Emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
Bear in mind too that no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say there is only a very small possibility (that is, less than 5 per cent) that internal ocean behaviour could be a major cause of the warming over the past half-century. He would be particularly careful not to make such a statement now that there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years. In the mad scurry to find reasons for the pause, and to find reasons for an obvious failure of the models to simulate the pause, suddenly we are hearing that perhaps the heat of global warming is being “hidden” in the deep ocean. In other words we are being told that some internal oceanic fluctuation may have reduced the upward trend in global temperature. It is therefore more than a little strange that we are not hearing from the IPCC (or at any rate not hearing very loudly) that some natural internal fluctuation of the system may have given rise to most of the earlier upward trend.
In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem–or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem–in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour. Trading reputational capital for short-term political gain isn’t the most sensible way of going about things.
[…]
The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources–external anyway to their own particular organisation.
The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven. Among other things it would provide a means by which scientists could distance themselves from responsibility for any public overstatement of the significance of their particular research problem.
The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences–this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.
It’s a humdinger. Send it to every politician and media contact you know.
David, there are several things to note in your post. First, Paltridge is indeed refuting the notion of catastrophe rather than the entire motif. And that’s precisely why the ecofascists are going after him. CAGW was always about spoon-feeding the public reasons for the remedies that they’ve been advocating (wind turbines, recycling, solar panels) for the past 40 years. Only CAGW had the power to drive these nostrums into mandated government policy.
If CAGW goes down the drain and all we’re left with is beneficial AGW then the entire rad-green agenda just got torpedoed below the waterline. THAT’S why Paltridge has to be condemned; reason must never be allowed to enter the picture. Remember, the IPCC mandate has been carefully crafted to force the science to fit the desired outcome. First it’s only permitted to look at human effects on climate through CO2, natural causes of warming are beyond its scope. Second, it’s only to look at adverse consequences; positives are also beyond its scope.
Second, you note that “we don’t need to create a new bureaucracy to oversee collection and compliance”. This again is precisely what the Kosmopolitans want. They need a new bureaucracy to 1. supplant all this local democracy which keeps getting in the way, and 2. a new bureaucracy is necessary to form the basis of a new global governance. Just days ago, Christiana Figueres, Chair of the UNFCCC, was lamenting the impending failure of “global governance”.
There’s been much attention paid to the rent-seeking going on, companies profiting from the court politics of securing government subsidies for whatever their particular gizmo happens to be. This is really secondary. It’s just the baksheesh payoff to get enough of the big companies like GE and the rest onside or at least not overtly hostile. The real game is about creating a real world government structure using CAGW as the battering ram through the gates. Hitler tried the world conquest game with tanks and failed dismally. The Kosmos are trying it using moral extortion and scare tactics, but there’s no fundamental difference in the final outcome; a giant undemocratic world government answerable to none. The European Union become the World Union. Plato’s dream of the Philosopher Kings achieved.
Finally, my third point is that who are John Peate or Anonymous? Too many of you may be assuming they are just some random eco-fanatic trolls. They’re not. After years of reading the drivel they pound out on various boards, I recognize the type. They’re paid flunkies, working on the clock, by the hour to create the necessary appearance of dissention and debate. The solution for too many here is to say “I’ve got my shack in the woods, 40 year supply of canned food, my guns.” That’s ideal for the Kosmos. Those hiding in the shacks have waved the white flag, surrendered, given up, retreated and withdrawn from society. And they as mere individuals can be picked off at will once the Kosmos have consolidated their power or ignored as irrelevant.
There is no choice but to engage. The Kosmos and all their henchmen constitute as big a threat to freedom and democracy as National Socialism ever did.
nope cgh, john peate is just a troll, as I posted above, I’v dealt with the fool before, about 10-12 years ago. His style is exactly as it was back then.
and here’s some interesting reading http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
page 12 in this site is of special interest!!
Yep, if there truly is a control knob for climate change then it is water in the form of clouds, storms and oceans. It is impossible to tax and control but I’m sure they’d try their damnedest. From what I understand, water vapor is the major positive feedback in the CO2 models. Unfortunately they haven’t modeled it very well and it may in fact be more of a negative feedback or mixed feedback, depending on other variables. Apparently the relationship between C02 and water vapor is extremely complicated and the settled science is not yet close to unraveling that mystery.
“Denier” is a term used by religious fanatics, it has no place in science.
Real scientists welcome criticism and debating theories.
I know I should not feed trolls, but its so much fun.
The evidence of John Peale’s failure to read the IPCC Assessment Reports is clear.
In his own words, “Every possible natural variation is included in models and studies”.
But he assures me he has indeed read the AR’s, where the actual assessment of natural drivers of climate,AR4 boils down to, we don’t know, can’t say.can not model clouds,. could be, might be,… But CO2 done it cause our models do not work unless CO2 is the driving force of climate.
AR5 we know even less,still cannot model clouds, actually acknowledge their models fail yet claim ever increased certainty that CO2 done it, while reducing their estimation of climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.
Good enough for government I guess.
I too vote for paid troll status for this one.
But fulltime bureaucrat is just as likely.
Presentation,spelling and casual disregard for evidence , does shout canadian civil servant to me.
First, Tim, I made no such claim. You would do well to not fall into the pattern of deniers in misattributions.
There is no arguing with what I did say in that a long term swing in weather is climate change. And it is happening in the direction of warming: unrelenting warming.
There is no pause. The last decade has warmed by about 1.2C according to several measurements. You can find the evidence for that with very little searching if you can tear yourself away from the Weather readers site for a time.
It is not hiding anywhere. It is front and centre. There has ben rather more going into deeper waters recently for very clear reasons that are no mystery and are part of natural variations that happen regularly. I did touch upon that briefly.
The relationship was discovered a very long time ago. Long before Nobel prizes. Have you heard of Aarenhius? The relationship is precise and it takes extraordinary ignorance to claim otherwise.
The only uncertainty is in the feedbacks from that forcing.
As for your PhD who says CO2 is not a GHG, I have time for ignrance but not idiocy.
I suggest that you look at Dunning/Kruger and stay within your “expertise.”
What is the purpose of that question. Those emissions have the same effect as the same nimber from any other country.
Canada punches far above its weight and is in the top ten emitters. Higher than any Eyropean country except Germany. And, Germany has less than half of Canada’s per capita.
And I have no time for those who can’t spell.
“Aarenhius” “ignrance”
Besides, Max Planck showed a long, long time ago that Arrhenius was wrong.
The role of water vapour?
Is your psychiatrist on vacation?
More or less your first rational comment. Water vapour is the major feedback. But, it is a feedback. It is, a powerful GHG in itself. However, the amount of water vapour is dependent on the temperature as governed by CO2.
Modelled very well and all models express the parameters because of any uncertainty.
Hint, it cannot be negative where temperature is increasing.
Of course it does. Denial is denial and is not scepticism. Scientists are sceptics and they welcome criticism about as much as any other profession.
However, I doubt that you will find any scientist who welcomes lunacy presented as criticism.
That’s not an answer to the question. If there is no way to disprove the CAGW hypothesis then it’s not science, it’s religion. So, I repeat: what would disprove CAGW? Don’t be embarrassed, I’ve never had CAGW give a substantive answer.
Clouds are modelled and included in the projections of thousands of papers.
If you have any familiarity with statistics, you will know about error bars and such.
Clouds are a major uncertainty and, usualyy, they are very conservatiely accounted for in what, even without them is a rapidly rising temperature regime. Temperatures that are rising faster than at any time in Paleo history. Temperature that are little more than one degree away from the highest in more than three million years.
Pitiful your “troll” designation. The usual fall back of defeated deniers.
No he did not. Be serious!
Per capita emissions are meaningless grenwashed propaganda. Opinions backed by hyperbole are often incorrect, as a table of real data clearly shows.
The planet reacts to total emissions not per capita emissions. The top half dozen produce 62% of the emissions, everyone else is 2% or less. Canada isn’t even in the running for the global CO2 Olympics.
The following table lists the 2012 estimate of annual CO2 emissions (in millions of CO2 tonnes Mt)from EDGAR (database created by European Commission and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) .
CO2 Mt~ percent of total~P-capita
World ~ 34500 ~ ~ 5
1 China ~ 9860 ~ 29% ~ 7
2 United States ~ 5190 ~ 15% ~ 16
3 India ~ 1970 ~ 6% ~ 2
4 Russia ~ 1770 ~ 5% ~ 12
5 Japan ~ 1320 ~ 4% ~ 10
6 International transport ~ 1060 ~ 3% ~ –
7 Germany ~ 810 ~ 2% ~ 10
8 South Korea ~ 640 ~ 2% ~ 13
9 Canada ~ 560 ~ 2% ~ 16
10 United Kingdom ~ 490 ~ 1% ~ 8
11 Mexico ~ 490 ~ 1% ~ 4
12 Indonesia ~ 490 ~ 1% ~ 2
13 Saudi Arabia ~ 460 ~ 1% ~ 16
14 Brazil ~ 460 ~ 1% ~ 2
15 Australia ~ 430 ~ 1% ~ 19
16 Iran ~ 410 ~ 1% ~ 5
17 Italy ~ 390 ~ 1% ~ 6
18 France ~ 370 ~ 1% ~ 6
19 South Africa ~ 330 ~ 1% ~ 6
20 Poland ~ 320 ~ 1% ~ 8
I came across this accidentally and it was fun (sort of) while it lasted.
However, when it degenerates into conspiracy theorist, voodoo economic theories and outright denial of science and the laws of pysics, it loses its appeal.
Accusinations of trolling and neing paid for it are a litle rich. No one would pay for the gentle correction of a small bunch who are entirely unfamiliar with the issue and not very influential.
So there!
And back to the real world.
BTW, surface temps have not risen by 1.2C in the last decade. Statistically insignificant rise has been admitted by every major body. Hence the explanation put forward about hidden heat in the deep oceans and polar region.
If the models do such a good job of then why are they so wrong? Water vapour, clouds, can cool depending on where they are formed. Incorrectly modelling clouds would go a long way to explaining the credibility gap between models and reality.
“What would falsify the CAGW hypothesis?”
The funding drying up.
Finally, a realistic and honest answer. 🙂
You are making a point?
Per capota emissions in Canada are double those in Germany and that is what makes a total. Shoud we now say that it does not matter for any country that is not producing more than 2% of the world’s emissions.
That means that almost 200 countries will be free to emit merrily and freely. A few whoprodice more tha Canada will carry the whole load even though Canada is the most profligate.
Look up Cowtan and Way for one. Then try to understand what “stistically sifnificant” means.
And models are not wrong. What is wrong is the denier blogs that claim that all the world’s scientists are wrong and falsely claim that they put firm figures on projections.
As I said earlier, all models and projections are given witherror bars or ranges. Even the lower end of every projection made in any peer reviewed study shows a an unbroken warming trend since the 1970s.
Global warming does have it positive points:
http://tinyurl.com/nutc72d
I thought there was some limit to the number of posts could be posted. At some point, as clearly illustrated in this thread, we are treated to spam.
If you are a surface temp “pause” denier then you are on the fringe of even mainstream CAGW science. As such, any kind of honest discussion becomes impossible.
John Peate, I take it back, troll does not cut it as a descriptor.
Cowtan&Way?
Are you a refugee from Al Gore’s,truthiness project?
“stistically sifnificant”
“Even the lower end of every projection made in any peer reviewed study shows a an unbroken warming trend since the 1970s.”
Which fails to match the measured temperatures, as stated by the IPCC,hence the “projections” are not evidence of anything but the poor assumptions of those who wrote the computer models.
Keep posting, either you are real and heavily deluded, a new style bott, or doing heavy fake warmist satire.
More posts please.
Thanks for posting the link, read most and found the summary
interesting. This paper was done in 2008 and not picked up by the MSM…odd!
[Quote]In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.[/quote]
slap shot, I normally don’t post links like that as I’d rather not have ppl know what I read:-)))
there was, and I don’t have a link, excellent article that supports my contention that both computer ability and programing are not up to snuff as of yet to be able to accurately run a climate model, or any complex multiple feed-back model.
and this peate fool took the same superior attitude in a discussion about welfare recipients, when he got taken to task by a lady who had first hand knowledge (her own family) about generational welfarers and their abuse of the system, he got very nasty and hounded her till she left the forum. He’s not worth the time, pathological narcissists never are!
“The only uncertainty is in the feedbacks from that forcing.” – John Peate.
Uh, yeah. Did it ever occur to you that that is the whole argument that skeptics make? That the feedbacks are not as large as you claim and that they fall within the range of natural variability, and that since the effect is logarithmic, the temperature rises will naturally slow as CO2 rises even more?
Or does the above make me a “denier”? What you call a “denier” is somebody who denies the massive positive feedbacks built into the models and stays within the physics, which is comes to about 1.2 C per doubling.
BTW: Given your sloppy writing and apparent reading comprehension problems, I wouldn’t be invoking DK to quickly. It is a double edged sword and you may be on the wrong side of it in this particular debate.
“That means that almost 200 countries will be free to emit merrily and freely. A few whoprodice more tha Canada will carry the whole load even though Canada is the most profligate.”
The lack of warming since 1998 and the correlation of this with lower solar activity should be enough to shake the “Science is settled” mantra. All countries and all people should be free to emit CO2 merrily and freely. It is not harmful and is necessary for life on this planet. The warming effect of CO2 is limited logarithmically, and the feedbacks used in the models have turned out to be exaggerated. The models are inadequate despite your confidence in them.
Nof60’s related comment showed that Canada’s per capita CO2 production was the same as USA’s and lower than Australia’s, and somewhat higher than Russia’s, which suggests that vast countries with small populations will use more fuel per person in transport, and that countries in cold climates will use more fuel in winter for heating, but that air conditioning may be significant as well. Of course our western lifestyle contributes; there is nothing wrong with rationally choosing to save money by using less fuel, but we don’t want to be panicked or forced into submitting to an agenda.
John Peate writes like he has been coached by Desmogblog, who are dedicated CAGW promoters. Note his reference to number of peer-reviewed papers. He doesn’t appear to have scientific training but rather Marxist dialectic training.
The decline in his spelling capacity throughout the thread suggests a bit of drinking last night.
I notice that no one has decided to address the issue of how much Canada’s emissions affect global temperatures nor why this is almost never discussed.
If, and that’s a really big IF, Nature Magazine can be trusted the figure is 0.001 degrees C per annum or a full degree in about 1,000 years.
The willingness of the John Peate’s of this world to deny documented facts is simply astounding. They keep insisting that everything is unfolding as predicted by climate models when it is clearly not the case. For example:
The IPCC’s fourth assessment report published in 2007 made the following clear prediction about global surface temperatures:
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
John, here are a couple of questions for you: 1. Did the IPCC make the global surface temperature prediction quoted above? 2. By how much have global temperatures warmed since then?
A question for John Peate Do you have good days too? or is this one of them?
Climateturfing. I suspect we’re not the only blog with new commentors dropping by to “set the record straight” on Professor Paltridge’s widely distributed commentary.
Precisely so, Kate. Paltridge’s commentary is damning. That’s why no doubt a host of speaking and blog lines have been sent out to a legion of useful idiots like Peate and others. Don’t be too surprised if Hoggan’s DeSmog blog is involved in the propaganda campaign.
Popped in to see whether sanity has arrived.
It has not. Just the same infantile attacks and the particularly nasty comments of 666 who, by the way, I think I recall as a somewhat psychopatic fellow I once learnes to despise.
All the commentary following my last is simply foolish. It displays ignorance and lack of any scientific understanding and I see not one poster who has any idea of what this is about.
To just put one point for the participants to chew on, there are studies showing the underlying warming trends. They show that when all the short term anomalies are removed (such as El Nino, 1998 was not a particularly hot year and the trend has merrily continued at close to .2C upwards.
For those who deny this, too bad. However, even thermometer measurements – I suspect that een the nastiest critics here know about hose – prove that surface tmperatures over the past decade are higer than the previous decade and that was higher than the one before and so on.
They could also look at the easily obtaine information about the Planetary Energy Budget. That will show an uninterrupted increase in absorption. It will also show that only about 2% goes into the surface temperatures that they, guided by Watts and other profiteers, think are the measure of clinate change instead of being only one small part.
I have seen nothing in any of the posts, Smart Alec or attempts at serious discussion, that show any understanding of natural and internal variabilities. In other words, it has been rather a dissapointing time.
Finally, I am almist temptes to challenge a couple of you to a ‘Spelling Bee’ competition based on the foolish remarks.
But that, too, would be rethare pointless. Those who indulge in that silliness,do not seem to use words that would require even a schoolchid to consult a dictionary and their prose is singularly inelegant.
So, have fun. Continue with the metaphoricalback patting and the reinforcing of your illusins and delusions.
This is the epitome of the psy case examinig denial. In that, it has been theorised that attempting to give evidence based information to deniers (in fields other than the climate, also) makes the denial stronger. Many people will not give up their prejudices easily.
I did not check the spelling, btw. I type and have no time for the little niceties that would, perhaps, be useful in a civilised and real debate.
Pure propaganda from start to finish. All of it straight from the green dementia activist guide book, complete with one-line pseudo factoids straight from the Hoggan School of Eco-Subversion. Now go back to your green masters, wag your tail about all the great nonsense you posted, and collect your per diem.
” In other words, it has been rather a dissapointing(sic) time.”
It’s always disappointing having to deal with you acolytes. But never fear, there’s always NEXT year’s COP for the great breakthrough, isn’t there?
It will also show that only about 2% goes into the surface temperatures that they, guided by Watts and other profiteers, think are the measure of clinate change instead of being only one small part.
Heh, temperature on the surface is kinda where it matters…
True enough, Strad. What the catastrophists have trouble with is where all the rest of the heat is supposed to be hiding and how it got there in complete defiance of the laws of thermodynamics and heat transfer.
But then, none of The Team can be characterized as great physicists, or indeed any kind of physicist at all. What they have is a mantra, which bullet-points Peate-boy dutifully recited.
Gazing into the mirror, are we?
The projection you engage in here is very nice.
You are a very incompetent character.
But most amusing.
Thank you for your semi-coherent posting.