All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Friday, 7 November 2014

Who are the Real Deniers?


BigMoney was spent trying to prop up support for the falsified CAGW hypothesis during the US
Tom Steyer
Half Term elections. At the head of the list, Liberal Tom Steyer donated $58 million to Political Action Committees (PACs)
The California billionaire and climate-change activist gave $16 million more to his NextGen Climate Action Committee in the first two weeks of October, bringing to $57.6 million his aggregate donations to his organization.  (link)
Despite the donated Billions, the US voters turned their collective backs on the Alarmist candidates.

The "whackos are inconsolable in their grief" and are spewing out hate language including "denier" - the hateful reference to the holocaust. The Alarmists had previously lost the scientific argument and now find they have also lost the political argument...hence the hatred.

Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks believes "that we most effectively discredit that term by turning it back on those who use it against us."

He previously wrote a column on this blog -see HERE - which is reproduced below:


Who are the Deniers? 


by Dr Gordon J Fulks


Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question: 

Who denies natural climate change? 
  • Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays? 
  • Who denies that our Sun is a variable star? 
  • Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade? 
  • Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon? 
  • Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles? 
  • Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels? 
  • Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan? 
  • Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause? 
  • Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm? 
  • Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization? 
  • Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2? 
  • Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet? 
  • Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering? 
  • Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed? 
  • Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years? 
  • Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere? 
  • Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures? 
  • Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead? 
  • Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory? 
  • Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?
  • Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2? 
  • Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?
  • Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method? 





28 comments:

  1. Geoff, you continue to take small sections of scientific articles, mix it with mumbo jumbo from people that are clearly unhinged and put if forward as evidence.

    For example saying CO2 will green the planet is complete rubbish. Yes, plants need CO2 but they gather most of their nutrients from the soil. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have little impact on plant growth but the fact humans are removing large areas of forests will have huge impacts on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    If you REALLY want to get a better understanding of climate change you need to look at all the evidence without bias. No one report could ever detail all the evidence that points towards it. Proving climate change is like proving a court case, you have to look at all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geoff, why don't you explain why a Canadian company in Santa Maria, CA buys compressed CO2 and creates an atmosphere up to 1100 ppm CO2 to enhance the growth of tomatoes and other plants in an essentially (no not 100%) closed system? I asked on a tour of their facility what happens when you turn off the CO2. The answer was that the CO2 concentration dropped very quickly to below 300. You are basically making up your response as if you know what no one else knows.

      Delete
    2. This is well demonstrated by the time lapse YouTube from CO2 Science "Seeing is Believing" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE)

      Photographed over 42 days in chambers of ambient (450ppm) and elevated (1270ppm) CO2 concentrations.

      Delete
  2. mumbo jumbo from people that are clearly unhinged
    Peter, if I had published some of your ratbag and abusive comments, there would be no doubt who is unhinged.

    Also obviously you do NOT accept peer-reviewed papers in the Links supplied:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/warming-and-rising-atmospheric-co2-is.html

    In a team led by Rogier de Jong as published in Global Change Biology - that "it can readily be appreciated that the twin evils of the world's climate alarmists - rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global warming - have actually been what has fueled the last quarter-century's greening of the earth."

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/asia-greened-by-increased-co2.html

    A peer-reviewed paper published in Remote Sensing5 by Ichii et al showed that, over the last 30 years vegetation has increased in Asia as atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, plant fertiliser has increased. (Link) 40% of the area has experienced a significant increase in vegetation.

    You say: No one report could ever detail all the evidence that points towards it. Proving climate change is like proving a court case, you have to look at all the evidence.

    We have shown that the CAGW hypothesis HAS been falsified. QED. You have no evidence but correlation - and even correlation fails.

    Show some science or Bye Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again you are taking a few parts of a few scientific paper and manipulate them to suit your needs. This is not science.

    CO2 is required by plants for photosynthesis but most growth is driven from elements in the soil such as phosphorus and nitrogen. If you had of researched biogeochemical cycling like I suggested you would start to see the way element (including carbon) interact with the environment. You would also start to see how changing those cycles by doing things like adding more carbon to the atmosphere will drive climate and other environmental changes.

    Another thing I would like to know is why when I point out your climate4you graph shows a rise in temperature the correlates with the rise in CO2 over the last 115years I get "correlation does not prove causation" but apparently an increase of vegetation in Asia over the last 30 years is proof CO2 is good? What the!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      Plants have a number of limiting nutrients. Since the concentration of these in soil vary from place to place, the actual nutrients that are limiting also vary from place to place. CO2 is actually involved in the so-called dark reactions of photosynthesis. CO2 is fixed into organic molecules and can be converted into glucose or eventually (with availability of nitrogen) into amino acids, etc. They use the CO2 directly for growth and can get some energy as well from glycolysis. They make the starch and cellulose from the glucose they get from CO2. CO2 is limiting and plants grown with higher CO2 do grow faster and larger and also are more drought tolerant as their stoma do not have to remain open as often to get CO2. Some plants this will have a bigger effect on than others and other nutrients can also limit growth but there is ample evidence including Science and Nature papers that there has been a greening of parts of the world.

      Delete
  4. Peter "correlation does not prove causation" but apparently an increase of vegetation in Asia over the last 30 years is proof CO2 is good? What the!

    Good observation...I was aware of this apparent flaw in the argument, however it has been proven that increased CO2 increases plant growth whereas the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified.

    Yes, plants need CO2 but they gather most of their nutrients from the soil. Untrue. DO your research. Photosynthesis is the main nutrient for plants.

    You would also start to see how changing those cycles by doing things like adding more carbon to the atmosphere will drive climate and other environmental changes. Err...adding more carbon to the atmosphere? Do you mean carbon or do you mean vital to life carbon dioxide? AND if CO2, do you mean all CO2 or just man's very small proportion of atmospheric CO2?

    Another thing I would like to know is why when I point out your climate4you graph shows a rise in temperature the correlates with the rise in CO2 over the last 115years

    This is also not true. First, the Climate4You CO2 graph is from 1958 to 2014 only 56 years.

    Secondly, According to HadCRUt 4 Temperatures fell from 1958 to 1977 then rose from 77 to 2003 and have again been falling since then to date. (Similar ups and downs from the other main data sets.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Photosynthesis is a process not a nutrient. The process provides nutrients and I've already agreed CO2 is a importation part of photosynthesis but to suggest that CO2 itself can increase a plants yield is just wrong. If this was the case farmers wouldn't waist billions every year on fertilizes high in elements such as phosphorus and nitrogen.

    The other point I would like to make is the Ichil et al report states "increases in GPP are explained by increased temperature and precipitation in Siberia." How does this disprove climate change?

    As I pointed out in a previous comment using an article you provided, human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels and coal accounts for about 79% of CO2 in the atmosphere. 79% without considering other human activity's is not a small proportion.

    Finally I apologise for reading the climate4you graph incorrectly, its a bit hard to see on a iPad mini. Now I have read it correctly its even more concerning then before. It shows the temperature has risen about .5 of a degree in 56 years not 115 as I originally thought. I think everyone should be concerned with that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter, are you one of the "REAL DENIERS?"

    Our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels - as you inferred before.

    You know that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan, don't you?

    You know that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause, don't you?

    You seem to deny that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2.

    You seem to deny that global temperature has been going down for most of the 21st century.

    You apologise reading the climate4you graph incorrectly and then say It shows the temperature has risen about .5 of a degree in 56 years ....

    It was just a graph of atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. Obviously you have misread it if you see temperature measurements.

    You say How does this disprove climate change?

    No one here disputes climate change. Climate has changed since the beginning of time.

    However the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By 1830 the industrial revaluation had been in full swing for about 70 years. During this period industry was driven by steam power machines fuelled by wood (that releases CO2 when burnt) and coal. By 1830 carbon levels in the atmosphere had already risen above known natural levels pre the industrial revaluation.

    Thankfully technology has improved since the early days of the industrial revaluation or we would have all probably chocked to death by now. I can't deny the plant is using more fossil fuel now but technology means it burns cleaner and produces less emissions.

    Ice core samples can not be used in this debate as they only relate to natural environmental conditions. At no point in the past have humans pumped the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as we have over the past 250 years so there is no grounds for comparison.

    As for temperatures going down for most of the 21st century I have to say 1. 14years is not even a fraction of a fraction of a micro second in a climate study. 2. Looking at the climate4you graph the temperature is about .5 degree higher now then it was 56 years ago. In effect the graph shows in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, the average temperature has risen half a degree.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter:. By 1830 carbon levels in the atmosphere had already risen above known natural levels pre the industrial revaluation.

      Untrue See Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
      http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html LINK
“Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today”


      Peter: Ice core samples can not be used in this debate as they only relate to natural environmental conditions.

      Really? Surely, as shown by the ice core data, Temperature rising before the rise in atmospheric CO2 is very important to the debate. In fact you could say that it is the core of the debate.

      Delete
    2. @Peter,
      The truth is that the science has shown the CO2 relationship to temperature is a failed hypothesis. But even more importantly, NOBODY really cares any more. Answer the question why NOBODY cares and you have your answer to the failures of this hypothesis. The Government entities have broken up on the subject and the average person could care less. This has been shown in several surveys. It is time to stop the crazy talk that has caused the lack of belief in this failed hypothesis. If you care to join the world of REAL scientists looking for REAL climatic relationships that actually make REAL predictions that actually add to our knowledge, then you are welcome to argue. Until you have anything other than denial of the science that has obliterated CAGW, there is nothing more that you can say against the damage your climate heros that are radically incompetent have already said that are being ignored by governments and general populations. So good luck with your cause that is flushing down the toilet.

      Delete
    3. REAL predictions that actually add to our knowledge....

      Is this good science, Peter? REALly?

      But you are right in saying The truth is that the science has shown the CO2 relationship to temperature is a failed hypothesis.

      The end of your comment does not make sense and what do you mean by this: your climate heros that are radically incompetent....

      The incompetence is in the political people who issue the IPCC's SPM.

      Delete
  8. The reason most people don't care and the worlds governments chose to ignore climate change is most people are driven by greed. The debate has moved away from the environment and into the realm of finance. I mean the logo at the top of this page is "no carbon tax" for god sake.

    One day people will relies life on earth can survive without the economy but it can not survive without balanced ecosystems. My concern is it's not me but future generations that are going to rep what humanity has sown for the last 250 years and we could have stopped it but didn't because of our own greed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. most people are driven by greed.

      Certainly Al Gore is and so are most of the Alarmists scientists sucking on the public tit.

      The debate has moved away from the environment and into the realm of finance

      No, The debate has moved away from the environment and into the realm of politics.

      it's not me but future generations that are going to rep (SIC) what humanity has sown...

      If we deprive the atmosphere of vital to life carbon dioxide, there will be no future.

      because of our own greed

      Are you making money out of this Peter? What is your motivation? Money?
      We are fighting the falsified hoax gratis, because we believe in a better world.


      Delete
  9. Regardless of where you come down on CAGW, it's an indisputable fact that virtually all of the computer models failed to predict the recent pause. Even if there has been slight warming, it's well below even the most conservative predictions of any major model. This, to any real scientist, is all that matters because it indicates - without question - that something is wrong with the underlying hypothesis. They are clearly not accounting for one or more important (causal) variable. That alone would lead any true scientist operating without an agenda to conclude that they need to go back to the drawing board. But CAGW believers don't do this. That is proof-positive that this isn't really about science at all. It's an agenda cleverly hiding behind the authority of science. It's falling apart because, thankfully, there are some real scientists who are brave enough to call them on these tactics and defend true science from charlatans looking to advance an agenda and enrich themselves through fear mongering.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The agenda is to have a place to live into the future , I see echoes of the creationism vs evolution debate , Where people in the creationist corner found people with degrees to comment on things outside their field , using the "authority of science" . Where as the climate skeptics seem to be backed by big business interests and the climate skeptics scientist is almost invariably commenting on things outside their field of study . A biologist can have an opinion on climate change , but it shouldn't be given the same weight as a climatologist , for what i thought was obvious reasons ,


    Geoff
    Btw the limiting factor in most land based plants growth is nitrogen , The fact you mixed up photosynthesis with an element tells me volumes about your science education , this is day 1 stuff mate.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimbo: climate skeptics seem to be backed by big business interests

      This is a trite throw-away remark without any evidence. It's is a favourite tool of the Alarmists.

      See Merchants of Smear http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/merchants-of-smear.html

      As to qualifications of scientists, the bulk of this post is by an astrophysicist with almost identical academic qualifications as the Alarmist James Hansen.

      Gordon and James agree on many points but differ on the anthropogenic cause of the imaginary CAGW.

      Delete
    2. "Jimbo: climate skeptics seem to be backed by big business interests

      This is a trite throw-away remark without any evidence. It's is a favourite tool of the Alarmists. "

      I admit Geoff it does sound trite , and i was hesitant to beleive it but it's all backed up by Tax returns and publically availible websites with donation records ,

      If i could produce these for you (and you verify them) would you change your position ?

      Delete
    3. Did you read the many links supplied rebutting the false claims of funding?

      Delete
    4. Jimbo,

      Merchants of Smear begins:

      For about two decades we’ve been told the science behind human-caused global warming is settled, and to ignore skeptic scientists because they’ve been paid by industry to manufacture doubt about the issue.

      You say If i could produce these for you (and you verify them) would you change your position ?

      You obviously haven't read any of the links provided in the Merchants of Smear piece.

      But you ask change your position....Change my position on what?

      This article is about who are the real deniers,

      My position won't be changed on the fact that the alarmists are the real deniers as detailed above.

      My position won't be changed on the falsified AGW hypothesis.

      As to funding, perhaps the names George Soros and Tom Steyer should come into this off-topic chat.

      Delete
  11. I have seen these lobbyist tax returns with my own eyes , So..

    Either these groups falsified their own tax returns or someone at the IRS has , in order for these claims to be fake . which is a huge accusation , and not to be thrown around without evidence , I will look at these links , but can you please answer my question


    "If i could produce these for you (and you verify them) would you change your position ? "

    ReplyDelete
  12. A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder ,

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

    There you go , a study by a university using IRS records , what more evidence do you need ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimbo: the climate skeptics scientist is almost invariably commenting on things outside their field of study...

      Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle in Nature is commenting on Financial Matters. Hmmm...

      Delete
  13. What is Sociology?

    Sociology is the study of human social relationships and institutions. Sociology's subject matter is diverse, ranging from crime to religion, from the family to the state, from the divisions of race and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture, and from social stability to radical change in whole societies.

    Study is well within the bounds of his expertise , as he relates the funding to behavior of the recipient , It's not like a biologist claiming to be more of an expert in meteorology than actual people with training in the field .

    What part of his method do you disagree with ? are his sources wrong ?(the IRS) ,
    are his conclusions erroneous ? arithmetic error ?

    If the paper is wrong can you please point out where to me , objectively ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimbo You have avoided the links above on Funding. Have you looked at them?
      What parts of them do you disagree with? Are the conclusions erroneous?

      Why do you avoid the mani issues and keep jumping down side lanes?

      Are you, as is stated in the piece, a denier? Do you deny there is no correlation between CO2 and global warming? Do you deny that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified? Do you deny that global warming comes before the rise in atmospheric CO2?


      Jimbo Study is well within the bounds of his expertise.. Even more so then is climatology within the bounds of expertise of meteorologists and geologists.

      Point out objectively? How can Brulle even be consodered as objective when he uses the inflammatory terms of Denial.

      Delete
  14. " My position won't be changed on the fact that the alarmists are the real deniers as detailed above.

    My position won't be changed on the falsified AGW hypothesis. "

    So you wouldn't change your position in ANY circumstance ?
    that says everything

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, In your thinking 1 plus one equals 10.

      Do you believe the falsified CAGW hypothesis? And what would it take to change your position?

      Please be more rational, Jimbo.

      Delete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!