Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't do science

[Frohicky1]

Delingpole is just awful

[StargateMunky]

snake oil salesman HO!!!

[georgeigler]

Delingpole is right to pick Nurse up on this analogy. He is being polite rather than angry. Not non plussed.

Cancer medicine is based on rigorous experimental practise: trials, double-blind placebo groups etc: they can provide an end test of effectiveness. Climate modelling can do NONE of this, and can provide no comparable "proof" of effectiveness. Nurse knows this.

He is trying to portray Delingpole as a "doubter of science", whereas sceptics believe in science, and that AGW is BAD science.

[ZOMGitsJesusCriss]

"Sleep now in your fire". I guess we pretty much get what we deserve. We pissed the bed and now we have to sleep in it. Fools like this will be the first to die when the humanoid lemmings finally realize how dire the situation is. The rich, the politicians, the deceivers...they will pay the ultimate price (hopefully it will be a long slow torturous death), and our planet will recover some eon from now and be ready for the next bed soiling experiment.

[ZOMGitsJesusCriss]

Humans are fucking stupid lemmings.

[hookalakah]

"Progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.

Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science--real science--is rarely controversial. . ..Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point." --David Harsanyi, Real Clear Politics

[ZOMGitsJesusCriss]

@hookalakah Hey dumb-ass Fox News graduate: The science isn't controversial just because some snake-oil salesman and Fox news says it is.

[FatherTime89]

So many scientific organizations say they agree that AGW is happening, practically none of them say it isn't but meanwhile shmucks like Delingpole claim the science isn't settled.

[Lightf00t1]

@FatherTime89

Meanwhile people like you believe everything you're told.  lol

[FatherTime89]

@Lightf00t1 No that would be people who want to believe in the conspiracy.

You know the people who don't use experts or scientists.

[Feyd01]

It worries me that desply is that Paul Nurse is right, science has lost touch with the public. Instead, clueless morons like James Delingpole have people's ear. This world could literally die of ignorance.

[uknowispeaksense]

@Feyd01 science has lost touch with the public to an extent, but the problem is probably more that the public do not understand science and unfortunately the 'public' extends to those that have the greates influence on the rest of the public. That is, popular media. So if the the popular media don't get it and they are influencing the rest who don't get it, thats where the problem lies and the end result is fear and mistrust of the unknown borne out of scientific illiteracy.

[Feyd01]

@uknowispeaksense You're right, that about sums it up perfectly!

[david222444]

Drugs in medicine are given on a risk/benefit basis. In the case of Carbon dioxide, the benefits to life far outweigh the risks.

[david222444]

Look forward to more blogs from Mr Delingpole , these warming idiots need to be put in their place. I have read some of the abuse from arrogant faggots here. Nurse and his cronies are an insult to science. Carbon dioxide is is much more beneficial to the Planet . The risks are nothing compared to the benefits. Anyway the Planet is COOLING . Keep up the good work James.

[cristop5]

@david222444 "Anyway the Planet is COOLING"

And which global temperature database shows this? I have three videos on my channel showing you how to access and analyse global temperature data. If you have MS Excel or similar, set aside 20 minutes & do the exercise for yourself. See whether or not the data show cooling.

[david222444]

@cristop5 Now, is that the corrupt data made up by climatologists looking for more funding? The gravy train of lies will soon hit the buffers. I really do not care about your three propaganda videos and will not waste 20 mins of my time on them. The Sun is at present entering a Grand Minimum with abrupt and long cooling predicted. A trace amount of harmless co2 will not and cannot offset these cooling effects.

[cristop5]

@david222444 1. None of the data I link you to is "made up".

2. You made a claim that the "the Planet is COOLING". Why not back this up with a link to the data that show this?

3. My videos are not 'propaganda'. They simply show you how to look at global temperature data yourself!

4. 'grand minimum' Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) found that even if the sun fell into a grand minimum, global temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C.(ww w.agu.or g/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042­710.sht ml)

[david222444]

@cristop5 Look what does your data prove even if I looked at it. The past warming was caused by the Sun. The cycles have changed ! There is a negative(cooling) Pacific decadal Oscillation and a Grand Solar Minimum. A trace amout of co2 in the atmosphere will simply be overwhelmed .

[cristop5]

@david222444

1. "Look what does your data prove even if I looked at it. " Look at it. The data contradicts the claim it's cooling.

2. "The past warming was caused by the Sun" Yes that's generally true.

3. "There is a negative(cooling) Pacific decadal Oscillation and a Grand Solar Minimum" Yes, but NO cooling. That's the point. Why no cooling? Because CO2 has now emerged as a stronger driver.

4. The 'trace' of CO2 is about the same % as the trace of blood alcohol that puts you over the limit.

[david222444]

@cristop5 Keep believing there is no cooling then you wont have to turn your heating on this winter! Self hypnosis may reduce your fuel bills but watch out for frost bite. Remember co2 seeps from every living cell in your body! think of the warming it generates inside you lol.

[cristop5]

@david222444 "Keep believing there is no cooling..."

Given what the data from three separate sources show, I have to conclude there is no global cooling. Like you, I'd prefer it to be cooling, but I am obliged to face reality. You seem to be free from such an encumbrance.

[david222444]

@cristop5 try a simple search, AMSU-A temperatures , you can then watch the atmosphere cool at your leisure on a daily basis. compare 2010 with 2011 and you will find that every level of the atmosphere is cooler that 2010. global warming my arse.

[wstevenschneider]

@david222444 So two years (one which is not even complete yet) sets the whole trend for the past several decades?

Global cooling, my ass.

[david222444]

@wstevenschneider Let me make it simple for you. The climate models are wrong. Global warming my ass. Next winter could possibly be the coldest you have ever known.

[wstevenschneider]

@david222444 You're right, you are being simple. "News Flash - Winters are Cold!" Thanks for telling me that. You're such a genius!

Something tells me that you're confusing the seasons with climate.

[david222444]

@wstevenschneider news flash - The greenhouse theory is bullshit. Now go lick Nurse's arse! Something tells me your are confused period.

[cristop5]

@david222444 "...you can then watch the atmosphere cool at your leisure on a daily basis."

The page you gave the link for has just 9 separate calendar years which you can overlay on top of one another. Not very useful. To see a trend over time you need to look at the time series data laid 'end to end'.

So go to ht tp://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data­/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.3 (remove spaces), download the data onto an Excel spreadsheet and do a trend line. To see how to do this: /watch?v=I3q3zs0EVDU

[andyz0007]

James whips ass....good one put that schmuck in his place, indeed, what a pathetic analogy, that man's brain cells must be leaking out of his ear or he has his head planted firmly in the sand.

[kakekomijosha9]

...Of course the difference is that a doctor offers an INDIVIDUAL a course of treatment, based on thousands of equivalent, verifiable test cases, and the individual lives with the consequences of their decision, and isn't in the position of paying for the treatment whether it's needed and effective or otherwise.

Whether Nurse is right or wrong, that was a lousy analogy. Science without scepticism is worthless.

[paultaw]

Anyone with half a brain can guess that man's destruction of the forests and burning of fossil fuels in such quantities MUST have some effect on the climate. It would be amazing if this were not so. It seems to me that Delingpole must be either deluded or in the pay of Big Oil.

[brandywells]

@paultaw What you imagine are huge quantities are tiny in relationship to the volume of the atmosphere and oceans, and what forest destruction are you even refering to?

[mphello]

It's my political opinion that it should be legal to kill this subhuman piece of trash Delingpole. I don't have the time to deal with lawyers and police and their politically-biased laws that prevent me from doing whatever I want.

Seriously, I encourage anyone to kill James Delingpole. There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing so. There is no scientific proof that it's a "crime". Just a lot of politically biased alarmism.

[camera400]

"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point (1974)

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline." - Dr Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999

“... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...” - Dr Phil Jones, July 8th 2004.

Global warming made sea levels rise 120 metres over the past 18,000 years!!!!!!

[camera400]

Tree-ring temperature proxy data is all fake because tree growth isn't a proxy for temperature alone but cloud cover and rainfall (trees grow from photosynthesis, which is faster with water and sunshine). This is why it failed since 1960, global dimming! “… wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts … are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy.” – Oppenheimer, 1950

[jimbob1969]

Noticed the number of times he talks about himself and his beliefs, "I" this and "I'm" that..says it all

[WorldStove]

sigh.. and so with all the debating few are actually doing. .... might make a nice epitaph for us all

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard482 No, you're absolutely right. I don't understand. You say greenhouse gases change the earth's energy balance. Perhaps, but that is a temporary effect that lasts only until equilibrium was achieved between the incoming and outgoing radiation. The atmospheric greenhouse is just a radiation cycling-mechanism, it is not a primary source of energy in itself, and so it is impossible for it to add any W/sq.m to the earth's total incoming/outgoing radiation. At least, that my understanding.

[Femfikon]

I don't care about consensus. I think it is sad that scientists have to use their *numbers* as an argument when their science is solid enough to be alarming.

Why are scientists forced to use their consensus as an argument? Because the public is so idiotic and low of mind.

If Delingpole doesn't have the time to read the science, where does he get time to slander and monger rumors about the scientists? What an inbred little cunt.

[mphello]

@Femfikon "I don't care about consensus. I think it is sad that scientists have to use their *numbers* as an argument when their science is solid enough to be alarming."

AMEN! So worth repeating!

Support War Against Climate Change.

[JRCrowley]

@Femfikon "What an inbred little cunt."

I agree with you. The intelligence of your last sentence sealed the deal for me. /sarcasm

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard482 And if you do decide to reply, don't just copy-and-paste sentences from Skeptical Science.

[Richard482]

@CHIPSTERO7 I thought if I did that you might then understand the difference, but obviously not

[CHIPSTERO7]

YouTube is not posting my comments for some reason. See my last comment in the "Comment Section".

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard482 Your statement that "internal forces do not cause climate change which requires external forcings" is a bizarre one. I would have thought that the climate would not necessarily need external forces (greenhouse gases would be internal) in order to cause a change in the temperature. In any case, even if it were true it just demonstrates that greenhouse gases have increased. It does not answer the central question. Which is, what is the human contribution to the CO2 greenhouse effect?

[Richard482]

@CHIPSTERO7 Error there. C02 is referred to as an external forcing, not internal. Solar irradiance, particulates from a volcanic erruption and greenhouse gases are referred to as external forcings because they change the planet's energy balance and so force climate to change. I know it's not the same but have you ever seen the heat trapping property of C02 demonstrated in a laboratory? Interesting to watch.

watch?v=02EpAMm8rfo

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard When I refer to an "external" force I'm referring to forces specifically outside of earth's system (eg cosmic rays, TSI, etc). According to Wikipedia GHGs are "external" to the climate system. Quite how GHGs are external to the climate system is beyond me. And thanks for the video, but you evidently don't understand that we don't deny that CO2 has not effect, but that it is not currently in sufficiently great enough concentrations that we should be taking drastic measures to counteract.

[gufpott]

Delingpole was right to insist they stick to climategate - that's what Nurse had asked to discuss.

Cancer is an rubbish analogy. Nurse was trying to manipulate, but he made himself look both devious and stupid.

Most people have an opinion on important topics without reading primary research literature. I'm sure Nurse does.

From 3 hours', this is what Horizon chose to show. That was shameful and biased. See how far a once great programme has fallen.

[LostPlanet42]

What a total idiot Delingpole is. I can't believe that he is employed as an Environmental "expert".

[JohnMoseley]

Delingfool.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel And how you can think the paleoclimate data supports AGW is beyond me. The paleoclimate data clearly shows that the earth has been much warmer in the past. The last three interglacials were warmer than the one we currently live in, and the Roman Warming Period (2,000 years ago), the Medieval Warming Period (900 years ago) and the Minoan Warming Period (3,300 years ago) were all warmer than current temperatures according to the paleoclimate record (Google the "GISP2" ice-core data).

[arneperschel]

@CHIPSTERO7

Why yes. Our understanding of current and future climate is largely based on our understanding of climates of the past. And everybody agrees that there have been times when the planet has been much colder and other times when it was much warmer (as much as 16ºC warmer). So now the detective work is to try to find out which factors may have influenced this and try to reproduce the observed result with models. If it works for the past, it must also work for the future. And guess what..

[arneperschel]

@CHIPSTERO7

Climate has multiple factors that influence it such as, the earth's orbit around the sun, solar radiation, the position of the continents (and with it the direction of ocean currents and the distribution of land mass and land or sea ice), volcanic activity, the biosphere, greenhouse gases, ...

Recent studies have shown that the influence of CO2 might be greater than we previously thought. At least in part due to the large feedback mechanisms from H2O, albedo and most of all methane.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel Oh really? What "recent studies" may these be? Can you name one single piece of evidence that shows higher CO2-levels mean significantly higher temperatures? There is no evidence in the paleoclimate data that suggests CO2 is a dominant driver of temperatures - ice-cores would suggests otherwise - and computer models are merely speculative postulates and have been exposed as exaggerating positive feedback. I'm afraid your whole case appears misconceived and based on fantasies to me.

[arneperschel]

@CHIPSTERO7

Search "Science/AAAS Lessons from Earth's past"

"Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change"

"A23A AGU"

"science coupling ice sheet transitions 20"

And don't judge these findings by the hair color of the scientists. Only by content. If you don't agree, feel free to submit your comments to Science Magazine.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel - AAAS - the same AAAS that was forced to withdraw a recent AGW message of woe after a journalist pointed out that the fearmongery promoted in the piece drew "impossible conclusions".. but not before even Scientific American had published the report. Yeah, you can really trust AAAS to gate-keep drivel. NOT.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel Also, how do you know that CO2 is what caused the high temperatures 250 million years ago, and not, say, something else, like an increase in atmospheric-pressure due to enormous volcanism activity that was rife millions of years ago? The paleoclimate record can give us only a correlation and a correlation is essentially just a coincidence between two sets of numbers and cannot prove that CO2 caused temperature to change anymore than it can prove temperature caused CO2 to change.

[Richard482]

@CHIPSTERO7 Potholer54 mentions this in a video and he includes links to peer-reviewed articles.

watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=re­lated

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard482 Yes, and I've discussed this with Potholer54 and he has yet to reply to my objections concerning the validity of the evidence: watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag (i.e. a correlation in the paleoclimate record). All that I have seen in the way of evidence from CAGW-proponents is a correlation, but it is an elementary principle of scientific statists that correlation only proves coincidence, not a cause-and-effect relationship. What evidence, aside from a correlation, specifically can you point to?

[Ermintrude75]

Climate science and related green industries are a multi billion dollar industry. I am amazed that people have to cheek to accuse dissenting scientists of being in the pay of big oil companies. This debate is getting pointless now as clearly people are not going to stand for their standard of life and employment prospects being destroyed. Advocates of taking any action may as well give up as it a futile cause. The Chinese, US and India aren't on board so there is no point in doing anything.

[th3dig1tal0n3]

US wouldn't embrace radical CO2 emission cuts even if it would prevent the disaster, India wants to become "developed" in order to ensure better life for their citizens, and China had just swallowed the hook of industrial revolution, and wouldn't give it up for anything.

It is all about GDP, exponential growth, the Holy Grail of Economics.

News flash: Exponential growth is not sustainable concept in nature. Everything based on exponential growth hits limit fast and then fails.

Economics is fake.

[arneperschel]

@Ermintrude75

Just look it up: annual revenue of Exxon and of Vestas. The difference is a factor 100.

Did you know none of the IPCC scientists are being paid for their contribution? It's a spare-time job.

Just for now it seems fossil fuels are still more profitable than renewables.

The Chinese are on board a lot more than you think. They figured: we can eat the Americans' lunch!

They're installing 1 wind turbine every hour.

[th3dig1tal0n3]

Even worse, the foul practices of unsustainable economics and development are subsidized all over the world, oil in US, nuclear all over the world. Meanwhile dirty and inefficient solutions are advertised as "green" solutions all over the world, creating illusion of moving toward the solution of problem. Standard of living is going to fall, because it was raised by cheap energy from coal and oil.

[SamZVidZ]

What a crap analogy. No wonder Delingpole wouldn't accept it.

Here's the proper analogy: "If a doctor pulled you off the street and told you that he believed you had cancer, and told you that it was the consensus opinion, but wouldn't tell you who formed the consensus or let you see any evidence of your cancer.. AND he told you that, after treatment, you would require excrutiatingly expensive medicine for the rest of your long life... would you seek a second opinion?"

Bloody right you would.

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

If you think there's no evidence for global warming you clearly haven't read any scientific literature on climate. That's ok. If you want to save the pain, you can read a more digestible summary of the evidence for warming of the climate system and the influence of increased greenhouse gases by searching: "skeptical science guide".

I'd also like to point out that there are multiple benefits to the solution to global warming: clean air and water, green jobs, energy independence, ...

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel there is a difference between anthropogenic global warming and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Of course there is a likely warming effect from anthropogenic CO2, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the religious belief that the contributions will inevitably be catastrophic, and there is not even sufficient evidence to show that the effect can be distinguished from natural variability.

Green jobs are expensive, clean water is unrelated, energy independence..

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

clean water: no more coal mining, no more mercury poisoning; no more tar sands

Just how are jobs 'expensive'?

catastrophic global warming, one word: paleoclimate

All the paleoclimate evidence shows that our climate models are significantly UNDERestimating the warming effect of greenhouse gases. It's not a religious belief, it's evidence based science.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel

The Thanet wind farm will deliver 21 "green jobs". The cost of those jobs will work out at £3million/year each in "green" subsidies. 400,000 "green jobs" works out at over £22 trillion. That's "expensive".

Rubbish regarding pale reconstructions and models. I've rarely heard more rabid warmist nonsense. Models are not evidence, they do not produce data. Observations (HadCRUT3) show 0.4C/century warming. Indistinguishable from natural variability and not at all alarming!

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

I don't know about this Thanet project.

Do you want me to count the cost of the Iraq war as 'oil exploration'?

Did you know worldwide subsidies to fossil fuel companies are about 13 times higher than for renewables?

Just ask any working climate scientist about paleo vs models.

You should call Pat Michaels an alarmist since he says the earth is warming at 0.14ºC/decade, more than three times your reading of HadCRUT3.

Anyway, you seem impervious to facts. G'day!

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel

Google is your friend. Look up the Thanet wind farm.

You're confusing sceptic with oil shill. Just because there is no empirical evidence for catastrophic climate change doesn't mean I therefore support the Iraq war or that I'm happy to pay £1.31 for a litre of fuel. Are you obtuse naturally or deliberately?

By the way, BP and Shell fund the CRU at the UEA. Are they oil shills too?

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel

The famous "hockey stick" paleoreconstruction by Mann Bradley & Hughes (MBH98) has finally been put to rest with the McShane & Wyner paper, particularly conclusively following the response by Mann and the conclusive rebuttal from McShane & Wyner. It's finished, kaput. There is no skill in the reconstruction to show unequivocal warming. The MWP and the LIA are back for good. You're going to have to deal with the fact that it has been naturally warmer in the past!

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel What paleoclimate data might this be? You mean the latest study of tree-rings by Phil Jones. The fact that the tree-ring data did diverge unexpectedly and unpredictably from the instrumental temperature record did prove that tree-rings cannot serve as faithful temperature-proxies for times before there were instrumental records. However that didn’t stop Nurse by persisting in the delusion that Jones’s tree-ring data can serve as faithful proxies for paleoclimate temperatures.

[arneperschel]

@CHIPSTERO7

Fair enough, let's throw over board those tree rings!

They're only slightly useful to reconstruct the climate of the past few milennia, anyway.

We still have corals, bore holes, ice sheets, ...

Scientists are not so stupid as to claim they know something for sure based on one single line of evidence.

Search: "paleoclimate data twice"

Also, I see you understand the 'hide the decline' issue, so you'll at least agree with me that the decline was NOT in temperatures, as some people said.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel I disagree. I think the remark was to do with temperature. Phil Jones said that he had completed "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline". A 'trick' used by Michael Mann (the maker of the thoroughly-discredited Hockey-Stick) and enthusiastically advocated by Jones. The trick entails that when the paleoclimatolgical tree-ring data starts to give-out the undesired results they splice it with instrumental data to give the impression that temperatures suddenly start to rise post-1960.

[arneperschel]

@CHIPSTERO7

So you're saying that if tree ring data appear to show dropping temps and thermometers all over the world consistently show a rise, we should go with the tree rings? Didn't you just say nothing could be concluded from tree ring data? You can't have it both ways...

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel No, I am saying that tree-ring temperature proxy-data is an unreliable index for past temperature-changes. Tree-growth is determined by many factors irrespective of temperature. The fact that the tree-ring data diverged from the instrumental data so dramatically proves their unreliability. Phil Jones didn't need tree-ring data to cover the period before 1960 in any case because that was already covered with instrumental data. It appears to me that his only intent was to deceive.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel

You'll find that ice core data does NOT suggest that recent warming is "unprecedented". Geologists also will point out that there is nothing in the geological record to support the claim that late 20th century warming is "unequivocal" - remember Steve McIntyre is a retired minerals mining executive and statistical analyst.

An idiot at Fox News thought that the "decline" was a decline in temperature. They were wrong. That does not detract from the dishonesty of hiding the decline.

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

It's not dishonesty, it's standard scientific practice.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel - You're half right. It IS dishonest, and it IS standard practice in climate science. It is not acceptable practice to conceal inconvenient evidence and replace it with another line of evidence, thus hiding the inconvenient evidence. If, on a drug trial, one of the patients died, it would NOT be acceptable to "hide the demise" by superimposing the results of another patient. Nowhere else in science is it standard practice. But yes, in climate science, this DOES happen ALL the time.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@SamZVidZ "An idiot at Fox News thought that the "decline" was a decline in temperature".

This is news to me. If that remark wasn't referring to temperature what was to referring to?

[SamZVidZ]

@CHIPSTERO7 The decline was a decline in *correlation* between observed temperatures and tree ring proxy temperatures. The decline in correlation proves that tree rings are NOT a reliable temperature proxy, and without tree rings the hockey stick fades away (except for another proxy, Tiljander sediments, which are contaminated and were used upside down by Mann to make the data show a hockey stick) claims that today's temperatures are "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" are unsupported by evidence.

[SamZVidZ]

@CHIPSTERO7 I'm just reading comments and I think you may have slightly misunderstood what happened in "hide the decline". The truth is no less egregious, and your conclusions are right (even if for the wrong reasons) but it's worth getting up to speed on what the temperatures and tree rings were doing, and what Jones did to conceal it in the graph. Once you start digging into that, though, it's a roller coaster ride of discovery.. and it'll make you angry at the perversion of science.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@SamZVidZ Where am I mistaken? As far as I understand Jones simply spliced instrumental data with the paleoclimatological tree-ring data post-1960 when they started to diverge and the Climategate emails revealed that Jones was well-aware that tree-ring data are invalid as proxies for global mean temperature-readings after 1960 and therefore they should also know that they are also invalid as temperature-proxies for times for which no reliable thermometer-readings are available, i.e. pre-1850.

[SamZVidZ]

@CHIPSTERO7 perhaps I misread. The tree ring diverged after 1960 by suggesting a fall in temperature, where observations showed a rise in temperature. I thought you were saying the opposite. I apologise. What you say here is precisely right.. Jones knew how bad tree rings are, but edited out the bad bits and kept the bits that fitted his message. He should have thrown out tree rings since he knew they were wrong, but his message depended on them. Bad, bad science.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ We know the reason for the divergence after 1960. It was caused by the increasing amounts of C02 in our atmosphere so tree rings are acurate as long as C02 concentrations remain relatively stable. Which they did for most of the past 10,000 years until we started burning fossil fuels. I'll send you the full article.

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482

There are many problems with your statement, least of which is a failed leap in logic. I'm very familiar with pharyngula's writings. Unfortunately the case he makes does not stick. Briffa, the CRU's dendrochronologist and the man responsible for the MBH tree ring data, admitted then and admits now that *we don't know* the reason for the divergence. pharyngula makes an unsubstantiated and scientifically unsupported assertion and I can only think this is deliberate conflation! Bad!

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel energy independence? With what? Wind?? On the coldest day last year, wind managed just 9% of its own capacity. On a hot day it won't perform better. High pressure systems and extreme temperatures are synonymous with still conditions. There is no energy security in wind at all.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel PS: The skeptical science website is the just about the worst advocacy site out there. It pretends to present a balance of the science, but it is appallingly filled with misinformation and disinformation.

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

Feel free to disprove that the stratosphere is cooling or that the 13C/12C ratio is dropping or that the oxygen levels are dropping or that nights are warming faster than days. Skeptical Science may be an advocacy group. The facts they point out are no less accurate for it. Feel free to actually read the guide and debunk it. After all, nobody wants AGW to be true. My deepest wish is none of were true. So help me, disprove it and win a Nobel Prize...

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel skeptical science has its own set of "facts" that it has developed and which it sticks with. There are a multitude of leaps through logical fallacy. There is no evidence to support drops in oxygen levels, nor that nights are warming faster than days. SS promotes theoretical events based on simple physics. Simple physics do not describe the complex chaotic atmosphere or its forcings or feedbacks. Sure, in theory reality and theory are the same, but in reality they are not...

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

The skeptical science guide is signed by several scientists. Feel free to ask them where they got their evidence and to write to their universities to tell them you think they are idiots.

Do you know who measures the drop in oxygen levels? Charles David keeling's son! He's in on the conspiracy, too! No, oxygen levels are not dropping. You can have your own facts. Night is day and black is white...

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel - skeptical science is an advocacy website. If you love that site, stick with it.

Regarding oxygen levels, I should have been more precise. Keeling's study only takes in the last 20 years of observation. There is no evidence that the level of oxygen is not cyclic ebb and flow and there are no physics to support the suggestion that increasing CO2 levels in the atmospheric mix forces a reduction of oxygen. Correlation is not causation.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel - "The skeptical science guide is signed by several scientists"

Aww bless! Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. I suggest you go get some real facts. Try judithcurry dott com for starters.

If you're actually interested in science, go and study up at climateclash dott com. You'll find a discussion between Dr Eric and Dr Ed - one faithful believer, one sceptic, with several atmospheric scientists commenting along too. Then take a look again at skepticalscience for a laugh.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel - what skepticalscience does is constantly conflate AGW and CAGW. Yes, AGW is likely to be real, even though we CAN'T distinguish it from natural variability (and if anyone tells you we can, they're believers, not observational scientists) but AGW is not CAGW - Catastrophic AGW - and the leap of logic from a detectable human signal to the call to mitigate CO2 is unsustainable. There is NO EVIDENCE of impending catastrophe. Only religious belief that "the end of the world is nigh".

[arneperschel]

@SamZVidZ

Read up on the end Permian mass extinction.

The temperature rose about 100 times more slowly than now and still most of life was wiped out.

Same goes for the rate of ocean acidification compared to 55mya.

Search

"Nature Geoscience past constraints vulnerability calcifiers"

"Geological Society acidification foraminifera Mediterranean"

No evidence at all...

I'm gonna keep shining the light into your eyes until you get blind.

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel ocean acidification - wattsupwiththat dott com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidifica­tion-chicken-of-the-sea-little­-strikes-again/

Read that for a frank appraisal of the "end of the sea is nigh". It's no wonder the acidification upset is going nowhere.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@arneperschel How do they know what the caused this mass-extinction? This extinction occurred 250 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs, and scientists are still in disagreement as to what wiped out the dinosaurs. In any case during the Cambrian-epoch temperatures were at the highest they have ever been over the last 600-million years according to the paleoclimate-record and plant and animal life flourished. Life flourished so dramatically in fact it is coined the "Cambrian-Explosion".

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ Actually I think we can distinguish AGW from natural variability. If your talking about natural cycles of the earth these have already been taken into account and are not the reason for the warming

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482

Richard, I'm afraid that's just not true. Alarmist claim that the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is due to CO2, but they are unable to explain the warming during the first half of the century (which was almost identical in trend). If this was not due to man then it must have been due to natural variability, but that being the case, there is nothing in the EVIDENCE to prove that latter 20th C warming was not also due to natural variability.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ Actually there is. Until about 1960, measurements showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun was increasing and over the same period that the Earth was gradually warming. Most scientists put two and two together and assumed that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet. However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing while the Earth has continued to become warmer

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482, hmm.. it's difficult to know where to start, but basically: No, that's not correct.

Solar activity since the 1960s HAS continued to correlate with global temperatures. In fact the correlation is so striking, it is almost impossible to attribute global warming to anything BUT solar activity. See climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/­scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_­mce/plugins/imagemanager/files­/Sunspots.jpg

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ Well not according to NASA. Couldn't access your link. Maybe you have another?

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482 also, climate scientists are unable to explain the slight down-trend in temperatures between 1930 and 1980. That's 50% of the 20th century where man added to atmospheric CO2 concentrations in a linear way (as through all the 20th century) but where the climate did not respond. There are many theories but, Richard, none of them are falsifiable, none are observable and so none of them are scientific.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ I've just checked NASA's temperature graph and there's a rise in temperature's between 1930 and 1980. If you like I'll send you the link

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482 visit woodfortrees dott org. Do the plot yourself, with the HadCRUT3 adjusted dataset (the GISS dataset is controlled by raving activist James Hansen, and even climate scientists are struggling to trust his data). Even though HadCRUT3 is controlled by the CRU, it is more trustworthy. Plot from 1930-1980 and view the trend. You will see that temperatures fell during that period.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ I've just done what you asked and the temperature rose between 1930 and 1980. I'll send you the graph I plotted.

[Richard482]

@Richard482 Still waiting for your reply and opinion on that graph

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard482 You wrote: "If you're talking about natural cycles of the earth these have already been taken into account and are not the reason for the warming". Actually, the global temperatures over the 20th century can be explained quite nicely by natural phenomena, such as thermal oceanic oscillations, solar activity, comic rays, and El Nino/La Nino's. When all of these factors are removed from the surface-based temperature-record how good is CO2 at accounting for the temperature variability?

[Richard482]

@CHIPSTERO7 Nope. Cosmic rays have already been shown not to be the cause and so has solar activity. One example - solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion but the troposphere is warming, but the levels above, from the stratosphere up, are cooling, as less radiation is escaping out to space.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Richard482 The idea that the troposphere could warm while the stratosphere cools sounds absurd to me. The stratosphere is structurally-continuous with the lower atmosphere. If the temperature of the stratosphere drops, as apparently it has done, then the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which it surrounds like a (tenuous) blanket, is also bound to drop accordingly - perhaps not by the same amount but by some amount for sure. So, how do you know the troposphere temperature has increased?

[Richard482]

@CHIPSTERO7 I'd imagine because the temperature can be measured with the use of satellites. Right now NASA has 16 satellites all pointed at earth while the total number of satellites owned by the other space agencies, again all pointed at earth is another 16.

[Richard482]

@CHIPSTERO7 El Nino and La Nina's which are internal forces, move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere causing short-term warming and cooling. But internal forces do not cause climate change which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output and greenhouse gases.

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482 I should clarify, when I say none are scientific I do specifically mean none are scientific when applying the "Scientific Method" - the application of falsifiable hypothesis, experiment, observation, theory. Climate science depends on a new kind of science - popularly tagged a science of consensus, where expert opinion (including treating computer model data as real data) is given equal or greater weight than observational, empirical evidence. This is the kind of science I reject.

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482 The "science of consensus" is known as "Postnormal science", as defined by Jerome Ravetz. I heartily recommend reading up about this, to see if you agree that this is how science should evolve. I'll advise you in advance, though, you might find yourself turning into a sceptic! But at least you won't worry so much that we're all headed for worldwide climate doom.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ I don't believe that most climate experts think we are heading into climate doom. Penn State climate expert and glaciologist Richard Alley certainly dosn't. He says so in this video

watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482 Richard Alley is so entertaining, isn't he? I do love to watch him sell! He has a doom tendency, though, and he has a tendency to make simple physics analogies to explain complex physics - a gross injustice to the complexities of both the science and the climate it is trying to understand. Alley also depends far too heavily on the Precautionary Principle, which is value-judgement-based rather than science-based.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ Taken into account Richard Alley has authored more than 170 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth's cryosphere and global climate change, has written several papers in the journals Nature and Science, chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change and was awarded the Seligman Crystal in 2005, I think he knows a little something about what he's talking about

[SamZVidZ]

@Richard482 first things first, appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. That Alley is well-published is not in question. I can easily throw sceptical scientists into the mix with far more credibility, tenured positions, more relevant publications and the rest, but this is neither a willy-waving contest nor a "my dad's bigger than your dad's". When you degenerate to that point, Richard, you've surrendered all credibility. I presume you don't surrender, so I'll ignore your silliness.

[Richard482]

@SamZVidZ Which sceptical scientists would you 'stand by' then. How about Patrick Michaels?

[winterstellar]

The extremely few climate scientists who still try to deny reality are either paid by the polluting industries, demented or insane. Some of them were also used by the tobacco industry earlier to deny that tobacco was carcinogenic and so on. The very same people, and that says a lot.:(

[midnightmilo]

@Ermintrude75 except the overwhelming consensus regarding the science lies with the climate change scientists and not people like delingpole. Using your own analogy the tobacco companies employed scientists who represented the fringe pro-tobacco lobby, not the overwhelming consensus. The tobacco scientists are analogous to the scientists employed by the big oil companies now.

[SamZVidZ]

@midnightmilo there is no such thing as a climate consensus. The "97% of climate scientists" is taken from a survey of 10,257 earth scientists. The results did not suit the researchers, so of those 10,257 scientists just 77 scientists' responses were cherry-picked. Of those 77 scientists, 75 believed man was significantly responsible for some of the warming seen. 75/77 - your 97% consensus. Worthless.

[Ermintrude75]

Delingpole is right to question climate science. Climate scientists are in the same position as scientist working for tabacco companies, they need to come up with results that will secure further funding. Just because they are scientists it does not make them immune from base motives like everyone else. People have heard it all before when it comes to scares like this. They may be happy to ignore it when it isn't costing them anything but now it is they will not accept this conduct.

[arneperschel]

@Ermintrude75

You make a good point. It's interesting to look at who funds scientists. It doesn't necessarily prove anything but it might be an indication.

So you might be interested to know that S. Fred Singer has been in the pay of tobacco and big oil for all his life. You might also find it interesting that Pat Michaels admitted he gets about 40% of his funding from the oil industry. That Roy Spencer is a member of the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute and Heartland Institue. etc....

[arneperschel]

@arneperschel

Maybe it's just a coincidence that ALL of the handful of scientists who still deny or lowball the influence of fossil fuel pollution on climate change are being funded by Exxon and Koch Industries. Do you want to gamble your life on that?

[SamZVidZ]

@arneperschel do you flinch when you lie? Doesn't it make you feel sick to your stomach. There is no such thing as the big oil/fossil fuel conspiracy.

[selwynr]

'Did a Delingpole' is my new catch phrase for dumb.