drying up and burning up of their country is benign.

You also wrote, “As for tipping points, this is a fanciful idea that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide but just water vapour. As an engineer I know that if a thing can happen it will. But it never waits millions of years to do it. It has been much warmer with oceans of water long ago in the past and there is no evidence to support this daft theory.” Do you have a clue what you’re talking about; you don’t seem to have a grasp of the mechanism of tipping points. Aside from that, do you know what the atmospheric and terrestrial conditions were when the oceans were “much warmer”? Clue: there wasn’t much vertebrate life. Like us.

Out of frustration at the wilful ignorance evidenced by you and other “deniers,” I’ll depart from polite discourse: you’re post is idiotic. Engineer indeed, I guess that explains it.

Toby: perhaps you would like to explain ‘the mechanism of tipping points’ when applied to climate.

At risk of appearing picky, could your explanation be expressed in terms laypeople can understand, and would you please cite your sources – and your own scientific qualifications, if you have any – so the average reader can follow your reasoning?

Also, what do you have against engineers?

By the way, ‘peer review’ does not constitute evidence supporting a hypothesis: it means that some people were prepared to agree with it at some point, in writing. Nor does it imply an across the board assesment of all informed opinion, pro, con or neutral.

Toby, get your science right. The changing australian climate is due to shifting westerlies that scientists link to the atmospheric effects of antarctic ozone depletion – not greenhouse gasses. I am curious to see what Mr Lynas thinks of the decade long temp standstill that the CRU scientists were discussing and trying to come up with an explanation. In the New Statesman Mr Lynas said, in response to Dr Whitehouse’s pointing out of the standstill that Whitehouse was “wrong, totally wrong.” Well then, so must the CRU scientists or is it that Mr Lynas knows more than they do!

Toby, get your science right. The changing australian climate is due to shifting westerlies that scientists link to the atmospheric effects of antarctic ozone depletion – not greenhouse gasses. I am curious to see what Mr Lynas thinks of the decade long temp standstill that the CRU scientists were discussing and trying to come up with an explanation. In the New Statesman Mr Lynas said, in response to Dr Whitehouse’s pointing out of the standstill that Whitehouse was “wrong, totally wrong.” Well then, so must the CRU scientists or is it that Mr Lynas knows more than they do!

I’ll keep an eye on this website as I’m sure this comment wont stay on very long.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is not a scientific report but a propaganda bulletin for politicians in support of the UN’s COP15 in Copenhagen. One of those authors is Michael Mann and another is Stephen Schneider. Both Michael E Mann and Stephen H Schneider have been involved in controversy regarding the way in which human-made climate change propaganda is presented. Michael E Mann’s name is prominent in the debate over the leaked University of East Anglia Climate Change Unit files which is running all over the Internet and in the mainstream media (excepting the BBC of course). Stephen H Schneider was involved in debate with The Detroit News, which had an editorial starting QUOTE: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest. —Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989. UNQUOTE. More on this is available at the BBC blog “Hacked climate e-mails and FOI “ comment # 20 (Note 11). With the involvement of people with that sort of pedigree I leave it to you to decide how trustworthy their declarations are.

As becomes any worthwhile piece of propaganda, The Copenhagen Diagnosis is filled with very emotive pictures (a picture paints 1000 words) just like Mark’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. “ is. Pounding seas, dried up land, you name it and of course those dreade tipping points! We’re all doomed – unless we pay up that carbon tax. What a marvellous way to encourage people to be ripped off.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.html

Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic

you know mark, if you were to <s>delete</s> moderate a number of comments, i would not weep one tear. discussion and honest argument is one thing, but what many of the comments offer is something quite else – they just want to win the argument, by any means fair or foul. it’s all about the winning.

do you really think this information war can still be won? i don’t. i think it will completely overscreamed by people like those above, up to when the changing climate is impossible to deny. at that point the focus will again be government and scientists, i predict, but then the accusation will be that they were not clear enough in their message.

damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

i have very little hopes of copenhagen and even less for the habitability of the future climate on this planet. for me the lightbulb moment was the club of rome. i was a biology student at the time, and still thought that people would listen to common sense. it was about our survival, after all. i’ve grown older and wiser over the years – i’m done arguing and promoting and convincing, i’ve all but given up. i’m only a spectator now, watching the train crash with a mix of horror and absolute amazement.

Eco, you seem pretty sure that the files were hacked but it seems much more likely that an insider decided that tit was time to come clean.

Gill, you also seem to assume that those files were hacked. Your claim that QUOTE: Most people will accept that the hacking is a dirty trick by those with motives to deny the truth. UNQUOTE is pure speculation. Try a Google on UEA CRU leaked files and see the intensity of the reaction. It’s even hit the mainstream media, including that solid supporter of all things New Labour, the BBC (must keep the paymaster happy). It certainly is NOT a waste of time that so many clever sceptics are digging into those files and exposing evidence of the disgusting tactics of scientists who have disgraced their professions.

You also seem to have accepted without question the propaganda issued by supporters of The (significant human-made climate change) Hypothesis. The IPCC does not “talk to politicians” – it is a political tool which cherry-picks and distorts the work of many conscientious scientists in order to support the UN’s political agenda.

With our lack of understanding of the numerous scientific disciplines involved, people like us have little chance of understanding climate processes and drivers. Even the scientists themselves are struggling with it. All we can do really is use our intelligence and experience of climate change during our lifetimes. I’ve been around 72 years and have seen nothing significant. How about you guys?

The UN uses our ignorance to further its own objectives, which are: - redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies and - establishment of a mechanism for global government. That is what its Copenhagen COP15 activities are all about. It’s nothing at all to do with trying to control global climates.

The IPCC reports and related publications are a distortion of the science, changing the enormous scientific uncertainties into absolutes. It’s all a matter of how best to influence public opinion. As all leading climate scientists know (Note 1) QUOTE: To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. UNQUOTE. This is an approach fully supported by scientists like Professors Phil Jones, Michael E Mann, Stephen H. Schneider, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, etc. etc. etc.

All good propagandists need to know how to sway public opinion, no matter what the lie. Well, all “good” (I misprinted it as “god” the last time I used it, but on reflection, it is appropriate) propaganda starts with a real scare, doesn’t it. Hitler’s regime (from almost three climate changes ago) perfected it and all other governments and dubious organisations learnt from them. As Adolf Hitler, said “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. He also said “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach”. Plenty intelligent people have swallowed the UN’s IPCC propaganda hook, line and sinker and are now disciples of the AGW cause.

You say QUOTE: The IPCC – committed, trustworthy scientists, are faceless to the majority of people. Get out there – tell people what you know (without terrifying them) and tell them what can be done. UNQUOTE. Some of those same “IPCC scientists” authored the latest piece of UN climate change propaganda “The Copenhagen Diagnosis”. timed for release just ahead of the Copenhagen conference, This beautiful propaganda bulletin is being presented by some propagandists as the latest IPCC report. It is not! It has been written by a group of climate scientists quite independently of the IPCC. As I said a couple of days ago on several of the UN’s COP15 blog QUOTE: It is not a scientific report but a propaganda bulletin for politicians in support of the UN’s COP15 in Copenhagen. One of those authors is Michael Mann and another is Stephen Schneider. Both Michael E Mann and Stephen H Schneider have been involved in controversy regarding the way in which human-made climate change propaganda is presented. Michael E Mann’s name is prominent in the debate over the leaked University of East Anglia Climate Change Unit files which is running all over the Internet and in the mainstream media (excepting the BBC of course). Stephen H Schneider was involved in debate with The Detroit News, which had an editorial starting QUOTE: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest. —Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989. UNQUOTE. More on this is available at the BBC blog “Hacked climate e-mails and FOI “ comment # 20 (Note 2). With the involvement of people with their attitude about how to present the human-made climate change argument to the populace I leave it to you to decide how trustworthy their declarations are.

As becomes any worthwhile piece of propaganda, The Copenhagen Diagnosis is filled with very emotive pictures (a picture paints 1000 words) just like Mark’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. “ is. It shows pounding seas, tornadoes, parched landscapes, dead trees, balding rain forrests, melting glaciers and ice sheets, great deserts, blazing sunshine, a boiling West Antarctic, floods, those (obligatory) poor polar bears and belching chimney stacks. There’s a graph of increasing CO2 along with a “hockey-stick” style global temperature graph – you name it, they have it. Then, of course, there are those dreaded tipping points! Once we reach those there’s no hope – mankind is doomed – unless we pay up that carbon tax.

What a marvellous way to encourage people to be ripped off. UNQUOTE.

The plan had been to grab media coverage ahead of Copenhagen but this has been beautifully thwarted by the release of those leaked files which have grabbed the headlines instead. What a coup for the sceptics.

Angelfish, it’s all propaganda. Relax and enjoy this wonderful world we live in, along with all of those benefits that social, economic, medical and other scientific developments have bestowed upon us. I know nothing is perfec – never has been and probably never will be, but for most of us life is far far better now than it would have been just a few decades ago.

BTW, please don’t imagine that attempts by supporters of The Hy[pothesis such as Jonathan Porritt, Forum for the Future, Greenpeace, the UN’s COP15 team, etc. to stifle debate will stop the sceptics. It never will. I believe as you do that Copenhagen will achieve nothing worth while in moving forward the UN’s real agenda – global control. Thank God – and I’m agnostic about that as well.

NOTES:

1) see http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf 2) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.html

Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

Angelfish, in true warmist fashion you suggest using the favoured tool of the alarmists namely deleting the comments when the arguments don’t go your way. Well done mate open goal there and thank you for it.

Mr Ridley, I do not know the origin the emails, which is why I wrote “If hacking was involved, one might presume”. Please read and think before you type.

Eco, you also said “Is it clear that the hacker was acting in good faith”. That “the hacker” does suggest that you believe there was one, doesn’t it?

My old daddy used to say “listen to your own advice”.

“Please read and think before you type.”

Best regards, Pete R

These leading Scientist, experts in their field – why did they not have the sense to encript their emails ?

And this “hacker” – he a common theif – he should be found and thrown in jail

Dear Pete Ridley

Please explain to us all here how it is that seperate and extensive data sets demonstrate the same thing, that it is warming globally?

Are thousands of scientists all who have produced thousands of peer reviewed papers and the necesary evidence and theory to explain the warming got it all wrong because of a leak of some emails from a email server at CRU?

The emails are taken out of context, might show some lax talking but on the whole demonstrate nothing tangiable or any alternative about AGW.

We have all read over the years many an alternative theory so lets go through them shall we.

COSMIC RAYS in relation to the SUN. The jury is out and we await some results from a nuclei condendate experiment at CERN but its a long shot. This is Svensmark work but its fringe.

IRIS effect, debunked totally even though it was peer reviewed/ Linzdens work.

The Sun, yes but as a forcing its tiny in relation to GHGs.

Radiative physics is somehow wrong – yes right of course it is.

Water vapour is the casue, hmmmm, no its not but there is more of it in the atmosphere but its a feedback and not a forcing.

Anything else from dear Mr silly denier ?

Hello Pete Best-

“Water vapour is the cause (typo), hmmmm, no its not but there is more of it in the atmosphere but its a feedback and not a forcing”

So are you saying CO2 is responsible for positive forcing of global surface temperature? If so, can you point up the evidence for this? ‘Peer reviewed studies’ are not evidence, by the way.

And, the CRU files – assuming they are genuine – don’t simply consist of emails. Have you taken in the ‘read-me’ notes in the data files, available on the web? Where a distraught Harry is basically moaning that the quality of the data gathered from around the world is basically so flawed and incomplete he has to make it up to fit the desired conclusion?

And are you aware how central to the IPCC case the data collected and managed by Prof. Phil Jones and others at the CRU has been, for years? Not to mention how many other papers have cited such material as their source.

Why arent you, and others commenting at this site, including Mr. Lynas, demanding immediate transparency/full disclosure from all scientific institutions engaged in public-interest work that affects us all, both in cost and outcome.

Then, we wouldn’t have to discuss this ruinously expensive, staggeringly illiberal raft of proposals that currently masquerade under the barmy title ‘Fighting Climate Change’.

And all this energy can be spent more usefully – clean water, malaria, better ways of electricity generation, you know the sort of thing.

RobinL, Your are asking me this:

So are you saying CO2 is responsible for positive forcing of global surface temperature? If so, can you point up the evidence for this? ‘Peer reviewed studies’ are not evidence, by the way.

No I am stating that CO2 has a sensitivity factor that impacts the amount of heat escaping back into space. It traps some of this heat and then reradiates it omnidirectionally (apparantly) it is then absorbed by oceans and land and warms the atmosphere either directly or indirectly. This means that the atmosphere contains more energy and hence can hold more water vapour and indeed does.

So CO2 and other GHGs are named forcings whilst water vapour is a feedback from the warming from GHGs. Albedo also effects the warming of the earth by changing its reflectivity of light along with land use changes that have an albedo and cause carbon to be released from the land.

This is the standard description of GHG forcings.

Pete Best: thanks for that.

So, is it your view that this trapping of radiated heat (by CO2) is permanent, or very long-term, and thus cumulative?

And, following from that, would increased water vapour cause more clouds, thus higher albedo, do you think?

Co2 remains the atmosphere for a long time (100+) years and methane 11 years and then it decays into CO2.

Higher albedo might be likely but how big a cooling factor is it. I will take a look but it probably is a small negative forcing. However lets look at the charts shall we.

I was more interested in the rate that trapped surface heat re-radiates, but since you mention the residence time of atmospheric CO2, 100+ years is a hypothetical assertion not supported by Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, (Energy and Fuels, 2009), or by Dr. Tom V. Segalstad’s paper on carbon cycle modelling and residence time of anthropogenic CO2, published in 1998? I think.

Both of which, if correct, undermine one of the first principles of AGW put forward by the IPCC.

And neither of which, so far as I am aware, have been disproved.

Pete Best you silly thing. C02 remains in the atmosphere for roughly ten years. Of course on the planet Zork you inhabit, yes I admit, it does indeed stay there for 100 years plus. Hey next time you decide to visit Earth pop over and share some of our excellent Earth food. It’s low in carbon so you won’t have to worry about any gas (I know you Zorkians have a big problem with that).

My wife can rustle up some Zorkburgers. You know the ones – very low cholestrol but high in complete bulls*it. For now Pete, keep watching the skies.

Tony – that made me snigger, not for the first time… do you comment anywhere else?

Dave, you’re falling into the same trap as Eco, assuming that those E-mails were hacked. It is much more likely that an insider leaked them. The Global Warming Policy Foundation reports (Note 1) that QUOTE: Six days after Lord Lawson, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the GWPF, called for an independent inquiry into the CRU data affair, it would appear that such a public investigation may now be set up. It will be absolutely crucial that the inquiry is beyond reproach. For this reason, the Global Warming Policy Foundation calls for the inquiry to be carried out by a High Court judge. UNQUOTE. This enquiry should determine which it is, along with many more important issues surrounding this UN-sponsored scam about humans having a significant impact upon global climates through our use of fossil fuels.

Until that enquiry has been completed we can have no confidence in anything claimed by those scientists who support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.

Pete (Best), you seem not to have heard of “collusion” (Note 2). Those leaked UEA CRU E-mails are somewhat revealing. BTW, your QUOTE: Water vapour is .. a feedback and not a forcing. UNQUOTE is not fact but speculation. It is assumed by the IPCC to be a positive feedback of a particular magnitude but this is disputed. Try the abstract of a recent paper by Roger Taguchi, available at Chris Colose’s site (Note 3). Roger aims to make the full paper readily available soon. QUOTE: Here we show that the IPCC estimate of net feedback, namely 2oC (giving a total climate change of 3oC on doubling CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm), is at least a factor of 4 too large when its prediction for climate change when CO2 increases from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is compared with real world temperature increases from 1750 to today. UNQUOTE.

I see that dear old Gordon Brown still believes that he can “save the world” (Note 4) QUOTE: Gordon Brown yesterday bid to lead the world in tackling global warming by launching a groundbreaking initiative to set up a 100bn dollar-a-year fund, rescuing deadlocked international negotiations on a new climate treaty. UNQUOTE. How very generous of him, with other peoples’ money. Only last week (Note 5) QUOTE: Mr Brown proposed a £10 billion rich-world fund – to which Britain would contribute £800 million – to give incentives to developing countries to halt deforestation, develop low-carbon energy sources and prepare for the effects of a warmer climate. UNQUOTE. Gordon Brown is very good at encouraging the wasting of taxpayers hard-earned cash. As Chancellor he led the UK economy deeper and deeper into debt for 10 years and continues to do so as PM. It is said (Note 6) that QUOTE: Britain was shamed yesterday by official figures showing it was the only country in the G20 group of the world’s most powerful economies still in recession UNQUOTE. It was stated on the BBC News on 1st December that that the UK will be borrowing £200 billion next year. All of this will have to be paid back – by the tax payers, yet at the Commonwealth Conference in Trinidad and now ahead of COP15 he is still talking of wasting more of what the UK doesn’t have. This is what took us into this catastrophic economic position in the first place. Basic household economics tells us that if you borrow in order to do what you can’t afford then you’ll end up in trouble.

How is it that all Labour governments seem to do this then leave it for others to sort out?

As for “rescuing deadlocked international negotiations” at COP15, he’s backing another loser (with other peoples’ money, of course. We all should be quite clear. This UN-inspired scam and all of the associated propaganda about The Hypothesis has absolutely nothing to do with trying to control global climates. Anyone who has carefully read the September draft treaty (Note 7) can see clearly that the UN’s objectives are: - redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies, - establishment of a framework for global government. On top of that is the usual political motivation of enhancement of status, power and finances of the select few.

It is good to see that at least one county’s politicians are seeing the truth about those unwarranted and economically disastrous efforts to impose global taxation on our use of fossil fuels. For the second time the Australian Senate has rejected its Labour Government’s attempts to force through such legislation.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.thegwpf.org/news-a-events/news.html 2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion 3) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/consequences-of-being-over-concerned/ 4) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5651997/Gordon-Browns-bid-to-lead-world-on-global-warming.html 5) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gordon-brown-proposes-pound10-billion-fund-to-fight-climate-change-1829312.html 6) see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232222/The-G20-nation-recession—Britain.html 7) see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic

No its methane that lasts 10 years Tony, then it decays to Co2 you silly man.

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, (Energy and Fuels, 2009), or by Dr. Tom V. Segalstad’s paper on carbon cycle modelling and residence time of anthropogenic CO2, published in 1998? I think.

If it was all peer reviewed and been accepted as the orthodox notion of reradiated heat? I suggest it is not hence the reason why you bring it up. You have been duped.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Own goal alert. Those of a nervous disposition (mainly climatologists and Guardian readers) please look away now.

It has come to my attention that a certain poster to this blog, namely a Mr. Peter Best has suggested that the gas which alone is destined to change the power balance of the entire world, wreck modern Western economies, reek havoc in terms of the power structure of the World order, consign millions in the undeveloped world to a life of permanent poverty and generally fark things up for the ordinary Joe but provide highly paid employment for those connected with its properties, remains in the Earths atmosphere for over one hundred years.._.......Roiters news alert.

However our environmental expert Mr. Tony (the original and best) reports that this indeed not the case. In fact unleaked data has recently come to light showing that contrary to the consensusual view of experts in the field carbon dioxide remains as such in the atmosphere for an average of ten years or less. However, with the Copenhagen summit ever closer, the IPCC has decided to change this data in order to panic World leaders to sign the Copenhagen declaration.

Proof below.

http://uddebatt.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/2009-09-23_213120.jpg

Robin L. thank you for your kind words. Yes I post everywhere but can never remember where exactly. Youtube, online news sites etc.

My sole intention is to right wrongs. Wheel daylight into dark corners and generally behave like an old git. It’s a hard job but someone’s gotta do it.

Tony, Tony, Tony (theoriginal and best) stop taking all the credit for yourself. I haven’t seen you on the UN’s COP15 threads yet.

Three cheers for “Climategate” – Hip Hip Hip HHHOOORRRAAAAYYYY!!

Pete R. another old git posting all over the Internet.

Pete, Hi there. No really I cannot take any credit for anything. I haven’t been on those threads. It’s people like yourself who do the research and groundwork to expose the myth. Hats off to you.

By the way that link I posted up on my last post doesn’t explain the story. Here’s the link to the site where the image is explained in more depth.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://uddebatt.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/2009-09-23_213120.jpg&imgrefurl=http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/the-ipcc%25E2%2580%2599s-fabrication-of-atmospheric-co2-residency-time/&usg=__Ov08GbwFJbsMHQ14vXcTLVByBUo=&h=633&w=995&sz=184&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=ew7M2LbIzIfMmM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaximum%2Bresidence%2Btime%2Bof%2Batmospheric%2Bco2%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADFA_enGB350GB350%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Hip hip hooray indeed for climategate. It’s like Christmas has arrive early. I’m sure you alongside myself and millions of others can now feel vindicated for having the temerity to think for ourselves. It’s going to be a great winter methinks. It’s non stop news on the great global warming scandal. Oh bliss. Oh Joy.

Oh by the way Radio 4’s moral maze is on tonight 8.0. clock gmt. It’s all about climategate. It will be interesting to note the conclusions drawn.

Interesting that Mark’s website is obviously being targetted repetitively by verbose and long-winded deniers. So who are you guys with so much time for spamming this site and others? Who pays your mortgage and bills? Shell? Or more shadowy with vested interests? It’s clearly more than a part-time hobby; I suspect your income derives from leaking and selling hacked and stolen information to the media!

Ceri, that is without doubt the funniest posting on this entire blog. Well done it cheered me up no end.

By the way my mortgage has been paid already some years ago. Shell? We’ve got a Shell garage not one mile from our house although they do have a hard time competing with the local Tesco which is normally at least 1 pence cheaper per litre plus the Clubcard points. Every little helps you know. My main source of income derives from carers allowance for looking after my son who suffers from autism so nothing particularly shadowy in that respect I’m sure you will agree. I would love to have stolen those hacked emails (don’t for God’s sake forget the data as well that would be rather like the BBC who keep forgetting that aspect of the story).

And that just about sums it up. Ordinary bloke with, yes perhaps too much time on his hands but let’s face it someone has to give voice to the common man and I’ve been voted to do it.

Thanks for your input Ceri.

By Christ on a bike, I’ve just listened to BBC radio fivelive. On the Richard Bacon show Christopher Monkton and some complete cretin, God knows his name who represented some quasi-scientific agitprop outfit, left my ears and my brain in somewhat of a fitful state. I may well sue for damage to my whole being.

This complete chump who sounded slightly Northern I’m not exactly sure where though but He possessed the distinctively strident and slightly camp tones of Derek Draper and must have been requisitioned from central casting by the Beeb who were in need of a complete and utter raving eco-looney. Well they certainly their “Man”, I’m still not quite sure if indeed this person were a Man as the screeching tones gave me cause to question whether they confused utter raving eco-loon with Northern fishwife.

Either way it was not happy listening. It was not good and if you think it might be a good idea to listen to it on i-player then think again. It’s ugly. No I mean really ugly. But extremely educational.

Imagine the ugliest beast of a woman (remember I’m still unsure of the gender of this creature so I’ll have to be careful) a complete munter, probably with a face looking like it had been set on fire and put out with a shovel, well this basically describes the personality of this, erm…............being and I use that term loosely.

Oh by God it was painful, not helped by Bacons inexperience in dealing with such nutters and I felt Bacon knew that he had lost control of the situation. It reminded me of one of Marcus Brigstokes best joke where he stands in front of the audience and shouts “Climate change deniers blah blah blah Tories eat babies We’re all gonna die”.

.............but louder.

Much louder.

Ceri – why not join in the discussion?

About the residence time of anthropogenic CO2, for example.

Since you mention Shell – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

Forward to Carbonhagen, fingers stuffed in ears.

More is coming to light about how and why the CRU emails were hacked – see this story from the UK’s Mail on Sunday (a right-wing conservative newspaper):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html

There is a bitter irony here. It looks as if all those good folks so eager to expose a grand conspiracy on the part of climate scientists have in fact been playing the part of (very willing, albeit unwitting) accomplices in one of the cleverest pieces of black propaganda of recent years. It seems increasingly probable that the whole exercise has been masterminded by the Russian security services – formerly known as the KGB – who have a proud track record in this respect.

Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man himself, must be delighted at the ease with which effective action to place curbs on the fossil fuel industry has been sabotaged.

Oh well that’s it then. The whole CRU scam was put together by the Russians in order to stop the capitalist West buying huge quantities of natural gas from… the Russians.

Where does Blofeld fit in?

Tom Scott, there is only one problem with your theory. Black propaganda relies on the leaking of false propaganda – ie. lies.

However in this case it appears that if the FSB (which replaced the KGB) were intent on sabotage then they fell at the first hurdle. By releasing the information which has led to this scandal those responsible might now find themselves spending the next few years digging salt out of what remains of the permafrost which is dying, dying I tell you. The permafrost is dying!

Oh well good try but ultimate fail.

Next!

My net connection is too slow to let me watch this, as advises me to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

What do you think of it?

(How fire can be domesticated)

Hmmn. The word Macfraud springs to mind and I can’t quite imagine why.

It’s strange why he talks about the emails and somehow tries to convince his audience that there really is nothing to worry about. What is laughable is the way he tries to convince them that the word “trick” doesn’t really mean trick but something completely different. That must have taken alot of webtrawling in order to find the word used in the scientific context in order to find a different meaning for the word.

So let’s take a look at the word “trick” and see how it is interpreted by most English speaking people.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Trick

Hmmmmn. Still seems to mean the same thing to me. Mind you it’s not to difficult to trawl the net and find instances of People using the word as a shortcut or as slang/jargon even if this only occurs two or three times amongst billions of documents found all over the internet.

So what this fool is saying is that if He had found the word “trick” used in correspondence between scientists who might be trialing a drug which would be used on children but there may have been a few deaths arising from such trials and those involved used the word “trick” in order to perhaps change the perception as to whether the outcome meant pass or fail of the drug then He would be quite happy to let his child use the drug????

What an utter fool.

No what’s worse is that this cretin probably would muchlike Jehovah witness’s who let their children die rather than follow Doctors orders.

Sorry, another sad, deluded fool. Note how He concentrates on one or two emails and says nothing about the data.

Next!