Friday, 29 January 2010

Is CO2 causing Global Warming

There is much talk on Agmates saying the AGW hypothesis is correct, saying CO2 is causing AGW, CO2 is a pollutant etc. Bob examines the hypothesis that CO2 causes Global Warming.

Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and
holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of
Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the
University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was
Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

Bob has wide experience in management and research
administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline
Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science
and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean
Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific

Bob's research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the
Australian Research Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from
special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide critical
and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles,
demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature.

Monday, 18 January 2010

Assassinationscience Climate Gate

As well as Leon's analysis in the Powerpoint attachment available on the Climate Sceptics Website,, Dr. John P. Costella B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. has done a very good analysis. It can be found at: (link in title)

As John says: "This is one of the darkest periods in the history of science. Those who love science, and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is here, and cannot be avoided."

As a teaser (but it is worth your time to read his whole post), I will put here John's comment on temperature proxies:

Photo - Keith Briffa

To measure the temperature of the planet, we obviously need some thermometers. Now, it would be nice if someone was able to invent a time machine, so that we could go back over the past few thousand (or hundred thousand) years, and place accurate scientific thermometers all over the planet, to make these measurements for us. Of course, this isn’t possible, so scientists need to use other things as substitutes—or “proxies”—for these thermometers.

A key “temperature proxy” used by climate scientists is tree-ring data, namely, measurements of the patterns of the rings of trees that were growing hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

Now, even my sons (in elementary school at the time of writing) can tell me a handful of different factors that might influence the growth of a tree in a particular year: the amount of sun shining on it; the amount of rain it gets; how hot the weather is when it is growing; the conditions of the soil it is growing in; and the amount of carbon dioxide available for it to breathe in. We should imagine that the growth of a tree should, at the very least, depend on these five things.

So is a tree really a good thermometer?

As a physicist, such a proposition seems fraught with danger from the outset. Let’s pretend, for the moment, that the growth of a tree depends only on these five factors, and no others. An elementary fact of mathematics, that I used to teach to my 15-year-old high school students, is that if you have five unknowns (these five factors at any given instant of time in a particular tree’s lifetime), then you need at least five pieces of independent information to disentangle them all—and you need to know these five quantities to a high accuracy.

So to make any use at all of tree ring data, climate scientists would need at least four other completely independent “proxies”. Is this what they do?

They do not.

Saturday, 16 January 2010

Hide the Decline- 13 years of Climategate

Poneke has written a blog post on the Climate Gate e-mails. (Link in title)

Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.

The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves “the Team,” bully and smear any critics. They control the “peer review” process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.

The Team’s members are the heart of the IPCC process, many of them the lead authors of its reports.

and later:

Mann’s final comment above about “the late 20th century decline” is the genesis of the now-infamous “hide the decline” email that is the most quoted of the Climategate treasure trove, almost always out of context. The context is being given here.

Mann went on to say the problem remained that Briffa’s proxy data differed sharply in the late 20th century from his and Jones’s. He continued: This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case…. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

The problem Mann saw was soon solved, as shown by that infamous email dated November 16 1999, from Phil Jones to Mann, Briffa and others:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Mr Rudd, Your ETS is all BS

On 4BC, A Michael Smith Listener sent this song - Click on Title above!